competing with the starship enterprise. >> Welcome everybody. I'm going to call the meeting of the October 14th uh planning board meeting to order. And tonight we have um Sandy Bodmer Turner, Brian Fry, Morton, Sarah Kraton, Chris,
and Sue Filbrick, and Mark Resnik Planner. >> Um welcome everybody. The um first order of business is any public comment for matters that are not on the agenda. And we I guess I would take um any hands
raised from um people online. Okay, seeing none, um we'll move on. Um we did have some correspondence um in our folder from um the city of Gloucester, town of Essex. Um and then
we had uh I think one email correspondence from John Harden um that I shared as well as that came a while ago right after the last meeting. Yeah. Um and then um some correspondence um that I shared between Adam Zagger and
myself and um Kathy McCabe and myself. So those have been shared out. Um any other correspondence that we should need to Okay, >> we did get one right before the meeting from Sandy. >> Oh, okay.
>> Yeah. >> About treating about which is not our jurisdiction. treatment. >> Okay. Uh we'll make sure that everyone gets um Thank you, Peter. Uh first and next order of business is um a approval not
required um for 12 Vine Street. Um the command is in um your packets. I also will share it here. And I think uh Mark Leki is representing the applicant.
Welcome Mark. and um I'll let you uh introduce the the plan. It is up on the screen. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm Mark Gloveski. I represent the applicant. Uh this property has been in Pat Penton's family
for quite a while. Uh they always knew they had the potential to create an additional lot, but uh during Pat's lifetime, they chose not to do that. Uh at this point uh they are anticipating
offering the property for sale uh both as a divisible property hopefully and as one property. So it's unclear what what will happen with the property but they are attempting to uh maintain their
options. What what's being proposed tonight is a very simple straightforward approval not required plan. Uh as you know it is an exception to the subdivision control law. It's a division
of property not a subdivision. Uh, and there are three exceptions both in chapter 40 and in the Manchester subdivision rules and regulations that allow the division of property without going through the formal subdivision
process if the proposed lots on the plan satisfy one of the three conditions. And in this case uh the first condition which is uh the lots all have frontage on a public way uh which provides the
requisite frontage under the zoning uh ordinance or bylaw. Uh it is entitled to endorsement by the planning board. In this case what's being proposed is the division of the property into two lots.
Lot one and lot two shown on the plan before you. Lot one has the existing dwelling and an accessory building. It contains or will contain 11,724
square ft with 101 ft of frontage on Vine Street. A lash 2 uh has an existing garage that is to be raised uh and it contains 9750 square feet with 60 ft of frontage on
Fine Street. The property is located in District D and as I suspect you know District D requirements are that each lot contain a minimum of 6,000 square feet uh with 60 ft of frontage. uh we
obviously satisfy both of those requirements and in all other respects uh the division would be consistent with the dimensional requirements of the town's bylaw. So uh happy to answer any
questions you might have but I think this is as simple ANR plan as you may see. >> Um thank you. Can you just ask the gentleman out there to step in for a second? I'm seeing >> um was were you moving the cursor
around? >> Uh that may have been me. Yes. Was it? >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure we didn't have some uh >> some other person the image. It could have been my cursor. >> That's fine. >> It's all this guy's fault. Yeah. >> No, no, it's fine. Just checking.
>> Um we've had a problem with Zoom bombing. Oh. >> Um so, um uh Mark, have you reviewed the um uh plan for um
10 uh or 12 Vine Street? >> Yes. >> And your recommendation >> is to endorse the plan. >> Okay. Um any uh questions from the board, comments?
U and the filing fee has been received and all of that. Okay. Um with that I will take a motion to end endorse the plan of land in Chester Massachusetts prepared for Patricia H. Felton, trustee
of the PHF Realy Trust, 12 Vine Street prepared by Le Bank Survey Associates on August 13, 25, 2025 with a scale of 1 in equals 20 ft as approval uh not
required um under the subdivision control law. >> A motion. >> So move. >> Peter Morton moves and >> second. Sandy Badmer seconds. Any other discussion? Um all in favor?
>> I post. Unanimous. Um Gordon Brewster is absent. Um thank you. And um it's my preference that I endorse it and then you pick it up unless that's your fine. >> Okay, great. That way we can >> Thank you very much.
Um, great. So, um, all right. Downtown zoning, uh, district is our next order of business. Um, and I wanted to, looks
like we have a few people who are online who may not have been online um, with us before to talk about this issue. Um so let me just summarize briefly that um and uh
make one um new point that we haven't talked about before. Hold on. The um one of the things that we learned in when the MDTA zoning was being done um
is that the our current zoning does not necessarily protect our downtown from residential being converted from commercial to residential. Um and it turns out that this um was identified as
a issue in 2019 in the master plan. Um at our last meeting, someone actually asked us if the master plan addressed this. So I went and chased that down. And there's a really nice vision statement in the master plan, >> which we were asked about last time, and
I think it's worth reading. And that is Manchester's downtown is another they're referencing several is a highly valued asset. Not only is the center of commerce and governance, it retains its original settlement pattern with businesses and public facilities knit
tightly together with residential neighborhoods. It is rich with historic architecture and is framed by our beautiful harbor. And then the master plan further goes on to identify a number of action areas. One is reai revise zoning in the general
district to generate more commercial and residential opportunities in downtown in a manner sympathetic to existing character. Um the second is to assess the opportunities to increase residential units in downtown through ver revised
zoning aimed at generating more mixeduse commercial residential opportunities. Um so I think that's really um helpful to say that back when the master plan was done this was identified and um as a basis. So uh we have been working for a
number of months already on um a proposed zoning article which will come before town meeting in April to make some changes that help to protect what we currently have in what we think of as our downtown. And then we are continuing
to talk about the details and that's what we're going to be talking about tonight. Um does that help uh set the stage? >> Hopefully not too winded too longwinded there. >> Um so um the first thing that we thought
we would talk a little bit about that came up at uh we did have a working group um to talk about communications about this zoning district. And in the course of trying to figure out how to communicate about these changes, we um
thought about the fact that it might be useful to have um names that are more explicit and descriptive than downtown district A and B, which doesn't really help a nonzoning
literate person um to understand where they are. So I think we proposed we t we batted around a few things which were uh town center town core railroad
station district may have some bad connotations harbor core came up um in the frequently asked questions proposed that >> harbor harbor core district or harbor district um uh or parks district I don't
know I Uh so let's add let's first take the issue of do you think um that we should explore that naming convention to to give more specificity to it. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> I mean I think town core is a really good name because it is kind of the heart of things. what to name the B district because looking at the map, you know, >> unless we fit a bit with what the
district B is extended across the the street there to uh include Vinnie's house and the hardware store, which are in some ways more like >> that's our second topic. So, let's just stick to names for a moment. >> Yeah. Well, it dep the name depends on
what the district is. >> That's true. So, so maybe as we think about it, maybe we'll come back to the name question as we um work through the night and jot down as things come to you. That might be the most efficient and we'll come back to that.
>> Are people comfortable with the idea of town core as a name >> or town center? >> Town center. Sure. >> Um >> yeah, I think I would prefer center. >> Yeah, >> it's a little less formal.
Yeah, it's more descriptive. So, there was a a discussion about village center and apparently that the village calling the downtown the village has some some people don't like it. >> Trust,
some people do. something um call it um we are technically a town >> you know that might be a good place to get some input from the town. Yeah, we can certainly >> Yeah, >> but
>> yeah, be we can recommend. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, but I think for town center seems to make some make sense then the other district is um a little bit harder to to um um Okay. So, the next item on the agenda
is actually to talk about the um the area that is in this um district. Um, I think we have the um gra we have um I'm putting up a map for people who might not know what we're
talking about. Um so the um proposal for these two new zoning districts um are the district A which is now the town center
um and uh currently district B which is >> uh Sure. Yeah. >> Um, and B, which is um, currently proposed as Harbor Point and
>> Crosby's. Um, when we talked the other day, I think the rationale for those two, um, is that they currently have considerable parking to meet their, um,
business their current business needs. And um given that in the town center we are actually pl proposing that commercial uses not
have to have a new parking space. Um residential uses would have one parking space per unit. Um which is a decrease from our current parking requirements. The idea was that the
harbor core or district B would um if if change in the future were to transpire, we would potentially lose considerable parking or be we would allow the loss of considerable parking.
Whether it happened is uh anybody's guess. Um and so that was part of the rationale for that as well as um a requirement that commercial be on the first floor of those properties
and then uh an open question about residential above. Um I think last at last meeting we said residential with special permit and we heard from some people about increasing density in those areas and we probably will hear from
others saying decrease densities. You know there may be we haven't we haven't the density question is also an open question. I I thought we also um >> extended it >> basically had the discussion about we made the district
because those are two of the largest properties, right? And rather than just say yes, you have permission to do this by right, right, we wanted some oversight because it was I mean there were perhaps too many ways the properties could be cut up that would be
detrimental to the >> So then some sort of site plan review and special permit comprehensively to try to have a um a thoughtful have the town have input into those properties.
So could you summarize very briefly the difference between the downtown and the other district the A and the B >> in terms of our proposed regulations? >> Yes. Yeah. I think it's largely right now around parking and then we need to discuss
I think the other piece was that mixeduse commercial first floor would be required in the what's currently on the map shown as district B where in the uh in in a town center district A uh commercial
retail on the first floor uh we could have residential on the first floor with a special permit And then I think also the the the third is the parking requirements. You talked about having in the town center
no parking requirements for commercial correct me if I'm wrong and one per residential unit. And I think what's unresolved about that that indist harbor district or sure I like that um
uh uh red district up there um and the question that so I think that's an opportunity in my mind at least to have in increase have our parking our existing parking requirements ments remain would be my recommendation, but
we could increase them or decrease them, whatever we want to, but um so we would have parking requirements would be for the commercial uses would be different in district B. So I think we have to work on
that description, you know. Um, I think a word that Kathy used in her email which was stuck with me was clarity as opposed to simplicity. >> Yes. >> And I think that when Chris just asked you that question. >> Well, I mean, it's hard, you know, right
now it's it's hard to articulate. I mean, you did a good job, but you've been working on it for a few months. >> No, but seriously, I think it would be helpful if we could whittle it down to a sentence or two, if that's at all possible. that allows people to
understand it. >> So it' be require commercial on the first floor, increase parking requirements. District B requires commercial or retail
on the first floor and has uses our existing parking >> which is >> which is that >> but which is what we're there now. Oh, it's like a five pages of parking, >> right?
>> Right. Right. >> Isn't it just that it's not so much that it's required, it's currently commercial uses are permitted. So, what's changing is that residential use is now permitted.
>> Actually, no, because it's district A now. It's actually commercial allowed. Well, no. It's permitted with a uh with a planning board approval. Most use is permitted. >> Oh, in your in our proposal. >> Yes. Correct.
