um to order November 10th. Um I think we have Chris Ali, Wharton Brewster, Sue Filbrick, Sarah Kraton, Peter Morton, and Brian Fry. Um and Mark is uh
supposed to join us um by um Zoom. I don't see him yet. Um first order of agenda is uh any public comment. There are items that are not on the agenda and um in order to make a comment, you're
going to have to raise your hand so I can then actually unmute you. Any I don't see Jim and Jane here. Any comments not of items not on the agenda? Okay. Um the next item is the continued
review of downtown zoning, town center and harbors edge district bylaw. And I thought what we would do is start. Hi Mark. Oops. Can you >> There you go. Okay. >> Hello.
>> Hi. >> Hi. >> It may jump back to muting you. I don't know how it's going to work. Um. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, so I thought we would start. We had two groups for the sitewalk on Saturday. Um, I thought we had pretty
decent attendance. Um, and we had uh two scribes or people taking notes. Um, I had some notes as well, but maybe Gordon and were you the scribe or >> I have a couple of scripts. >> Yeah. And then also just general
comments about what we heard. Um, >> why don't we just go through them? >> Yeah, sure. >> Okay. Right. So, I was on I'll call it group A. Why not like that? So I I think that the this this some of these are my observations and other ones are specific questions.
>> So I think that the general tone throughout the whole couple hours but the there was general agreement on the newly uh on the uh on the understanding of the approach and what we were intending to do in both zones. you know, whether they agreed with it or not,
there was lots of discussion back and forth, but generally there was a good understanding of what we intended to do. Uh, and that one thing I thought was a really good one when we went over to one school street and we looked at all those renovated building and using those as a
good example of what the intention of this is, I think there was general agreement that that's a good idea. That probably reinforced what they were thinking. As far as specific specific question, these are I'm not going to go through what we talked about because basically it's it's all of the zoning, but these are the specific questions
that came up on the Elm Street area here. There was a suggestion made can the front yard the front yard setback becreased maybe the back rear yard around the pond because of flooding. Have that a specific specific request
for that? Make good sense. Uh this is this is one that actually appeared a bunches of different times. Can the zero lot line setback be increased to provide more open space and trees and not create a a dark building corridor at the zero
lot line right down to the facade. Did not like the zero lot line approach. That was just one person. But it would came about as we started to go down and made turn and looking downtown where the where the buildings were no longer on the zero lot line. residential
uh where new perspect where do new perspective residents park? Should should people actually take us up on this and actually build more residents? Where do they park? This is a repeating theme that happened all over the place. Um one was this is an interesting one.
They wanted to make the new developments by right by right and have more oversight on the design of what that what that might be. And I think Sarah actually answered that question and that we have a we have a design oversight and if it's if it's in the CH then it has
that if it's a historical district of that. But that was a good question one that I that I personally need to fish the answer to. >> They wanted the special permit oversight for everything. >> That's right. Let me write that down. Uh, parking a concern. Once again,
everywhere and no matter what we talked about, this parking was raised. And this is a good one. Is structured parking a possibility? And that that that was right at the end of the the discussion. And that it kind of flew off into a whole different conversation where they might be, what it might be, who it might
be for. And D. So I don't know. Uh uh is there an overlap between between design review for the new zoning the jud and historic? So that was more a design review. Uh concern over the zero lot line. Uh will
there be an economic oversight of the effects of the new zoning? That was an interesting question. >> Something that you had to do when you did the um BTA. You had to have an economic analysis what the intended impact was. One of the question was brought up. Will there be a similar
thing done for this? Uh oh, this is an interesting one. This one kind of came up. It wasn't a part of a general discussion Sarah, but there was a little conversations are happening around here. Suggest redrawing of the Harbor Edge district to include Stanley
Stanley's garage and the convenience store. Move them over there. But there were other conversations. Why are these in here? Why is that in there? Why? So, they were the the line was bouncing all over the place. So, I guess it was where the line is drawn. >> There was actually quite a bit of
disagreement that it would be good to include Stanley's and see what's in the Harbor's Edge. >> Yeah. When it when it got that when it got down there was a broader conversation, but there was a little conversation. Uh oh, this is this is a very interesting one. Should Harbor's
Edge be zoned for commercial only? No residential, no consideration of it. So that's a who knows >> a question. That was a definitive I feel strongly. >> I feel stressed. Yeah, that wasn't a question. This should be zone. And then
and then the comment to follow there. The need more commercial, less residential. >> Um, oh, this is a good one. This is every time I think of affordable housing, I think of Chris. Make zoning adjustments to include more affordable housing.
change the basis for determining the percentage of affordable housing and the criteria by which you can get in. So yeah, that was more of a statement unless of a question as well. >> Okay, great. >> Team A.
>> Okay, how about team B? >> We didn't have as many as uh Gordon had. There was um at at the top of the uh the walk there was a lengthy discussion um debate actually um that kept us in
one place for a long time. So we uh didn't get moving for a little while. But some questions that came up from there were um someone asked whether we should consider moving um the idea of
uh this higher up um territorially to get out of the flood zone. Um and and I think we >> I'm not sure what that means. Meaning meaning that you know where we're zoning right now has an issue with flood being
in the flood zone. Why are we doing that? >> It's not flood zone. >> Well, it gets it's going to get flooded >> or it has already. >> It is not in the flood map the mapped FEMA areas. We I pulled those down. >> Yeah. >> But but go on. >> Yeah. Um
>> at some point >> Yeah. And then what I thought was a great comment was that um in our FAQs, if we could have a chart that shows uh that has on on in one column uh what is
what currently exists and then in the next column what has changed just so it's easy to see the two side by side. And that was really pretty much other than a couple of uh similar questions to what Gordon asked.
the other news. >> Okay. Other things that people heard or thought about. Um, >> so I have I want to report on a couple of conversations that I had which had to do with how complicated the zoning is
and how there's a lot of misinformation already being spread around uh that we need to get our hands on and correct. Um and uh there were a couple of couple of
times people said this is why is it so complicated? Why is it 10 pages long? Can can it be one page long? Of course, the answer to that is it's a legal document and it has to be. there may be some way of uh presenting what we're doing instead
in simple language as a standalone thing that people can refer to instead of trying to go through all these uh charts and uh land use things and so forth. Um as for the flooding, it seems to me
that the flooding overlay district would be would take precedent over what we're doing, >> right? And I don't think we think it's our necessarily, you know, wheelhouse, I guess, to try to figure
out how high things are should be. >> I had a couple other other people's notes. Go ahead. >> So, in our group, um, team D, um, there were questions about parking. Um there
were questions about why not also allow residential on the first floor with a special permit in Harbor. >> Um with the concern being, you know, economic downturn,
vacant storefronts, um more space for residential, you know, just looking at why why foreclose that? Um, so there was that comment from a couple of people. Um, >> okay.
>> Yeah. Um, the u one comment that came up pretty consistently from >> Can you speak out so >> Oh, I'm sorry. The one comment that came up uh a couple of times um in some side conversations was
um to Chris's point about making it simple. Making it simple somehow. And I thought actually the chart at the back of the handout that you gave us is a pretty great start. >> I think has some errors on it. So be careful about >> Yeah,
>> there's that. But the but the notion of it is a good notion. Um and then the other comment that was persistent was do you really need two zones? Can you really I mean it makes it more complicated to think about and maybe if
you look at the differences um between the two zones in terms of the regulations is it enough difference to have two separate zones. That was a persistent question. >> I would say our group had was pretty on
board with the two zones they got at why they were different. Um almost like our group really felt strongly that residential one space per per residential unit was not enough. They
were adamant adamant about that. >> It was like 180 degrees the other way. >> But your group had people who >> property owners property owners. So that's a cause. Yeah. Yeah. >> The other um piece that I just um as we
thought about the tour, I had noted um those properties that were under 6,000 square ft. And I realized that I did not look at the lot width question. So, we should go a little deeper into the map and see what properties have other
um limitations that would require them to have a daily. So that we just know that that's >> that's just something I noted as I was going along and thought I didn't think about that. Um the
uh I special permit for all uses. Um more you know lot wants for open space particularly those um a lot of questions about how the Chad um sort of again understanding that this
is the underlying zoning. >> I think we kind of got got there. Um um that's a really that is a really interesting question. >> Can I ask Sandy a question? What you say? The other group had an opposite
opinion of what what was the other? >> Well, they were delighted to have one parking space per unit. They were delighted to have the reduction in the parking because >> the have a reduction in the parking requirements down to one. Right.
