everyone. Um, I'm going to call the meeting of the Manchester Planning Board to order. Um, and we're a little bit late this morning. I apologize. We have some other business to take care of. Um, so roll
call. Uh, Brian Fry. Yes. Morton. Yes. Gilbert here. Present. Uh, here. and Gordon Bister. Great. Thank you. Um, welcome everyone. Um,
um, the uh, first order of business, I just want to um, mention that we'll take uh, public comment throughout the meeting, but um, we want to have uh, board discuss things first. Um, so welcome
everybody. the first order of businesses to review the proposed new downtown zoning district. Um, I'll turn it over to Mark uh for your comments about where we are and if you need
I'm not share. Um, I guess I could share if we need to. Yeah. Well, um, you could share. I was trying to my speaker. I could put the mapision. Yep. screen.
Are you going to be [Music] Yeah, I just Somebody looking over your shoulder. One of the challenges that when you join with the a computer audio Get your
little carrot. Okay. So to share you're going to have to request in there instead of here request push
request do that again you just get out of your meeting. All right. Request. All right. There you go. Minimize that. packet. [Music]
The new one is I [Music] for the whole room. Also, there are a few [Music] Mark, if you can unshare
something. Okay, we're good. Okay. All right. Um, go ahead, Mark. I'm going to try to make this a little bigger while we So, map is very similar to
the app that we discussed at the last meeting, but then the plane board last week did a walk around downtown uh which we had some great attendance from several other boards as well as
several property owners and citizens. Um, we've made a few changes. Let's we'll start the way we did the sidewalk. Uh, we didn't make any changes going up street at all or up school street. Uh,
down Union Street stayed the same. Uh, going down summer to summer street. Uh, we did include the building where the Ling Gul is. that was uh removed before.
Um so we've added that. The rest of uh uh Summer Street, Harbor Point, and up to Cap Street remain the same, but the other chain and then along Beach Street remain the city. we did do is we remove
the areas that don't have frontage on one of the main streets and those are the homes on the Is there a name for that alleyway between the library and the trampoline and the church? No, they're kind of
there's several houses there that that face the side of town hall just before you get to um the Mason's building. And so we removed those homes and we moved removed the
Mason's building, the sewer plant, the Legion, and the uh the common building called Pris Chapel. the first parish chapel which hall that's called which
also doesn't have any frontage on since we were talking about containing commercial space along the frontage sense to include those. So um and those are
really the the two significant changes was the area behind town hall behind the property. Great. Thank you. So, um I should have started by explaining to anybody who's just catching up that the intent of this
effort came from the um comment during the MBTA 3A process and a recognition that our zoning does not explicitly allow mixed use and that our zoning and that the market conditions for retail um
are more favorable than for commercial and that those things could potentially uh result in conversions um of partial retail space to
other types of um uses and I think the goal here at least in phase this phase of things and we are taking on a general district might now be modified a general and downtown district as this u look this is
the intent here is what's what is currently um today or recent history um commercial res commercial or retail spaces. How do we kind of identify that and um encourage
strongly that continued use um while allowing for um mixed use with residential accompanying um commercial and utilities. So that's the intent. Hope
that's relatively clear. Um so uh the idea here is to create a separate a new zoning district called the downtown district with the boundaries that you see here. Okay. Mark. So any more this is uh seems
to me this reflects the general sentiment of the walk and uh comments. Any any comments from the from the board? So maybe just describe what the walk was. Sorry, I think both of you were here actually. Thank you. But um we did do a walk last
week with around this area looking at each parcel and sort of saying what could be what is today um and we've got a better understanding of what is there today and okay we did a lot of great um comment and conversation.
So, um, any com any other any comments from the board on this the district? Any comments from the public on the proposed district? I want to talk about the uses right yet. Just this as a boundary properties that you feel strongly should be in or out. Um,
I was at that first. You're talking about the meeting. Sorry, Jim Brown. Uh, please the uh I was at that first meeting. So you're talking about the meeting that the that we had at school when you said the general consensus or
the tone of the meeting was that um we have too much res. Yeah. Okay. So I think I would make a general statement that we have heard at a number of a number of times sort of why are we doing this a number of times
we have heard that people assume or explicitly want to um protect to have the commercial rent retail on the first floor along the streetscape continue and
not be converted to um uh full residential and I think the data points there are comments during the MBTA 3A zoning the forum we held at the school um and the outcry or comments that we had
that we had heard in the public hearings around cargo building which have been at the historic we've actually had two changes recently the cargo building going to res and then one school street went to retail. So,
they were actually net zero for as long as I can recall or as long as I've been working my town. So, I I would just argue that it's not as big an issue if you're downtown and you own property or you own the business. It's being managed very well.
This is not a reflection on um the current, you know, it's not a criticism of the current way of doing things. It's not No, I don't we don't I'm just saying it's a big change. and zoning is not does not is not the
same as economic development. I think we so let's stick right now to are there any other uh proposed uh additions or subtractions from that John? Yeah, you just say who you are. Uh John Harden 54 school street. Thank you.
Um so zoning is one of the few tools we have for future planning, right? to help create the areas of town that we want to be a certain way. That's sort of the goal, the whole idea of zoning as well as protecting other areas um from other
sort of work being done. But in any case, um if we looked at this downtown area, there are certain places that historically were commercial or retail or different than what they are today.
And um I kind of I'm looking at this and I'm wondering gosh, wouldn't it be great in the future if we wanted to encourage more retail in a certain area? Wouldn't we want it to be there? For example, the
uh building that's just up beyond um the lacking G on the left, which I understand is a residential building right now entirely. Right. It has the brick one with bunch of units in it. Uh, it's right in our downtown.
It would be a splendid place to have more stores. It would be a great place to have retail on the first floor and units up above, right? Um, but it's excluded on on this map. I I wonder if the map is has been made, especially
with the changes most recently, to be less or to be more selective and restrictive as opposed to be more inclusive and forward thinking. I also wondered about the area the the parking lot behind us and and these buildings. We have a small
downtown. It's all within walking distance of our downtown. I can imagine lots of interesting uses that could happen in this area. Maybe not necessarily a mom and pop shop, but something that's not a parking lot. So, I hate for our zoning to be
restrictive. I'm going to probably talk about this a couple times tonight. And I'd rather our zoning be forward thinking and inclusive of what we want the town to be. Why don't we just hear comments and then we'll
respond to um other comments? Thank you, John. What are we commenting now? on just the so John is making just on the map the area just on what we think should be in the map you don't you don't want to hear anything about what not having this just
obviously right we will we'll get to that the process is not aimed in the right direction but we can get to that general because I don't think there's really been uh any deliberation about what the
economics of downtown really are and exactly what it is that this board thinks that this this plan is going to do to the downtown. It feels from people I'm here representing PNA the brown
thing in official capacity. We the town has evolved over time based on what the town has today. That really is how the shops evolved. Originally when we took the tour, it was mostly residences like where the Sander Bank is
where Cargo Unlimited was a residence. Um uh uh cousin Elizabeth's house was a residence, Mr. Dao's house, Crosby's Market was the Brown family residence. And so as the demand developed in Manchester, they evolved to commercial.
My family converted from residential to commercial. And I think against much resistance at the time um people didn't want it then and then we got commercial but the demand was there for it so we had less residential but now you're talking about taking away
the very thing that I think we need for the lifeb bread of making the downtown more vibrant because Manchester we there's been no discussion about demographics and what's happening here in this cycle as we get a Manchester is aging we all know that and it's shrunk a
little Not too much. We went from 5,400. I was just looking at we're out of we're down 100 people. But, you know, we see it in everything and we're worried about retail. I certainly see it at the Manchester Cricut as well. So, we're feeling it from every direction and we need
something that will encourage more liveless downtown. Taking away residential like this like you know all of a sudden making all the residences. We have I don't know four units over the Cape Pass Savings Bank. we have them here and there and mostly we rent for way below market rents for local people
and now you're going to make that non-conforming and that seems like we're moving entirely in the wrong direction. Yeah. So I think that that's not so that's not the intent. We're actually trying to uh allow mixed use commercial residential
on some on some portion of the first floor with residential above or above if behind but that's not what it was only that you presented. This is just the boundaries. This is just the boundary of and then in this district we will
allow you. So why don't we jump to that? We did hear from John about the idea of adding in the 10 summer street. Let's table that for a minute. I have one comment from the boundary. Adam Zerger 21 Union Street. I had one
comment on the boundary um which I saw that you didn't you chose not to include me. You're not you don't reside at 21 just the owner of 21 plus. That's correct. I own 21 street and I'm here speaking on behalf of myself own
that property and also um 13 street which is also in district is owned by a family entity. So our aron, we saw that you didn't include the self- storage building. And I I understand it's not really primary downtown, but it is non-conforming. It's there. It's
existing. It's in bad condition. It's like crying out for something to happen with ever putting that in. We did hear that on the walk and um I mean our planner's recommendations that we leave it out right now. So we can as board discuss that. We we did hear that on the clock. Thank you.
Um anything else on the boundaries? and then what to clarify we'll get to what what we're talking about. So um touch on why you thought we should do better. We should leave we can go through a few comments. We only have a few
properties. So the the last one is uh on the corner C and cabin correct and that's zone in the MBTA overlay district. So that property owner can
file under that overlay district which allows a higher density than what current zoning allows. Um so I mean that property owner has other non-commercial options there. Um, so I think uh the idea here is to
kind of submit a very um uh targeted new zoning district that just targets kind of the commercial existing commercial core and because that's what we were hearing is how how can we improve and enhance that. We've
had some series of empty buildings. We have some new buildings opening up as you mentioned. So let's first target the the area where we have and then enhance that in Manchester. Apparently it's
always had some area where everything was filled and then it kind of ended and then things still up again. So the idea of what we heard is that we want something a little more vibrant, a little more of a continuous use.