>> Today, but today would be a a bunch of single family residences. Yes. >> Today, single family is allowed. It's a district A with 20,000 square feet. >> I think before you kind of um
go on more about district B. You need to figure out whether you want residential in district B and what kind of residential you want it at what type of density. I think the simple part we've already
discussed which is requiring first floor commercial only district B and keeping the parking requirements the commercial parking requirements for district B. So those those two things I think we've talked about and we
all agreed upon at the last meeting, but I think it wasn't consensus on allowing residential in district B and if we do what type of residential. So that's why the draft that was in the folder didn't
have um any spec specificity on on residential in that district, >> right? It just says no, >> right? It still says no >> for all residential. >> Yes. Yes. Because there was there was
still and so I think that's an important thing to discuss today is if you want residential district B um you know we specify that it would be allowed on the second and third floors above commercial.
you know, maybe you don't have a requirement that it be uh broken out into individual parcels so that they could do a multifamily building perhaps. Let's say adding a second story over
>> um Dunkin Donuts and that that wing. Um let as a simple example, they could add a second and third story there to to to add units. uh they don't have to divide it into 6,000 square ft lots. Um and
that we can write something that would allow multif family. Whether that multif family is age restricted to 55 and older or not is something for discussion. Um, I think uh that might be a way of um
allowing residential but also a pe um uh calming some people's fears about downtown residential by by having it 55 and older because I think a lot of people in the community really support that and the
location for 55 and older is is really good. It's supermarkets, stores, restaurants, coffee shops are all right there as well as the train. Vehicle trips would be less.
>> One problem though is that's going to be prime real estate. There won't be affordable housing even if it's age restricted. I mean, it's right on the harbor. Well, we we could build in a affordability requirement that 10 15% of
the units. You don't want it to be too many to make it uneconomical to be a project, a viable project, but you could uh build in aability requirement so that at least uh a number
of the units will be quote affordable. That's a good idea. >> So you incentivize the creation >> incentivize the type of >> So let's start with the question of district B. Do we want to
allow any residential? I think last meeting we said yes with special permit. >> Yes. >> Yes. Absolutely. >> Yeah, it seems that >> Okay. So then the question So I think there's agreement yes with special permit.
>> Um and are we in agreement that in district B that that would be requ that mixed use commercial on the first floor would be um a allowed use. Commercial with
residential on the first floor would not be allowed. Correct. >> We would not allow residential on the first floor >> in that district. And I think that makes sense in keeping with what's there, which is part of our original goal.
So then the question is do we want to limit um uh it um in a way that is different than the rest of the downtown which is four units per
parcel with um dimensional requirements essentially particularly height of what is currently allowed today which I think 35 ft. >> Um uh we heard last time that the 35 ft
significantly limits um the scale the scale and the uh development potential from comments whether that's you know that was certainly a comment we heard. Um,
>> is three floors 35 ft or 40T? >> 30 ft. 35. >> 35 is 34. >> Not two and a half. >> 35 is 34. >> And that extra five includes, >> right? >> Utilities on the roof.
>> Well, there those are exempt. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Fires and things, >> right? Thanks to Mark. I think um the um so I think we're in agreement on residential. My personal feeling is that
we should not change the hype restrictions at this point. the I go back to the master plan language >> which was something in the like keeping with the character of the town and its scale and it's whatever that you know
that that intent of the master plan I think the intent we started with was largely to kind of codify what's there today and and in large part we're doing that with
the exception of downtown of the district B, we already are allowing residential above. That's that is a pretty big additional and we're allowing more uh residential
throughout with four units per lot and we're keeping the height keeps the scale smaller. you know, you can't get four to it would be hard to get four, you know, 3,000 square foot
apartments on a small on above call if you at 35 ft, you know, just physically challenging. Um although the parking um there's quite a bit of
parking behind Callus, for example. So, um that could be that footprint of that building could expand quite quite substantially. I guess I'm curious about what people are thinking about might come to pass on
uh the Harbor Point area. And um if we're trying to increase residential, I mean that's part of it because you're trying to I mean we talk a lot about a vibrant downtown. Well, it's not a vibrant downtown if there are no people
down there, right? So that helps with that. And I I wonder if there are ways to um incentivize um or allow smaller units so that the
units would perhaps be less expensive than some of the things around here. And so you would encourage you know not just the affordability issue but also encouraging smaller size. So I I mean when I think about that area
I do think about smaller apartments and a number of um but I don't know what's in all of your minds. So there's a lot of balancing because if you're saying one and a half parking spaces per unit
that is saying then you want you're going to have the fewer number of units the fewer number of parking spaces. >> So the incentive is to make bigger units with the same number of parking spaces. So if you're going to require smaller
units you're going to have to maybe just have one parking space per unit. And I don't know whether you could limit them to two bedroomedroom units. Would that be small enough? I'm not sure age restriction necessarily makes any sense, but it might.
>> I don't know how you know the the problem is the more regulation you put on this, the less likely anything's going to happen. >> Yes, >> you want something to happen, >> right? I mean, if we want small units, we should just specify small units, like no greater than x square feet,
>> thousand square feet or >> um uh >> um I mean, if that's the intent, let's not beat around the bush. Let's let's I mean, in the same way we did with our accessory dwelling units. We said that we want them to be accessories and not bigger than 12,200 square feet, right?
>> So, that's seems to me that that's the goal. Um I think we're not I think your point is at least in my mind I'm not 100% clear about what my vision is for Harbor Point and whether I think having um >> I'm thinking about as a point of entry
to the town I guess is how I'm thinking about it. So that while I'm thinking about smaller units where people who are younger and can begin to enter the town and become part of the town's life, um might, you know, maybe work in Boston,
if anybody works in Boston anymore, you know, but can take the train elsewhere. And um so I that's why my that's the source of my interest in smaller units because presumably you charge a lower price for a smaller unit.
>> Right. >> And one of the issues we have in town pretty consistently is that the housing here is pretty unaffordable. >> Right. I have a tough time probably because I'm just not knowledgeable enough about limiting square footage on
a size of an apartment. I mean, have has anyone been in those apartments that are um being built right now? Is it zero school or one above? >> Oh, the old uh department old building. >> Yeah. Yeah. And those aren't big apartments. >> They're tiny,
>> but they're getting, you know, robust rents. So, I I just think the market right now is kind of determining what the rents will be regardless of the size of the union. I'm not sure we can control that. >> Well, we can't,
>> right? >> But we can we may have some ability to control the size of the units. >> Well, we could certainly >> So, they're not $8,000 a month. >> We can require 20% and be affordable to have inclusionary that we could do.
>> Yeah. Yep. Or if you know there's just maybe a special permit if we want to exceed the four unit cap or whatever it is then they might be the affordability like that might be a condition on >> sure >> special permit if they want to exceed that
>> whatever it might be. >> Is there a density that we're comfortable with? I mean is like is the MBTA zoning density the threshold is that too much? So sir, you had mentioned in the the
last in the working meeting that that parcel the harbor point is like an acre at least or something. It's so that >> 2 something. >> So according to the density now they could put I think you >> well if we were use the MBTA >> right be 15 units per acre.
>> Yeah. >> Or if we were to use >> if they were to carve it up into little 6,000 square foot lots more >> you it would be higher than that. >> A lot higher. >> Yeah. 42,000 divided by 6,000 is 7, right? And 7* 2 or 28 is 28.
>> So if we use the MBTA of them, we'd end up with the same number of units as patter. That's basically what we get. So I was that does that seem like too many? >> I mean, it's so hard on the first floor.
>> Commercial on the first floor. >> Yeah. Because the it's so hard to say because it depends on the building because what the building you're referring to, Peter, has 11 units. >> I mean, what's the density of that building? Very high. >> Yeah. Very high. And the same thing is true of the yellow building on the
corner of Union and Beach, >> right? >> Um I think it has what seven I don't I forget. I think >> we said nine once in a past meeting. Yeah. Quite a few. Yeah. So, so it's hard to set the density as a
parameter. I think >> do we do and I think we talked about this. Is there is there going to be an issue with clarity if we have a different um density formula for this property that's
part of the MPTA overlay? >> It's not part of the overlay. >> Oh, it's not. That's right. They specifically didn't do it because the rules, the MBTA's rules were soy, >> right? >> And this is a if you're trying to preserve the downtown, well, you can't.
>> Fairly precise kind of delicate. >> I was looking for the size of the Crosby's um parcel. I can estimate it. I believe it sits on two different parcels. >> It does.
>> So I can measure the area with the GIS. Get close. >> I guess would be about an acre and a half maybe. >> Is one the long narrow parcel along the railroad. >> Yeah. And then there's one right at the corner.
that somewhere. Do you remember Chris how big the area that was here? It was great. >> Um G. >> Yeah. >> Well, okay. So, it's probably it's two
parcels in there or >> it's um I think it might be on the data that >> it's on the data that uh Richard >> I know that's what I was looking for. >> Yeah, I don't have my computer with me, so I can't. >> Okay. Well, anyway, um
>> this is 3/4 of an acre. >> Three quarters of an acre with the two parcels together. No, using the area around the um the store that they use for parking three sides of the store and including behind the store.
>> Okay. So, it's the two parcels together. It's >> Yeah, it's but it's not all of the second parcel >> because it runs further down. >> Okay. Because the second parcel includes what's the the old train station. >> Yes, exactly. >> Train station. So I just measured around
the store including all the parking that the customers use primarily for the store itself. >> So it looks like it's an acre and a half total maybe >> as a dart throw for the >> So the store itself is 3/4 of an acre with the fire. >> Okay.
Okay. Um, so taking the formula of 15 units per acre at Crosby's, that would roughly be 10 units on that parcel with commercial below, which
um >> well the limiting factor would be parking. >> That would be the limiting factor is >> is what is the number of spaces there? what's required and >> to keep the commercial bare and then how
many extra spaces >> are available >> at one per unit for residential. So, but just for argument sake, if you just take Harbor Point and let's say let's say you put
10 units at Harbor Point and five at Crosby's and 10 more throughout this school district, whatever that is, 25 25 additional housing units scattered throughout this in the next 10
years. um of uh above commercial uses and the idea here the rationale is that commercial can't is is hard to make it there's a lot of economic pressure commercial and residential are trying to
give land owners incentives to financial help to keep their commercial and retail so we have to have additional residential to make things but if it's 25 units or if it's 10 or if it's 30
um list for number 20 or 25 >> um absorbed across the whole area feels um >> feels like not much like it's doable.
>> Yeah. I mean 12 Summer Street is that many >> right? >> Yes. That's exactly right. >> Wow. And no one would know it. >> Is it Is it 24? Is it It's more, isn't it? Isn't it 28 for Summer Street?
>> 28. Yeah. >> Yeah. Close enough. >> Yeah. >> So So if that if if that were on the other side of the tracks, would anyone complain? >> People complain about everything. So
>> yeah, answer your question. I I mean I don't I don't I don't think it's a shocking number. I mean, I think it's a number of people have gotten used to looking at and I, you know, I guess I'd feel pretty com I would feel comfortable setting a density of
something like 15 units per acre as a as a planning or a target >> special permit required in district B. Um, and the reason 15 per acre to me is a a number that has justification is
that's what the state has identified as being higher density around transit and um and so it's it's got whatever the basis is that the state had um
>> and then um keep and I would really like to see us keep the same height requirements and in District B use um the commercial parking table that currently exists, which is a whole bunch
of things, but roughly one space per 300 square feet of gross um area for retail for know for medical uh one space for 150 square feet for retail based on the square feet of your commercial space.
So, um, you know, it looks like to me like a thousand square foot, uh, establishment, we'd need eight spaces or seven spaces, you know, the rest of it in the district B just throughout the It
seems to me if we have the parking table today, throw it out the window for a downtown, but throughout maybe it's not a good idea, right? I think we district B I feel pretty strongly needs to keep the down the existing parking table. Some
other day we can maybe simplify clarify the seven pages of 23 of parking. >> So you're saying I'm not sure what you're saying Sarah. Are you saying that you think for the residential units in
the subd district B it should have one and a half? I haven't I didn't say anything about the residential. >> Ah okay. >> But the commercial >> commercial should stay >> requirement should should stay in >> I think we you know I know that the you
can argue that parking is overblown as an issue >> but it will come up as a issue. Um we've people um it is the single biggest thing that people are concerned about not just
in Manchester but throughout came up on the harbor management plan. Parking came up with great frequency about um people being able to park whether it's at the beach or with boat trailers or at Tux
Point or downtown. So parking um to me district B is the way to say is the place to say let's not change the parking for those areas that already have parking >> and allow residential
at 15 units an acre and see what people have to say. This is we're coming we're trying to say what's a straw on this. >> Yeah. >> Right. Um, and then we're going to get feedback from people and we will then we we have to kind of put a stake in the
ground here as to what our draft looks like. >> So, >> yeah. >> Um, so we're agree this residential. What do people think about my proposal for 15 units per acre in that district?
