I'm going to call the city council urban affairs committee to order. It's June 17th. It's a little past 7:30. Uh we have two items on our agenda. I'm going to take them out of the listing here. We're going to begin with order number
2600 19747, the application for modification of a special permit from Matthew Donnelly on behalf of Target to amend condition number nine, signage requirements to increase the wall signage from 3 to 4 for the target
located at 423 Donald J. Lynch Boulevard. So, Mr. Donnelly, if you'd like to come up to the well. Um the city clerk did put your PowerPoint back on the screen. Um so if
you anybody needs to refer to it or if anybody brought their copies that we were given at the public hearing that we had on the 8th um it might be helpful. I know you were all given a communication also that came from the
um city solicitor late today. I am going to begin quickly going through as required for special permits comments
from department heads. So we had really no comment from the engine engineering department, the fire department, the police department, conservation or the board of health, the building department. Uh Commissioner Payton indicated that the four new signs
will have a total new aggregate area of plus or minus 422 square ft. Will Target need to reduce the sign size of the signs to meet the 300 square foot maximum or will the city council allow the increase of the aggregate area? Um
so based on the comments from the solicitor's office that I think everybody received because the project proposes flat wall signs with an aggregate of 421.46 46 square feet of variance from section 52695
from the planning board is also necessary. So along with us amending the special permit um they will then need to go to the planning board which unfortunately was not relayed to um the applicant until this evening. So, I
apologize for the confusion in all of this, but I don't know if you have any comments before we begin. We do have the decision on the amendment to a special permit. Um, if you have anything you want to say or if not, we can just get
right into the order. >> Okay. Um so the uh decision on the amendment to a special permit order number 26109747 we have the procedural findings of facts which really lists the business of the
company and 1 Nicolet Mall in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The applicants attended at 423 Donald J. Lynch Boulevard. On May 6, 2002, the council voted to grant the special permit authorizing New England Development
to have to conduct and operate a retail store, shop, service establishment, and restaurant pursuant to section 217C and section 217E. On April 30th, 2026, the applicant filed
with the city clerk an application to modify condition number nine to increase the wall signage from three to four signs. In connection with the application, the applicant submitted a certified list of abutters, the filing fees, and the site plans. The applicant
was certified by the building commissioner acting on behalf of the city planner as having compi complied with rule four and pursuant to the rules and regulations of the city council. The city council established a date for a public hearing on the application and
the city clerk advertised the public hearing. That public hearing was held on Monday, June 8th and the hearing was closed. The applicant through its representatives presented testimony detailing the change in hours describing
its impact upon municipal services, the neighborhood, and traffic. I think detailing the change in signs, not hours. At the public hearing, no members of the public spoke about the use or submitted written comments and the procedural
findings specified above supplement those made at the original special permit. So based on all of that, the city council takes the following action. The applicant has complied with the rules and regulations promulgated by the city council for the issuance of the
special permit. The city council finds that the increase in wall signage is in appropriate use and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. City council incorporates by reference finding E in the original special permit and amended special
permit. The city council pursuant to its authority under master laws chapter 4A and the zoning ordinance grants the applicant an amendment to modify condition number nine as follows. by deleting condition number 9A in its
entirety and inserting in its place the following 9A wall signage for signs not to exceed 300 square ft in the aggregate. All other conditions of the original special permit shall continue in full force and effect and are
incorporated by reference as part of the decision. So I know um in the detail that was also sent with the solicitor's letter was a file that was given to the building department
that had some signs that were really window signs that we don't need to deal with at all. I think what we need to deal with is what we were given at the public hearing which is really adding in the one sign
which has the language of where is it? Uh drive up and you probably have a copy of this. I know it's confusing to me because the
front page has where it looks like this drive up sign is going on the front of the target building, but then further in it looks like it's going on the side of the building. >> I'm looking at page or none of the pages
are marked, but it has the big picture of the drive up. Um, and it says generic partial elevation. Note placement can vary. So, it's this page. >> Yes. >> Oh, sorry. Can you make sure that that
button is lit? So, it's >> Sorry. >> Thank you. So, this picture really isn't a definitive picture of where it's going. Correct. It really will go >> where you have it >> on the wall. Yes, that is just a generic detail
>> because we usually reference um documents and I don't know if we need to specify four signs as designated on the design package of May 10th, 2025.
I'm looking at our council president, president Hosing. So, so Madam Chair, so the solicitor will make sure that the correct drawings are referenced as part of the package if that's where they are and if those are the right sign because we need the dimensions and locations for
the signs and because that's what will become part of the uh special permit. >> All right, because the original language was actually a little more informative. It had two signs located over store entrances and one pharmacy
sign not to exceed 300 square ft in the aggregate. So this now just says four signs. It doesn't say where they are. So I don't know if we need to keep it with what's currently there. Two signs located over the store entrances, one pharmacy sign and one
sign reading what did I just say it was called? Uh drive up. >> Drive up. All located on the front elevation. >> Correct. >> Rather than just simply four signs. >> Does that make sense?
I don't know if anybody else looked up the original special or I think there was a copy floating around of the special permit in 2002. It says, as I wrote, read wall signage, two signs located over store entrances
and one pharmacy sign. So, we could keep that. Get rid of the and do a comma. One pharmacy sign and one
sign reading drive up or signifying I we'll let him >> Madam Chair >> councelor Fillo >> thank you madam chair just a quick question on that note I mean I'm I'm comfortable with that addition right making sure that we clarify what what
signs in particular but I guess um you know the special permit before us is the deletion of condition 9A the wall signage So that would completely eliminate four signs not to exceed 300 square ft. I guess my my question is are
we losing control of the square footage if the language just includes what kind of signs or >> No, because it still is in there. The current language says the two signs, one pharmacy sign not to exceed 300 square feet in the aggregate. So we're already over the 300 feet which is why they need
to go for the variance. >> Okay. because they didn't ask us and I don't know if we can put in here the the current aggregate. >> Okay. >> All we're doing is changing the number
of signs. This total square feet I think is in the zoning >> which is why the solicitor said they needed to get the variance because they're over that. >> And just one one final question madam chair if I may. So as it exists now
though they are able to have four signs. >> They are able to have three signs. Two signs located over the store entrance and one pharmacy sign. That's three. >> Okay. >> They want four. >> So the fourth one would be that drive up sign
>> because they also have the freestanding pylon which is a different language. >> Not included in this. not included in this change, but it's currently in the code or in the special permit. And as long as they don't change the height or
the square feet per side of that sign, they're good to go because I know there's a picture of the pylon sign in one of these drawings. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Madam Chair, >> Councelor Naven. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I'm in
agreement with Council Fill and yourself on the language. I think that's completely sufficient. I just I want to revisit a question I had during the original public hearing because I'm not sure if I was clear enough, but I walked away still a little confused just on the the purpose of the drive up sign. Is
this to is Target is this particular Target West? Are they changing the way that um drive up orders are done? So, right now, if I order on the app, I go to the parking space with the assigned number on it. I you say I'm here. or I'm
in spot four and somebody brings it out. Is this going to move that service to the front of the building or is that >> Yes. So, the drive up is already um approved to be um I'm not sure exactly where in the parking lot it is at the moment, but it is going to be moved kind
of right in front of where this sign is going to be. >> Right. Yeah. Right now it's on the other side. It's like >> it's going to be moved to where that sign is going to be. So, >> and that'll just and the spots now will just be returned to regular parking spots for customers. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> All right. sort of follow up on that because I had the same concern.
Currently, the whole front of the drive of in front of Target is marked no parking, fire. Yep. >> Um use whatever. So, cars can't pull up and park there. So, how will you be able to load? >> Um so, restricted
>> in the parking lot itself. Um, we're going to convert some of the stalls that are in front of the building to be the new drive up stalls and then the existing drive stalls we're going to convert back to um regular stalls. >> So, they're just going to be closer to
the building, but nobody's going to be pulling up below that sign expecting somebody to walk out and load their car. >> Correct. No, we're going to have um multiple other kind of indicators that will have um and then we're also going
to have stalls that have the number at the top of the um stall that will be correspondent to the order number that they have on their phone and then they'll be able to come in and then pull into that stall and get their order delivered to them.
