Okay. >> Hold on. That's me. >> Okay. Uh everybody, um looks like uh Fion or Chris Goodridge, can you give me the thumbs up that you can hear us?
Excellent. Thank you. Um, okay. Happy new year. >> Yeah, >> everybody. >> Um, let's call the meeting to order. Um, uh, 2026. Holy moly.
>> Holy moly. >> January 12th. Um, and I have uh Sandy Bodmer Turner >> here, >> Ryan Fry here, >> Gordon Brewster here, >> Sarraton present, Sue Filbert, >> and Chris here, and Mark Resnik. And
Peter Wharton is not here tonight. >> He's not. >> Okay. So, >> did you The first uh order of business is uh is there any public comment or on things that are not um on the uh agenda
elsewhere? Okay. Seeing none, um I'm going to move on. Um, the first item we have is an approval not required by Manchester Village Properties LLC at five Flatly A.
Um, do we have a representative from uh that? Okay. Scott Johnson. Hi. >> Hi. How are you? >> Hi. Thanks. Um, can you explain to the board what you're uh planning on doing and I'll try to pull up the plans.
>> Sure. So, I own uh five Flatley Avenue and seven uh- N Flatley Avenue and the two properties share a side lot line and we are simply asking to move that side
lot line. Um it doesn't create any violations for the structures that are on either property. uh it doesn't change the uh frontage and um it doesn't create any violations otherwise. It's simply a
shift of the lot line uh to take some space about a thousand total square feet uh from 7-9 lot and give it to the five flatly lot. >> Okay. Okay. Um, so you're bas you're basically
>> I could try to bring it up if you like, but >> I can probably I can >> Are you basically moving the lot line toward the east where the new development is? Is that what's happening? >> Correct. There's currently 21 or 22 feet
of sideyard setback and we're simply giving some of that sideyard setback to the five flatly property. Mark, do you have a recommendation? >> I recommend the plane be endorsed. >> Okay.
Um, pull it up here. Okay, >> great. >> Okay, so here, right? >> Right. So, the dotted line is the current lot line and then the line that you see that's about 10 feet over or
that is 10 feet over would be the new lot line. Any other questions or comments from >> I have some. So, so there's no implications on this is literally just a 10-foot move and no implications on
zoning regarding the two lots. >> Correct. They they don't it doesn't create any setback violations. Uh there's already there's no change to frontage. Uh there's already adequate lot. Um the 6,000 square feet is
required. We have like 14,000 square feet on the 7-9. Um it doesn't create any violations for um uh open space or anything like that. Uh the lot's very spacious, the 7-9 lot that the land's coming from,
>> but it does have four uh units on it. Correct. Uh it actually only has two units on it. >> There's there's a total of uh about 30,000 square feet of land uh back there
and it's split into two lots that are each about 14 or 15,000 square feet and each of those contains two units. >> Oh, I see. Okay. So, it's it's not shown, but above if
you were above the lot A1 is another lot that has two units on. >> Thank you. Up here. >> Yes. Yep. >> Okay. >> And this is so you can see the frontage is here along Flatly A. It's a pork chop
lot, but that exists already. See, >> correct. That's the existing condition. >> That's the existing frontage. So the frontage does not change. >> Correct. We trying we there's a small triangle or it angles off uh at the very
end of the lot change uh to the point of the existing um street. So there's no change of frontage and all the lots have sufficient frontage for what's built on them. >> Okay. Any other discussion?
I'll take a mot any other discussion. I'll take a motion to endorse the plan of land for five Flatley Avenue and 7-9 Flatly Avenue prepared for Manchester Village Properties LLC
uh 18 Sergeant Street Sweet A Glouster Mass. Um date of the plan is December 10th, 2025 and the scale is 1 in equals 20 ft. Do I have a motion?
>> I'll move it be endorsed. >> Second. >> Any other any discussion? Um all in favor? >> I um opposed. Okay. Thank you. And we have one. Thank you. >> Thank you everyone. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Okay. The next um uh is the um approval not required for Manchester Village. Oops, sorry. For Goodrich Vine Realy Street Realy Trust and Goodrich Vine Street Homestead Realy
Trust at 12 Fine Street. Pull that up. Do we have somebody here from that uh to represent that ANR? >> Yeah. Hi, this is Chris Grich. I'm the homeowner. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Let me pull up your plan here. I can
uh why don't you go ahead and start start telling us what your >> Yeah, sure. >> Uh so so we just purchased the property from the estate of Patricia Fenton prior to the sale of the property. They had split the lot line and really what they
did is they just split it sort of down the middle. Uh so the back of it went to the left of an existing garage and the rest of it gave approval not required to what is a new build lot. What we are
proposing to do and again um conforming in all ways is just move the lot line so that the new build lot has more land and the existing structure has a bit less. The shed is going to come down. The
garage is already scheduled to be well will have to come down. That was part of the um ANR that they went through when the Fenton estate owned it. And then we are going to renovate the White House. That's the existing structure. And
hopefully once that's done, build new next door. Okay. Um uh questions, comments from the >> I just do have to ask the lot line. It's literally that >> lot line is being removed. Is that
correct? >> This one here, the dotted one >> Yeah. >> is the existing between the two >> and it's being removed. >> These were being removed and it's being replaced with this solid line, >> new lot line and right through the shed is that's going. >> Am I correct about that? Yeah,
>> that's correct. >> Okay. Um and so the lot this is um district D. >> Um um >> I have what I'm I'm a little unclear
about how to read the lot 1 A 1B lot 2 square footage. So, is it that lot 2 will wind up with 9750 square ft plus lot 1B of 37? >> Yeah, that's right.
>> Like a 13,000 square foot lot and an 8,000 foot lot. >> That That's correct. >> Okay. >> And I think that's because the way the deeds are filed, that's how Gilmore and Gilmore told us it had to be done. But
yes, that's correct. And the uh area in D is >> six. >> So we're fine on that. And it doesn't change the frontage. >> Nope. >> Oh, interesting. This is right next to the uh flatly.
>> Yeah, flatly is actually right behind. That's right. Right. >> Okay. Uh Mark, do you have a recommendation? >> Recommend you endorse the plan. >> Okay. Any other discussion?
Okay. Let's see. I'll take a motion to endorse the plan as approval not required. The land prepared for Goodrich Vine Street Legacy Realy Trust and Goodrich Vine Street Homestead Realy Trust prepared by Rank Survey Associates.
uh plan dated December 18th, 2025, scale 1 in equals 20 ft. Have a motion. >> So move. >> Sue moves and sorry Brian seconds. Um any other discussion? Um all in favor?
>> I post one. >> Great. Um thank you very much. Thank you for >> Thank you. >> Appreciate that. >> We move on. >> Yeah. I think it's recording time for the Mullins next needs to be signed
before you >> watch in the public hearing. >> It was the most exciting thing I did all that. >> Happy to hear that. >> You guys are like stunningly interested. >> It was only because you went thereord Okay.
>> Audio recording video recording correct signed under the penalty law about that one. world. >> For those of you wondering what we're doing, um Gordon has watched the video of the last meeting. >> So, um with now, um so I'll take a
motion to reopen the public hearing on the request for a special permit under section 4.2 to F1 of the zoning bylaw submitted by the town of Manchester for special permit to authorize maintenance dredging at the Manchester Conference
and Proctor Cove. >> Second >> second. >> All in favor? >> I can abstain. >> Um five. Yes. One of Steph. Um so before
the holidays we heard a presentation uh by um both is that how you pronounce it? Both um regarding the specifics of the uh proposed dredging.
and we had gone through a list of concerns that we thought could be met by uh specifying conditions and Mark Resnik was going to prepare a draft which he did. I don't know if everyone had a
chance to look at it was in the meeting packet today. No. >> Um, so maybe we'll just post that and make sure everyone is in agreement while we while we do that. U Mark, I had a
one change at in your let's see in that paragraph nine just change I made a comment on it. But I tried to change it and it wouldn't let
me change it. So I made a comment, >> put a period after services and then capitalize the however. >> Oh, okay. >> I don't know if that got incorporated. I had my eyes >> downtown services period. However, I
must have fixed that. >> Good now. Okay. >> Yes. And and Brian had sent a comment in and that's fixed on the draft as well. Great. >> I referred to the wrong section. >> Oh, great.
Um, and then I think uh on the last page since um Sarah has to abstain, I think it has to be me that signs. >> Oh, yes. Y >> I'll change that. >> Did anyone have any other comments after
looking at the draft? It seems to include one of the things we were asking for. I thought so too. >> Um any comment? Well, first of all, any other discussion from any public comment
online? I don't see any no further discussion from the board. Um, so, uh, >> oh, the sorry, the the comment that I was referring to that I emailed Mark
about was the the decision citing the correct zoning bylaws section. Um, in the minutes it was uh 4.1 or something like that, but in the draft it was given to 4.2.1F or something. So, that was just for consistency.
Um, if there's no further discussion or comment, I'll take a motion to approve the request for a special permit under section 4.2 F1 of the zoning bylaw submitted by the
town of Manchester for a special permit to authorize maintenance dredging at the Manchester Harbor entrance at Proctor Cove. um according to the plan prepared by both um dated September
17th, 2025. Is there anything more I should add? >> Authorize you to >> sign it. >> Sign the special. >> So move. >> Second. Second. All in favor?
We've got five yes and one abstension. Uh Miss Crate. >> Anything else? Mars was the public. >> Oh, right. Thank you. Um I'll take a motion to close the public hearing moved.
>> Second. All in favor? >> Five in favor? One session. >> Okay. Brian says, "Thank you." >> Nate as well. >> Okay, great. Thank you, Sue. Thank you,
Nate, for coming and buying. Um, appreciate that. Um, great. So, now we're uh back to talking about zoning. Um we're going to start with uh the downtown
um district zoning. And at the last meeting, we start a little list of things that we wanted to discuss tonight. Um and I know there was an email um from
Mr. McKenna. Yeah. um about uh um the district boundaries. Um so I'm just going to pull up the things that we set to refresh everybody's memory. Um the things that we said we were going to talk about tonight. Um and that doesn't
mean we can't talk about other things. Um but we did put these down at the end of December. Um the density bonus for affordable um if there's an if there's um so that would mean an additional unit or units
if you make them affordable uh the district boundaries um which might include um the property along the tracks at Beach Street or Elm Street. We also had um put that out there um parking requirements
and then Sandy um I put your uh issue so I'm not sharing >> some nice photos. >> Oh, sorry. Sharing around and you never know what you're going to get. >> I'm ready for a palm tree of my vacation.
