Good evening and welcome to the 12th meeting of fiscal year 2026 of the Milton Planning Board. At this time, I would like to now call the meeting to order and begin by introducing the members of the board and our staff. Um, if you'd like to begin, Magfield, member, >> Jim Davis, member,
>> Cheryl Tagayas, secretary, >> and Meredith Hall serving as chair. Sean Fehey will be joining us shortly. Um, and for staff this evening, we have um, Avanti, you'd like to >> Yeah, Avante, assistant director. >> Liz Manning, planning director.
>> Great. Thank you and welcome to all. Um for administrative items, um we don't have any meeting minutes. I know Cheryl's working on those. Um so our future meeting dates. Um we have
currently um our next regular scheduled meeting will be on February 12th and February 26th. Um, normal meeting time 7 p.m. Um, and then >> recording in progress,
>> Liz, uh, your staff update. >> Thank you so much. Um, so the first item on my staff update is we did a coordination meeting with the DPW um, building department fire was invited um, and the conservation uh, commission as
well to talk about the uh, status of the permit review for 728 Randolph. So, I've got some notes out of that. I'm going to be sharing those with the different uh attendees and um essentially just trying to play the role of facilitating um communication among the different
departments and following up on any of the conditions of approval from the comprehensive permit for that project. um the um Trust Low Residences, which is another comprehensive permanent project, 936 Brushill Road, that lottery is now open for the five rental units at 80 80%
of AMI. I included the link in the um the memo to the um the information on the lottery. And I guess that lottery takes place March 23rd, 2026. Uh Boston to Blue Hills. Um there was a
very well attended meeting um last two weeks ago I guess the night the night of our last meeting. Um I attached the slides from that presentation that you take a look at um when you have an opportunity. They're soliciting public feedback during the month of February.
So if there was a if there was a desire to put together some comments or what have you, we can do that at a at a February meeting if that's what the the board would like to do. um >> before you move on. Yeah. Um I went to
the website and I didn't see a place to submit comments. Um but so that's one thing. And then the other thing is they had like six options in the slide deck. I wasn't able to attend the meeting. >> So um it seemed like a couple of them didn't
have bike lanes. Is that what your understanding is? Couple of those options did not include bike lanes. Honestly, I'd have to go back and look at it more carefully to see to see which which I I know that there were different different um options based on
prioritizing different types of types of uses. And I think maybe one of them was, you know, to sort of like grab that center area and kind of kind of utilize it as a as a shared pathway and and and what have you. So that may have impacted
the ability to to to have the two dedicated bike lanes. I I honestly am not 100%. >> I also didn't see a recording of that meeting and the slide deck is not a very good standalone. Like if you didn't attend the meeting, I don't I didn't find it easy to
>> um to the meeting. >> Yeah. If they recorded that meeting, that would be helpful. I because I I do think we should um provide comment on it. Um, >> sure. >> And I I think residents
should be I know there was a lot of information that went out in advance about that meeting, but maybe even a posting of a link to the presentation and a link to where comments can be sent for for residents as well as for uh us will be really helpful. >> Yeah, because my con my main concern on
that project is the removal of um the middle. >> So it's Blue Hill Parkway. So, it's um a way through a park, you know, that was um originally design designed by DCR
>> and it's the um the entrance and the gateway to the Blue Hills. >> Mhm. >> So, it really should remain more green space. So, I'm not for um you know, removing any green space or trees down the center. Mhm.
>> I'm all for bike lanes, increasing access, but not at the expense of um >> the the removal of trees and green spaces because you should really keep it as it was originally designed.
>> And and I would say that as one who rides that bike lane, um people drive fast. And there there was um a person killed on a bike on the Parkway where there's a white bicycle um down close to
I think the Elliot Street intersection. Um so I think I did see that part of the goal was to improve safety and decrease speed which I think is wonderful. So I I would like to know which of those they
think works the best for that for including a bike lane though. I I absolutely think it's how do you increase excess that they part of what they said was that people don't own cars and um you know people may very well be
able to pick up a blue bike and ride from Madapan Square and so um I do think safe bike lanes are really important. All right. All right. Let's let shared if it's a shared shared path. We should we the agenda maybe in our future we
could send that link out. >> Sure. Absolutely. >> Discuss that. Okay. Good. >> Uh so let's see. So there was a meeting with the shade tree advisory committee that was last week. Um and they had not they were not aware of the street tree
guidelines that are in the East Milton design guidelines. So I I offered to share that with them as a best practice. Um, we just sort of discussed in general similar themes around the green the green parkways and the assorted intersections and rights of way and how
that lends the pastoral feel to the town and you know in efforts to maintain that. Um, and so they were looking specifically for locations. So that would be another thing to talk about maybe on an upcoming meeting if there are there have been projects or if there
have been areas that you really think could be could really benefit. They're looking for some some feedback >> in front of the the Gddard school for their plants, their trees. The neighbors have >> um
>> continued to come back to say that they've died, right? >> Well, that's the responsibility of the Goddard school. >> Understood. But doesn't help the neighbors that there's no trees. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That's that's an enforcement issue. >> That's on Central Avenue. >> Um
>> Okay. And so can we get a um an accounting of um like what goes into the shade tree account. So you know when a project happens not just it's really not here but at um concom
um they you know when there's a removal a lot of trees especially in the do not disturb and buffer they um they collect the money. Yep. Um, so can we get an accounting of that? And then who's
responsible for spending that down and choosing the locations for those trees? Mhm. >> Because one of the projects that we worked hard on um is the memory care and you know something like 500 trees are
being removed and ideally the replacement of those trees should be in the neighborhood because that neighborhood is will be severely impacted. So my fear is that um someone who may not be aware of the discussion
had at the planning board that they might just start allocating or spending money on trees elsewhere in town. Mhm. >> So, it'd be nice to see I know at um at at the Milton's 350th anniversary, which is now probably 10 years old, but
they had an infusion of money for trees. And then >> and then it'd be nice to see how much of the that budget was spent, where it was spent, how much of it is remaining, >> and who's in charge of overseeing that.