I think it sounds >> Yeah. I I would not rely on the state though. I would I actually I would rely on the language you read earlier about a master plan, which is it retains because what we're trying to do is preserve the
look and feel of the downtown and that wonderful. It retains much of its original settlement pattern with businesses and public facilities knit tightly together with residential. And I think that's a very, you know,
clear, simple, straightforward reminder to everyone. That's what we're trying to achieve here. And that that is not what exists there now. >> Right. >> So, one other thing I thought it was way here. Yeah, that is um interesting. I
had not looked at it in this context. See if I can share this. And a historic district is largely the properties we're calling the town core. >> Yes.
>> Um and so the vision statement is reflected by the fact that the town core with the exception of Beach Street has is subject to the historic which is green
uh the Manchester historic district. And so that is the design, you know, standards for that core. And um >> it doesn't go up on the street, right? >> No, it doesn't go on this beach here. >> No.
>> Part of our zone goes >> It's not on district. >> Yeah. Where's Elm? >> This is this is Elm with here with the >> Yeah. s or the circle >> but but predominantly
>> I'm not say our district ends here >> um but the historic will help us with the design >> scale and look and feel um so therefore the harbor point area's
area um we could the second piece is Do we want to require the design standards that weren't proposed in the MBTA zoning? >> I said yes. >> It's unanimous. Um
that leaves um the beach street maybe we say throughout its historic commission as it applies or the design standards from the MBTA because then it covers this the properties along beach and summer that are not in either of our
>> Yeah. >> So design standards be historic >> or design stands for the MBTA. Okay. Um let's go back to the question that we talked about in our working group which is should this district be actually you
can see the Crosby's parcel I can bigger it's on this is bigger >> up top plus or minus >> let's try the where it's at 100% set right above historic district in the glass.
>> It's covered by my my um There we go. Okay, >> go to the left. >> Yeah, >> there you go. >> So, you can actually see this down here is the Crosby's parcel and the train the Madam Hatam. >> So, you can see the Crosby spans sits on
two >> parcels and is the bank. Do we know >> or I think the bank parcel is this one here. >> There's a little guy there. this little one >> I suspect. >> Yeah.
>> Um Okay. So the question is that we talked about the other day is right now our district B I think ends it bisects this part this long skinny parcel right Mark. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Should it include this because there is again that same rationale. There's
existing parking for customers. So, I'd like to see it include >> that parcel. >> Yeah, >> I would agree. >> And then the question is, what about the hardware store? >> Well, on this map, that piece is district A.
>> Which piece? This store. >> The the um No. >> Oh, this this piece. >> Yes. The piece where Madam Hatam is. >> Oh, I can look that up in a minute. >> Is this District A? >> I think so. On the map I have, it looks like they Yeah, >> I can look it up. The assessors. >> Yeah. Um,
>> yeah, you're right. >> Okay. Well, um, so I think there's a rationale for including that parcel >> in district B >> in district B because of the existing parking. >> Yeah. >> Um, and then what about the hardware store
parcel? The same rationale. >> Thank you. The only question is if you include that hatter, um I may or may depending on the square footage of the building, they may or may not be able to add more
uh to add residential upstairs to the second floor of that building. >> Well, they could convert the second floor. >> They have a second floor already, right? >> They do. It's I think obviously >> well no they couldn't convert it if they don't meet the park commercial parking
requirements for the first floor of that building if you included in district B. >> That's a good point. >> So I just did some quick numbers and Crosby's it's kind of hard to count on the uh
um just because I've been in there a lot. You know, they they they're required to have roughly 60 parking spaces plus or minus >> 6L >> 60. >> Yeah. >> Cross pieces. >> Yes. Based on the square foot, that's
about almost a 10,000 foot building. So, you know, depending if the building inspector says you don't count the back store room or other things may drop a little bit from 66 to 60 or 55. But
that's pretty close to what they have on the site. >> Be devastating to the downtown 55 parking spaces there. >> Oh my gosh. >> Yeah. So, um, so that's what's what's required. Well, they have two rows parking on the side which has about two
floors. >> How many parking spaces do they have? It's certainly not six. Well, there's they have a double row on the side of the building on the the east side. So, that's about 20 spaces right there and they have about 20 or 25 in front and
another >> five or so on the on the beach side. So, so they're close to 50 on the site. So even if they could by density put 10
units above um they may not have pardon me for 10 units. >> So um but I don't know how the Mad Hatter building works out. It just did.
>> Madam Madam Hatter >> Mad Hatter building is actually namespring. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, um yes, but uh I haven't I haven't done that yet, but you want I'll take a couple minutes.
>> But, um special one of the things that special permit So, special permit would be required for any residential in that district B. And one of the things that special permit allows is for um relief for the
parking requirements. I'm quite sure um location. Just double checking maximum parking. Yeah. So I'm sure we can reduction parking
consideration of the applicant providing other me the planning board or special permit granting authority may reduce the number of required spaces below that which would ordinarily be required by section 6.1 to be considered for such a reduction. The applicant's traffic engineer shall determine and justify the
parking demand for the project as well as the reduction in needed parking space attributable to each traffic management measure. So, um it says that there are traffic management measures. Those are car pooling, subsidized tra rail passes,
um incentives for employees to use other parking spaces, um bike racks, um or other techniques deemed appropriate. So, there's some wiggle room there. And so the special permit process does allow for
um some uh >> flexibility. >> Yeah. So for example um you know probably all of us in our lives have parked where you had to you know you had to two spaces and even though you weren't in the same household you
had to go out move you know move cars around like um >> express. >> Yeah. Shared space um for example. So um >> yeah and the and to some degree the residential and the commercial retail uses are
complimentary. So you because they're you go downtown at night and they're vast areas of empty parking spaces which if there were more residential they might be filled. So maybe that's a consideration too for a special permit.
Um there's also the um um >> so are we right now thinking about whether we extend district B to include Madam Adam? Is that what we're >> question? Yeah. and whether we extend it
also on the other side of Beach Street to the hardware store and old place. And I I mean at one point um I can't remember who suggested extending it all the way to the you know past the Legion
and the Well, but I don't know that may be too much to take on. Well, I would before you go to the other side of the street, I would finish the discussion here that if you want to >> I'm not sure what the net net of it is though. If you want to preserve parking
on that side of the street, you should also include the bank building and the dry cleaning building because that that step stretch on the east side of summer street there was all >> rooster made it joined us. We could
scoot down so you can >> understand. We want to hear your presentation. >> Um >> because all those three buildings all have parking >> probably have most of sufficient parking
for their uses. Again, we haven't calculated that >> include the electric building. >> Well, >> well, yes, that's yeah, that's >> that's a separate kind of >> You can always make changes later if the electric company ever abandons that
building, cleans it up, whatever they do, you can always add. >> So, I I think that makes sense to have that be district. I'm going to also suggest that we take out
the single family homes beyond uh I think there are two of them on this side of Captain Dusties as well as Captain Dusties um and just take those out of this
district and the reason is when you take out those properties >> then there are only two single family homes in the whole of this downtown. >> And that whole issue is only in the that
is the um the one by the hardware store and right on the tracks and the brick one beside Carta. Those are the only two single family homes. Um and so if we take out the other three are beyond um
Harbor Point Um, there's the Dan Sagle building and then there's two and then there's Captain Dusty. >> So, are we leaving Captain Dusty's? >> Well, this would that would makes no
that we think we have to sort of decide. I mean, Captain Dusties is essentially a very small building on a with a residential use behind it in a neighborhood. Yes, it has a wonderful ice cream, but if we're going to put all
this other pressure, all this other commercial, we could may decide to no longer be an ice cream historic. We now have lots of potential for other >> well those other all that whole row of properties is currently residential.
>> But one of them is multifandom. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, >> but it's just like just like cap dusties. I mean, we don't have to change the zoning, >> right? >> I just >> leave them out. >> Put it as a as something to discuss. Um,
>> they're all currently residential. We're not gaining and um they're not in the core, >> right? That is true. >> We could just lead them out completely >> and then they would remain in district A. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Y
>> Oh, that's what I was going to look up is what is Madam Hatam district. I like that idea, too, because then when you look at it, it's a little >> It's odd. >> It's jointed. Yeah. >> And then it'd be easier from a naming convention standpoint. >> Name it harbor anymore. Mhm. Harbor >> the uh district south
>> Harbor View. >> I wouldn't use the word harbor for one of these districts because if we ever do and when we look at the general district, >> right, if it's >> we and we look at a harbor district or
that we want to use that term for a water dependent district. >> Yep. >> All right. Well, why don't we take them out and have them have them had them had them? >> Yeah. >> Yep. I have a qu I just want to raise an issue about taking the map. I mean, I keep looking at the map and it looks so
strange to have that little extra chunk there. But when we were walking around, people talked about how at one point there was some sort of small hotel or bed and breakfast or something there. And it's certainly, yeah, a very
desirable location >> for a restaurant or some kind of commercial operation, which is how it got thrown in there in the first place. So, I don't know. I mean, >> and it used to have a funeral operation and we had Salad Master in there, right?
>> Yes. For a while. >> Still does. So, you know, it's kind of a funny >> Yeah. >> little cluster there. I like your point as well about the value of that property right there too with the waterfront. That's
>> because the harbor is such a central focus for the town yet is there a single restaurant on the harbor? No, I don't know. The other advantage of keeping those
properties beyond the harbor point um is that they ret they stay in district A which does not allow for restaurant. I'm just looking but keeps the 20,000 square foot um requirement. if we make them into the downtown district, we're changing all those properties from
20,000, which they're probably none of them are compliant. >> Um, to 6,000 and we I don't think we've really thought through on the residential scale what that does. So, >> oh gosh,
>> we're really trying to focus on our our focus is downtown businesses that are there today, >> right? >> Yes. And our focus is we are making that big change from with Harbor Point changing it to um district uh um
>> B I mean D making it district downtown district. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I do um keep hearing and seeing in my mind all of the residents on Tapen Street who came to
meeting after meeting during the MBTA zoning and they were very concerned about the increased density of their neighborhood and um it was listening to them in fact that we tweaked some things
on that um Sea Street subdist Um, so I am wary uh regarding that little string of residential homes that go up to the corner of Tapen Street.
>> That could go either way, but >> Okay. Um, do we have any agreement on take removing the the having the district end at Harbor Point and not extending up Beach Street? I I'd like to suggest that we do that. Does
>> is there anybody >> extending it out west? >> No. Stop the district, the downtown district at Harbor Point, right? >> And not have it and have it exclude >> properties beyond Harbor Point on Beach Street.