>> I ask one question. I've got the city of Beverly and city of town of Hamilton and town of Wenham documents inside this. >> So those are notices that we receive because we are in a budding town. >> Oh, okay.
>> So if you uh we um it's correspondence. So the city of Beverly sends us a notice to say that they're doing whatever it is they're doing. And from time to time they're of interest to the town of Manchester.
>> Yeah. That cluster would >> Yes. >> Yes. For example, that's why we get them. >> Okay. >> And we do >> reading them to go, did I miss something here? Do we >> annex it like they did Greenland?
>> Yes. >> Manchester's expand. >> Don't tell anybody. Um, okay. So, I'm just going to run through the list so that we have sort of a picture. Um, and then if we have other things sort of we can talk about this is
important. Um, and uh Jeff Laney from the select board is on too. So Jeff, if you have questions or comments, particularly um I want to talk a little bit about how we present this to the slide forward, but um if we're
going if you're if you're if you think the select board has comments, please uh jump in as well. Um so Sandy also had said additions to the table of uses um uh with first four residential in harbors district to talk about that
again the use of notes um and the word lot um and uh drought zoning in general the different special permit authorities um so um those are that's a a little bit different
>> that's just speaking to what I don't clearly understand and maybe you all do Um Mark can just give me a briefing at some point. >> Well, why don't we just start with that one? I think it's historic. >> Um and maybe you want to just give us a
sense of why certain things uh have special permit authority from the ZBA and some have this planning board. Well, I I'm I'm not sure about the history here in Manchester, but in many other communities, the planning
board generally reviews slightly bigger projects because it's used also does subdivisions as well to site plan review uh things that are um kind of requiring
um dimensional um var variances for dimensional uh things, special uses that might affect a neighborhood and it may be more of a neighborhood meeting like you know do we really want that
particular use adjacent to or next to um our special permits here in Manchester it's a little bit more kind of mixed what what happens but that's that's typically a lot of times how and of
course variances to the zoning bylaw is also what the zoning board as well. So, >> yeah, I think it's a little bit historic. >> Um I don't know, Chris, you've been on longer than I, but things like swimming pools are ZBA and
>> um >> I think it is historic. >> Yeah. >> And theoretically, the ZBA would use the same criteria that the planning board would in granting a special >> So, the standards are the standards embedded in the bylaw. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean, in a perfect world, we would probably go through and make sure all of those make sense and make some modifications. I would I think that probably Mark Babrowski would have flagged anything that was highly unusual, but whether that got carried
forward as anybody's guess. >> He didn't he didn't note anything. So, >> yeah. Um, >> so so you're right. It's not may not entirely be even on a flat but but in this case um
uh for downtown we have reserved the special permit authority for first floor uh for a residential and first floor um for the town center for the planning board. >> Okay. So, so >> make it a little more business friendly
so you only have to go to one board also by of course ch adjusting setbacks and uses and those types of things. >> You do design review with us as well. So >> yeah, >> that helps to keep it under one. >> If you have a variance, then you still
have to go to the ZBA. Yeah. >> Right. We've tried to limit the number of variances people would have to apply for. But a variance is by definition not in conformance with the bylaw. Right. >> Right. >> So then what's the criteria for granting
a variance? >> Economic hardship or >> there's a variety of Yes. >> But economic hardship is the state very limited as well. You know it varies on
how it's applied that way. >> Okay. Okay. and and a special permit could go to either the plan because there were some cases when it said SP >> and it can go either way to the zoning
board or the uh planning board. >> Yeah. Depending upon what's in the use table. >> Uhhuh. >> The use table specifies what goes in where a particular application or a use
would go. Okay. >> Do we have just SP on any of the places in the use table? >> I I for some reason I thought we did. >> We should check that because it should say ZBA or planning. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. No, no problem. Um okay so why don't we um let's start with a discussion of um district boundaries because we have I know a couple people here who are interested in talking about
that um so um the uh board have any thoughts about uh changes to the district as we have currently defined Where are you? Sarah, >> I'm just there are things to discuss.
Number two, district boundaries. >> I just This was just sort of our notes. >> It's in there now. Here we go. So, were there um boundary t changes that anyone wanted to make?
Um, I uh when we were doing the walk through, there was some discussion I think about whether or not Elm Street should remain included in the town
center. And as I thought about it, there are two it's it seems to me it's existing conditions are a little bit more like the Harbor's Edge, >> right, >> with the parking and so forth. The other um uh issue is it's already in a ch.
Um the other issue is that it's a area that has become uh right now it's mixed use. It has residential on the um left side with
sawmill circle and um further down and um so I I'm and it's not as uh commercial walk it's not sort of part of
the walking core of the town um which is what I think we are trying to focus on. So, I could be uh actually convinced to leave that in the general district and take it up a little bit um >> later in the general district. Um I
guess by leaving it in the general district, the parking requirements for commercial uses remain. >> That's correct. >> And um as opposed to going to zero parking and to me that might be one of the big reasons to leave it in the general district.
Yeah, that would be my concern is that if you suddenly relieved all the commercial parking that could be that could become a pretty dense area without any parking available for people to conveniently
>> leave their cars. >> You essentially take the commercial use parking and put it on the street >> essentially. Yeah. For the do. Oh, so that to me I mean I guess the other uh option would be somehow to to apply it
as harbor's edge uh requirements which has the commercial but that's a little bit harder to >> Yeah, since it's in a ch anyway. >> Yeah. Um,
>> and currently, I might be mistaken, but there is some residential above on >> the I mean, if you're walking, >> if you walk all the way to the end of that, >> there is commercial. I mean, there is residential on both sides in
parts. >> Sure. Powder House, >> right? Well, and above, isn't there on >> above my isn't there? >> Yeah, there is. It's res everything on the uh west side is residential. >> I think there are three apartments above the east.
>> I don't think there's any commercial on the west side. >> No, no, no commercial on the west side. Right. I'm talking about residential on the east side and I think there is some up above. >> Residential. >> I think it's only those apartments.
>> Yeah. But um but if it means in the general district it could be uh by lot it could be a four family but basically the same that is required today. The only thing
we would lose in terms of outcome >> is a requirement uh for commercial on the first floor. >> Right? >> That's really the only and we would lo if we keep it in the district we lose the parking requirements. So, and this was um certainly something that came up
in the sitewalk a lot. Um so, >> does anybody want to make a motion to remove it or to leave it in or just for No, no motion that would >> Sure. No, I think I'll make that motion to to take the street properties out of the
of the downtown district, >> town center town center district and leave it as general district. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> So, >> just just so we can discuss it. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Um, go ahead. And I'm gonna ask Mark for his opinion. >> Yeah. Sorry, I jumped in there. I could
say. >> Okay. >> So, that would mean the Elm Street property is no longer part of of anything we're doing the current zoning that we're creating. >> That's right. >> Correct. >> They have they have there is clearly zoning that applies to them, but it won't be part of what we're generating
here. no change from their current zoning >> which is they're in the general district now >> I really haven't been one way the other so I would guess so I would agree with that can I clarify if the chad encompasses that entire cut off section okay yeah >> yes
>> um so effectively you're we would be encouraging more residential use attend tendency toward more residential use given what's on the west side and the northern
boundary of it with the apartments. >> I think what I lose is mixed use there. >> Yeah, we have mixed use already. >> Yeah. So I think what happens is you get in that gray area of the the problems with
the general district um use table and that >> you know excuses. >> So effectively that drawing is going to change >> correct. So the boundary would then go uh follow I think uh yeah where my
cursor is right above the sea. >> Yeah. and would uh go up along the water to the back of the fire station. Right. >> So, um >> wow, that's a fairly significant chunk
of space. >> Well, it's four properties. >> Yeah. Um Mark, do you have any comments one way or the other? >> No, I mean I think it's reasonable not to include it. Um, we are trying to
focus on the core area of the downtown. Um, if it's we're successful over the next several years and really creating a vibrant, busy, walkable downtown, lots of stores, and there's demand for additional retail. I mean, it it can
continue to be there. Um, right. >> Can't uh but areas can always be reszoneed. you wanted to extend the song to help >> and I might be mistaken so help refresh my memory but during the walk we heard
from folks who own property on Elm Street I believe. >> Yes. and afterwards. Um, and people who lived on Elm Street, I believe, and they seemed concerned about
including >> Okay. >> because they had properties that were currently commercial and they wanted to I mean, I think you're the gentleman who said that. Um, >> comment on that. >> Yeah. Um, so, uh, I will take comment on
the change, uh, a change to leave Elm Street, um, out of the downtown zoning and leaving it in, um, the general district. Um, comments? >> Sure. Um, I'm Mark Lkley. Uh I happen to
be married to a woman who owns the buildings at 1 and5 Elm Street uh which is the Mariposa building and the little building at 1 Elm. And um first of all I applaud your efforts. I think if you're able to maintain a
vibrant retail community in Manchester that's terrific. Uh I we have some uh experience now. we my wife on trying to operate a retail store on Allen
Street and that's part of the reason why I'm here. Uh what I'm doing is reiterating some of the comments I made on my birthday November 10th when I couldn't attend your meeting. Uh uh
>> but in any event, I agree with Mark that the true retail corridor is uh Central Street to uh Beach Street. And uh Elm Street, as you know, is a dead-end street. It's narrow. It doesn't have a
lot of parking. Uh the the property that is of particular concern to us is One Elm Street. Uh it's it's a property that's less than 3,000 square feet of land. It has a building that originally
housed the Cricut Press years ago. >> Oh my gosh. >> And since then it's been a number of other things including a single family house and at the moment it's leased to uh Jay Suite who operates the Newport
Jenners Festival and Folk Festival. Um the building itself is structurally not in very good shape and it's not worth renovating it. Uh the only uh the only
uh approach that makes economic sense is taking that building down and constructing what would be a small single family house and uh retail wouldn't work at that. site. My
wife has opened a store at Five Elm called Mariposa and Friends uh that's been in operation for about a year now. And uh it's not there because it was a wonderful economic opportunity. It's
there because uh during co uh she needed to have a showroom to show products to people around the country. So it was set up as a showroom and it worked quite well for that purpose. After co uh it occurred to uh Livia and
her uh staff that it made made sense to test it out as a retail store. Uh they had personnel in the building. Uh obviously they own the space. Uh so it wasn't a question of hiring staff and
outfitting the building. Uh since then she's uh done a lot to try to generate business at that site. Uh it's not just her products, it's Mariposa and Friends. So it's a lot of businesses that she knows from the industry. Uh, and it's,
if any of you have been in there, it's a pretty nice store, but it suffers because it doesn't have a lot of pedestrian traffic. Uh, people don't drive by street. Uh, and consequently,
if it weren't for the fact that she didn't have she already had the overhead, uh, it it wouldn't be economically viable. Uh, I think the bike store survives because destination business and I think destination
businesses on Elm Street could work. But I agree with other comments that have been made about the nature of the street and uh I don't need to say much more because I think you you tend to concur that it it it really doesn't make a lot
of sense. I I think when you referred to Chad what that that's 3A, isn't it? >> Yes. Uh actually one elm isn't in 3A. >> Uh that the other properties are included but one elm is oddly enough not included. Uh but that really doesn't
make a difference. Uh and I think you're right. Uh by doing this there would be a parking requirement for all the other properties on street. And I think there should be uh because if there weren't I believe there would be a lot of
congestion. So, uh, in summary, I guess, uh, I'm here to, uh, applaud you for being clever and taking Elm Street out of the proposal. And I think that, uh, what what's going to happen on the
street is going to be very good. Uh the uh uh Libya has been working with the town because the town needed certain easements in order to do the central pond project. So we agreed on boundary
lines and we're looking forward to that happening. I guess that may be back on track as I understand it. And um so with that the there would be some further problems because there couldn't
be a connection of traffic for an extended period of time. >> Right. >> Yeah, that's a good point. >> Um okay, great. Thank you, Mark. Um any other public comment on this topic of Elm Street in or out of the town center
district? Okay, I'm not seeing any. Um, so any other discussion from the board? Uh, we have a motion on the table uh to remove the Elm Street from the Town Center District. Um, all in favor?