I haven't seen any um budget or any line item. I think during town meeting we we maybe put some money. The DPW does allocate some money for trees, but is that the same account that
say like Concom gets >> or the memory care is going to pay into because they're going to write a sizable check >> right >> for those trees. >> Would be nice to know where that money actually goes, how it's spent. Good call. >> It all just goes into one black hole.
>> Good. >> Good call. >> Okay, Liz. Anything? >> So, last two items were just um Avanti and I had met with Alex Sasha from the climate action committee um to get updated on that efforts of that group.
Um there is a um grant deadline coming up March 20th, 2026. Um I think he's hopeful that the town will submit a grant to complete the climate action plan. >> Okay. So that is that for a consultant?
>> I believe so. Yes. To to to finalize to find I guess the the from the way it's been sort of characterized to me that the committee sort of on under its own steam has been able to generate a a good amount of this plan but this would sort of bring it over the finish line. And I
don't know if it's if it's, you know, technical expertise that that that they require sort of beyond the volunteers on the committee at this point. So that's literally the extent of of what I've uncovered so far. So Maggie, you're on
that. I thought there was funding that already. >> Um there's some funding, but they're also looking for grants. So, I didn't go to the last meeting because it was the same night as our planning board, >> but they're also looking for um funding for outreach because they do feel like
um >> they don't have the experience or expertise on that to do the community outreach. and we didn't want to go too far down a path writing a plan and then go to the um public and then get, you
know, all sorts of input and then have to rework all the work that we've done. So, um Alex, I commend Alex. Alex um Alex and um on Israel have really um taken the
lead on this committee. Um so your efforts are have been substantial and then the final item is a community compact IT grant which is being spearheaded by um Michael White out of building department but Ivante has been
working with him to figure out how to get a good plan together to digitize the planning board files. Right. >> So hopefully that money will come through and we'll have a get a get some of that underway. >> Fantastic.
>> Great. Do you um know if there's grant funding available um to have a system? I know other communities have a you can go to the website and if you're interested in information about a particular project and where it is in the in the pipeline
of like it uh ours like once it you can go to the planning board and find some information and then you have to go separately to the building department to find information but other communities it's it's a more streamlined way um to I
best to track a project and so if you're an interested neighbor that um you don't have to navigate to multiple departments like Hong Kong etc like it'll say where it is in the process
>> um in a sort of centralized database >> and I don't know what the software is off hand um but if there's if that's something that there's grant funding for I I think that would really be terrific.
>> Mhm. >> Yeah. My my my inclination starting the job was to do everything in permodize. So at least sort of like starting here moving forward. So DPW planning and building can are all in permodize and
can be in perodiz. I don't know about Kong. Um but that doesn't help with the older stuff necessarily, you know. So it it helps with the it helps with the current current permits to be able to track it that way through permitize. Um
I don't know how much is available to the public because I see I see through a different portal as a staff member. Um but um yeah so so I I think perodiz is can do some of it and then yeah so there's the internal use of it but then
there's also the public aspect of it. Like Maggie reached out to me recently about the 711 Randolph F40B and because of my longevity I had information about that project.
