Okay. Um, welcome everybody. It being 6:30, I'm going to call the meeting of the management coordinating board September 29th um, meeting to order. Um, we'll take a roll call. Um, I don't see Peter Morton. Um, Chris only
here, Gordon Brewster, Sue Filber here, present, Brian Fry, present. Thank you. And, uh, um, The first uh order of um business is a
item to reconsider the March 17th, 2025 approval not required for May application submitted by Elizabeth Kinder at one Spy Rock Hill Road map 14 lot 32 pursuant to the remand order of
the land court dated September 24th 2025 in Kinder at all versus the town of Manchester by the Sea Planning Board case number 25 000270. So, um, we will consider the board's
prior determination reflected in the decision dated April 10th, 2025 and the proposed ANR plan depicted in the subdivision um, due to inquade access to proposed lot A with the board's
reconsideration being based upon certain plans, specifications, and certifications regarding a proposed C3 driveway entrance for the purpose for the proposed lot A which the owners have provided to the DPW and/or building
department but did not provide to the board until June 18th, 2025. And those materials um have been provided in the um hard copy in front of us. Um so with that um I will also say
that this is an approval not required. Um, we've heard a lot of comment on it in the past and we will not be taking public comment. It is not required to take public comment on ANRS and we will not be taking public comment on this
matter tonight. Um, so I will uh invite Adam Zer for the applicant to um share with us. Uh Sandy has joined us. Sandy, welcome. Um, Adam, go ahead.
Thank you. U, we're very happy to be here tonight. Um, having the board, um, we have a number of additional materials um, that are from DPW or submitted to the DPW um, by the applicant uh, for the
board to consider uh, which we believe finally put to rest the the question of whether this access is elucory. U, the first item is the sightelines plan. uh dated March 13th of 2025. It was
submitted with MPW to demonstrate that the driveways require the minimum of sight distance u for the applicable standards 115 ft is required 124 and 1/2 ft or 124.4 ft are being provided.
Second uh item is a site plan um from July 22nd, 2024 which shows various details for the sewer connection um to the proposed building on LA including a new manhole and a tie into the existing manhole on Z Street.
plan also shows uh the areas of approved earth removal and the approved retaining wall locations and the location of proposed steel planters and the connection to a new French drain on sea street which is substantially improving the site conditions. Uh prior to the project the water sort of flow flowed
from uh from summer street down sort of across the area and a new pipe has been installed that drains that across the new proposed driveway location to a French drain which as I understand is functioning nicely. is installed and is a is an improvement to the existing position.
The third item uh is a is a C3 geometrics plan. Uh the board will recall as part of the original application, we submitted a surveyor certificate and a curb cut plan. Um and this geometrics plan was requested by the town administrator. um as part of
their review of that curb cut plan um to show the actual width of Summer Street, the intersection detail um of 59.5 ft um in theert to sort of validate the certificate of compliance that we had previously submitted
to the GPW board. The fourth item is a 90 degree turn plan um that was provided to GPW in February. Uh this was also requested by the town administrator PW as part of their review was that curb cut plan uh demonstrates
that proposed new drive management is going to have a 6% slope and it can accommodate the 90 degree turnin um and having a turning radius of 18 and 3/4 feet which is meets the town criteria and it's the exact same radius that uh was approved for the new curve cut on
Spyro Road providing the entrance spot AB for the property. Item five, um, if a sewer tie in plan, uh, it was requested in October of 2024 and shows the property's finer final sewer tie-in details
at the base of the proposed driveway. Item six. Item six is is an asbuilt retaining wall plan that shows the engineering um, detailing the construction of the retaining wall system along Sea Street. Uh if the board will recall, there were some public concerns raised uh as that wall was
being created about structural fability. So this was the plan that was immediately submitted by the owner to the building department and demonstrate that they followed all the proper engineering practices and as the board knows as part of uh the agreement uh that was reached in this case. Uh the
owners of lot A are going to be required to make annual inspections of that retaining wall, provide certifications to the town, and make any uh necessary repairs at their expense. Item seven is a certificate of compliance from Onion Flats Architecture. Um this is recent. It was
just dated September 23rd this week. U this is a certificate of substantial completion for the project's retaining wall that was required by the settlement agreement. uh it was submitted to DPW on Monday uh actually Tuesday past September 23rd. And the final item um is just the post
settlement in correspondence between uh Chuck DPW and Tim McDonald um culminating with BPW's response at the end of last week conflating to issue a driveway permit in accordance with the settlement agreement. Um
we think that all these plans uh put to rest could be put from the legality of the focus driveway. Do you think they're a win-win for the to uh and the applicant? U there's a number of conditions that are imposed that obviously go beyond what the regulations
could require. So think that that is really compound for the applicant happy. Thanks. Um, we also have in our packet the original AR application and site
plan and um um so I I think it's important to understand that the board decided in the context of ongoing litigation to agree to reconsider it our prior decision in light of materials that we
did not have when we issued the April 10th, 2025 decision, or at least those of us who were here that day. Um, and materials that the board did not have before the April 10th 25 meeting. Uh,
those have been um included here for us in one place. The purpose of this meeting tonight is to review those materials and deliberate in accordance with the requirements of the open meeting law and decide whether an approval not required endorsement is
appropriate in light of those materials. So just to remind um uh the board we have two new board members. Um so uh I'm going to ask Roger um Merge from um KP Law just to remind
um those of us who are not new and the two new board members the criteria by which an ANR should be endorsed. Uh so if an ANR does not depict a subdivision that is if it depicts uh lots that have
for example sufficient frontage on either a public way or certain private ways that are maintained for public use. Uh so long as there is uh actual uh access on those ways from each of the lots then a subdivision is not effective
and ANR endorsement may be given. Thank you. Um, any questions from the board? Sure. One quick note. Um, Roger just pointed out that the the I think there was a printing error that the 90 degree turn plan um is not in here. There's just a repeat of recycling, but I'll help
forward that. The board already has 90 plan. Any questions from the board or the applicant? Is he the intent for us to review this and comment on it tonight? We're going to vote on it tonight. Okay.
I think um that uh let me get ask Mark uh for a recommendation. Recommend that you endorse the plan. Lots have frontage access across the frontage. That's I think most Gordon most of the U
documents really are the documents that have been reviewed by the I see it. Yes. Yeah. Who knows? So um I ask one question about which which documents are new tonight? There's there's essentially nothing new. All of these all of these documents that
are here other than well there's two the email correspondence with DPW from the last week that is new and then there is a certificate that was actually required by our settlement agreement. So, so Tim did section 2I, I believe 2I
requires that Onion flag architecture as architect of record for the project provide a stamp certificate confirming that the retaining wall along Sing Street was constructed substantially in accordance with the asal drawings for the same. So that's what that's what that is. And then all of the other plans are simply
just the exact same plans that are referenced in exhibit A to the settlement agreement. Okay. Except for the 90° plan. 90 degree plan is number five in the right. But we don't have that tonight.
Roger. Um are we comfortable? Uh it is a plan that has been has been provided to the DPW and was through council provided to the board. I've got it up. I'm happy to walk it around to sort of
I think we're comfortable with with it as long as you're comfortable. This is the plan. I think it's in the packet. Oh, was it? They might have. It just was mislabeled. Okay. It was out of order. That's the plan. Yes. The electric plan. No, that No, the the 90 degree plan is
the one that actually has the shadow of a vehicle coming down the active way and turning on to see. All right. Just just to close it up, is it possible to see that drawing? Sure. Why don't you just I think uh would you like to be great?
Um and just for the record, Peter Morton has joined the meeting. Hi, Peter. Hi, everybody. Sorry I can't be there. Um, and uh, Peter, Mark forwarded you, uh, a PDF of what we're reviewing.
Yes, I have it. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Wonders modern technology, but it works. Madam Chair, I just sent it to you. All right. Okay, while we're waiting for that to
come in, other questions from the board. I actually have a question. It would be very helpful, Adam Ladam, if you could summarize in a very simple, this is a lot of material, and if you could summarize what exactly has changed
since the original decision other than the stamped I think it sort of engineering guarantee it looks like. I mean, it might be inappropriate for me to say the remand hearing was limited to additional DPW material. So I think the
the the scope of this review is limited to the actual material itself and I I it's I think that this this material I guess the way I would put it was not in your meeting packet back in April and it's now in the meeting packet now
for a more complete record. Um that just demonstrates the level of engineering work that was done between the applicant and DPW uh that was provided to the board sort of through council and um and now uh that we're sort of at the finish line. You've got the email correspondence from DPW confirming that
you know they're prepared to issue the permit. Uh that that information obviously wasn't before you. Mark, can you just move the image on the screen the drag it please? Thank you.
Everybody's face is in the middle of the image. Um so this is the um uh 90° street entrance plan. Okay. Any questions on that?
Thank you. Um, okay. I'm hearing upon hearing no other discussion, I will uh ask for a motion for um the plan. Do you have the the plan?
Sarah, while you're doing that, I just it's not a question, but um just a statement before we take our vote that just to be clear, the documents that we just reviewed, uh the planning board did
not review when we issued our original decision. Correct. So even though some some of these have existed before tonight, we did not have access to them when we made our original decision. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you, sir.
Okay. I have one other question and that is um uh the plan dated March 17, 2025 which we were about to vote on. You uh created an ANR um
uh to amend that where you carved off a small corner. Um and it's my understanding that you did not record that. You've not recorded that. So, this would um record this one and then we record the other one separately.
Okay. This one will be recorded for would probably like to be recorded together. Although the other one references one full parcel. It's okay. It's okay. That's okay. Um Okay. So, I'm going to um ask for a motion uh for an
endorsement by the planning board that this is not for a determination uh that this conform uh is not a subdivision. Um determine that this is not a subdivision therefore is entitled to endorsement as an approval not
required of the plan of land located in Manchester, Massachusetts with the recorded owners Elizabeth B. Kinder and Timothy McDonald County Land Surveyors
um dated 317 2025 um and 1 in equals 40 ft. I'll make that motion. I'll second it. Okay. Um anything else I need in Roger? Ask if there's any further deliberation.
Okay. a deliberation. Um, uh, I'll take a vote, a roll call vote on this one. Um, Sandy Bod Turner, yes. Brian Fry, yes. Um, Sue Felick, yes. Gord Brewster, yes. Chris Ali, yes. Peter Morton,
yes. Chair votes, yes. Okay. Thank you for your preparation tonight, Adam. And Roger, if you're health, can we get to the left side? I don't know. He's such a good
Okay, I'll come back. He has I'll sign it. I have blue Sharpie or Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Have a good night. Okay,
thank you. Um, so, uh, welcome Kathy back. McCabe is, um, McCain Associates, right? Um, and she has been helping us think through the, uh, issues around our downtown um, bylaw, downtown district
bylaw. And um I think everybody knows that we um following our recommendation at the last meeting, uh the select board agreed to postpone putting this issue on a November ballot. Um and uh look forward to having it on
the spring ballot. Um Mark and I went to the board meeting and we stressed the importance of seeing it as a prior that we felt that it was a strong priority um and an important priority. So um they agreed and understood. So with that um I
uh asked Kathy and Mark um know Mark has proposed another draft but before we do that um we wanted to talk through a few things. Um uh I'm going to out of take out of order a little bit how because it references
the material in the doc in our pocket. The first is how to handle existing residential uses. And I pulled um in your packet, we can come back to it. Uh the list of properties in this district. I don't know if people had a chance to look at
it how the assessors characterize them. And there are several single residential homes along Beach Street. And there are two in the district from the tracks to the town hall and Elm Street. Um there
are a number of mixed use residential um or predominantly residential or predominantly commercial but only two from the tracks to here that are single uh family according to the assessor's records
which is the best we have to go on. Um and I thought that was a good tie back to what we had been talking about. We can get more in into that. Um, I just wanted to tie that list. That was a new packet. Um, but first, let's maybe talk
about the um issue of um subdists. Does that seem like a good place to start or um you know, you've had a little time to coder on this. You've talked to Mark, so I'm going to let you lead the discussion for a bit. Oh, well Mark's been doing most of the
drafting and I've been giving him feedback and um so I think Mark's um with the there was a walking um meeting that looked at much of the district and really identify perhaps two subdists.