>> I opposed. Great. Passes unanimously. Um, so Mark, you'll make that change. >> Um, great. Thank you. Um the next uh piece of the district uh that I'm aware of, I think um is the uh um
property that is my cursor is pointing to um the house right along the tracks. Um Mr. McK McKenna, correct? county um a house uh or owns this property and I
know he had asked to come and make a case for excluding it from the harbor's edge district. So with that, why don't I actually I'm going to flip it a little bit and ask you to just um I know Mark invited you to come and um to us.
>> Yep. So I'm David McKenna. I live at 37 Beach Street. We purchased the house uh five years ago. Um, last news is a commercial property at PJ's Harborside restaurant back in the late 90s. Property was then bought in 2000, so 25
years ago. And in 2004, converted to residential. It's been residential for over 20 years. I think we're the only residential property of the 12 properties here, strictly residential. Um,
so the request is to keep it in general. Um, if the property turns over in the future, you know, someone might want to put commercial in there again, but I don't see a reason to have to make it within the harbor's edge. Um,
which would restrict me from potentially making it a two family. Bought the house with three children. We're down to one. He's 21. He'll be moving up. So potentially I could make it a two family. Um and
I think that also aligns with MBTA uh you know communities zoning that they want more housing near the transportation areas. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I just want to
clarify that under the harbors the proposed Harbor's Edge district rules, you would not be procluded for putting two residential units, but the requirement in the Harbor's Edge is that you would have to have some sort of commercial in the first you would have
to have commercial on the first floor um or receive a variance um on that uh use which the ZBA does generally does address. So, and that kind of goes to Sy's other issue question. Um,
uh, so we'll come to that about whether or not we should maintain that strict prohibition on the first floor for the Harbor's Edge because they they are seem to me to be related. >> Um, so let's just take up this uh Harbor's Edge 37 Beach Street um as part
of the Harbor's Edge district first. Um, comments from the board. >> Do you mind pointing out where it is on that? It's right next to >> I can't understand where is the hardware store on that map.
>> No, no, that's the sewage treatment. >> It's right there. No, sorry. >> Right there. >> Right there. >> Hardware 35. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank the screen that touch screen. This little garage belongs to AS storage in
here. >> Oops. Oh, let me make it bigger. >> You could uh Mark, you probably looked at, but I think you can keep the boundary line continuous, get around 37 beach. >> Okay. So, we're talking about this property here.
>> So, that's a freestanding residential unit. >> Yes. prior to in its prior life was a restaurant. >> It's between the tracks and the hardware store. >> Yes, >> that's right. A yard in the front.
>> How How big is your lot? >> It's uh something like 5,000 square feet. >> Parking for six cars. >> So, it's nonconforming. >> Non-conforming. It's right on the edge
of the property lines. So I have two points to make. One is it's not an obvious single family housing site in the town. Uh if I were going to build a single personally, I wouldn't choose that site because of
its location next to the tracks and the sewer treatment plant. >> That's a great view. >> But it does have a great view of the harbor when the train isn't there. And I had thought, you know, if we left it in the G district, I thought it would be
left out of its own, but actually it would become part of the >> the municipal stuff. >> Yeah. The municipal things going on in back of it, masons and so forth. So >> So this is G back here. >> Yeah, that's all G.
>> And this street as well. All those are G as well. >> Yes. uh >> remark >> it's G >> and remark. >> So I I don't feel strongly about what we
>> I don't know. >> Can we revisit the the reasons why we decided on including it in the first place? I think there were some distinctions there. >> Well, I think it was next to the hardware store and it wasn't an obvious residential site, >> right? It's part of the sort of core
commercial district. I mean essentially what happened when Harbor Point and that area got developed is the commercial district moved from north of the railroad to the other side of the railroad and it began that. So it's I
don't know. I mean I my the problem as I understand it from your point of view is that residential use in the harbor's edge is a no and
commercial is required. Is that correct? >> No. It's just putting restrictions on me. I'd rather stay general and not have the same zoning I have. Well me's edge. if you could remain residential. >> I can't make it a two family without adding commercial to my first floor.
>> Yeah, that's >> which the house is not set up for that. There's no way it would work. >> But that's the way the zoning is now. And I I personally have a problem with the zoning being a no. Uh requiring commercial on
the first floor and >> yes, in Harbor's Edge because I think we just don't know. I mean, your situation is one situation, but I it's just so hard to predict how
real estate development will happen in the town. And I I would like the board to have some flexibility as opposed to have a hard andf fast rule about um Harbor's Edge is only commercial on the first floor.
>> So, >> and that's it. as opposed to making it a planning board review kind of thing as we do in the town center. >> So my I'm going to just I think the rationale for harbor's edge being commercial on the first floor is with
the exception of 37 beach it is currently commercial on the first floor. Um so um and it was included in the um this district of Brian's point is that it
kind of contiguously has it is the it is >> you know it is like in terms of a structure and its location and its proximity to the what would be
the core a commercial area it was included Um, so, um, I feel actually very good about having a requirement of commercial on the first floor. >> And
don't forget, if you were going to develop this, these things take a long time. I mean, I'm thinking about sell signaling pointed Mark. You know, there are opportunities to uh change zoning. You know, we certainly
did that for uh with cell signaling to raise height limits of stacks to accommodate a great use and a thoughtful way. Um but I worry that if we have a special permit and everybody comes in and says,
"Uh, I really need residential on the first floor." pretty soon the market is going to drive that potentially to be residential big residential um on the with and I you know what happens with the special permits
unfortunately and I I'd love to figure out how to not to do this but people spend a lot of money to get a really nice looking plan to sell it to us >> and they then they're wed to it they're very wed to that plan and
>> you know we want them to be wed to a commercial thriving first floor plan. That's what they have today. And um in and in this district, it's mixed in the town center and I think we've given people a lot of flexibility and our goal
here is not necessarily to maximize somebody's property value. Um we may be arguably um increasing property values depending on your perspective >> um throughout much of this district. Um
and uh um but our goal here is to do exactly what we said which is to try to preserve the commercial um core. >> So um >> Sarah explain your comment about our
potentially increase in the valuation of properties that district. >> Um you certainly can comment on that. Yeah, it >> could you comment to comment that you are potentially increasing the value of property? >> Well, uh currently the zoning in um a
good chunk of this is uh sing is 20,000 square feet and we're changing 6,000 square feet lots. So, >> you know, >> um single family, no two family, no commercial. I mean, zoning is totally >> we we're dramatically reducing lot size in a big chunk of the pro of the
harbor's edge. Now, each property is different and I I I our job is not to assess uh today's value versus tomorrow's value. Our our job here is to try to do good planning a town. So, um
anyway, um so I've so there we're talking about two things right now back to but they're related, right? Because um Mr. McKenna's options become limited. uh because of um
>> within them the commercial >> the commercial on the first floor and that is that is unique to those properties that that district um but >> at the same time it doesn't preclude the home staying as a single family home
from the end of to the end of time >> and if the property I don't have it right in front of me but if the property is under 6,000 square feet it's not complying with zoning anyway Okay. So, it's a non-compliant uh
you know, so anything you did would need a >> special >> a special permit. You don't have any right if if your property is under 6,000 square feet. You don't have that right or two family
anyway today. Um without, you know, by right. It's not a by right situation. I don't know what your area is, but >> I actually have the area here and it looks like it's 6,000 square ft.
Um it's uh this is the from the assessor's data and it says it's.14 acres. 6,000 square feet is.138 acres. >> Okay. You did a survey.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because it's all >> So what is your intent to do with the property? >> I'm not planning to do anything in the short term. I just don't want to be able to lose flexibility. Only residential property in the harbor's edge district. Why put restrictions on this property?
Was converted from commercial to residential over 20 years ago. Keep the continuous line and go around. Why why is that pro being included? So right now single family and it potential future potential to convert it to a two
family house or to two units. >> It's in the general district so it could be converted to a two family. It could also be converted to a lot of commercial units. However, >> parking requirements would apply. So we
would have to go for variance or comply with parking requirements. or for or whether he adds commercial or does more than does two units or more. Um so it's I mean it is still
>> a commercial property, you know, a general district property. It's just not >> would not be a Harvard's Edge district property. So >> So what would the parking requirement be in for the general district for two
family again? Is that >> Well, that would be space >> on the lock. >> Yeah. And he says he has five or six. >> I mean, I think you can also make an argument if we're going to if we're talking about a partic that particular
property that it's more that it belongs with a >> um >> well, it's >> I mean it's none of the a district here. Uh 22,000 square feet. It's kind of along the same
um No, >> it it's isolated. It's a buddy in a G district that's currently part of the G district. >> Okay, I'll take that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um,
>> yeah. I mean, I don't I think as long as there is potential for it to continue to go back to a commercial use, I don't have any problem with it staying in the general district because you can draw a line there. I
mean, it is if it were further in the center of the district, why wouldn't want to do it at all? But it's on the very edge. And if it's in the Harvard's Edge District for commercial use, it will have to comply with parking. >> Yes.