But it seems as if that pro, you know, that information should be available. So if that neighbor uh or if neighbors to that project, you know, wanted to look up some aspect of the permitting that they they'd be able to they'd be able to find it. Um right. So and I want to
thank Cheryl because I reached out um to the building department first, um Avante, who was kind enough to try and help find it, but he couldn't find it. I couldn't find it. I reached out to ZBA, you know, and I said, "Well, who else
would know?" and Cheryl got it to me like the quickest. So, I thank you for that. But you're 100% right. It's it's nowhere to be found. >> That was just a recent example, but there's other times I've wanted to go back and look at a permit that might be
10 years old. And um you know I have have found that with personnel changes like where the information lies um if it's like in a shared folder like it used to be a Dropbox folder where we
don't have access to those any longer and then certain one drive folders we don't have access to any longer. So I have saved a lot of digital records in my own Dropbox. Um, and that's where I
able to access this on 7-Eleven, but I don't have everything. And I wish over the years I would have saved everything. Um, so I would know that I would have access to it because it is a problem >> to go back and get it. >> So having everything in a place would be
wonderful. Um um so I I hope >> someone from some somebody representing the owner at 7-Eleven reported a document that piled every single decision one on top of the other and sort of gave like a a table of contents
because somebody must have needed it within the last like six months. So there's like seven there's like six or seven decisions all piled one on top of the other for that project. So that at least is on the registry website. Like honestly, a lot of times that's where I default first because I know that that's
sort of like when the rub hits the road with the financing and things like that. So, um but yeah, so that that project in particular is particularly complicated. I was trying to get a copy of the decision myself and and it just, you know, it didn't um it wasn't easy to
come by as it ended up being challenged and all the way up to the state supreme court. Right. The other thing is that I found too, and this might be just something you can talk about more good practice things, but the special permits don't always have the final plans attached to them, are all
the final documents that are referenced in the permit themselves. And so then you say, okay, well, here's the permit, but where's the do the drawings that are associated with the permit? Um, so I I
do think um given that there's typically changes in the composition of the board and staff over time that it's really having a central database that's easy to use would be terrific and I'm sure it'll be really helpful to the building commissioner who has to enforce them as
you as you said. >> Absolutely. And I know we've talked about that before. So that's all right. Good, Liz. Thank you very much. And um so we now um we have next on our agenda
um is public comment. And um I don't see anyone here this evening, but if there's anyone online um if you could raise your hand if there's any um comments from the public, we would take them at this time. Let me know if you see don't see I've
got three attendees but I don't see any raised hands. Okay. All right. So, um moving on. The next item on our agenda is the MBTA community zoning economic feasibility analysis with MAPC. MAPC could not make it this
evening. Um, and when I spoke to Liz, we thought, you know, before we button that up, it would be really good to have them um, join us before we voted to send anything forward to HLC. >> So, I had asked at the last meeting
about whether we could get them to provide a memo about all of the options. So, I know Liz sent me an email today and I'm hoping we can talk about that tonight if >> Yeah. So that if we maybe they can have the memo done by the time that they come to us.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Maybe with our um when we get to the some of the budgeting things a little bit later, we could discuss that and we can not keep Carol in um and we also have John Zikwitz on the call. >> Unless you'd rather discuss it. Well, I
would just since it's like $750, I'd just like to say that I think it's worth $750 to have that memo drafted. And I'd just like to make a motion that we um allocate from our budget funds to do
that so that that work can get in get going so that we can have it with the report for our next meeting. >> Would you take that? >> I'm fine with that. Yes, because I >> second that. >> That's great. All right. All in favor? >> I
don't know. It would be nice to have that. >> I hadn't heard the cost of it yet, so that's why I was um but that's great. Seems very useful. >> Um so, anything else, Liz, on that item that you would want to talk about or
we're going to put it on put them on for our next >> Yeah, I think we'll I think we'll be in good shape on the 12th. we'll have them here and we'll have closer loop with the affordable housing trust folks and and the selectman and what have you. So we'll have that memo. We've got the
we've got that um that engine that spreadsheet engine that that that goes to EOHLC. Um so I think I think we're we've we've checked all the boxes hopefully. >> Great. Great. >> Thank you for following up on those items.
>> Yeah, that's great. >> Okay. Um so next item um is our signed bylaw zoning amendment and we have our attorney from Katy Law Carolyn Murray here with us this evening and um we also
have John Zikowitz um who we can is he can we bring him in? Um he's in the room as a panelist. >> He's in Okay, great. Oh, there he is. Okay, great. Welcome John. Thank you for joining us this evening and >> Sure. Happy to be here.
Yes. Um, John Zikitz, if John, if you want to introduce yourself. Uh, >> John Zwitz, um, the current chair of the Milton Sign Review Committee. >> And Carolyn, sorry. Yes. >> I think I introduced you, but yes. Yes. >> Carolyn Murray from KP Laws Town
Council. >> Thank you. And thank you so much for quickly turning this document around for us. Um, so we've had a chance to sort of look at it. Um uh Liz and I had an opportunity to go through um the revised uh draft with John last evening. We were
able to go through and sort of answer some and get some clarification um on what is the current practice really of of what is happening at the sign review board. So, what I thought we would do is we could sort of quickly go through like
page by page as we did um last evening and John feel free to jump in at any time and Liz and Carolyn um and other members as well. Um I think on the first page um the only thing we did not talk
about last night which I actually had thought and just wanted to get the opinion of the board. I think one of the Carolyn's comments under the definition of billboard sign, you said we could really um we could just keep it um just
the first part of that without having to go into um which does not advertise a business or profession. Um, we could simply just say, um, from the revised version, um, we could just prohibit any sign greater
than 50 square ft or covering more than 20% of a wall area. Period. And I think that is sufficient. I think we could take out take out all the rest. Now, I know there was one or two signs that folks were questioning and we didn't want to harm or how big was this
existing sign? So, is 50 square feet sufficient? >> I think that's what John felt that that was that would be um a sufficient sufficient number. John, do you recall the size of 1200
Brush Hill Road? >> I don't, but I could probably if it give me a minute, I could probably find it. >> Yeah, I think I think I might. >> So, keep keep talking and I'll look in my files. >> Just I'm I'm just curious. >> It's about 100. It's what about 100
square feet. >> It's about 100 square feet. So >> that's if I'm if I'm if I'm reading that properly. Do you want to do you want to double check that, John? >> Yep. >> And I think they had wanted it even
larger. I I feel like a good number. >> Liz, what what year was that, Liz? Do you have a year on that? >> I want to say 21. Does that sound right? >> Could be. I've got I've just got the image up and
it's um it was 10 by can't read that well. I got I got to zoom in. >> Didn't this sign come before this board for the entryway to 1200 showroom? It was that we're talking about >> when they demolished it came because
they tore down the stone walls. >> So 14 14 and a half by 8 and a half. >> Okay, that sounds about right. >> Yeah. >> And that's on that's affixed to the wall. That's >> I can show. Do you want me to show it? I
actually have it. Yeah, if you >> That's about 120 That's about 123. But I mean that's a very unusual sign. We've never had anything. That's just because they had such a large wall. Mhm. >> Right. >> Yeah.