I was thinking about it. What I mean, if you have a onebedroom, then one makes sense, but if you built a fourbedroom, one doesn't really make probably makes sense. >> So maybe we should actually tie the parking more to the size of a
residential unit. >> On the other hand, if if you have two cars, why on earth would you want to live in the downtown? >> Right. Right. Because the whole idea of walkability, >> you could have 10 park. >> Well, I think it was Well, let's
>> I'm just saying I'm just saying the market might take care of that >> because if you think about your looking how many houses are for rent in how many places are for rent in Manchester right now? Not a lot is my guess. And so if you
want to live in Manchester for access to the train or access to the beach or access to your in-laws >> um or to have your kids in the schools, >> you might live wherever you can get a place.
>> You rent a house really if you want four bedrooms, right? I mean there plenty of houses that are >> owned, you know, by others and >> I mean Cargo's putting in three bedroomedroom um units. That's the
that's their plan. So that's it right in the downtown with a threebedroom >> and they're providing the parking to do it, >> right? >> So that's the market took care of it. >> I don't I haven't seen how many spaces
they have. six. >> Six. >> So, I think it's still something that we um uh have to be open-minded about. I mean, I understand that the developers
want fewer spaces. I understand that. >> But the point that So, the other piece of it was that the >> Oh, it's I don't I think it's a little unfair to characterize people as developers. They are people who are current owners of the property um that
are many of them mixed use actually >> and further if we require space and a half most of the properties aren't going to get the residential use on the upper floors because right >> you don't have the parking >> so that's just going to stop what we wanted have happened which is more
people living in the dentist so there's a price to pay for it >> so there was definitely some people on our group who would disagree with we want more people to be living in the downtown. >> Oh, for sure. They're people who don't think any more people should ever come and live in Manchester.
>> Well, that's what they that's not what they said. They said that they felt that they should have more congestion in downtown. So, I don't know necessarily we didn't it mean comments along that line. Yeah. >> Yeah. um that you know parking number
one concern I think from our group is you know finding parking and then the the lot behind you know behind here and you know especially with flooding and those concerns um but vibrancy was also mentioned. Yeah, >> I mean we heard a lot of other things.
We had um Steve was in our group so he talked a lot about the improvements that have been made in downtown and >> Yeah, Steve Steve is great. >> We got to a different corner. He talked about what complete streets has done, what the downtown improvement had done 10 years ago to improve sidewalks,
walls, and the intent of what it's going to be now for future. So he was he was a great supplemental speaker. >> Yeah. Um, okay. The um so with uh let me just ask Mark, do you
have any other comments of things you've heard? >> Um not really. I mean there was um like uh someone said a line large discussion at the beginning about um you
know uh and confusion about uh how the bylaw has progressed and people were looking at older versions and the fact that the planning board has made a lot of adjustments was pointed out and once once we discussed that I think uh uh
some of those issues kind of went away. There was still a few few issues that need to be worked out either affirmatively for but again it you're getting close to the point where you're having some conflicting views on
the same on mo many of the same issues. So I don't know how many how much more adjusting you you may want to do. Um, so cuz you you made a lot of um uh changes based on the the initial
public comments, but now we're reaching out to the general public and uh um so that's that's just something to consider. But um all of the various things that you brought up were were mentioned
um at various stages by lots of different people. So, >> okay. The other question that came up in our group um was what what constitutes commercial and I think the statement that we largely took what's currently
allowed as commercial and moved it over to these two districts. I I think that's a pretty fair statement and to the point of we could actually just maybe do a bulleted list of those uses in the frequently asked questions rather than try to rely on the use table
>> um is one one thought. >> That's a great idea. Um and then the other piece that came up was that um the input was similar to the um forum back in July that they want that this
person wanted um uh active uses, not passive uses um you know uh restaurant not or retail, not um >> advisors, >> not wealth based advisors. Um, so I mean
I guess we could zone for that. I think that might be difficult at this point. There was also discussion about well what if it's a wonderful retail store today and then that closes and some other store comes in how are you going to prevent that?
And and I think that's a question that that we that zoning cannot answer. >> Right. >> That is all market forces. >> That's market forces. And um and Um, but there was a feeling it's that I
want we want a vibrant downtown that has people going in and out of shops and that kind of thing that >> yeah, we're you know that's the the the look and feel people I think we all agree with that but >> um
so and the other piece back about Elm Street um the other feedback we just got I sent it to you about 5:30 we got email from Mark Gloveski about Elm Street um arguing that Elm Street should not be in the district
um for a variety of reasons. Um so uh >> the Mariposa >> Mariposa particularly the Mariposa building might want to convert to housing and that's becoming a neighborhood after cross towing was
>> um changed to the uh you know the the housing there that it became more residential and now we're um sort of precluding that. He also made a case for the small parcel at one Elm Street being becoming residential, but
that is a a um smaller than 6,000 square foot lot. So, no matter what happens there, there's going to be a variance needed to be able to do anything other than what's there today. >> I think um people do like to, you know,
um protect their own property interests. >> Yeah. Of course, we we expect to hear that. >> Yeah. Okay. Um so Marcus, I think made the um case for um sort of staying the
course and hearing more from folks. Um we have the frequently asked questions which I think Mark was going to take the next stab at trying to get them in there. Um that use table that I >> talking about that Mark. Yeah, >> that mark.
>> Which other mark is there? >> Oh, right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um and um uh we need to get those up on the
website. And I think that probably it that we should not put up the zoning yet because it confuses people in on the website. Obviously, people are seeing it in our packets because it's part of the public meeting, but um if you are
looking at the zoning, it is a draft for public comment. Um and um it's going to continue to get tweaked. Um so I think unless anybody has a particular um issue
that they think we should revise based on input or thoughts or errors um today I think the substantive ones that I heard were seabbze as part of the harbor's edge uh one district instead of two
>> um and uh commercial only in Harbor's Edge. Those are the three big things that I think then parking. We're gonna have >> any parking. May I say something about parking? >> Absolutely. >> There is no no board meeting, department meeting anywhere in this town any day
that parking is not an issue. Is is this a larger issue that we're just keep moving around? Is is should this be a town town movement forward to create adequate parking? what is perceived to be adequate parking rather than us just
dictating. >> Well, they're opposite views. >> Well, Right. Right. >> So, so as far as parking goes, every community I've ever worked in, everybody perceives that there's not enough parking. Whether it's a small smaller
communities than this or 100,000 people, they feel there's not enough parking. you had a study done that shows that there is adequate parking. Uh people may have to walk a half a block or a block to where they're going, but there is
sufficient parking. Um uh again, I think um that's also not a bad thing to at some point you get to the where where you do have to explore other parking options. I mean, look at
successful um centers where, you know, you may have to walk a couple blocks or drive around for five minutes before you get a spot. So, um uh but you do that because there is the vibrancy and there are places you
want to go to. So, um so I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. Um I think that's a perception thing. The other thing about the two districts, I think uh we need to really explain in in
um kind of our frequently asked questions and other materials uh why it's necessary as well as why the document is as long as it is because it is based on our current zoning bylaw.
So, we have to include all of the um the items in there to to make it a viable uh distinct district. So, >> well to I I just wanted to underline Sue's comment about that there are two
different opposed views about parking. And part of what we're talking about here is preserving, you know, the kind of unique character of the town where things are close together and where you don't pave over.
