Uh, meeting of the Manchester Planning Board. Um, call to order. Um, roll call. Attendance. >> Brian Fry >> here. >> Peter Morton >> here. >> Gordon Brewster
>> here. >> Chrisley here. >> Filick is here. >> Now we have quum. Um, I think the first order of business is discussion of the proposed new downtown zoning district. So, Mark, do
you want to give us a summary? >> Okay. Um so building off of um our downtown visiting visioning sessions and then the last meeting um in which Kathy McCabe
was here to present her findings. Uh we talked about reszoning the downtown area into its own district that the general district rules don't really work for a traditional
um downtown area that um but the general district is much larger. The downtown only comprises about 20% of the entire uh general district. So, it we talked about it really kind of makes sense to
create your one's own district for the downtown and have very specific rules that would allow more of the types of things um and uses and uh building uh footprints and lot coverages that would
be uh more appropriate for a traditional uh village center. So um what I put together is kind of the first step uh towards doing that which was a um I went
through the uh our current use table and um also added a few new uses and also went through our dimensional table and parking requirements and that that's
kind of the introductory part as as well as I prepared a map of um of a downtown uh district. uh pretty much very similar to most of the maps that we were seeing
during our visioning sessions where we had that that during the workshop. We were able to draw a map and so what I did is I tried to include most of the current um
businesses that are located uh right along um Central and Beach Street. Um and then uh going up Summer Street uh and Elm Street as well. So um I didn't really
expand the district um beyond where is currently kind of the core area of commercial. Uh that is something that um over time can be done. Uh, you know, again, the map can be
changed at town meeting. Um, and the areas around this district are still zoned um in the general district. So, we're not changing the rest of the general district. So unless you're
located in a small area, there would be no change to the zoning requirements that uh those property owners already um uh uh are are uh restricted by. So,
>> so just for clarification, um, >> is the entire uh proposed downtown district currently all in the general district or does it go into
uh some of the other zoning districts? >> Um, look at this and see. >> Yeah. So, the What do you mean? So everything everything in this new downtown district is well not actually not everything in this new downtown
district is general district. >> So what parts would not be in the current? >> So the parts that are not is the um is at the end of beach street or not the end of beach street but the section of
beach street where you cross the railroad tracks. Uh and you have the large plaza on the left that is um >> Harbor Point. >> Yeah, Harbor Point plus the
additional five or six properties along Beach Street, like where the ice cream shop are, >> um would be our zone uh zone A. >> So those are in district A. >> So those are in district A.
and any other areas that are not currently in the general district. >> No. >> One thing that might be helpful is for the board to take a walk similar to what
we did with MBTA zoning and doing our density walk and then our walks of each of the districts. It might be helpful once we get a little further um down the line of uh
changing zoning. Um might be helpful to take a walk to show folks exactly the properties that are included in a potential new downtown district. Um just something to think.
>> So I have a question. Uh, so Mark, why is 10 to 12 Beach Street not included in the downtown since it's already mixed use? >> Uh, well, it's it's it's part of, as best as I could tell, I believe it's
part of the larger uh property. Maybe they're all condos. >> They are all condos. >> Okay. So, that's why I didn't include it. 10 to 12 is right on the north side of Summer Street
>> with the flower shop and the coffee shop >> right here. >> Yeah. >> So that's why I didn't include it because it was part of the the larger um uh property which includes the condos in the back. >> Well, is there any reason not to include
the condos in the back? So, >> this doesn't include the laugh and G either, >> right? >> That would be that building right there. >> That's in the building. >> Now, that's in the MBTA zoning overlay district, so it may not be an important
which district it's in, but I'm not going to die on this hill. Is it something that you would like to see included, Chris? >> I would from a p practical point of view, yes, but I'm like I say, it's not it's not critical because it's already
developed and doing very well as it is. But I think it does meet the intent of what this new downtown development district is about. I just offer a personal observation. I looked I've got the zoning map right here and I can see the general district
and it defines everything it define. And then if I don't have the MBTA zoning district, but it defines what it defines. And now I look at this one and it defines what it defines. It's they're there a lot of them are the same, but then there's little pieces of them that
are not. Is there a reason would that would that would that not cause confusion when somebody goes to develop something here if he has to refer to three different zones overlay the top of this thing and you may be the little finger that's outside of that
>> does it make sense to >> more consistent look >> this just a question >> this down this development district I thought it was going to be an overlay district but it's not it's changing. It's a new district. It's a
new underlying district. >> So, so it's >> So, the MBTA overlay would overlay this, too. >> Correct. >> So, how would that be different than the general district? Because the general district now this district and the MBTA >> No,
these this area in here would no longer be >> in the general district. Okay. this a newbased zoning district because there's no advantage >> to um keeping the general district
zoning. A lot of the uses are going to be fairly similar and we'll go through that. Um uh and there's not a big distinction. The distinction aside from allowing a few more uses and
allowing mixed use and and other things reduce setbacks, there's not huge changes, but the changes are important enough in order to facilitate a more vibrant village development over time in
the in the future. So to the simple-minded myself, yeah, this district would be defined if I look at the the overall town. >> I would have a new district here defining this thing. So I I have still a little bit of the general district light
blue >> on here and a little bit of here and a little bit there, right? >> And it would surround this downtown. Okay. area. It's only about 20% of the overall area of the general disc.
>> Okay. And you should cleared up my confusion. >> Well, that's a good question. One that I think is going to come up with >> has to more lines. >> Mark, what are we supposed to acknowledge the yellow here?
>> Oh, no. That's just Yeah. >> Sorry, Mark. Go ahead. Ignore the yellow. >> Ignore the yellow. Yeah. So go on. I interrupt. >> Okay. So I I did put the map up on the screen for I believe people at home can
see that that uh we are keeping it well defined into um a very a limited area. And so um and so that's that's really um the map
and the reasoning for the map. I I did include um the town, the rest of the land behind town hall, senior center, uh well what soon to be um you know the wastewater treatment plant and parking
lot. I just thought it makes sense to keep it all contiguous within the the downtown district. >> So may I ask another broader question mark? What's the distinguishing characteristics of the downtown district? Well, the you would you would
allow for greater density, um reduce setbacks, a few additional uses that you wouldn't be permitted in the um rest of the general district. So, you're trying to create um uh some uniqueness to the
to the the downtown area. Um I'm proposing that we do include design review as well so that um and that we utilize the design reviews uh that we set up for the CHOD that was approved
today by EOHLC. So >> people have heard that's been approved >> zoning guys. >> So um >> that's good. Thank you. Another observation on geography and what is
included? There are currently some residences in this area. >> Yeah, there are a lot. >> Um, so what are your thoughts on that? >> So, obviously those residences
I believe would still be permitted. Um I we did not uh prohibit single family dwellings in this district. Um and so they are still within allowed use and
continue to remain. >> So go on. Sorry. >> So um so that you're getting into the various uses. So if you would like, you can go to the use chart.
>> Sounds good. >> Okay. So let me see if I can't close this and open the use chart. down. Go. There it is. So um
so the um the first part is directly from our bylaw. I didn't change that because we're not changing how things are designated. But then we get to the um the use and I call the downtown district
simply the downtown district. It's the first column. Um, and I used the and I did put the general district because most of this area is in the general district. So, as a
comparison and so I didn't um make too many changes, but there are a few as we go through. Um, so the first one is single family. Um, I left that the same
as a permitted use. Uh, two family I put as a planning board special permit. Um, again, I don't think we want to really encourage new family uses in the district. Um,
last one is was a tiny bit controversial. So, um, so conversion of a one family dwelling into a two family dwelling. Again, I made that planning board special permit
as well as con conversion of an into a three family dwelling. Um, so we're multifamily units, not more than four units. Um, I said no.
Um, residential conversion cluster is a no. It's not going to go up there anyways. So, those were the our current residential uses. So, there's no change to the residential.
>> Okay. So, I have a question about very first one, a single family. >> Yeah. >> Detached well. So that would mean that someone could buy a cargo and tear it down and build a single family house there. >> Yes. But provided
there's another use >> say again just some type of >> So there's another new use that I am proposing um that says if you're going to convert conversion of first floor commercial
space to residential >> where are you? That would be a special permit for residential uses on the first floor of the building would be a special permit. So that's >> well that's fine unless you want to build a single family house in which
case you should do it. And so I'd like to propose that that yes be PB family house. >> Mhm. Okay. What's your point, Chris? M.