Oh, do we have agreement on that or >> Well, let's try it and see what see >> I think let's put it out there first. >> Yeah, I'm fine with that. Okay, so that's the change. >> I'm especially fine with it if we extend over Beach Street. >> Two map changes right now,
>> right? And then the third thing that we talked about in our work group is what about the hardware store? leave that in the downtown center or put it in this going to try to we're thinking of a new name for the >> whatever it is
>> that district B the the harbor point >> actually I think Brian's >> turn of phrase for it which was uh the edge district >> edge district >> because the notion of it's an edge circle >> downtown edge >> I thought that was made
>> is that what I related. >> Why don't we call the downtown center? >> Well, I think we should include the >> I do too. I do too. >> I would even raise the question about including the Legion and the
>> So that little >> Oh, and also then we have a Kan Bank building >> that little strip. >> That little strip too >> that's already in there, isn't it? >> No, it's not in the edge district. >> Oh, it should be temp. >> Yeah. If our criteria, right? >> So then all of the properties that meet
the criteria to to your simplification, they currently have off- streetet parking to meet their commercial needs. >> Right. >> Well, they fully meet them or whatever, but the other properties don't have maybe with the exception of Santan Dair
Bank >> um don't have customer parking. >> So, yep. Santan Air Bank is gonna get it. >> So you have to think about them really differently. >> So how would this look? So got a little old thing
>> reaches around the restaurant. >> I don't think so. >> Question the restaurant. >> Yeah. >> So is it the hardware store restaurant and then that we have a little block there or do we what Gordon was just
talking about cut out the restaurant? I don't think we do. No, I think we include the restaurant. >> Okay. Because they have >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Whether it's uh I'm not sure what their parcel is, but they currently have some sort of parking arrangement for their customers. That's the that's off
streetet. >> There's a there is designated spaces for Beach Street parking. Beach Street 35 Beach Street parking. So that seems to be the criteria now that the Kban Bank, the Plaza,
>> um, and the hardware store. >> So should those be B or A? >> Those are all B district. That's, >> you know, but you just mentioned Kang Bank, too. Isn't that so that right around there, too? >> To the post office. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. So, would you think it looks like changing it? I think it looks like this. So, it goes up to the post office. Well, and then across the street and like that. >> So, it includes includes this residence right here, too.
>> Uh, it does rescue. >> Yes. This was a restaurant and was >> And it includes the restaurant right there. >> Yes. >> So, that's good because then it just separates Yeah. >> these two districts. One is I like the nightclub district better than the
>> so canordon has just come in. >> He has he wasn't party to the earlier discussion. So he >> can someone please explain to him >> not me >> not
>> uh the key the No this is a good good job we're trying to get a message that's explains district the differences between the town center district and the downtown edge district.
So I think the the only difference I understand is that in the B district you have to meet the parking requirement. In the A district you don't have to >> I think there's one other big thing >> I think you did pretty good in your in
your Q&A. I not Q. Yeah. Yeah. I thought that actually pretty did a good job the large scale retail associated parking versus the downtown parking too. So the other one is that residential is not allowed at all in >> on the first floor >> of B
>> in A in the edge. That's why we need >> but it is in B which seems counterintuitive to me but that's >> yeah in the downtown edge district which is the Harvard come up with a different name Brian and >> you're working on that you have to mention
the special permit. Didn't somebody call it a >> called the harbor harbor harbor's edge but >> it doesn't have enough harbor. There's a third thing third thing that Peter's mentioned is that residential in the downtown edge
>> district B >> requires us any residential requires a special permit and the rationale is that the lots are bigger >> and so we want a thoughtful set of planning >> yes three simple criteria
>> and in the down town center district residential is allowed by right if it has mixed use >> on this. And if residential's on the first floor, it requires a special permit >> and single family homes are not allowed,
new single family homes are not allowed in this whole district. >> All right. >> Was there any change to be at all as far as residential at all from your discussion earlier? >> Nothing. >> Yeah. So,
>> I saw this. I saw what Mark put out as far as it already claims. >> Well, we've changed a little bit. Who else wants this besides me to summarize? >> But I was going to say maybe now is a good time to look at the the chart, the table, >> and go through the way we've just
discussed the changes. >> Okay. And Mark, that's on your draft, right? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So >> sorry. >> Yes. >> I'm good on the computer, but
>> I think I have it too, Gordon. Thanks. >> Thank you. Yeah, >> we've had an audience. >> Yeah, >> I don't feel like I can explain it almost. >> Get there. Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. Um, so the first issue I see is mixed use, residential uses, maybe up to four units on a lot. >> Where are we? >> The definitions at the very top.
>> Ah, so now we're saying in >> we have to >> the downtown district. Yeah. Sarah, if you wouldn't mind, once again, I apologize for not being here, but we started at number one. That hasn't changed. No, no single family, no dual
family. >> No matter we're up above as section 2.0, >> I think we should take that out and make that a note
in the table. Four units on a lot in the town center and 15 units an acre in the edge district. I'll >> I'll adjust this so that it is um >> but we wanted the four units on a lot
specifically for the >> um a the town center district. So as opposed to all in one building. So, for example, um there's one property that has big
barn in the back. >> This way they could do two and two or three in one. >> Yeah. I don't think we have a problem with that. >> Right. So, that's what this change is for. >> Yeah. >> And so, um I will keep that language for
the a for the town center, but I will adjust it for the um >> Okay. So, we can strike it from here, right? and put it as a note. >> No, no, no. It should stay here. Um, >> what's a lot
>> more units on a lot? So, is that a 6,000 square foot? No. >> Yeah. Single parcel 6,000. >> Yeah. A a conforming parcel. That's >> because a lot of the parcels are nonconforming for sure.
>> Okay. So, I'm just going to move that to be fixed. Okay. Then establishment a new downtown district. A Can we call that? >> It's hard to read. >> Oh. Um, wait a second. I I I think I'd
like a little cl I want to go back to mixed use for a second. >> Yep. And I would like a little clarity on the last sentence uh that says commercial must occupy a portion of the first floor along the street facing side of the building. I would think you want
to say but I also think we need to be clear that residential could be included behind that. >> It says a portion. I think it's later that we say um that we make that definition.
>> Okay. I do like your idea of a street facing. >> So facility commercial must occupy a portion of the first floor of the of the >> street facing facing first floor along
the front of the building. >> Well, street facing just makes it clear what front means. front or could be matters. Okay. Okay. Add new zoning districts. Probably
I should say districts. Um downtown for now. Let's work. Let's not try to worry about what their names are going to be for right at this moment. We'll call them A and B or TS. Amend the zoning map. We've just talked
about that. And then okay, section 4.1. So this is just clarifying the uh applicability. Um I believe there should be not more than one
principal lot on any lot. That's that exists and you're adding except in in district downtown district A and B, right? >> Should we shouldn't we just strike that whole section
>> and we should be done. What you're saying is there should that there should be there could be more than one principal residential building on >> D2 >> and that's all over town, >> right?
>> I'm not sure what they were trying to say there. Yeah, I don't know what the purpose of the >> should be parcel to allow as well. >> Yeah, Mark, we just need to look at why that's there. >> All right. >> It confuses things.
>> It's very confusing. >> Well, because this probably at section 411. get that hold over the existing is any principal or accessory used not listed shall be constructed to be prohibited >> and it says no dwelling shall be erected
except on a lot fronting on a street and there shall not be more than one principal residential building on any lot >> so >> I mean it's exist it's it's >> well because now we want to allow more than one residential building on a lot
so you need to add that exception >> we already too. All over town, >> right? But yeah, D2 allows it. >> Sure. D2 allows it. So does the MBTA district, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So I think she'll just be struck.
>> I think it seems more restrictive. >> It's I don't think I think we don't need that. >> So let's um look into that. And it should be districts A and B, whatever they're going to be called.
Okay. So, let's go through the uses. Add to indicate uh add to table of uses a column. Uh let's see columns indicating new downtown districts.
the districts districts is as follows capital. Um, okay. So, now we're talking about downtown district A or town core, town center,
and district B, which is No name district. >> The commuter centric rail centric rail center district. I don't know. >> Yeah, >> the transit district. >> That's PTSD.
>> Thank you. >> Um, one single family detached dwelling is no in both. two family dwelling is no conversion of a and and this list of
uses is the list that we currently have, >> right? >> So that's why this sort of hodgepodge list exists is because the table already exists. >> Yeah. Conversion of a one family dwelling into a two family in the
downtown core would be with a permit from the planning board. That's what PB stands for. And in district no name B. It would be not there's that which there's only one there's one
single family in that district. Um conversion of existing dwelling into a three family dwelling with no increase in the gross square foot footage is a planning board special permit in the town center and in
the snow. Um >> may I just raise my hand just for >> Yes, please. >> that one that one house just right along the uh right across from the hardware store. That's a single family house
right now. So we're saying >> and he is now going to be in district B. Correct. Correct. >> He can't convert anything at all. He's got to be living. >> He can only sell it as a house. Correct. >> He can make a first plant. He can convert it
>> to a art studio on the first floor with residential above >> and he can make it into >> but he can make it a multif family house. He's commercial in the first floor. >> As long as he has commercial on the first floor. That's the That's the hook.
>> That's the hook. Yeah. And then he can do res. >> I just just clarification. I'm I go to I go to the hardware store a lot and I feel so bad for that guy. >> Yeah. The guy, the guy who did it originally was a railroad guy and he
loved being there. >> Um, multif family dwelling, not more than four units with conditions described in note four. Um >> and that's the the notes are about um
increasing square footage and it's kind of not relevant to I mean we even can we put not applicable >> or C multif family C well let's >> just put no
>> yeah there be some note in here though Sarah we keep saying you can't you can't have a mult multif family with more than four units, but you can't have one with four units with >> commercial >> commercial in the front. >> Well, then you have to get to that. >> You have to get to that. Okay. That may
be a tripping point for someone who's reading this. They're gonna they're going to stop right there. They're not going to read further. >> That's why we're going to have such fabulous communication. >> But wasn't wasn't this >> wouldn't it make sense to put the mixed
juice up in this section then? It is. It is residential, right? It's what do we say in excuses? Residential. Yeah, it's an addition to the residential section. So maybe just add it up there to to Gordon's point.
>> Well, we have it is if you turn a few pages. Okay. It's because it can't be in this chart. It has to be written separately. I think the question is could we put that mixie chart ahead of the use table
and I think the answer is it would be really nice to do that but then our zoning is now kind of more upside down than it currently >> but I mean I can't for the article it needs to be written this way and then
when it's published it'll be number seven and number eight whatever is the extra >> okay Somebody somebody's going to trip over that line and say no. No, >> no. I think the the MBTA zoning was a lot more complicated than this. This is
very relatively simple thing to propose and as you go forward with your workshops and other things that we do, I don't think this is going to be a >> but you know we could do I think to your point and I I've had the same thought
about exactly that. Could we move it up? >> Yeah. which is why I said no so quickly because I thought about it. >> I think what we can do perhaps is all is when we put this out for the public. >> I know it sounds corny, but it's kind of
like the the videos we could hand carefully hand annotate. If you hand wrote um that said something that said this table
mirrors existing zoning. Maybe it's a maybe create some you know little thought bubbles that says this table is what's in our current zoning which is why we have to have it here. And under mixed use say see page four for mixed use applicability. I mean
that's Mark's going like this is nuts but um but something that shows >> I I don't understand I mean help me I I really I don't because we're showing changes so you may want to highlight in another color what the changes are. So where there's a change from the general
there's wait a second but I don't understand why you simply can't insert under six seven and 8 >> and and highlight that it's a change and it just makes it clear because it is titled residential
>> and what what would seven and eight say >> seven and eight are the two things right they're the mix it's it's to your point >> so on uh is this pageionated yeah on page six at the It has mixed use. So you just add the
mixed use there. I mean, is there some legal reason why we can't? >> Yes, because you need to make it absolutely clear what you're adding. So I'm gonna >> But you normally Yeah, you would you would add things when you write.