The thought process was that that building that the MBT options the MTA options while they're there, they're still fairly restrictive. You'd be under five units. So no, it's important because I think I think for the board to consider because if the intent is to foster business in town, the thought
would be that you potentially could have some, you know, business on the first floor there and residential above which would be sort of consistent with, you know, creating a more vibrant downtown. Okay. So let's um let's get to um we the the um board's comments on the two
properties that we were just had come up in. One was the um property on uh street. Um you include that include um
that's uh yeah uh corner of chap and uh street and I'll just start by saying that is a it's in the um multif family district. So does have um
it's a eight. So you can do single family, you can do um bailing and it doesn't seem to me that it's in the walking class. But anybody disagree with that want want to argue to keep it in put it in
from a perspective. I mean in part the reason that let's just talk about this this one right here this right here. Well what I was going to say is the boundaries got redrawn because of existing residential neighbor and there is an intensely residential neighborhood
in the area and um actually the butters there there was quite a lot of concern about that turning into anything other than a residential use. So I I think and it's pretty far away from all the
commercial abuses. If you're working on all the abing properties of residential um anybody on the board want to argue for putting it in the boundary that's at this where my cursor is here.
Okay. I'm hearing nothing. And then how about this uh 10 Summer Street? Um, I don't think there's a harm in putting that in and it does. I think John makes a good case. Um, it's recently Well, that's that is a single parcel claim putting all the residential backup.
Oh, that's true. That's that's so I think we've already cut it in half, which you can't do. I think it's going to be all and I'd prefer that to be all. I think John is correct. I like John's point about forward
thinking too. I don't have a problem with it one way, but I don't think it's likely. Yeah. So, the likelihood of it changing is not very high. But what's the Well, it's not like a condominium.
John, which buildings refer east? Just that on the street front. Yeah, correct. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the the obvious thinking behind it is this side has a continuous string of of retail, right? I mean, they're not terribly active, but
they are retail. And streets are always more successful when they have both sides being retail. And this was the original site of um the hall. Yeah. Which was a civic building of some sort, right?
How would they work considering that it's currently not retail at all? It's residential. Correct. It would have to be it's future looking and they're rental units. But you have some of these are residential only right now. One, two, three. These three right here. Residential. Yeah. It's
residential units. Changing the zoning doesn't change the units. No, I'm just saying they're residential now. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's less about what it is now. Yeah. It's about what we imagine it might be in 100 years. I don't Right. But don't forget we can also ex
we can also change the boundaries in 10 years whatever. So, okay, we're going to assume I guess I would just say I feel like this is a great first step and um I have heard your comments through the past
MBTA zoning and and you come from a great perspective and I really appreciate the forward thinking and your emphasis on good planning and design and and expanded residential, but there are lots of other perspectives to and as a
board we really try and take in everybody's and this is our first step. Um one we look forward to presenting the town meeting and and incorporating
a wide range of residents views. So um I think that that we have to think a little bit more given that that's a parcel. So, I'm gonna table that for right now. Which one? This uh where the Montana Summer Street is.
Yeah. Um I'm We have a lot to do tonight. So, I want to I'm going to um jump to actually what uh just as a way of summarizing to catch hopefully people um and that uh
um just uh really briefly what are we trying to do? Um and that is we are as I said residents seem to expect that the downtown will have I think the word
expects is not so strong that was certainly the sentiment we heard from 60 people who came to the forum I in June so um that people
don't expect change to all res um that's just I I think that that's the sense that our consultant reflected um when when she reported out to us. Um, I think the cargo building redevelopment
proposal for all residential was um has been uh um caused some consternation and um downtown committee um initiatives
um are uh working really hard to try to promote commercial and retail. I don't think the chamber or the DIP is is actively seeking to convert to residential. It's it's in support of this. Uh and the
master plan also talks about a vibrant downtown. Um so we hope to try to create zoning that will preserve I shouldn't say just commercial and retail use. It's not not any particular commercial and
retail use. um and respond to the financial pressures for residential conversions and allow mixed use. So that means uh commercial or residential or retail on the first floor or a portion of the
first floor of the things we need to talk about with res allowed residential perhaps behind like they're doing at uh 7 central and above. Um and so the idea here is that we would have mixed use. We would have
resident that um that we could convert the the bank to something that has a shop in the front and uh residential in the back and above. Um and that uh we would get a combination of things. Um so
that's the intent. Um and um so you're going to allow because I'm sorry to interrupt but you circulated something the when we did the law and it was looked like it was eliminating all the residential no.
So you're talking about allowing residential uses on the second floor. Yes. And or behind or behind? Right. My right. Okay. That's not what was circulated. Okay. So, that's why we're here. And um
the what would be required for a special permit is if you want to have residential on the first floor on the street front. Is there is there something in writing that this just as an example residential?
Let me let public comment in a minute. Let's kind of walk ourselves through. Um so, this is what we're trying to do. new downtown district, the exact area. We pretty close. Um, this I did this for the select board, so we're not having a
walk tomorrow. Sorry. Um, it would allow mixed use. That's a combination of commercial, retail, and residential. And it would encourage the preservation and perhaps the expansion of commercial and retail uses with a special permit to
convert to residential on the first floor. Um so the other thing I wanted to just clarify is what is um allowed today sharing. So I just think
it's important that we all get levels here. We all we've been thinking about this without a long time. So there's in that not going to go through this in great detail but um right now what is
the um proposed downtown district is a core part of the general district of zoning and so it um make this bigger. So it allows a number of things. So not going to go through the entire table but
this is how you determine today what is allowed. Um you look at this table, it's table 4.2 in the zoning. You look find out what district of parcel is and then you read down the column. So a single family house is
allowed in the current in throughout the general district of which this proposed downtown is a part. a two family. Uh the conversion of a one family into a two family and the conversion of an existing
dwelling into a three family. And there's some notes and qualifications and things like that. Um a dwelling with four units would have a pl a special permit from a planning board um or residential conservation cluster which
is irrelevant because you can fly fingers. Um so and then a whole set of community uses and retail uses and so forth are also allowed and it's unclear whether you can do a combination of these uses. So that's one of the things
we want to fix. Um even though today we have a many buildings that have mixed use a combination of a virtual use with residential above it's unclear in the zoning. So just clarifying that
is a change we need to make. Um so I just wanted to and that's how one finds out today what is allowed uh in your property not just in the general district but throughout the town.
So, let's um talk about Mark. You want to um give us a summary of where we are or do you want me to pull it up to um the proposed draft? Pull it up. So, the draft has
two columns. One is for downtown that we can through it. You can see that there where the differences are. Okay. So, downtown district
is the proposed district doesn't exist today. Um, and the general district is what uh the almost the entire downtown district is a subset of this one area without.
So, um, so the proposal, you walk us through the Yes. the proposal, um, so the first, uh, the downtown district. So, I had a
planning board special permit for the, um, residential, single, and two family. Um, I did also just discuss this with Katherine McCabe today. She she actually recommended
against that do more multif family to promote more housing, keeping the commercial in the front of some kind but but having more multi. 5,000. So that's again something we could
discuss. But uh but the other conversion that we have the way it's worded special permits in the downtown district. Um that's what we have
here and we took out cluster conversion there. Well, why don't we just progress so we can kind of understand where we are in its entirety. So um now we'll get
comments from the board and we'll get to um so the under the community facilities most things are yes the first four items
then we get to charitable profic hospital, nursing and sanatorium. Uh we'll be discussing that separately to change that. Your private clubs are the same.
Cemeteries, you would not permit publicility building permit. And the other thing that would be a little different greenhouse nursery users for
horiculture horiculture landing board permit instead of right we have under commercial uses. You can see the first um businesses,
professional businesses, doctor's offices would be the same. Medical building from up to three doctors would be permitted. General retail of course is permitted. several of the other things. Indoor
recreational clubs and facilities would become a planning board special permit um as opposed to being not permitted. Um so it's like if you want to have a yoga studio type thing. Yeah. Yes.
Um and then uh yacht storage construction services allowed in the general but you really don't want that in the downtown core area and shellfish. We had
a discussion about um handling processing last time decided to have a plan to special permit on that. Don't make any changes to wind energy
monitoring power alert all stay the same. Parking and garages would also stay the same. not allow helicopter landing pad allow marijuana businesses entertainment
lab those would all stay the same it's not permitted under accessory uses keep um almost all the accessory uses the family versus
Yes. Okay. So, um so the idea here is that um the downtown district be a subset of the general district and different and then we get into the
regulations which is I think what's really important before we get off the youth chart speaking with Kathy he felt it was important to add a use for mixed use line in the in the use chart to to for
mixed use to allow commercial use of wood residential um and uh So add an excuse. Yep. How many units? Well, that it's it's doesn't this
wouldn't density requirements in the line. So, but as opposed to today where either it's interpreted that you can't have this would at least allow for the next
so maybe it won't go in the first let's let's I just want to keep going through the sorry to keep cut off but I want to make sure we get some mixed commercial uh commercial,
you know, something here is what's okay some version of that and it's going to be yes and it's sort of the current current I would say it's not it's not
exists all over the place but it's a it's like film It's subject to uh some sort of litigation or something. Arbitrary. Arbitrary. Yeah, let's put it that way. Um yeah, DVD, whatever. Okay. Um and so
then can I should I scroll back to the mixed use? And I know you tell let's hold that. Okay. Yeah. At the end. Um so uh
these are the um mentional requirements in the um uh general district. So this is you to walk us through these mark minimum the minimum lot area uh going to be
6,000. We're not proposing to change that that frontage and the lot width would stay the same as well. Um the general district has a front setback of 5T and a side set back of 10 ft. Um
a rear set deck 10 ft. I would recommend that you eliminate the front and side setbacks. any properties have no setbacks. We left an existing uh area that were the downtown district. They're
right at the back of sidewalk. Um and they butt right up to each other. So that is a traditional downtown is that type of uh construction. So that's what I would I recommend there.