And I think one of the things that uh in terms of looking at downtown zoning, we're talking about districts, not an overlay, because you have an existing overlay, both in terms of your flood as well as the MBTA Communities Act
overlay. Um, and you want your core underlying zoning to advocate um articulate your goals and aspirations for what downtown should be. Uh in terms of having subdists,
you have having a core downtown area and having a little finer grain where you have perhaps u some area where you um focus 100% commercial. Uh and the two
sites um that were that's downtown district B which would be uh Crosby's and Harbor Point area. Um and then uh downtown district A would allow for mixed use which would include some
residential up to four units as as is presently drafted. Um subdists are a strategy that is often used in zoning. So you could have a little finer grain on one or two points, but it's the
overall character is probably very similar in both subdists. They're kind of they're kind of like two books on the bookshelf. They might be or two different shelves on the bookshelf. They might be slightly different um height,
but they're um they're both part of the same focus as part of your downtown. Uh, and it's not unusual for a downtown area to have subdists um and and zoning. I think one of the
examples that I had mentioned when I was here in uh summer was Winchester has um a very healthy downtown and they have subdists in within their downtown that have different use and dimensional requirements
as to the subdist. Mark, do you mind adding anything? Uh no. Um, in our case, would you advise that the character of the uh Harbor Point and
Crosby's area is sufficiently different that it is warrants having subdists or is that um Crosby's is certainly different because one you're allowing uh parking in front of the building as a as a grocery store.
So it's kind of in a class of its own. Um but also Harbor Point is uh significantly different because it is really almost a larger scale commercial development whereas most of your other
um buildings and parcel are um it might be multi-tenanted and multi-commercial fronts but it's a smaller scale and they're more historic there. There's some exceptions to that, but um Harbor Point is a much larger
scale development. So since Crosby's is also a larger scale commercial footprint, it makes sense to have the two go together even though they're on different sides of the tracks.
Yeah, I guess at the last meeting there was some concern about having such large parcels be available for residential in the downtown and that adding a lot of residential units would create a different type of congestion
than would um so that maintaining the commercial uses in this area for for those um they're both the two biggest parcels in the downtown area. Uh so to treat them slightly differently um you know it's
not unusual. I just the proposed map um and how you treat parking in both is different. But we currently have a couple other areas where the parking is currently in
front um in front of the establishment. Sometimes that's along the road and other times at like the Cape Savings Bank area, it's not along the frontage of the road, but it's in front of the
buildings. And um how would we envision I mean that's a separate is help me understand if that's the criteria. Parking is always a challenge in a downtown. Um, but I think what generally
speaking, you want your commercial establishments to face the street and that even if on properties on a corner, you want active uses on the ground floor
and you want larger scale windows um in commercial buildings. So, you know, so people can, you know, do the oldfashioned window shopping. Um but that allows for a vibrancy uh within the
within uh the downtown. Um so that said, you know, most many downtown town centers prohibit parking between the street and the commercial storefront. Uh
and you have it in a few places. It's more on parcels where which back up into the railroad tracks. Uh that ser so the railroad was their front door and the the back part was summer street so to
speak. Um so I mean some of that is an accident of history. Um so but in terms of uh one way of dealing it dealing with design of
parking is to have like the Cape Bank you have a commercial use facing the front on Beach Street the access is on the side and the parking is on the side. So that's not an unusual strategy to
kind of maintain the street wall, but then have you try and minimize your driveways and that way parking is on the side uh as compared to the front. Um because not all parcels enable spaces to
be in the rear. Sometimes there's not enough room in the rear. There's, you know, um access issues. Yeah. of so I mean having in a historic downtown
you know parking sometimes you've got to be flexible and I think some of the earlier drafts indicate that you're trying to be flexible on commercial parking you also have a strong enforcement program um of parking so
that Manchester um police do enforce um turnover on on street parking, which is really important because in many business districts, employees and owners, store owners park, and that's a
very expensive parking space because they're really precluding sales from themselves and their neighbors. Um, so enforcement becomes important. Okay. Okay. In the draft that you've proposed, Mark, just to the proposal of
having two subdists, the difference is that in the um district B, the Harbor Point and Crosby's district in its current form today would not allow
single family, two family, basically any residential, any residential as any residential because right now there's no residential on the property and um so with the concern about res large scale
residential development and trying to maintain uh you have some successful businesses there maintain the commercial use of the property. Um that that's why uh created that subd district without
residential uses. And how about mixed use? Where's that? And that's is allowed in the downtown district, the main downtown A. And that's
so Can I review this just for So in in downtown district A, we're allowing mixed use by right and single family and two family houses by special permit.
and in residential in the uh downtown district B. No residential at all. That sort of summarize it. I think the current proposal is no residential. No res single family residential. three family
did residential and other conversions of one two family into a two family would be planning for approve um special permit conversion of an existing dwelling into a three family dwelling would be a special permit
multif family dwelling no but that would be mixed use would be allowed in a with mixed use without first floor residential would allowed by right and mixed use with firstf flooror residential would be a planning board uh
special permit in downtown A that's the blue up there and in downtown B mixed use is not allowed so our fear about allowing mixed use in the downtown key district would be that
perhaps a lot of the units could be created but we haven't figured out how either I could be I think that from my perspective if we start with our reg our original intent
which is to um protect to have this bylaw reflect pretty much what's there today. That's the case, right? So, we have um pretty much residential uh um we have no
residential units in the Crosby's Harbor Point. Um is that a correction on that, John, or is it just a I'm not going to take comments right now on this general and I will pull my Okay, we will uh um uh Thank you. So,
we we'll get to you. Okay. Well, maybe I can speak for John's man. I think his argument would be but to support the commercial uses in the downtown. We need more people living there. And so if we're cutting off this big piece of
property from mixed uses, we're saying no one can live there, which seems kind of counterproductive to what May I one quick comment. The goal of zoning is not to preserve what you have. No, I'm sorry. So to encourage what you want in the future.
So um all I'm saying is that the goal of this effort was originally to to codify what we have today um because we want to particularly uh in the future have commercial on the
first floor in our corridor. That's the that was the original whether that's the aspirational goal and whether we want to change our original intent to a more aspirational one but I so that there are two different things an aspirational goal that we may or may not all agree on
but certainly we started this effort saying let's just uh let's start by ensuring that we not ensuring using zoning to uh ensure because there seems
it's our sense that there seems to be uh a lot of um support for that piece of the goal. So um go ahead. Um just to expand on that. Um in my view,
the original intent of our effort was to prevent all of the commercial area of downtown turning into residential and being left without any commercial space
that's available for commercial. And so the focus of this effort is how do we best maintain the commercial space that's there and maintain access to f future commercial enterprises in our
downtown area. Um housing was not our originally focus. The focus was on uh access to commercial space. Uh that's my view. Yeah. So then we can think about whether we want to
change that. Right. So go ahead Sam Sandy. Yeah. Um the I think that's accurate. I think there is a a missing little slice though from the forum which was there was a notion about the downtown being the word that was used repeatedly was
vibrant. And if you have potential for storefronts from zoning, but you don't have any people going to the storefronts, it's somewhat problematic. So the question is, while there isn't an explicit
maybe housing goal, per se, part of make ha helping to make the downtown vibrant is going to be allowing perhaps for greater density of housing. So, for example, in the table of uses um on number three, conversion of uh I think
it's supposed to be an existing uh single family dwelling into two and the same thing converting the next one to three. I was surprised we didn't just say yes because it's there, the building is there, it's existing, it's not changing its footprint. So it allows for
greater density of housing without really any significant change in the appearance of the downtown. So there's things like that that I think are the vibrancy thing is important to fold in there because if businesses if there's
no business to be made even though a commercial space is permitted people you know it's going to remain empty. Well we certainly recognize that this is not an economic development right. No, I know effort. This is a sewing effort. You look like you were
going to say something. Well, I think Susan's your point, Sy's point are well taken because the focus was to create retain and support commercial activity
as well as to add vibrancy which was really an important um outcome of the downtown vision. We also were doing the downtown vision to kind of have a short some shortterm goals so that you could do larger scale planning um but still be
responsive to to the market and what's going on. So I think one of the dilemmas of today is that the housing market and the demand for housing is very strong and it's outstripping the demand for
retail and commercial services everywhere. Not just downtown, not just Manchester, but you know throughout the Commonwealth and New England and the East Coast and elsewhere. So market forces are saying,
"Well, I'm having a hard time renting, you know, space, developers, owners want to gravitate to the easiest leasable use, which right now is housing. But you also
want to have that, as the person said, zoning is to say what you want to have." So what having some changes that to allow mixed use which you've cited as a value in your earlier plan but you don't
have in your zoning it but still retain a focus on commercial is by having the allowing residential and commercial buildings but making sure the ground floor that faces the street is
commercial. That doesn't preclude that the other portions of the building can't be commercial. It's just giving an option with mixed use. And
having housing downtown often contributes to vibrancy, but you're not wanting to have it exclusive to the exclusion of commercial in your core area. That's why you're doing a downtown district and not
changing the general district. And it's also why there's two two subd districts. Um, but I would also mention that on residential there were there's different types of residential. And right now we
have a new relatively new state law that any zoning district that allows single family residential by ride automatically allows ADUs on any parcel
in the district. Not just where a single family house is, any parcel in the district. So, it is worthy of consideration to pre unless you want ADUs as a secondary use
um potentially on any parcel to perhaps preclude it in the downtown the core downtown area that's not um someone might come in and ask for a variance of that. um you can
choose, you know, or as part of a mixeduse development. That's something for you to consider. But having it automatic, you know, sometimes that vacant space on a lot or that rear use can be space for
a startup or it could be space for parking that you might want to protect. You also have to balance the need for having density in your downtown. I know or intensity of space. So there's enough uh
a enough concentration of uses with climate change and resiliency and the need for permeable permeability. So that it's a balance. You know there's multiple goals that we have to balance. Um, so I think this draft tries to
balance many of them, but it also has to be Manchester's vision for the future. Um, not a planning consultant's vision for the f future. It's got to be yours. So you you know what's acceptable
um in your community and where you want to go. One um thought that I have as we're talking that that's is important which sort of um is that the Harbor Point is currently in zone A. So residential is
currently allowed even though it's not present in on those on um Crosby's is zone is a general district and Harbor Point is district A. So, um,
one, uh, my concern about Harbor Point with the residential is that it's a very lovely place to, uh, and I think this is why we need to do this zoning change, but it's a very lovely place to potentially put a bunch of very high-end uh, condos. Um, you
know, uh, if if they didn't have if we didn't have for, you know, and and maybe that's not a bad thing. We can't you can't um scale is hard to dictate in in zoning. Um but we would be changing and we would be
changing lot size from 22,000 to 6,000 with this change. Um so that's an important um just piece of this. But as I listen to the comments, one way to
potentially think about this would be to say on the mixed use without first floor residential, uh that we may want to reword that. Um uh mixed use without first floor
residential could be a special permit and mix use with first floor residential could be prohibited in that district B so that it uh I want to nothing's insured but
it it gives some flexibility both for the owner and community right and I think that we have heard that the market the other piece we have heard is the market it's hard to to mixed use is hard to
uh the po performer proforma where mixed use can be difficult and um even for commercial in Manchester but we seem to have then we also heard last week from somebody oh no it was at the at the
select board meeting actually um there was a comment that Manchester has a great deal of commercial use for a town our size. You know, he made the case that we have two barber shops and two banks and a number of restaurants
and you know, everybody's got an opinion, right? So, um other comments from the board on the uh I think let me uh just one other question mark just to clarify your
proposed um differences between downtown A and downtown B were the that in downtown B you could have a uh athletic club or something. Yeah, there
was a there were a few minor differences between the two as I kind of went through them. Um, let's go through them just from the top just as a a proposed down downtown.
Wait a minute. Let's just back up for a second. Do people how do people feel about having some distinction between those two areas of death? That seem like a generally appropriate to do it considering the uses currently.
I would agree. Yeah, I think when park when we start talking about parking does that anybody object to at least conceptually Chris's thinking? No, it's okay. academic and I don't think it's going to
make any difference whichever way we go because neither of those properties is likely to be turned into residential development anyway. But it is possible. I mean that probably would never happen to C. We
don't like I guess you don't but if Crosby's were to turn into a store on the first floor and the residential above it, I don't think that would be a bad thing. But the but the question is not that's
the use table. The question is are those Crosby's and Harbor Point potentially different enough that we should have a subdis should we should have them in subd districts? Well I think you make a case either way. Okay. So I I'd like to define that a
little bit more and what we think what what we think differentiates them specifically like what uh what are the main points here that we can define so that we can we can determine that well I would say parcel size and age of
buildings um there are typically very new much newer um amount of land devoted to parking Um, it's the two largest commercial uses we have in town as currently shown.