>> Okay. And I'm sure that if it becomes an issue, it'll be brought to code enforcement or somebody. I don't think the fire department wants to be pulling up and finding cars parked in front of the store. >> Councelor Presiato, >> Madam Chair, thank you so much. Um,
so I in my view I I think the signage is a bit excessive. Um and um you know moving forward if we do approve this it will set a precedent for Target and for other businesses. Um to
me that drive up is very self-explanatory right now. Um if it's moved to the side that drive up sign is not visible from the street. Right. I don't know if you're if you're familiar with the locations, but there
the target is set back in a parking lot off of a pretty fast main road. Um there's one entrance or two entrances, I believe. Um but they both kind of loop around the building, so you can't see it from the forward facing um view. Um so I
I'm not sure who it's going to benefit having that extra sign there. Um, if you do have pylons in the parking lot, I think that would be more effective than having an extra sign thrown on the building. Um, just kind of curious as to if if you guys had considered the actual
views and and sight lines off the road. >> Yes. So, um, the stalls themselves are going to have um like a beacon or um that'll be able to let the customer see that when they're closer to it. But when they're trying to navigate the parking
lot itself, this will kind of give them guidance and not kind of create, you know, traffic jams within the um within the parking lot trying to have them trying to find those stalls where they are. There kind of be like a a long elongated signage where you can see
where the stalls are generally and then as you get closer you'll be able to see the stalls themselves. >> Yeah. Um, if if I'm familiar with this, as you're driving up to that target from this the entrance at the light, you are actually facing that door where you want
to put the new drive up sign already. So, people that that area is already visible to anyone driving up >> the existing or the proposed. >> Yes, the existing area. So, um, again, like I I don't know who it's going to benefit entirely if if there's already
designated parking spots, there's pylons, there's lots of markings where cars go. Um, I don't think this really necessitates another sign on the building itself. Yeah, I think it's just for mostly that um when the customers pull into the lot itself, they'll be
able to find the um stalls a lot easier than trying to find these beacons that aren't going to be as visible as a sign would. And then um it would create less traffic jams and things like that within the parking lot.
>> Any further questions? Councelor Fillo. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one follow-up question. Um I know uh just across town at Boston Post Road East, right, is our other target location in the city. Um just looking at like GIS and looking at the mapping, I can't see
if there's this driveup sign there, but is there a similar sign at the other target location in the city or >> um there's not yet. Um >> but I seems like this is something that's >> it has been approved and it will not violate a special permit. So um we just
haven't kind of gone through the process of that just yet. Um so >> but that location does currently service the drive up the beacon. Right. >> They do have a drive up. They um they don't have a they have one beacon at the moment. Um we are also going to do a
remodel on that one as well. The drive up stalls. >> I was just curious just for consistency across the Thank you. I appreciate that. >> It as the as of right now um we haven't started the process of getting one there. Um but there is a drive up and
Yep. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> All right. So, and I know there were the very last page of this has the order pickup, which to me is just a window decal, which we don't have to approve because they
aren't considered something that is necessary. So, so long as you don't cover too much of the window. There's there's a an amount that >> where th that goes. Um all right. Further discussion.
Do I hear a motion? >> Councelor Fillo. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And bear with me here. So, we would be approving um the four signs with the lang the specific four signs with the language that you had referenced earlier. >> Do you want me to read it again? >> If you don't mind.
>> Wall signage. Two signs located over store entrances, one pharmacy sign, comma, one signifying drive up. U period all signs will be located on the front elevation as shown
on the plan stated May 10th, 2025. So moved. >> All right. It's been moved and seconded to amend the and also then to change that one word of whatever was that I had uh number nine,
the hours to signs um which is really just a typo I think. Um to amend the amendment. All those in favor? All those opposed. And then all those in
favor of the um signed permit as amended. Three and those opposed. All right. So, councilor Presiato. So, as I had said to you, I will report this out at Monday's meeting and then we don't meet again until July. So, this has got to be
referred to the solicitor so he can make sure that these changes are all in this draft uh in proper form >> and then we will be voting on this at our July meeting and the hope is that the planning board will have this on
their agenda and then and the planning board meets before we do. So if they approve the variance but we don't approve the amended special permit then the variance is really null and void I guess. So unfortunately
um okay so that's the next steps and you need to reach out to the planning board to make sure that you fill out the paperwork and pay any fee that is required so you're on the agenda. All right. Thank you very much for your >> patience working through all of this. Of
course. Thank you. >> Okay. Next on our agenda is order number 109705, a communication from attorney Robert C. Buckley on behalf of Redgate Real Estate
Advisors LLC regarding a proposed zoning amendment to chapter 650 zoning to add a new section to create the Forest Street Residential Overlay District FSR OD. So we have attorney Buckley with us. We
also have Elizabeth Bellow from Redgate and Christine Hung from >> Reamer Bron. That's the attorney's office. All right. So,
we have the draft. Uh, we have the letter from the planning board. Attorney Buckley, I don't know if there's anything you want to bring up before we start. Again, I believe your information is also on the
screen if anybody needs it. So >> um first uh thank you madam chair members of the council for for the record Robert Buckley Christine hung my partner and Elizabeth Bell from Redgate. We have our presentation that you saw at the council meeting. I don't know if you want us to go through it again but we
can refer to it. Um but I can I can also summarize why we're here and what what we think that uh we're trying to accomplish and uh that might be the most efficient way of doing it. Um if it if it pleases the chair. >> Sure. That sounds good. I know it's up there and I think everybody's got their
copy if >> we do have we passed >> a big copy and a small copy so I can share. >> I I probably don't have to remind the council that and if you read the press and I'm sure you have applicants coming before you constantly what a difficult time it is out there in the commercial
sector right now. Um particularly with uh office and um be it lab or any other components. But what has what has seemed to resonate to the extent anything resonates in the marketplace right now is the mixeduse concept um which we're
trying to accomplish here and uh create a little vibrant pocket that would be self-contained and activated and hopefully uh uh result in stabilization of of that area in the market and enhance uh the product and also the tax
revenue for the city. So, we pattered we patterned again. I apologize. I know I told you I lost my tooth from three weeks. I was told today I'll have it. So, I won't be slurring my words. Uh but I am going to look up that tackle from
Yale because I think he's still alive. Um but um the um you have the executive residential overlay. So, we use that as a template. So we went starting from scratch to reinvent something and
introduce something that would require a a tremendous amount of analysis. We have gone to the planning board. Uh I thought the conversation was robust and very good and uh by and large we agree with uh the comments that the planning board has forwarded to the council with a
couple caveats. Would like some clarification on some of them and I can go into that. Um the two that we focused on are the number of units. the 450 doing 50 town houses. Town houses would eat up a lot of the land mass um that
we're trying to preserve as a natural buffer and create a natural amenity. But when you do separate standalone town houses or string them together, it it does eat up a lot of the land. But what we're proposed to do and what we would be willing to explore as we proceed is
to create a project where the units the the main unit themselves have first floor entrances so that it appears that there's almost like a lack of a better term a brown house in the uh you know in the front that instead of going into a hallway and down the hallway if you're
on the first floor you may have direct entrance into your your unit on the first floor. So to the outside it would look like a townhouse but it condenses it and preserves the open space which is what we're trying to do. Um we we we feel strongly that the 450 is the
appropriate number for purposes of financing and making it a reality. Um so we'd like to hold that number but we would work at trying to pro provide a diverse living experience and Liz Smith can talk to that if if if the council would like.
And the second is on the height. We're fine with the height. Um but under the new building code where Massachusetts has gone essentially all electric. Um most of the units now have separate uh heat pumps or heat units. And you don't
want those on the ground. You want them on the roof. Um, when the words tower and spire, I think evoke, you know, radio towers or church steeples, but we're talking about units that are probably a maximum 3 or 4 feet off the
ground, but maybe screened. So you can have the 60ft height with a um an additional mechanical area on the roof that's screened so you really don't see it, but it would hold all the utilities that you'd have to have because otherwise you're putting them on the
ground and it looks horrible. It really does. And I and with the weather and the snow and everything that it causes more problems than it work. So the height we could live with with the se with subject to exclusion exclusion of the mechanicals on the roof that is
appropriately screened and the I don't know what the height would be probably 10 feet >> actually >> 5t 5 to 10 feet so and usually it's set back so if you're standing at grade you'll never see them um it's just a
safety factor also um and I so those are the two major issues right Oh, the real Yeah. >> Press. There you go. You want to bring it? We want to be able to deliver
the first building and then 26 forestry building. we just can't commit to that control the market. Um, but you know, I think this is one of those things that we're more than happy to work with the council and continue to provide updates regarding our outreach
efforts, um, marketing efforts and how it's going. Hopefully, it does align. >> All right. So, what let me read the letter from the planning board and then we can get into your draft of the actual zoning and have a conversation about
some questions I had and then bring in the planning board's comments as appropriate. Um, so, honorable President OAN counselors at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 18th, 2026, the planning board took the following action. On a motion by Dr. Finbeby,
seconded by Mr. Russ, the board voted to forward specific recommendations regarding the proposed zoning amendment to the city council. The consensus of the board was to provide a generally favorable recommendation subject to the inclusion of the board's recommended
modifications. The board provided the following responses relating to the board's fourprong zoning standards. The board agreed that the proposal as currently presented has the potential to negatively impact neighboring properties. However, the board concluded
that with appropriate modifications, the proposal could be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, particularly considering the newer development along Lazot Drive. The board further agreed that the proposed zoning amendment is in in its current draft
form could negatively impact the neighbors. The board noted that with the modifications outlined below, the amendment could potentially mitigate those impacts. The board reached a consensus that the inclusion of town homes and mixeduse components such as
retail would provide a greater benefit to the city than a low occupancy office building. The board also agreed that if properly modified, the zoning amendment would align with the intent and purposes of the city's zoning ordinance. The board provided the following
recommendations. Limit the number of gardenstyle apartment units to 400 with the option to include up to an additional 50 town homestyle units. Increase the required perimeter property line setbacks from 20 ft to 50 ft while
exempting existing structures from the revised setback requirement. Restrict building heights to the height of the existing structure or a maximum of 60 feet inclusive of spires and towers. Remove the term public from section G2
as there will be no public ways created as a result of the new zoning. Require the incorporation of retail and mixeduse components as part of the construction of the first building phase. Encourage the inclusion of underground parking to reduce the extent
of imperous surface. Encourage the development of publicly accessible walking trails and or bicycle paths. Recommend that the the developer conduct a balloon test to evaluate the potential visual impact of the surrounding area.