Um okay. And then the lot coverage lot coverage um and PDM is in essence our recommendation right and um
so um so currently it's uh cover 40% of the general district and um 70% of the total lot within previous which would be building plus parking and patios
Thanks. Um, so I had put down 70% by structures and 90% by maximum lot coverage. So that's just to be clear if you have
um a thousand or a a lot how much this is the amount that he covered by structures and by improve services and I think that the 70% by structures
is very high. Um now recognize that some of our buildings close to that probably but not that many you actually look at them and there's the opportunities for um
to make the case that you know the existing there is 70% therefore should be 7% but I think if we take um parcels that have uh
significant parking right now. There's still parking requirements that they'd have to meet, but um No, you're a 70% block of coverage by structure is very high in my
Yes, it is. These are too high in some of a lot of downtown areas. uh maybe ones that little more urban but it was something to stand forward and have a discussion about uh because we are
more density will help bring more people and bring more but maybe we'll talk about that as we go forward okay and then let's uh height requirements
yeah I think Last last meeting we just determined that we weren't going to be able to increase the height of the large outry to increase the height and towns do allow a little greater
height residential on the first level allowing the height may allow if the buildings are structurally want to spend money to to make up for that. It's a very it's a very very hungry
right now. Okay. Um so height is another thing we need to think about. Um and then just do we want to talk about excessive structures right now? Yeah. I mean, it's like successor structures are
essentially similar, but um that could be right up against the parking. That's uh parking. We're not going to talk about hotels right now. So, parking would remain the same as
like as parking by at least moment. Sure. Um, okay. So just to summarize the proposal would allow um all of the same almost all of the same
uses as we currently have but if it's residential on the first board it's unclear as it's currently written that that would be the the special permit is for resolution on the first floor or conversions. Um, right
now you have it written as conversions too. Well, that's how pretty much the youth pay. It's all different uses. It's I think it's easier to ask.
I've seen either in the original district a separate article that get voted separately as part of the district. Um, okay. Comments from the board.
Yeah, I mean I thought that some of the comments about uh future planning. Um certainly what I heard at the forum and and subsequently is what people want is
for us to codify essentially what exists because they would like more of what downtown is going forward into the future. So I think that and that was pretty persistent in people's legal
written post and mixed use wasn't there. And um the other comment I wanted to make is that Jim I looking at this document the first four items in residential
and the uh the addition to section 4.2 two of conversion of first word commercials was in response to your comments actually. So I think of these as the Jim Brown. Well, let me clarify what I mean. Let's
just let's let the board do. We were we were talking at the time at a prior meeting and I don't remember that. Um, we were talking about perhaps mandating commercial space on the first board and you objected strenuously to that and I
think rightly so. And so what this represents is the flip that you suggested which is rather than mandating commercial you allow it by right in a mixeduse context and you do the
residential as a special permit. It's still permitted, but it requires review. Yeah. My my that's not what I said. What I said was or what I meant was if somebody wanted to do residential on the first level instead of just saying you
can't make it special. My interpretation of a residential one through four that none of these are retail or district. Right. So I think so what you're saying is we were allowing in the general district that if
someone had a single family uh wanted to do a single family or someone wanted to have a two family dwelling or they wanted to convert a single to a two um or an existing dwelling of a three dwelling um with no increase in gross floor area we would allow that in general district now all of a sudden and this has nothing
to do with retail business those first four all of a sudden now you're saying no we're not going to allow them to do that we have a serious housing I I sit on uh government affairs for commercial realtors and we talk about this all the time and we know we have a serious
there's a misunderstanding I think can you explain can I I think don't forget we're this is a draft and it's not it may clearly it's not quite clear what we're trying to get across we need to am I interpret
I I have the same interpretation I'm really confused yeah very worried residential as what you what you drafted. You guys said you were going to allow second for residential as it says here. Yeah, this is correct. So, we're hearing that this that and that's what Kathy said,
which is why really, right? So, we should change that. I think we're hearing that the feedback whether we agree with this, you know, is to allow the the p the the special permit is only for residential on the
first floor. Is that what I'm Does the board agree with me on that? Yes. Yes. I'm just assume you're not sure. Yes. So what that means is by right residential on this lower is that correct?
Yes. So if we were to be depend on the second level. Yeah. Yes, I think we need to change the this use table to do add a
a residential line. Yeah. And to save and you allow this special type like downtown. However, you're finding [Music]
in the downcast that you don't other multif family mixed use with you in definition set.
First floor commercial and then one more point I sat on for a few years four or five years uh 85 that doesn't make any sense to me well with not more blood so are you saying
four units or less not 40 minutes or less is not for what it might I don't know how maybe one of the attorneys came multif family dwelling with not more than four dwelling units but is that
that right there it said no yeah it says no you can't do anything under that my interpretation of that is anything under floor but what about five six if you have the parking that's another question I think you might Yeah, but for we have we have four units I
mean over over the K band savings car and so this would say that's that would render this this law would render them nonconform and so they're currently they're performing now what's happening they're not performing now I understand but it it's even more it
doesn't it's more of a burden used to go back and forth between a funus and residential apartment up on the second floor seamlessly depending on the demand. There was you know for some
time the demand for office space obviously was greater and so lots of second floor units were office and then over time as that demand has dissipated we move to residential. No I think that's great. So why do you take that away from us?
So I think we have a drafting problem, not an problem. Right. And thank you for bringing this all up because we we got to fix the way this is. Yeah. The intent is to allow exactly what you're talking about. Residential
is allowed by right on the upper floors. So is office and commercial on the upper floors. Yep. So what we don't want is uh a cargo situation where we have a a prime retail spot in the downtown converted to houses
because that affects the commercial viability of the rest of the honestly the Browns are intensely interested in having a vibr for lots of different reason starting
with artistry down there and basically what we've been doing for a long time and we understand that it's important to the town. It's the center of town and it's part of what makes living here nice, right? So, we definitely like to do that and we want to do that, but um obviously it
takes money to do that and we're always looking for ways to pay for things and so it's good to have flexibility. The big problem downtown is obviously parking. always really what we're not we don't talk about this is parking is the big constraint that which that's the
constraint that really so we want to deal with that also and so that's something I think it' be important for us to start talking about now in terms of you know well I just want to make sure we all agree at least on you be prep
yes the thing about about the the downtown is that zoning isn't going to and they it isn't going to make anything happen. But currently, the way our zoning bylaw is written, it prevents things. It's not in the downtown's best
interest. It allows single family. What does it prevent now? Basically, it prevents it does not guarantee commercial use as the one first one the street. It doesn't mandate commercial use. Not guarantee. It doesn't mandate commercial.
That's right. Well, and I would argue if you look at what Ed was doing, he he purposefully moved the um world insurance so that he could do something through the retail. He just purchased building. He's going to do something for
the retail. He just added a retail space which was the same thing. We work very very hard to have a diversified portfolio. I mean, it's not making that easy to do. That's I think we have a drafting problem. We've identified that. I think we um uh
this isn't a criticism or a uh one way or the other of um the existing um efforts which um and we I think the board recognizes as does the downtown movement team which I also
that there that this is a multi-pronged effort. It is zoning. It is um other but but let me tell you when the cargo building was presented to historic or I'm not sure which meeting because it's been several Mr. Zagger
said mixed use isn't allowed. that was his and no you did you said it wasn't allowed and I I I commend the new I know that it sort of has crossed that bridge but at one meeting you said it's my interpretation that mixed use isn't allowed and so if people are coming to
Manchester and saying mixed use isn't allowed that's something we need to fix and say it needs to be allowed so that people aren't confused and we're still confused so we have a drafting problem not an intent problem necessarily just addition
we have to do this or we have to do that. And then the second piece is that that's a matter I think of opinion about how strongly we encourage or require and we have tool I think we've heard that residential shouldn't on the first floor shouldn't be outright prohibited. We've
heard that and I think there's agreement and as Sandy said the uh the fix was to have um a special permit for residential on the firstborn. I just sort of tried to write something that's a little clearer. I'm sure it helps. Uh, go ahead, John.
So, I think there's a real uh communication problem because you guys went through this whole use chart, right? my head was about to explode from what you guys just just went through. And then because I heard at some point
in the last few weeks what the intent was that you guys were doing and what I was reading was the exact opposite and would have been a disaster for this town. Then you guys as a board got a chance to to make comments and no one brought that up as
if you guys didn't recognize that any housing in this district would been by by special permit. That's what that chart said. That would have been and of abs I couldn't I can't tell you strongly enough that would destroy our downtown because no one
would touch it. No, no developer in their right mind would come to do a single unit if they have to come to this board to do a stuff with them. So, how do we get here that that this was was a draft with that lack of
understanding? I I makes me really worried. Um well, one more comment. Um the the other thing I think this has also been been expressed and I feel very strongly about this. I will continue to say at every
meeting, the issue with this town is not a vibrant retail district. The retail district lacks vibrancy because we don't have enough people anymore. The town to make it vibrant, right? We're going, we're trending in the wrong direction as a town. Not like
quickly. We're not dying, right? But we need housing. It's not one unit here. Blimey, I love that. He's doing a great job. But three units out of our entire town is not going to make any difference. We need to
be bold in what we do from a housing perspective. I was helping the affordable housing trust for for a bunch of years trying to create a single unit of affordable housing. How many have we made? I know I'm being a bit of a jerk here, but it's true. Well, I'm going to turn that around and
say, where are the developers coming to us asking? Because our zoning is too restrictive. Well, not affordable housing. Let him finish. Let him It's the only way to do it, unfortunately. And I I I wish there were a different way in town to do it, which
is what I'm hoping one day this town will tap. So, one of the things I I'm just I you know, I don't respond to them, but I I I do think that this town is very uh change reluctant to change. You know, for God's sakes, putting in a tennis court was like you'd think we were
putting in a hazardous waste site. um you know and so I think that this challenge we face we want to put something forward that will pass and there's different opinions about additional housing or about density or
about there and so we that's and I'm of little of the opinion that we we're going to have to if we are too bold we may not succeed but I may be wrong and that one last comment multif family must be allowed in this town somewhere we must have more than four units
allowed in this town somewhere besides 40B. All right. Um, okay. I I have a question for John. Could you help me understand? So, let's look at the Mnt Bank building and that whole property.