>> So, John, would would you have preferred to have something in there saying 50 ft to so it would not have been so large? >> No, we l we actually looked at it smaller and it just looked really odd on the building. >> Okay. So it was it was more because of
the size of the building and the wall they were putting it on that it it looked better at that size than if you if you had something really small it would would have been ridiculous. >> And I think maybe that plays into where there's discretion of the sign review
committee to allow something larger if it's if you think it's more appropriate. So maybe we should >> but this is a definition of a billboard, right? So I think >> um do you know John are there other
standard definitions of a billboard based on size? No, I don't because actually we talked about this last night and I was kind of surprised we even have a billboard signed in in our bylaws, but because we really don't have many billboards and
the ones we've tried the ones that have tried to go up, there's been a lot of um fighting against them, >> right? Which is I think what the prior town our planning director had said we should address billboards in our signed
bylaw. um where this would prohibit them. Um so the question is what are we prohibiting by definition and in this case it would be by definition 50 square feet or larger. >> So it sounds like then that would have
prohibited the the one you're referring to. So my question is on a prohibited one is there um there's always a room for >> appeal >> an appeal or a variance or no? >> Yes. prohibited. >> There is under your bylaw. Yes.
>> Okay. So, uh so that does give discretion then. >> Is there one under this bylaw? >> It's actually just generically in in the zoning bylaw. You allow for well dimensional variances or use variances are allowed either by state law, but you
also explicitly allow them in your zoning bylaw. Um, but you know, if we're looking to prohibit billboards, and I know we focused a lot last time on signs or size rather of the sign, a billboard
isn't so much defined by its size as it is by the fact that it is commercial advertising of something that is not on the same premises. You know, that's why I added that other language in that it's purely advertising, not associated with
or as accessory to what is located um on the premises and then also further regulated by the outdoor advertising board. So, if you add that language in, I think there's no question what you're looking to prohibit
versus if you just say any sign greater than 50 square ft. Well, then are we going to prohibit all signs greater than 50 square feet regardless of whether it is a true billboard pure advertising or whether it
is um you know a storage a self- storage place or you know a school or church that comes in and wants to put up a large sign. Um, and then where you do allow for dimensional and use variances, you
could see where a billboard company could really try to circumvent the whole process by saying, "Well, we're going to get a variance." Now, it's a tall hill to climb, but they could try to do it. So, one other thought is if you truly
don't want to allow anything beyond just a dimensional variance, we could build into this sign bylaw that there shall be no use variances pertaining to signs. So, that that gives you an extra layer of protection against a billboard.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. Because I I don't consider this a billboard. I mean, this is just a sign for the business that's within the building. >> Mhm. Right. >> So that would not be affected by this definition then. >> Well, it it would be if we were only
going to define a billboard as being 50 square feet or more. >> Oh, right. >> I think it needs to keep the other part of that definition. >> Keep the whole thing in. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. I just wanted to mention that.
>> Okay. And then the next um the next item devices um I think the oh the area of sides and that um we did learn that the practice
is that they only measure the measurements are taken from just one size side not the combination of both sides for for sign area >> which is a little different from what your current bylaw says in the business district. So is that that's
>> it's it's likely well I suppose it's not going to make a bunch of commercial signs non-conforming. They're actually going to benefit if they've got a double face sign now and their sign area has included both faces and now we're going to say we only count the area occupied
by one face. They get some extra sign area potentially. Wouldn't this replace the current um signage provisions in the commercial districts? >> It it would, but again, if you've got an
existing building that let's say you've got an existing business now and for the sake of argument, let's say it's got two 25 square foot signs and they're face to face. And let's suppose the maximum signage allowed is 50 square feet. Well, right now with that one face-to-face
sign, they're at their maximum 50 square feet. If we now only count that sign, that two-face sign is 25 square ft. We've now opened up an additional 25 square ft of signage for that particular business.
just as a hypothetical. >> This is a good this is a good example, the um the citizens one because there's multiple there's multiple signs on that on that property where I mean I'm not saying it's going to it's going to trigger it or anything but they it looks like they they took advantage you know
of >> the East Milton or the Milton Village. >> This is the East Milton one. >> Yeah. But just it's just showing you know some of like the some of the just the various signage like so I mean that just popped to mind when you made that comment Carolyn that that would be like a potentially
>> a a situation where you know by not counting both sides of those freestanding signs. I I I thought we counted both sides of freestanding signs but I think it's been I think the pro practice has been it's just the one side of the free freestanding sign.