>> So, we're trying to encourage commercial uses in the downtown with residential above it. But if you're if you're just allowing a single family house, that means you can just build a single family house by right
>> without any commercial use at all. And we don't I don't think we want to encourage new single family houses at the downtown. That would be the point. So, we would say not allowed.
>> No, it's a allowed with a special permit from the planning board just to We don't We're not going to disallow single family houses. We just don't prefer them. It depends on the site, of course. Maybe somebody's going to have a great idea for a single
family house. But >> does the detached dwelling matter here? It says detached dwelling. >> Well, again, I think the fact that detached I mean, if you're trying to create density in the downtown instead
of out in the neighborhoods, we want to encourage single family houses in the neighborhoods. But in the downtown, putting a single family house there kind of, you know, takes takes away the density really. So presumably if we had
a commercial space downtown and if it died and somebody owned it, they could tear down building and build a single >> single family house. Yeah. A garage in a front yard. >> Oh, >> like the hardware store. Let's say Allen goes out of business.
So So he sells it to somebody comes in and builds a single family house and plans to put the yard there. So definitely something to think about for the single family homes that are there already. >> My grandfather.
>> Do you want to just explain how that works? >> So if you're well maybe let Mark explain. >> Well, they they would be considered a pre-existing non-conforming use. use. >> And so they would of course be able to continue to remain and as such and
>> they could be added to would >> but hopefully over time they would be converted, renovated, added to as the success hopefully of the downtown core becomes a little more vibrant and
busier um with the additional commercial uses. But then again, you walk into many very busy downtown areas. There are mixed in residential uses scattered about. So it doesn't mean that they're
eventually going to go away. Um they just are another facet of of I don't think you want to like Chris says encourage lot. So if I if I listen to what Chris says, I I listen to
everything Chris says. >> That's your problem. >> The the idea what what is our end end game here? It's not it's not necessarily to build single family homes and stuff. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So So would we not allow single
family homes? If someone had that commercial space, it died, they couldn't immediately put up a single family home. >> Yes. would have to go through the special permit process. >> If uses if you said no, >> then you could you can't get a special
permit. You couldn't build a single family. >> What would be what would be our reasoning for saying no? That would be >> I think there's an argument to be made to say no. But I don't think um I think we want to have some flexibility in what
the downtown looks like. Uh I I guess that's kind of the question I'm delving into here. If we if we say that they can build a single family home down there and you basically say whether it's special permit or not like that would
mean they they could and that does that meet what our our long-term goal wants to be? >> I offer that as a question not as a suggestion. So >> yeah, I think our long-term goal is to allow residential uses in the downtown,
but not as a single family home, but as of an accessory to additional commercial use, whether right >> it be residential in the back or upstairs or basement apartments, but to maintain and enhance the commercial
uses. So um so I think Chris's suggestion kind of pushes properties in that that direction. >> So let's say it rem it we would we change to
planning board special permit. So we have a hearing someone wants to tear down a current commercial business. What would be our reasoning and how would we legitimately
be able to say, you know, you can't turn a commercial into a single family when single family is allowed with a special permit? I mean, what what conditions would we put on that to avoid changing
commercial to pay? So we would h so we would have to rely on our performance standards, >> right? >> And they would say it's got to be within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. So if the surrounding neighborhood is all stores, it wouldn't be appropriate to have a
single family house stuck in the middle of >> well. So I I'm just I'm not asserting a position one way or the other, but take your example of Harvard. >> So there are single family homes across
the street, there single family homes behind and there's a single family home on at least one side. >> Yeah. >> So I'm just trying to see how it would play out. >> In that case, the context would be
single family homes. It's okay. >> Well, not necessarily >> commercial space into one >> change. >> Yeah. The change of views, >> just things to think about. >> The way and and remember what Jim was saying, Jim Brown was saying last
meeting too about mandating. >> Yeah. >> That's that was his biggest fear. >> Yeah. >> Well, well, exactly. The chamber the head of chamber >> required a commercial building. we might just end up with a bacon. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. This is this is a bit of a
challenge here. >> So, one other question. Um in the general district currently um where we have the wise. >> No, I this is I can't remember. Um is it
by special permit? >> No, right. They are by right. Okay. So you're changing the >> that for a two family the conversion of a one to two and
another to require a special permit. >> Um so what's your thinking there? Well, the same thing if they can provide a valid reason why it fits into the neighborhood
and the context. you know, maybe uh it's a way of preserving a historic home by making it a two family and you know, it's a really old historic building of which we have several um you know, uh in
the district, but making it two units instead of one might be a way of preserving the historic structure. So, you know, so allowing for it, you know, but again, it's a special permit. You have to meet the criteria,
>> but you're changing it from current by right >> to special permit. That That's what I'm >> trying to figure out when folks ask. >> Um, >> what about a single family that has
commercial on the first floor? >> That's a single family. Yeah, >> that's a mixed use. Okay. All right. Onward. >> Okay. >> Then we get to again all these uses and
their descriptions are exactly are are what we currently have. So um we haven't gotten to any proposed changes. Um so use of land. So most of these are the community uses which are almost all the
same. Um use of landing structures for religious purposes, educational purposes, child care, uh municipal uses, charitable. So those are all permitted under the general and we're still
permitting them under the downtown district. Then there's a couple of uh planning board uh special permits which is for charitable or philanthropedic use hospitals nursing care facilities
sanitariums um I left that as a planning board u because that's a huge group there um I don't know whether you really want to leave that as say
uh whether that you'd want to make that a no. Um in >> which one? >> Sorry. >> Number six. >> Six. >> Yeah. B6. >> Why would you make >> Well, if you make it a no.
Um >> Yeah. Oh, terrible philanthropic. That could be a gallery. >> Yeah. or Green Belt wants to have their office there. Um, >> well, that's that's yeah, I mean, that's
the thing. They've grouped in hospitals, nursing care facilities, and sanitariums into a charitable or philanthropic use. So um so somebody having an office which you'd want to encourage
is the others you may not want but it's it's all in one group. So >> because that's how it is now >> because that's how it is now. That is correct. So >> but if you wanted to open a sanitarium
you would have to come before the planning board. >> Yes. Okay. So I understand why you why you do that, Mark, because it's this that's how the general district is done right now. >> Yes. >> And and to to avoid having to break up >> the uses into a whole separate thing.
>> Yeah. I mean, ideally, you would take charitable and phil >> philanthropic, >> that's the word, philanthropic uses, you know, and that would be a separate line item because really it's mostly a a um you know, office use. So you could even
say charitable and philanthropic office uses >> as a separate line item and then hospitals nursing and atheariums are very all very similar and that would be a different line item. So if you wanted to make some adjustments to this chart,
that would be a way of doing it. And then you can split those out and allow the um charitable and philophic uses as permitted uses because they probably shouldn't even come to the planning board for a special permit.
um they should be permitted while the other ones you could probably would not want and because they really don't provide none of them a lot of vibrancy to a downtown area. So, uh you'd want to say no. >> Some of these might become dober amendment things.
>> Right. >> Well, that's why I kind of left the religious uses and the educational ones. I just left them all as a yes. >> Yeah. So, >> so the um the other issue is for
this one area that is currently a >> Mhm. >> and gets turned into downtown district A doesn't currently have many of these uses. >> No. >> Um so that's a big change. >> Yes.
>> That's the reality of it. is that's the reality, right? >> But most of that area that is a is used commercially today. >> Absolutely. There there's maybe one or two residences there. >> Yeah. Along um each street.
>> So, >> right. Sorry interrupting. >> Yep. No, no, no. >> So, I notice a cemetery. >> Oh, yeah. >> And I assume that's an M. Yeah, that's that would be an end. So >> secretary not conductive for profit.