And recommend that no demolition permit be issued until the special permit application has been approved. The vote was yay, FA, Finnby, Foron, use, Leventure, and Russ. And there were no no votes. The motion carried six to zero.
Signed, Sean Fay, chairperson. So, the zoning ordinance requires us to get an opinion from the planning board. What we do with it is up to the body. We have um followed it sometimes, we have
ignored it other times, but we'll see. Um, councelor Neon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um Bob, just to clarify, so the you the proponent is ex finds it, excuse me, finds the comments from the planning board acceptable except for the 50 town
homes andorating retail. >> Yeah, we'd like to have the number 450 and and the town houses will try to incorporate. We'll work we can draft language to the effect that we'll work with the council, >> but 450 is a number from a financial standpoint that makes it real and and we
think that we can achieve that separate diverse housing feel by putting these things on first floor entry. But if you were to do 50 town houses that are on the perimeter, it would eat up a lot of the open space that we're trying
to preserve, which again provides a nice natural buffer to the roadways around. So that >> No, understand. I just I want to make sure as mentally as we're preparing to go through these, I want I'm checking these off from the planning board saying, "Okay, these are good. These are >> we agree with the concept. We just want
to tweak it so that it works and it's no one benefits if we do something that no one can execute, you know." So >> that's correct. Yeah. And and we think this would would enhance the execution of this so that it would be attractive. >> And if you've been out there, the terrain
>> the topography the topography drops off. So it creates some nice ambiance that we we intend to incorporate into the >> overall plan. So >> very good. Thank you. >> Okay. So I went through this looking at
results mixeduse overlay district rather than the residential overlay which is ex the language is almost similar except where they talk about their muds where you have your terminology a project in a
phase so it's similar but there are some differences so I uh I I've noted them where appropriate. Um, so let's see. We begin with your draft pursuant to chapter 48 of the general laws. The city
of Malbor having received for its consideration changes in the zoning ordinance to further amend chapter 650 now ordains that the zoning ordinance as amended be further amended by amending and adding the forest street residential
overlay district. The purpose and objectives. The forest street residential overlay district allows the application of supplemental land use controls within the boundaries of a certain overlay district subject to city council approval as an alternative to land use controls that exist in the
underlying district. The establishment goals of the SFR OD are to enhance land use development and encourage desired growth patterns for the benefit of the public health, safety, and welfare by promoting integrated pedestrianfriendly
residential and mixeduse development to allow for the development of housing, retail, and workplaces within close proximity of each other. consistent with the stated economic development and smart growth objectives of the city. I will say I've got my head down as I'm
reading. So if anybody else has issues, please uh yell out and I will stop. B location of the FSR development phasing for the purposes of of this section 650 number to be figured out. The FS OD is
comprised of parcels identified on the city's assessor's maps as parcels 98, 91,1124, and 102-1 containing approximately 30.96 acres as indicated on the city zoning map and more particularly described and
shown on exhibit A annexed here 2 and incorporated by reference therein. Um, number two, within the FSRD, there may be one or more phases of development. An applicant may submit a site plan and or special permit
application for the entire project, the FSRO project or for one or more phases of the project, each a FSRO phase. The FSRO project or phase may consist of one
or more parcels of land and may include any eligible use set forth in subsection D below which may be co-mingled within a single structure or located in separate structures on one or more parcels. Parcels within the FSROD may be combined
or subdivided and held under separate ownership or lease holds. the FSRO project or the FSRO phase shall be subject to site plan approval. Number three, upon the issuance of site plan and or special permit approval for
the FSRO project or phase on a parcel or parcels in the FSROD, this section shall govern said parcel as developed in accordance with the site plan approval. Four, except as specifically provided herein,
the provisions of the zoning ordinance relating to the underlying zoning districts not otherwise impacted by this section shall continue to remain in full force and effect in the event of any conflict between the provisions of this
section and any other provisions of the zoning ordinance. The provisions of this section shall govern and control C. The authority of the permit granting authority. The city council shall be the permit
granting authority for special permits and site plan approvals in the FSRD. Special permit shall require a twothirds vote of the city council except when only a simple majority vote is required pursuant to master law chapter 48
section 9. Site plan approval shall require a simple majority vote. So this is my first question. Does the city council want site plan approval or do we want to just be special permit approval
and let site plan do their thing? >> Opinions. Councelor Fillow. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I am always in favor of maintaining authority with our council. So, I'm I would be fine with keeping it as it is to um
continue to keep us as the site plan um I guess not granting authority but the site plan approval authority. Um but happy to have further discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Any other opinions? Madam >> Chair, I'm not a fan after having gone through this personally. I would just
rather have site plan do it. But councelor A. >> So as we as we know, we don't do any site plan votes on this council until the site plan actually tells us what we're supposed to do. So it really is in line with council villain. It maintains
our overall authority, but we we don't we don't do the plumbing and all the the details that site plan does. We rely on them. So I again I'm following and I guess I want to correction, M. Attorney Buckley. I'm following the executive overlay district wording. Is that how
you modeled the plan or the the zoning change? >> Yeah. >> The difference between this and and Albero Hills on the the other is that was that was really master planning of an entire >> right >> and and this you already have this template in place, >> right? And results way also has the
council being site plan approval and special permit. It's just that's the one that and and you >> but it was so it was so comprehensive that at the time some of the councils could remember it was it was really he wanted to maintain
control because it was an entire section of the city. So when I drafted that I wanted to make sure that everything one way or another came through the council. Now madam chair to your point earlier about um when I made the comments about how we would work to on retail to keep
the council advised of how we're doing and whatever. I do think it's important to have the council informed um because we will make commitments on the housing the diversity and I think that as councilors you you should have that. So we could bifrocate
it. The technical could go to the site plan review but there could be an obligation in a permit to periodically advise the council as to how we're doing on terms of those other issues. >> Okay. So my sense of this committee is that we want to keep site plan. So,
we'll leave it as is. Uh C2, at the request of an applicant as part of an initial application or as part of a modification pursuant to subsection H, the city council may elect by simple majority vote to vary the dimensional location and number of parking spaces
design and landscaping requirements. upon finding that section such change shall result in an improved design and will not nullify or substantially deraggate from the intent or purpose of this section. So I have two questions on
this one. Um the city council may elect by simple majority vote to vary. So we're talking about a site plan is simple majority but a special permit is a twothirds vote. So the special permit
would could have the dimensional location number of parking spaces and landscaping varied but it's not a simple majority. So, >> well, if I if I may, um, yes, when when you're going through the site plan process and you're you're presenting a
site plan or special, I'm sorry, special permit application to the council for consideration, you'll see that there are dimensional requirements in terms of parking, design, etc. You may look at that and say, you know what, if we were to move the parking over here, it makes
for a much better site. So, it's not after you've granted the permit, it's during the process. So are you okay with removing may electlect by simple majority vote and just have the city council may >> vary that's fine if you want to >> and then figure out whether it's site
plan which is twothirds of special permit which is we still have to approve the special permit and I know we varied >> the flexibility because a lot of communities have filed and there are a lot of communities now adopting this type of an approach that
when you're going through the project you you locating a parking or you know landscaping island here makes more sense than over there that rather than having to go back to square one and start that during the process they could say we think this makes a better project by
putting it over here and that's your call but yeah very fine and you can you can determine how you want to do it >> okay then my other question is on page six of this >> chair before I'm sorry that's okay before you leave that madam chair >> but if you eliminate the words by simple
majority vote. It aligns with what's in the executive overlay district. >> It does align. Okay. So, we're all okay with eliminating. It would just read the city council may vary the dimensional that work.
All right. Um under what page are we on? Under um F the parking. No, under G design standards. Three is landscaping. Landscaping shall conform to the provisions of 65047 landscaping. So if
it has to conform, can we vary it or do those two things conflict? >> If it conflicts and this controls, >> but they're both in the same zoning language. One says we can vary. One says you have to conform.
that we will conform initially to it, but during the process, if you wanted to vary it, you have the authority to vary it by the process going through the the special permit. You're you're telling the applicant upfront that you should
conform to this design criteria. As you're going through the process, the applicant may say, "If we were to do something different, then it would enhance the project." And then then it's the call of the council. So you have the authority to alter that during the process.