>> So what we're adding here is two extra columns. In this first bunch of pages, we're adding two extra columns for the chart. Then we're adding the new uses or changes to uses afterwards. But we're
doing it across the board to all now eight or nine >> different districts, >> right? Eight or nine columns because you have to add them to all the other columns, not just the two new ones because they don't exist in all the other ones. So,
okay. >> You need to you need to be able to clearly show what's being added. >> So, so could you could you do it in both places? >> No, you can't because that's that's the way so for for purposes of a handout,
you can do whatever you want. >> Yeah. >> For the purposes of a zoning article, you need to write it in a certain way so it's very clear what's being adopted and and and what it does. >> Okay. So, so I've drafted this as
>> an article, >> an article because that's what you're going to be reviewing and presenting to town meeting. >> If you want to produce other things for discussion purposes with boards, remember at first we had the general
district column. >> Yeah. uh just so you could compare back and forth the the few because we didn't make a some changes but not a ton. So you could compare back and forth. So that's fine for discussion purposes but as we
move toward a final draft I need to kind of keep article article okay >> together. So >> okay >> I mean it makes it clear the challenge of communicating to people about what
this is. >> Um so residential um monster is sort of irrelevant. Then we have community uses, um, religious, educational, child care,
municipal uses, parks, senior center, cargo, uh, philanthropic use, hospital, nursing home, you say, um, community or private club, planning board, special permit,
uh, cemetery. Uh no agriculture non-nuisance agriculture horiculture yes greenhouse is planting one component the raising and teaching
of livestock is a no and then commercial uses yes for banks doctor's office medical office retail personal general service establishment restaurant.
Uh, recreation club is a special permit in the town center but allowed in the district B. Printing and publishing is allowed. Yacht storage is not allowed.
Fishing and shellfish landing handling the fishing plant. This is special permit. Wind conversion systems in the no and wind towers are no >> no helicopters >> large scale ground mounted PV
is no public parking garages would be planning board helicopter landing is no marijuana business is no adult entertainment is no laboratories research development related light manufacturing no
um up to four borders a single family dwelling with common booking facilities. Yes. In the town center and no in the district B. Maintaining on any lot not more than one commercial vehicle
is yes in the town center and no in Mr. B. >> Rod the question. What is it what do you what's it mean by maintaining on any lot not more than one? What is
I mean >> that's just what the existing bylaw says. >> Yeah. >> Right. But it does that mean like someone can can have a commercial vehicle in their >> Yeah. >> parcel and just sit. Yeah. Okay. Maintaining though that's a
good >> commercial is commercial plates >> right usually. >> Yep. Um, or maintaining a more than four automobiles accessory to a dwelling is a ZBA and that's is that what's currently
in the general district? >> Not general. >> Yeah, ZBA. So that mar mirrors the um existing um tennis courts are no, swimming pools are no. Uh accessory where we here
accessory dwelling units um is there >> I would say in this case can we just make this known we don't have to allow them anymore are we >> um >> I'm looking at ex uh under accessory
>> number six Did they get approved or >> Well, it it it by definition is a no, right? >> More days to hear. I believe >> single family homes are a no. So, by definition, isn't it a no >> and the large are not allowed in the
general district? >> That was what our >> I would just make them know, right? Yeah, it would be a no. Assuming >> I think the next Yeah. >> Yeah. Assuming our stuff is approved, >> right? >> That's the way it is today. That's why
it's >> right. No. And then >> it says here that the general CBA, >> but the it um say that again. >> That's interesting.
>> Right. But um we changed that in the um >> we changed the waiting to hear from each other. >> And then number seven as part of an existing garage stable that was deleted in the last town meeting. So presumably
we're going to delete this whole thing. >> Well, can I ask you a question about one thing? Uh what about a garage like Stanley's garage? She goes out of business. He sells out. Can someone come in and buy that facility and make a garage out of it? It doesn't say
exclusive or inclusive >> if they continue the use without discontinuing the use. >> So if Dave goes out, >> you can't reestablish it. I don't believe >> so if it gets converted to a art studio
and then the next owner, next person comes in and wants to make a garage. >> So it continues the same use as it he can use. He can do what? Exactly what Dave is doing right now. >> No. >> Wow. >> But it doesn't actually allow it or
someone new. You can't put it there. >> It's not about It's not about a new It's not about an owner. It's about the continued use. He has >> What about if somebody says, "I want to put a garage in in that zone somehow." >> No, you can't make it into a garage.
>> Didn't say you can't put a garage in here. If it's not stated, it's not allowed. >> Not allowed. >> Yeah. >> That's why this list is so long. >> Okay.
>> All right. Uh, home occupations are allowed by the person residing on the premises. We have no for the district fee. Is that the person you're thinking there wouldn't be any? >> That's correct. >> So, we would change that. Yes.
Okay. Yes. Um, accessory units or structures on the same lot with commercial incident customary incidental to the permitted name use. So, this would be, you know, a garden shed or a
>> um and what is it for people? >> So, I actually am seeing Well, it's more of an enforcement. Okay. ZBA. Uh, >> it is. Yes, >> that's consistent with what's there today.
>> I mean, a barn or a garage, but >> family daycare, um, large DBA, family daycare, home is a yes. Adult daycare is a no. >> Why can't that be ZBA also?
>> Which dayare? >> It's CBA now. >> I don't have a problem with that. I think um Kathy's point was it's not necessarily a great uh downtown use
>> um use but and it should go in the that was her argument but I don't >> really add to the vibrancy >> right >> of anything >> well it does for the people going to it >> it's a nice service
>> to provide for the people in town but is that the right location to allow Well, I think that's what the ZBA could decide. Maybe it's an ideal location. Maybe it's right next to the senior center.
>> Yeah, but adult daycare. Yeah. Well, generally people are dropped off to stay there. They don't go to other places. They don't contribute block out down the
street and contribute to everything downtown. There's something >> I think the question would be does the people who are dropping them off and picking them up, you know, >> park and get out >> or do they have to go to Beverly because
there's no other place to take them. Good >> question. What do people think? I don't >> I mean >> if it's it's CBA, so it's kind of watched over. >> If we put it at ZBA, it's what's there today?
>> Yeah, ZBA is allowed in every district in the community today. And so how many of them are there? >> Right. None. >> None. So >> by excluding them in this one district. >> So actually
you could convert your house in any district with a ZBA permit to adult social. >> So given that you can do it in any district, but let's maybe it doesn't belong in the downtown core. >> This is a draft. We're going to hear
from people. Okay. other matters within the tide lines. That's a planning notice. Okay. Then we get into add a section which is mixed use. So that's why it has
to have all the other districts that are really have to sideways. I can show you how to do that. mark. We can turn them so that they're their length, but if they don't wrap like that, >> the titles,
>> the titles, you can turn them sideways, um, see how they're all >> Yeah, I can't >> Oh, they are that way on yours. >> Yeah, that way. >> It's just not on the the Word version.
Yeah, I mean the um Outlook version that's Yeah. I think Mark did a really nice job with that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Next use without first floor residential
is not anywhere. It is allowed by the planning board in general and in downtown uh center. Yes. And mixed use without first floor
residential in downtown B. >> Um, >> no. >> Isn't that a no >> mixed cues? >> No, we want >> Okay. With >> without first floor residential. That means >> we do want planning board app. Oh, we do want I mean I mean you could even say
yes, but the parcels are too. >> Change that wording so it's more affirmative. Yes. >> Mixed use. >> Without. >> Yeah. Yes. Mixed use with >> with first floor commercial. >> With residential. >> How about with first floor commercial?
>> No. With res. It's where the residential is. It's the important thing, right? >> Oh, mixed use colon residential on floors 2 plus. >> How about if you just switch the order that might make it
easier to understand. >> I know. I don't that doesn't >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah, >> that makes more sense. >> First floor resident >> and then without. >> You're right. >> That helps. >> Okay. Just switch those two columns.
>> Yeah, I think it does help. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. So, now I think you've added note 16 here. This is where I think you put the you could actually put the notes about the density.
So in district downtown core district A it's four units per lot up to four units per >> parcel >> parcel >> and in downtown BP
>> up to 15 units per acre >> we just made >> is that the right place to put them do you think smart and >> we did something with the wording I hope >> yeah with thing >> we You can let you switch it. >> So it would be a note to the current
number seven at the end first. >> So I'd add note 17 and that's where the density would be for uh the upper stores above the commercial. Mhm. >> Uh above commercial residential would be
allowed >> to keep you know a density of 15 units per acre >> up to >> the way the zoning is written. Okay. Um
yeah then are two and three have the same terms of things. Two is conversion of first floor commercial space to res residential is planning word permit in town for you
the same thing. >> Yeah. What >> we're This is in the commercial part of the table version. So, if someone had a big commercial base and they wanted to >> make it
>> make the back portion res, they'd still be required to do the front portion and >> but make the back portion you wanted to be able to >> review that under a special permit. >> So, that's what that first quant.
And number three would be residential uses on the first floor of the building. So that would be adding as opposed to commercial. >> I still don't get it. I'm sorry. Um so
>> well wouldn't we want it to be planning board for number two then if if for example um on Harbor Point they wanted to put behind Duncan's behind there some residential units you know if you build up >> I think we're saying that in the Harbor
Point mixed the commercial capacity on the first floor without residential >> yeah no residential >> no resial whatsoever >> whatsoever which we've been saying all >> which is what we've been saying one of our three >> keep it >> it's currently and the rationale for
that is it's currently >> operating as commercial space so we're adding a use >> in the the air rights >> okay >> okay >> but but can you I still don't get The
difference between two and three >> I think two is a subset of three >> two and three under commercial uses. >> Yeah, >> those two the difference is conversion of a first floor commercial space to residential. So that is um callas wants
to put an apartment on the first floor. >> So it needs a special permit in a >> Dunkin Donuts wants to put a first a residential on the first floor. The answer is no. Yeah, that's fine. >> So that's and then three. >> It is.
>> Is that already covered? >> I think it's already covered. >> The same thing a different way. I can't move. >> Well, two three is no two's important because that's the >> inversion >> version.
But let's take um a building that's raised, that's flattened. >> Okay, >> they come in and say, "What can I do? I want to put residential on the first floor multi." And um this makes it clear that they
need a special permitial on the first floor. >> How about if number two said construction or conversion? >> Sure. >> Okay. Combine them. >> Yeah. >> N Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. So that's that this is the cargo
problem, right? This is the right. >> Okay. Great. >> And then we can get rid of this. >> So then three goes away. >> Yeah. Good. >> Anything that makes it sincere is
there. style silver initials. All right. Notes the table. You're going to add more notes. >> Okay. Then dimensional requirements. Downtown district A,
downtown district B is 6,000 square ft is the lot size. The width is 60 ft. uh frontage is 50 feet. This is hard to read. Um
the minimum front setback is zero. The minimum side back is zero and the minimum rear setback in A is 10. >> Are there are there lines there in downtown district B because we want to fill those in or are those zeros as
well? >> Well, for discussion. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, one of those things this does too is it makes some of the nonconforming current uses, you know, they've expressed the fact that anytime they do
anything, they got to go get a variance because they are within the setbacks. >> So, this helps us reduce the permitting burden on some properties to do minor things. >> So, that's a a
>> that's an FAQ, too. It should be >> and that's a bonus of this. >> Any minor improvements or something? >> Look at us go. >> I think you can draft that one. >> I wouldn't want to get in the way of Sandy. She's doing an unbelievable job.