>> So are we going to number nine now under community facilities because public utility or public communications building? There's some there already. >> Yeah. Well, there's the um
the n is it national grid or telephone building just past the dry cleaner? >> Yeah, >> I left that out of the downtown district. >> If you look at that, I believe I
>> stopped at that building. So, >> maybe we should include it though because who knows? Well, I I figured we could always make a zoning change in the >> Sure. That's true. >> Well, we couldn't I mean, we haven't done it yet, so we could include >> Yes. But it's certainly something to
think about, but >> Right. >> Um >> I mean, ideally, you would still make that a no if you included it in the district. >> Yeah. because you don't you would want to promote its eventual redevelopment
when it's no longer necessary for whatever it's used for. >> What is a communications building? I wonder >> I mean a telephone company >> Verizon building or something then. >> Yeah. So, is that building in
a >> uh No, it's in um it's in the uh general. >> It is. Okay. >> All right. All those uh even the house at the top of the uh just just past it
is in general district. >> Okay. Um so then the next use uses are the agricultural uses and um so non-nuses agricultural
horiculture floriculture I said yes >> so some kind of a flower shop >> that's the flower shop right something like a flower shop or >> no I I think it's for growing things too, >> right? >> Mhm. Right. It's more for growing stuff.
>> Um so, um greenhouse nursery uses for horicultural and floricultural. I mean, it's allowed now. I said no. But >> well, there was a greenhouse,
but that was behind there. Right. >> But there is a florist, >> but that would be in one florest would be probably under just a regular commercial. >> All right.
>> Yeah. What is nuisance agriculture? >> Is that like marijuana dispensary? >> That has its own >> that's it own. >> Raising pig is a nuisance. Well, that would be the raising keeping of livestock including poultry which is
number three that why sorry Mark why would you say no to two the greenhouse nursing uses for horicultural and solid cultural purposes something like a chap or something
that's in that would that be in that category? Sorry. >> Over in uh Beverly on Heart Street. >> Yeah. Wouldn't that I mean they're tucked away in some neighborhoods. >> Sure. >> And they you know they attract
business. >> I'm just wondering whether >> Yeah. What would be the downside of including >> So a greenhouse can be a retail have a retail shop in front of it which is good. But it could just be a greenhouse with no one goes there at all.
>> Yeah. Oh, we could make it a special permit. So, at least it's >> Yeah, that might be like let's say the hardware store wanted to start a >> a garden
have a greenhouse added on the side. So then we get to the commercial east. So um so the first one is business professional office buildings, banks and financial institutions.
Uh kept that a yes. Uh office of a doctor or other member of a recognized profession. Uh yes as well. Medical office building for not one three doctors. Not sure why but in the general district
that's CBA special permit. I think that should just be a permitted use. >> Chris, do you have any knowledge of the history of that? Why ZBA is our number three? No,
>> it may be just because your general district has a lot of residential areas included in it. So, um that might be reason for that. But here we're pretty much conf trying to confine it to a just
a truly commercial district. So >> uh general retail uses obviously a yes. Personal and general services a yes. Restaurants are yes. Indoor recreation club of facility is not allowed in the
general but I put it as a special planning board special permit. So um >> remember in the forum there was a lot of interest in like entertainment downtown. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, yeah.
>> So, for example, I guess the Legion Hall would be considered a club and it's in the district that we're talking about. And if someone wanted to do another type of indoor >> facility by membership, you know, it brings people here for
>> bowling >> activity. An oceanr. So, um, let's see. Still there. So, we're up to eight.
Um, printing and publishing establishment. Uh, we left that as a Y. Yes. Yacht. Storage, construction, and services and related uses. So way this district is currently constructed, we
don't have any of those pieces in here because we tried to confine it. So I made it um not permitted. >> Don't think our boat ramp and storage and stuff really would counts
there. It's it's not the same thing. >> What if someone wanted to open like a West Marine? Well, that would that's the >> be in this. Okay. So, that's not in this category. Okay. >> Yeah. So, so that would be like our um
our Crosby. Not >> Crockers. Crockers. Yes. Crockers and Manchester Marine would be those types of facilities. And they're not being affected by this at all. It'd still be a a permitted use because they're they
remain in the general district. uh fish shell fishing, landing, storage, handling um but not a fish processing or a similar plant. So I put that as a no, but again
that's something I know our our commercial uh dock is is um over Masanomo Park which is not being included.
Um, I I I don't know whether I I don't want to really preclude anything like this, but I mean, what if trying to think if someone opened a um like a lobster pool
>> where that would would that would be mostly perhaps a retail place, right? But your restaurant, >> but it could also be they could also do um do that wholesale
it out of there as well. Like in this many of the the uh like in Rockport there's place about halfway down on the right that's been there for as long as I can remember.
>> So I have a question regarding that. You brought up Crocker and Mes. That's a part of general district. >> So, no retail permitted, right? >> Yeah. We're not uh Well, we're No. No. >> Yeah. Retail's allowed in the general district.
>> So, if they wanted to open like an ice cream shop, they could do that. >> Mhm. >> So, um I don't know whether you want that a no or a planning board special permit perhaps.
fish fish and >> shelter fishing. >> I don't know if that goes well with the mixed juice, >> but being in a waterfront local where you do have fishing in >> Yeah. What if it was like a popup shop
or a food truck situation where they selling shellfish or >> Well, that's that's the thing is that that would not be permitted really. So, that's why I'm thinking maybe it should be a planning board special permit. the more we're talking about it, more I'm thinking,
>> yeah, >> that may not be necessarily a bad thing. >> Yeah. No, Brian made a good point. It is because we talked that was a big interest in the forum, too. >> Mhm. >> Were food trucks. Thanks. So, >> Cath.
>> Okay. Wind energy conversion systems. They're already a no. Um, see I don't know what WECF >> that's wind energy conversion, isn't it? >> Yeah, >> I just figured that out. I had that question too, Mark.
>> Okay. >> I don't know what the F stands for. >> We don't know. >> It's a facility. >> But but uh it's it's no now and I propose it to still be a no. Um large scale scale solar uh installation.
>> Yeah. So no >> uh parking or garage in the bottom reveals not instrumental to another permitted view. >> Well, you know, if they tore down Fargo and put a parking lot there, that's not going to help anybody. >> Well, but it could, you know, like what
if you wanted to deck the town hall lot? Um or or you or you redevelop the um the big what do you call it the um or like uh just across the
railroad tracks behind >> Crosby? >> No. >> Oh, I can never remember what that's called. >> You and you wanted to put a a deck on on there in the back. So wouldn't that be? So what? But this would just allow just
the deck and nothing else. >> Yeah. Well, just parking. Yeah. >> Personally, I think structured parking kills kills the area. >> I mean, I'd say special permit. >> I'd say special permit if it's >> Okay.
>> It's a special permit now. >> Yeah. Keep it. >> Yeah. It's special permit now. >> Yes. So you're saying spec is special for me again? >> Yeah. >> I'm just saying I've seen frankly I built too many structured parking. It
has a tendency to just neuter an area strips the personality out of >> where helicopter landing >> helicopter. >> Oh my god. >> I park runner in the backyard. Where do you park when she moving?
>> I made that a no. >> That's good. uh marijuana, adult entertainment and um labs are also >> So just curious, Mark. Sorry. Because you've been pretty consistent with the
general and the downtown district zoning. >> I mean, why wouldn't we allow a special permit for someone who wants helicopter landing storage or park facility? You don't want people laying helicopters in downtown.
>> It might be an amusement, right? >> Well, no. I'm I'm somewhat serious because in that um in the forum too, they're like, "How about events? What can you do for events?" >> Well, they can land in Masanovo Park, >> right? They need a big area then.
There's no there's not a big enough >> unless you cleared out a parking lot back here. wetland helicopters, but then >> yeah, >> you don't really have >> there's a special permit for that in the general district. >> No,
so if you want to build one on top of your house, >> individual events aren't covered by zoning. An event is a different thing. >> Yeah. Um, so then we get up to the accessory uses. I left most of these the same. Um, up to
four borders. Um, I left that a yes. Uh, maintaining any lot Not more maintaining on any lot. Not more than one commercial vehicle. I left
that a yes. Um garaging or maintaining more than four automobiles, one accessory to a dwelling. I left that ZBA. >> Tennis court similar courts when accessory to a dwelling. I left that
ZBA. uh swimming pools, accessory to a dwelling, CBA, accessory dwelling units. Now, we've removed that, I believe, from our use chart. >> Should we put it back in? >> Uh, well,
>> look like the current law. >> No, because um we're still waiting we're still waiting AG's approval of our current bylaw that which is why I left it blank because that comes out >> um We have other things.