So would you be okay with ment is the bank crossing with the you know drive through so would you be okay with that being smacked down and having one single family home built there? Well, no. Let let me be clear.
That's what the current zoning allows. Yeah. Let let me let me be clear. I'm not opposed to the intent of what you guys are doing at all. I want you guys to go further with I want to yes protect our our downtown
of course, but I want by right by right to be able to do units above our retail just like you you guys have said by right. That's totally the objective. Yes, that's not what the draft said. And I I almost lost it when when I saw that
because that was exactly the opposite to what we've been talking about. Okay. And and that's a great example. Um we wouldn't contemplate the economics of that building would not make us even
contemplate changing it to a residence. is just, you know, it's it's a good building in terms of income for us and a residence there on the railroad tracks. To me, it just wouldn't make any sense. It would have been a good opportunity if
the zoning allowed to have more of a building there and maybe five units above it, five one-bedroom apartments is probably what should have happened. And I think we would say Bravo and and to your comment about the railroad tracker
old house used to be a restaurant, right? Yes. There was a restaurantide restaurant, but it turned into a single family home. One big single family home. Okay. So, let's um get back to the I
think we uh let's hear from a couple other gohead. Yeah. Thank I'm John Swanson. I've lived at Ford Beach Street for 36 years and uh first of all I'd like to say some brief comments about two minutes. Um first of
all I want to acknowledge the plan board and the volunteers and I appreciate the fact our volunteers. I've come here tonight to express my opinion on the record in this public forum to say I think you've lost your way.
First, transparency is incredibly low. The meeting packet for tonight's planning board meeting is not posted until 3 PM and the meeting packet doesn't include the parking bylaws that are going to discuss tonight.
The proposed downtown zoning map is not on the town's public website. So the view town administrator uh Barleta and director of land management resident the town must do a
better job of informing the citizens. Secondly, the effort to create a new downtown zone ostensively started with this MBTA zoning project and the June meeting.
And what you mean they quote identified an approach for creating and sustaining a more vibrant downtown. None of the points highlighted by the consultant suggested reducing parking, prohibiting senior housing
or discouraging residential uses. Yet you, the planning board, have somehow come forward with a plan to do all three. Now, Manchester is the only town in eastern Massachusetts that has a planning board that approves driveways.
And now you propose increasing the minimum driveway width 25%. Which will obviously reduce Manchester's already all too limited parking. Next, the planning board is aiming to propose the town citizens that senior
residential housing cannot be located in Manchester's downtown core. Does the planning board believe that seniors will make downtown less vibrant? And finally, the planning board is seeking to propose at an upcoming town
meeting that simple residential uses are somehow out of town out of bounds without special permit in a part of town that has always had single family residences. No parking, no seniors, no residences without special permit.
What's next planning? What's the intent? What are you trying to accomplish as you rush forward with your resoning efforts? In closing, the residents of the town deserve more transparency in these misguided efforts to reszone downtown.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, other comments. Um, I don't see anybody online. Anybody online want to make any comments? Okay. Well, I think we still have some
work to do. Um why don't we talk a little bit more about um the proposal for parking for the downtown district? Um Mark, you thought a little bit about that? Well, we talk about
excluding the post commercial uses from having parking requirements, but uh we had originally said we would maintain the still residential. So to put in two units, we need to
provide three spaces. So that is what we had discussed. Um virtually many downtowns uh even under MBTA only require one space per per unit because you're in a downtown area. You can
presently walk the places units are often times smaller and you also have access to the MPTA. So, um that is something that we talked about discussing tonight whether there would be support for that
in in trying to um reduce in the downtown district parking requirement to one space per unit from one and a half from one and a half. Okay. um comments from the board about
um having uh zero space required for a res for a commercial um unit and let's start with that and um what do you think Peter you're saying
um if you have I don't have any I'd be curious to know comparatively how this works with other similarly sized downtown areas in commercial and whether or not the reduction in parking has incentivized the economic growth in the
area. What's it done to that versus housing? If we can look to any examples, where should we be looking? I'm not really sure but what has happened here in the past when someone
changes and they don't have parking they have to come do they get variances you know parking parking is a valid that you you know when you're developing something you have to make sure you're
going to deliver parking to your customers. So um certainly not having parking. So take a look at Collins that that's a highly problematic spot but very very successful and kind of be over time has become kind of a critical
little gathering spot for the downtown. Brings a lot of life to downtown. It's very successful. It has zero parking there. we um and when it and it only was allowed to be there uh because it's always it's been a restaurant for so long it predated
zoning so it was grandfathered in and so we had I think a 60 or 70 seat cup that was grandfathered in so we were able to keep it but otherwise you know if we converted to something else if it became you know part of the stock exchange for a while you could never go back under
the current selling construct we don't have the parking for it so those types of buildings, that whole building has no parking. 11 Beach Street has no parking. That's precisely that's precisely. Yeah, that's or or the place they used
to be in Seven Central, they had no parking up as a few spaces. Yeah, but it's not pleasant enough for the restaurant. And that's precisely how a lot of downtowns are. You have on street parking. You happen to have a nice big parking lot behind here.
So um there is other large parking spaces that people can park te at and walk. I've never had a problem going to Kas. I don't know how it works, you know. But let's to just to your point, if the stock exchange were to exchange were to
convert to a restaurant under the current zoning, they would you would need and you were doing a large construction, you would need either variance or somehow to provide parking. And so our proposal are suggesting that for the commercial portion of that
development you would need zero parking spaces. Now if you put residential above the question is um under current zoning you would need one and a half spaces per residential use. And so the the question
is should that be de decreased to one or I know there's arguments for zero but um again we want to see this be successful and I we on the other side of this we have people who come in and argue for
two spaces per residential unit um on with some frequency. So it's we're fortunate to have our street parking for all our residential our leases allow for one spot for
if you were to rebuild under today's zoning if you were in the downtown district you would need one and a half the question that Mark is asking us to to contemplate is whether we should reduce that to one I think anyway so uh that's the you know as we put
together a draft. Yeah. So, as we put together a draft, that's something that uh certainly it sounds like this group here is saying one. I'm sure we'll hear from others as we Well, the rest is saying that the market's going to demand more,
right? I'm sorry. The market can you say the market would demand that more parking spaces be required? The market? Yeah. It's right. I I actually did the permit the the the crowns market all the way down
the resial market. Oh yeah, the resial. Oh yes. It's hard to rent an apartment to somebody if you don't have a parking space for it's a real driver. So but that's not a zoning question. That's a that's an economic and a business
development question. Yes. The question before us is as we put forward a zoning change. What should your minimum be? If you want to have 10 parking spaces and have the space for it and then meet the other requirements, that's fine. Um, but
this is a minimum that would be required as a without exemption fair unit. Yeah. In downtown and we're talking about the new downtown district. That's it. I mean, genuinely, so you might want to consider having
only a one spot requirement for a onebedroom or studio. That would probably work and may encourage some housing. Okay, Sarah. Oh, John, go ahead. For a person looking to buy a property
or to develop a a property, first thing that they do is they look at the the site plan and what they could lay out for a building. and parking and reducing the um requirement to one space per unit
is the most important thing to help a uh an owner or a developer maximize that profit. That is the single thing and I I know that Ranchulville Street people uh don't think of that as a good example but the entirety of the development on
that street was made possible by the city allowing that district to have one parking space. Not that we want to be economics. Hold on. It's not that we want to be ran tool street but it encourage the development whatever scale it is.
Yeah. It will help to encourage it. Okay. One more. I just want to put an aside from because I just know um speaking for the basis which I know that I can do moving from as of right
charitable to philanthropic use in the general district that's going to really erase some in the downtown district and now we've excluded the Masons from it says in the general district that's today that's what's today. That's today. Yeah. So that right hand
column is what is there today is general general don't that's a great way to lay that out so you can see what we clarify people are that so you know what has to be what is so in the general
district today is that right so the legion of the masons are not right the grandfather can answer the question of John Sure Would it going to zero make it better still?
Yes. However, really however that would really become a a marketing issue for for the owner of the property. There are properties there are projects that have done that in Cambridge for example where people walk and no one really wants to own a car, right? Um, also change.
Yeah. Also, I believe there are some projects on on the Northshore and places like us that have successfully done that if they are directly adjacent to a train, which we are. And in fact, state law says for the ADUs, an ADU within a half mile train station
does not require parking. So, that's state law telling us. So Jim and Russ in that particular case you've got somebody looking for a a space and but you're not providing any parking. It's not required by
that. So it helps us not to have it mandated by the town and if we can find not having any space. If the town comes to us and says you can generate another apartment and not require a space or not need a
space um we may be able to find a tenant. I have a handful I get a few tenants that don't drive but and then you know they either work locally work on campus or they work on the train and um it's a great uh walking community.