We don't want to be a mall. We can't compete with a mall and vibrancy and the amount of asphalt I think are in conflict. You know, the more parking, the less shopping, the less people walking by shops. You know, I think,
>> however, how if I may say, however, we're not talking about today. We're talking about the future. If in fact this does catch on and there is an increase in the number of residents that are able to be built and someone actually does develop, we will be short
parking spaces. So those comments where will we park which we heard bunches of time maybe not be relevant today but it will become relevant in the near future if this catches on. >> Well, let's see if it catches on. I mean I'm ready to deal with that question in
the future. Not because we I mean if in fact the parking study had said well you're at 80 90%. That's a different kettle of fish than what it did say which is 65%. >> I want to add one more point about the parking as as a young person and as
somebody who went without a car for almost four years and without a car for my actual first year in Manchester. True story. I took I rode my bike from downtown when I when I bought my property and uh I I I did the showing
and everything on bike. Um I now have a car, but um I I I did go with I want to know a lot of young people and retirees who both uh I've talked to both about this issue. And I think that the downtown is the perfect opportunity for
the, you know, we have some of the best public transportation in the country. Um, and one space, one space per residential unit, I think absolutely makes sense. And I think there's a whole lot of people who would absolutely love to have that. and there's other
communities um that it's zero spaces >> and there's there's a whole whole lot of people out there who who could take advantage of that, especially young people looking for places um in this area. >> So, you're an advocate for the one parking space for >> Yeah,
>> I think I think looking at what other communities have done and looking at the the market, I think that absolutely makes sense. >> This I I I bring it up. It's more of a generic question. I mean a a futurep proofing question if you will than right now. So yes, I understand and I agree
with everything we're doing here. But if it does catch on and all those units happen, it actually may prevent the construction of residential units because they don't have the parking available to them. And I think at some point the town has got to enter into the
fray and provide something. Not not today. I'm not saying you mean today. >> I No, I see what you mean there. Yeah. Yeah. That that still constrains it. Y >> my concern is that this is going to be the single biggest issue on town meeting
floor and I really want this to pass. So we have to be strategic about how we're going to get this thing passed. That's my my view. Um and I think we're going to have to so that that was sort of understood by our group actually. Um
there was uniform understanding that our current general district is >> problematic for our vibrant downtown. >> I would agree >> that part was understood and I think there was also understanding that can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
for getting this happen. >> Um so that I do definitely um you know people said and they also really like the design standards. That's the other piece. Design standards was like yes absolutely do that. Um there were two
other uh one other thought on parking just as a what if um as we think about this is maybe we go with the one parking space per residential in the town center and one and a half in the harbor's edge just as as a way to to reflect a
compromise for the uh this you know sort of like dogs on the beach is like six months because that was how we got through the the town meeting. I'm just I'm not sure it's the right answer. I'm just throwing
it out there as the as the you know, let's keep the government open kind of. >> So, I just want to say about strategy, which is it's certainly important to be strategic about getting through town meeting. But if in doing so, we destroy
the whole purpose of the zoning bylaw. But I don't think we would be destroyed. >> If we want to get more residential downtown, >> if we want to get more people living in the downtown to support the commercial uses, if that's our assumption, then to
suddenly say that you're going to have more parking than you need, which is going to not allow a lot of the residential development. We're why bring it to town meeting at that point? I mean, what's the point? Well, I think because the point is that our current general bylaw
>> Well, we can bring something to town meeting, but it wouldn't be creating more residential uses. >> I mean, I think it's early to do that. Yeah, >> I think I think we put it out there because I do think I don't I mean
I think no one can pretend to omniscience on this point and people certainly change their minds about everything, but the sentiment about downtown and the emotional feeling about it's good um is very strong and it may
override you know the over the thing about parking because I People are so surprised to learn that it could all turn into single family homes. I mean, it's like, oh my gosh, >> holy smokes. >> Yeah, for sure. Um, we also had one
other comment about um that the increase allow in allowed uh particularly impervious surface um was not recommended. So, we've gone from um
60 I think it's I think I have that number right. Um >> I think it's 70. >> Okay. So right now in G it's 40 by structures and 70% impervious and the proposal was 60% by six structures and
80% by um impervious and the recommendation was that that was too much. So you know that 60% by uh structures also by definition leads you much for parking. >> Yeah, that's true. >> Yeah. So um that was just input. I don't
think we need to the the idea was that you know with flooding and um and in actuality that might be a decrease in what's left there today because we have a lot of impervious in some of these lots.
We don't we haven't studied that. Okay. Um, let's see. Are there anybody want to make a any um strong argument for making any changes at this moment? >> I just have a question. I need some help understanding something.
>> Um, let me see if I can find it. Ah, yes. Okay. It's on page six and it's the addition to section 4.2, table of uses. And we have two uh there
um mixed use with first floor residential but I don't know how it's exactly mixed use unless the upper floors I guess are commercial and mixed use without first floor residential. So, um, wouldn't it be simpler to simply
have one thing that said mixed use with a commercial in the, you know, at the street, street facing thing for 20 or 25 ft, something like that, and just have it one because it's just clear. It's
Yes. Yes. >> Because they're different. So in the first edge district um you can you're not allowed to have
um first residential >> well you're not right but you are allowed in the town center with uh PB with a special >> but people were asking about wouldn't you want to do that in the harbor's edge
district also right so And I I don't know. >> But that's why they're different. I mean, it's a little bit uh hard to read because it's a negative. >> Yes, it's a double negative. >> So, we might want to change that. I think that that would be good to figure
out how to change it. Mixed use >> with first floor commercial. How about mixed use with first floor commercial? >> I agree. >> First floor. >> Yeah. So, I think that makes sense, but I do think it needs to be two lines.
>> Okay. Mark, can you think a little bit about that? >> Okay. >> That's that's a language rather than a substantive, I think. >> Yep. >> Um, and then I had one other question.
Uh, let's see. on page two. Um, uh, at the very top of page two, item number four, uh, conversion of an existing dwelling into three family with no increase in g
gross floor area. Why would why wouldn't we just say yes to that if we want more housing? Why would we have there's there's no such structure in the harbor's edge, I don't think. >> But that's not how that's not commercial on the firstborn. That's why.
>> Well, right. But if there are five existing homes that are single family homes and people would like to convert them to a multifamily home, why would we get in the way of that? because we want
everything to be commercial, every single thing. >> I think Mark, what's your I think the the I think the intent was that we wanted to push commercial on the first floor or have a special permit. Well,
>> yeah. I think Yeah, I I think that's that's the the whole point is that this would um require they would have to put some commercial on the first floor on the street street side of the property
>> if they converted it. Um they would have to turn it into a mixed use unless they came for a planning board special permit. They just can't do it by right. So if they have some I can think of one particular property that has something related to the
topography of the land that might >> be a good argument to uh if they wanted to convert for example the brick building next to the >> uh >> the cargo >> cargo >> yeah the cargo into three units and come
to the planning board for a special permit and make the point that uh buildings up high. Um that it's a, you know, there's no driveway, so to speak, to drive up. Um it's set back from the
street. You got to climb up those stairs. I mean, there's there's a very good argument to issue a special permit for that conversion if they so chose to make it three units. Um, so
but if there's um let's say they wanted to convert the uh the museum, they sell that >> convert it. You probably want that first floor to be uh a port, you know, of it
to be commercial. uh because it fills in that gap along the streetscape from the end of the the commercial users down by town hall versus the and and the commercial users on Beach Street. So, uh
>> yeah, but the museum is an appropriate >> if it was a dwelling. >> Yeah, but it's not a dwell. And I mean, I guess I would have trouble with it if there were 15 or 20 existing dwellings that were like single family dwellings, but it seems to be an unnecessary
constraint if you're not changing anything about the footprint of the building and what you're doing is going likely from a single or two family to a three family. So it inc, you know, I don't know. >> Well, and >> why make it harder? I guess because
we're switching between we want more housing and we want to preserve our commercial space, right? >> So our initial goal was revert reserve space on the street front in this whole
area for commercial or community space. And so we start carving out these little things. I mean, >> well, but but the thing of it is one of the things with the MBTA and the thing
that was expressed often was a a a feeling that people had about the texture of the town. And I think Chris put his finger on it at the time, which was what they like is the variety.