>> But should it say yes across all the districts, every residential? >> If we I >> Yeah, I'll I'll I'll check. Well, we'll by our next meeting, we'll have heard from the H. >> So, I'll correct that line to the way we adjusted the facility by
>> and could we allow more? I don't know how many are allowed. >> How many are allowed under the current bylaw? Do you know? Is it un vague? >> Well, that's Yeah, it's kind of vague. Yeah. And the law's
intent was done by the state specifically to keep it vague. >> So, >> okay. We can touch on this later. >> Yes. Yeah. Well, I'm sure we will, but I think by our next meeting, we'll
have the AGS that. So um and then number seven I believe also goes away as part of an existing structure stable >> living quarters for an employee.
>> So that that definitely went away. Yeah. Um then customary home occupation. Um home occupation conducted in a dwelling by a person residing on the premises
is still permitted. And then we get to the accessory uses or structures on the same lot uh with and customarily incidental to a permitted main use on the same premises including off streetet parking. You can
say yes. Family daycare for a home daycare for large is a ZVA which is what it is in the general district. Family daycare small is a yes.
Believe that might be protected use. Um adult social daycare is the CVA but that's the same. >> What is that? >> Uh where you >> for seniors? >> Yeah.
>> Not very yet. I'm getting there. >> Yeah. Faster than you think. >> Yeah. That's when you you you can't be quite left alone at home. >> Got it. >> Yeah. >> Got it. Which >> I don't know in your case.
>> How much longer? >> Douche. Um and then others uh matters including the construction or alteration of any structure used therein all or any partis which is within the mean tide land lying below the mean high bar. So that's where
we often review dock seaw walls that kind of stuff. So I left that plain. Um but then I felt that at least a few uses um we ought to add.
Um and so one is a hotel or in >> he did get a lot of uh >> feedback on that forum. >> What was the positive response? >> People want something small
>> something small an option. Mhm. >> Well, some people want who knows once this becomes >> bigger discussion. >> Yeah. >> What the general feeling will be, but there there was a great deal of interest
in something small. >> We may have to go back to a special permit, but I don't think it's bad to try using >> now. Also, you'll notice since I've added it as a new use, I prohibited it in all the other districts with one exception. I did add it as a permitted
use in the um LCD >> which is across the highway which is where we have two highway exits and um I thought it might be a good use to permit over there. >> Yeah, you might have people come in to sell signal at the states there. Right.
They they do have additional development land on phase two. So, so um so helicopter landing and oops got to flip the page here.
Um so then we get to a couple others. Um I don't know if they're necessarily the same. Um but conversion of first floor
commercial space to residential. Um that's a new So if you have a building with first floor commercial space and you want to make it residential or a portion thereof, um I made that a special perk.
>> So wouldn't that be PB? It must be. >> Oh yes, sorry. Yep. to be PB. And the next one I added was similar, but it's residential uses on the first floor
of a building. So, um, >> so we're not we're not going to make it mandatory. >> Yeah, you may just get vacant space. So that was uh Jim's discussion and
Gar's discussion as well >> and I think Kathy had the idea of the first 30 feet of the from the stream, >> right? >> Mini mini. Yeah. Yeah. So >> might be something. >> How would that work? >> So you would um
>> So you could have the back. >> Okay. >> Could be a res. So, for example, >> central commercial just a store. So, a storefront. >> Yep. Yep. Okay. >> I didn't I didn't put any of that
language in this first little run through. >> So, we can have some some additional discussions about whether you want to require that. But >> that would be kind of the example of seven central
>> um by we gave them a special permit to have >> first floor and the back >> right >> and above for three residential units and um but the front part of the street is commercial.
to think about the allow versus require, right? >> Yeah. Wasn't there some uh early discussion with cargo about having the front of that street level be potentially
>> at office gallop something like that. And they they said no. >> No, they didn't say no. They said >> they'll design current zoning. You need a special permit to do that. So we're >> So they would have they would have >> but they're designing it I believe to accommodate that kind of
>> Yeah. >> So that's something gets changed in time before they start building. >> I didn't propose any notes or changes. I haven't gone through yet like a page and a half of notes and I don't know whether
some of the notes need to get adjusted for downtown district but um I'll look >> to be determined >> exactly to be determined >> to pass though >> is there mixed use any kind of mixed use
>> well again that's that's kind of where we have I have to go into whatever we have in our zoning related to change of use and kind of exempt or or change that language
or um for the downtown district. >> So your question uh Chris was there's no mixed use allowed. No, what if it's not not explicitly in these? >> Yeah. Well, that's that's
and and my question is is it explicitly prohibited elsewhere? I mean, I know it's it's something that >> that's why it'd be good to clarify it. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Say no, no, no, no, no. Yes.
>> Let me add that to this here. Clarify makes use No livestock and no poultry, I guess. Damn. I still want chickens though. Brush eggs. Okay. So then we get to the dimensional
requirements and um so again I'm showing the general district and then the downtown district um and this is our current uh setback
and lot requirement. So I kept the lot size the same as 6,000 square ft. It kept the frontage the same at 60 ft. Um the uh
minimum lot width I kept the same at 50. Um >> so why zero set that? >> That's what's in the downtown now. So that's Yeah. So your traditional downtown and many of your buildings are
right up abuing next to each other or up at the um you know at the sidewalk. So um that is >> So you're saying if someone wanted to build a private home, they would have to build them right on the back of sidewalk.
>> Well, they're not required to. It's not it's not a it's not a a required setback. It is you can build up to >> the minimum setback. >> Build it up to the other way around. Build it up to zero. They make it clear
they wanted. I mean some downtowns do have like maximum setbacks whether we should consider >> um so they have a minimum and then they have a max so that you don't stick your building in the back and you pick up that streetscape and
>> that creates even if you have to walk past the residential home there's something there that you're walking past so you don't feel like there's a parking lot in the front. The other thing is if it someone does want to do a commercial property business but wants to have a
big parking lot, wants everyone to see it, they stick the parking lot in the front and the building in the back. And then that also breaks up the streetscape and the pedestrian likelihood of people walking past parking lots. Um, so a lot
of village centers will have a minimum and a maximum of between zero and 10 or 15 ft at the max um for a front setback. >> Yeah, it might be good. >> Yeah.
Not sure how you format it with >> Oh, you probably have to add a new column, >> right? and then you know have a maximum and >> a bunch of NAS and then and yeah and in most of the districts because we'd have to put it down for each of the districts
it would be there'd be zero you know there's no maximum setback right >> the residential districts but uh only in this district it would be a number >> I like that >> yeah I do too block coverage requirements.
Uh block coverage requirements. So right now in the general district, you can only cover 40% of the lot with a structure and a maximum of 70% of the lot with impervious surfaces.
Um, so in the downtown district, I changed that to 70 and 90%. >> And how'd you come up with this? Uh well 90% allows for some green little bit a little buffering.
>> Um if the building is set back a little bit um >> which it doesn't have to be >> which it doesn't have to be. Gives them a little green in the back or whatever. But I mean you really do want to encourage as much development as possible. this is your core area and you
really do want to want to make it uh as dense, you know, but >> again, you don't want to build it necessarily up, but you do want this kind of commercial core or >> we don't want
treeless and greenless spaces either. >> And what was Laura said? doing it right. >> Is there like a
>> comparisonwise? How does this fit into other communities of our size? And do we have like a rough gauge on >> I think I used similar numbers years ago in Lincoln, New Hampshire when I the
downtown district there. Um those >> there's no industry idea industry standard or >> not not really there is place in place and kind of more urbanized um even even
small towns but might have already a core developed area I'm sure maybe 100% block coverage um >> and the other thing is you know just the environmental impact of not
have a place where water can go. >> I don't know. 90% seems high to me, but >> I don't think >> All right. I wonder what >> maybe I'll >> support that with a little data.
>> Yeah, I'll I'll if I can't dig up a few more communities that you might be familiar with and and see what their requirements are. I mean, one of the the nice things is is here we're, you know, we're all on water sewer. So that helps
a lot in allowing for much denser footprint. So So um here's a question. So height regulations. I didn't necessarily propose anything, but I asked a question. Do we want to increase
the height to three and a half stories or 45 feet instead of our current two and a half stories and 35 feet? Maybe by special permit >> based upon how folks felt through the MBTA zoning process. I would say no.
>> Okay. But still would would you not consider something not having a 45 foot flat face on the back sidewalk? would consider something that's teared back off it but still gave you the full height.
>> I don't know. Um I just know how >> folks react. >> There are there are a bunch of buildings in the downtown and in the general that are >> 45 ft. >> I know.