>> So, it's not really changing. >> Right. Right. It's sort of the same except for the requirement for commercial or which >> Yeah. >> Um >> pretty similar to the Elm Street. Did this come out?
>> In good shape. Um I'm in I'll tell you my inclination and I um I understand your predict predicament is that we leave it as is and that we it's been we have only heard
from the home own the property owner um and it makes sense to have it in and um we still have public hearing to go through. we can um uh see if there's additional public comment, but to me it makes um it makes
sense to have it where have it in the district. That's >> so that I understand the limitations that would would be applied to him if he could not turn it into a two family house unless he converted
to unless he provided commercial space. They can't provide the parking. >> They're there by the challenge. >> I think that Yeah, it's like it's >> Why would anyone else in the public have any concern about my property being in that possession?
I think part of it is what it was before it was a residence that people who have a long history in the town remember it as commercial space and then all of a sudden it wasn't commercial space. It's >> not commercial. It's general.
No, no, >> but it being used and that's people view its use. >> Sure. >> As not in a way the if I can jump in. Yeah. The property is kind of a poster child for what we're trying to
>> prevent happening downtown. >> Right. >> But now it's done. So it's all residential property in there. Um, okay. Let's Yeah, go ahead. >> Another example. Before I had the house
under agreement five years ago, it was under agreement with a realer J. Barrett Reality >> had it under agreement contingent upon town's approval. The town said you need to add parking for 10 spaces because of the number of
people were going to be in the building. >> Yeah. >> And they proposed that the front of that area which is like a garden just bark mulch and shrubs be converted to park >> and I don't know was the planning board of town whatever said no we won't
approve that. And so Jay Barrett released the property said we can't town won't approve it, went back on the market and then I bought it. Presidential, but there's no reason why in the future, you know, if I were to
sell that property, someone wanted to come in and make it a restaurant, someone wanted to come in and make it a real estate office. There's no restrictions why that would happen. So, I think that's the best argument for taking it out of the garbage edge is that it can't be developed for commercial anyway because there's not
enough parking to do it. >> You turn into maybe a ice cream stand. >> That's about it. If you, you know, for 6,000 square feet, it's maybe you could get five parking you have six maybe.
>> Yeah, six. We have a restaurant with we needed one of the two tables >> outside the desert then park. There's no parking restriction and people can park on the street. >> Well, for a commercial use it still require parking.
>> You would have to be in the town center >> in the general district as well. If you're in the town center district. >> Okay. Okay. Um >> I don't know. >> I I'd like to say one thing in favor of
excluding it, which is that if Mascanomao Park, if Reed Park is in the general district, it allows a continuous general district to make that also in the general district as opposed to a break there.
>> Yeah. It's about the general district >> only at Reed Park. >> Well, no, at Reed Park and on the western boundary, too. >> No, this because this is the hardware store. This is two different blocks. >> This This is the hardware store.
>> A little piece out. Really? Yeah. >> Oh, so it doesn't go all the way to the back. >> This property is just Oh, >> that's the hardware. Oh, so he's surrounded by commercial stuff. Uh,
>> but the parking does make sense. Um, okay. I'm going to, um, I'm not hearing anybody. Uh, I feeling like we need just to mull that over a little bit longer.
>> Um, we've heard Thank you for coming. We've heard your argument. We've um I want to move on to the other things that we can resolve tonight. Um and we'll we will I think we have not taken action to remove it which is um but we have heard
your input. Um >> I think you make it compelling. Yes. >> I don't think it's much different from Elm Street to be honest. It feels very similar. >> Okay. Um thank you. I think um I want to move on to uh the rest of this dis these
districts. Are there other changes at all that people have contemplated or heard that um should be um discussed? Tableing that one for the moment. Um any
other uh changes? I had one question on the principal buildings um section that was strike through right um see it's uh >> the language of the >> the language section 4.1.4 four.
>> Let me just um let's just finish on the on the map. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yes. Okay. Any other I don't hear I haven't heard any other changes proposed for the map. Okay, >> great. >> Thank you. Um so, let's um Oh, I guess I should ask if there are any other
comments on the map district boundaries from the public. >> Okay, hearing none. Thank you. Um, okay. So, um, district boundaries. Okay. Go ahead, Brian. What the the
>> Yeah. Um, I just wanted to clarify if we intend to allow more than one principal building per lot. Um, and make that explicit. Um, just because I I think the use tables do a good job, but then that's kind of a separate thing because
technically we by removing it, we could allow more than one principal building per lot, right? So, where what are you? >> That's section 4.1.4 right above the use tables. So it's specific to residential
building. I think when discussion like been applied to Jamaica buildings in the past so I'm not sure Paul about this all Orlando buildings
as well as council about this and they feel that perhaps if I was losing this town council does. By removing this, you're 12 stop someone from having two single families on the plot.
>> The only reason like normally don't have something like this, but because you had it, now you're taking it out. There could be an argument made that you you could have two single families on a part. So, uh, >> where I'm sorry, I was missing.
>> Is this on page two of the draft? >> The bottom of page one of the draft is section 4.1.1. >> Oh, okay. It says remove that's the remove from section 1.1 >> except
>> yeah the it's got the strike through approved. So, >> shall not be more than one principal. That applies across all zoning, >> right? And we had talked about allowing that in the for the two downtown
districts, but so we struck it out so that someone could have two two families, have some commercial, have multiple residential buildings on a parcel. Um
but by striking it for the entire town as opposed to just allowing multiple residential buildings in those two districts. Um so it wanted to point out that maybe
we want might want to change this language not remove it. >> It is very confusing. Yes, it is very confusing because this is like an odd duck like most towns don't have something like this and so um maybe by
ch saying well leaving that but maybe allowing more than one principal residential building on part a lot like except for you know you only allow it in the downtown two downtown districts.
two data effects. >> Okay. So, >> so number one exists in our current >> that's correct. >> Yes. >> And so this actually by striking it don't we solve the uh >> two family
>> the the zoning board of appeals ADU versus single >> Yes. Yes. >> Doesn't that solve that problem? >> Yeah. In a different way. Yes. >> Well, since ADUs, this couldn't be such a big deal
with ADUs now being allowed. >> Well, ADUs now are not going to be allowed in the town center and downtown district because we don't allow single family. That's the biggest. >> Granted, yes, but I mean for the rest of the town. >> Right. Right. >> Since ADUs aren't allowed, this doesn't
really >> We're allowed to have two single family houses anyway. >> Yeah. one would just be called a ADU and would be smaller. Yes. >> But this changes this means that the D2
D1 prohibition uh that we that the ZBA no a large ADUs are allowed in D and you can't have two residential buildings that are not attached in D. So by striking this is
like a different issue alto together than the downtown >> it seems to me. >> Yeah. >> So >> well have a two family. You just have to be in one building >> right. That's what this says. But if we strike it
>> then the Mranos could have had a two family >> in two because they wanted to separate this solution. >> So that's the that was the problem. It solves that problem in a different way. But my concern in terms of process is
like this is a whole new idea, >> right? >> It has nothing to do with downtown. >> Oh gosh. >> So, um, >> not the moment really. I mean, especially if you want to get senior housing dealt with, >> right?
because trying to think about the implications of this I mean my immediate reaction is in the D districts there's tons of structures that violate this but >> well it actually makes it it's more lenient less it's less restrictive than
we have today we strike it >> but my point is we have been we we're sneaking this right >> I don't want to use the this It was a way of allow by taking this
out. It was a way of allowing multiple residential buildings on the downtown district residential buildings on the downtown district lots >> or D >> which is what we well we weren't even when we >> decided to not put it in to remove this.
It was to remove it so that it wouldn't restrict the two downtown districts from having multiple buildings that have residential units on a single parcel. >> So, >> so that can we just turn this around and
just simply say >> allow it in most >> in those two districts then we don't have to deal with >> Yes, that's correct. >> I mean it might be a good solution for D as well. Yeah. Well, we'll take not but D you can deal with separately under the
ADU. >> But you can't because ADUs are not allowed. No, >> large ADUs are not allowed in D. That's >> well that's a separate article that we have to changes it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's a separate article. >> Okay. So, let's make this an affirmative
statement rather than a change that affects all of the town, right? Without thinking about what that means.
So, an affirmative statement would be >> so we would read this in and then we accept the downtown two downtown districts. >> Yeah, we could we could do that. >> Yeah. >> Yes. So, it would say the same and the
Parker's Edge in the TC. Yeah. >> Yeah. Now, it might be a good idea to take it out going forward, but I think it not >> it's a different issue. >> It could generate a lot of >> Yes,
I understand if you just leave it in. >> We all have our value added. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Good catch. All right. Um um I do have it up on the screens. Um okay,
let's see. Let's um are there spec let's see the issues that we were going to talk about were um just around Elm Street parking.
Um I don't really have anybody. Let's uh I think parking we have we're clear right now with one for residential and none for commercial and town center and according to the complicated
table for the harbors edge. Okay. Um let's talk about let's talk about Sy's question here. additions to the table of use basically use adding mixeduse
buildings to the table and table does not permit first floor residential uses in the harbor's edge district. Um I'm I'm reading your comment and Sandy says I worry about not giving ourselves the property owners of the district the flexibility to respond to unforeseen
conditions given the new provisions landing board designation might be a more appropriate model. We talked about this. Sandy, did we convince you or um do you still want to see us have um
>> Sandy, what would be your preference here? What what do you think the word? >> My preference would be I think a plan I mean I don't have the experience you've had of people coming in and they get wetted to a plan. Um, and so in general,
when you're pushing a new set of rules out into the public and to see what happens with them, um, it's good to have flexibility to respond to situations you did not foresee. And so that's my only
reason for let's not just say a flat no. Um, so my concern though is that the that we currently if if we had currently had a mix of uses in town Harbor's Edge, I would agree with you, >> but with the exception of this 37 beach
commercial >> on the first floor. And so it's not really a departure, >> right? >> It's keeping it's trying to keep it the same. >> It's a little bit freezing it, which is part of what the whole effort is is to preserve. really. Um,
>> yeah, I'm I'm half convinced. >> And it's also part of the general premise of can we make the zoning match a little bit what's there? >> Yes. >> Oh my gosh. Looking at the Azone
harvest. >> So, it's a little bit step in that direction. A little bit of a step in that direction. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> You're okay leaving it right now? Okay. Um the notes on the table of uses both
notes use lot as a determining factor on how many units are permitted on a lot >> and a lot is defined by size. So the unit limit is per 6,000 square feet. >> It's not clear what a lot is. So it's not clear when you say there are x
number of units on a lot. Is that only on the minimum size lot on the 6,000 square foot lot? So in any one spot, >> but you could subdivide it to 12,000 square feet. >> You could make pulocks, >> right?