Most tenants want a spot, right? So, so but that's our that's our issue, right? So, it's different. You telling me that I don't need to have one when I created would make it easier for me to create one. Now, there's the space there. That doesn't mean I'm not going to offer a
spot for that that unit I created. Right. And show up. It also doesn't mean that they won't have a car. That's right. Might have a car. It's a practical problem. Where does that person park? If they're not, you're not mandated to have them. They'll park
wherever they'll park. And that's what we hear. Where will they park? They'll take my space. Something I have witnessed in other towns is if a project is within 500 ft of a public parking area like this
parking lot back here, they do let you offset some of the parking requirements because of that, assuming that they'll park there. Um, all right. I think we have heard some good input. We need to tidy this up to
clarify it. Uh, we heard you, Don, about getting our material. it is usually our practice to get the packet out Thursdays but um so we heard you on that and I think I know I didn't have chance to talk to everything either so it's both
the board and the public so thank you for raising that um and um you want to talk about the other uses um oh you uh put in fast restaurants as a what if in the downtown I think
Yeah, I think that should be the fact about because I question some of our existing and the fact that postco people out and
so most of the definitions that I've looked at last few days related to fast restaurants talk about tape you know you're predominantly food packaged to go It's probably like that.
So the doll I go there for a bit and and as far as I don't know how those take. Okay. But so it's more about the drive up and clean which is what's really
objective. So we have a definition but it's not actually. Okay. So we need to fix that. So we need to fix that. So that's that's something that's the other one we had
talked about and [Music] guess which which part is the most objectionable I assume the drivethru part but is take out windows that are
not drive through that because I think they should do here. No, that's just one I think it's the sort of McDonald's. Yeah.
one by the railroad track and they regret it back at the donuts. They trip the traffic just backs up traffic. So yeah, it's also a traffic. Yeah. So I think there's probably
downtown, right? But that's what I'm saying is drive-through definition for a takeout window and a drive-thru window. A lot of windows. A lot of takeout windows popped up
during co Yeah. and ended up being successful and not interested. Yeah. That's just the drive piece. Yeah. Um do we want to talk about a hotel or in um
you guys talked about that a little bit last time? Yeah. Good idea. Yeah. up to do we want to limit the it's a special permit a special permit of course
downtown okay so we're trying to figure out how to get to these go ahead John you want so you have to look at the site that you're defining Right. And what's a viable location might be Cora
and in the area that that you describe uh to bed and breakfast maybe 21 what? Sorry. I don't think there's a site on in this district currently that would
I think the gas station over here. You need 20 parking spaces. It's tough. It's tough. But there are sites. They're just not really in this district as you. So, if that's something that you're serious about, I think it
should be because it's a great idea. Then we have to put it in the in a district where it's feasible. In your opinion, that's where general district I recommended that we add it to the LC by the highway
easily accessible still brings people to the community then they can choose to migrate downtown and thirds the residents don't have to try and stay up in Ber
Beverly um so we've wedding any sort of events even just visitors large enough they want their own space. Um it also relieves some of the pressure on um the uh Airbnbs
and verbos and stuff like that because I'm sure many people rent those because there isn't alternative character street people would not walk from the LCD to downtown. No, it was
it would be a place where people would go have a hotel and stay there for the night by car against the highway sort of thing. Yeah. They wouldn't come spend a beautiful weekend in Manchester. That's my and I think we should allow in the downtown but if you're looking for a
second district I think OCD is the second [Music] general district. Yeah. the domestic go the counter to that is that
there is currently a residential district and people who live in apartments in the general district or single family homes in the general district is a residential neighborhood to them and adding a dense
um facility like an in or a hotel where it's constant in and out of people and cars is something people don't want in their residentially. It's it's called vibrance.
I understand. But you know, conquered has had an inn in the center of town for a couple hundred years. Um, you know, most New England towns where they dropped off people by coaches and and horses had hotels right in the center of town. So, it's been something that's
been part of our history forever. We had them in town until they burned down. Typically, we were right along the harbor. Yep. There's a beautiful land in um in the name of it. Yeah. Brian Brier Barnon.
Yeah. Barnon gets beautifully done. Looks like something that could be perfectly there's no reason that you're also Let's uh are there other issues Mark
around the downtown that we should talk about? Um to go back. Let me just get what other issues we need to talk about. I think that's um helpful. Yeah. Yeah. I I'll take on one last set of
comments on downtown. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Just u So you guys are going to work um the uh lot coverage issue impervious and um and then also you'll discuss height regulations. Okay. Um I didn't read this stuff. I'm sure it'll
be approved, but um studio that's not listed as a specific use, but and then finally in terms of drive through drive up windows, would that
include the bank? M does drive up. I think he was talking about drive up fast food drive up food establishments. That might be a way to Yeah. have to review the language.
Okay, great. We're um move on to some um the next things. Um so, thank you everybody for coming. Please feel free to say thank you. U any comments?
I don't see him right. Okay. The next topic we're going to talk about is senior housing. Mark, I know you uh um presentations this morning. I did follow
those up with town council. We maybe you can summarize what those comments. So are we several different um
that we were talking about this morning regarding senior housing because senior housing is the term means a lot of different things. So it can mean everything from nursing homes to independent living to a restricted
house. So we have talked about breaking it down. Um and the first item we talked about is that we can have a line item a bylaw that says um hospitals
um nursing homes and sanatoriums. So the hospitals and sanatoriums are kind of I expect we never have a hospital here and sanatoriums aren't built those anymore but nursing homes are good use
that that is still around and there's uh other types of nursing facil uh nursing homes we talked about it's called a skilled nursing facility and a rehab center and those are also they're slightly different they have slight
slightly different licenses from what I understand, but they're all kind of fall into the same new school. So, we talked about having a a use specifically. So, amending that line item to remove
those other two words adding skilled nursing facilities. So I can talk to counsel and that you know they are it's going to be clear to write some things and that um people with
a couple question. Um the other thing that we we had talked about was um allowing restricted housing. Um, and do we need
to first off very basic question do we need to have a line that allows district housing? The answer is no, we don't provided its current. So, if you own a
three unit building, we want to restrict your three units in your building. you're perfectly entitled to do so provided you go through the process and create the right legal framework etc to
do that so you don't violate the fair housing act. So that's kind of the the thing that you don't so senior housing is allowed if you uh but there's no death. That is that's the thing provided there change in in density
right so a lot of the bylaws are written specifically to allow a higher density so but our first question was we need to if someone wants to let's say I know two restrict
redo their house into two units restrict them can they do it by way the answer is Yes. Thank you. So other defer to council, but I don't believe that's correct personally. Yeah. Council said okay.
Yeah. I mean provided go through the correct steps and do the right be authorized by local. It's just very equally strict. Yeah. So the local zoning would be is if you
allow those types of uses at a higher density than what's driving and which is what many towns do which they allow often times on a bigger parcels take a 10 acre parcel and about five units an
acre. You can do 50 units on that 10 acre parcel. They set standards. You have to have the B property or it has to be put on a town sewer or
road of a certain size that type sets various parameters. Um so uh but that's within a bylaw and allowed by so that's that's what we had also discussed as
well. So um and uh so there's different types of senior housing danger restricted housing assisted living facilities as well. So those are a couple things that can be
defined differently and have very specifically different rules. So control it by zones. where you can allow in some zones and not in others. You can obviously have different rules for
different zones in sizes and certain films but higher than scripts and so so you can tailor it specifically to your community and what you desire. Um now that doesn't mean that the market
is going to necessarily frankly don't think that it's wanting at least put it out there. So can I just go back to a couple things?
One is the question of age restriction. Um if I think there are different rules for rentals and for uh owned uh property. So we should just follow up just
and uh so that we're want to encourage some and I think Massachusetts law will help us with that. Um And then the second thing is did you
look at our de I'm trying to figure out how where I'm going with in my head is if there's going to be a fall town meeting which portions of this would we undertake not um because it seems to me to do everything is there's not enough
time to sort out the many aspects of of this. Um, and I think maybe if we don't currently allow if the law doesn't allow us, if we need to have a zoning change to allow age restriction, age housing,
we should put that in if it's not currently allowed by right. So that way we if somebody wants to have a four unit permit in the general district by special permit and they they see it as
being age restricted as a uh benefit to their marketability then that would be allowed. So we want to make sure that happens. It may currently it looks to me like there's a little bit more nuance than it has to be 80%. So, we need to
The second thing is the definitions of our current in our current zoning. Did you have a chance to ask council if they were any good? Uh too yeah it seems to me that it looks to me
that they are assisted living which is defined by the that's general laws care by general laws independent living facility facility providing apartments for rent with optional services so forth long-term care facility
facility uh including a constant a nursing home subject to certain regulations, senior housing, housing for people over 55, your housing facility be sort of any of those and senior housing laws are
reflected. So that we put those in when we redid the definitions. CC to add additional definitions perhaps for a skilled nursing facility that we that's
missing. So that if as we go forward to allow certain certain types of we have then the other thing is that we when you look at our use table
this that one of the community facilities that is allowed is this charitable or philanthropic use for hospital nursing care facility or sanatorium. Now
hospital, nursing care facility and sanatorium hospitals is nursing care facility and sanatorium are not in our definitions. So we have no idea what they mean. Um so and it is those are allowed by
planning board special permit everywhere except the LCD. So does that make sense? So I would think we start with that like and yeah so those definitions and figure out are
there a couple they're one of those that you know and it seems to me that the larger facility run as a commercial type use in the LCD makes some sense as a first start. Um and that's just where
now that's not getting at the conversions of larger homes or other kinds of things. But um or the increase density um and the parking and all those other things because I'm I'm looking at false
what could be get done um if so we're all in agreement though senior housing at some level they are an appropriate zone threat but then what and where what is what is senior housing well I don't know what is I mean page
three and four in your uh document student housing was helpful is glad to have it because like what is it right in some ways I'd like to ask the gentleman from Fort Beach what in your mind is senior housing it's a good question I mean there's
legal interpretation it's just the general feeling about what you encourage seniors to have housing that's dedicated to them so I know I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to report to describe what senior housing is from a perspective But the idea in the communities I'm familiar
with, most familiar with that there's areas or buildings that seniors are known. It's like we have affordable housing. We have special senior housing. It's just an element of community that's that that was designated for those older
citizens. And and when you think about it, do you imagine it as a large institutional s structure like village or do you imagine sort of houses scattered about a core of services? I don't imagine perhaps a string of houses together. There would be myself
this small group of houses that would be together first living for seniors that would they be able to walk into your house without climbing upstairs I guess they need that but that's not
so it's more small group of 10 that could certainly be one model I'm just trying to envision what it would look downtown books. No. Um the the questions
uh well John. Yeah. So from a building code point of view um senior housing is essentially multif family housing typically because they are they tend to be either business driven or missiondriven. They are done
through the 40B process and they then can be characterized as senior living being age restricted which you can imagine uh is quite is more popular than just a multif family housing like the one proposed in our town because of its
age restricted it won't have an impact on schools and they drive less and maybe have less cars on on the road. So it's a less impactful to the community but it's still a good thing to do. So, um, but the only real difference between them is they might have a community room on the
first floor. Um, that's really kind of it, right? But besides that, generally speaking, multif family housing. So, we would have to allow multif family housing. And again, what I would encourage you guys is to think about the town and
where those things would be appropriate and where we could actually achieve them. We do have some sites in town where it could be done. So, we may have some sites, but we have to zone by zones. And so, that's one of the challenges.