And so when I walk from um you know the little jewelry store, grey house, whatever down to town hall, I'm not particularly bothered by and I think it's a nice thing for the texture of the town to have there's a couple of
single family homes. There's the brick one high up and then there's some >> That's the only one. Well, there I think it's a two family that's on it's they got a couple uh buildings that look like single family homes and have been converted over the years, I guess, into
two family >> or three family. I don't know their specific circumstance. So, I'm not bothered by that. And in fact, it might be tedious to have it be all commercial, >> every single one. I don't know. But a special permit doesn't doesn't it just
says we want to have some review of this. >> Um and that review would balance the um >> neighborhood character. >> Yeah. So I think that's the the intent and it makes it easier to understand our
original intent. It's consistent with our original intent which is to retain the commercial and even expand commercial uh along the street. So I don't disagree with you that variety is important and
>> um but uh >> this would allow variety to >> stay if they wanted to do it came to Yeah. It came to us. Y >> yeah. >> So I have two other points. One of them is why is it planning board doing the
special purpose about ZPA? That was asked. Maybe it's more appropriate for the ZBA since they typically would be changing views. And the second thing is something that just occurred to me that Richard Smith brought up that
I think in the beginning of the walk when he talked about uh and in fact this is the economic part of this. He talked about, for example, the hardware store >> and that if suddenly we're allowing
residential use above it that it might affect the market for hardware. Not in necessarily a bad way, but it would it might become more uh sort of a fru store, boutiki store than a hardware
store. And I told him, I said, you know, that's that's not what zoning is can handle. And that could happen anyway. It could happen tomorrow. Uh but I think it's something we should be prepared to to
discuss because I think it's going to be >> Yeah. That was his big argument for keeping it commercial in the Harbor's Edge. >> Yeah. >> Um >> keeping it all commercial. uh keeping it all he said that the kinds of commercial that you will get will be these sort of
small specialty stores ra that of a small floor plate um rather than Crosby's I have no idea what we'll get >> everybody's got their idea about what the future >> it looks like um so
>> but I just wanted to raise it because we're going to be dealing with it as it comes up later Okay. Um, so, uh, let's see. Um it looks like we have um a couple of people on might not have been here
before. I'm going to just what I should have done in the beginning is just say the town's website under planning board explains what we're trying to do at the annual town meeting which is to present a new zoning um section which has two
new districts. The purpose of which is originally sparked by our concern about retaining our commercial and community uses on the first floor in those two districts as well as to um allow mixed
use which is uh commercial retail on the first floor with housing either behind or above. And I think the best place to catch up if you are just joining us is on the planning board section of the website and stay tuned there because there will be frequently asked questions
and we will be holding a public forum December 6 December 4th or is our is our plan for a make for
>> Oh, and by the way, I found a little typo. probably fix the first intent of this first line of the whole thing says create a downtown district. Well, in fact, we're two districts. >> Yeah, create downtown districts,
>> right? >> Okay. Um I guess by way of also two one quick thing and uh I think of new zoning the map is on the website as well. two districts, a town center from Elm Street
to uh the post office and Stanley's garage and a second district, the Harbor's Edge District, which is basically the properties along the track, dry cleaner, the bank, Crosby's, and Harbor's Point.
Okay. So, just >> can I ask one? Um, since this was not brought up in my group, what was the reason to move Stanley's garage and the Seab Breeze into the Harbor's Edge
District? >> That was on the side. >> Oh, I didn't hear that. >> There were also a couple points about that. Uh, one being, you know, obviously right now it's easy to kind of imagine the parking, but also another being on the corner. There were some concerns
about residential above and having kind of poor sight lines kind of around that corner and around that around that intersection. >> And even though it's not open space, it has an open space. It is a airy space. I
guess it's between you think about the distance between the building and the Crosby's building. >> Um if you are at uh if you bring those um setbacks into 10 ft >> um you close that in significantly in
that area. >> Um and there was a significant thought about uh bigger setbacks in the harbor's edge too. So um >> what what setbacks were was anything discussed or
>> No, it was just uh bigger like uh you know the the space I think it's actually a valid point if you've got calls right up to the street and you brought Seabbze you know the Seabbze apartments right up
to the street and the uh Cosby's boutique um you um grocery store that intersection. >> It's a more intimate corner, >> right? Intimate porting. It becomes um a very different feel.
>> But um I mean things things change, but that was the point. That was the the >> actually from a town planning point of view, just as the planner in the room, the gas station on the corner is an anthma to a downtown. what you don't
want to see. >> Even though we all need it and maybe it'll be a plenty. >> Don't you think historically you'll get the that people that there was a gas station in a corner store? >> Well, it was a wagon repair store. >> Yes.
The wagon repair in Stanley's. >> Yeah. Upstairs. >> Um Yeah. Hard. >> But if you're laying out of town, you want to have quarters defined by buildings. That's a very important thing. Okay. So, uh go back to the question any
other changes besides um that that we would want to adjust to meet. >> I would say so I would say from my perspective, no. But we're going to take this and move it forward to a larger public for more discussion and more
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Good. Then then that's what we should. We're not drawing a line in the sand tonight by any way. and and Mark's working on the use combining everything. >> Yeah. >> So, we'll have them is the intention to have them for December 4th. >> Yes. I think so.
>> So, logistical question. I went to try and find the most recent version yesterday. >> And you couldn't. >> I couldn't. So, where do I find the most recent version? >> The FAQ. >> I think Mark Yes, Mark. I think we sent it to you.
>> There was a I printed out a copy. That's the print out and Mark has that but I can electronically resend that to everybody. >> Yeah. Or if it could just put in point in in one of our folders date. >> Yes. >> Oh, that's a good idea.
>> Well, it does have a date on Sarah's print out. >> I couldn't find. >> Yeah. So, I changed yours from subd district to two districts. So, okay. I will >> I will do it. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yes. U >> I know. Same with your chart. So, I
couldn't find that either. And um >> the chart was tossed into the PowerPoint, the the rainy walk PowerPoint, >> but I looked in there today and it's still the old chart. Unless I can't the new chart. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Is this is this the chart you made?
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's a great chart. >> It was uh I couldn't get it out of PowerPoint into Word, so there are screenshots, which is very >> So, it was like 11 o'clock at night. Well, it's a combo of of, you know, my,
>> you know, dinosaur technology skills and, you know, the way >> Okay, I will put those in the um communications folder. >> Um, okay. >> So, this will be the draft that So, it's going to stay the same until December 6
and we hear from >> I think that's what we're hearing out loud. I think that's really important because some of the questions in our group were because people had older versions of things and um that hadn't reflected you know the response to comments.
>> Okay. Um and then the last piece of this discussion I think is should we have a um communications meeting again um to uh um >> well certainly before the Oh my gosh.
Well, >> easier said than done. Next, >> Thanksgiving Day. >> Don't worry. >> What are you doing, Peter? What about
uh next Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday, beginning of next week? >> Fridays are the only day that's consistently really bad for me. Um, what about
late Monday afternoon? >> The 17th. >> Yeah, that would work. >> Yeah, that would be fine. >> Defin 4:30. What's the >> bets are off for me? And I' >> Yeah, no kidding.
Close >> anytime now. Yeah, >> if you arrive >> I may have to get out of there by seven. >> I have to get out by 7. Yeah. >> So 4:30 >> on the 17th. >> 17th >> sounds great.
>> Okay, Mark, can you post that, please? All right. Oh, sorry. You're muted again and you have to uh just give me a thumbs up. Awesome. Okay. Does Jane come to these meetings? Just to check. Um
>> just I want to start pointing board. >> I have a sir. >> Okay. Um >> so we're going to meet then and we'll talk a little bit more about the forum at that point. And Mark, it'd be good if we could get the draft FAQs in good shape by that meeting. Okay, he's giving
me another thumbs up. Um okay, before we jump, um I see one hand up. Um, uh, Jim, I'm going to ask, we did hear, um, you can go ahead and speak. I'm going to ask that you sort of keep it brief. We heard a lot from you on, uh, Saturday, but, um, if you have some new
a new idea, that would be helpful. >> I So, okay. Thank you. I didn't hear any of my comments from from Saturday, uh, spoken out today. And um I also got a copy, well um I was going to say I also got a copy of Mark um
um the attorney's letter and he he was there were some questions in there that didn't get read out of his letter. Um is this Can I ask uh Mark Resnik? I the copy I'm working off of right now is 111025 today's date that I think I downloaded
off of your website. Is that the current version right now? It is thumbs up. Excellent. So that is available on the website. I think I got it out of the meeting package. Um section >> meeting package. >> Yeah. So so it is and the latest map was
also available on there. Um as was the hotel parking. I think that was the third document. The um and and now just based on what you guys are saying here, you're locked in to what I'm looking at right here. There's no no
changes to this. no discussion um until the forum. >> I think we agreed that we would um use this draft as of tonight that we're not going to make any changes prior to
the form. I think that's correct. >> Okay. I I personally I don't think this is a set this this draft is not uh is not quite complete. you guys are getting close, but there's some things in here that just still to me um don't make
sense. The but that's that's just my personal opinion. Um, so the only um the only um input I'm going to have or anybody in the public until that forum is to is just to go out and rally other
people and try to explain to them why some of this is not good as opposed to sitting here and discussing it and trying to make a few more changes to this. Is that correct? I mean, I understand I wasn't at all meetings. I made maybe four or five of them and God bless you guys for being here as much as
you you do as volunteers. It's commendable for sure. Um but it's just not ready. There's just a few things, you know, just there's just a few more items that are that are closed. You know what would be helpful? >> I'm still also not convinced. Nobody's
convinced me um the logic in why the northern side of the train tracks is in the harbor edge district when it re that section really mirrors the rest of the town center district as much as anything. I can
understand the 40 beach because of the size of it and the potential, but um I don't I don't think the restrictions on housing belong in that in the northern side of the train tracks. Um I don't it
is that you know doesn't make sense to me to pull that out and quite frankly it it lowers the values of the property um significantly because of the use restrictions um and um you know so that would that would be one of the one of my major issues
um with this but then there's also just some residential stuff that doesn't really make sense if you think it through in here. So, it would be really helpful, Jim, since you feel like we haven't captured your comments for you to write them down and send them in an email to Mark and to me, and we will
send them to the entire board. Um because I think while you're um certainly entitled to your opinions, I think we've heard some of them. But if you can be very specific Yeah. about the um specific language that you would
suggest rather than uh simply stating that you think that we we haven't done a good job. That would be really helpful. >> I didn't say that. You guys are working your butts off and you've done a good job. I think you've done an excellent job and a lot of this is good. >> Yeah. So, if you could simply write down
specific um suggestions um to the bylaw that you think makes sense. For example, your your um it's a specific suggestion that you think the harbor will get 40 Harbor Street. I hear that.