That's what >> Sorry about that. >> And did John have thoughts about that? >> Yeah, that's Well, that's the way we've we've been reviewing it as this as the surface of one side. >> I I don't So, I mean, I've only we've only worked on two of these, but both
times the the max area it it doesn't seem like the It seems like a lot of times like the max area doesn't necessarily even get approached. >> Is that Is that fair? Is that a fair statement? Correct. >> Yeah. Especially when you have multiple signs. You have a lot of those buildings that have freestanding buildings that
their their uh length of their facades gives them a lot of square footage, but they don't ever come close to it. >> So, we tend to review it aesthetically. You know, does the sign look the right size for where it's going to be? Is it legible? Is it visible from a car? Those
are kind of things we look at. You know, I think my I think my experience is that a freestanding sign is is categorically different than a building mounted sign. You know, a building mounted sign does fall. It's only the face of the sign. But I remember permitting pylon signs,
you know, through the years and they measure the face of one side, not the face of both sides, I think, which is consistent, I think, with what John's talking about. Good. Okay. So, we'll just Are is everyone good with that? We'll keep it.
Okay. Side. Okay. Um or if this is now the time to speak if we want to change that. Um yes, we'll just have to have that. So we
we would just say if a sign contains two faces back to back only one face is counted. One face is counted towards >> that change the sign. >> Okay. Great. And then page two. Um there were
no comments on that. No comments on page three. The only thing if I as I reread this um on page three if there's no objection I know we say under applicability that we're not um regulating the content of any or the
message of any sign. I do want to tie this back to what we say under paragraph 1B about freedom of speech. I do think we want to just re-emphasize we're not regulating non-commercial speech under the first amendment because they're every now and again uh the ACLU will
send a love letter to local communities to tell them what's wrong with their sign bylaw. >> So I want to avoid that. >> Okay. >> Great. So I'll I'll work with that a little bit. >> Okay. >> Great. three.
Um on page four, there were just a couple of things that were highlighted. Um number on number three, for commercial uses, product dispensers and point of purchase displays provided they are not affixed to a business window or
transparent door. And John had just sort of asked, what does that mean? Your point of purchase displays, your product dispensers, what were we referring to in that? And we had sort of explained, you know, I guess I would say, you know, if we talked about
mannequins in a window or it could be a jewelry store, I was thinking a jewelry store and you'd have displays of, you know, some of the items in the window, but they're not a fixed. Um, did do we
want to add anything um more clarifying on those? I don't exactly know what a product dispenser would be. that >> I I was I I don't know what was intended here. I mean, my first thought was I was thinking of like a a soda or a water
machine, you know, that that you can see. Um but um >> yeah, I guess that would be a case. Yeah, a case with drinks in it or something. >> But that doesn't count as a sign. Even if it's plastered in CocaCola or Dani or whatever's on the side of it, we're not
considering that to be a sign, >> right? That is I think that's that' be a common interpretation everywhere. >> Yeah. >> You know a dispenser it's not a sign >> right? So these are under the um exempt
um for those who are listening >> and then under >> wait can I ask about exempt um before we move on what about the um island signs you know businesses take over >> adopt a highway. So, my understanding is Marina, the DPW director, wants to keep
the island signs, well, they are under her control. Um, and she approves them. So, I just want to make sure that um we're allowed to have them somewhere. >> I'll add that. I mean, arguably that could possibly be under number one. I mean, I don't know that they're
necessarily required by the local government, but I know businesses like to get the benefit of the good neighbor and goodwill. Um, so maybe under Rome numeral um 15 where we have warning
signs, no trespassing, slippery when read, maybe we could add the adopt an island signs there or just add a standalone adopt an island sign. Do you want them to be a minimum size? However, yes. >> Well, so I have um adopted islands signs
and um and I've had mine for quite a number of years and I have noticed that the newer ones seem to be bigger and they are more like job signs.
>> I was going to say >> not necessarily like true island signs. We have some that are very nice quality and then lately we've been seeing some that look like, >> you know, contract in the ground, ducking on. >> So, I don't know. I know um they they um
the DPW reaches out to the businesses to confirm that we still want to take care of the island. Um so, I don't want to step on their toes. So, is there a committee then that actually proves the adopt an island or says,
"Okay, this is the island you've adopted." And they look at the sign. >> No. So, there's um it's in the DPW and it's um a staff member um
and it never really was reviewed um or updated with any regularity. I do feel like the past two years so I have been receiving emails saying are you still you know confirming that you're still
you know taking care of this >> this island one island I have a sign one island I don't well two islands I I take care of three one I have a sign two I do current do not currently because they've been hit by um trucks um but I just am
wondering if there should be some type of parameters on them. >> Well, we could do something like >> But I don't want to overstep the DPWs. >> No, what I was going to say is we could say um we could add adopt an island
signs as approved by the Department of Public Works, whoever that might be. And that might change from year to year. Uh we could also say and provided the sign is no larger than you know we have some two square foot limits for other types
of signs. Is that reasonable or should we allow a little bit larger? I don't >> and that would probably be a double-sided sign. >> Yes, but we are only going to count a single face. >> So I that brings it down to that other
one where the size. So, while we're talking about a size, nine square feet, but then only a foot and a half by foot and a half that you fly, >> I was looking up. It seems like a standard real real estate sign is 18 by
24, which would be three square feet. So, >> that's what I was going to say. I >> Yeah. So I was thinking then that that could apply to this to the adopt an island size too because that seems and I still think it requires DPW because you
know si size size might impact visibility or location impact visibility >> and so you know what what might work in one island might not work in another island but I still think we could put a max of the of the realtor size sign
>> but I do think the average job sign is bigger than >> the ones that I have are about the size of a realer side. They have a metal frame. >> Yes. Yeah. >> But I was just thinking the only reason why I want to go a little bit bigger is to encourage more people to adopt an island.