Um, that density thing was interesting that if if a senior housing was proposed with a certain density, maybe that could be allowed in a district. Although, I'm not sure to be honest. much happen. It's
it's typically done by by 40B in which case it's that's what years ago that's how it was a lot of the early age restricted housing 55 and older was
done by people then in around the early 2000s there was a lot of age restricted housing and they went more toward just standard regular unrestricted housing. Um there might be
like resurgence of that as population ages um and available sites where towns have each restricted housing bylaws kind of get eaten up. Um so uh so that that
is one way it has passed. Another way is to write a bylaw and you know you can say well we can do it uh
minimum lot size with a certain density under certain conditions um is is is another way of doing it. Another way of trying to do it is this I've never seen before
Chris has brought up is to allow it um kind of as in small scattered sites know if you have under the same scenario but on a small scale. So if you have an acre or you have an existing building a
certain size, you're allowed to uh redevelop that into a smaller like smaller density um and have five units let's say on a dirt on single property.
Again um it's a different way of doing it. It's not you don't see that. I've seen that before, but I don't that might be a marketing thing, you know, passing bylaw.
Reason why we haven't seen it is a lot of place because desire it's not for it might not be economically feasible. Well, I can state a few examples. Um, boulders
up in Wenham. Uh, I think that was 24 units in 12 duplexes with like a with a common building. Um, quite nicely done. I think that's that was how many acres it's like a 10 acres I think. Yeah. But there's a better example
which is the Maples which is right near the downtown which is an old mansion house that was converted to senior housing with a bunch of town houses around it. Very attractive. Everybody likes it a lot. That's in Hamilton
and it's a big old the viability of a smaller facility like Mark described they do yeah in fact there's they are they exist all around I think there rally there's new for a very special model that they're working on
where a bunch of homeowners basically get together and created community facilities they've all participated in. So the senior the senior facilities the central core service notes
that would work well. So how do we make it possible by Z? [Music] I think the um the challenge man is uh have a hard time with change and there's
we've certainly among you know heard also I don't think this necessarily my opinion but I I just it's important that people fear that a multifamily next single residential district is a change
that is unanticipated unwanted did. Now the the benefit of course is that if you um you know have seniors they're not having presumably not having parties and travel less and all those things. Now the flip
side of that is that if you have um sort of five units with seniors and then three of them at you know need continuing care they have more traffic kind of thing. That's the the fear. Um and maybe that's
the case for um just in the same way that if single family has you know four teenagers you have a lot of traffic for period. So it's not it's actually the same. So to to just state the obvious here we
we have a very uh we have a we're we live in a town with a u relatively speaking wealthy population who are aging. who are in some very big houses often and might like to not be in those houses, have a place to go, but they
still want to stay in the area. They might might want to stay in town and it's very hard to find the place to go. Therefore, they don't. The houses stay occupied and they have help come in and that's okay, too, but the houses just
remain as part of that until they pass. Um anyway, it there's not a very efficient cycle of uh passing on, you know, downsizing and and staying in town. I know that's an old story that we've talked about a lot, but we still
haven't found a way to solve it. And zoning is only one tool that y I think the next steps are to draft for senior housing. First step would be to craft an article
to direct one the line item that we have for um nursing homes and hospitals and sanatorium to change that before nursing homes are as by law
as after I check you have a specific definition for long-term care therapy. facility that might match food uh nursing place that line item facility. Um,
what do people think about putting a long-term care sort of larger facility presumably larger facility in LCD in the LCD wherever we put it? We don't put anywhere
in order to make it all in the world. There's no spot for it other than somewhere on the other side of 128. Right. That's it. That's so the but the current I guess my point is the current zoning is nonsense. Yeah.
Charitable not many of these are forprofit and not in the LCD. So to me we should at least flip that use the definitions that we have and at least allow those in the LCD. Now the argument against that is going to be oh my god with big residents people living in the
LCD and that's sort of been a a third rail but the hotel use we're talking about right hotel right it seems like at the very least if it's a you know I don't have each parcel or
if there are any parcels that's not our job. Yeah. Then second question is should there be other districts besides the LCD that it should be allowed in um the special permit?
I was think I would think I've talked quite a lot about that. That's right. This was not at your own ter but it's fascinating to hear there is a viability to put this in a residential neighborhood if it's done properly not
to a large scale so we don't have constant traffic I think there's a viability I've heard the conversation in town from people that have lived here a long time John to your point that want to
um secure for a location where they can build their own community, live out their lives for their friends, and they can do that. We could have a plan for maybe that's going to happen eventually
with or without Can I ask a broader question out there? Is there a developer of of the 55 and older or or senior housing out there that would consider some place in Manchester? What what is their what is
their tipping point saying yes, it's viable here? Do you have enough land? Do you have enough you have enough mass if you will? Well, cost of land is the first thing. Second thing is the the suer but also
size of the project. You know, the smallest project I've ever done with a developer and it was a 40B, I think it was a 40B was was four units. Four. And he said afterward, I will never do that again.
Okay. Wait. Said four. 40. Four. 40. Very hard to make it pencil out. Just hard. Um uh but I like the idea. Uh the the other thing is if you're providing services
right to a small building that has only four people in it. You know, my my my dad was at um Heric House for a couple years and there there's 80 people and I'm sure that they were profitable,
right? But has there's a there's a building that I always thought was senior housing, but I don't think it really is. Uh I'm not sure if it's in Glville or Manchester, but if you're driving forward Glow on your left hand side. No. What is that?
It's a little mansion that's in an apartment. Okay. But it's not specifically for senior summer street. Yeah. I always thought that would have been a really great little senior project. Also think the Nantas house on school
street. Big beautiful house. I sort of imagined that that would be a beautiful great scene in that. So I I love the idea if we could find someone to go 15 screws off you know it's a it's an
it's a mess. Yeah it's a mess but it's nice. Yeah it is. So sir your question here is there anything that we want right? So I think your your suggestion about just cleaning up some of the language you use the word
nonsense that would be pretty simple first step I would think to get people thinking about that right well I mean to sort of I think Chris would argue that you know take these definitions but if each of these definitions was aligned in our table and we figured out which districts they
make sense in um and had them all by special permit just to start and Maybe we leave it at that. All by special purpose. It's an improvement. Maybe. I mean, then it's it's a little bit like the market and not quite a
regulate effect out of it. Certainly get a sense of the town. we'll get out of town and um if you include them all just if you include all the districts just for or at least you know people could amend
to remove districts and we might see where and that might be the simplest I'm not sure I understand what you're saying to set certain like density li something certainly define the type.
Yeah. Well, we have a variety of definitions here for different types of housing from continent living. Right. Right. So, um I think so that it doesn't seem to be
arbitrary going to need to set certain criteria to be developed. I I hate to be a broken record on this, but there you haven't been here long and
inclusive of all the, you know, the 28 day process for citizens petitions to be added to the special town meeting article uh article to a warrant and Eli's comments at our meeting giving people even more time that so that we
can review those. The select board really needs to decide whether they're going to set a date for special town meeting in November on Monday next week. And I think and I think that they I would assume that they would want some
it doesn't speak final draft, but they would want to see some pretty decently thought out draft language. to make that decision. Since you're talking about what do we want to include, I think that you're you're you
have this balance of making the special town meeting worth its time, right? Uh but also one week to get it together. Yeah. a wister of diesel, not a broken hydro.
Right. Right. You guys would, you know, the conversation's really good and I and I don't want to hurt the momentum of that. Um, but it is a realistic understanding of a schedule. I think that you have to consider.
There's a big job about working everybody what the proposals exactly are. Um uh let's just stick with senior housing. Any more senior housing comments about
that will sort of go back to the larger issue of any senior housing comments right now? Okay. Uh yeah. takes on that issue. I'm not sure why
you would rush this downtown zoning unless you're afraid there's another project that's coming up where somebody is is going to eliminate you to get something that's Yeah. I mean, right. This this to me doesn't look
right. Nothing. Um I will say to Tony though the um you know we've bar to have something to the select board for Monday is a totally new
it hasn't been our practice in the past for the select board to to sort of uh bless something. I mean I my I I I also did the calendar but because of October 6 we need to have it draft to the sub court.