>> I get a response. >> Yeah. So, just if you could send us an email that would be help most helpful. >> Well, you're asking if you will get a response to those questions. >> Yes. >> No, that after I do this list. I'll do that. I'll sit down, draft up the few things. It's not a lot. It's not a lot.
>> We don't go back and forth on email with um >> That's my point. I think this is a good forum to sit here and just say, you know, just for an example, um the conversion of an existing dwelling. So there's no re no commercial
in an in an existing dwelling and somebody wants to without increasing the footprint wants to add residential within that existing dwelling. Um which is yes right now in the general district. You're saying planning board
required to make that decision in the town center district and a big fat no in the harbor's edge district. I if you really want to support housing, why don't it's already a residential. It's not a commercial. You you're what you're
saying here is you're forcing somebody um you're not allowing somebody to do anything but create a commercial space on the bottom of their residential home. That's something that's already existing stole residential property. Right. So my
my my thoughts on that is town center that should be a big yes and a planning board at at at the very least for the harbor's edge edge district right there's no I don't think there's any housing in there right now anyways residential >> there can I just correct you can I just
I'm going to just um make sure that we get for people who might not be as familiar with this the current proposed zoning does not prohibit that change. It says that the planning board would have to review a special permit application
and act on it. That's different than what you just said, which is that we would not be allowing it. >> No, the current the current. >> Okay. In the in the >> proposed zoning says planning board and and that and you're exactly right. What I'm saying is right now if I have a
residential property with no commercial in it and I want to add an additional unit I think with the ADU rule I can anyways but if I want to add an additional unit two units I guess because of ADU I think I'm entitled to
one you should let allow somebody to do that by right I I don't understand why you wouldn't and why you're making them go in front of the planning board for that and And you know, if you wanna if you want to debate whether the Harbor's
Edge District is required or not and you w and and and you win that debate, then at least that should be a planning board. There are no it's a moot point, I think, because there are no I don't think there are any single family homes in there right now.
>> Um doesn't look like it. >> This one. >> Okay. So those are two specific >> I don't understand if someone has you know so and so there's just a few items like that throughout this this document where it just um you know it's pretty it's it there's just a few items that are kind of anti-residential
anti-housing. >> Okay, if you can send us an email with us specifics. So you've just given us two that would be very helpful. I think we want to move on to the next um item on our agenda. Um >> so this was not an open forum tonight. This wasn't an open meeting tonight.
This was just you guys discussing this. >> Yes, but we're taking public this is not a a form where we're going to go on and on about this topic. So I think um we've heard from you. We'd love to have uh your input in um specifics and um that
your specific suggestions and we will look at them. But um and uh I think we're going to move on in the agenda um at this point. So thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um,
Thanks, Mark. All right. Can you hear us now? >> Okay. Thank you. >> We didn't really say anything important. Didn't >> say anything as usual. >> Yeah. >> I think we were talking about a in of a
definition for in that's smallish. I don't know what that means. I I threw out 12 rooms, but I don't know what what is appropriate. I don't think 12 >> 12 is sort of got a nice ring to it doesn't. And then uh Brian
is thinking very strategically as a planning board member that the general district should have special permit because a first of all it might be some great places for an inn in the general district and also if the
downtown zoning were to fail we could still advance this this uh measure. Um, how about other districts? Well, first of all, do we have an agreement that sort of a a consensus that special
permit in the general district, a yes in the town center, and a yes in the harbor's edge makes sense for a an in >> an in up to 12. >> You can have up to 12 of units. >> What is the rational for 12? >> I don't know. 12 totally full out of the
year. up the definition legal definition and there's no number of rooms in Portugal. >> Yeah, >> they do say that they're typically smaller than hotel but that's >> so would the same parking requirement
>> be required for an inn as opposed to hotel too >> one space per room. So I mean that's going to be >> that'll make it. Yeah, I think the um one piece space Yeah. for guest room. Maybe it just
>> And what if it's a special permit everywhere in which case >> just do it as a special permit everywhere? >> Yeah, that might make sense. >> I think that does make sense actually. >> Yep. I assume >> because if you're going to have a restaurant or a
Well, then restaurant would be good. >> Yeah. Yeah. Be great. >> But are you saying an in in every district by special? >> No, no, no. >> Oh. Oh, okay. Okay. Because I don't think people would go. >> No. No. >> Start with general district LCD and the
downtown with a special permit everywhere. >> Yeah. >> Got it. So special permit including town center. >> My one my one push back on that would be that could deter
>> I I don't know if if that would you know that might deter interests from developing a a n in the downtown. Um, >> people love to come to us for special permits.
>> Really? Really? No, I kind of agree with Brian. I mean, I think it's a detriment if you want to encourage it. That's the thing. You have to decide. Do you want to encourage it or do you want to just make it barely possible? >> Well, barely possible.
>> Well, I don't I mean I don't know. I mean, >> no, I don't I think that the perception of a special permit is would be discouraging. >> Yes. Yeah, >> I like I'm with this my side of the table here on the >> Okay. Yeah, >> we'll leave it as yes and
>> in the general >> and then special permit in the general. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think that makes sense. >> Okay, Mark, you can make that change and figure out some uh role for a um in
We can't come up with something at this point. >> Well, or we start working on the details. For example, you know, in Lenams, the se the shod has to be 7.5 acres or more. That's not going to work here. Let's talk about
what kind of size do we want. >> Okay, maybe let's Okay, then let's move on to my other set of questions. >> Should we require a minimum lot size? >> I would say yes. >> And would it be an acre,
two acres, five acres? If it's five acres, we're not going to get very many senior housing built because they're 17 five acre parcels. I'm still stuck on that question of scale and type and services provided to
determine that. >> So there are senior housing in the Northshore of the uh 25 units in Salem at the Bertram House 12 units in Danvers that you know they're all these very small
ones. They don't have to be big. >> It's small there might be huge here because of the availability of land. >> So how about if we limit density? How about if we say no more than 15 units an acre?
>> Well, that's what is current in the general district and I think also in the D1 district. >> 15 units an acre. >> Well, yeah, because it's a 6,000 square foot lot. You can do for two family. So no, so that's 20.