>> So it's a little >> I mean I'm tempted to say special apartment and see what happens. That could be could we not eliminate though? I would agree with Chris. I just put >> Yeah. Well, that could be
>> especially if there are already. >> What was your feedback on that height restriction or the height I should say and and like the reasoning behind >> why do people
I think it's the the idea of scale of the downtown. Yeah, that's >> and that smaller is better in general, >> but but a lot of I mean a lot of the push back we got was this idea we're building Rand Tool Street in Beverly. >> Well, but also in residential I mean
there are there's still neighborhood people live in these neighborhoods and when you go up higher you block the light and you know also when you increase the footprint you it blocks light. I mean that there's that kind of concern.
>> Yeah. And there are other things that would constrain height as well like parking for, you know, residential uses and things like that. They're going to limit the amount of development you can do. >> Okay. Well, >> is that your answer?
>> Yeah. >> I liked how you put four question marks after that, too. see how residents feel about this. >> Yeah. Well, I think um you know uh again just like with the MBTA,
we want to make the change and have distinctive districts that will make a difference. But if it's going to be like a deal breakaker, you don't want to throw it in there. And this was perceived what people did make a big
deal over it in the MBTA >> and it it might do the same and it might be a deal breaker and so you probably don't want to include it but I thought we should at least discuss it. >> Yeah. >> So as I recall one of the vote no
against 3A was just that >> the balloon. I remember that >> balloon right? Yeah. >> Question about cargo. What's the height of that building? It's 35 >> 35 stories in a mansion roof. >> Yeah. So, it's two and a half.
>> They live Do you live in the mansion? >> Sure. Two and a half is okay. It's a half story. >> That's considered a half a story. >> Yeah. >> Why is that? >> Because it's a roof. >> It's a full full living. >> It's a mans roof. >> Mansard roof. Yeah. That's a call it
what you want, but it still has living inside it. Is that not >> that's not a vile with 25 ft? >> As I recall >> argue with Paul >> um drawings that they shared. It was the
same height as the building. Is it the residential one to its left as you look at it or I think it was the same height? >> The same height as the one at one school street. >> Yeah, >> it's being renovated. It's the same height as the ones across on Central
Street. So, one school street, that's more than two stories. That's definitely three. >> Two and a half and three. Yeah. >> Yeah. There's two and a half. I'm trying to figure out how that all works. >> Your apartment's on that half story on one school street.
>> Oh, it's something to consider the height. >> Okay. >> All right. um accessories structures. So right now it says in the general
district accessory structure has to be set back 5 ft um from the side and rear lines and apparently um The three structure shall be set back on
the street on which the lot has frontage at least applicable minimum from set back for such 10. Interesting. >> So it's at least 10 ft. Um so I I wasn't
sure what you wanted to do here. I I kind of left it blank. Um we're probably not going to have a lot of accessory structures in the downtown district. Do you want to keep it the same as the general? Do you just want to make it zero? Um,
>> so I I don't have a lot of concern either way, let's say. >> I don't know. So that's zero lot line is allowable. >> Well, right now >> zero setback.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It would be if you I put zero but um for side and rear um because if we're going to allow zero for the primary structure on the sides and >> for accessory structure
>> these are for accessory. >> So garden shed. >> Yeah. >> I don't know. I think we got to think about this. >> Okay. So that's why um I thought for the the side and the rear
zero and the front I left blank cuz I don't know about that. >> Oh, I see what you did. >> Side and rear. >> The side and rear. I did zero because
we're we were I proposed zero for the sides for the primary structure. So >> wouldn't the front yard be want zero as a minimum as well? >> Yeah, I don't know about that. >> Okay. You don't like that? >> I don't Yeah, I don't know. >> In a kind of sunny urban denser
environment, you do build right up to the backside. maybe not a single family house, but >> so um the next section is uh parking requirements section six. And so what I did here is I
took our new use. I said um hotel motel in I said hotel or in a hotel one space per overnight room. So that would be added and then
>> so can I ask where does that was that a past >> um bylaw that we had for like when we had the old corner in was there any >> no was nonconforming >> right >> we never let no ever since zoning was
>> put in place in the 1940s no one's ever proposed >> okay >> so >> so one space per overnight room Mhm. >> I don't know anything about that industry in urban environments. Is that >> It's kind of typical,
>> is it? Okay. >> It seems high to >> It does. It sounds like a lot. >> Um, say you have a 10 room or eight room, you have to have eight spaces. Um >> on the weekends you're going to be
presumably or all summer long presumably up here you're going to be booked um almost every night and then when there are events and weddings and um all those other things the place is going to be full. So everyone's going to have you
>> bring a car. >> We'll have a car. >> We might come on the train. A few people might come on the train, but some people might come with two cars. So, >> so we have space for loading docks and uh >> that that would be reviewed under site plan review. So, you don't need to add
anything special. >> Okay. >> So, so play that out. picture one any of the buildings downtown gets purchased and they want to convert it to a >> hotel boutique hotel >> six or seven whatever 10 units
>> and it's right on um you know the main road there or you going to just put them on the street you going to >> oh then they wouldn't >> they wouldn't they wouldn't do that >> but if let's say you were going to put
like the bank building or the sandere carrots. That's kind of a deep lot. They have some parking in the back. Someone knocked that down, built a federal style three, you know, um nice little boutique hotel with 12 units. They probably can
park 12 cars in the back. So, you know, the Cape Savings Bank building, >> that could be >> It's got parking. >> Oh, that in front of it, right? >> Inside of Harbor Point. Harbor Point.
That would be kind of cool. >> Maybe I'll do that. >> All right. >> So then here's the thing is add new section 6.1.9 for the downtown district. And this is
also under parking. Commercial uses in the downtown district shall be exempt from parking requirements except for the following uses. Adult entertainment uses, hotels and ins, fast food restaurants, motor
vehicle light service stations, repair and body shops for motor vehicles and marijuana businesses. So it uses that you don't necessarily want to encourage downtown. I did not want to exempt them from parking.
>> Adult entertainment and marijuana businesses are already >> not allowed downtown. >> I I just went through the youth chart. >> Yes. >> So, >> yeah, I think that's right. >> So, um and so I didn't exempt
residential. So if someone wants to build a residential but two units above like their commercial space, they would have to provide whatever our current use chart requires. So um so I didn't want
to exempt residential uses. Um >> something to think about for >> mult >> but I thought you know a good example again is seven central street. They have the required
park spaces for spaces behind the building for the residential but they don't have any commercial space parking. >> So that's the way it was. >> ADU in the downtown will not require parking because >> require it would require the one space.
>> No, because it's within a half mile of the train station. >> Oh yeah, good point. >> So I you know it's something to think about. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Again, in in trying to get this passed, I thought people would be more upset about exempting all residential
parking than understanding that we have uh street parking, we have parking lots, there are places to park for your commercial, but you probably don't want your residential
people taking up those spaces. So, if you want to convert residential, we provide those people with on-site parking and they'll allow for you know off site parking for or
commercial >> something to think about. Well, that's great and the math really helpful. Thank you. So what should our next step beyond this? >> Well, the next step will be our first
meeting in September uh to go through more little more detail of this. Do this again. I'll make the corrections. I'll have a little more information about lot coverage. Um I'll address the mixed use.
I'll find out that specific answer um from uh and um and then I'll read through like the some of the other sections to make sure that
um this new district isn't affected negatively by some other requirement elsewhere in our zoning. Um I would then recommend that we after that meeting
between the two September meetings we do a >> public forum. Yeah. >> Public forum and a walk. >> Yeah. >> We're doing the same walk first and then have a public sit down with people. Um,
>> so if we did want to try and craft something but for a November town meeting, what kind of deadline are we up against in terms of >> having public hearings and forums before those?
>> So, generally, that's why I'm trying to push to have one in between the September meetings. Generally, we'd like to to meet a schedule is have draft voted by the end of September. >> Okay? >> So that that can get submitted to the
select board, brought back to the planning board so that I can post public hearings for October or early um early November. the dates not set, but they're anticipating
um if the planning board wants to move forward with this that there would be an early November town meeting. >> Okay. >> So, any other questions from the board on uh the downtown?
Um, so what does the board think about taking public comment now on this before we move on to driveways and um a good idea? Well, it's fresh. >> Okay. So, any comment from the public,
questions, comments on the discussion of the downtown district? There are no hands raised. >> Well, >> oh, there's Eli. >> Hey.