>> Then you could have your >> frontage. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> So, um, yeah. So, if you have a long skinny lot that only has the required frontage and it's 12,000 square feet, it would be hard to subdivide it. But if
you have a wide lot >> like Chris Goodbridge, >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, so and that's generally how density is described, right? >> Yeah. The the word lot is used
throughout the >> and it's defined in it's one of our definitions. >> It's used throughout the zoning bylaw to define a parcel. Parcel is another word. >> Well, >> that's that's also used probably in the bylaw. The reason I ask is because um
what happened with the M and ask for a little bit of clarity is because with the MBTA zoning, the parcel at the corner of Deer Hill Road and Pine Street um had uh over an acre, I think it was
like 57,000 square feet. And um the subdivision uh allows, you know, could allow a whole bunch of 6,000 square foot um properties and we wanted to make it
clear >> that there was a limit that was absolute for those lots. And so we picked >> what the lot was at that particular point in time. So I'm asking that
question. Do we need to think about that? >> So um an example >> lots big enough. I mean I don't >> we're not trying to do that here. So >> so an example is Harbor Point is couple of acres. Yes. And so if we were to do
the same process as is put in time lock in time the lot which is the one lot at Harvard Point then um you would only get uh between let's say it's two acres you'd get 30 units >> um which is actually in that district
what you're going to get anyway whether even if you make 6,000 square foot um lots >> um but elsewhere in the town center. >> There aren't many >> there aren't many big lots, especially since we've taken out the Elm Street
>> piece. That's where the big lots are. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm trying to >> That's why the six 15 units per acre makes sense for Harbor's Edge >> because it's gets away from that lot. Because if you divided Harbor's point
into 6,000 square feet lots and allowed four per, then you end up with 28 per acre or something like that. 7 times
you could have seven lots per acre roughly times 4 28. I mean at its maximum, >> right? Yeah. There's only really um in the town
center there's only the one uh eight beach, you know, the whole uh >> Yeah. >> Seabbze. >> Seabbze and the Stanley. >> Yeah, >> that's the only shot. Anyway, >> yeah,
it's probably our biggest uh Yes. >> Okay. So, we're clear on the lot question. Um, we talked about the different reviews of different Okay. The other issue that we talked uh
said we were going to talk about is should there be a density bonus for affordable uh as opposed to a requirement? Right now, we have an requirement. Um,
I would argue that for right now we should just keep it simple and require the uh 5% or over five uh 20% over five units. >> It's easier to understand and >> it's consistent
>> consistent with the ch. >> So >> that makes sense. >> Um, okay. Any other comments that people want to talk about? Um Jeff, have you heard things um as you've
been uh uh any other things people want to talk about? I mean, we we have to take this the select board. Um where's our deadlines. Mark
>> can you hear me? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. No, I I mean it looks good. There's a lot of good discussion here. I'm just trying to uh educate myself on this whole thing. So, I don't really have any comments at this time, but
>> No problem. One of the things um I do want to talk about is um when we should uh come to the select board to talk about um this zoning and um some of the other zoning. So uh we can maybe
coordinate that offline. We don't have to spend meeting time, but I think we probably need to come to you quite soon. >> Would you? Yeah. >> Okay. I'll uh I'll mention that to Tony when I talk to him. >> Okay, great. >> Yeah. I talked to Tony about trying to
have a informal discussion with the select board prior to voting to submit the final. >> Oh, that would be good. Yeah. >> Um, so because you have to submit your final vote all your articles by the 23rd
of February. >> Oh, okay. We got a little time. So, um, so I was thinking perhaps the select boards first or, uh, last meeting of January or first meeting of February. >> Okay. >> Give us time.
>> Okay. So, I'm going to close the discussion on the downtown zoning. >> There's Oh, yeah. There is a mistake. Oh. >> Um on uh section 6.1.9 um it says that in the town center commercial uses shall be exempt from
parking requirements except for hotels but hotels aren't allowed at all in the town center district. Only ins are allowed. >> It's not it's on page >> Yes, that's correct.
>> Right. But it it says hotels. >> Oh, it says ends in hotels. >> Oh, this is I I this is the Sunday night version. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. >> So, um I was just going to say um I am going to ask everyone to pledge that
they print this thing out and read it aloud to your spouse. >> Well, the trouble is it keeps moving around. I mean, I printed it out and read it and it's like >> the only thing I did that was different is I after getting comments from council
as I incorporated the comments which we um >> which were fairly minor and I turned the formatting that changed. So I formatted it as a town meeting article. >> That's why there's some these strikeouts
everything's in red. So, uh, that's new. Um, and then there are descriptions and it's it's set up exactly the way our warrants are set up. So, >> okay. So, I do see um
this language that says if the pro um now 8.5.2 if the project is in the historic district and is being reviewed by the district commission, the approved building design shall be incorporated final approval. Is that that's a new that new language?
>> Yes. So, um she had some comments about the historic district as design review and her comment was basically if you um can't have uh in a particular zoning district well
you know different requirements for different properties. So I see >> if it's so you can't say well >> some some of you go here some of you go there for design review you have to go to a single
>> um so that's why um they have to go through our design review process and you can't send them if they're not in a historic district you can't send them to the historic commission >> because they all have to come through us
and Right. Is that what you're saying? >> The by stat Yeah. Because by statute, they can only review what's in a historic district. So if it's in a historic district, as much as we're trying to simplify it, it would need two
sets of reviews. Now remember, historic >> commission is primarily just interested in the building. You would be more interested in some of the additional site design requirements. So again, if it's in a historic
district, we probably would defer to and have someone attend historic commission meetings to um as far as the building goes. >> Is there something that says that we'll collaborate in some >> um I don't have that kind of language in
here. So >> maybe we just hope they do. >> Yes. Yes. It could be in our regulations. >> Okay. Are there any other substantive changes? So when we present this, >> we do need to change how we say that
which is all of them have our design review historic is included in >> Okay, that's a different that's a change. >> Yeah, it is a change. >> Is that going to change an FAQ somewhere? >> I don't know. Gives me a headache though.
There you go. It probably does change an ins. >> Okay. >> Oh, one one thing is uh family daycare uh large family daycarees are now a um protected youth.
>> So we have Yes. as DBAs. And so in your draft, you'll see that those are now yes. >> And the other thing is we will uh probably have to have another article to make it yes in the other districts as
well. >> We don't have to do that because >> we're going to do that some other time. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yeah, >> because it's an uninforcable it's an uninforcable DBA requirement. >> Yeah. Just
>> okay. >> Okay. Any other change substant wording changes or substantive changes? >> Okay. >> Sure. >> But Mark, I'm going to ask you to send us out tomorrow
this version. final final um as a with a date and I'm going to ask everyone to print it uh and really read it carefully um and find the three more things that are
typos. >> Okay, because this is the notion is what we're going to receive from Mark will be welcome to this question. >> Yes. >> Okay. And um and we will still think a little bit about the
>> put on the website. >> What? >> Put it on the website. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. I'll add it to the >> Yeah. And add the changed map. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So that changed. Um
okay, great. Um let's now move to discussion of hotels and ins. Um so I'm going to start with ins. >> Have you sent this one to council? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you have any
>> Yes. to hold those >> obvious. >> She added a good question. So, so one of one of her her things is what's distinguishes in from a hotel
because basically the definitions are the same with the exception of we said um ins cannot exceed 12. >> Right. Right. >> Um however up to 12 they're kind of the same thing but you have different
requirements. So I said I added some language to make hotels 13 and up so that there's a clear distinction between the two, >> right? >> Because you're saying an in is up to 12.
The rest of the language of the uh of the article of the definition is similar. So She asked an interesting question. I thought about it whether is there a minimum number of units to be
considered. >> Why would they have a minimum? >> Well, because you can have a fourunit building, I guess. >> Would that be a >> Wouldn't that be a bedroom? >> Would it be
>> apartments? Did you have suggestions? >> Of course not. >> No. You got a question. >> Yeah. I mean, you don't have to have a minimum, but >> you do have to have a maximum. >> Yes. >> Like a two or three room building, would
that qualifies? >> Yeah. >> As it's written now, >> if you had a restaurant and a few rooms of a Yeah. >> Yes. >> Only one person. Yeah. >> Big honeymoon suite.
>> Nice. by the harbor. That's >> That's right. Yeah. >> Mr. McKenna back here. >> Okay. So um other uh so um the only difference between um so
what we're saying is that is allow ins are allowed in uh the general district with a planning board special permit >> and they are allowed by right in the town center and the harbor's edge
>> and the LCD >> and the LCD. Thank you. Okay. And um >> by writing the LCD >> up to 12. Okay. But I thought all uses of the LCD require the special
elsewhere. The bylaw. >> Where is that? >> It's in the LCD. >> I think it's in the LCD section. Unless we change it. >> It might. I didn't. spirits.
Oh yeah. I know we all curse table 4.2, but it is so much infinitely easier to figure out things. >> Yeah, it sure is. >> When it was all narrative, >> the narrative stuff is just unbelievable.
Um my point to >> up to four borders in a single homes willing is allowed by right. Maintaining any lot more than business or professional bank is allowed by right. Medical office building is
allowed by right. Municipal uses religious purposes. Educational purposes. Child care community or private club. I think we allow a lot of things by writing. We do. >> Yeah. >> There's agricultural stuff that's very puzzling actually.