>> But if it's you have a 20 acre lot, the D district, you can only do a two family. So >> yeah, >> but I don't think there's any 20acre lot. >> I'm sure they're not just >> people are speaking. >> I'm just trying to think how to attack
it. >> That's I think that's what we're struggling with is not the idea of >> in your housing. I think we're struggling. I'm struggling with >> um do we give a density bonus? Do we um
because how do we structure this? >> Those are all important for us to go through. >> Yeah. And when you know again I go back to my conversation with Lee Deler. what's marketable which are these independent um you know basically three three
bedroomedroom large you know uh spaces and I don't think that's what your >> well so Sandy and I went to leaders project and went >> right yeah >> and yeah it's just a >> clustered housing we happen to be >> 55 and older >> happens to have a
>> and they're enormous and they're you know $2 million a piece to high and they're very attractive, but it's not what we need, >> right? >> And that could happen if you had on Pine Street right now or whatever. It
could be you could age limit. >> Yeah, sure. >> Any three condos with five or something. >> You don't know why you would, but you could. I suppose you could try and attack the problem by defining the size
of what for purposes of our zoning senior housing is. And then really you could say it's permitted I guess anywhere, right? Because you want I mean you you do want to have the option to use big old houses
um of which there are plenty in the E district. Um all over >> some in a all over the place. Yeah. >> Um so the issue is really the scale of the senior housing. I think
>> it almost feels like we need a table. I'm sorry. table >> on the I mean many of our districts are single family only and one of the things like wenom it's you're only allowed to have
it if multifamily is already allowed in that district >> and so that's something I'm not saying I'm for or against that but yeah it's like another thing to >> to think about so all of a sudden because it is multifamily family senior
housing allows multif family anywhere. >> Maybe that's probably the why they had >> there like 20. >> So they I don't know but they created this overlay where they would allow it. >> But they have housing. >> Yeah, they have an overlay district
which >> Okay. Um John, can you help us here? >> Yeah, just just a couple things. Um so the project I think is being referred to in the the one zone and sorry the zone that's being the independent living on I
think that was created specifically for a project or a potential project. I'm not sure how they got around zone >> um uh that project never happened but the zone still exists. It's for hang
and um it might not happen. >> Um but um I guess and senior housing is absolutely multif family housing, >> right? >> I've said times but before I wish we we
allowed multif family housing in this town in some way that made it possible, but I'm also trying to imagine where in the town >> senior housing would be appropriate and be possible, right? And there are definitely two great sites
which are currently senior housing, but not dense enough and not being used to their full potential, but they're not where you'd expect it to be in the LCD or or downtown. They're in residential districts, right? the the planes and um
apartments. >> But um to entice people to come and to develop senior housing, we do have to make it meaningful. A unit here, a unit there, it's not going to happen, right? 40B might come in and do something
significant, right? But then our zoning doesn't matter. But if we want to encourage it and to control it, then we have be very specific about where it is allowed. and a 40B can't age limit. >> In fact, the the one that was done in in
Wenham was a 40B over 55. >> Naples. >> So, where where would you suggest Tom? >> So, again, um the planes right up behind. >> Oh, so you would build that more intensely. >> Oh, yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. So that's the that's what the MBTA zoning allowed and hope it was. >> Yeah. >> Same with Newport Park. I think those were both >> Yeah. >> intentionally included for that reason which is great. >> Yeah. >> Um >> any place else?
>> I don't know. Small infill things perhaps. I mean I know talking about bed and breakfast. Let's go back to the hotels. But one one thing that's interesting about bed and breakfast, you can convert a single family home to a bed and breakfast. It's the same use.
It's an art. >> So, it's actually possible to do that without a whole lot of um or a whole lot of changes to that building, right? So, I think that is something that it's up to five rooms.
No, no more than five rents or if it's to maintain a R3 is anything more than that is a commercial. Sorry, I kind of want confused, but >> um so small things like that I think are
possible. >> Um Mark, you were gonna clarify something or had your hand up a while ago. Maybe it's because you couldn't hear us. Well, I I missed the first part of this, but when you um uh the the senior housing part you were talking about and
you were starting to talk about unit size acres and that type of stuff. Um, now that we're mostly there with the downtown district, why don't I put something together for a senior housing bylaw kind of somewhat
based loosely based on um what was worked on before, maybe with some more specificity um and some some size requirements and and other things that um we see in some of these other bylaws. Um, and um, I can
send a draft out. Um, I I'll review it with Chris since he's um, really uh, the proponent for this and we'll get a draft out for the next meeting. I mean, I think it's um,
you know that uh, so that we have something to discuss and we can tweak it from there. >> Um, I think Chris had some other questions. had a lot of questions which might help you hard do this. >> Okay. >> One is should they be just rentals or
could they be condos? >> Uh you really can't control the form of ownership through zoning >> our definition of senior housing says they're rentals. So we've got to change the definition
>> in our bylaw. >> Yes. >> Oh well that should be changed kind of anyways. So >> the next question I have is should there be different dimensional requirement setbacks the height restrictions should they be different from the rest
of the zoning? Otherwise not think a case could be to do that and that would include for example the open space requirement. Some senior housing bylaws say there
should be a minimum of 20% open space. I think for our town with very small lots, it's not going to be meaningful, but something to consider. >> So, >> what about I'm not an expert on our
uh is it the cluster? >> Yes, it is. >> Senior housing. It could possibly fall under luster. Is that possible? >> It's possible. It requires five acres. >> It requires five. >> Ah, and there's not any kind of There's
not much density bonus bonus. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Um, should we describe prescribed design parameters? Should we say all units have to be on single floors or certain sizes?
One common one is to have living spaces on the same bedroom of the same level as a living space all prescribed or whether we just rely on common sense that people aren't going to build senior housing ladders.
>> So you're saying be prescriptive with the design requirements. >> Most of the things that students are talking about are very large design of the living units itself. >> Yes. Wires. Yeah. levers, all these things are spelled out in great detail.
Hamilton when he goes on for ages about all this stuff >> which I think is you know we should be worried about performance standards right >> one of the things you noted last week
>> back in um August of 23 I just went back to the old >> we had spent quite a bit of time on that question and said design standards Um, senior housing should be limited to no more than two bedrooms per living
unit. At least one bedroom and bathroom should be located on the same floor as the kitchen, living, family area. Maximum living area should be 1,200 square ft for two bedroom unit and 900 for one bedroom and 600 for a studio.
>> You're not opposed to that. It just kind of >> again we were trying to get smaller scale. Um, so that's there's actually a draft I was trying to I tried to I I dropped the
ball on moving it into the um district into the today's folder, but um an area of common open space 20% of the lot area um contiguous and retained in perpetuity no more than 25% of the minimum required
open space shall be within wetlands. um parking section six. Um so we did have um conversion of existing structures as well in that draft. Applicants are encouraged to convert
existing buildings no longer needed or suitable for their original use into a senior housing facility. plenty to consider such conversions if they're compatible with the character of the neighborhood and taking into the interests of the neighbors and the public especially where the site is within a residential area the building's
merit reservation planning board may wave requirements and design standards and considering conversions and so forth. So this draft, we do have a draft. >> Um, >> and I think to get at the issues that Chris is talking about, we really need
to think through each of these issues. Um, and maybe some other issues. All right. And so >> just a couple more questions. >> I want to just point out that we thought about that in some detail. >> Y, >> it would be great to have a copy of
that. >> Yes. So the next one is 1.5 parking spaces for each seating unit. That seems excessive. Does seem excessive. >> It might depend on the type of facility. Some of them have require any
um we may need a waiver provision in there depending on the type of facility. Should there be a house on affordable affordability component? And I would argue that if you require it, you're going to basically force the
other seniors to pay for it. >> Um, so I I would suggest instead of affordability, which would maybe wave some of the density, allow greater units if those are affordable.
I like that idea of the added density with the affordability >> which I think you've we've seen in some of the others. >> Yeah, we have. Yeah. >> Yeah, that's great. Yeah. >> And uh my final question is if there are any other conditions that we should be
considering. Well, one thing I liked and some and I assume this is legal to do this and the a few that I saw is some form of local preference and the one that I read most recently was first to
locals then to immediate family of locals. So like your mother, >> right? Right. >> There's a name for it. There's a name for that. It's in local preference. And then to residents of towns with reciprocal agreements with the town that
I'm not sure about. >> Yeah. >> Town employees. >> Yeah, that's I didn't see that. That's a really good >> Oh, town employees is a terrific one. >> Yeah, good. >> Yeah, >> that's great. >> Let's try it and see if we can get away with it.