>> You have a bigger sign. Your business is is a little well known. Um it just puts you out there more. Hey, look. I'm I'm adopting this island. And isn't it great? Here's my I mean, even if it was the 3x3, um I'd be happy with I I don't have a problem with the 16x 24. You said two square feet
>> 18 by 2014 >> 18 went a little bigger I wouldn't have a problem with it only for that reason just to promote businesses to take over an island >> it's a nice thing to do >> but then I was thinking there are
certain um I feel like there are some architects when they go and do a um put their sign on their signs tend to be much larger and they're very nice signs They're more
robust. Um, they're not just like the job sign, the metal frame job sign. >> They're very nice of 4x4s. They're just >> size. They're they're very very nice signs, but they are bigger. They're bigger >> and I don't know the size of them and
and I'm I was trying to think who where have I've seen them lately but there's a few that >> so temporary those would be >> those are job signs >> but they're tempor they would be under the temporary sign so maybe we should address that under the temporary
>> um >> well this is under 15 >> yes yeah is that what you're talking about right >> so I wouldn't Um, I guess I wouldn't, uh, make a decision about a size without consultation with
the PW director. Um, >> and there might be some islands that can't accommodate a 9 foot n square foot side. They have to be small because of what you said about visibility. Maybe we max it at nine, but let leave it up to the DPW.
>> Yeah, but this isn't necessarily just an adopt an island sign. These are job signs. like um >> you could you could break them out as two separate things, >> right? >> Yep. >> Like a con. >> But I do think it could be larger than
um the one and a half. I think it Yeah, the one and a half needs to needs to go up to two, right? >> I don't even think that I don't know why it matters if we just said three square feet. Like, do we care if there's a
>> Did Did you say, Cheryl, though, that the dimension was 18 18 by 24? >> That's what I looked up. >> 24 would be the two as opposed to one and a half ft. So, would it have to be 2 feet in either direction?
Two. Two feet in any direction. Yes. Yeah. So, that's going to get you to four square feet max. >> Square feet even whatever they use for dimensions. said it's a maximum four square feet probably. >> Well, you have both here right now. You could you could do you could do one or
the other if you wanted, right? But I mean, if it it's going to max out at four if it's two and in either direction. >> Yeah. A 2 by two sign in an island is pretty large. >> Yeah. >> I I just think we could put three square
feet in both cases without giving it dimension. a a linear dimension or a height dimension. It does. >> Yeah, because some islands are more conducive to a square as opposed to a rectangle or even an oval
or circle. >> But three, but that would be large for a 3x3 for an island sign. >> No, three square feet. >> Oh, three square feet. I'm sorry. I don't >> Yeah, I just think um >> where these are exempt, we don't want exempt assignments to be too large,
>> you know, in my view >> because they're not getting any review. >> Although we from what you say we can put in about the DPW because of the safety factor of that I think it's important >> but you could still limit the size too.
>> Yeah. And then that brings us back to 15. And I I agree. I think it makes sense to strike the, you know, no larger than one and a half feet in any one dimension. The question is, do you want to limit those types of for sale or for lease
signs to three square feet? >> I think the exempt ones. Yes. If somebody wanted to do a different kind of sign that's not ex exempt, then they can come and play. >> Okay. So, we're good with three square feet there as well. >> So, when we're talking those signs,
we're just uh talking about the information that because a lot of times they're on a post and a bracket and there's something hanging below the bracket. So, I'm assuming this is just the piece that's hanging below the bracket, >> right? >> Okay. Yeah.
>> Okay. Are we good on Okay. And then I'll just >> Can I ask a question about those? So, so those signs are they're like realtor signs, contractor signs, and we're going to limit them to three square feet. So,
they can be 18 in by 18 in. And if somebody uses this 24 >> that would get you to three, >> which is about the size of a realtor sign. The metal would stick in the ground. >> Yeah. >> Typical. >> Is that Is that enough? I the only reason I bring it up is because if not
anybody that's bigger than that, we're going to have so many science applications coming in and these and these are temporary. >> You know, these are they're they're gone 14 days after whatever's finished. >> So if we're too restrictive, we're just going to create a lot of work. >> It's a fair point.
>> Yeah, we don't want to do that. >> Is that what you looked up? >> I looked up another Yeah. So there was another sign. Let me just see it. measure um >> I can get exact measurements of what Cool Baker is the majority of the realtor sign I think a lot of the realtor signs
>> it's 24 by 36 is it says is another common size but that's >> that's pretty big right >> it's 2 by3 >> um >> I think that might be what has six square feet >> a six rectangle it's not square it's leaning towards the nine because of what
Maggie said about the contractor who makes his specialty sign it's a nice Look, um, do we want that guy coming in to get a permit to put that up? >> That's all I That's all I'm worried about. That there'll be a lot of applications for permits if it's too tight.
>> Right. >> So, I don't think having that option will entice every realtor to go out and order bigger signs or myself. I've got my signs already made. I put them on the lawn. I'm probably not going to go order big ones just because I can. But for the guy that already has it or wants to do
it, like I said, maybe the architect wants to do it in conjunction with the contractors to give him that option without making them. >> You're saying you want to just leave it at at the nine nine square feet and not put in any dimensional. >> Yeah.