So I I I'm not sure that's 100% when you go to Elm Street with maybe some Oh, that's true. And also the I'm not sure how the KB band parcel I can. This is this has been
after after my speeches after my speech my discussions with Chris all spring here. I look at the district B and I look at that large parking area past Allen's pharmacy in the back there like that. And if we if we limit it to no residential
that would include condominium development of any sort at all. No residential development. And I would look at that as maybe an opportunity for some sort of limited uh residential development on purpose managed residential development to increase
population just seems like it might be an opportunity but we are restricting it to say no right now. Just a thought. I agree with everything we talked about philos philosophically. Everything we we talked about through the spring and through now. 100% agreement. That little
node of space back there, whether it can be developed or not, whether the MBTA would allow it, whether the land is available, I don't know. Well, the the land that is currently used by the MBTA for parking is deed in the it's deed restricted. Um, there's a
covenant. I'm not I may not be using the right words, but there's a covenant between the owner, the prior owner um and the MBTA that requires uh that it remain parking and that a fixed number of spaces be allocated for
day use for the MBTA. Now, that could change or whatever, but um and it is um arguably the place where people can park for the day. um presumably going to the train but nobody's checking that. So um
so the back part right now is deed restricted um and uh from Allen I'm not sure exactly where that line is um but uh I think that's the portion you're so your your point is some portion of
Harbor Point might be a well suited for a residential space at some point. Yes, may maybe. We've talked so much about the needing the addition of additional housing in town. Perhaps that is the spot if it can be done that would
be appropriate for it. This zoning would say no and it's district A right now. Yes, that's right. I think that was discussed during the MBTA process. Yes. In fact, yeah, but we we strongly considered
incorporating it because we thought it'd be a great place for residential development, but we thought it'd be a mixeduse development and you can't do that under the NDTA. So, but to Sarah's original point, I'm fine with the two districts because I think the two areas are sufficiently different
that Peter, go ahead. Yeah. Hi. Hi, everybody. I just wanted to weigh in. I I just to follow up on what Sandy just said, I'm fine with the the them being separate districts. I think that's important, but I'm reluctant to
restrict or even not allow um the the possibility of residential on either of them. I like the idea of um some type of restriction on the ground floor, but just for all the
reasons people have cited about the importance of needing housing in town, I think it would be um I just don't think we should flatly not allow it in either of those two areas.
So I I think there are mechanisms we can use uh namely the special permit in the case of those two districts as well. I think if you zone it for housing some point you will get housing. So you need to think about that.
It's zone for housing now. I yeah for relatively low density housing single family housing is what it's owned for and so you need to think long term about what you want on that property want it
to be housing eventually ownerships will get consolidated the deal with the MBTA will be reworked housing is become so valuable you have to think about what you want it to be at
the end of the day, you know, 10, 20 years from now because if you zone it that way, you're probably going to get it. You know, people don't like uh where there's strip malls everywhere. Well, reason why they were built is because that's how a community is. So, again,
which is what we're which is what having no residential there and only retail on the first floor is a strip mall in a way. It's is exactly a strip mall. Yes. But it's it's right now that strip mall with offices above serves the
important community need. It's where your pharmacy is, your liquor store, your Dunkin Donuts. I mean, these are the most the pizza place. These are the most successful businesses in your downtown core. And the way it's designed
would would be approved through the design guidelines that we're referencing in this bylaw which were created for the MVTA district. Um so that is yes it's somewhat strict malish but it is
if we want mixed use we should allow it to be mixed used. We're gonna um I think we're debating. Let's um hear from Kathy. Last question. The question is whether we need to go through that table. The
question is two districts. The part point is also your largest parcel in your downtown. And as the draft is it would only allow four units of h uh housing in a mixed
use, which to be honest is an underdevelopment of that parcel if you were going to use housing. Um, and it re uh and I appreciate what you're saying about the um
um more distance side of the um Harbor Point parcel having room for expansion where the MBTA lot is. And I have not read the MOA that exists between the MBTA and that. But I have done
development with the MBTA and used MBTA parking lots to develop housing and mixeduse projects which is a long process. But one of the things is it also in my mind
that's somewhat of a unique parcel and you may want to use the existing draft but then as part of your larger downtown master planning process which is kind of like subsequent steps it might be a year from now really do a focus sharette on
what are the options and work with the uh and yes I know it's kind condominiums and there would have to be some and I know there's the MBTA agreement but sometimes you can have vertical development keep the MBTA parking spaces
and do stuff above they're willing to be creative um but having a separate focus design discussion on that since it's your largest parcel may be worth it then
even to think about spring town meeting that really needs to be almost a separate process than trying to say, well, we could do this, we could do that. To be really clear on what you aspire to so that the zoning envelope is
big enough so it's can be implemented, but four units would short change that parcel. Well, the other piece is that four units would if if four units were built. Now, we have the whole problem with it being condos and whether
anything would actually ever happen, you know, but things have happened. Four units actually would would marketwise drive enormous units rather than smallcale development if we were to just
have four units per parcel. But it it seems to me also that in some future state if everything was consolidated there that larger parcel could be divided
and then you'd have 6,000 several 6,000. That's why doing a separate visioning sharette just focused on that on Harbor Point intent on Harbor Point parcel and maybe you maybe you added some adjacent parcels
but that almost is a separate discussion. You're operating without a really concrete vision. So to kind of like have a fine-tuned um zoning where you lack a vision
is challenging. I'm not sure we lack a vision on that. Well, you lack a spec I I don't hear a consensus on the specific vision for that harbor. We know what it does for that. You know, we see potential. You know, we we like
having this active. There's there's restaurants, there's the liquor store, there's the drugstore. I mean, they have a lot of key uh generators and attractors for that contribute to the vibrancy of downtown
Manchester. Why not just simply take your subject B and and and allow residential but only on the second or third upper floors and not on the first? Let's walk through the table first and then I'm going to take comments because I'm I'm I can see
people wanting to to get into the the So let's just understand what Mark has proposed and then we going to and and why. So, um, two districts A and B,
B being Harbor Point and Crosby's. Um, and the first is no single family detached dwelling in either district. As I said, we have I just looked uh the um
five. Yeah, the uh single family residential according to the the assessor is five of them. 18 union, 37 beach, 62 beach, 64 beach, and 66 beach. Um so those are the
single family residential units in the district today. That doesn't mean they'd have to convert. It means um just as a background, would you need to do something legally to grandfather them in so they're not
they are not nonconforming? Okay, so let's just walk through the what Mark has proposed here in front of us. Two family dwelling would not also not be allowed. That means you tear something down and you build up a two family in either uh conversion of a one family
into a two family in district A would be special permit by the planning board and uh district would not be B would not be allowed which is kind of irrelevant since right now there are no two families one families in that
district. I'd like to ask for clarification. My belief is that and I I had an unexpected happening. So in the existing language, I believe that it's conversion of an existing one family dwelling. So
there's not a notion of buildings as it is in um item four. And the reason for no in B actually for both of those is because there's nothing like there's no
uh one family drawings in that district. So it just makes it crystal clear. Yeah. Right now we can't word Smith it the current wording in the table is conversion of a one family loan. Oh it's just one family. Okay. Into a two family loan. So I think we're
trying to use the existing use table. Yeah. Whether they said existing certain agreement certainly agreement that wording could be improved with these table. Um
okay. Um conversion of an existing dwelling into a three family dwelling with no increase in gross floor area would be planning board in district A planning board
um special permit and in B is a no again kind of a moot point in B because there isn't that and then multif family dwelling with not to more than four units with conditions
described in section four is a no and a no because we're trying to have multif family with residential we're trying to have mixed use not multif family throughout um residential conservation cluster is a no that's makes sense um
community uh facilities use of land or structures for religious purposes would be a yes in both use of land or structures for educational purposes says a yes in both. Um Mark, can you keep reading these? I'm gonna pull it up so people can see.
They're not uh childc care center for school age children is yes in both. Um municipal uses including parks, playgrounds, senior centers, offices, fire, etc. Um
would be a yes and vote. charitable or philanthropic use, hospitals, nursing care facility and sanatorium would be no in the downtown district and it had been a special permit before in the downtown
district a uh but after thinking about it I think it should most of those are your small parcels along Beach Street and central it should be a no as well. it it
doesn't provide any um vibrancy or benefit to to like a commercial court area. Um community or private club is a planning board special permit in both the district. What is um those today? Um
is that that's the I mean going to to um it's currently I need to work across all districts. Um and yes allowed in the LCD but my uh would that include community center
because that's of course district downtown district B is where the Manchester community center. I mean, yeah, it it community club. You have to be a member to everybody.
So, you know, those those could be permitted uses even if it is a private club. you know, people coming and going, whether it's a private health club or uh even the yoga studio, would that fit in there? Um you know, so uh you know, that
brings people and some vibrancy uh you know to um to the area where wherever it might be located. So um so you know that that could be a yes and
actually in both both districts A and B here. Uh so cemeteries uh uh now in both public utility or public communication buildings not including service station
or outer storage of supplies is no in those districts. Uh agricultural uses would get the non-use of the agricultural horicultural horicultures permitted in both districts.
uh greenhouse nurseries for horiculture horiculture purposes. It's the planning board special permit in both districts. Um I think that's probably because that's how it is currently in the general
district. Um, make sure you know it's it's no in the general district today. No, it's Oh, yeah. It's yes in the Yes. So, um,
then the raising and keeping of livestock included horses or cows regulated by the board of health is a no in both. Um we get to commercial uses businesses and
professional offices. Bank of financial is yes and both. Offices of doctors or other members of a recognized profession is yes and both. Medical office building but not more than three doctors is yes and both. General retail uses is a yes
in both. Personal or general service establishment is yes and both. Restaurants a yes in both. Indoor recreational club or facility is a planning board special permit in
the A district, but yes in the B district and uh that was because those buildings are larger and have larger spaces for an indoor club. Um not sure why that one is
a special permit right now. Actually in the general district they are not permitted. So by allowing it in the downtown by special permit you're actually um loosening up
that regulation. Uh printing and publishing is a yes in both. Yacht storage, construction and service and related in uses is a no in both. Fish and shellfish landing storage handling.
The dot fish processing is a pling board uh special permit in both wind energy conservation systems are no and both uh wind monitoring and media arogical towers is a I mean is a no in both and
wind energy is a no and I've never said yes. Um, large scale ground mounted solar photoultics installation is a no invoke. Public parking a garage of automobiles
not incidental to another permitted use. The pling board special permit helicopter landing storage is a no. Marijuana businesses and treatment is a no in both. Belt entertainment is a no
in both. Laboratories, research, R&D and life manufacturing and assembly is no in both. Um so you accessory uses. So up to four borders in a single family
dwelling with common cooking and living facilities is yes in the downtown district but a downtown district A uh but not permitted because it's residential in B. Uh maintaining on any
lot not more than one commercial vehicle was a yes in district A but a no in district B. or maintaining of more than four automobiles when accessory through a
dwelling is the ZBA special permit. Um, which is what it is across the board in all the other districts. Um, and it's not permitted in the
district B because there are no dwellings proposed in district B. Tennis courts or other uh an accessory to a dwelling. Again, it's a ZBA special permit in A but not
permitted in B because it would be accessory to that seems to me to be if we were going to allow it, it would at all. It would make sense in the larger parcel. Yeah, except that this says accessory. Well, except if we're going to have
mixed use. Well, then we can adjust that later. But the way this is currently drafted, there's no dwelling. I don't know. It seems like So, I mean, if this downtown is not to have, right? So, if you wanted to do a tennis club in
the back, let's say the MBTA disappeared and you wanted to put tennis back there, it would be under probably permitted under the club characters. Yeah, because remember this is for like a you have a house and you want to put it in
your backyard. So, that So, why would we just not just say no on both of them? I did. No, no. Oh, for the downtown because they do allow Yeah. I mean, there's no place to really put it, right? So, that's Anyway,
okay. Um, what do people think about that one? Seems like no makes sense. I think it should be a no for and then the next one um is swimming pools. So, um, no in the A district either,
again, accessory to a dwelling only. Um, ADUs, can I just get consensus from the board about if we should change tennis courts and swimming pools in district downtown district A and B? Or it's not a change in B. Put them both at no.