>> Yeah. So that raises my biggest concern about this actually is that if we build it and it's wonderful, they will come from everywhere because this is there is a
shortage of this kind of housing to Chris's point. Um and that if we build it and it's Yeah. people will come from wherever. >> So I really like having a local preference. >> I do too. Is that Can we do a local
preference, Mark? Is that allowed? >> Um, it is. I believe it's allowed. What all the limitations are, I'm not sure. Um, >> but we'll I'll look into that. >> That' be great. >> Okay. Um,
and actually, I'm looking there is a list on our website um of the different kinds of uh senior housing. This is again it was in one of our packets that we never got through in that meeting. Independent living which I think we know
what that means. >> Co-housing where seniors and band together to form an organization to provide services and programs to their own members. Supportive housing with services. Uh assisted living is that oh
independent living assisted living is has license requirements. micro assisted living, living within a smaller scale um with a broad range of services and then special care residences,
skilled nursing and congregate care facilities. >> Um that's the sort of larger full spectrum >> village. >> And >> now is what you just read Sarah in the
draft from a while back. Yeah, this is >> I think Chris, you had that definition. Chris sent that around table. >> Yeah. >> Um so I will put these in our um packet. We actually um Mark and I were talking about this. We have a pretty light
meeting. I think the Monday of Thanksgiving >> um and this so let's try to carve out and do this first. >> Um and and I think those few documents um uh do um are pretty helpful
because they talked a little bit about how much staff, >> right? because one of the things I saw is good old parking um providing parking for staff and of course you want to have parking for staff and so the more complicated the facility
>> the more staff I mean some will come on the train and but um >> right >> most towns had one parking space for staff at the I'll say something like the heaviest
shift >> shift, right? >> Chris, is there is there any discussion related to Newport Park or the planes? I know we've talked there's been some like
>> talk about potentially renovating or updating or >> so I haven't talked to the housing authority recently but I think they have some internal issues they're trying to sort out before they crank back up
again. Go ahead. >> But yeah, they're still they're they're desperately in need of doing something. Okay. There there was one notion I wanted to be sure we thought about as we were thinking about all this was in the har I
looked at the Harvard um senior housing and they limited the total number of senior housing dwelling units in total in the town >> and they limited it to a percent of the total town units
>> and reading did something similar and they only would allow so many units to be built in a single year. >> year. >> So, >> right. That's also true. >> I don't think we'd have to worry about that. >> No, I don't know. I'm not really worried about that. >> Um, okay. Before we close this out, I'd
love to have every, if you feel comfortable, just go around and say what piece of the senior housing discussion resonates well with you. like what is the piece of the things we've talked
about not how do we regulate it but what is what's the vision that appeals so I'll start because um and that is I have this uh have long thought years ago I lived
in an apartment an old summer house that had seven apartments and I was in my 20s and I've long I my husband and I said we want to buy that house and live there with all our friends when we're 75. >> It's a big deal.
>> And so that it's that conversion. This was a conversion of a home, a large home into seven apartments. >> And I have this vision that some of these kind of white elephant homes,
although they seem to be act, you know, enjoyed now as as single single family homes. >> Yeah. >> Great. um that uh that they have a potential for this co-housing kind of
approach which is um may not offer skilled nursing but offers a a community of people and that's what I'm really interested in. I think you know the skilled nursing and the sort of big facilities are a little harder for me to get my
head around. So that's >> um anything else? Yeah, I if so one thing and I was looking at the um the slide deck that Kathy put together with the demographics of the town on it and it just it reminded me of just the high
percentage of residents that are 65 plus and there's a clear need and you hear it from them myself being one of them how there's a dir of opportunity for senior housing in this town the co co-housing
that I was curious curious about was not in one facility, but I've heard people in this town talk about buying a collection of homes with like that um property that's up off Summer Street that the community living there that has
a bunch of houses really close together. Yeah. Cluster. Yeah. But I hear people talking about potentially doing that in town too to overcome the issue with um senior housing. But I I I think it's it's something that we do need to
address and I think that the the town would be appreciative of us doing it. >> Having some guidelines question, Peter, >> I'm trying to get my hand around this thing. I'm I'm so afraid we're going to get into those seven 10 different types
of tenor housing going from nothing, living alone to all full services. It seems like we are in the smaller end of that simply because of the availability of land, availability of space and >> forgive me.
Now the uh I I'm concerned about that. So you said you've actually heard people looking for senior house. >> Not looking talking about about um assembling. >> So this would be a developer provided facility. No,
>> no. It would be a group of seniors with the means to buy houses that abut each other and create a community with some type of services that would that they'd all be able to >> we could have retired planning board
members and we could watch the future planning board meeting together. >> Does what you said requires a planning board? >> I don't think so. I I don't know. I don't I don't think so though, Gordon. I think it's just that this they could
probably bring services in, right? We could >> on their own. >> Yeah, I think >> by the house communal. >> I don't know. Is that something that requires >> There's a whole there's a whole Sarah made me my ears perk up when she said something is the assisted living the
things that require much more intensive care have always given me cold chills. And and when Sarah said micro assisted I thought well what's that mean that could I think you said microassisted living if I
>> communal micros right so the idea of scale is so important >> and what you were talking about Peter I believe and I would have to really dig
to find the articles about it maybe 10 or even 15 years ago ago, there was such an effort on Beacon Hill on the back side of Beacon Hill where, you know, it's all pretty closed. People are next to each other. You know, they're getting old. They want to age in place. They,
you know, they don't want to leave their homes. And they kind of combined forces, not in one specific building, but in neighboring buildings with, you know, so they all hired the same nurse or the
same uh physical therapist. Let me show you a picture with living in Salem. That's the John Bert. >> Yeah, there you go. So there. >> So that's 25 units in that house. >> 25. >> Yeah. >> You'd never know that.
>> It's just a nice brick house. >> So the scale piece is very important, but the idea of it is is pretty useful. >> I think >> I'm on I'm on exactly your wavelength there. the service provided but the need
is there. How do you actually meld those two together to a reasonable zoning? Do we go simple, Sarah? Do we just go simple and provide without services, just the zoning, establishing an age limit or something?
And then beyond that, you met with I just sat with Chris the other day and we just talked about the town and where where these facilities would be and how big they might be and just just general broad discussion and there's really limited spaces and limited sizes,
limited lots. It's only a gallon unless you use an existing building and convert it to something >> like Sarah was talking about the big >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. >> I I I would say my what stay sticks with me about this discussion in senior
housing is um that there is no onesizefits-all approach and that what everybody thinks about senior housing can be different. There can be very small scale and there can be large scale and there can be luxury senior housing and there can be affordable senior housing.
>> Uh as Peter was talking about kind of the cottage idea. Um one project that I actually had worked on in Boulder, Colorado was called the Academy at Mapleton Hill and it was a luxury senior housing project but it had an affordable component, right? Um, and so they had
some buildings that were more so the larger scale and they had some that are the cottage style. And if you looked at it from the street, those cottage style, those are single family homes. They look and blend just in right with the neighborhood. So I think senior housing
can fit and blend in just as is, and you would never know, and it can also be part of like a larger senior housing enclave or right uh community. Was that was that a forprofit development? >> It was somebody some entity ran it and
leased or sold or condominiumized or whatever they did. Right. >> Well, I want to just throw down another idea that you and I talked about actually. There's a proposed senior centers that they built with the Masons >> on the Mason's property with a
condominium arrangement. Well, why not add senior housing to that and put 10 or 15 units of problems in senior center? >> I think the reason for that, let's let's just take it as a given for a second that it's the perfect place and it makes
sense. I think the problem is that the >> the the lease agreement is still being figured out and the the actual logistics and the other piece is that you would need to raise it. you need to take it down to because there's no the the
>> the foundations and the I think that the logistics of it is like >> there would be all kinds of problems but >> the cost of building the senior center be cut in half >> and the cost of operating would be cut I had >> that's probably true >> I met on the facilities group today a
little private session >> and we talked about the senior center and what they're going to do is take it down to bare raw everything and build it back up. New energy center, new new new roof, new walls, new window, new
insulation value, new HVAC system. They're basically going to be keep maybe it'll look similar to what it is right now, but it's going to be completely reskinned and rebuilt and reinsulated, rebounded. So maybe it's the moment for the idea to have a plan.
>> Well, I did I al I talked to Chuck and to Nate and what they said it's it has gone down the road a bit. It hasn't been settled. It hasn't been decided, but there's bit of a challenge with it's the Masons who want >> the Masons are reluctant.