>> Okay. So I if you look at the parking requirements which is on page 5F, it says except it's otherwise provided the FSRO shall conform to the provisions. Couldn't that same language be in
G3 except for >> Yeah, I think that that's fine. I mean, I >> Yep. >> I I guess I would leave it up to legal to decide if they conflict or if in fact just because it says it in one place doesn't mean we can't do it in the
other. >> The only the only comment there, Madam Chair, if I could, that on the parking, I don't have the ordinance in front of me, but for instance, 1.5 for dwelling unit, three for commercial. >> Right. Yeah. you already have your um
except at the provisions conf that you're looking to vary or are specified here and you might not for the landscaping. All right. And then the final question is as part of a modification pursuant to subsection H which is really your
modifications after approval. So why would you ever come after something's been approved and ask to vary the dimensional location number parking and landscaping? We've approved it already. >> Yeah. There there may be a major change either in the marketplace. I mean for
instance while this is retail and and housing you know seven years ago office space was if I told you office would be upside down. You'd tell me I was crazy. Um, and now office buildings are being modified and altered to try to attract
tenants and make major changes to the plan. So, you make the determination whether it's a major or minor. If it's major, you have to go through the whole process again. But what we're saying is that you don't want to forstall or eliminate the ability to adapt to
changing economic conditions or changing market conditions, but you don't want to lose control at the same. So would if you're varying the dimensional location, number of parking spaces and landscaping, wouldn't you almost be changing what you're building, which
would really be a major modification? >> That that's your prerogative, but we don't know. It it could be a minor tweak that, you know, I trying to think, you know, moving the handicap from one location to another to be more convenient. That's technically a change in the in the plan, but generally that's
a minor modification. >> All right. Madam Chair, >> councelor Austin. >> So, so again, that section H again is word for word what's in the executive overlay district. And if you recall, that served us well when they changed onebedrooms to two bedrooms or studios
or efficiencies. And it worked real well to come back to the council. So, the the wording is the same. We were just and and I compliment you for having that because we're just trying to avoid a situation where the market changes dramatically and everyone's paralyzed and you can't respond.
>> Okay, I will leave it there. I know the solicitor has it. I had a con a question on it. So, we'll see if he's okay with the language when it gets to that point. Um, number three, an applicant for site plan approval for an FSRO project or
phase shall comply with chapter 270 building and site development of the Marorrow City Code. An application for a special permit for a use in the FSROD shall comply with the requirements of 65059 of the zoning ordinance.
D. The eligible uses number one, the following uses are permitted by right in the FSR. A uses allowed by right in the underlying which is limited industrial district as set forth in the table of use regulations including but not
limited to offices, banks, insurance and financial institutions and brew pubs. B. Accessory uses as defined in 655B of the zoning ordinance, including not not limited to above ground and underground parking garages on the same lot as the
principal use, community amenities, parenthesis, business center, indooroutdoor recreational uses, fitness studio, or the like in parenthesis. And two, the following additional uses are
permitted by special permit in the FSR. A multif family dwellings. So here's where we would put a limit. Do we want >> Yeah, >> councelor Asing. >> So So you're you're spot on, councelor Roby. So in the executive overlay
district it says multifamily dwellings provided that the total number of units within the entire in this case it would be the fso shall not exceed enter your number. So so that that though that wording does need to be here
to put some context as to how big the complex or how many units the council if they approve it wants to authorize. And in what we were shown at the public hearing, again, those are always just proposals, but they did have building A
having 210 and building B having 240. Um, if we go with 250 as our max, how they design it later is really up to us when we get to the special permit. >> 250 or 450. >> I'm sorry, 450. I can't add.
Um, and we can decide if we want to deal with the planning board's recommendation that it's 400 with the option to include an additional 50 if they're town home style units or if we want to deal with
that issue at the special permit phase. >> Again, you are correct because I don't think you want to get into the details now. You you might want what nine buildings with 50 units each. I mean, who knows what the council's purview or what the developer thinks is going to be
suitable at the time that they come before us uh with a project. So, the number is good. It's no different than um what we did with green district. You set the number. We do the same thing with Lazot. You set the number and they'll come back and tell us how many buildings are going to put it in, how
many units are going to be in the building. Um and then we get to decide whether we like it or not. If madam chair if I could comment it would be by special permit so you would have the discretion to comment on the design but if we have the 450
we're going to try to have a diversity of product but we just don't know at this point what that would be and so the council would have by special permit the discretion to say yay and a at that point >> right so I will make sure I have the language it's um Lazat drive has by
special permit multif family dwelling ings including multiple dwellings on a single lot provided the total number of multif family dwellings shall not exceed 250. So that was a little bit different but >> if you want to read it one more time and we'll make sure everybody agrees.
>> Sure. So as it states now it says multif family dwellings and then there'll be comma provided that the total number of units within the entire fsd shall not exceed 450.
Okay, >> that's >> so is that okay for councelor Prosiato says no that's too many for you >> too many for me counselor I would like to take the re recommendation from the from the board and do 400 units limit it
to 400 units and 50 now homes >> so how do we get 400 and then the additional 50 there it's all by the this is by special permit you're not going to permit permit 400 and then special permit an additional 50
that are only townhouse. They're going to want townhouse. They might want more than 50 town houses. They might. So, as councelor Oing said, and I think I would agree for the zoning piece, we just want the maximum number. We'll deal
with the weeds when the special permit comes in. >> Understood. I would still like to limit at 400 units then. 400 >> specify town homes 400 400 total. >> All right. Um I mean we can have the
discussion. How does anybody else feel? I mean we were shown a proposal that had 450. That doesn't mean that's what we approve. >> Councelor Fill. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. You taking the words out of my mouth there. I think right we we've seen a proposal that again we're in the zoning phase. So take
it with what you will. Um but that proposal does anticipate 450 units. Right. in good faith. I I am comfortable with that number. Um I think the way that um President Austin had provided right um that that is our max and we'll
get into the details when the special permit is before us. So I'm I'm comfortable with 450 um and I'm more than happy to have that conversation down the road when a special permits before us. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Anybody else? Councelor Naven. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I share a
similar um sentiment to councelor Fillo. Um and I think a majority of the folks here um one of the things that I find compelling about taking up this zoning um conversation we've had before um is a similar conversation that we had with Lozad is what this actually can achieve
um by incentivizing developers to come in and help a problem that we have with some of our um lowerass office buildings and help convert them. I think by tackling it and making it a decent incentive during the zoning, we can at least have developers come to the table and say, "This is what we can do." I
think, you know, the point Bob made, um, I think what you guys are seeing out there in the market, it is a tough market. Um, we do want to be able to find out. We don't want to overbuild something, but we want to know what it is going to take to actually build it. Um, you know, everybody understands the
cost of money these days is not cheap. Um, and it certainly doesn't seem to be getting any cheaper out there. So, um I think that in this phase when we are talking about the zoning, I think putting the putting the 450 cap that's been identified is and we can certainly negotiate a little bit further when we do get to the special permit. Excuse me.
So, I would support the 450 in the zoning piece. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Okay. So, it looks like not I don't know. Do we need a vote because this is going to go forward I think as a total package. Councelor Fill. Madam
chair, I would move to amend section 2A to say multif family dwellings, comma, provided that the entire number of units within the FSRO shall not exceed 450 units. >> Right. It's been moved to amend 2A as just read through.
Is there discussion? All those in favor? One, two, three. So it's and those opposed. So it still does carry. So that will be changed. Uh the next two B is restaurant cafe with or without table service including outside seating and service
without drive-thru. C a restaurant cafe with or without table service including outside seating and service with drive-thru provided that said facilities have no dedicated driveway with a curb cut on a public way. So with this one I
question because in limited industrial this is not allowed >> correct >> a drive-thru. So you are asking us to allow it by special permit even though the code doesn't allow it in the underlying district
>> because madam chair the the introductory paragraph the following addition says you are per permitted by special permit and the reason for that is that in the perfect world if we do this correctly you're going to have office some retail some mixed use you want to activate it
and but we're not taking it off a public way we're not taking it off It's going to be internal to the site. So trying to control and create a sense of identity for the site. >> Okay. I'm just making everybody aware or council oing
>> and that's verbatim what's in the executive overlay district. >> Okay. >> The words. >> Uh D is health sports and fitness clubs indoor or outdoor and related facilities. E is retail sales and services which is
both under 75 square feet and over 75 square feet are all special permit currently in the LI. Distilleries with attached restaurants. G is accessory solar install solar energy installations including but not limited to rooftop
systems and solar parking canopies. H, this is the one that I'm questioning uses allowed by special permit in the underlying zoning district. So, I don't know what that has, but I went through the underlying zoning district has a
whole lot of allowed by special permit that I'm not sure I want allowed. I mean, I suppose we can deny the special permit, but hotels are one of them. And I'm not sure that I want a hotel in this little subdivision. I don't know that I
want outdoor storage, a shopping mall. These are all allowed by special permit. And I again I looked at results way. Results way has a whole list of uses set forth as follows are expressly prohibited.