>> Okay. It's getting late. >> What do you think about side setbacks and minimum rear setbacks given now that we've expanded uh this um right this you this district quite a bit. Um you can
park in setbacks. I just I read that yeah >> a little while ago. So parking can be in setbacks. Um, so, uh, given that they're going to have to have parking requirements, it means that a setback of 10 and 10 or something like
that is reasonable. >> I think they should have a rear setback of 10. The only question would be um, >> all those properties have >> well, the Kan Savings Bank probably
doesn't have a rear setback of 10. doesn't >> has a rear side. >> But do we have to think about the >> No. S's point about Tapen Street with the >> Well, they've got a they've got a buffer anyway, but >> Yeah, they do. >> Yeah. >> And they're going to have special permit
pretty much for most anything, >> right? So I don't >> um >> Yeah, I have trouble visualizing this can because that's one of the things that the ZBA often rules on. If there's an existing building
>> Y >> um you would go to the ZBA and say my existing building is in rear setback um I want to make a change. They will get you know and it's up against another building. So the the
>> the dry cleaners, the bank building, and the adder building all appear to be right along that level of setback. >> Yeah, there it looks like Crosby's is
probably a good 10 ft. >> Yeah. >> Um so they would comply with that, but the other three buildings don't appear to be for a rear setback. Looks like the hardware store may be where the uh
>> but they currently >> might be >> assuming that they're in general because we're not sure about madam Adam if they're in general they currently have a 10 foot setback anyway >> um and if they're in a they have a 20
foot side and have a 40 foot rear. So certainly 10 and 10 is no departure is is no additional hardship than what we have today. So and we for for B
>> um >> so I' I'd say a 10 and 10. I mean that's not very much >> and let's hear what people have loaded requirements and access for loading docks. Do we we mandate commercial spaces to have a loading dock? >> We talked about that last time. I think
it's the >> if your type of business requires a loading dock, you're going to build it in like a Frosties or a furniture store. But if you're looking to put in an art studio, you don't need
a loading dock. So, you're going to pick a different space. Wouldn't our wouldn't our zoning be broader than that and cover all commercial spaces? >> Yeah. >> Saying this loading is required >> so that you don't have six establishments side. >> I think it's part of the site plan review right
>> discuss that. >> Um let me see if there's a loading dock piece. >> I can't imagine anywhere in the court. Where would you put a loading port? Uh And all the buildings, all the
industrial buildings I've done, we had to meet the loading dock requirements for X amount of size and access to turning radius and >> all that stuff. Not that this is anywhere near >> even if even if you don't specify that, there's enough language in here that if
you if you in your site plan review, your performance standards are five pages long. There's got to be something. I can't cite it right now, but there's got to be something in there that that allows you to review loading dock access
and location if a new buildings proposed that >> it's in there. It's in there with the transportation. >> And the other thing is no >> parking is actually uh there's some language in here about at the determination of the inspector of buildings about how much is needed.
there's some quite a bit of uh building inspector jurisdiction on parking and you know I think so I'm not worried about that. >> Okay. Um
okay lot coverage we talked about this last time by structures and by imper 60% and by imperous services 80% Wow.
Tomorrow um what is it in G today? I'm trying on this. She is currently 40 and 70. >> Yeah. >> So it lets it be denser.
>> So we're increasing a lot of coverage, >> but which seems to make sense. >> Seems to make sense. just part of what we're trying to >> anticip it. >> Okay.
Any um comments on that accessory filters. Okay. Okay, minimum disting lot lines in district A is 5 ft and then district B is 10. >> This is for accessory structures.
>> Um the general district is five feet on the side and rear and zero in the front star. Whatever the star means. Oh, actually the accessory structure show the star means accessory
structures. So be set back on the street on which the lot has frontage at least the applicable minimum front setback such lot plus 10 ft. So
um so it's pushing the um >> yeah so whatever the front setback is plus 10 I would say do that for both >> okay >> that um asterisk probably should be referenced here so people know what it
is. Oh, I should. Yeah. Okay. >> I don't know how you do that. >> Yeah. >> What is it? >> It's a note that says accessory structures from setback and the street on which the lot is frontage >> at least the applicable minimum setback plus 10 ft.
>> Sorry. >> Except that if our front setback is zero, >> what is our front set back? Then then maybe we should just put the number in. That makes it 10 ft. >> That just makes it 10. >> Yeah. >> So, just make it 10. >> Okay, that's easy.
>> That makes sense. >> Just make it 10. >> Parking residential one to four units in district A and B, one space per unit. What about what if it's more than four units?
Because now we have >> Yeah. Do we have to We don't have Why do we have to say one to four units? Just say districts A and B once we >> Yep. residential district and B. >> Okay. What about commercial? >> That's the next
>> Oh, that's the next section. Okay. >> Okay, that's good. In downtown district A Town Center, commercial uses shall be exempt from parking requirements except for motor vehicle light service station, repair body shop for motor vehicles and
hotels. >> We haven't even B. Um I didn't write anything because we hadn't decided anything yet. >> District B. >> Why don't we put Can we put subject to >> Yeah. >> 6.1.
All right. See So 8.5 8.5 special permits right special regulations. So this is the elsewhere in this um
sections we have uh personal tele wireless telecommunications facility LCD uh regulation of marijuana sorry um
adult entertainment establishments 8.5 is blank So there's nothing. >> Oh, 8.5 is blank. >> That's why I picked 8.5. >> 8.5 is blank. >> So that's that's the section where I would add special >> y
>> requirements. Um so now that we're talking about allowing multif family, >> right? Um, I've got to figure out how, you know, to to put it into the use chart maybe as multif family or some other language
>> or because right now um your your plot size unless you divide one of some of the bigger parcels into 6,000 square foot lots. Even if you had the parking, you couldn't do that because you'd be
dividing up existing buildings. So we would have to knock it all down, divide it up and start again. So >> we need to have some other language that says uh like on existing parcels, you
can build multiple units up to a certain density. If you wanted to put a restriction, we could put that in here. This is just for the B district. >> I don't think we want that,
do we? Well, that's what you were. >> Well, if we're talking about multifa, you need to not the age restricted. >> Well, that's if you wanted that. >> If we wanted it, but we didn't we didn't close that out one way or the other. >> If you wanted that, then you this is
where you would put that. This is where you put some other requirements. Um if you wanted to allow not a third floor but without increase in height you could say that
here we could do >> okay >> we wanted to like this is where we put the design review requirement. >> Yeah. Okay. So first of all we have a purpose which is divide it into two districts. District A and it should
definitely say downtown district. You have to be very careful about the because district A is actually a district. >> Yeah. I'll go through here and change all of >> but district A is designed uh to support the development of mixeduse buildings while
preserving commercial and community uses along the street frontage. So that's good because it gives us a criteria by which to evaluate a special permit if district downtown district B
Um I'm not sure. >> Yeah, >> district B is designed to maintain and support a variety of larger commercial uses. >> We could say on the first floor while still allowing >> while still allowing um residential on
upper floor, you know, say something. >> Yep. >> It's good to be explicit about it. >> My only question is larger. >> Yeah, I was wondering about that. Why larger? >> I mean, right now we're thinking Crosby's. We're thinking
>> Right. But we don't necessarily have to have it be larger, >> right? So, I'm just wondering about >> a bunch of little descriptor, right? It's just commercial spaces. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Good. So then design review in downtown district A and the design the design
review process and standards outline section 4.9 shall apply on any site plan unless the project is in the historic district and it's reviewed by the district commission. Okay, that makes sense. That's good. Um site plan review
guidelines apply to any site plan review or special permit. So it says what what design process. Okay, that's good. and okay then the other we're done. Um the other question that we tabled
earlier is do we want to uh there had been a floated around a proposal to have district B be limited or particularly a portion of district B to senior housing and I'm not sure that gets us
>> I think this initially did that did that come to us initially or was that >> well Gordon mentioned it at our last working group. >> Yeah. >> So >> I don't see so it seems to me that our
purpose of senior housing is that you would get some sort of a bonus for a density bonus for senior housing. >> And I'm not sure this is the place to offer that bonus per se or we need to
figure out what that bonus is and then apply it decide which districts it applies in. But to have senior housing in the right next to the park and right next to the train and to your point about it can be an entry for families
>> who might only have one car and are getting started and want to come and to Manchester to put their kids in school and whatever that um I mean I don't know what seems here
restricting it to senior how 55 plus >> and that's not even senior though technically right >> Brian thinks it is >> we get old at this work >> so what what's the what's the question what do we >> do we want to restrict any I guess let's
put it broadly do we want to restrict the housing in either of these districts to a particular type of housing. >> I would say no. >> We need because the thing about senior housing is you need to figure out where you want to make the changes that allow
that. And I would say not in these systems. >> Well, I guess this is the purview of the senior housing bylaw, not the downtown. >> Yeah. Yeah. I do I have a question that we haven't talked about hotels or >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Ken, >> is there anything else that needs to go
in this section because you had just mentioned something about a third story or what? >> Yeah. Well, that's where that's where we can add things like that to this. Um, you know, within district B, we could add requirements
for additional stories. we could add um u other types of >> So the additional story is in response to the comment that if you have a a a bigger first floor floor plate, you can
have a more grand retail establishment and therefore 35 ft is highly restrictive. Is that that? So there if we wanted to go down that path, this would be where we would put it.
>> So >> my concern with that is we're this is already complicated that um parking and height I think are the lightning rods >> for certainly was.
>> Yeah. And so I would say let the let a variance process handle that. If somebody wants to go and make a case for their retail establishment is going to be transformative and so fabulous that they need additional height,
then a variant could be one way to do it. >> The only other way to do it would be to say in this the special permit review process, the plane board could adjust the height requirements, but in no case shall it exceed three
stories. Something like that. Yeah, I think we I think that again we're getting we get >> I worry about the tap and folks with the Harbor Point piece of uh district B um
and how worried they were about height. Not that >> no >> they're my only concern. They're not we represent the whole town >> is much higher than anything we're talking about right now. I think >> is it
>> it's three stories. I don't know about feet, but >> it's tall. It's got a big sloping roof up there with sky, >> but it's it's sloped and then it's flat. I bet it's not one that big. >> It's only three stories.
>> Gordon out there to measure it. >> I can't I can't honestly I can't remember what it looks like. >> It's got a big parab wall around there. I don't know. It's got the big >> It does. >> Yeah. You like it? >> That's >> columns.
>> Um, >> let's We've heard that only. We heard that that particular issue from one person as an idea, right? >> I would suggest that we >> not putting Mark's point is as we hear things that we want to adopt, this would
be the place to put them in. I'm not sure we have enough information or any other specific ideas that we would put in at this point, but if if there are some good ideas that come from the public process as we work this through,
we have a place to put them um as they come up. Okay. >> If you wanted to add an affordable housing requirement, I would add it into this section. >> Let's um Yeah, that's something we may hear too. Yeah, actually that is that might be a good idea to add because boy
that came with a million times. >> I mean, it's a lot of concern about um Okay, let's keep that affordable housing question in the in the list of things
we're thinking about. Okay, I'm going to ask if are there any um uh public comments that people want to make um on any of the topics we've been talking about? Jim Brown.