>> Nine is but even if this has common is 24 by 36 that's six square feet. Nine is triple the size of what the the standard is. That seems pretty big to make it exempt. >> I think nine's too big, but I I just thought >> maybe six.
>> I just thought you don't want to go too small. >> And John, do you have a an opinion about that? >> I do not. No. >> Are those for what it's worth? That's what pops up
when you do a search of standard size. We say let's go with six. >> Yeah. I just thought three was too small >> and nine seems too big. >> Yeah. >> All right. Six. >> Okay.
>> And no dimensional restrictions, right? >> Correct. And just to bring your attention to um Roman numeral 17 um talking about like swapping out a component of an existing sign with something of similar size and
type. I know we talked about that at the last meeting that um you know the building commissioner should just be able to say, "Yep, that's good. Let it go." Um, but if anybody didn't want to gloss over that without any discussion >> and John agreed, John agreed with that.
Okay, great. That's >> okay. >> What if it's not just a component? What if it's a whole new sign >> and it's it does not exceed the current size? Can you just replace it with a light kind sign? Well, what you talked about last at our last meeting was
really, you know, what I visualize as being, you know, a location, a business that has multiple tenants and Dunkin Donuts moves out and Starbucks moves in and we it's just a one forone exchange in terms of the size of the
sign going on an existing structure. We didn't talk about like replacing the whole structure. I think replacing the whole structure is a different matter altogether. >> Okay. That's not what I understood from this one. I thought this was if there
was a sign and it was falling apart and they wanted to get a new one, the building commissioner could just approve it. >> That that would work as well. If if it was a case of disrepair, that you're absolutely right. or if a tenant moves out and a new tenant comes in and
they're just looking to put the same exact size on the, you know, a same exact size of sign on the existing sign structure, they'd be allowed to just swap it out. >> So that I do not have a problem with that. I think that makes sense. I do not
I think that makes perfect sense. >> Okay. I think it was your suggestion actually, >> but I'm just supporting myself over here. Try not contradicting yourself. >> So would that would that mean the sign
that if a sign a business moves out and a new No. I don't. So you're saying a a business moves out of a storefront and a new business comes in, they can just put up a new sign without an approval from the sign review. That was
>> if they're just changing the lettering. >> If it's the same size, >> different piece of plastic with different lettering. >> What do you talk about color though? >> Yeah, you could. >> I think it has to go back through the sign review. >> I think it does too.
>> Okay. If it's your same, but if it's Maggie, if it's her own person, like if it's the same business's sign and they're replacing it, repairing it, you know that the building department, but if it's a whole new business coming in, they should still go through that just
>> that same process. >> Okay. So, we can change this to go back to John's comment about repair an existing sign. >> Correct. >> Yeah. again by replacing it with same size, same type, but a new tenant going in,
>> it's for new sign. Okay. >> No matter how small the change >> basically if it's a new different company. Yeah. >> Yeah. Cuz we've had people come in and say, "Oh, you know, the a new tenant come in, new business come in and they say, "Oh, we're matching the sign." But
then the quality is not did not match what the last tenant had. And we, you know, we need to talk to them about that. You know, the the previous sign might have had like some kind of nice carved wood sign and they're coming in and putting up a piece of plastic with
some plastic letters. >> It's the same size, but it's a total different look. >> Well, we did say same size and type, but maybe that's not enough. >> That's That's not enough. So, do we want to strike it or just
limit it to repairs of existing signs? >> I think you can do repairs of existing signs. Yes. >> Cuz we've also had some of those come through where a a building owner, you know, their sign is falling apart and they want to replace it and they had to come see us when they could have just,
you know, gone to the building commissioner and just replaced it. Okay. >> All right. That makes sense. And then um Roman rule 15 um or excuse me 14
there was one thing that we discussed um last night Carolyn that um just where you have the LED price signs LED digital displays and neon tubes um we discussed that it's important to
actually say an LED neon. Also, we we had somebody to appeal a sign. >> Oh, sorry. >> Are you on page six? >> At the top of page six. >> Okay. >> What about five? Did we skip five? >> Sorry. >> Skip five. >> I'm out of order.
>> It starts at the bottom of it. That's okay. >> Yeah, because there's a couple things on five. >> Oh, yeah. There's a couple things. I'm sorry. I just had it out of order. I jumped six. So, hold that thought and Okay, let's go to five. Um under action uh the first uh sentence
you have here action John agreed with that the building commissioner shall within seven days he thought that was great on page five I have prohibited signs >> that starts with C with see prohibited signs
>> page five sorry okay if you want Go ahead. All right. Sorry. Under prohibited signs. All right. Let me that page. Um I think we agreed Liz, if you want to start walking through that. I'm just trying to
>> So the the highlighted the highlighted section, the number five under prohibited signs which talks about the sandwich or the A-frame sign allowed under section section 8H is not considered a portable sign. >> Um John, remind me. I think we were we
were comfortable with that. >> This the sandwich or A-frame. Yes. >> We tal we talked a little bit about like it would be good to know how many sign permits the the sandwich sign permits get issued every year just to kind of get a sense.