And I don't know if we want to You don't really have a anything that's prohibited uh list. Do we want one or do we want to leave this H there and then we can deny stuff we don't want when it comes to a
special permit which then we have to deal with them filing a lawsuit. So I'm going to go to councelor Presiato first. >> Thank you madam chair. I would make a motion to remove uh h uses allowed by special permit in the underlying zoning district. Um I believe by allowing
things like this including uh C um it sets a precedence for the applicants to come in and this council more than likely is usually in in favor of things that applicants propose.
Um when it comes to council I feel like the council does feel like they are forced to make these decisions and say yes to the uh applicants. So, I would just make a motion to remove that. >> And I guess I would agree except that I'm not sure because it's the underlying district. So, I don't know how we can do
this. Councelor Oing. >> Um, again, sound like a broken record, but the exact same language, you know, is in the executive overlay district, which was >> Do they have any exclusions where you can't have these any these specific things?
>> Nope. because it's I mean >> so the the only one that's not in and I guess I'd ask the applicant um the executive overlay district has an item for brew pubs yet you do not >> because it's by right
>> and item what >> it by right >> oh it's by right okay no you are correct okay yep that's correct never mind >> but >> I I'm sorry I didn't >> brew pub >> oh the brew hub >> that's that's by right as as an accessory use >> yeah Um, you are correct. Sorry about
that. But >> yeah, which would then be a use allowed by special permit because brew pubs are allowed by special permit. I believe I didn't list it, but um >> so madam chair, if I may, the reason the underlying zoning special per we kept
the special permit uses in again you have broad discretion as the special permit. One of the findings I believe is it has to be compatible with the neighborhood. If it's not compatible, I don't care what you think about an appeal, but courts have got to defer to
the the council or the permit granting authority as making that determination. Again, zoning should be predictable, but flexible. And we're trying to be predictable, but also flexible because things could change dramatically.
>> Okay. Do you would you object to having the similar language to expressly prohibited and I can read through but first we got to deal with there was a motion from councelor Presiato. Is there a second? >> No. Okay. So, I guess we're leaving uses
allowed by special, >> but if there are certain uses you want prohibited, you can run them off. And we >> um what the um results we had are adult entertainment, including an adult bookstore, video store, paraphernalia, tattoo, body piercing, parlors, and
shops, die works, biosafety level four laboratories as defined by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention. And I think that was >> none of those bother us. We'd agree to that.
Uh they had more establishments for construction uh in such services but not limited to building building maintenance, plumbing, landscaping, electrical masonry, carpentry, well drilling, electroplating, hazardous and toxic chemical dis manufacturer,
trucking terminal, automotive sales and service, retail gasoline stations, commercial bakeries, on-site sales and rental of heavy machinery, laundry and dry cleaning establishments, except drop off which I think you specify as
uh or did you specify? No. Um any activity or use directly or indirectly involving the dispensing, use sale, growing, storage or transportation of medical marijuana, including medical marijuana treatment center and any on-site facility or clinic devoted to
the treatment of substance addiction, including narcotic detox and or maintenance facility. I'll defer to the client, but from a legal standpoint, those seem to be incompatible with what we're trying to achieve. >> They do or don't.
>> They do. Incompatible. >> Madam Chair, >> Council Austin. >> So, so again, go back up to the top. Number two, the following additional uses are permitted by a special permit. Then when you go to H, uses allowed by a special permit in the underlying zoning
district. So, the underlying zoning is LI. >> All right. >> Yep. And if stuff in LI needs a special permit, it will still need a special permit, right? I mean, trying to make this as simple as I can that nothing's changed. I mean, that's >> all they're saying is you need a special
permit to do things above which aren't allowed in an LI district. But just reinforcing the fact that if you're going to do something in an LI that needs a special permit, you have to get a special permit. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Yes.
But if the council feels better than some of those uses, there's no way we would contemplate doing some of those uses. But >> all right, is everybody okay with the language as is just leaving it uses allowed by special permit and we'll deal with them as they come to us.
Okay. Thank you for your indulgence in my uh I is mixed use development consisting of a combination of by right or special permit residential business uses as listed in this section.
Number three, all uses not specified in subsection D1 and two above shall be deemed prohibited in the FSROD. Number four, once an FSRD project or phase receives site plan or special
permit approval, a an individual as of right use within the FSRO project or phase may be changed without further site plan approval unless such change would otherwise require site plan
approval under section 270-2 of the Marble City Code or modification to a site plan approval under subsection H3. So, can you explain or kind of give me a what would you want to change?
>> Well, without further >> if you change the configuration of the building, that's that's a site plan modification. The use may be permitted, but you still have to go through site plan because you're changing site circulation, you're changing parking, whatever you would require today under
your site plan review, we're saying we're subject to that. If it's just doing a a grocery store for a dry goods store, it's retail for retail. That's as of right as of right. So, not changing the building, not changing the skin. it
it probably doesn't require site plan site plan approval. >> So why have the modification piece where it talks about after approval you can modify? >> Well because the issue becomes whether it's major or minor
>> but you still have to come back to either the building commissioner or the >> determination of it's major. >> This to me says you can just do it without any approval. If if the building commissioner says that this is merely a change of as of
right useful one as of right use making no changes that require site plan review. Yes. But we have to make that determination. If if the commissioner were to determine that this may require some modifications to the building or site circulation around the parking lot,
this may have to go to the council to be determined or to the site plan review to see is this major or minor. So, it's a two-step process, but we're not changing anything that doesn't exist today. You'd have to do that today. >> Okay. And and again, this is a question
I have for legal. I think they're going to look at this to determine if it's appropriate and >> madam chair. So, so again >> they'll have a set of plans when they submit whatever the project's going to look like and they have to follow the plans >> and if they deviate from the plans they
need building commissioner weigh in and if it's minor the building well we'll be site plan we'll end up getting a thumbs up at some point but >> if it's major then it comes back for a special permit for eight votes and again you hate hearing this it's the exact
same wording in the executive overlay district >> this is there the exact same wording as you're reading I'm following along executive overlay district you I could be reading this from the executive >> overlay it's not in results way and it's >> yeah I don't think results way is a fair
comparison because it's a two different concepts >> it that that was really master planning >> but it's still almost everything else except for this is not in there um and then B of that is an individual use already granted a special permit within
the FSRO project or phase may be changed upon the grant grant of a new or modified special permit as appropriate for that changed use and will be subject to site plan approval provided. However, if the change is to an as of right use
in the FSROD, no further site plan approval is required unless such change would otherwise require site plan site plan approval under section 270-2 of the Marboro City Code or modification to a site plan approval
under subsection H3. So, I mean, the these to me seem like they're really duplicating modifications which say if you want to modify something, you've been approved. You either need building commissioner to approve a minor or you
need the council to approve a major. >> What madam chair what we're trying to do is articulate the procedures so there's no confusion on the part of the and the city I I I would submit these are what the city does today. Um, what we're
trying to say, be it this developer or someone else, if you have a special permit use, the council grants us a special permit used to occupy a building, build a building, and five years from now, you say, "We're going to change the use to a use that's permitted
as of right." Well, you don't have to get another special permit because you're going from a special permit to an as of right use. You're not changing anything. So under your procedures, you go you go through the process of the building commissioner or whatever. It's
just articulating what probably occurs. Say we're not trying to change anything. >> Okay. All right. Your your the point that you just brought up. I guess the to me that doesn't even seem like it's possible. If we've given you a special permit, that special permit goes with the property
>> until you change it. you know, someone goes out of business and they say, "Okay, >> it's still a special permit with the property." So, the property is has a special permit on it. It has to be the but >> no, if you change the use, then that special permit is being obained. >> I don't think you can change the use,
but I'm not the legal. So, again, this is a question for legal department. We'll see. And if it's already in one, we'll see >> verbatim, word for word. >> All right. Um C. The special permit and or site plan approval shall be deemed to have been vested upon the issuance of a
building permit other than a demolition permit for all or any portion of the FSRO project or phase and I guess I had forgotten I threw in >> so madam chair this is not in the exe
this is not in the executive overlay district so it' be interesting to have what the applicant >> said I had put in somewhere else to add in a demo permit. Um, oh, I was
back in location development phasing. Um, within the FSRO, an applicant shall submit a site plan and I said, do we want to add in language read no demo permit allowed until site plan or special permit has been approved? And
that was really just going with the recommendation. Nothing would be allowed until site or what? >> Until >> what? What? What? >> Demolition permit. >> Demolition permit. >> You can't because currently there's nothing in the code about a demolition permit that says you can't apply for one. You can apply for one anytime,
>> right? >> Planning board is suggesting that you we not allow you to demo something without a site plan or a special permit. >> I want to preserve the value of the taxes. Yep. >> So, I wasn't sure where to put it. I figured it could go in location
development phasing number two where you talk about you have to submit a site plan or special permit application for the entire project or one or of the phases and then add in no demo permit is allowed until special permit or site
plan has been approved. Does that >> work for everybody? I mean, I'd have, Madam Chair, I I would have legal review it. I just I'm seeing it for the first time. Well, as part of this news, so I don't legal says it's
okay. I'm I'm guess I'm okay. >> My My sense is that because there's been talk in the marketplace on buildings that are not responsive, just scrape them, take them down. And communities don't want to do that because it does have a negative impact on tax.