Yes. Yes. Are we Everybody's agreed on that. You Yes. No, I'm good. We're changing those to no. Correct. Seems like a moot point, but let's let's just It's not why we're doing this to Yeah.
deal with room for swimming pools and tennis courts. The next two items are we're waiting for attorney general to come back on um our zoning proposals for ADUs in the
spring. So six and seven would be um might be changed. So well seems like seven got deleted in there but you haven't heard seven was supposed to be deleted maybe would be in there. So um the other thing that is in there
is custo occupations conducting dwelling by a person residing on the premises. Um so yes in the uh A district and because it's in a dwelling there are no dwellings in B so it's a no. Um the next
one is accessory uses or structure on the same lot with an instrument dental to a permitted main use on on the same premises including off street park. Yes. And both
sure what that means. Well, it could be a um board shed or a Okay. Uh then we get do family daycare uh large which is a CBA special permit
currently in all districts. I left it as such. I'm not sure whether it's something you would want in the A district, but um then family day care home or small is
yes in both districts. Um an adult social daycare was no in both districts. owned. Can I just clarify family daycare home is an
accessory use and small is defined by general laws chapter 15D section 1A. So um I don't know what that means but it means that there is some it's not just like a random number. There's some uh
we can figure out what that what that is. So, but if it's it's not a but it's a home. If it's in a home, then would be
changing to nose under the district, right? I think they have to be allowed. Yeah, I was going to look that up, but I think it's protected having requiring
if they're allowed in the LCD then. Yeah, because it kind of doesn't have the same thing. So, they had to be allowed. Okay. So, can I ask on adult social daycare? Why is that unknown? because we're
trying to um encourage uses or allow uses that add to vibrancy of the downtown. So, adult um social daycare, you know, they drop elderly people off for the day and then they pick them up
at the end of the day and it's it's um really doesn't add to the vibrancy of a downtown. And it's a use that could be located elsewhere in the general district of um so
in the general district of the district but not in the core of the district. Say that again. Adult daycare, adult social daycare would be a good use on the periphery of the district but not in the core of your
downtown. So, it makes sense to allow it in the general district. Um, you often have um sometimes it's uh transit that is
pick up in the morning and drop off. Yeah. You know, you have morning and u afternoon trips um predominantly um but you don't have coming and going and people who are patronizing
who are the participants generally are not uh often do not have the capacity to to be going by themselves patronizing downtown. So it it's a better use to
as I said on the edge. It is currently allowed in all districts by a ZBA special permit. So So it's not like we don't have any place for Yeah. No, I you should definitely have
it in within Manchester as an allow use. And then the last one is matters including the construction or alteration of any structure or use thereof or any and all part which is within the tide lands lying below mean high water. Um so
that is a plane board special permit in both districts. Okay, you'll get to Before we go on and leave this table, I do have a question. Um, I agree with most of it, but I have some questions
about number four. I'm sorry, not to research. Number four, which one? Number four, conversion of an existing dwelling in 03 family dwelling with no increase in gross flow area. Why would we not What's the thinking about it being
planning board as opposed to just a yes thing because we're trying to push them to have in that conversion how to make the first floor commercial. It would be allowed to do it under the
mixed use. So it sort of become, correct me if I'm wrong, but it would become a mixed use. Um, if it has, if it has a commercial, we would want them to add a commercial use. Basically, you're allowing single family
homes to add add another unit. Uh but you're not and or you're allowing single family homes to become two more residential units. Yeah. Or they could become a mixed use if they really want. Yeah.
But you have to go to the planning board for to make it a three family. I the the the thing that I know with this that strikes me is that you have to convert to a three family with no increase in floor area. Mhm. So the carrot that I have that I see
this trying to set up because it seems like everybody wants mixed use. That's what this is about and making mixed use. The carrot is is that if I go mixed use I can add to my structure. Okay. Thank you.
I'm not saying it's enough but carrot. We put a little carrot icon. Okay. Let's talk about the mixed use um somewhere where there needs to be addition to the definition that's mixed
use that so we have mixed use we have a definition in on the first page use boy. Yes, sorry. Okay. Mixed use is a
building which residential uses are combined with commercial or community facilities. Res four units in a building. A building as opposed to on a lot. Say on a lot.
Yep. Yes. Because if you had two buildings Yep. would be a mixed use without first floor residential. That means that dentist office upstairs, but you're living
underneath it. And we may not need that second sentence, right? Because in the table then we distinguish between mixed use with it doesn't hurt to to put clarity. Yeah. No, would wouldn't we rather have the
dentist office on the first floor right now? Yeah. So I don't know why we would say yes that if anything be okay. So now we're looking at the t. Let's just go let's just stick with the definition for a second.
A building in which residential uses are combined with commercial or community facilities. Rential residential uses may be up to four units per lot. X commercial or community facilities must occupy a portion of the first floor
along. Okay, that makes sense. And we've not said how much of a portion. That's later. That's later. That's a note, right? Okay. So then we have the mixed yeast table and we had to find all of our
districts saying um no everywhere except in the general with planning for special permit and even though we don't have any mixed
use uses but for some of those um limit LCD is no and downtown would be uh downtown A would be yes on without any first floor residential and no
proposed today in U B and then mixed used with first floor residential pending board special permit for downtown A and Mark's proposal is no because of the discussion about residential
considering for planning board approval for fee. Yeah, I would. Oh, for sure. And maybe even Yes. makes use without first floor res. If we're going to do it in A, we should do it in B.
Oh, I'm talking about number seven. Why would it not be? Yes. Across the district, the two districts and planning board approval for number eight. without Oh, I guess I have it backwards. I would
say it's it's mixed use without first floor residential in district B would be either yes or planning board and mixed use with first floor residential I think I would keep as a no in B
force B to have resident have commercial on the first floor. We don't currently have many residential and first board in the Crosby's Harbor Point. Keep it that way. And I would say planning board special permit since we don't have residential
there today. We're going to change it from a no. Number seven, I would have it be a special permit. We're going to go to forums and have conversations about this. So I think the question is what do we want to present to
uh and hear from the public on we're going to hear tonight later I would say either yes or planning board for seven I hear uh planning board
for both. Yes. Yeah. I I I would agree with Sue on eight and I would say yes uh for district B for seven because we really I mean you do increasing housing debt the
more you're more likely to get smaller housing year right smaller units we do need and it does increase the flow of people moving around in the downtown okay let's take them separately Um,
I'm going to ask let's, um, anybody want to change mixed use without first floor residential in downtown district A to anything other than a yes. That's by right. Okay, that's good.
So, let's look at downtown B mixed use with commercial on the first floor and no residential on the first floor. Should that be in next in downtown B? Should it be I'm hearing that we I'm hearing that we want to change it from no. Does anybody want to advocate for it
to be no besides Mark Peter? Um okay. So now the question is how many people want it to be allowed by right in B and then I'm going to ask how many want to be allowed by special
permit. This is mixed use without first floor residential in the Harbor Point Crosby area. And this is a draft that's going out to the public. This is not a you know. So um Okay. How many people want to have it be? Yes.
I'm I'm on the fence there. I'm both on the fence. It's not a choice. Okay. How many people How many people want to have it be a PL this draft to say planning board special permit for line seven downtown?
Peter, do I hear? I No. No. I I would because of something that you just said that this is a draft and we'll go to a forum and I think because we're it sounds like we're more or less split.
um have it have it at we're saying that let the forums help us make that decision. Okay. So we'll put it out as a planning the can down the road
put it as a planning board for this. Yesord putting as planning board special permit for the forum and hear what we have to say. Okay. Um, so, um, then we're going to go to the next one. Downtown A, mixed use with
residential on the first floor. Is a planning board special permit in downtown A? I don't think anybody's advocating to change that. Anybody? Everybody's in agreement with that. Okay. And then downtown B. Um,
uh, how about, uh, let's maybe go with the easy one. um planning board a special permit. How many people would like to see us go forward with that in in downtown B residential on the first floor mixed use?
Well, this is a change from no residential. Yeah, clearly I'm going to advocate for no because I want to see commercial on the first floor in that district. That's the point. Okay,
that's that's what was our original intent. So, let's keep it as a note. Is anybody gonna advocate for this is we're going to hear from people I'm sure in five seconds about that in the future. Thank you for bearing with us. Okay.
All right. Um, what is the next commercial uses that Conversion requires conversion. Isn't that the redundant with the first Oh, conversion first floor space to commercial space
to residential residential residential use on the first floor of building. Can you scroll up please? So, sorry. So is this these are two new um lines in our table mark?
Yeah, we had talked about adding this I believe last meeting. So students put this in here to residential or further discussion conversion of first floor commercial space to residential. Wouldn't that fall
under we need that residential use on the first floor of the building? Seems to me think it's going to be confusing. I think those are confusing. Yeah, I don't know that we need those. Agree. I think we're going to strike those
because I'm not sure they're helpful. Let's for the moment let's strike that. Then Mark, if you I think I think this was put in early um before we started making the
definition of mixed uses and restricting some of the straight up residential only type uses. So now now um I don't think that's necessary.
Okay. So we don't need that. Okay. And then um notes to the table at the end of note four at the end of the last sentence unless the building is a mixeduse building in the downtown district which is basically the carrot that Mark that Adam just described. Note
four is saying that you an existing dwelling cannot um be reconstructed to add more than three dwelling units and such alteration or reconstruction should not increase the floor area or volume except for shed dormers.
And it says then we would add the building is a mixed use building in a down town district and mix should probably be capitalized. That make sense? That's basically okay. And then note 16 which is um
is in the downtown district. So um and that should probably say downtown districts A and B. A commercial or community facility must occupy the portion of the first floor along the front of the building to a
depth of 25 ft. Where where did we come up with 25 feet? Is that a standard number? Storefronts are often 40 feet, 30 to 50 feet wide depending upon your lot. So that would give you um
typically around a 500 to plus um storefront and storefronts store retail space is small getting smaller. So that would enable small spaces as well as
larger spaces. So, um it was a minimum um so people could clearly increase um but we didn't want so small that it would it's it's not just for an ATM to be at the at
the at um I think room is about 25 ft if these are 4 foot fixtures. Yeah. That this is about 25 ft from this wall to that wall. So I took seaside one is 17 feet. So I added three feet to get to
20 and then there's a five foot bathroom. So if you have a half bath and then small office slashsto room that gets you to 25 ft. The other thing is I have the floor plans for the cafe going in and sitting central. the front
portion just where the seating is up to the the ordering bar with the is about 25 feet not including the kitchens and the bath. So that's a minimum. That seemed like a reasonable depth. Um that's entire space is much bigger. Um I
don't have a lot of floor plans because we never not a lot of that here. So um but that's how I came up. So, I'm just thinking about what used to be in some of the spaces on
School Street. Um, the one that's now the olive line, is that 25 ft? That I don't know. But or the travel agency. John, do you know what the depth at um
one school street? You think it is less than 20? It is less than question. So maybe we'll talk about trying to I don't I think it's should be a reasonable thing just because there are
a few smaller ones. I don't think we necessarily have to go with the the smallest one in town is 12 feet. I don't think we should do 12t. But um could you say at least as certain? Yeah, that's right. So they of course
can do a depth of at least. Say at least. Yeah. Um, do we know what Rockport did? So, Rockport just passed a very similar bylaw. Um, I talked to the chair of the planning board um the other day and he
said that it was uh enthusiastically uh supported um at town meeting. So, um they you know for the same reasons. I don't know what they did. It passed.
I know it passed. Yeah. But um Okay. Um Okay. So, we'll talk about a little bit further about that depth. Um dimensional requirements. Um look fine on the print out. They just I
don't know why they so minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet. Minimum frontage is 60 ft. The lot width is 50 feet. And here's where the um the benefit of this district comes I think to land owners is minimum front
setback and minimum side setbacks go to zero. Um so that means that instead of having to go through variance every single time they want to do something because they're compliant. Um the rear setback is 10 ft. draw.
So, um, in thinking about this a little bit more since I've put this together, um, I was thinking of separating A and B in this chart, I think. And the reason is is that yes, in A all the stores, the properties front along like central and backs front
in some cases residential properties. So, I had had it at zero and I thought then there should be a rear that's why it's in red 10 ft. But Harbor Point's a little different. And um so I thought
that maybe B should um should have 10 ft on um on uh the side as well as the rear because on the east side of Harbor Point behind row
stores, you have a row of residential uh houses there. So Um, so I was thinking in B I would have 10 ft on the rear and this side, but otherwise the same. Well, I'm just thinking given that it's currently
district A, it's currently 22,000, pantage of 150, minimum lot of 125, minimum set back 30, minimum side is 20, and rear is 40. So, we may want to go a little higher
than 10. So it's the side that's along the tapestry properties side tap street right I would say we want to keep that at 20 22 20 and 20
remember that would also apply to cross but 20 ft is the building right now the building's probably more right and 30 off the well it's got frontages but um
cuz it's on the corner but even those are set back in the on the summer street like 50 ft and the beach street's probably at least 30 and then the other side you have a row of parking and a drive aisle so that's
uh another 40t but what we're talking about is if it were rebuilt, right? If um not not what is there today. So, it was being rebuilt and it was 20 ft off the side um side lot
and particularly we're thinking about Harbor Point. You can also get a variance and that's from here to the wall. I don't think that's unreasonable. Okay. But but you do want your core area to feel walkable and having a consistent
street wall with viewer interruptions and every time and to have a side setting. That's an invitation for a driveway. Um and quite frankly more driveways mean more curb cuts, less parking spaces on
the street, and less walkability. But here we're talking about the Harbor Point and Crosby's. You know, Harbor Point is is kind of an irregular lot. So, in some ways it invites more of a a plan
development style. Um so so I um I think I would go with my earlier comment that it almost to me has a a separate you know kind of plan vision for
is there another type of mixed use that is a planned development that should be added to the table for B I don't know how you what that means but Uh yeah, I don't know how you define it
enough to but I think that's what we're saying is we don't really want we really want to have design input into it's yeah a larger
yeah I think because of its size and character as well location it almost lends itself to like a planned unit devel development style of zoning. Um, which h part of the struggle is it's a single lot, so you
want to avoid spot zoning, but you also want to have some flexibility. Uh, um, and you use zoning to implement a plan. So there's no plan for the future of that
parcel, but I think there's a lot of discussion of what people think could be possibilities, but it's also an example where you might want to collaborate with the owner. So, I think what this does is allow for some
development there, but I think in your larger thinking about a downtown master plan, you've got to really have more focus on that parcel since it's a it's a key parcel. So, then it also argues for the planning
board special permit for that mixed use um that so that we can guide have some discussion. Yeah, the discussion as opposed to just allowing it by right. Okay.