>> Uh Jim Brown, 16 Tapen Street, Manchester. Um can I can you roll back to the map? You guys changed the map tonight. You know, I don't have a map that has the changes reflected. So, I think we're gonna have to do is
get a new map and put that. Um, >> can you use the all map and show it? >> Try to use the old map. >> Oh, am I sharing? >> There it is. So I think what we've done is we've added into district B
the uh um we've added this parcel here uh this the this area with the I guess that's Mnt tank the Northeast Cleaners and um >> building >> the old train station
>> and then we >> that was simply because the lots are already the way they're configured today or was there was there a reason for doing that? >> Um I think the reason is that these businesses currently have parking to
meet off- streetet parking to meet their commercial customers needs. So that's the unifying uh largely unifying criteria of the district B. And the other ones that
we've added are the this this area in this corner here, the Savings Bank Plaza, >> the Beach Street restaurant, and the hardware store and that um residential
um lot right along the tracks. So that >> and I apologize for joining late. Did did you change uh because I'm just watching this and it's hard. I I joined late and I wasn't able to see some of the changes in terms of residential. The uh downtown district B
was the last version of this I looked at was basically uh restricted. Did you change that on downtown district B? So it's it I thought that I heard you say that you were allowing residential in district B.
Correct. We are allowing it mixed use. >> We are allowousing we are prohibiting residential on the first floor in district B but allowing it with a special permit on upper floors. >> So absolutely no in no planning board
option or or zoning board option >> in big in district B >> on the first floor >> on the first floor. >> But in >> Okay. So, I'm thinking like uh the dry cleaner for instance used to be a home. My family grew up in that house before we moved it from the corner where the
supermarket is. Um if we you know if we um the second floor is a dentist first floor is pickup, drop off, dry cleaner, third floor is residential. Um um I would have a problem not being able to convert that
first level. It's at some point in time we didn't I mean it's way off the beaten path in terms of downtown. Um you know the other thing is just a general comment as I'm listening to you guys discuss this and watching this. I
honestly don't think you understand the long-term ramifications that that this is going to have on the downtown um area and and I think moving away from residential and or making it more restrictive or harder to do um is a is a
is not the right direction you want to take. Um um and I think I think everything that you're doing is you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't doesn't exist right now in reaction to the Cargo Unlimited
um activity. But that's just my personal opinion watching this and it's very discouraging watching you guys just write these rules. It doesn't seem like there's a there's that much of a thought process going into it. Seems very willy-nilly, very random and and a lot
of jumping around. I think this I think this is so important for the town that um I think this warrants much deeper analysis. >> Well um one of the things you missed in
the um early uh earlier in the meeting was I I actually went back to the 2019 master plan and this issue was um very clearly identified as a top priority. So it's um not something that >> so that's fine. when it was identified
and what was the reasoning given then? >> I'm sorry I didn't hear what you just the last part >> what was the reason for making this a top priority then >> the need to uh to protect our use zoning
to make sure that our our commercial business the commercial property uses stayed um >> active on the first floor of our downtown. But we heard your >> none of this was implemented then and
and I think we're actually net one up in terms of right in terms of commercial property right now. I look at what Eddie's doing, what Flamier is doing um in the upper town. It's starting to fill in very nicely. Um, I just think you're I think you guys are overreacting to
that cargo unlimited and I think a lot more analysis and thought has to go into what the medium and long-term ramifications of this are going to be. That's just my personal opinion. You know, I I >> Okay. Well, thank you. Any other comments? >> Yeah, this is Don Swanson from For
Beach. I'm going to follow up on uh I think the chair's comments about protecting the downtown. I thought that was a curious comment and I when you were referring to um what was in the master plan document it did say commercial and residential
and I didn't hear you say anything about protecting commercial on the first floor. So, I'm my question is, and this really doesn't need to be answered tonight, is protecting downtown from what?
>> From being converted to nothing but single family homes. Ba basically the way the zoning is constructed now is that everything that's downtown could be leveled and single family homes could be put there
instead >> or two family homes. >> Yeah, there's no requirement that that and that's by right. >> Yeah, but um we will certainly um Okay, any other
public comment? All right. Um, let's go to uh it's getting to be late and I want to make sure we get to our other items. Um, a couple quick things. Um, the a couple of us I talked about having another working group to talk about the
communications to go through frequently asked questions instead of trying to do it here. How are um Ed can I know Sue and I can meet on Friday afternoon? Um and is that something anybody else can do? >> I don't this coming Friday.
>> Coming Friday. I know >> what time >> uh flexible >> 1 p.m. or later. >> PM or later. >> Potentially do that. >> Okay. Yeah, you're not sure. You're not sure, >> but maybe I think we could still um just
go ahead and try to get a uh keep working through what the website looks like. Um so is there time? Is later better for you, Brian? >> After 1 p.m. generally works okay on Fridays? Yeah.
>> Okay. Um can you host a working group for 1 p.m. on Friday? >> Thank you. Um, great. And the other thing is that I think Tiffany and you talked about a forum date or
>> she email the date. >> And is there what is the date? >> So she re Well, this I'm just reading Mark's email. Um either Saturday, November 8th or November 22nd. Uh 22nd
is right before Thanksgiving. Uh the ETH is for before Veterans Day, but that's on Tuesday. I actually think the ETH is better. Um she's gone the 15th. So >> Okay. Maybe on Friday we can nail that down as final.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So there'll be a forum coming up soon. Um we're hopefully helping to get people to understand this. Okay. Um, I will ask that people put their
thinking caps on for the names of these two districts and email ideas to Mark. Everybody should come up with some ideas. Sometimes crazy ones can be blended with not crazy ones. No, the
Carnival Center may not be the right district, but um Harris Wheel Alley, you know, something like that. >> Um but let's let's do that that way. Um okay, I'm going to jump to uh senior
housing. Yes. Looking at my agenda. Is that what's next? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um Chris or Sandy, I have your stuff and I can share it. >> Yeah. Can you share this?
>> Of course. >> So I actually arranged these backwards from our the way we did the visits, but I don't think that is. So this first property is Naple Woods in Wenham.
It is a um pretty large but all single onebedroom units. It's all affordable. Some of the units are 30% of AMI, some it's 60.
Um many of them have vouchers. Uh, it was developed a couple years ago. Was on I think 4.5 acres of land. Uh, and was done under >> I think it's 45 units. It says on >> No. How big is the land?
>> Oh, I think it's 4.5 acres. It says on here. >> Yeah, you said. >> It says four acres. >> I read it before. I can't recall. >> Yeah, it's four acres for the first one. >> There's that's what the land parcel looks like. And then below that is the um you can see the buildings of site
plan. It's really one building in a T-shape with like sides. And so that's probably a pretty large scale for Manchester, but it might fit in some site or another. um it being affordable, it goes under a
40B anyway, so it's not anything we necessarily have to tackle in our senior housing budget, but it's an example of a a larger although not huge scale senior living arrangement. >> It's just apartments. It doesn't have
does it have a community facilities or shared dining or >> Yeah, it has a club room and office and so forth, but no shared dining. It does have caregivers and staff and >> no just independent living.
>> Okay. >> And in terms of size, isn't it just only a bit larger than Newport Park or the Plains? >> Uh yes. Well, that's a good point. It's Newport Park is 32 units. This is 45. Yeah.
>> Plains is another 30 or so units. So >> So it's similar a little bit bigger. >> Yeah. Okay, this next one is the Maples, which is an older property. Although these are just highlights of Maple Woods.
This is Maple uh Maple the Maples in downtown Winnham uh within walking distance of whatever the downtown of Winnham is. Okay, >> is not much. >> Um this is actually a co-op. Here are
some selling prices for co-op units. >> Mostly single level. There's some that seem to be two level, but mostly they were single level. >> What's the price? >> 359 >> 255 to 367.
>> They're pretty small units. And this is an older property. I think it's probably 25 30 years old at least. built built around a big old mansion at the time. >> There's a big mansion in the middle which has been converted to residential use.
>> It had I'm surprised at the number of units you would not It's very well landscaped and laid out. >> Yeah, it's very attractive. Yeah. >> Do they do this with a se Don't they have a mansions bylaw?
They have a senior. Yeah. Seniors bylaw in one of them which requires six I think seven acres is a minimum lot size to do this which I don't think is possible in Manchester because we there's so few lots of seven acres of
water. >> Okay. They also there these are all very low density you know 10 10 units maybe per acre is the most there's this site plan for >> acre
>> and the last is the boulders where our new friends Dennis and Roberta showing us their unit and in fact um this is a very low density city was done by Windover. Uh it's only 24 units, I think.
Very generous. >> The single family houses. >> Yes. >> They're duplexes actually >> connected mostly through the >> as you can see. They very expensive and they're huge units. >> Yes.
>> But there's the property planned. So, how would you compare those since they're expensive to the units out in Blime Men's Circle? >> Circle. I mean, up in near Magnolia.
>> Yes, >> I think it's very similar actually, but those aren't senior. >> No, I know. But in terms of like scale of >> Yeah, some very similar. Yeah. So when we were working on this before I interviewed um Lee Delicker and I don't
have my notes with me but he was chair president of Windover at the time this was built and he said that um now he's you know building it for a developer perspective and he said what people want
and I think your price shows um he said they want one bedroom on the first floor with which is he said they get big. >> Yeah. >> They want one bedroom on the first floor with a kitchen and a dining and a living room and then you know a den upstairs
and you know two bedrooms for the kids to come visit. >> That's exactly what Dennis and Roberta said that what the reason they they were living in Ipsswitch and they bought this for million two because >> uh they were having trouble getting around. They want to be on a single
floor. >> Yeah. >> And they didn't want to mow the lawn and take care of things. >> Those were the two that needed the compelling things. >> So, this is a downsizing kind of, but it's more of a convenience and um
safety than it is about >> some of the Elm Street. >> Yeah. It's very similar. >> It's like Yeah. >> Yeah. So, um there what what >> one more >> it seems.
>> Oh, there. So, here are two assisted living properties that I just picked out. I didn't go visit them. One's in Salem and I wasn't going anywhere near Salem. >> No, no, it's October. Forget about it. >> The first one is interesting is in Sus
and that is nine units of assisted living in a single family house. >> Wow. It's very popular this kind of assisted living. >> And the second one, this is larger. I
think it's 24 units or something in the John Burch. And that's just a renovation of an existing historic structure. Again, very popular. Um, >> they put an elevator in it. >> I'm sure they did. Yeah, of course.
>> Three story. >> And again, that's the kind of thing that might work in Manchester. >> What is a companion suite? >> So, you have basically two bedrooms sharing a living area and small kitchenet. So, it's a shared unit, but you have
your own bedroom. >> Roommates. >> Room kind of like roommates. >> Yeah. Like the dormatory. Very interesting. are also singles which are more expensive. >> So Chris, what was and Sandy, what was the intent of your your searches? Great.
>> So we might be our intentions might have been different. What was your intentions? >> My intent I mean the word senior housing is such a vague, you know, you know, it's not clear what you're talking about when you say senior
housing. What comes to mind I think is Brooksby Village some you know large institutional kinds of things and I was interested to see what's is is there what makes it senior
housing you know and is there something because clearly Brooksby Village that a large institutional thing is not appropriate in Manchester. So the question is what is and um I came away pretty impressed
um especially with uh actually with with both of them but especially with the former mansion one Maple Woods the Maples >> um as um >> you know something that could
accommodate a number of units in a way that was uh pleasing and consistent with the kind of look and feel of of this town. >> So, I was trying to I was trying to get my arms around what on earth does it
mean to be senior? And Chris gave me some explanations in terms of allowing more density and more flexibility about how things go. >> Wow. >> So, the question is really where would
you allow it and what would the requirements? a huge question here. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that's honestly I brought my little Sony. I think personally the the first step is to say, okay, if it's something that's more like say
the Bertram House, um where in what districts would you allow it? district, would you start by trying one district or two districts that are a little bit different in terms of what's allowed there in terms of how the zoning works
and then how would you make it work? >> So, I was trying to get a picture in my mind about what it could be that's different than a large institutional thing. I would be curious about say the Bertrone house and knowing what the
maybe the aerial the Google Earth view what's behind it you know for yeah you know for uh trying to understand common so it's it's all behind federal houses >> no I didn't mean any neighbors I meant support for staff parking and
we kept hearing about dumpsters and you know a loading if it's got 25 you know Are people cooking them? I guess they cook themselves. I guess there's not a >> No, there's a kitchen there. >> There's a kitchen, a commercial kitchen. And
>> you know, um to think about and just sort of how do you because >> probably a special permit is the way you would handle that, >> of course. >> Um but um and maybe that's sufficient.