>> We're seeing it across the street. But the purpose uh I think there was a commonist to see the a lot of communities have a 2year or threeyear period where you have to execute a special permit.
Now the case >> it's mas general law >> right but the case law has said that what is execution the case law says execution is detrimental reliance when I've started to change my position based upon the grant of a permit. So I go and
I spend $10,000 for plans or I do site grading whatever I'm starting to rely on that permit. So I theoretically have executed or vested that permit. I've satisfied that requirement. What we're trying to do here is to say we're doing we could be
doing two or three phases of this simultaneously. You know, maybe we're doing the housing and we're doing that spurs some retail and that spurs some uh office use. It's all going on at once. The likelihood of
being able to do that in two years is pretty remote. I mean, it's probably going to take three or four years to do all the components or four years. And we want the lenders who are financing this to say the permit's going to stay in place once once you start and you get your building permit.
It's vested, you know, so you can it may take three or four years, but it's all going on and you don't have the fear of losing the permit. >> And I think this is language that legals should look at because I'm sure the next page has even more concerning where you
get into the six years kind of thing. Um, to me the special permit is once it's approved and there's no appeal that starts the clock. You've got three years. >> Well, I I I I would like to agree with that, but there is there is some
argument that what what does theoretically you have to record the permit to trigger the act activation of it. But what you want to you let's take a situation now. Let's assume we're going to do an office building for sake
of discussion. We get a special permit to do the office building. >> But you don't need a special permit. You only need site plan. So >> pick pick a building. You need a special permit for um multif family right in front of us. Okay. So we say, okay, we're coming in
for a multif family special permit. No one is going to spend the developer is going to spend all of the money to do the final construction drawings to support that permit until the permit's granted,
right? Because you're you're putting money out where we don't have a permit. You could be spending a million dollars to do construction drawings and not have a permit because the council hasn't voted. >> Right. But you would need the final drawings for site plan approval.
uh not construction drawings. There's a difference between site plan and construction. So now the council approves the whoever it is. The council approves a special permit. We get site plan. We're ready to go. We go to the
architects and say we're ready to go. Let's do the construction drawings and get get moving. The architect is likely to say well it's probably going to take 10 to 12 months to do the construction drawings. So already you've eaten into a
year of of the three years. So detrimental reliance we're spending money and the courts have said that is sufficient but we're trying to make sure that it's financable. So once we say okay once we get the construction drawings we
get the building permit it may take three four years to execute the development of the project to build it all to do the infrastructure the roads the buildings because again this is one area it's not just one building in an area with master planning the whole area
we could be building simultaneously and doing infrastructure it could be a three or four year project >> and again I and legal. I'd be more than happy to talk to solicit when I talk to them today. >> We're doing nothing other than make sure that it's a reality and no one gets hurt
in the park. >> Yeah, cuz cuz they he looked it up. The code says two years for site plan, three years right >> for special permit. >> The question becomes when does it vest? >> I would think it's vested as soon as the
appeal period is over. But we other than one special permit that we have, we've never had an issue where they haven't been built and they've actually >> completed it in the time period alone. >> Well, it's doesn't have to be completed. You have to start. That's what we're
trying to protect. You know, it doesn't say that in the statute. It says three years. Permit's good for three years, >> right? You need to have shovels in the ground at the end of >> the statute doesn't say that. That's why and that's why we're trying to be clear. what legal is saying that was their >> well no I agree with them that's the
detrimental reliance once we you've relied but and the courts have held that but what we're trying to be cautious here and say okay there could be two or three projects going on simultaneous we're just trying to protect everyone >> right and I think we're getting ahead of ourselves to the next section it's now
does the the demolition permit that the planning board is suggesting that you shouldn't have until >> building >> special permit application has been approved. >> Um, does it belong in C? Does it belong
where I suggested we maybe we can just ask legal to put it in there somewhere >> and you're okay with having that in there and everybody's okay with having it somewhere in there? >> All right. So D, the applicant shall apply for the
first building permit for vertical construction within 3 years of the date of issuance of the special permit and or site plan approval for the FSRO project or phase. This is the questionable part. If within six years from the date
of the issuance of a special permit and or site plan approval for the project or phase which shall not include such time required to pursue or await the determination of an appeal. The applicant has not applied for all building permits necessary for the
construction of the project or phase approved by the special permit or site plan approval granting authority. Then further construction under the special permit or site plan approval is not authorized unless the applicant seeks and received an amendment to the special
permit or site plan approval that extends the time for for performance. So this is where legal is saying they have they don't have six years. They have three years. That's it. Well, they have three I I'll speak to the solicitor, but the intent here is really to protect the
city because what you want to avoid here is if you're trying to do fiscal planning and you know that you have an approved project at results way. Um that and you start baking those numbers into your your fiscal analysis what you're
going to have. If someone sits on the permit for five, six, seven years and it never happens and then they say, "You know what? we're not going to do it now. We We can't, you know, office is no longer viable, so we're not going to do it. So, you've you've been banking on that anticipated revenue. What we're
saying here is you can't sit on a permit for a long period of time. It's going to if you don't use it, you're going to lose it. So, but I'll I'll speak to I would argue and this the legal department would argue you lose it after three years >> again. But the question becomes when
does it vest? I I'll speak for this. >> Okay. Uh, anybody else have questions on there? All right. Number five, multifamily dwellings in the FSOD shall be subject to 65026 affordable housing of the zoning ordinance notwithstanding anything set
forth in 65026 to the contrary, including without limitation the provisions set forth in 650261B, which is actually there's two parts of this. There's one A that's at least 12% of the dwelling units be affordable to households earning not more than B is
80% of the area media income but the solicitor will fix that. The city council shall have the discretion to vary such affordability upon a finding that such action advances the city's housing objectives to modify the
required affordability mix applicable to the particular development. And the solicitor's initial comment was, "No, you cannot vary. It is 12% and it's 80% AMI." So, we weren't sure whether you wanted to increase the 12%, decrease the
12%, increase the 80, decrease the 80. If I could comment on that, Madam Chair. Yeah, there's a lot of debate going on primarily arising out of the city of Boston and the city of Cambridge >> where they went up to, I believe it's now almost 20%. >> 20%.
>> 20%. >> And if you drive through downtown Boston, there are no cranes in the sky anymore. It's it's it's killed the market in terms of housing. >> Yep. So what we were trying to do here is say look these are
MRO doesn't have a I believe your SHI your subsidized housing inventory you're above 10%. So >> we are yes >> so this is just qualifying units to be on the inventory. You may decide that 12% is too high. I know that at the state level there's they're trying this
talk about potential legislation to alter that to bring it down to you know for instance on the MBTA communities you can't go beyond 10% because they were finding that beyond 10% people weren't doing the deals and you weren't achieving housing. What we're trying to
do here is say it's 12% as your ordinance says today but going forward the city may say 12% doesn't work. We have to make it 10% or whatever. So we're saying you have the flexibility. >> Madame councelor Austin.
>> So so I I would take a little bit of exception of that attorney Buckley. The reason we we used to have 15%, we went down to 12 and it's basically to maintain that any new construction that comes into the city, we always stay above our 10%. Because we have some >> of our affordable units that aren't, you
know, 99 years or whatever, they're going to fall off in five or 10 years from now. So that that's why that number was was selected. I would I would argue, Madam Chair, we can let the solicitor look at it, but if you go back again to the executive overlay district, it's
just that first sentence. We follow what's in our zoning ordinance because once I start saying >> you get 15 or you get 10 and the next guy gets 20. I'm I've now messed it up and I don't have a policy because why did this one get more or this one got
less? We have a policy that says 12 and that's what the council >> extremely valid point. I have I can't argue against that. So I mean >> Yeah. So my guess is the the solicitor is going to remove the city council shell. >> Yeah. >> Have discretion. Um because he doesn't
they don't feel that we do. It's 12%. Uh E dimensional requirements notwithstanding any provisions of the zoning ordinance to the contrary. Development in the FSROD shall be subject to the following dimensional standards. Minimum lot area none.
Um, and I don't think the planning board had anything on that one. U minimum front minimum lot frontage 50 ft. Minimum front yard setback 20 ft from a public way only. And this was what I
wasn't sure the planning board suggesting increase the required perimeter property line setbacks >> to from 20 to 50. The only one that's listed as 20 is this one. And it's only a front yard setback. It's not
perimeter. So, is that what they're talking about? Any >> I I I interpreted that as around the perimeter of the property line. >> Yeah. which would be minimum lot frontage, minimum yard setback, and a
side and rear yard setbacks which you have at 25 ft because they're saying from 20 to 50. The only 20 is the minimum front yard setback >> because all the internal it's all internal private roadways.