Um, so in terms of your timeline for a November um town meeting, um there's a 28 day notice from when the town meeting is going to occur for any
petition articles. I don't envision that there would be any. However, we would want to broadcast that there was going to be a town meeting and that the petition articles actually desire it would be desired that anybody
wanting to to do a petition article would go through the select board first and to see if the select board would take it up. That requires a certain amount of lead time. Um, so my point is,
um, if you want to pull the trigger, so to speak, on a November town meeting, doing it late in um, the September time frame is kind of pushing it. Um,
and I'm just offering that for your consideration. >> That's really helpful. So, we need to make some decisions probably early September then. Sounds like >> at the very latest.
You're you're honestly you're it's a little bit late to be doing um this right now. Um, it would be helpful for us to have a a concrete kind of decision no later than early September
just so that we could broadcast this to people a little bit earlier. >> So, in terms of a concrete decision, yes. >> Whether whether or not you're going to have a town meeting. >> Okay, I see. >> That's different from the actual scene,
>> right? Great. Oh, we you would have to almost decide that you definitely want to submit this >> in some form at the end of September. >> Thank you, Eli. That's very helpful. >> Sure thing.
>> Any comments or questions from the public? >> None. Let's go on to Mark. you. Oh, let's do the driveways. >> They're up again. >> We're up again. >> Okay.
>> Uh, so driveways. So, we've um had some discussions past about driveways. Um and um it's been working fairly well having public works issue most driveway
permits nowadays. Um few various things have come up. Um so you work has asked me to put some edits together. uh some are public safety related, some are from
public works and some are the desire of the board to make some edits and changes. So, um up here one minute to pull these up. Um so, we'll do the general bylaw first.
Thank you. >> And is that the current article 12? >> Uh, yeah. >> Sorry, article seven. It's uh well I would um go to the bylaw which is section 46 the red line version.
>> Okay. >> Somehow. >> Oh yeah. Got it. >> There we go. Now people can see that. >> Great. >> Okay. So um so this is our current bylaw the red
line of the changes um that we came up with. Um so under purpose uh obviously public safety would like us to add that um to ensure adequate public safety
access is one of the purposes of the um bylaw which is what it is as well. So uh we that's in there. Um so
we also removed things that we had standards in the regulations and in the bylaw and so the bylaw should is what's authorizes you to write standards which you adopt as regulation. So, anything
that was a regulation, so many feet, you know, a driveway has to be 20 ft from the nearest street intersection is a standard. So, we removed that and um in that case it was already in many of
these are already in the bylaw. It was just kind of redundant to to leave them in in the I mean regulations. Uh so we we propose to take them out of the bylaw.
So the first uh sentence that says all driveway entrances shall be located at least 20 ft from the nearest street intersection, 10 ft from the nearest driveway entrance, fire hydrant 5T from lot lines, trees, utility poles, street
fixtures be removed. Um then next one next one's a goal shall be uh entrances should be designed to maximize visibility in all directions and to minimize the flow of water on a public way and adjacent property. So that is
something that you want to keep within the the bylaw but don't need in the regulations because it's not a actual regulation. Uh then there we removed there shall be no more than one apron and curb cut on a
residential lot. Um I just added some language here that says they should be designed to avoid reduction of on street parking um etc. So, and it says residential users shall
utilize only one driveway entrance unless otherwise allowed by the regulations for driveway entrances. So, the regulations govern the number of of driveway entrances um and not the bylaw.
Um and then driveway width. Again, we're getting into regulations. It says driveway width as it is approaches the driveway entrance. She'll have a minimum of 8 ft and maximum 12 ft width. The combined driveway flare of 5t on either
side of the driveway and needed curb return. Again, that's a standard. So, we took that out. We left in you know uh again the goal of keeping it making the architectural access board
standards ADA standards and public works standards. >> Mark can I interrupt you with one question? >> Yep. >> So the standards are already in the regulations >> and the regulations are um promulgated
by who? >> The planning. >> The planning board. Okay, >> that's correct. >> Go on. >> And the the bylaw already authorizes the planning board to adopt regulations. So, I didn't make any changes to um
uh administration and enforcement. It says the owner must submit a driveway entrance application. said application shall be subject to regulations developed by the planning board and modified from time to time. Uh so that doesn't change. That's where
uh your authorization is. Um then curb cuts that do do not comply with the criteria herein or in the op opinion of the DPW should require special review may be permitted if the
submitt is approved by the planning court. So uh >> so but the criteria defined fair in have we taken that out? Um
yes. So it should be the criteria defined in the regulations and I remove special permit. I just said it was approved by the plainting board. So um so it's a
>> what what other mechanisms do we have to approve something? >> Well that's where it's a little big. So I mean to be honest to be honest uh yes um
you know we could leave it as a special permit. I still feel that's kind of a high standard although it's a discretionary so um and you can attach conditions >> wave >> it can be waved and you know it's um
so the you know that's again kind of something to >> our responsibilities of approval of driveways that don't meet the regulations these H >> so um
so but there should be a mechanism whereby if someone is told no by public works for some reason they feel it was it's not safe or it's they're not adequately addressing drainage or whatever the issue is that someone can
appeal that decision or or apply to the planning board for a special permit or some sort of a role. >> I guess we need to think about that one. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Taking taking the um decision making
>> away from the DPW, >> right? >> Which is what we wanted to do in the first place, >> right? I mean we wanted them to pay. So um but in instances where they don't meet the standard with a lot of
flexibility at least they have a mechanism to >> yeah you know >> maybe it should be a special permit because you really don't want to encourage them to come before the planning because >> sure you you could approve it but you
can attach conditions that they don't want to comply with from public works. So then you know >> so um so maybe you want to keep a higher standard as a special partner. So something to think about.
Um so down here at the bottom we added we didn't have anything about um enforcement who enforces it and so this bylaw shall be enforced by the director of public works. It's good. So,
>> but if we had a special permit, would DPW end up having to enforce the conditions of the special permit? >> Yes. >> Anyway, >> yeah.
>> Can't get away from the driveway. >> A circular drive. Okay. All right. So, what's our next step on this? >> So, the next step on this would be to finalize the language. This this uh
would have to go to town meeting for approval. >> So, we zoning change though. It's a bylaw change. Is that right? >> Yes. It's a general bylaw change. So I will >> different hearing requirements or same hearing
>> prior to town. >> Let's say similar. >> Okay. >> I haven't changed the bylaw in a few years. So >> I'll look here. >> Pushing me on both. Actually,
planning board actually wouldn't be required to hold that because it's a general bylaw. I believe this by board might hold the public hearing. >> Okay. But I I'll I'll have your answer for the
>> So, would it be reasonable to send these to general counsel for counsel for comment at this stage or >> um yeah because um at this stage I think
this these regulate edited regulations um are should Yeah. Yeah. We can get the I don't think we're going to change this very much. >> Um, so we could send this to council to
get any like little language adjustments or something. Can get that out of the way. >> And then um yeah, then we get to the regulations. >> Okay.
the driveway entrances. >> And so is the regulations that DTW and the fire department have weighed in on? >> That's correct. Yes, they have. So um I met with both of them. I made a full set
of changes. They um sent back a couple items of those. Um so the um the first change is under application requirements. So they no longer file it with the
clerk. They just file it on open which goes directly to uh public works. So >> and application application fee as determined by the public works
department. So, we're removing the the $100 fee and they will determine what the the fee shall be. >> And will that be published in here once they determine that or is that just based on a case by case basis?
>> Yeah, they'll put it on the website what the fees are. >> Not like they charge you one fee and me another one. It'll be a standard fee on the website. Okay. >> Yes. >> Just checking. Um so B which has to do with drawing of
plans uh as does C. Um D also talks about plans and E talks about features on the plans like hybrids, trees, drains and um
the next one talks about calculations of impervious coverage. And then the final one is the public works which is new is the public works director can wave modify any of the above requirements provided there is enough information
submitted to determine whether the standards of the driveway entrance bylaw and these regulations are being met. So um so these are pretty strict set of standards to have people you know uh
draw up very detailed plans like this for a driveway entrance. Now if it's a new lot that someone's developing, they're already going to have most of this information. That'll be fine. But if someone's just shifting their driveway
over 10 ft or something like that, it's it it doesn't always require this today as it is. >> So that's why the waiver >> So that's exactly why the waiver is there. So, they had a question about
should there be a provision for a second curve cut for an approved ABU. >> Yeah. Um, that was a question I um I don't think there should be. We had talked about that during our ADU,
>> right? To think we're requiring they use the same. >> Yes. >> Yes. Um so then we get to review of applications and we're removing the first sentence which says the town clerk will forward
the application to department of public works for review and approval with a copy sent to the building inspector. So that gets reviewed because they file it on the online permitting system directly with public works.