>> Maybe it's just site plan review. Maybe we'll say plan review. >> I have a question. Do we have a a limit on the size of a hotel? Do we want to say that again? >> Do we want to put a limit on the size of
a hotel? >> Um, so let's talk about ins first. >> Okay. All right. >> The one I was trying to get. >> Are there any uh proposed changes to ins uh special permit in the general allowed by right in LCD Town Center and Harbor
Edge? My only sort of going to your point, we don't have any right now. Should we just have a be special permit in the um everywhere
just because we don't uh kind of know how it's going to shake out? How it's going to shake out. >> I'm fine with that. >> Yeah, me too. >> Putting in a special permit for the planning board >> for the the two new districts
>> across the board. I guess aren't I just to sort of um because I'm just thinking about the opportunity for the public to have input about the amenities and
um I don't know. You're sh saying we're getting bureaucratic. >> Yes. >> Well, we're a small town. >> Oh, no. I get it. Um, but I mean it is just an inn and it's up to 12 units and
>> so what if it's like a strange themed gym? >> Yes. I mean I can see a hotel where you know it's at least 13 units and it's can be bigger and it's beginning to really be impactful.
you know, perhaps if someone comes in and a large large number of units um to make it a special permit. I mean, you still either way will be reviewing kind of the same reviews and and you know, and all of the
same review will occur. It's just easier for you to say no. With a special permit as opposed to with a site plan review, you you know, attorneys will tell you you can't say no. Yeah,
>> you kind of can, but it's it's got to be. >> So, I guess the argument for allowing a I'm I'm countering myself for allowing an in by right in the town center is that it um helps to further the goals of
a vibrant downtown >> and support our businesses, right? And that that is consistent with what we're trying to do. >> All right. I'll withhold any further thought on that. >> Well, okay. Let let me add you your original point here because
>> um 12 is a big number of units. Actually, if you look at everything in the downtown, there isn't anything that's 12 units. >> 12 rooms. >> 12 rooms. Well, what's got 12 rooms? Not
much. The trash house. >> Well, so I mean it's it's big for downtown is all I'm saying >> for the the two new district. >> You got three or four three or four apartments have 12
bedrooms. So >> Zach's could be 12 12 an in with 12 rooms. >> Uh well there you go easily. I mean, you know, >> cargo. >> Cargo. O
you still have to be the lot coverage and stuff. >> Yeah. >> And all that. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Um Okay. hotels um >> which are
um proposed um I so this is um 15 or more units >> and the proposal is limited commercial district or harbor's edge with a special permit.
Um, my personal thought is let's start with ends and let's put this one on the back burner for this town meeting and not try to we got a lot we're trying to do >> and this seems like a low priority to
me. Um, and um >> I Oh, sorry. >> Yeah. And I again I think if somebody really has a big hotel project, they're going to come in We're going to make a case. We can bring
a thoughtful not thoughtful uh zoning change if we need to. It's going to take a while to to do it, but I think um I think that we're going to get a lot of push back on this one if we have special
if we think of Harbor's Point becoming a giant hotel. Yeah, >> I have heard a lot of comment from different kinds of people saying no no hotel in okay but no hotel and right was a initially surprised
>> um at the comments but then I started to think about it well you know right now we don't have anything we lost our old corner in >> right >> you know >> um it's understandable >> yeah we may hear that people want ends
in a six unit kind of thing more spread throughout the town and we haven't really had a lot of feedback. We haven't really done a public campaign on this issue. So, >> well, it may also suffer from people thinking about the vote ward at Pavilion Beach
>> and thinking of that as the kind as a hotel an example. >> Is that a bad thing? >> Uh in Gloucester, I think it's fine although it was very controversial at the time. I wonder how many >> or anything is controversial. >> No. Well, it's
>> Yeah, but it's I think it's out of scale, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Do we have a definition for hotels like we do? >> It's just same as in like >> greater than 13, but no max. >> So, currently currently we have a definition for hotels, but it doesn't
have a number. So, if you don't submit the hotel article, it's still not allowed. You'll just have the definition. >> You don't need to change anything. You don't need to have an article. >> Yeah.
>> If you did want to add the use, then you should add the 13. So, it's clear. There's a difference. But >> whereas you're you have a definition for ins that is up to 12. >> Yeah. >> It's very clear. And then you have a use
line. So >> hotel does have rooms defining. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So you have a definition but you don't you don't allow it. So >> you don't have to have an adjust >> you don't have to adjust the article. >> Right.
>> So >> so I guess my feeling is right now what we're trying to do now is figure out what we're getting to what we're going to suggest to the town >> blackboard. And I I would say we should table this one for for now. >> Should we ask the slide board? >> Yeah, I think we should s say that as
our re my suggestion is that we say proposing in small because it helps with the town center vital issue and that hotels need a larger thought process. It's on our list. >> You could say hotel can't be bigger than
25 which would make it pretty small. Yeah, that's pretty small. Probably >> the Bport has 94 rooms by >> There we go. >> So, I don't know. My sense is that we haven't really vetted this and
>> right. >> Okay. And then we're >> our focus has been town center and we it it helps to make that question. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, we're good on that. Um, >> so >> hotels and ins any comments on hotels
and ins from the public? >> Okay. Um, senior housing. All right. >> Okay. The first thing is we take out all the old definitions that we struggle with our programs. What do you do on put in new ones
and um >> beginning of uh people don't have copies? I do have a few. Did >> we make any changes since it went into the pocket? >> Nope. Well,
>> since Thursday, >> you were going to make some changes based on council input. Did you do that? >> Yes, I've made a lot of I made a lot of changes. >> Oh gosh, I don't have the >> It depends. It depends if if if if it's
from last what you have is from last Thursday. >> I have the version. >> It hasn't changed at all. >> Okay. >> Okay. I have the >> basically you You really did not review this at the last meeting, >> right? Right.
>> And so any changes I did, you hadn't really seen. I did send it to council. I'm trying to find their comments. >> So Mark is the latest edition the one that actually has the council's comments in the margin.
No, I did not send I I might have I emailed you comments from council so you can see what her >> right >> comments were of this incorporates some those comments as well as I moved some things around. >> Ah
>> so >> so what you got last Thursday the final one >> I have the one6 draft >> this should comments on it. I don't have one.
>> Mark, by striking all these different definitions, assisted living, continuing care, independent living, long-term, and so on, and then replacing them with senior housing, independent living, and senior housing, continuing care. Mhm.
That's that would suffice. >> Yes. The um >> yes, these are more up to-ate definitions. I like the idea of referencing the uh certification by the executive office
for elder affairs, too. So you removed in section 9.5.2 the requirement that at least one person be 55 or older. Was that in response to her comment about what if the person's disabled or >> That's correct. So someone who's
disabled um would be uh able to live in an assisted living facility but not independent. So the age restriction was moved >> from to independent living
and uh assisted living of someone disabled. >> Yeah, that's exactly it's very helpful. So clarify if I'm 45 and have early onset dementia, I can't live in one of
these. >> No, you you can live in an assisted living facility. >> Not independent. >> Independent, >> but not in regular. Independent living is really 55 and old. Okay. Just regular
regular housing for 55 and older. Well, I know she town council said that some of the design standards were probably not going to be by the general >> but she was about it and frankly I think
we should leave it in let take it out. >> Exactly. And that's why I didn't I believe I did not take it out. I did not take it out because it is in many bylaws. >> Yeah. >> Uh she feels that,
>> you know, it's kind of one of those gray areas of the law because there's the >> zoning generally doesn't regulate building code, buildings, uh interiors of buildings. It more is designed to
regulate use. and that the she feels that the AG, just so you're aware, might strike this because they're beginning to be more restrictive on towns that are restrictive. In other words, they don't want this kind of um
kind of requirements. >> So, they may allow one or two or all three of these because they are have been allowed in the past. I >> I think they're good to So the affordable unit section moved
from overall senior housing to just senior housing independent with >> that's correct >> and and >> kind of the the one one question kind of in discussing that with her was um you
know is that a a little too restrictive for one of every five units to be affordable. I mean, we we'd added the bonus whereby if you build five, you can get an extra unit. Um, but >> pretty commented that >> but is
that it was just a question she brought up. >> Yeah. Well, I say it's a reasonable question, but as we did that feasibility study for the 3A, >> it would turned out to be perfectly feasible. It's a little short.
Okay. So the idea here is that we would allow independent housing >> with planning board special permit review in all districts and that we allow senior housing
assisted living facilities in A B C. Um, this looks ABC not D
E General LCD and not the downtown. So, no assisted, let me be sure I understand. So, no assisted living in either of the two new districts and no assisted living in the D districts, >> correct? >> But everywhere else,
>> assisted living is allowed and everywhere else the independent living is >> with special permit. >> Yeah. So ex our rationale for that distinction is that uh D is a residential
relatively resident >> residential vibrant walking community and the downtown is a >> they want to have a walking vibrant community. So, um
assisted um >> senior housing >> senior h senior housing is consistent with that assisted living where people are less independent is inconsistent with those two >> uh downtown or neighborhood use.
>> Yes. >> I think it's it's important to be able to explain that. >> Yes. Um >> Yeah. this uh no this remains in uh 9.5.4 for the independent living senior housing
section. I believe um uh item D, maximum size shall not exceed 60 residential units. That just seemed awfully large to me through this town. >> It's not going to happen.
>> Well, I know, but we're allowing it. So, maybe it will. So why don't >> four acres to do it. There's just not any four acre >> in throughout the town in every district. No, I mean there are I mean there are there are there are
>> not very many. And >> where do you have four acres like in the LCD? >> Why not have some? Well, I think that's not the >> I think that there's a scale issue for people and I'd really like to see this
pass and I think people are going to react to the 60 in a way that they wouldn't if it were 25 or 30 or even 40. >> I I agree. >> It's big number. Mhm. >> I mean, the places we saw in Wenham,
none of them were that large. And they were all very consistent in terms of their style. And look, it's the kind of thing that you could do a tour with people from the town and they would say, "Oh, yeah. Okay." >> Well, Maple Woods is 55.
>> Which one was Maplewood? The older one. Okay. I mean, the Maples have I'm sorry. The Maples. >> The Maples was the old >> uh mansion place. >> Well, they were saying 10 per acre.
>> All right. So, >> need six. >> So, you'd have to have six acres to do 60. But people are going to react to that number. >> Yeah. I had not thought about that as Yes, they will. Wasn't the 60 in the pre one of the previous versions? I think
that's where I got that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's No, it's just the moment is to talk about it is now. >> Yeah. >> Because we have it. >> Where do we page? >> So, it's on it's >> page for the sake of >> 9.5.
>> It's the independent learning section. >> Okay. FD as maximum size. It is sort of eyeoping. >> Yeah. >> Well, I think that also it's 60 if you
think you're if we're allowing it in district A or district G. I mean LCD. Yes. But um any of the other districts seem You know, I think people will say, think about the number of cars and the
number of staff and the number of um Yeah. The other thing is um We don't have a upper limit on the uh assisted living. >> Well, yeah. 10 units per acre. >> 10 units per acre. But we don't have a
upper limit. >> Yeah, we don't. You should. Well, the other Yeah, there's no maximum size. Yeah, 60 independent. >> That's big.