The other thing since we're creating another district, we can increase the minimum lot size. So that's not 6,000 square ft with Crosby's and where Harbor Point is right now or at least Harbor Point is selling for
22,000 22,000. Um, so it would lend itself to being chopped up into bigger parcels. Um, and uh um,
uh, Crosby's is well, it's one parcel is almost half acre and then it's portion. Yeah, it's on two parcels. Yeah, it's on two parcels. So, it's a it's a big piece as well. So doesn't
necessarily have to be a 6,000 square foot um district. So just but that's important that Crosby's today is two parcels. So in actuality
we could have two mixed use um there. Again, another reason to keep the planning board special permit because we think of Crosby's as one parcel, but it's not.
It's two parcels. Okay. Um, so would you recommend a particular lot size for not I mean I think it's just something for discussion, you know. Um, if you if
that was redeveloped, I mean, I I would u like I said, I wouldn't really want residential development and I would put allow all the commercial uses that you would want to see happen by right so
that um, you know, over time it would be redeveloped to if if ever into the different commercial use. So I don't know if the lot size
I mean the lot size is important if you want to do allow for residential because that's um you allow for enough residential uses it'll make it financially feasible to do
so. So looking um so in district A we're going to keep the side set back and the front setback as zeros. District B we're going to the
public Keep it at 6,60 and 50 ft as the width. What about setbacks? That's where we started. I'm going to propose front as 10, side
set back as I guess 10. What? 20 10 10 and we are set back as maybe let's put as 10 as well. Yeah, let's let's think a little bit more about those. But let's
set back isn't isn't as important for that district is as the side where it but all those houses are you look at the map, they're all up along Captain Street. So, uh,
it's only one house that actually except toward. So, and that would be the side. Okay. Did you say the minimum front sat back was? I didn't catch that for me. You said 10. 10
as a starting point. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. 10. 10 and 10 for starting. Okay. Um, and then lock coverage. Uh, you're proposing A and B be 60% by structures and 80% impervious.
We want B to be slightly less than 60%. Probably much more than 60% today. Much more. All parking. No, I'm talking about structures. Structures. I mean, it's probably 20% right now. Yeah, it's pretty low. It's very low right now. I would like to see
that that go down. I mean, what do you think? The general district right now by structure. The general district today is 40. Yeah. 40% by structures
and a is 15%. Why don't we look at some of the parcels and look at the actual numbers? That might give us a better sense. Yeah, I think those need to go down though or B anyway.
Okay, let's to look at some data on that one. Um, actually I did a Google Earth look when we come to working. I'll I'll I'll save my
Okay. Accessory structures. Did I miss something? Yes. Oops. Coverage on the imperous surface. It's basically what you're doing. It's at least 20% of the parcel needs to be impervious.
And given your proximity to water and sea level rise, that is not a big requirement. And it's kind of like an investment in the future in terms of resiliency. Um, you know, even if it's paved, you know, it then the use of imperous
pavement of pvious pavement or other permeability strategies of u materials that would allow for parking. Uh, is going to be really important because you you need per you need permeability in
your downtown. of resiliency. So we increase do we decrease that number? We don't have it now. I know but that's well we're saying on future developments it's got to be you got to use
no more than 80% can be impervious. So you need to have a strategy for 20% the other 20% to be permeable and that could include permeable pavement. It could include other strategies to add
permeability. So you're talking about turning the parking areas into nonasphol or pvious paver. Yeah. But that and that's when a zoning change when a new use is undertaken not in the
it's not talking about existing conditions that would look a lot better but I'm not sure how practical um you got to think about but the the success of the downtown area at
least around Crosby's is at least is largely tied to automobile accessibility for better or worse. Abs, I totally agree with you. But that's why different there are multiple
strategies for addressing making parking areas more permeable without necessarily reducing parking spaces. And you've got a result, you've got a water rising water challenge, you know,
facing you. I actually pulled off all the zoning all the um flood maps for this region which I can share. Um it turns out that this particular district is just on the edge of um the flooding is more up Tapen Street and Masanova
Park at least in the 2030 2015. So I can put them in the packet for next meeting. Okay. Accessory uses minimum distance from side and rear setbacks five feet. I think that's fine.
Um A is 10 and general is five. And we get to parking. The residential one to four units and the downtown districts should say district A and B. One space per unit. Um
currently it's one and a half, right? Yes. Um and then parking shall not be allowed between front of the building and the street and Add a new section 6.1.9.
Commercial use in the downtown district shall be exempt from parking requirements except for the following uses. Motor vehicle light service, repair body shop for motor vehicles and hotels. So, so to me that makes sense. Go ahead.
I was going to say I did not forgot to split this into A and B. Yeah. And I would leave that for A, but for B I would say that they need to comply. So currently
there's a whole table of all of these things of how many spaces you need for each use. I would say in B we leave the table because you know you've got retail and other
things and we already have I think that's the biggest reason to split into two districts is in the um district A not to require the parking and then I'm going to comment on that and then district B we should step our
table I think it may be sacrificing a lot of retail use if you do that. The parking already exists at Crosby's at Crosby's and at uh Harbor Point. I'm saying B district. Yeah. No, but at B Well, the Harbor
Point there are only probably I don't know 15 20 spaces for the public to use. The rest of them are all reserved. But if they wanted to make a m if they wanted to make a change, they wanted to
do mixed use with residential above and change out, you know, expand their retail, they would have to uh reduce the private spaces to or use the private spaces for the um residential piece. I'd like to I'd like to see some analysis.
That's why they don't have special. I guess my point is for residential for downtown district B, we should not delete the commercial parking. Well, maybe I would say unless a waiver is created by the planning board or something
and the just just to make it a little more flexible, how about have the parking in district B be by special per or be subject to site plan review or some Yeah. some so that we see what's going in what
the total use is or something that's we have a whole use table which may be obsolete actually we have never really spent time looking at it nor would I know how to look at it in terms of you know evaluating it it's just
prescriptive so maybe the parking in district B is with I don't know what do you think I think site plan approval and you know clearly your existing regulations provide
a framework um you know you don't really have ex my recollection is you don't really have much on shared use parking strategies right
which is often used in downtown. Um there's some communities that Plymouth is one uh that if a small parcel doesn't have enough parking to
have per their code, they allow payment in lie of a parking space that then goes to a fund that the town then uses to develop public parking spaces. uh not massive ones, but small ones that have been tucked in here and there. So,
it's been a way to provide parking. Well, that's works if you have a place to go by, which I think there's been so much has more space than you do, but you know, it's amazing how they've tucked in
some of their public parking spaces, so they're visible, but they need signs. they they're not um um so you know that goes back to looking at
the parking management plan which yeah that's another another whole thing right another task um I guess my feeling it right now for parking is always an issue right for voters received or real and um
so I think to delete parking for commercial uses in either district is going to be a challenge and certainly in B where we already have I mean you can forget the hot summer day when you're trying to go to the beach but other than that if you want to go to
one of the retail establishments at har space and that we should have some sort of reference the parking table and ask and some sort of planning board review based on the the application so that to To your point, if we have something that's a morning use and an evening use,
they could potentially share spaces. That makes sense. But if they're all 9 to5 uses or whatever, then because parking, we want this to pass. We take out all parking for commercial uses.
This is all for nothing. Well, we also want to work. So if it doesn't if we pass something that right doesn't help the downtown we've done nothing. That's true. But we have to pass it.
Parking is a big thing. Um we say that parking has to be behind the building and that it really only applies to district downtown district A, not downtown district B. You might want to
allow it on the side of buildings, right? But you don't want We're saying it's not in front. Yeah. In front, but that doesn't mean it the sides precluded. But in B,
at least currently, it's in front everywhere. And and realistically, if you're gonna you wouldn't flip the I mean, that'd be very expensive to flip that.
So, um, have we made a provision for district B to have parking be not necessarily prohibited being in front? Um, yeah, I can I can adjust. Yeah. So,
I mean, do people agree with me? No, I think it should be behind the buildings in all cases. Just because Crosby's is there, they're going to be there forever. I agree with you at Crosby's, but what about Harbor Point?
Well, it's not in front of the building now anyway. That's true. The frontage is on. Mhm. But if they were to put a subdivision road in there, divide off a bunch of 6,000 square foot, put the parking in back
redesign. It's okay. I don't leave it for now and hear what people say. All right. Are you suggesting to take out the new section 6.1.9
about parking? No, no, no. I'll adjust it to be A and B. I'm suggest and so one other thing in your zoning I'm just wait a second. I'm still not clear. So
because there was a whole discussion about parking for commercial uses and this says commercial uses are exempt. Are we going to keep them exempt? I I'll separate in district A district A and district B will be still
require it. So also um you do have a special permit provision where the planning board or the special permit granting authority if it's not the planning board may grant a special permit to wave any parking or loading
requirement. One such waiver shall result in better design and cause no detriment to the neighborhood. So if um someone's redeveloping a portion of Harbor Point or Crosby property gets
redeveloped and their few space short um because you're now requiring that to the meet the requirements. You can with a special permit if it's if it really you feel it really is going to work with a
few less spaces, you can issue a special permit for that. And that's in your current zone. Where is that? Page uh 6.1.8
page 39. Okay, got it. Yep. see it. Okay. The other just to complicate things, well, we can talk about this later, but the reduction of um parking
from one and a half to one space per residential unit. was we talked about having that be a separate article to um so we can talk about that strategically.
I feel it's it's part of the it's kind of all part of this. Yeah. So I that's why it was a separate article before but I kind of folded it in for a further discussion. So, okay.
Um, and then a new section 8.5. So, I thought we should have a section where we there are additional requirements we want for in um for the downtown districts. This
is section where we we add some of these additional requirements. So, um, one is I put a purpose for our downtown districts and then I added the, uh, design review reference that we had talked about before. Um,
and, um, so we keep talking about housing. So, if we want to add or allow housing with some extra requirements, we can put them in here. we if there are other things we want to
put in. So this uh in this section 8.5 for the downtown we can we can build on that. So you know might be a use that's that you allow or you allow by special permit but you want to outline some extra
things. So you're proposing that we use the design guidelines for A and B object to it and con concept I think it's a bureaucrat
will he won't feel it's bureaucratic and well I think you're removing other bureaucratic issu items issues by making most of the lots now conforming. So they no longer have to go to the zoning board
step and if someone is redeveloping a site um to for the planning board to concurrently look at the building design at the same time with the assistance of some design professionals uh at the same time they're doing site
plan review makes sense and and given that half the district is in a historic district and they're going to look at kind of at the same time. Um would it make sense to say historic
review or design the community housing design guidelines because otherwise you you could have conflicts between the two and historic is it seems like right you don't need to give them two sets of design guidelines.
Yeah. And that would pick up like the uh the end of each street in Harbor Point. Okay. I think we start with that and see what people think of that. Um I was gonna any other discussion on
that topic? I wanted to ask a quick question just for efficiency. Is there going to be a public input part of this or is that come later? No, both. I'm gonna Yep. Tonight I'm gonna We're just about to get to that. We're just I know you want
I'm glad it's later because you talked about having forums. Yeah, we will have forums as well, but let let me just get to one other issue that at least I want to get to on and that is I looked at Google Earth and I encouraged I'm not going to pull it up right now, but um encourage everybody to
do that. um and maybe we can have it for the next meeting is that there are a number of lots that actually are greater than 6,000 square ft that um I guess it goes to the lot coverage and that currently have parking behind.