Um then the criteria for driveway entrances. Um so um when we get to the number of driveway entrances which is B, we propose changes there.
So, um, residential lots shall be limited to a single driveway entrance and then we have unless a second driveway entrance will eliminate the need for vehicles to
back out onto streets onto uh back out onto the budding roadway. Loop driveways of driveways which have entrances onto two different streets may be permitted by the public works uh provided all entrances meet the
width setback drainage grading requirements. >> So on the backing up I mean every second driveway >> would reduce or eliminate the need for vehicles to back out right. Well, you
can have camera heads where you >> We're just This is just about entrances, >> right? >> So, if if let's say you have a a house with a big parking area in the front, like your house is set back and you can
turn around there, then they can not approve that because there's no need for it. >> Okay? But if your house is 50 feet back from the street and the only way in and out of a bit is to back right out, but
you have enough front yard space to do a little loop and make it look nice, then that's that's a a safety improvement. >> That house we've talked about on school street, right? Yeah, that's a perfect example. >> Yeah.
>> So, what are the I mean there are disadvantages to consider too like you're cutting up you're cutting out green space by making two entrances. >> You're making it harder for pedestrians.
I'm just trying to think of reason. >> I would argue against that. you're making it harder for pedestrians because if there's a sidewalk there, it's going to be constructed in such a manner. It's not to obstruct the sidewalk. And with the same number of vehicles, so having
two entrances does not increase the number of vehicle trips to in and out of a property. That's just determined by who lives there, right? So, um, so you're not increasing the number of trips. So you're not really increasing the number of conflicts between
possible, you know, the number of times a vehicle goes across the sidewalk onto the street. You're actually making it safer by having half of those vehicle trips or a number of them. Um where the driver is like looking at the sidewalk
as opposed to like trying to back up and see there's no pedestrian behind them. They also make sure cars are coming at the same time. So >> yeah, >> good point. >> So these are regulations. So we just get
to approve these ourselves. >> That's correct. >> After a public hearing. >> Yeah. So we don't need to worry about timelines for town meeting. Um and in fact, we don't have we shouldn't be adopting these until after the town
meeting. That's correct. >> Okay. I think it would help to have meeting to say already worked out our regulations. These are the reasons why we're amending that bylaw. >> No effect.
>> Okay. Um width. Driveway width is defined as the drivable surface area capable of supporting fire apparatus. A driveway width as it approaches the driveway entrance shall have a minimum
of 10 ft and a maximum of 12 ft in width. Um that's to support his uh the fire trucks which he needs a minimum of 10 feet to get in and on longer driveways he needs 12 ft. >> Wow.
>> I don't understand why how wide is a fire truck. >> They're pretty wide nowadays. Yeah. So because they have mirrors as well that
stick out. >> Well, that doesn't require paint surface. So um so I changed the minimum width of the entrance along the edge of the roadway pavement to 10 feet from 8 feet. And
then provided the primary structure is located within 50 ft of the roadway other than the maximum shall be 12 ft. So again that's having to do with
driving down driveway smaller. The house is within 50 ft. They may not even drive in the driveway. >> You say 50 mark is 100t. >> 100. >> No that's crossed off. Oh, it's cross >> dark.
>> Should be >> okay. >> Okay, you got it. >> Um, for driveways more than 100 ft length, this should be a minimum of 12 ft. All driveways for this was just sent to
me by the chief today. It says, "All driveways for structures located more than 50 ft from the roadway shall have an unobstructed area that uh
uh there shall be clear of obstructions 20t wide and 13 feet tall to ensure fire department apparatus access. >> Wow, >> that's crazy.
>> That doesn't seem realistic. >> So, that's not the the the surface he drives on. That's just the >> I know >> the he drives through. >> That's like trees. People have trees on their property, you know.
>> Well, that's what he would like. So, unless he's got chainsaw business. So, um, again, you know, these are a lot of what we're is improvements over what there is. So, >> that's what he would like. Um, a special
permit from the planning board is required. If the driveway is less than the minimum required, >> we could end up with a lot of driveway special permits here. >> Yeah. We got to be careful here. >> Yeah. >> Mhm.
So, okay. >> No. >> Well, you're not going to have driveways that are less than 8 feet or even 10 feet because they won't get get permits. to do that. So, and it'll affect the ability to get a
building too, >> right? >> Um, you know, it's a basically it's a public safety. They do have to get in there, >> right? >> But they are pretty good drivers. >> Yeah. a lot of practice on some of the
roads here. Um, so then we get to the chart uh little chart here and Nate um sent me a note saying they can change all the numbers on the chart or they can
remove some of the specific numbers. Um so that it just shows um how you'd like it to be constructed but without the the numbers which are actually >> yeah that's the chart should reflect
what's in the regulations for sure. Mhm. So, um then I don't think we have Yeah, here he says we can either remove or can edit the PDF to remove the numbers or make it for illustrative
purposes. Then we get to uh a new section I added for commercial driveways and I said new commercial driveways shall be reviewed by the planning board under safe land review and shall comply
with um CMR 527 which is the fire safety code. Um, that's fine. >> So, if it's a new development or rehab like downtown, >> if it's a new development, you're going
to be doing it every time, right? >> Yeah. >> So, >> um, the only thing where it'd be a little cumbersome would be is if someone already has a commercial building, >> right, >> and they want to move the driveway from one place to another. So, they're going
to have to come before the board, but it's site plane review, so it's a less cumbersome process uh to to have that driveway shifted or changed to a different location on the property. But given the limited number
of commercial properties we have in the community, I don't think that's overly u strenuous requirement. And if it turns out to be, we can change the regulations, >> right? Chin ricks.
Um, everything else was mostly the same except for the last one on E which says um so this was if you were denied
from the uh by public works, you can apply for a special permit from the planning board with an additional 75 application. G. So if someone's applying for planning board special permit, they should follow all
the regular procedures including the fees for a special permit because we have to process it the exact same way. So um so they got rid of the $75 fee and said they have to pay the regular fee
and get a special permit. So uh that's it. Okay. So what do we do next? >> So what do we do next? Um so I will um make revisions to the bylaw,
make some revisions to the regulations, send the bylaw to council to be looked at. Um, and then we'll also have it on the agenda for early September.
>> Okay. >> Busy September. >> Yes. Yes. The rest of August while you can. So, I'm just wondering what would people think about doing our
walk around the commercial district part of our our September 8th before >> or as part of it maybe. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yes, >> I like that idea. >> Okay, that as a possibility that >> invite the public to join us for
stroll to town and alert all the uh the store owners event out of it. >> They're looking for one chamber of commerce. Well, thank you, Mark. >> Um, so did do we need to talk about CHS
right now? That's the next thing on the agenda. >> Oh, well, um, now that >> could I ask a point of information? >> Yes, you can. the course
>> the u uh proposed changes to the driving uh driveway um bylaws those in are then general bylaws is that correct? >> Yes. So the bylaw, yes, that's general bylaw. The regulations are planning board,
>> right? So um what would be the actual effect on uh driveways that were nonconforming if we passed that bylaw? >> They um so
>> existing existing driveway >> they can remain. Our current bylaw says all driveway entrances in existence prior to the adoption of this bylaw shall not require review unless they are substantially modified or relocated.
So existing um driveways are not affected by this in any anyway. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good question. senior housing. Do you wanna
>> Yeah, we can do it pretty quickly. >> Okay. >> So, if we're going to attack senior housing for the fall, we have to make some very quick decisions and luckily the planning board has already discussed senior housing for
the past five or six years and we've even put it on the warrant for a town meeting. But because there were issues with the way the town meeting technically was being conducted, we were unable to get
to the this particular warrant article. So I think the question for the planning board is I've given you language of of what was going to be on those warrants. If there are no significant changes to
them, we can probably put it on for the fall. It's not going to require a lot of work. They've been reviewed by town council and so forth. If we want to make significant changes to that language, it probably shouldn't be for the fall. It's too much on our plate. So, I want to ask
the board some very simple questions. Then assuming everybody thinks that senior housing in general is a good idea that we should be doing it. But if anybody thinks otherwise, let's get that out of the way right away.