>> It's big. It's really big. Do we need the maximum size? What if we just left the density at 10 milling units per acre 20? It's two acres. That's not
Um, so one of my concerns here with this, first of all, I think we've made finally made some good progress. >> Um, and my concern is that we have done little or no outreach
>> um on this to get input. So um and we have we need to put a final version in front of the select board if we can on February 23rd. So I think uh we probably need a forum forum
at our next meeting uh with Tiffany. >> I don't think it's a good idea. >> What? >> It's a good idea. Yeah. and then we can present 60 units and get some input and um hear hopefully some folks we need a we need a kind of a quick and dirty
communications plan on this and I'm sure that the site board is going to say to us oh what are you doing on this one I mean we've been downtown I think we can legitimately say we've done walkthroughs we could do another walkth through a walkound we could do another forum we've got a video
we also need frequently asked questions I mean it's fairly simple But um we need that done. >> Why don't we set up a communications subcommittee? >> Yeah. To get this going ASAP. >> Y >> and then I think you can better um
respond to 60 units and 30 units and and um uh by you know by some input. But let's try to have um a chunk of our next meeting where we
have a forum on this. >> And do we need a separate sort of communications group? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Because I think that's the where what we haven't I want to be able to say that. >> We do need some input. Yeah.
>> Um, do are we comfortable leaving 60 in right now? >> What's the what's the rationale there? >> Yeah. >> What are we trying to prevent slash >> encourage? >> Encourage.
>> I I just see a I mean I've toured many of these places and 60 is big. >> Um >> Oh, 60 is small. Brook Haven is how many years of Brook >> Haven Brooks >> Brooksby Village.
>> Yeah, we don't want Brooks in >> I mean no nobody wants >> um >> could it scale with you know lot and dimension >> that's 10 units per acre I actually think it scales with um the district. >> Okay. >> To me
>> I think you know in the LCD we had 60 units. Great. um you know because then it's a then it's a business. >> Maybe it's a commercial use. >> We're still going to hear 60 more cars, 120 more cars, you know.
>> Yeah. But um but uh yeah, I mean if the Gordon Woods project changed from a apartments to a um assisted living facility, they're going
to in order to pencil that out, it would need to be bigger than 60. But, you know, maybe one portion of their project would be a >> a 60 unit assisted But it's a commercial use at that.
>> And I think to your question, we're trying to create um residential accommodations for largely for people who have live here today and want to age in Manchester. That's the
goal. um as opposed to creating a investment opportunity for um a commercial >> developer a developer because the fact of the matter is these are going to be commercial facilities. You don't
>> I mean maybe there's a co-op model that might exist somewhere but when you get to assisted living yeah you regulations and you have staff and you have nursing and you have ambulances and you have all of those things. Um, and
>> dining. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I mean, >> I I mean, I would respond to I would answer your question by saying this is something that hasn't been done in Manchester for I mean, and as Chris always points out, we're the
only one on the Northshore. So, there's some, you know, res assumed resistance, right? And so you're trying to give people a number that seems the right scale for the town.
I mean, that's the thing that I I mean, my experience with MBTA zoning was that was the thing people were most sensitive was scale. So heighty. People were nuts about height. And so
I'd rather have a lower number, maybe 40. even that people might have a reaction to. But >> why wouldn't it be, you know, 40 in the LCD and >> 30 in in the other districts or
something? That's >> so um but 60 seems 60 and LCD aside 60 seems very Um but when we see if there's push back
I mean if you say 50 then people say 40 if you say they're going to say 20. Okay, let's >> Well, I you know, part of it is communication though, Chris, because it's so maybe what we need to do as part
of the communication thing. If Maples has 55, take some picture. You know, you've got some pictures >> and say this is in when this is what it looks like. >> Size of the land there. I know you said before, I'm sorry. >> It's not that big. It's less than four
acres >> and it's how many units? >> 55 units, I believe. It seems like a lot, but I think it's partly because there are a number of units in the big old building. >> Yeah. >> Are they doubles?
There's a whole bunch of town houses all around it. >> No, but are the in the unit the assisted living? >> It's not assisted living. It's independent. >> Oh, it's independent living 60. So if each one is a thousand square feet, that's a 60,000 square foot.
>> You can also reduce the density instead of 10 to eight. >> That's another way to do it. >> Spreads it out, you know, and not restrict the size, >> right? But a 60,000 foot facility is the fourth largest building in Manchester.
>> Sell signaling and the two schools >> and and two schools Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm just saying this is for independent >> units in here. Do you have to say 15? You just put a density and leave it at be. Let the
>> Yeah, that's a that's a good question. Actually, >> don't don't establish it. Don't shock them with 60. You solve the problem and let the developer determine what the size wants to actually be and what's available. >> Special permit.
>> It is a special permit. And so there are always issues that can be addressed. >> So I think you either don't say 60 and leave it to density and >> say 60 >> or you or you >> I I have no problem doing it whatever
until we get some feedback but I think we're going to hear some feedback. I know we want the feedback to be positive not to be negative. >> Yes. >> That's right. So, we don't want to give, you know, the internet things to worry about.
>> Oh, there's always things to >> I have one other issue and that is um uh the parking for the assisted living >> I think needs staff parking. >> It says staff but it doesn't specify a dimension
>> and parking to staff. Okay. >> There's no limit. So then it becomes >> determined direct >> by the building inspector or by special. >> Okay. >> So one thing that I have in here but
don't have in here. So it's a little bit of both. I have under the definitions. The last definition is a senior housing continuing care facility and that would be a nursing home. But I
don't have a any specific subsection for that yet. So >> So a nursing home is the standalone nursing home. >> Yes. Yeah. >> As opposed to continuing care is you get independent assisted nursing home facility.
>> Um >> is that how that >> council made she clarified that that is that that was nursing homes. They enclosed our statute. >> Okay. I'll I'll have to clarify that.
So, >> and would it make sense in our table of uses to put senior housing continuing care and just put no no for the moment so that the so it's in the table. >> Um and that we're clear that we're not
going for nursing home. >> We're tackling that right now. >> Yeah. Well, nursing homes are already in table. >> Yeah, >> they're charitable nursing homes. >> Charitable, >> which I think we should I actually think we should delete that too because it's >> so not allowed nursing homes.
>> Well, it's we should or put it in LCD if we're going to do it. But that that existing thing is silly. >> It is silly. >> So, if we're going to tackle this, we should take that out. But generally if you have a continuing care facility it's going to
be nonprofit. >> Most of them are >> like Brooks Village. Um >> it's sort of silly to >> but right now charitable it's we don't have a definition for charitable
whatever this thing is that's in here. charitable or philanthropic >> use hospital nursing homes facility or sanitary >> we have that everywhere >> so we're like to me
that should come out the whole point is to modernize it so I think we should I think that should come out because it's not defined about a hospital. I mean,
>> right. Yeah. >> I don't know. >> So, I think um >> maybe >> do people agree that we should take out our existing >> number six. Number six, community facilities, charitable or philanthropic
use, hospitals, nursing >> care facilities, sanitarium by planning board because >> our point here is to tidy us up and that says >> Yeah, I think it's correct. >> Yeah. >> Well, and it's tidy it up within the
boundaries of what we're focused on at the moment. Yeah. So, because there are plenty of places to meet, >> let's get this done and then we can get the job. >> So, we're taking it out though and just
are we left leaving ourselves open to someone coming up and saying, "I want to build a hospital and it's not there's nothing in here." I mean, >> no. >> No. Okay. I don't think so. >> Okay.
>> I don't think we're in danger of a hospital. Oh my god. >> I don't think anybody's building sanatoriums anyway. I don't know. >> Bylaw is is if it's not listed as a permitted use, then it's or special permit use, then it's prohibited. So,
>> yeah, except if it's required by state statute. >> Well, then it doesn't matter what it doesn't matter anyway. We got in district D. That makes no sense. No, >> I know. I know. Right. Um kind of little by little.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we're going to delete table B, section B6 to do tidy. >> Okay. >> And I think also what that does is it says this is what our existing zoning
is. It doesn't make any sense. We're improving it. It helps our case, right? It it it helps the the thing like this is a vestage of the past. >> Yes. >> Nothing about limiting size of that either. >> No.
>> Well, can we set a date for the communications group? >> Yes. >> Like Friday 10 of those who want to participate. >> We have to post it. So anytime we can do it anytime from Thursday morning on
>> can do Thursday Friday have something at 11 Thursday afternoon works for me. I don't think I mean it's just it doesn't have to be everybody just enough people to get some frequently asked questions and
yeah the problem of writing things and uh or you said Friday >> Friday Thursday or Friday morning or Friday afternoon >> morning Friday the afternoon's not so
good for me after two but Friday Friday otherwise is okay as is Thursday. >> Thursday, Thursday. Thursday. >> Thursday or Friday. >> I can do either. >> You can't. >> I can. I'm just >> stressing out.
>> Pick Thursday. >> Yes. P. >> Chris, I think you're essential. >> Yeah, I'll be there. >> Which which is better for you? Thursday? >> It's fine. Thursday. >> Can you do th Thursday afternoon? Sometimes like it may not be great for you but >> probably not.
>> Okay. Um but sometimes Peter can we go for Thursday afternoon then it gives us a little more time. >> This can we do 3:00? >> Yep. >> Sure. Y Okay. Working group and it's three right be probably down there. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Wherever I can find a room. >> Okay. >> Across the street. >> Seaside one sounds. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. >> Um and uh maybe you and I can take a quick stab at some FAQs between now and then.
>> Sure. >> All right. Excellent. Uh anything else on senior housing? We didn't resolve right now this um number of units, but >> we you flagged it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I am leaning toward just doing the the um >> the density density. >> Yeah, I am too >> because then you don't get to have a number out there that everybody thinks. And if people think about two acres, well, that's 20 acres. It's not
terrible. Okay. Um um general bylaw requests, our least favorite topic. Um, just to
remind people how we got here, planning board used to review all curb cuts. We pushed it to the DPW by moving it to the general bylaws. We created um standards for one access per lot
um and uh no process whatsoever for um changing that even if there was all kinds of good reasons for a loop driveway or a you know other things. Um and
um so the proposal here is to have um regulations um that we I believe have drafted um and that the DBW um uh reviews these and that if it is more
than one driveway entrance um say residential use one unless otherwise allowed and I think we need to have a there is there a process here for coming to the planning board if there's a
>> so uh criteria require a special permit by the planning board so it gives us an out when the um when it's not a straightforward um so
this would be needs to be framed as an article >> it would I think delete existing section 446 and replace it with this. >> I will I will reddraft this as an article and this has not been reviewed by council and I will send it to her.