>> They're still negotiating though. the masons are actually in this way. >> One other point to make that I've seen is there can be a a apartment or a larger building with facilities or services that is part of a larger
community of single family cottages or homes that kind of >> then could have access to those services or facilities too. So that's something to think about. There's also a new report and it's part of a national movement
a organization that takes care of seniors in their own homes. >> It's like a club kind of >> so they you get services and just get sent out that way. So there's a whole range of >> things you can have. But it does feel
like we have a lot of seniors who are aging in their own homes. And so what we don't have is smaller scale. >> So if you want big scale luxury, that's sort of the do it in your own home, coordinate with your neighbors, hire,
you know, it seems to me that it's that smaller scale. >> Um if we and I really like a local provision. Um maybe we focus right now on smaller scale without the skilled nursing and that sort of next level of
>> things that you can add that in later get sort of introduce this so that there's a density bone you know there's a you could do x number of units per acre whatever that is >> and um the design standards and special
permit review and um So is is this something that we'd ever is there an expectation that that might become another article for the uh meeting or >> no if we can do it in in the way Sarah
was just describing make it a first step >> right but what the reason why I asked is um I I think the format of the way we're doing town revisioning similar to what you did with the MBTA is a good one the public form from getting people involved
early so that I think there's more there are less surprises when you bring it to town meeting that way and it I know the senior housing has been a topic for many years it sounds like Chris I personally haven't heard that much about it but I'd love to
see what type of response we'd get if we if we adopted a similar >> sure >> strategy for that. But before we before, having worked for private developers my whole career, theirs is they have a goal in mind. They didn't know what they
want. They just go get it here. That that that building over there. I took after I spoke to Chris, I came over and took a look at it. It is ripe for redevelopment and just to something that would be far better and more fruitful, more useful than that building right
there. Low single level. It with a with a grass yard around it. planning board just that's not >> I know Sarah but is there any vehicle at all that that thing is being discussed right now is there any way >> it is separate but
>> the last >> go to a meeting >> I know I think it's really not a >> I I feel like that's I'm I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you >> I know the current zoning permit it
>> if the municipal know it would have no >> would zoning permit senior living as well as a senior center. Yes. And a section >> general district. >> Yeah. General district. So it would have those rules. >> Well, municipal you
>> I'm just thinking of the practicality, the practical application. It's we're talking about it and what might happen, what could happen, and somebody might do it. Here's a case where we have an opportunity to maybe suggest maybe get Brian Solacey. price policy is the
actual one negotiating over there with them. >> I'm not sure >> up on the planet from the select board like that. >> But I don't think that's that's something that we can I mean we if we want to make a recommendation to the select board we can do that but I'm I'm not sure what that.
>> No I I I'm not evening it. I just >> I hate to see an opportunity go by if they're doing they're spending millions of dollars to convert it to something. Oh, why don't you add a floor, make a living out of it, and you solve a bunch of problems.
>> That's all >> that might be. >> Thinking of you, >> aren't they? Aren't they And sorry, I won't go. That's Yeah, we don't need to go down that road. >> No, they're gonna be fundraising for again a lot of that, right? So, >> it is being fun. I asked about the fundraising. They said they're in
process, but I don't know how they do it. >> Yeah. I don't think public yet, have they? >> Yeah. Um, okay. So, next. So, the other question, somebody alluded to this, is whether or not this would be able to become to us
to a with us to a spring town meeting. Um, it's my opinion that that's going to be a hard a a tough push. >> So, someone six different things three months ago.
>> Well, don't forget we I thought of this tonight. We have the stupid um driveway thing we're going to need to explain which we've sort of haven't finalized but added around. We've now said hotels
which seem simple and I think we can we can kind of >> um and I think um we might use the opportunities to introduce senior housing. I think we should use meeting time to do the work
of hashing through the draft bylaw and that has taken us months on downtown which seemed like I thought was going to be the simplest thing ever. Um so I think we should chug away on it.
Um but the warrant, you know, we got to have a public hearing on it by like March 1st. So, let's um yeah, >> let's devote some specific time to talk about this at our next meeting, unless something else comes up. >> I think we should dedicate it to Chris,
too, if we get it. >> Chris, >> no. Um, >> does that work for people? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um, great. >> Thank you, Chris. That was Thank you for
keeping us pushing along on this. Okay. Um I know our 16.8 person wants to has some time commitments but uh other matters or leaison reports. >> I have one that's worth mentioning. So
the ZBA meets next week um next week all my weeks are >> 19th or 19th whenever that is. Um, >> thank you. >> And, um, I think it's worth tuning into
on the ADU issue because, um, I mean, I I don't have all the details on the tip of my tongue, but it's a situation that I don't think we anticipated, of course. Um, and so we
might want to think about are there things we can do to fix the situation in the spring. Um, and what's happened is the property that is uh before the ZBA is in the general district.
>> And recall that with >> I thought it was in D. >> It's in the D district. >> District. >> I thought it was in G. It's in D. >> D1. >> D1. D1 >> D1. Sorry. Okay. Uh, well, Mark, you know the details better, so you go
ahead. >> Well, it's in the D1 district, and they're proposing a detached ADU. And when we wrote the bylaw, we uh envisioned that if someone wanted to, of
course, do a 900 ft detached, they can. And so that's permitted. But if they wanted to do a larger detached ADU between 9 and 1,200 that they really because we allow it's a very small
district and we allow two families in that district that they should build it as a two family to kind of in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. So and not have two separate really houses on the property. So, this is
slightly over um I think it's 182 square ft, 86 square ft over 900. So, it' be just over 1,000 square ft. Um so, they're seeking a variance
uh from the zoning board for um for the use. So, um, that's >> it would have to be. >> So, part of the problem is also the structure that they tore down
was like a former school building, preschool building. >> And so, we're changing the use. I'm sure at the time that was allowed, but so to an ADU
and their plan is bigger than the 900. Um, so it's kind of messy and I just think it's worth tuning in to understand the issues um and see how the ZBA dealt with it. But um, Sarah Melish has
consulted with town council on it. Get a little bit of that. Anyway, I think >> what's the address? Can you say what the >> I don't remember >> the address. >> Um I don't recall exact the uh
>> the posting is um is in the newspaper. So >> okay. >> Uh okay. in the >> so I think the question the issue is that if it's a two family it has to be a single building >> or they have to be connected as a single building and if it's a um ADU it's an
you know they I guess it's for the in-laws or the but whatever it doesn't really matter what the use is because that's only what the use is today when they build it. So they're um the the two family would require that they connect
them that they be one building and that an ADU can be a separate building. >> And so to Mark's point, I think we anticipate we deliberately said these larger ADUs cannot be in that district because you have the benefit of a two
family already and the benefit of a 900 uh by right. And also if you have a two family, you can actually add in a 900, right? Uh ADU in addition and basically
get a three three residents on that property. >> So um there are >> are um and it's a larger than standard lot. Um it's a it has it's a larger lot
apparently. So um thank you. That's >> and then the second thing sorry also on the agenda with the ZBA is the cargo >> cargo. >> So um in case that comes back to us for >> must see ZBA
>> must see ZBA. >> Okay. Excellent. Um any other >> got one more very briefly about what's happening in the uh >> on the facilities committee. things like these
DP uh DPW is focusing in on the school street site for all three DPW school uh police and fire somehow situated in that site. I met with them today. I said I need a little sidebar
with you. So we took out the sketch paper and drew them what they're doing. First I had initially I had didn't think it would ever work but uh with a little bit of planning it actually might work. It's going to be an extensive redo of that whole that whole length of corer
from 128 down to um the access road to what's the face to the map >> that water. >> Yeah it's going to be that water out dramatically. But I guess I guess the point of all this thing not that that's a particular problem for us here. No matter what, it's gonna free up
>> Yeah. >> free up Pleasant Street for use to be whatever. >> They have the fire station. >> Fire station moving down there. That would that's going to go up by school street. >> Yeah. Right. But that'll be available, too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The the fire station is a little
bit difficult one. I actually suggested one of the police department moving to the vacated fire department, put a second floor in there and reuse the whole thing and don't use the flood. But, you know, that's they they want to stay together. Police and fire want to be together and there may be a way to do
it. So that's proceeding ahead to actually pit plans now. >> Yeah, we're not sure. We're not I'm I'm not sure. They're meeting with an engineer and they're they're using the facilities group to give their blessing as to whether it should go further and
how far they go. But right now it's purely it's purely looks like that. Matter of fact, that that is actually it rooster plans. >> We have um Thank you. >> Talk to
minutes. Um I was at meeting. So, do I have a motion to uh approve the minutes of October 27th? >> So, move. >> Second. >> Any other discussion? Um, all in favor?
>> Um, I abstain. >> Okay. Anything else? >> Oh, that's right. You were here for that one. >> Next Monday, >> 4:30 >> at 4:30. >> If you can make >> Thanks, Mark. Thanks. >> Thanks, Mark. >> It's like it's getting dark in there,
Mark. You turn a light on there. It looks a little dark. >> Yes, there's only one one light. It's not very bright. >> See, you see the Netflix story and the Ed Gin story. >> I'll take a motion to adjourn >> on Netflix. >> We're talking about Netflix. Hold on.
Then we gain is