So for example, I think Kalas has some parking behind and um and so if we in that district don't require parking for a any of that commercial space,
maybe you know for car. we effect effectively could um push those cars that are currently parked behind there onto this onto the street where we you know are perceived
to have um so I think that goes to lot coverage is the way we think is the way we look at that. So I think to your point, let's look at the lot current lot coverage. The other thing is uh loading
and loading dock space probably should um so if you are a restaurant or a I don't know right now I think a lot of the trucks stop on the street and just load in the front door. Um and maybe the businesses are small enough that that's fine but what do you
advise on that? I mean, you pro Crosby's is probably one that they have a loading dot. I believe Ace Hardware, the hardware store might have a loading area. Yes, they do. Um,
most of your other stores I don't think have loading areas from what I can walking around. Um and and mo you know most are not large inventory items so they're probably more
UPS type delivery of their stock. So rest you know restaurants u do get you know daily or weekly deliveries. I mean
the I mean that you know it it goes back to managing curb space. Um, restaurant deliveries in my experience usually are daytime, you know, you know, between 7:00 a.m. and
usually 300 p.m. Um, oftentimes really 10 to 3 is their primary delivery hours. Early too, so you don't think it given the size of our space is probably not a big issue.
Well, I think maybe if it meets a once a a store meets a certain size threshold, you're probably going to need to look at servicing requirements more often. Um, yeah. Again, for for kind of what you're
looking for for smallcale commercial or mixed use development really along main uh beach and central street, you're really not going to be able to provide um any sort of loading. The current way
of doing business will continue. Um if Crosby's ever got redeveloped and they come in with a site plan for the planning board to review you and it was included some large scale development,
you would look at well how are there even if it was residential above and it was all commercial in the first floor, you would probably it' be a big commercial space. you would look at how how are they going to get deliveries there and where are they going to park
and what types trucks are going to come in. Uh but you know this is kind of the nature of compact smallcale downtowns is yeah that truck park double parks for 15 minutes while they drop stuff off.
Usually they are, you know, will um adjust their schedules. They're not here on the busy times, particularly, you know, weekend beach days and that kind of stuff. Um, self select. That's the question. Has it you you guys
patronize downtown Manchester all the time. Is double parking of trucks a problem right now? Sometimes. mostly not. It's part of the vitality of the business. A problem that
Yeah. causes a problem. Yeah. Okay. So, also perhaps there's self- selection. If you don't have a loading dock, you might not pick bring your loading dock requiring business to downtown. Okay. So, let's not worry
about that. Okay. Let's take public comments. John, you've been I haven't had beaten suspicious. Um, thanks. I think that the comments really like an hour ago, an hour and a
half about kind of needing a master plan and and a vision. I think we really suffer from not having we don't really know what Beach Street wants to do at the moment. We're like trying to plug holes
in a dam, right? idea and I don't feel like we have a real um understanding of what downtown. That's that's my opinion. Um and I'm, as you guys are probably not surprised to know, I'm really uh not in
support at all of any way that we would limit any residential units in this town. We are already too restrictive because we only allow four units in an existing building which is anemic, right?
Um but then to take a zone an area a lot of piece property directly next to the MBTA largest developable lot that we have in our town and say, "Hey, we're not going to allow any residential there ever.
I think is as okay. Um it is, you know, I think we'd all agree and I think you guys have said so that we we want mixed use. We want a vibrant downtown. Totally agree with you, right?
We want to protect the retail, but not at the cost of having residential as well. Otherwise, what's the point, right? We need people to live downtown. We need to increase the density. So the four units and existing and all that stuff
and we have to find a way to allow more than that. So when when you said that allowing four units and a lot like that is stupid. It is. The problem isn't the lot problem isn't the it's the problem is the the limit that we have set in our
town for only four units. At some point that's got to change. Um I think I got many many things to say. I'm trying to remember them all and you can always email us too. We do read um
okay so one a strategy I have seen in many towns which seems much simpler than what we're trying to do here. Instead of creating this mixed use in the table, all that stuff, what several towns have done is simply under residential use in
the districts where it might be allowed where you want to encourage mixed use, put a little note next to the planning board or the yes and it says that residential is allowed with firstf flooror retail. Period.
Why can't we do that? If you want to build a project and have four units in it in this district, you must have retail on the first floor or you don't play the game, right? In my opinion, if you wanted to
have 12 units in a plot that that was possible and you could park it, you should be allowed to do that, too. In fact, if you could get 40 units at Beach Street with first floor retail, only with first floor retail and you can park
it, you should be allowed to do that, too. When you say you can park it, you mean you can meaning you can uh you can create the amount of required parking in order to do that. Well, what I think John means is that the rather than have a four unit cap,
cap is sort of determined by the number of parking units that you can buy. A lot is often your most difficult thing to fit on a parcel. So, parking requirements determine everything, right? Yes,
they do, but not necessarily. Look at the building that Ed Flamy had just renovated in the corner school and central. Everybody loves it. There are 11 residential units in there and a little store and everybody is writing about on, you
know, on social media about what a fantastic thing that is. Yes, it's fantastic because people love what happened architecturally. It's a beautiful building and it's got a lot of housing for people who need it and it's got it storefront. So, what's wrong with that? So, why are we worried about
having that, you know, on the other end of town and why couldn't we have that all through the downtown? There isn't any I suppos that building doesn't have any parking. I don't know how they've managed little parking and they manage with it and those apartments I'm sure will be
popular. So I don't see why we couldn't have that all over town. Right now it seems that the push generally is to have mixed use with the residential feature on the upper floors providing the vitality
necessary to for the for the businesses to flourish downtown. They're doing it in all the towns that are experiencing successful revitalization. And that a big another big thing that's happening is apartments are now functioning as offices. because so many people are now
working home. So obviously the office market is in a downturn because people are working from home. So the residences downtown, you know, operate is more just more than just residences. So you are getting more vitality. So it's something that's important for us to think about
and maybe take a cue for what's happening where we see in other towns where real revitalization is taking place. I noticed that Rand Tool Street is often referred to on Manchester social media derisively.
Manchester looks down on Ranchual Street as being something that is somehow a highly undesirable thing that happened. But actually in Beverly, they took a really a not very attractive
area and they have revitalized it now because they brought all those apartments with young people who brought their money and their lifestyles and now all the restaurants are there and Ran Tool Street has become really a a lively place where you see lots of young
families strolling and you never saw that before. So why do we look at that derisively? I there's some snobbery in Manchester that you know looks down on that as being really just too proletariat for Manchester or something like that. During during the rea process
during meeting here um I said something which I think is still true. Uh we look like the town that doesn't like housing that doesn't want housing. And at that time I said I it was 3A which I thought was a great opportunity to try and
encourage it and I know we took a route very carefully to to get it passed but it didn't do what it was intended to do. Well it may not do what it was intended to do which is to generate housing. Right. I still think with the thing that
you guys have drafted today we look like the town that doesn't want housing. Well, we are the town that doesn't because I I listened to those meetings and the 3A committee stayed involved that that was their purpose is to create those districts in a way that
discouraged us. No, that's not correct. Well, Chris, what we what we decided was we wanted to get through I heard Gar say that. Okay. So, let's we're not talking tonight about the 3A. So, let's um let's get your input on the downtown in front
of us. Um, could we uh could we please get more people from the public as well to weigh in if possible? Thank you. We will. Thank you. Um, just ra I don't see your hand raised, but um, uh, Adam. Well, I a number of points that I think
you can cover, you know, in forums and, you know, meeting, but the this proposal still has the defect that I mentioned last time, which I think is really, really important because it's the unintended consequence here. And to go back and to make it clear, and Erica wrote about it in the cricket last week,
and I don't think she got it quite exactly right, and it's actually I I sometimes it's even worse than what I described at the the forum meeting last Monday. If you have a residential use, this new proposal that you have in I think it makes it a pre-existing
non-conforming use and our bylaw is so if you have a residential property downtown and you change the first floor to commercial, you want to start a business, you're going to go for it, you put that business in on the first floor, doesn't work out so well or maybe it
lasts five years, whatever. this new proposal, even when we if you change it to retail for one day under our bylaw, you can't go back to residential without maybe a special permit, depending upon how it comes up. Nobody's going to want to do that. So, you are
telling homeowners like myself. You you don't dare go retail because if you do, you're going to lose your residential rights forever. So, you are going to have this unintended consequence of people that might have wanted to try a business. You've got, you know, Four Beaches, one, you had Zachs. It's those
businesses are going to not happen anymore and those businesses have been the lifeblood I think of Manchester at least when I've been here to see these small little shops and that are in these there only two there only five businesses five properties in the this downtown that are classified as single
family by the assessor but you still have some that are like I mean mine is classified as multi it's not multi it's all rented out to one resident so that's six and that's a he doesn't have a lot of properties to work with. They take all those properties out of the picture and have them say, "We're
not going to go retail because we feel like we're going to lose our rights." That's you're going to lose stores. Um, um, okay. Uh, online, are there any hands up? Uh, Sandy Rogers. I assume that's Sandy
Rogers. Sandy R, go ahead. Hi. Yeah. Um, I appreciate the idea of building out um the downtown when you're
evaluating sort of a plan of what you might consider in the district um and density. I think one of the issues to consider is how much
open space there is and and sort of creating walking within the space not just on the street front um to create the vitality.
So I if you think about Harbor Point and places like that, if they split the lot, if they build up and build more density, um I think that's the one of the major
concerns in in town. Um I heard some talk about Ranul. It's like we don't want to close in the space. We don't want to build such density that we're losing
the sort of the the feel of the town and you want to promote people walking around as well as just going into stores into restaurants. You want people to linger. You want sort of thinking about
how are you going to work a walking pattern that's not just by the street? Like we have the parking spaces behind town hall and we've got this little alleyway walk and like we
should be really thinking about how do we create patterns of movement. just something to think about as you work through this. Thanks. Thank you, Sandy. Um, I think that's a good point, but I'm not sure it's a
zoning. It's hard to zone that issue, but I think that the proposal we have to look at our general district in its entirety can think about that issue. Um, anybody else? Well, I think I think
um you want people in the community to feel comfortable walking downtown and being downtown, not just going to a spot and leaving. And I think that is important. And I think
minimizing the curb cuts, minimizing the parking requirements that I'm hearing is definitely important. And while I it's it's sort of a double-edged sword. The more residential you add, the
more parking we're going to have to figure out where that's going to go. Um, and how far away from those spots are residents going to have to walk and try
to find parking or the workers going to have to try to find parking? And so I think I heard someone say we we we really need to think planning not just zoning um around all that because then
you understand what limitations building into the zoning. So anyway, thank you. Thank you for all the work you're doing. Okay. Thank you. I don't see anybody else um with their hand raised on um I I have a I have a comment. I'm
calling in Lorraine Ayavani, 28 Pine Street. Okay. Thank you, Lorraine. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your work. Um I just want to remind everyone, most of whom uh most of you uh a lot of you sat on the 3A um task force. So, we're
involved and the discussion on Harbor Point. uh a reminder there that um there is an amendment to the deed which I did send to all of you at one point uh which uh restricts uh that particular building
as of right now to all commercial. So that goes directly to um you know some of the discussion that you've you know you've had tonight. So that's one point. Um uh one of the things that during 3A
um was very important to me was the preservation of commercial and this is what you're all about tonight. I understand that there are developers in town and a number of other folks who would like to see a lot more housing and
uh there's a a need for it and there's a place for um you know discussion of this but tonight the emphasis should be on commercial and preservation of commercial and that's what I thought I would would be hearing but u what I'm
hearing mostly is um you know housing establishment of housing. I think that's not to say we shouldn't have re u mixed use. We should, but let's concentrate on um basically uh protection of um our
commercial zone. Um and that's uh what I want to hear and I'm not hearing that tonight unfortunately. So that's just my opinion and um I hope you appreciate that. The other thing um I do want to bring up is uh on adult daycare. I am a
big proponent of trying to take care of seniors in this town and I am a little offended basically by what I heard. Um we have a senior center that we're investing in and that many of us are
going to contribute to. And quite frankly, there is uh without a doubt an ability there to have, you know, senior um uh I want to call it adult care daycare. And uh we need to look at that.
Um not just poo poo it because it doesn't fit a narrative. Um we need we have certain needs in this town. It's not all about our developers and the rents and things of that nature. We have needs in this town. One of them is for
seniors and adult daycare is a doable thing at our prospective senior um facility that uh we're going to have. So I want to make sure that I get that point in um as soon as possible and
before you finalize whatever it is that you're going to present at the at the zoning. Um the other thing is during 3A we uh retained we did a reversal on the number the parking one one space um per
uh unit to back to 1.5. So I guess um I don't quite understand what we're doing here with parking but one of the things that we need to be very cognizant about is the fact that we cannot force more um
cars more vehicles on the streets. So, whatever it takes to keep the vehicles off the streets, um I'm I'm in favor of uh because I live on Pine and it's clear to me um that we need parking for
contractors, caretakers, um delivery vehicles, um people in downtown. Now, you're talking about Z, you know, unloading for different types of uh businesses and things of that nature. So, um, what we need to do is make sure we pay attention to the
underlying zoning 1.5. I don't understand what this business is about, um, you know, bringing it down to one again. So, I thought we were through this add infin item with 3A and yet we are resurfacing a lot of these things.