I agree with that. I'm not they need to bless it. No, but but I think they need if they're making a decision about whether to set a date for a town meeting. They want to know that things are going to be ready to go, right? Uh it's not necessarily,
you know, having a pen and editing what you're suggesting. It's more so just feeling comfortable that I understand. So my opinion on that is that the downtown while it's not it's current draft needs to be fixed. I think we know
where we want to be and to me that's you know Mark and Kathy town council need to get a really good draft that is that gets us that is exact that is what we want to be. So that um senior housing I'm trying to figure out how do we bound
it and I think um that's and the way the way I see it is that even just what we discussed tonight if we deal with the things that we feel that can be put together for town
meeting we still have like five to six articles and so that's going to entail fair discussion meeting. So by putting this off to the spring and then adding what we might work on spring, you might be talking
about 10 extra articles for this annual town meeting all zoning, which might be a little more than public often times, you know, is willing to to to manage, which is why it's always good to split
up some zoning in fall and some spring. So I think you know the ones I can see as as being manageable to to have ready are the specific downtown the long-term care facility one. Uh we
would probably have the hotel and in broken out as a separate article. Um although it's just a central line item. Uh we would probably have uh perhaps the parking reduction for the downtown as this specific article just so that we
don't if there are a lot of people feel strongly about not reducing parking it doesn't kill the whole resounding of the downtown which people seem to uh to be supportive and and maybe one of the
other definitions as I work through it of the housing Um whether it's uh we have multiple definitions in here. Now maybe there is a way of
of cherry picking one specific thing working on that one task and moving that one forward. So so public opportunity to review that report. What's going to be it'll be
massage anyways after meeting public hearings and the select meeting will be open. We could go in it would be nice and see what tonight
and so we could say this look pretty good direction for no. So the swag board meeting Monday would be just to set a date for a town meeting. The the final draft of their article
would be the probably October what we would have it submitted for October. Yeah. So we would have probably another public forum session of some type. We haven't discussed what what it is and we
would have the our second meeting uh in two weeks and then perhaps the fifth fifth Monday another meeting the following week but we can vote on the actual articles and then submit those that week so it'll be
on the select board agenda and then the fact of the matter is you there's se the remaining of September we could do a form in late September one in late October and actually one in whatever there is actually because you
know after and public you know so we have there's time the question is do we have the capacity to do that and if there's any other things that that are going to be on would be on the warrant or would Tony do you think it
would just be zoning there's a couple things that we could add to it if we're going to handle one, but they're not necessary. It wouldn't call for a special time, right? For just those, but you if you had the opportunity to take off.
Um, right. I'm uh I think what we need to do is we need a solid draft of these articles from you, Martin. um that are really uh and I'm going to suggest that we have a working group on a couple of
these uh to really with different you know to talk through them. So maybe we can post a couple of working group meetings. Um, no. Uh, who would like I guess Chris and Sue are interested in those senior housing.
We'll post we'll post a senior housing and a downtown working group meetings in between now and our next meeting so that at least a subset of us are really in the weeds on it. And uh we will make this better. We'll hear what SL word
says next week. But nonetheless, we still have to keep working on these things. We're moving them along. Whether we are whether April will be here before you know it, actually. I know. Um
okay. So the next item on our agenda is the um rideway article. Did you thanks I just left that on. um any changes based on our last
discussions. So, okay. So, I'm going to pass over that because there's any changes since the last meeting. Yeah. Unless anybody's a suggestion, but kind of went through it clearly
by watching is pretty straightforward. Okay. Um so any other um and then other changes to zoning? I think I we probably already bitten up
enough some of the notes to table at least we need to yeah some of the notes we we may need to adjust one of one of the problems way existing police charts
things are a little challenging but I think Kathy's suggestion about creating specific line for excuse and I think so that's maybe your definition that sets a
couple of sense I think um maybe what I would suggest is use Kathy's time to help craft this downtown by law um yeah
Okay. Um, so one thing I should we vote on the map the geography of it or we're not ready to do that. What did we decide on proposed?
Well, I think the the only one that I'm not quite think about is the 10 Summer Street. Okay. I see his point. Yeah. But I think the fact that it's all one,
it's already one soul and it's already a residential part of the community with all the other units. Yeah. I mean part of that. Yeah. Right. So that's they already have a
commercial that lot already has commercial use right it's 61 because it just essentially fairly recently was redeveloped honestly I think keeping the zone
absolute zone as tight as possible. Yeah, is a good idea for right. We can always expand things would require change. I mean dots or
who knows how, right? If it's even possible. So then um then the map as you presented I think is what we what we um you're going to take the life. But that's part of the context. That's
it's okay to be part of the company as long as it's [Music] more but it's also flower shelves. It's a condo as well. So, they bought out if they bought that space
and the condo docs allow for it because it is commercial. They wanted to expand to a bigger dining room that they wouldn't be able to do that. Oh, yeah. It's commercial. In the general district, it would have to comply with addition higher parking
requirements which they wouldn't be able to provide. The flower shop I hear is moving. It's hoping to choose school street. Yeah. Okay. Well, I think it makes sense to leave now. I
think that that there's agreement. So, let's um Oh, he's back. Sorry. Um, so to get that off our list and then we can set up the good idea. So,
right. So, would you like to re uh make a motion to approve the map presented on September 8th? Yes. I propose downtown district. I Yes. Thank you.
Sandy would like to second that. Any other discussion? So, can we consider adding this parking lot to it? Yes. Ah, in the region for that matter. I don't think that's if they're
municipal uses right now. They're not going to change, but they're not. Um, let's say somebody were doing air rights development parking. Well, change the zoning. Yeah. You're going to have so many other problems.
air rights development. I think if you think about our our original intent which is to the street fronts you know and to kind of preserve what we have today. Okay. And you did
anybody else for that? Okay. S made a motion and Sandy has seconded that. Um all in favor closed. Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. Liaison updates. Um, I think
we forgot to assign somebody. So, I will do a quick I have No, sorry. I happen to have the I'll show you when I showed the planning for the like working um for uh the harbor management. I'll just say because I happen to have a
slide so why not. um it won't get long but there are a couple things that not not tomorrow but you know in some future date um
so here uh the harbor management plan has a couple of um few screens. Um uh um five key areas and in each area we've identified a um
key big idea. Um the first and they're not these are not yet prioritized. So they order supporting the marine economy which has boatyards tourism shell fishing. Um and the big the idea there is
potentially a water use overlay. That'll be easy. Um water use. So, so let's tell me you have to have a state approved
management plan before you can propose that. Um, so that's one big idea. The second is provide safe and habitable waterways, which is sort of obvious, but the big idea here is we don't actually know what our capacity is. Our upper
peak capacity and if we are at it on moorings, peak use navigation, emergency response, staffing, funding and facilities maintenance. Don't know that answer. Well, after the battles you had a few years ago, well, um, wars. Wow.
And so, you know, right now you go out there and drive around the harbor, it's pretty darn quiet. There's no big winds and all that, but peak it's like peak parking, right? It's like in peak safe. So that we don't really have a good handle on this. That's our that's the
committee's like big idea on this. The third is uh maintain public access. Public access is always part of these fire management plans and um most towns there's increase but we feel that we have a lot. So um that we actually have
significant uh public access on food used beaches for small boats boat ramps and we need to maintain that maintain I don't mean maintain like fix I mean not impede not uh uh ensure healthy water
quality we while we have water quality on beach closures and that kind of thing we don't actually know what the water we don't have a comprehensive water quality harbor for testing. We suggest that before but that there's
some policies that may seem to make sense like around fergalizers along the harbor around um uh um climate change and and so forth that
the water quality data needs to be improved and we have some ideas about how to do that. And lastly, actually the fifth one we just changed the other night from respond to a change in climate to um increase long-term preparedness.
And that's around um climate, but it's also around uh the planning for all these facilities and comprehensive assets that we have in the harbor that are town assets. How do we, you know,
what's that planning look like? and and that's in it sort of part of capacity. So that's what we're doing. It's it's hard because we kind of hope you're doing a lot
and and so a lot of that has expenses budget eventually. We're trying. No, I think that's the flip is how capacity is around. Yes. some testing and maybe another study has some budgets. Yeah. But one of the questions is how much
what is our limit on or you know can should the town's budget be this is not necessarily harbor management we feel like we can't answer these things. Should it be 2% of our total budget or should it be 22%. You know that kind of how much can we
afford? What is it right now? Um but u and I don't have any what we don't have is any way to judge it's an enterprise right so it kind of lives outside
but as is the so maybe the better question is the enterprise capable of growing at the same rate as the facilities so that's yeah it's a hard it's a thin question of town administrator public. So um the point is
you know more and more and more and more um and is it we don't and the consult we thought the consultants would help us with this that's the more fun there um
all right um correspondent uh any other public comment before we on any other issues Well, there was some other You said you were going to talk about how about what? Well, there was a conservation commission. It's definitely a
facilities. Oh, didn't know. It's a big deal, but I've seen Tony. We've met twice on three times so far. We met twice in this building.
the police here, the fire department and the EPW and then we went to Essex and looked at their new facility which is then we went to uh Rockford facility which is open for a month brand new and
it's uh pretty stark in comparison between what we have which is I'll just call compared to this brand new facilities beautiful beautiful so that that is The way I see why Chuck is handpw
he's looking for this facility but not to give them guidance as to proper sighting proper location proper configuration proper massing buildings and everything associated with this thing. So this is talk about financial.
These are these are big dollar items and I I I do celebrate the fact that Chuck is actually engaging members from each one of the the groups to actually participate in selection of the city.