>> So the next step is send it to council. >> Is this something a play board is pushing or is it >> Well, it it became an issue because what happens is when um the public sort of members of the public see a two
entrances, they complain. >> Yeah. or something a little unusual or something that wasn't there before and they like you may not hear about it but they sometimes complain of public I'm
suggesting what I'm mean are we the ones to be >> pushing this forward >> or would it be DPW >> No it's sort of a combination of DPW it's a select board issue because it's general bylaw >> but it's a it's a general bylaw select
board issue of our make >> I just don't want them to think of this as a zone another another but I think this is a procedural issue. I don't think this is a big deal. >> It's just fixing >> the mess we made. >> I don't want to count against us.
>> No, right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, we'll tell them that. >> The problem it's really we'll get Chuck to to say that it's a it's a bit of our fault because we made the general bylaw. That's a problem. We suggested that. So,
I think we have to take a little responsibility for it. And it's kind of died down a little bit, but for a while, every time there was a second driveway where it was not exactly 90 degrees,
there was a lot of >> a lot of time spent at town hall dealing with it. >> Okay. So unnecessarily it seemed >> it would be better if DPW advanced it though and we should speak
in support. >> Yeah, exactly. They should be reviewing these, not us. >> Yeah, I mean we used to go to every site and do a site for every driveway. >> You have to post >> had to post them as meetings and yada yada yada >> take minutes. Yeah. So we we changed it.
We didn't do we got very if very prescriptive the existing one in the bylaws is uh extreme. So you're going to send that to council. We'll talk about it with the um
loss. Any comments on any comments from the public on either uh the senior housing or driveway curb cut? Okay. One more about the adus. >> ADU.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Did you I don't >> We're getting to it. >> Oh, okay. >> It's page two. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. So, recall that uh um Oops. I got still got uh Ian's up here. >> Independent housing.
>> Sorry. So, uh, Sarah Melish had asked us to think about, um, allowing ADU, large ADUs in D1 and D2. >> Um, and what you're doing here is basically
giving Sarah jurisdiction or the ZBA jurisdiction over those Right. Um I my personal feeling on this is that the ADU bylaw has not been out there for very long, >> right?
>> And our discussion earlier today about the two lots I think is warrants a little more thought. Um, so maybe we ask Sarah if she wants to put it forward the CVA, but um that's
probably not the best that we don't want to do that. >> No, no, that's not good. >> Does this solve the problem that's in front of Sarah with the thing on Norwood with the >> No, it's been solved. >> It's been solved. >> They've come up with the kitchen.
>> Yeah, they've come up with a solution. That's a different problem which is they've come up with the idea of an accessory building >> that is not officially a residence because it's not going to have a full kitchen >> which is the problem which is a larger problem in my opinion across the board
because there's this workaround. Um but we're not going to fix that >> between now and February 23rd. But to me that's the that's a big problem. We've had those all over the place. All over the place. Yeah.
>> And they're kind of an unregulated I don't know. >> I'm not sure how you regulate them. >> Well, they're just they're not following the 80. I don't know. >> In terms of this though, >> I feel like we were pretty thoughtful in
figuring out where they should go and they should not go. >> Yeah. >> Um and I mean I love them familyos. Um, and
I am sorry they've had to come up with this work around. Um, but I kind of agree with Sarah that it's hasn't even been a year since we have had this bylaw out there. >> Um,
so do we need a fix? I guess I don't know. >> We need a fence. >> Yeah. Well, the other thing is, and I didn't read it yet, but you know, Gary took us to task, I guess, on the ADU bylaw. I mean, is this opening up Pandora's box a little bit um
on on >> how would you >> on ADUs in general? >> Oh. Oh, we do that just by >> introducing discussion. Well, you know, it brings up the issue that the ADU that the attorney general struck down some of
our provisions in the um small >> one and >> but we discussed that when we submitted it it wasn't uh it used to have always been a
lightning rod. I think we should take it to the when we talked to the select board >> to say, you know, this one's only been out there for a year, we got feedback from the ZDA, >> we're kind of ambivalent on it, I think is the right word,
>> the language to do it, >> right? >> Right. There wasn't the reason to do it. I mean it it's like a the reason that it was prohibited is because in the D districts two families >> they're allowed >> they're allowed but then there's some
particular details about >> the detail we were just about to strike which is you can't have two buildings for residential you have to have them connect >> so I think as of tonight I have a little bit different like
>> why did that how what is that and is that the problem that we should be solving rather than the >> Yeah. Where did that come from? >> Yeah. So that >> because if that was solved then the
metron >> right >> so they couldn't have a two family because they didn't want to connect them for whatever reason >> right >> logistically or or >> they had some good reasons. I don't remember when they were, but >> yeah. And um and and a a large ADU. They
could have also done a small ADU. >> Mhm. >> By right. >> They wanted it larger than that. >> Yeah. So, Huh. So, we're back to that clause again, the >> 4.1.1.
>> Yeah. No dwelling shall be erected except your your favorite sex. They wouldn't even have to build an ADU and that that >> 4 whatever wasn't there and they could just >> just do it in family. Yeah.
>> Well, that's what council point. >> Yeah. Right. >> So that's why she cautioned about striking the entire thing. >> I mean in terms of building scale whose small I mean I'm thinking of the corner of Brook Street and
School Street. What if that was two if it was two separate two >> separate >> small smaller houses >> the scale might feel different >> not so big
>> but we've we've said you have to have them contigu you know joined you have to have a big building >> which kind of may not make sense So, >> I think waiting on this one now that
we're sort of thinking this through is worthy of thinking it through with the the detached. I'll talk to Sarah about it as the next step again. I maybe we should talk to the CDA, not just Sarah.
Um um >> well I suppose I mean what we discussed tonight was uh >> deleting that section. >> Well deleting the section but instead of deleting it putting except in the you know the two new districts well you
could make it except in the two new districts and the D districts and that would solve that problem. I just don't think we can do I don't want to do that as part of the downtown because it has implications across the entire town. I don't want to just
sneak it into the downtown. >> That's my concern is on a process level. >> Well, it's a pretty big change whether it's people know it's a big change or not. >> No, no. Yeah, I see what you're >> I I all All I'm saying is that if you
leave it in place and make the exception to the three districts >> I know, but then it's >> and then it's not allowed any place else. >> It certainly procedurally could be done that way. >> But the issue I'm have wrestling with is
the D district is not anything to do with downtown. >> Uh that article is >> I see >> its communications and so forth is it gets confused, >> right? And it's a little bit um >> well, that's an argument for doing it as
an ADU then, at least for the moment >> or doing it as a separate thing with I don't know. I want to think let me let me I'll talk to Sarah at least about that. Okay. As a next step. Um okay,
we have any other um zoning things? >> No. >> No. Wow. Okay. Okay, good job everybody. Um, any other matter? I'm not going to do li It's too late. Um, any other matter unless somebody has any particular update.
>> Um, correspondence. We did have a couple things from other towns. That's why. Um, it is important we look at those. Um, thank you Kendall for getting them. Um, I haven't had any I don't think I had any other emails from people um
since I did check that email. >> Um, okay. We have a bunch of minutes. Um, >> have a chance to look at them. >> Okay. >> So, I'll take first a motion to I made a couple of edits. I think they got in
there. Uh, >> are these done by AI by the way? >> The cause was misspelled. I tried to fix it. >> Um, yeah, there was just a couple places where
few things. Hopefully my edits got >> um so I'll take September 8th. Um or um I guess the only changes I had were um addition of last names on the special >> Yeah, I noticed that.
>> Yeah, John Harden. >> Yeah. >> Um should be is uh >> September 8th. >> September 8th. Um, first of all, any games on September 8th? >> Okay. How about um try to take them as a
batch? Um, November 10th. I guess I'll take a motion for September 8th. >> Yeah, let's keep >> Let's do one at a time. >> Um, >> I move to approve the minutes of September 8th. >> Okay, >> second.
>> Well, um, any changes? Any? All in favor? All right. >> Okay. Um November 10th approval. >> Okay. Um second uh all in favor.
Okay. Um November uh I did look November 24th. There's one that said that um Ryan was chair. >> Yeah. That one. >> That's not that one. >> Everything. What happens by fire the
chair? >> I move to approve the minutes of November 24th. >> Excellent. Thank you. Any second? All in favor? >> I was absent. >> Um Okay. Who was absent? You were >> I was absent
for one minute, but I don't >> not. >> Ryan is is abstaining. Okay. Um December 1st. I didn't see in here, but >> it's there. It's there. >> Yeah. >> Oh, it's got a different communications session. >> December fourth or
>> first? >> Um, this is the communications things. Uh, I'll take a motion to approve. >> Removed. >> Okay. >> I have to abstain from that when I moved there. >> Okay. Um, >> one when I wasn't there, but I don't recall. >> No, that's that we have a couple of working sessions that didn't get
minutes. So, >> Brian and Sue were not there. So, I'll take a motion from >> Chris. And Gordon seconds it. I think >> it's a very >> Chris. >> All in favor? >> Thank you.
>> Um they're quite uh she's done a great job on it. >> Yeah. The fourth >> uh the fourth. That's the one I think that had the >> Yeah, you that changes are in there. >> Uh no, that's the one that needed John Harden's name. >> Yeah, I think it's in there. >> Did I put it in
>> Ian? Yes, I made some changes to that one and they did get captured. >> Dave McKennis, Na, and John Harden. Those are the changes. So, I'll take a motion for December uh fourth. >> Move to approve.
>> I'll second. >> So, move. I second. >> All in favor? Vote. Yes. >> Okay. And then, um December 8th. >> Oh, these are the ones. These are the ones that she has the draw.
>> Yeah, just there are a couple things and then that sentence on the second page needs a little >> I got the wrong one. Um just separate. >> Okay. I made a couple changes there and just getting the right people
>> and I tried to fix your change. It was because was misspelled and it wouldn't let me. >> Okay. So, how was >> So, I made a note and >> Okay, I see your notes. Take out do fix the spelling of the >> Peter Morton should be there. Peter Gordon.
>> Oh, I missed that. >> Peter and Gordon. >> Okay, got it. Okay. Um, with the amendments December, I'll take a motion to approve uh December 8th and Gordon was not there. So,
>> so moved. Second. >> Um, all in favor? >> Yes. >> Abstains. Okay. Excellent. >> Okay. So, we will meet again in two weeks. If you can make it on Thursday at
3. Um, >> between now and then, we are going to get a final version of the downtown zoning, which we are all going to scour >> memorize >> and memorize. Um, >> so Margie sending out the edited version for us to read
>> and the map and the edited version are going to go on the website. >> Okay. >> Great. >> Uh I will take a motion to adjourn. Chris >> second. >> That was >> all in favor. >> Thank you everybody.
>> Thank you Sarah. That's a lot. >> That was Yeah.