Um but >> um and how how has it been there for a really long time in that use? >> Yes, for 25 30 years. >> 25 years. >> And and there are models where things are more dispersed, too. I mean, most of
the people I know in town talk about remaining in place. So, how do you do that, you know, when things aren't working out so well? So there there was a model of uh on Beacon Hill of people
who remained in their homes but had collaboration on a set of services of people to provide food and nursing services and other kinds of help um >> in their own homes. >> In their own homes. >> So that's not really a zoning issue.
That's more of a community service coordination or a senior >> maybe. But maybe you need a facility where things, you know, some sort of central facility. There's something like that happening in Newbury and we just didn't have the time to go explore.
>> Okay. So, let's >> So, the other thing I want to say one other thing, Hamilton and Wam both have senior well actually every town has got a senior bylaw except us. >> But in Hamilton and Wam, they've got a lot of land. Their their parcels are much bigger than
>> Manchester. So, we can't just copy theirs because we just won't get anything. >> Yes. What does Beverly have? >> Oh, Beverly's got a very elaborate, you know, they allow assisted living and all this stuff everywhere. >> They've also got a fair amount.
>> They also have a lot of labor. That's true. >> Yeah. Much more constrained. So, it's a much more So, it's trying to get an image of something that's much more disagregated, you know, and scattered. >> What does Newbury report have? I mean there
>> I don't know bylaw >> be nice to find a model of a town that had >> well so the original senior bylaw was drafted by Mark Babroski and he used sort of the typical senior housing bylaw as a template
>> and I think that's useful to start with and then you can start adding >> things to it. >> So I pulled up a bunch that I saved. really had much time to go through. >> Oh, sure.
>> You see where I saved them all, >> but I've already kind of >> I think you put them in the >> in the Oh, in the planning project folders. >> So, I I think it'd be useful to skim through them. Maybe what we'll do is
assign um before the next meeting if we can get five or seven of them and we each each read one. Mhm. >> Um so, uh Mark, can you can you assign um some of the key ones and we each read
one and then talk about what the the characteristics of other towns bylaws are as a way to um >> uh to this discussion. >> I have half a dozen in here that say from some similar towns like Hamilton
and Harvard. um a few bigger ones um but they're all kind of senior housing residential developments. So >> we all read one and familiarize ourselves with one town and then >> um that might be a good way to to think
through the next steps >> that probably skimmed through them. So they're >> yeah everybody and >> Okay, >> could we talk to Lee Delicker again? I'd like to hear what a developer says. I think he's left for the year, but he said he could we can he said we >> South Carolina.
>> I know what he can he'll patch in. >> Yeah, >> he said he'd be happy to talk to us. >> Yeah, I can get Andrew to Franza who did Harbor Lake. Let's put them on the agenda for a future meeting. Seven.
>> Hamilton, Harvard, Littleton, >> Norwell, >> you giving us >> Westboro. Sure. >> Oops. So I got Harvard see if new report you can do when he is
doing well >> Hamilton by that we're looking for >> senior housing they're currently all in the uh folder under projects or senior housing. >> Can you um why why don't you um >> send them out to >> send it out a list and with that link to
the the folder please. Thank you. Okay. Um, thank you, uh, Sandy and, um, >> um, >> intel. >> Uh, the as report, I didn't assign anybody. Anybody any new uh,
>> I can tell you fact. Oh, Essex. >> I'm I feel like a a double agent here. I just came through. We just did the site planning for the potential locations for the new school. And the one that is least desirable
is the one right here in Manchester. Probably going to be excluded because it's just too difficult to get it done. And there's a few others, but I I don't want to divulge anything until we do something over there. But be that as it may, that could that project's going pretty well. The other one though, the
other one we're working with uh public works to now site all the facilities in all town. We're now looking at I think it's now eight projects, little little projects to big big big projects here. And I I I know Chris has got his eye on
Pleasant Street as a potential site here. But I I will tell you, we're we're actually starting to narrow down the sites for the police department, the fire department, and public works department. Their thought is to gang them all up and put them on school
street right by Atwater Avenue. And I think that's person I think is crazy. But if one goes there like Department of Public Works goes there, the other two got to go somewhere. And that may be it may be the Pleasant Street site.
>> It is certainly being considered right now. Hasn't been refined or defined, but they are doing fit plans on it to see if it'll all fit. Is that similar to what Essex ended up doing? >> Yes. >> Or is that just fire police?
>> Yeah. Honestly, it's not decided yet. We are we are in the process of figuring out programming those two spaces. So, police department needs xxx which mounts to >> was asking about Essex. What about >> Essex is just >> Oh, Essex. I'm sorry. I thought you're
talking about here. Police department. So, the what was your question about there? I'm sorry. >> So, their new facility. Yeah, that's police and police and fire >> and fire. Not a DPW add-on. >> No, DPW is somewhere else. >> And how about Rockport?
>> Rockport. Rockport has 101 police on one side and the new public work, brand new. Literally, it's a couple months old on the other side of the street, way outside of town. That's all public works. There's no way. I I I toured that with them. There's no way they could get
all that facility at the top of the hill, which we used to use it to dump our leaves up there. Now, it's all been cleaned out, so there's a lot more space up there. But still, it's just not enough. Their thinking is if they build all three facilities at one time, they'll
have a better chance of having the town vote on all of it rather than multiple separate facilities on different towns. But I'm not sure that's the best way to think of it. I don't think that's the right site. personal engagement figures. So, two pick a term. So, if you're gonna
get your dibs in >> now, I'll be the double agent on that thing for you. >> Okay, great. Thanks, Gordon. All that Gordon does is go to meetings then. >> It's I know it's like we're meeting every week now for the facility shift.
>> Oh my gosh. >> Every week. >> Okay. >> They're short and sweet. They're an hour, but they they're intend to be >> answered. Huh? >> They're posted. >> They are They're public meetings. I assume they're post. Yeah, I think I think they are.
>> Okay. Um, we have a bunch of minutes. Um, we have uh May 12th, September 8th, September 29th, and October 6th. >> I thought they were all fine except one, I can't remember which day it was. It
had Peter Morton being both present and >> I asked Gail to fix that. >> I know you're amazing, but >> may have the aura. >> It very easily could have been
>> the 29th minutes have uh my name instead of Gordon's for >> and weren't there August 11th minutes in there, too? We already approved this. Yeah, I see 11 minutes in there too. >> Okay, so let's start with May 12th
because not everybody can vote on those because that is the uh >> that might be the one where Peter >> Peter was there vote. So >> she told me on that. >> Were you there >> May 12th?
>> Yes. >> Both present. >> Let me check my Uh she I I asked her and she said um that you she checked the tape. >> Check the tape.
>> I said he was here. >> Yeah, I was away. I don't think I was just there. >> I was in Florida. >> Peter was out on May 201 12th. That was correct. Okay. So, Peter cannot.
>> So, May 12th, Peter was out. Like, Sarah, Sue, and Chris are the people who can vote on that. >> Gez. >> A motion to approve the uh change regarding Peter Morton. Thank you. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor?
>> Okay. Great. And um let's take um August 11th. I have motion. >> So >> Sandy and Sarah were not present on that one. >> I mean I don't know whether it it did
say in the liaison reports on that too that Gordon reported on the MED building committee and I but I don't think it was it was probably the facilities committ. >> No, it was probably the MSD. Yeah, >> but it should be Gordon.
>> Gordon. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, so on page um three of the um se August 11th minutes. Um that should be Mr. Brewster, not Mr. Morton. Um
recorded on the uh school district Other than that, any other changes? So, I'll take a motion to approve the August 11th meeting. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Um, all in favor? And I I Sue, Chris,
Peter, Gordon, and Brian can vote on this. Sandy and Sarah must abstain. Do I have a Okay, that's five with two abstensions. Thank you. Um let's see. Um September 29th minute.
>> Peter was >> I was >> online safe >> paying close attention. >> So I'll pay uh take a motion to approve the September 29th meeting >> with the change of
myself. I believe I was in to Gordon one of the points for Leism. >> Yeah. Remember the one you had clothes on, right? >> Yeah. On page four, >> had your t-shirt on and no clothes. >> It should be coord everybody wants to get in on the
facility. So >> board and Brewster provide an update on the facilities group um recent visits to me reported. Um I'll ask Brian. >> Um okay, with that change, do I have a motion to approve? >> So move. Second.
>> Second. >> Uh all in favor? I >> I votes in favor. Thank you. And we have uh August. Oh, that's today. Um August 6th, that was the um not August 6th, October 6th.
>> Um those posted >> working group meeting. Did I put those in here? >> Yeah, they're right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, that um can be voted on by Sarah, Sue, Peter, and Courtney. >> And Sandy should be on that, too.
>> Second. Um, the addition of Sandy Turner as present. Okay, I have a motion. >> Did we mention Sue's tremendous pumpkin chocolate food? >> It's a refreshment section. >> Oh god, we're good.
>> So, it should be missed. >> I'll write I forgot that. Um, >> good catch. Good catch, Peter. Yeah, those are the important. >> Okay, with the addition of pumpkin muffins.
Um, all in favor, I have a motion from Peter, I think, and from second from Sue to approve October 6th. Um, those present. >> Thank you. I'll Brian were absent. Excellent.
Um, okay. Anything else? Our next meeting is Monday, October >> 27th. >> 27th. >> Wow. >> I know. Isn't that crazy?
>> My fast. >> Um, excellent. Thank you very much, everybody. I'll take a motion to Anything else, Mark? >> Um, >> no. >> No. I think you're >> okay. Yes. Yes. So
>> um yeah, >> we had a new admin person today. Her name is Kendall butcher the last name like Jer Judris. >> Uh she worked previously in another town
in New Hampshire as a admin person. So >> started today. >> Yay. Congratulations. >> Say again her name, Mark. >> Kendall. >> Kendall. >> Kendall. >> K N D A L or something. square. >> Great.
>> So, >> and you want to talk about the grant? >> We can do that as well. So, we also received um approval of our one-stop application to look at the general district and to do streetscape planning
for Main Street as well. So, I'm Main Street, the downtown area, the the exact same area that we're talking about. um for our zoning. Um so um right now we
have uh to wait until the state sends out a contract and then we get a notice to proceed. So really it'll be Decemberish before we can begin to really work on anything. So um
or even I mean even put in out in request for proposals. So, um, so we'll, um, be discussing the scope of that, um, but probably not for a couple
meetings, um, like in November, maybe. So, >> great. >> Because we kind of want to focus on what we've been doing. So, okay. >> Okay. And the AG has approved our associate members. >> Yes. now. So, we should post get Debbie
to put that in for people who are interested to submit their >> their um statements of interest. >> Associate members being two additional people to back up. That's great. >> Okay. Um now I'll take a motion tojourn. >> So moved.
>> Second. All in favor.