Now with with with Andy and me he's got two guys that have done development of industrial facilities forever or more than just planning more confident. So I think it's it's a big deal. It's big
deal. Something you have to be conserv is it's is pretty wild there. There are some like uh mixed use that that's municipal and commercial and something that they brought a developer in.
Well, sort of depends where it's going to be, right? If it's going to be upite site is the is the site of choice right now up there. We did a tour up there as well. It's absolutely empty right now. Nothing up there.
Yeah. No buildings, no nothing. No trash, no the old the old the old I understand it's just rubble. What? Uh no, I don't think it's rubble. It's
it's there's a lot of grade changes across here and there's a lot of things you can do. Maybe there's multiple facilities can fit up in there. That's what they're focusing on right now. And and which opens the question by the way the old DPW site what that ends up being
that's a that's a fairly large flat area you know definitely got to do a lot of cyberation there over the 80 years it's been there you have to do it but it is you know so this is this has gone from more than just being
advisory roles down planning board. So now it's really engaging in development is all these town facilities. It's it's really quite exciting. And the ancillary part of that thing we open up a very large site in whatever that intends to
be the picture we really should keep our things. Thank you. Anybody else? Just one question about the conservation is a billion or committee commission commission. So they talked about repark and it just reminded me that b here for
a long time talking about repark and we had a lot of conditions on what he was going to do and I notic that the conservation commission was talking about a lot of those conditions. So I just wonder is there any
crossover from what we to the work that needs to be done to prepare it for you know the tree work remember Laura was talking about making sure that they had the right people there so that they wouldn't destroy the trees and they talked about that too but
there are other conditions that I can remember that we put on there and I just wonder what happens to them. I mean the discussion was fairly similar. I was there I mean like you say they discussed a lot of the same things. Um maybe um
I think the result of that was the problem was a lot of these concerns were dealt with through the planning board's condition so they don't need to be sorry but they didn't say that and that's why it just seemed like they were duplicating effort.
I thought they did say that. Did they? Oh, I must have been snoozing at that point that it was later in the meeting. I think they did say a lot of these these concerns are already covered by the planning boards. That's great.
Okay. Sorry, Chief. It's okay. Fast forward. Okay. Um minutes. minutes. There was one uh they're calling Mr. Brewster or Mr.
Martin. So there was on the 811 minutes and the liazison updates they were referring to Mr. Martin who was reporting on um the facilities. So,
we haven't I'll correct that. Thanks, Gail. I just want to give Gordon credit because he did such a fine job. I'm on 728. I'm listed as absent, but I was there. Okay. 728. Did these come my email and not in the packet?
No, there are two that are way late. April 17th and May 12th. Okay. Um, April 17th was the presentation of the zoning bylaws. Each member gave one gave
their presentation prior to town meeting. Yep. And those are my I think I wrote. Okay. I'll take a motion to um approve um the minutes of April 17th.
Okay. And um second um uh in favor I can't have uh Sandy or Brian vote this. So all in favor and we have two extensions. Thank you. Okay. of
12. There was not a majority to there was there was there were not enough members who were present at the last meeting though there was no dispute about the minutes. We needed a couple extra people to say
okay. Okay. So, um, for one thing, there says May 12th, 5125, but it's actually for me it's actually August 12th, right? And it says that I I was absent and I was
wait because it says we didn't approval not required for Spy Rock Hill. That was it's so the date should be May 12th. And I was present.
Okay. That that was the spir hill. That was what that one did. That was piece of the Yeah. Um and so it says that the mist fully abstained. So can you
this one need to check who was there because you say that Brian was there but Marian Brian didn't overlap and I don't know what the date of the collection was it's very confused that right that that one that's dated uh 5125
needs to be checked because yeah okay Um, August 11th. Okay. Um, well, Sandy was present. No, you were not. Sandy and I were not present. Okay. So, we cannot vote. I've got a motion on August 11th. Um, uh,
Peter Morton. And Chris seconds. Um, I'll take the vote. All in favor? And Sandy and Sarah are abstaining. Okay. And then um
July 28th yeah Sam was there and Brian was not okay and Mir that's one where Mr. where um mis misidentified collections from. Okay. So, uh
construction s um is that the one that happened? And if you go down reports, Mr. Shoot. I might have already changed it. The last last part.
Okay. I think this was okay. I think and I think Brian was not present on he was on vacation. So Sandy was present on July 28th and Brian was not. So I'll take a motion. This is not the one that had that problem.
Um so we'll take a motion. Peter second Gordon seconds. Um, all in favor I and Brian is abstaining. Okay, I think that gets us
except for the May the May 12th ones need to be fixed. Okay, I'll fix it. Thanks, Gail. Thank you, Gail. Yes, it's the um the motion. Just to be
clear, the uh August 11th is the one where the liaison report should say Mr. Brewster, not Mr. Martin. That's the Yeah, that's August 11th under liaison the MESD building committee,
Mr. Gor. Okay. Um, great. Um, any other things? Motion to address. I have one question. I won't start the whole downtown thing up again, but so it was brought up several times
about in allowing increased density beyond the four units are sold. Um, so I was just before I even thought about how to what that might look like, start reviewing
properties, seeing what might work. Um, how does the board feel about allowing what fits you? I'll make a proposal. Make a proposal. see whether
obviously there are still parking requirements and lot coverage. So, but I would say four units by right in the mixed use property or residential units
or not more than 15 units per acre. 15 units per acre. That's what it is. So that means if you have a half an acre you get a minute what is
that could be like a sort of substantial that's what the MBTA but My throw out there. So my suggestion is let's look at the goal if we're going to for if we're going to do fell time meeting. The goal
is to sort of cement what we have today and get it to pass so that we protect ourselves on this first floor commercial. And I think that I would stick with the existing zone existing density not really even
talk about it too much because the Harbor Point is the real place for the density because that's that's why I said maybe five, right? I didn't really want to go to 15 units for eight or I guess we 15
units that would be in the parking lot. And uh [Music] so so I think for me the question in the immediate is
what do we put if we are going to do something in the fall which is still TV do we um I mean I guess there are people who might not vote for it if there isn't the density But I think that's less I think
people understand. What are you suggesting, sir? We stay with the 40. Stay with the 40s just because I'm trying not to I'm trying not to outset too many apple parts. Agree. Yeah, I think it's very it's been successful that and then as we think about the G
remember we're supposed to do a study of the generalistics which I now say general and top town and you say well here's where we should increase density and that that's phase two. Do that. Yeah. The other thing is I think that the parking question should be a separate vertical. Yes.
So um well we don't have to meet ourselves, right? So you do the downtown and then you put the parking density reduction as a I think you put the commercial snow parking in the original and then you change with a a follow
article you reduce the park so that we don't have a Gary Gilbert amendment on the downtown because the amendment only needs 50% and then if people feel so strongly about that it gets changed then it means that the article
So think density should be a separate article. Density should be a separate article. What I'll do is I'll look at I just did a couple properties here. And so for example um
our existing so like 7 central um is just under 6,000 square ft and two unit just over but if you added let's say you
need another th00and to 2,000 square ft to get your unit um it wouldn't be able to then still be at four. So, as you say, four is the baseline. So, um so some of your bigger parcels
still only get four unless you go to the really big much bigger the next level units. Um and of course you get sports um Harper Point would be 3.3 acres
15 people. Yes. [Music] So you don't have to wouldn't do that right now. I really wouldn't. Yeah, especially since it just if at 15 units per acre doesn't really get you much. It gets you like a couple units here and
there and it graces everybody's I just wanted to ask I just wanted to make sure that that's though I don't work on I think Harbor Point is something that
you know what are we worried about? So they they have a lot of complications and what are they doing? a condominium have the consolidate ownership lease with the MBTA doesn't mean that they can't build a garage or
relocate spaces. They're allowed to do that. But again, it's a lot of moving parts. It would be years. So, one thing that Brandon said was if you do require retail of the first floor,
could you build up another story to replace that? Yes. No. But after what we've been through the past two years, no. What have we been through? But we got through it with a huge
mandate from it was by state law. And also one of the things we said over and over is we want to keep the character of today. This is
today buildings. Great. I I you know I think if if the time weren't so short you can entertain more because you really have to explain things to people in pretty straightforward
time and we're going to get I'm sure we're going to get amendments from folks. We don't but no that's not okay but because it's a 50% vote and then they can take down the whole thing. So we should at least
allow them to have separate so they can be voted separately. We want to get these through. No, I I I don't So it only takes 50% of the vote. This takes two to change, right?
50% to approve an amendment. Uh so if they amend it% folks here, what about the people who aren't here who have opposite, right? So, let's say they get 51% for the amendment, then you go for the full
vote, which takes two, it gets voted, we lose it all, you know, I think that's that's why we, you know, that's why don't senses have these meetings. We people are very guest. They may have some slightly different and it takes
opinion like, you know, maybe have more density. That's why I asked the question we want to add more because we didn't get them answered. Uh but um and but if they feel comfortable with what we propose but the the
uh amendments will be few and far between and they won't gather a lot of support. So I think I think by I've seen very few times that there are
amendments to things that board propos they totally misunderstood. No, they didn't actually. It was they didn't misunder they misunderstood. They read the draft and we we
actually a good start. I guess also we we or I feel like this issue I mean it's 60 some odd people including Jim Brown at that forum and um and it was
written up in the paper we've written articles and you have to remember like and it's like Rusty had never heard of Sony. Well no that's because he read what we gave him. Right. No, he's he thinks that like his
existing building is non-compliant. Therefore, he's going to have to change it. But that's that's because what we wrote was Yeah. But anyway, so um I think we just number two. I know.
All right. And I think I heard a motion to adjurnn. Second. Uh all in favor? I thank you everybody. Goodbye. All right. Next meeting is the 22nd and do uh potentially cancel in the 29th
which is another Monday. Thank you everybody. precisely.