So, what that's what I have to add uh, tonight. Um, I don't want to write another email. Uh, I do want to one last point. I do want to uh remind everyone that I did write an email um it's dated
8:22 and I wrote it to everyone and it was a reaction to um population and growth in this town and I think that whatever we do whatever we do we need to just kind of throw an umbrella over it
and say okay what happens if SLV what happens if be the damn 3A what happens if So, um, you know, let's kind of think of that as well. I know that people want to take every space that we have and make it residential, but at the same
time, we have to be able to traverse the streets. And also, there's u public safety to consider. I I know I sound like a broken record, but I'm going to get my points in. So, um, I'd appreciate it if uh and I know that uh Gail shared this with with everyone. Perhaps not
with Miss McCabe. I'm not sure, but it's an August 22nd email. I would like you to revisit it and take a look at it, and I'd like a response from uh Mr. Resnik to it as well. Um, and that's what I have to say tonight. Thank you. I
appreciate it. I know that um we just we cannot always respond to, you know, that you you uh we it's a hard I know Marf has uh seen your email. We've seen your email but um
uh there were a lot of question a lot of demands in that email and I think when you we're not always able to to respond to uh um hypothetical um analyses that the the planner has to take direction
from the town administrator not from um not even Russ. So, um, thank one one thing to point out to Lorraine is that the the area where the senior center is and the, uh, community building from the church that's right
behind it. Um, and the Legion Hall, those are are not um, in the downtown district. They are in the general remaining in the general district. So, that option for um, senior daycare and any of those properties would still be
there. Okay, great. Okay. Well, I I do I Thank you. I do appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um I think we've heard Anybody else have anything that we haven't heard yet? Um uh go ahead, John.
One more thing. Yeah. Um I think property behind town hall, this parking lot, the masons, the um Legion, and also the sewage treatment area. That sewage treatment plant's not going
to be there forever. At some point in the in the future of the town, that's going to move. And this whole area back here with its proximity to the center of town, not just to this center of town, but also to
Crosby's and the train. I think that spot is a really interesting opportunity for the town. And I would uh suggest that we try and incentivize that somehow and make the future of it more rather
than less um and include some possible uses. Okay. Thank you. Um what I want to do now is jump um to talk is there any other policy
um things around the downtown uh effort that we've been talking about the one I will take the chair's prerogative but if anybody has anything else they want to add a question on the height because I know it's not we don't call it
out I'm just wondering what what our thoughts are about that because that's defined under general district two and a half stories. Right. So the proposal now is to keep that no change. Correct. Okay. One quick thing on height. Um, if you
guys are looking to create this vibrant mixed use, by the way, don't worry, I'm not suggesting another story, but you know, one of the things, you know, as a as a retail guy that is super important to create spaces that people want to come to and hang out at, they have to be
nice. and giving a few feet of height as part of this process as in the mixeduse category to allow for a little bit higher ceiling I think to develop some of these rental spaces without you know going crazy and changing the landscape
of downtown I think would be a good idea like maybe three or four feet um okay so height in the commercial space interesting so for that reason know that comment some urban designers and I know the city
of Boston is now on their commercial area requiring with mixed use buildings the first floor be 14 ft from floor to ceiling which well because retail you usually want
higher ceilings restaurants you because you're also then doing your hback and with low So then on other floors it's either 10t or 12t. So you know then for like a
you know threestory building you're at you know 24 + 14 38 40 ft. Um okay and sometimes people think that's four stories but really isn't. So, and part
of it is we're needing more and more room these days for whether you're putting heat pumps in, whether or not you're putting um electronics and technology and HVAC systems that we
didn't have before. So, so one of one of the again sort of that carrot is if we could allow an an additional uh x feet in the commercial floor and a height
have to be overall too because you can't Yeah. No, it have to be that allow shorter spaces on their first floor. They look squatty. data and it doesn't it doesn't create that.
Okay, that's a good thought. Thank you. Um I'm gonna just at least say in terms of wrapping up, maybe we each take a chance. I'll just take one one moment for I'll start. And that is this is a balance. We want I mean I can appreciate
the need for vision, the need for the the opinions that say we should be building out more residential. Um, but I've um I've been around a while and unfortunately Manchester has we need
twothirds of the voters at town to pass a zoning change and um change is hard for some of us and I you know meaning as members of the community
And um I think we have to put something forward that we think will pass. That's you know because I think this issue is really important and it may be that we're going to do this incrementally with some of the um more far re more
forward thinking changes that um are things that are right. I don't know if the right is the wrong word um desired, but I think we're that this is, you know, we just heard
somebody say parking is, you know, essential or um lot coverage, which is a way of saying open space, right? or um you know uh so I think we have to be pragmatic in the zoning not not uh
cowardly because I think that this is actually not cowardly I think um so that's what it's a balance and we won't know until we go to town meeting where we're if we've struck the right balance but um I do believe it is a balance I
think that um there are differing opinions about those core issues around density and parking and character and I think the comment about randol is about scale
and um design guidelines I think um that's the objection it's a aesthetic um not with and without knowing or even thinking about the connection between the residential and the um economic
development potential. So, um I'm not saying you're wrong. You know, this the idea of more residential is wrong in any way, but I think um we have I feel really strongly that we need to get this
mixed use in our zoning passed. So that's where but I think we have some work still work to do and hear from the public to see where the public the the people who come to the forums public. So um anybody else want to say anything
to echo or disagree? Not disagree. Um but I do think it's important for people like Lorraine to understand that zoning is not an economic development. Right. Absolutely. But it but it has to
at least allow an economic development plan. And I think it's really important for people to understand that supporting retail space does not just mean not allowing residential development
because it's the residential development that's going to support retail space. And the reason the businesses are struggling is because we've got a much older population that's not buying as much as younger people within restaurants and grocery stores and
everywhere else. And we don't get them here. No matter what we do in we're going to lose the retail space. So I think this is part of the strategy that we have to sell. Anybody else want to say Sandy? Um, I
would say I mean I'm not quite sure exactly the dynamic of the conversation where housing and commercial seem to be at odds, but it seems to me the whole idea of mixed use is that they can
proceed together and are f in fact necessary partners in success. I mean, nobody's saying that's certain. I mean, I don't think anybody on the board is saying, "Oh, just commercial. You got to have residential." Yeah. We just made that change tonight.
Yeah. Exactly. So, um, so there's that. And then, um, I wanted to add to your response to Russy because the comment we got often at the MBTA zoning was about Tool Street. Just the scale of Tool
Street. Well, no, it it's it's more than just scale. It's partly scale. Um, but it's also what what I hear people saying when they talk about what they like about the town is they like the texture of the town, meaning the variety. And
one of the things that's happened with Grand Tool Street, while it's wonderful, I think it's pretty great, but doesn't belong here. Um, is that it's all very new and very kind of the same. Um, and so that's I think that's what people are looking for somehow to get new things to
happen, but to keep it at scale and with some texture. I agree it has to be done right architecturally and that's probably the most important thing. Yeah, all my only point is obviously
our daily concern downtown with my family and running our businesses is the vitality of the town and long-term we are convinced without question that the commercial area is going to do better and better. We have no plans for we do
not believe that a conversion of you know the downtown area residential in the first floor is in the cards. I just don't think I think the way that the town is a wonderful town. It will support its businesses and there's plenty of room for growth and you know
the economic vitality. So but it would be I think better to have some more housing downtown. So they'd be more lively because if it's done architecturally well, any other boards uh comments from any of the board members? And
Yep, I've got something if I can. Thanks. Um just a couple of uh reacting to a couple of comments that were made tonight that um I want to make sure the board keeps in mind as we go through this process. There was a
comment that um we don't really have a master plan that's guiding this conversation and I just want to remind us that we we do actually it's it's at the end of its livelihood but we do have one um that was quite is quite thorough
too and contains a lot of the findings that we've been discussing for the past several months and I just want to um remind us that that is there and we should use that as a resource. The other is that um
John mentioned simplicity in these bylaws and um I can't emphasize that enough. I think we're addressing a a sizable section of our zoning bylaws
through this process. And I think if we can just keep in mind um the opportunity to simplify when possible, I think that will go a long way in helping us get buy in from the town, allowing all towns
people to understand. Um because frankly, prior to be on the planning board, when I read some of these zoning bylaws, I couldn't really understand them, which led to some of my misunderstanding of them. So I just would would like us to keep that in mind as well. Um, otherwise I think it's
really important that we emphasize through these conversations that this is a process. We're at the beginning stage of this process and that the town will be actively involved and invited to participate in that process to bring us to a place where hopefully we can find
here's that word Chris consensus. Okay, great. Um, thank you everybody. Let's um jump in our agenda. Uh while we still have Kathy here, thank you everybody. I want to um just talk a little bit about how we're going to
communicate uh this um I threw I put together and I'm sorry I didn't put it in the packet. Um I thing go on this weekend that I didn't plan on. Um and um so I'll just sort of share this
with you. Um, so I think it doesn't look too different than what I think we've already talked about, but um maybe dates I have here a little bit too ambitious, but nonetheless um we need to get a few
things um done on our website that um at least introduce to people what we're trying to do um uh where we are. Kathy had a slide deck previously put the draft zoning put the map of the post district and then some frequently asked
questions. I started some at the bottom of this document. I will share this um and then form number one I suggested that we do that at the mid to end of October um with a starting do the first one with
a sitewalk because I think that's really helpful. People need to know where we are and then return here to a discussion. Um sort of an intro to sitewalk and then um uh a second one where we start inside and then have a
sitewalk afterwards um to sort of two formats um maybe um and then a third forum and a fourth forum. schedule those um and then start to present to some community groups. Um select board and
then a public hearing. Um develop a walking video and I'd like people to think about maybe help volunteering to to help with that. Tiffany can help us. We need Tiffany. Yes, we need Tiffany on all these things. Um, I'm thinking if we can get a
walking video done um by the this during the month of October. Um, it's it's I was going to say it was one district, it's two districts. Um, and we're targeting April um as the town meeting date, which means our public hearing has
to be around about February 15th or so. Um, so I'll send that to you. I started a list of frequently asked questions. Um we'll create a a document for people to put some in and um uh and so I guess I'd
like I know um these are some of the those that I came up with. I think um parking is probably okay. What is mixed use? Um maybe we can all think about these, send um them to Mark uh who can start to draft some of these. And if
people are interested in helping with any of these, I would love to hear from you. I know Mark uh Brian's gonna have a big event having fun. Maybe you can help before that um with at least the questions and how you think we should
frame this up. Um, but we probably should have a working group on this communications plan fairly soon. That seems to have worked well before to have a small group. Does that make sense? So, I just had Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Finish. No, wait. I'm done.
Okay. So, Sarah had shared this with me. Um, and I've been thinking about a lot over the past weekend. And one of the big things that I think worked really
well with the MBTA zoning task force is that um everybody had had a piece of it. Um and so I think and these are each
huge pieces. I mean the video I mean that just took it took a long time. It took many takes. It was they were really difficult to do and it's a really good idea and we should definitely do it. But
we need to split up the work. Um and the same thing with the frequently asked questions if we could split up maybe topics. Um and just so that everyone's not thinking about all the same things.
Um this is just my takeaway from that process. Um, and with and I I think we should get Tiffany involved because she's the one that has to get everything on the town part of
the website and the communication, you know, in the tide and the Instagram and all of that. Um, and it's great that we have it on the planning board website, but piece of the website, but if it's not more, and you know, the sooner I
think the better. Um, so the other thought I had in splitting up the work is that the even though we have two areas now, they comprise a lot of properties. And one way to split up
the work is that we could concent zone in on, you know, a group of properties and we could each become familiar with those properties and when it's time to do the video, who's ever walking around for that that particular one, they
they'll get all that data. But knowing what the zoning is there now and you know what what use is in that building if it's um I think that will help a lot if we can
split up content by region it just um rather than everybody trying to learn every single piece of property in the areas that we're trying to um to cover. because when we get to the
forums, there's no way that everybody can have all that body of knowledge and be responding to the questions. Um, so I I just, as I said, I've been thinking about it a lot and there's just there's a way we can think to split up the work.
Um, whether it's concentrating on areas or properties or some do the videos and others don't. I mean, whatever it is, um, the sooner we can sort of portion it out, I think the more successful we'll be when we start the forums.
So, when you say a body of knowledge, are you talking about uh potential reuses of all these properties? Well, someone's going to ask, well, how's that property used now? Okay. and how high are the ceilings, you know, or
or you know, what's the zoning allow for that now? And so what are you doing with this? How's I mean, you have the questions. So, we do we do have a pretty good data sort. Yes, we do have a pretty good data sort and
there are actually only 40 properties that are not municipally owned or federally owned in two districts. Right. Right. Right. Right. So, it's not so many properties and there's but 40 is still 40.