>> It's all in the these are off of we have a lot of internal private roadways that we're taking frontage off of and setbacks off of. But if it's the perimeter, that's the public ways. I don't think we have any problem with the 50T along the perimeter. If you want to
add along the property, the perimeter of this district shall be 50 ft. That's fine. >> It's internally that >> I don't think in the dimensional requirements, it doesn't talk about perimeter. It's got fronted
minimum lot area. It's got frontage. It's got rear yard setback. And it's got side and rear. I mean front yard. There's no perimeter frontage or no perimeter. >> You can add it. You can say >> what's the difference between perimeter
and front yard >> because >> side and rear yard. >> You're going to have an internal private ways. >> Madam chair, it's taking into consideration the public ways, I believe. So when there are public ways, that is not accounting for the perimeter. It's accounting for the public way where it is.
25 ft from a public way only. Yeah. I mean that's that that one that preference from planning board was confusing to me. I don't know what they want. >> Is the um So you're saying that that 50
ft setback would not hinder your construction whatsoever. So, why don't we just add remove these minimum front um and the side and rear and just change it all to 50 ft from the
perimeter and clean it up to satisfy the planning board and the applicant seems to have no problem with it. >> I mean, C and D say public way only. So, if you had if they had 50 people from
public way only. Yeah, >> the same thing to public way >> or do we care whether it's only 20 ft because we're we had already said we could vary the dimensions and this is one of the variant variations
>> when it's specified here. I think their the planning board's intention is to preserve the view from any public way in similar fashion they did with forest names. They had the same similar suggestion. >> They're not talking public way. They're just talking perimeter property line
setbacks. And there is no such thing as a perimeter property line setback. It's front, rear, and side. I mean that taken together. That's the perimeter. But they're all different. But >> the perimeter abuts the public ways.
Yeah, the internal are not public ways. The is it Washington Street? What? Forest Street and what's >> Williams? Williams. >> Williams. >> The perimeter runs along Forest Street and Williams. So that's why we put the public way. You
know, we want to make that. So, are we okay with adding in to have a perimeter property line setback of 50 feet >> from a public way? >> Yeah, from a public way. >> Well, this says exempting ex existing structures. So, I don't even know what
why would you exempt Well, I guess because they're already there. Um, and I have no idea what they are. And I'm okay with doing nothing with that recommendation of the planning board. Does anybody else feel like they really want to
deal with it? >> Yeah, I'll make a motion to change um E C E1C from minimum front yard set back 20 ft from a public way to 50 ft from a public way as well as D minimum sid and yard and rear yard set back 25 ft from a
public way to 50 ft from a public way only. The applicant has no issue with that. >> All right. And I'm sorry because I can't hear you. So, I don't know if it's that you need to get closer or if I need my I don't like wearing that when I'm doing most of the talking. So, take it B. You
want to in minimum lot frontage currently says 50. You're okay with that? >> Yeah. >> Minimum front yard is 20. You want to change that to >> 50. >> 50. Keeping the from a public way, >> correct? >> And then side and rear is 25. Keep that.
>> Change it to 50 from a public way. >> From a public way. Okay. So, it's been moved and seconded to change E1 C and D. 20 will become 50. 25 will become 50. Is there discussion?
Those in favor? One, two, three. Okay. All right. Thank you all for that one. Um, minimum building height is 80 feet. No limitations on stories. results way has a limit of 70 and you had said >> no ma you want maximum not the minimum
is they're going to build skyscrapers it's the maximum you want the maximum building height >> yeah well results way has a limit on residential of 70 ft you said that one had 60
>> no it's a executive overlay has 80 feet maximum building height 80 ft no limitation on stories same exact wording >> okay So, the planning board is suggesting 60 feet, the height of the existing structure,
which if you're going to knock it down, then I mean, if you're only going to renovate, you wouldn't increase the height anyway. But if you're going to knock it down, the max would be 60 ft inclusive of spires and towers. To me, those are different than mechanicals. I
believe there's specific language in the code that says mechanicals don't count in the height, >> right? We'd like to say exclusive of mechanicals and screened mechanicals. >> Um, so exclusive of mechanicals, but we don't
want we don't need to include the inclusive of spires and towers. >> No, we don't know what that means. >> Yeah. Well, I I guess they're talking of fancy stuff on a top of a roof, which I'm not even sure that counts with the building height. So, um, are we okay
with changing the maximum building height to 60 ft? Um, exclusive of mechanicals, >> rooftop mechanicals, >> I'm sorry, >> rooftop mechanicals. >> Exclusive of rooftop mechanicals. Okay. >> Second,
>> councelor Presto. >> Second that. Well, you you can move. I can't move to anything. So, you're you're I'm not really keeping track. I just is Do we need to take a vote? You're Well, he moved it. It I'll second it. All those in favor? 60 ft exclusive of
rooftop mechanicals. Okay. And you guys are okay. >> Madam Chair, >> Councelor Presiato, I mean, I'm sorry, Council Chillo. Wrong. >> We're on opposite ends over here. Um just one question there. We are
maintaining that the the no limitation on stories. Correct. Even with that amendment that language will still be included. >> I I yeah I don't think stories has any I think typically a story is a certain height. So then you figure out the stories based on the total height of
>> I feel bad for the building commissioners because you could have is this one story from here to the top of the >> Sure. Right. Right. Right. I'm not advocating that we do. I just want to confirm that that language still is is maintained >> and we're going to keep All right. So, everybody's okay with keeping the no
limitation on stories which I I think they're two different issues. I'd rather have height and not stories. >> I agree. Y >> okay. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Maximum lot coverage 60% over the entire FSR on an aggregate basis and not based
upon individual lots which I think still matches the code. 60% is the maximum coverage. All right. Number two is exception. There shall be no front side or rear yard setback requirements or planting
strips required as to internal lot lines within the FSR OD. So that one is confusing to me because I don't know if we just set minimum.
>> Well, this is internal now. So we're we're doing the setbacks from the public way. So now we're we may check let's think of it checkerboarding the internal we may have a building here that abuts another building. It's internal driveways so that one building may be
closed and set back but they're not public ways. >> All right. And to me none of this is going to be public way. I think that's another change in the language that if hopefully I we haven't missed. But I guess I the planting strip concerns me because I don't want to make Priscilla
mad. I know she's very adamant that parking lots have planting strips between them. Um if we're saying that they shall be no planting strips will not make her happy. So, I may be okay with the no front side or rear yard
setbacks, but the planting strips are a concern cuz to me, they don't have anything to do with internal lot lines. They're your parking lots, which are going to be internal anyway. >> But those are going to be subject to your review anyhow.
>> Councilor Presiato, >> I'll make a motion to remove um plante strips required. There should be So we're >> there shall be no planting strips required. Remove planting strips. >> All right. So it will just be there
shall be no front side or rear yard setback requirements as to internal lot lines within the FSR. Council >> Prescott moved. Second. All those in favor of that. Okay.
Um three exception. The limitation on height of building shall not apply to building mechanicals, chimneys, ventilators, towers, silos, spires, or other ornamental or screening features of buildings. Which features are in no way used for living purposes? This is
probably where there are silos and spires comes from. >> Take those out. >> So, uh only the first part, the limitation on height of building should not apply to building mechanicals. Period. >> And chimneys, ventilators. Ventilators are the air exchanges. Okay.
>> And so I would I would say take out t towers, silos, spires >> or ornamental or we can keep that in because you're going to you want them screened, >> but it has to be screened anyway. So okay,
which I think pretty much is covered under the exclusive of rooftop mechanicals, but we'll keep that in there. Um, number four, internal lot lines may be established pursuant to a subdivision plan filed in accordance with the map
general laws chapter 41 section 81K. Lot lines may be altered from time to time in accordance with the procedures of section 81P of chapter 41 of MGL for so-called approval not required plans and are applicable provisions of section
81K through 81G of chapter 41 of mass general laws for any subdivision within the FSR. Any single lot line within the FSROD may be deficient with one or more of the dimensional requirements contained
therein so long as all the lots within the FSROD taken in the aggregate comply with the standards contained therein herein. Um this one was confusing to me because this is not a subdivision.
No, but you will have to you may have to create legal lots for different different parties may own various parcels, >> right? Which I get the ANR part. I just didn't get the subdivision. >> We don't know how they're going to break up. You may have to do a a subdivision.