Nobody thinks it's a bad idea. >> I think it's a good idea. >> High priority. >> All right. I'm going to the issues to consider. Should senior facilities, housing facilities be allowed in all districts
or do we want to li limit them to specific districts? Not sure we need to answer those tonight, but if somebody says we've proposed them for all districts in the past, >> so a deal breaker might be if you say, "Well, no, we don't want to accept
district E from senior housing." Then I think that's going to cause a complication that might knock us out of it. I mean, >> what what would be the reason to do that?
>> Uh, we don't want senior housing in a particular district for whatever reason, >> right? But I mean, and why? Why not? >> Well, schema of senior housing perhaps >> maybe. I mean, but people have this idea that senior housing is a, you know, this
Brooksby village with, you know, 100 units, but it's not. It can be five or six units, >> which is all defined in your >> Yes. Yeah. Try to make that clear. But yeah. So, is everybody okay with all districts
for that? >> Just this new downtown, >> like the downtown. Sure. I would think just just not knowing facts, I would think it would be appropriate for most districts, but maybe not for all. I think that's something we need to
discuss and come up with. >> Well, we don't have a lot of time to discuss it. So, >> yeah, I mean, it's a short discussion. We could do the same zoning map I'm looking at right here. See what the likelihood will be. Maybe just maybe just one or two. They shouldn't
like the downtown district perhaps. Well, I would think the downtown district would be the best place. >> That's what I just said. Downtown. >> I know talked with you enough to know that you you got your you got some hot spots. >> Has has anybody brought any points up to
argue against this as >> I think what was >> and correct me if I'm wrong. um cuz I was not on the board in November, but discussions since then um
have centered around, you know, traffic um you know, aids coming in and out to help. It's really no different from any other home with visitors coming in and out. It
was traffic was one Y >> trying I can't remember the others. >> So one one of the So this I think that the discussion was like the D district would that be because uh those are lots of little small houses
and suddenly you're going to plunk some larger facility in the middle of it. Would that be appropriate? Would that mess up traffic on Pleasant Street or something? uh we tried to point out that in fact senior housing generates much less traffic than typical single family house
does and uh so I think that issue was discussed and resolved. I wonder >> does the advent of the ADU zoning play any role because that wasn't really in effect.
>> It might. Yeah, it might. I mean it would certainly help in If you have senior parents that you want to get movement, >> it might it might create more support for this. >> Yeah, it might. Yes, that's right.
>> So, that's the first issue. Uh second one, a lot of different things. And by the way, what I want to point out remind everybody that nursing homes, which are senior housing facilities, very
institutional, but that's what they are. They're allowed by special permit in any district right now. >> So, we're looking for president. >> We have not seen a lot of applications. >> We have not seen a lot of applications for nursing.
>> Have you seen any? >> We never got They're not allowed. So, I never got a good one for that. you might get a lot. I don't know. Um, should there be a specific age
restrictions? Should we require, for example, that all residents be 65 or older or 55 or older? A second resident, should they be it's a spouse, should they be the same age? They'd be younger.
There'd be um a child living there, a you know, an adult child 18 or older. >> There was no proposal initially. >> Initially, there was no age restrictions at all. Senior housing. This is for people 55 and older.
>> 55 and older. >> Yeah. But uh the revised one says one of one member of the household has to be 55 or older and no one living there can be younger than 18.
>> Yeah, that makes sense. >> What are you reading from, Chris? >> Well, this is the thing I sent out to everybody. Oh, >> I think those are really the only issues I think unless people have questions about some of these. >> So, the only the only question I would
have is I I I read that. I don't remember it as well as I should. So, it might be great to allow us all to read it one last time. And then I think if we meet in early September and there's still no
>> issues, then I think we'd have time, right? Yeah, I think so. I think we can do it. >> Yeah, >> because it's already drafted and approved council, >> right? >> Here's my thinking too because I have spoken with Chris. I have my little
little journey up to the top of the mountain so many times and just we sit down and talk about this stuff. the uh I'm afraid if we don't bring this up, if it doesn't bring to the floor, we're going to lose the opportunity if there's
a site available that that it may be developable for senior housing such as the one right off Pleasant Street again where the public works department leaves it. And if we miss that opportunity, that's that's a missed thing. I think bringing this up for the four may be a
larger opportunity for more development and maybe even I don't know. I think it's a good thing. >> I think in general, everyone I've talked to thinks it's a great idea. People get concerned about whether these are all have to be, you know, maybe we want
uh sometimes you see things like a five acre minimum lot size, but if you're only doing three units, that doesn't make very much sense. Um, so I think it should be left open and and be lot coverage and dimensional requirements that we spelled out that
kind of take care of that problem. The the all the height restrictions would be the same. So no one's going to be and it would be a special permit. So there'd be u review to make sure that they meet all the
performance standards. >> I agree. Um, any questions or comments from the public on senior housing? Oh, also I forgot to ask about driveways or driveways.
>> Okay, seeing none. >> Um, so how do you want to proceed? So I guess at the next meeting I want everybody to read that all that stuff again and come with questions and comments and if we're still good to go
we make a decision then perfect >> and I think one uh thing to weigh is um how many of these initiatives can we do in the fall? I mean, we may want to pick one.
>> Um, we may want to try for them all, but I think we just need to be realistic about the amount of work um that will be required to bring driveways, downtown, and senior housing all
>> and I think that'll be a question for the flight court as well. Didn't we at at the first meeting of this group or the first identify the projects that we wanted to focus on?
>> Yes, >> I think those three were the ones that we focused on. >> That's why we brought them. >> Yes. >> Beautiful. Nice continuity. >> Just check just checking. The question is, can we get them all three um accomplished for you?
>> Yes. >> This fall. >> When you say this fall, are you meaning prior for town meeting? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. Okay. >> And Eli already outlined it. >> So the the clock is ticking.
>> Yeah. >> Um All right. Leaison updates. I'm Historic Commission. We're meeting Thursday. That will be my first meeting. So, I don't have anything to report. >> Um, >> affordable housing is meeting on the
20th. >> I think we're just doing historic commission building committee. Sarah only wants to do a couple so that we don't run through the whole >> I got nothing to say anyway. So, >> thank goodness.
School building. Oh, that's the Essex school building committee by the way, the elementary school. PL just telling Chris a little bit ago where we selected the owner's project manager already and we are selecting the architect tomorrow.
So, this is tomorrow morning. They thought to do the interview. So, it's it's uh it's a hot topic >> and this is going to turn into some sort of reality. The reason why it's on here is because of my little statement of a couple weeks ago. One of the considerations is
modification of the of the elementary school that we just finished here. It's it's it's a little bit farfetched fetched. I tell you I've seen seen some of the architects uh recommendations, not recommendations, their first first
pass at it. It's a bit far-fetched. So, I don't think that will be the one. It's definitely not the preferred choice, but is one that the MSBA, the the Mass State School Building Authority is asking us to consider renovation, modification,
build new, wherever the build new is, and then work all. So, it's just something I and I forgive me, I have to add the facilities planning, they start on Friday of this week. We have our first meeting at 9:00 on Friday.
talk about it. >> And we're going to be talking about >> We're keeping you busy. We're keeping you busy, aren't we? >> Okay. >> Earning your salary double right now.
>> Um correspondence. I didn't see any >> minutes. Is it just the >> Yeah. Um, and that looked fine except Chris only's not mentioned as being present, but he was present because he made motions during the minute. So, we
need to add him as being present. >> Anybody else have any comments on the minutes? >> I was uh I was not in the last meeting. So, I was absent. >> Were you there on the 12th, but the date
of the minutes? No, he hadn't started yet. >> Oh, right. Of course. Right, right, right. >> And I wasn't present either, according to >> Okay, then we can't vote on them, right? Just the three of us. Okay. Well, sorry.
We'll have to vote on them next. >> These are the AI states. >> Well, they're m they're much they're perfect except for Annie Fris. Okay. Motion to adjurnn.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Nice job, sir. Yeah. >> Thank you all. That was a lot. >> And Mark, thank you.