Yeah, 40 is still 40. Um maybe by neighborhood. I mean, I don't know. I'm trying to remember how we did it before. Um so, We did. Yeah, that's true. So, they're two districts. So, one observation, and we did this
with the MBTA where we didn't drill down to the individual properties, but we did when we had to do the videos because we walked around the districts and but it wasn't quite drilling down to each individual property and what can happen
on each property to such a great degree. And I think we got to be careful about doing that here as well. There someone may not like what can happen on this property. They'd like to hear general concept.
Hearing that from the people who are property owners or who work with business owners here um and they like most of what we're doing, but they're still, you know, there's certain things that if they had to vote for it, they still might not. So
I I just be careful about drilling down too much. I mean we have to with the the couple big arcs that at least try and figure that out. Um but um you know I think people people Yeah.
But I do think Sue makes her larger point is to share the work among all of us. And one um thing that happened on the sidewalk while it was really great that we did is everybody gets strung out and there's conversations, you know, there's 10 different
conversations going on. Some of them have nothing to do with the downtown district. So, one way to do it is to take um uh the seven of us and have seven tours. Um so that we're doing it
in small groups with a script. Um and that we are all saying more or less the same thing, but we're all hearing we're able to then hear the five people that come with or maybe do pairs. So we do um three tours might make more
sense. Then we have we're hearing pa pairs. We're all basically making the same points, but we have a lot more opportunity for that one-on-one conversation, and we don't have a um a string of people that goes from school
street to, you know, the bookstore strung out along the road. Um so I think you may Tiffany regularly did things like Fed, so there was always a beginning. you said something I think I
couldn't see it very well but um about having a beginning or an end you know so you gather people together so everybody kind of processes what they've seen and Tiffany often had food which was a desirable draw either at the beginning
or the end and I think that more even than having three different tours you know combination may that might do the job. And I don't know if you know saw in your packet, but Richard uh Smith did a map
for us. I'll show it real quick on um what the existing uses are, but um sort of to Sue's point um about um you know, what's there today and there's a whole big there's a database. Yeah, there's a database. So, he's colorcoded a little bit, you know, lots
of what's there today. Um, and so that people uh, you know, that's a good might be a good resource that could go. It's great. Yeah, it's we just need to put in the street names for some of the streets, but um, it's a good start. He's he
for us. Um, so I think it's late. Um, but we I think what we're going to have to do is have a communications working group meeting. And even if you can't come uh that we'll get your input uh um
through the um and also assign uh and invite you to to take a piece of it um to the extent that you're able. So what's the first step though? Is it the video or is it getting the FAQs together? I think that's how we began because we getting the website stuff at least
the some of the presentation the presentation materials that we have say why we're trying to do it and I think we need to I think the why we're doing it is really important. Yes. And it gets at this core um and I think
Peter's point about there is a master plan and I think going back to that Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It says a lot of good things. May I also suggest that there's I think what you outlined is really good, but there's another constituency,
the store owners and the property owners. And I think we've been pretty many of the property owners have been participating and active, but I think the store owners also need to be supportive because if people start
hearing, no, I don't know about this when they're shopping, you know, people, they can be, you know, oh, go vote for Tom Bean. This will help downtown. that would ah
it's hard to get them to participate. I think you have to go to them. Yeah. The library needs to Yeah. The library staff needs to support the store owners need. So thinking about how you've reached that constituency.
So we have to go to people rather than expect them to come to us. Okay. I just added that to me. Can I ask a question please? Of course. Hi everybody. Um, so can we the the document that you shared Sarah is great
with the um potential areas of focus here. Is that something that we could put on SharePoint and just ask each of us to go in and sign up and maybe make comments and that and have that be like an asynchronous document. Can we do
that? Um, I think we can if we're not making decisions, right? you're signing up for something or you're giving feedback. Um, uh, and I think it's so, so you can't, what we can't do is if I put down
outreach to store owners, you can't say I dis, you know, right? Yeah. So, I think in this case, it's a working plan. I'm But you could you could accumulate questions for an Yeah, certainly. Frequently asked questions, we can all add to that in
SharePoint. Yes, for sure. You can't answer them. Can't. Yeah, we can. You can propose an answer. We can also you can you can take a stab at I think we can use SharePoint, Peter. I think that's a good good suggestion. Now that I know where it is, I think
that would be great. Excellent. Okay, I'm not going to spend too much more time. I think it's it's going to be a separate working meeting uh that uh we're gonna have to pull together. But more to come. We can't forget this part
of it, but we're I think we're in good shape on that. Um, okay. I think anything else for Kathy tonight? We should let her go home. Yeah. Thank you very much, Kathy. Thank you. As always, it's nice to see you
discussion. Yes. Thank you. Um, sorry, Sarah. One more question about the um the working group for and Kathy, you can you can you can you can leave this. I I don't think you'll have Anyway, hang out if you'd like. But
anyway, um the um now I forgot what I was going to say. Um sorry, I'll remember. Sorry about that. Okay, we're not going anywhere for a few minutes. Okay. Oh, I know what I was going to say. Sorry that this that this timeline um
that you just proposed is very tight. Yeah. Yeah. And I just want to name that because there's a lot to do and I think if I read that right, we're trying to do it by November 1st.
Well, I think we I suggest we have a forum to introduce this to people by, you know, the end of October just because also the end of November and into December gets really tough to have things Oh, yeah. I I get that. I I just wanted
to, you know, make sure we're all aware. I 100% agree. But thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Um, other things on our agenda. Did you want
uh It's getting late. Um, uh, you wanted to just comment on the senior housing. I think, uh, Mark, you talked to Robin. Yes. did not give you a very clear.
Well, so I talked to Robin and um so in our discussions we talked about because we have multiple types of definitions and she's we we discussed that we agreed that there's really three types of
uh housing that we're talking about. So one is the long-term care which is defined as things like nursing homes and other type rehab which is really like a facility right a commercial facility
people live there but they're in a room they get service it's not like apartments um so that's like an institutional use we already drafted um a uh change in the
bylaw uh uh as a separate article for that. Um uh she thought maybe the definition of long-term care may need to be tweaked a little bit. Uh but she thought that that's so that addresses one level. Uh
upper level would be what is just independent senior housing 55 and older. um you know, with at least one person being 55 and older, um you allow that at
a higher density because it's less impactful. Um and um and so that's similar to what the bylaw that you the planning board had worked on a few years ago. um you allow
certain extra requirements and conditions in order to get the higher density. Sometimes there's minimum lot sizes certain districts allowed in not in others. So that is um the third thing
and then there's kind of like the middle one which is assisted living and a lot of times towns treat that differently in a bylaw. Uh other times uh it can be like in allowed as an additional use in
a age restricted or senior housing uh district uh uh complex. But usually those are the bigger things where there's hundreds of units of senior housing and then when they really need
being assisted living with it they move over. Um so we agreed on that. uh we will work on specific uh definitions. I'll use the kind of the bylaw that you worked on for uh before for kind of a
framework. Um and we'll move with that. So, um I've got to look into the assisted living a little bit to see how some other towns have done that. So my only comment is that we I'm looking at your email to her and you
asked a really specific question. She didn't give you an answer. She didn't give you a written answer, did she? So maybe we need to take that up with uh Yeah. I mean, she she sent me back um the bylaw from a couple years ago with a
bunch of comments with a bunch of com that had a lot of comments related to that. U but it wasn't just like you know this question this answer this question. I think you asked her the right questions. We need to get written answers from her on this.
So I think we're still I think we have a problem with her. She I mean you asked she should have this. It's a fairly straightforward set of questions. What's the definitions? You know so I have a couple of comments. One is
long-term care facility. Then I guess technically it doesn't matter what you call it, but it's sort of a pjorative term these days, but we haven't defined we have that twice in our B. And I think Mark was I think being clever and saying and we can include
some housing options and call it long-term care facility and use the same criteria, but I think that's a little underhanded, I think. No, but but I have a bigger point to make, which is there are a couple of misconceptions about senior housing. One
is it's got to be big, which it doesn't. And the other is it goes into a category and they aren't. It's a spectrum. You can have assisted living operating within independent living with a facility. You can bring in home health care that makes it assisted living. you
know, it's not something you can categorize and say there's going to be this kind and this kind and that kind. It's not the way it is. And I think we have to get rid of that putting trying to put them in buckets because they
aren't buckets anymore. It is it is a much broader spectrum of housing and services combined in a single facility. was there. Didn't we at the last meeting talk about places to visit that were nearby that were good examples?
I think that's a good idea. I mean, there are assistant there's an assisted living complex in Salem called the Bertrram House which has 12 units in it. It's not 80 units. It's in a house. And wasn't there a place in Wam?
There are two places in Wam. There's the the Maples which is downtown. It's got a it's part of a mansion with some town houses attached to it. Then there's Maple Voice
which is a affordable senior community. I would be happy to go and visit. I think we can go see them or get and get um kind of a you know a report back on what those actually look like and how they came to be with Sony.
That would be great. And I think in the meantime, Robin, if to Chris's point, if we need to get rid of all those definitions, we have these five prescriptive definitions. Are they right? Are they are they helpful or are they not helpful from a zoning?
Well, I think they're I think the definitions are correct. It's just if you start trying to say you can do this one here but not there. It just gets very messy. Okay. So the next step on that is maybe you'll
look in to you guys could look into maybe a visit and then report back on what they look like and how they're zoned. Maybe they predate zoning. Maybe they you know. Okay. Great. Um
I think that's I'm gonna pass over the driveways. Please everybody read them and any driveway talk about this. Um and I think we heard from the public um uh liaison reports. I didn't ask
anybody but I will give you a few very quick leaison. I went to the um MAPC regional meeting metropolitan area planning commission. in Ipsswitch at the Ripswitch River Watershed Association. Um all the other towns are doing similar
projects although um but there I think the most interesting thing about that meeting was the discussion with the um transportation person about um some strategies for striping um less traveled roads to
encourage uh safer driveway. So example would be Forest Street. Um and instead of having putting a right yellow line down the middle, I should have the mind it while we're um you put dotted lines
uh four feet in on each side. So it forces the cars to drive in the middle and feel that the pedestrians have significance portion of the road rather than the end. Um, so I mentioned it to Terry Cowman who's I think chair of the
um and he's going to Oh, whatever. He's Are you the chair? I think he's going to give him the images and ask him to think about that with the DPW as a potentially finding a experimental place to at least explore it. It's been doing been done and conquered.
Um the other thing I did is went Mark went as well to the um uh group called March I don't know what that stands for. It's a group that was that Greg Frieders is now chairing uh drive uh to try to
coordinate um climate resilience planning across the Northshore. And um it was an inaugural meeting. Um there was some interesting conversations about work that the state is doing to identify um climate resilience issues um
across the Northshore. And um I think it remains to be seen how that group will uh actually help us get things done, but it uh you know, we've got all these current issues, but this climate resilience issues are certainly
important. So, I went home and I pulled up the maps for our downtown district. I will put them in the meeting packet, I guess, for next meeting. So, that forces you to look at them. Um and at least uh I came away saying okay the downtown
district that we are talking about is on the edge of these climate uh flooding zones but on the edge or just outside of so um that's uh I will put those in the um
so you can see them. Any other updates people want to give? I should give you an update on facilities group. You want to do that next time or do you want to do it now? This will take no time. We're continuing to visit Newbury Port was
last week. So now it's been Newport, Brockport, and Essex and the current facilities here. And I do think that Chuck views us as a permanent building committee, not so much as a build facilities review committee. He's
relying on this group to evaluate cost, the feasibility, engineering, blah blah blah blah blah, site, location, everything. So, it's more than just looking is though. All right. Well, so it's going to get bigger. Okay.
Get bigger and more. And we don't have any minutes. Anything else, Mark, for tonight? No. All right. Well, didn't we have didn't didn't Gail send some minutes around? Weren't there two sets of minutes that came through email
58 and maybe our last meeting? I thought I I did review some. So, um, if people are ready to do that, I haven't looked at them because they weren't in the packet. They weren't in the folder. So, I'd like to defer personally unless anybody else.
It's fine. Okay. We'll defer those. But more can you make sure they get in the when's the next meeting folder for and then the next meeting is Tuesday October 14th because that is the October 13th is the
second Monday but it is a holiday so we'll meet on October 14th and how will we organize to make a communications working um I think we'll post something we'll
we'll uphold fool you. I Yeah. Okay. Um, is that me on the big screen? How do I look? You look awesome. What are you wearing, Peter?
Don't ask. All right, I think motion uh Peter's making a motion to adjurnn. All right, so move. All in favor? I All right, Peter, feel better. Thank All right. Thank you everybody. All right. Bye
Sarah.