You may not build out the roadway. You may do a paper subdivision to create the legal lot. What we're trying to do is be able to create you do the one residential building, someone else is doing another residential, you're doing the office building. You're all going to own them. So, we have to create a way to
convey title to you. But you can have a paper subdivision, not build it out to create the legal lot. >> Okay. So, again, this is one so solicitor >> legal needs to look at because I don't know that they were sure what you wanted out of this one. And then five is for
purposes of lots within the FSROD. Frontage may be derived from a public or private way or on a way shown on a plan previously approved under the subdivision control law as more particularly set forth in 65041F1
of the zoning ordinance or along an access easement which shall consist of a paved way that allows vehicular access connecting to a public rideway or subdivision. And I didn't market, but the solicitor wanted the language that
was in um the of course the one that I cuz he none of this is going to be public. So, it would just be >> you could have a public you can have a private way an approved subdivision way
that's private for public purposes. Well, yeah, because he said access has nothing to do whether it's public or private. You have to maintain them. >> None of this, at least as far as I'm concerned, would ever be >> accepted by the city as a public road by
the city. So, there was language in the results way that he preferred. >> Okay, we'll take a look at that. The intent is that you can have a private subdivision way for public purposes for access. >> Yeah. So again, I think that will be one
of the things that he will look at that one to make sure that it's it makes it clear that this is all private. Um okay. Uh we are at F parking requirements except as otherwise
provided in this section. Parking and circulation requirements in the FSRD shall conform to the provisions of 65048 65049 of the zoning ordinance. Number one in the FSR, adequate off- streetet parking shall be provided. the city
council and the applicant shall have as a goal for the purpose of defining adequate off- streetet parking making the most efficient use of the parking facilities to be provided and maximizing or minimizing the area of land to be paved for this purpose. In implementing
this goal, the city council shall consider complimentary or shared use of parking areas serving activities that have different peak demand times. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that shared spaces will meet parking demands by using accepted
methodologies. Number two, parking locations. Parking may be provided at ground level, underground, or in parking garages. Parking garages may be freestanding or part of buildings dedicated to other permitted uses. Parking garages may contain accessory
solar energy installations. And I know the planning board wanted >> to encourage us to look at >> encourage the inclusion of the underground parking. I think we would encourage it also, but it will depend on >> site conditions and topography,
>> the special permit and the site plan. So I don't know that there's any way we could make you say that it can only be underground. >> Number three is the minimum required parking spaces. A residential 1.5
parking spaces per dwelling unit. Commercial, three parking spaces per 1,000 square ft of space. And see, restaurants, cafes, and other eating establishments, one parking space for every three seats.
And six, seven, my page eight. Um, parking dimensions. Is everybody okay with three, A, B, and C? Okay. Page six is the parking space dimensions.
Each parking space shall be no less than 9 ft by 18 ft, except that the use of compact spaces no smaller than 8 ft by 16 ft may be utilized throughout, provided that no more than 31 33% of the
total parking spaces within the FSRO project or phase shall be compact spaces. The code says that compact spaces can't be intermingled. So I think this will be a legal opinion
whether you can put them all over the place or whether in fact you need to keep them where a building is. So >> Madam Chair, >> councelor Austin. >> So that's word for word what's in the executive overlay district. >> Okay, good to know.
G design standards design criteria. An application for the site plan approval under this section 650 whatever shall adhere to the criteria specified in section 270-2 site plan review and approval of the city code. Two, roadways
to the extent feasible. Internal roadways, public and private, shall be constructed using the methods and materials prescribed in the rules and regulations of the subdivision of land in the city, but shall not be required
to conform to the subdivision standards or dimensional requirements thereof, provided that those roadways shall be adjacent to the intended vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The design of ways and parking circulation should be as efficient as possible to reduce the
overall development impact and areas of impervious services. So, council oing is that match >> the whole section is what even the next one and the next one and the next one they're all for >> because results way has
EF I hate when all my papers get out of order. Um, three, four, five, six, six. Uh, of course I can't find it. That's
26. That's 26. Well, they had a they again it was the issue of that public and private that was concerning to the solicitor. But if
it's in that one then um >> it is the intent the the internal roadways are going to be privately maintained. So would >> Right. But I think it it said public. So that was the concern.
Um >> you can remove that. >> Yeah. If if they're internal and you want to remove the word public, we'll take the word public out that that we just want to make sure that people understand that they have access. Right. So
>> Right. Because my my concern was it's going to be a private road, but you're going to let the public on it because you have public things that the public can you. It's kind of the same as results way. They'll want people to go up to use the restaurant to do the brew
hub if that ever happens. So, it was the public private um that it's just that the roadway shall be constructed using the methods was all that they cared about. They didn't care whether they were public or private. Um D or no sorry G3 is landscaping
in the FSROD shall conform to the provisions of 65047 landscaping and we already kind of had that conversation. Number four is storm water management. The project or phase shall have a storm water management system designed in accordance with the rules and regulations
for the subdivision of land in the city. The Department of Environmental Protection stormwater management guidelines and the city stormwater ordinance chapter 271 stormwater management of the Marble City Code. And number five is signage accept as otherwise provided. Signage shall
conform to the provisions of chapter 526 signs. H is modifications. After approval, applicants may seek modifications to any approved special permit or site plan approvals. Where's my page seven?
Oh my goodness. I said I hate doing this because I mess There it is. Um, two special permits. Major modifications to a special permit may be granted by a twothird vote of the city council and minor modifications to a special permit
may be granted by the building commissioner. Uh, I don't know if I really need to read the rest of this. The building commissioner shall have jurisdiction to determine whether it's a major or minor. And then it just talks about all the
same the typical language for minor modification what it means. Um three is site plan approval. Major modifications to a site plan approval may be granted by a simple majority vote
of the city council and minor modifications to a site plan approval may be granted by the building commissioner. And again, the building commissioner shall have jurisdiction to determine whether a requested modification is major or minor. And again, the discussion on
minor modifications and what it means. So everybody's okay with who gets to do what for um modifications and that is I think there's is there no in the special
permit is where that language of it has to be filed but that's not in the zoning we made it through. My goodness. Well, it is a little late. Um I wasn't sure we'd even get this far. >> I'd like to compliment you. That was very thorough.
Um, does anybody else have any changes that I missed that they want to go back on? We do have a deadline. This has to be
approved by July 27th doing the 90 days from the public hearing. Our council meeting is July 20th. So there was concern that if it had the
eight votes but there was somebody objecting to passage in one evening if this isn't voted on until that July meeting that we would be stuck. So councelor Oing had suggested if we got to that point we could have a
special meeting to then take that follow-up vote. We'll do whatever the council. >> So, I have no idea. There are only five of us here tonight. I don't know where this is going to stand for a final vote coming out of committee. On Monday, I
can move to suspend the rules to refer all of this to the solicitor. So, it would be on that July meeting for approval. But then it first it needs eight votes. If it gets the eight votes but somebody objects then we need to
deal with that aspect. If it doesn't get the eight votes then it doesn't pass as the as the zoning is my the solicitor said he would have to look at the language but my reading of Mass General law is it's still eight votes. The
residential piece doesn't qualify. Um, but we'll wait for him to add his he'll add a quantum vote when he puts this in proper form. Otherwise, at this point, I guess I need a motion.
Councelor Fatillo. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you know, with that, appreciate the conversation tonight. Fantastic job working through this. And I move to approve uh the zoning change with the amendments tonight pursuant that it's
then referred to the solicitor. >> Councelor Fillo has moved. I will second uh to approve this as amended with some of the questions that still might legal will still put it in proper form. So we we won't worry about that. Uh is
there further discussion on the motion? All those in favor? One, two, three. Those opposed. I'm sorry. Was that a in favor or opposed? >> In favor. Okay. So, the votes four zero.
>> So, as I said, I will report this out. >> 4. >> 4 in favor. >> Councilor Austin is not a member of the committee. He will have a vote when it comes to um the actual um final vote. >> Oh, yeah.
We are our fifth member is not here. Councelor Ducet is the fifth member of the committee. >> So procedurally you have a council meeting on Monday. >> We have a meeting on Monday >> and then we don't meet again until July which is the week before the deadline
for this which is sort of fortunate. So >> we just need to play it by ear. If you get your eight votes that you need but somebody objects which could happen. Um, councelor Oing. >> Yeah. So, just based on we've got a bond
that we've got to approve and the timelines have been suggested to do it by the 20th. We may have to move the vote up depending on what the timelines are. So, we could have a meeting before, but right now we're going to hold to the 20th to vote on the bond. May have to
move up. if we do that would facilitate this. But I'm more concerned about the bond for the school to make sure that we get that voted on properly and meet the timelines that the MSBA wants.
>> All right. Yeah, my understanding was the vote was supposed to happen on the July meeting. >> Yeah. June 24th. the MSBA will approve it and we should be able to >> to vote on the July July >> 20 20th meeting. >> But unless something I'm just nervous
that they're going to say they want it sooner rather than later. That's what I'm nervous about. >> Okay. Well, that So, if you have a meeting earlier, then this potentially could be on the agenda for that, too. So, all right. With that, um, >> what should we should I contact the
solicitor to discuss anything? >> Uh, he may be reaching out to you. He probably won't. I mean, this isn't going to go well. He'll be putting it in proper form once it's once it's moved on Monday to do that. So, he may reach out to you anyway. Um,
>> I've had discussions with in the past. >> Okay. So, is there a motion to >> councelor Fill >> move to adjurnn? >> It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor? 1 2 3 4. So, we are adjourned at 9:25.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.