>> But um but yeah, I I think we're all comfortable that that that it's handled under that section 8H. And >> so before we get to the next yellow highlight, um I was thinking about number nine and
number 14. Um and I wanted to ask John about the sign prohibiting signs located on the roof of a building or extending above the building's roof line and signs fabricated with letters, numbers, designs, or images consisting of an
exposed or visible light source. Um, I'm thinking like at the one Adam Street, uh, the owner talked about possibly a brew brewery or a brew pub in their future plans. And just across the
river, the Baker Chocolate headquarters has a sign mounted on the roof. They're in lot in mill buildings like in um Fort Point Channel neighborhood, the Boston Warf Company sign on the top of the building. So, it seems like in limited
places it may be something that someone might be interested in either of these types of signs. So, I'm wondering if that should be by special permit rather than being prohibited. I want to see what your thoughts were, John. >> Yeah, I I agree because you're right.
Down at the U extra space storage, yeah, on some of those older buildings, it it can make sense to put it on like the cornice line or just above that. So yeah, by special permit probably is an excellent idea, >> right? Okay. >> Okay. So that's number nine and number
14. >> And this is um if it already exists, we're not removing that. >> No, >> because I have a sign on my building. >> Well, and this was prohibiting those and
I just thought in thinking about it, I thought >> So you will now be not informed. >> Yes. officially >> welcome. >> So, there were a couple other things highlighted at the bottom here, but which weren't addressed by my comment, but okay.
Did you have another was there another one? No, I just these items in yellow I did not discuss >> and I think so under number 11 it was to create public safety hazard or concern in the opinion of the building commissioner. I think you were good with
that John. >> Yes, that's the one I was talking about before. All right. >> Sorry. And then number 13. um signs illuminated by means other than indirect lighting such as reverse lit signs ex uh except by special permit
under this bylaw and that is where we were going to also John you wanted to add >> internally illuminated >> internally illuminated by special permit because there are there are you know we we don't want to make it the norm but
there are times when it would be appropriate to have something internally lit And so internally illuminated, we want to be by special permit. >> By special permit. >> Okay. >> But we're not prohibiting internally illuminated
unless we're saying that are we calling internally illuminated signs. Are we saying that they are they're not allowed unless by special? >> Okay. Because this is kind of awkwardly worded. If we say signs illuminated by
means other than indirect lighting. So it seems we're saying if it's a direct light, it's allowed internally illuminated or reverse lit needs a special permit. And I think John's nodding his head.
>> Yeah, that's what we're talking about. >> This could be better worded as opposed to but so I'll I'll work on words smithing that. Okay. But internally illuminated will be special permit. Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. >> Thank you.
>> So then I think Meredith you wanted to talk about >> then we were sorry that's Yep. Now I'm back up >> page. I don't know what happened. Missing a few pages. Um yeah this is where it was um John we were discussing last night. There was a case where
somebody um had come to the sign review board with a um an LED neon sign and um it was denied by the sign review committee and they went to the at the time the select board who the appeal process and it was approved because it
it was LED and our our guidelines had only said neon. >> Okay. So >> So you want to add le neon as well to this one? >> Yes. Neon or LE? Yes. And LED. Neon.
>> So, we do have neon tubes. So, you want to say or neon LED. >> Does that sound good, John? Is that >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I mean, I guess it depends on how, you know, are we going to get
caught again? You know, do we have to say neon, traditional neon, and LED neon? We should >> because that's what they were saying. It wasn't a traditional neon. It was an LED neon and that's why the select board approved it.
>> Okay. >> Okay. All right. That's that sounds good. Thank you. Um and then the audible signs we um um meaning signs that could be moved. Um
that was fine with that. Okay. Um And then we didn't discuss the pre-existing non-conforming a date on that really going to become um and we can we can put in
>> we could put the the date of town meeting do okay you know we could actually do that um >> which actually might be moving >> okay >> we'll hold up please but are we still looking at May? Yes. >> Yeah. I think it's just two days later
starting on that Wednesday rather than Monday, but I think >> so maybe the board hasn't finally Yeah. >> I'll still put in May 2026 and that should >> and we'll get that that should be Yeah. Within the next two weeks, we'll know that. >> Okay.
>> And then under um under E um the highlighted yellow, John agreed with that. I I did see that from your notes though that the sign review committee wants the building commissioner to certify
whether or not the the sign is actually allowed by right and also dimensionally allowed before going to the sign review board which is fine. I can I can add a sentence in there and then the application will go to the sign review board so we don't waste the sign review
board's time on something that doesn't comply. >> Great. That's John's nodding. >> Okay. So, the only question I had at the end of that paragraph E that's highlighted and I know I mentioned this in another section too where um certain
applications would go to the zoning board of appeals. I don't know what your practice is currently but do you want applications to go to the sign review board for recommendation before they also go to the ZBA? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. John wants to be able to give a letter of recommendation. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And that's what we typically do now. >> And they typically look for that from us. >> Good. Okay. And then I know in the um application
submitts, John, you wanted to add a cross-section plan. So, we could do that. >> Yes, please. And cross-section and attachment detail. Okay. And then under I um a description of the
type John was fine with that that they could just give a type of >> sign. We we might even when we redo I know um Liz took the first pass at the sign and facade guidelines. You've got a bunch of illustrations in there. I mean
that's going to be better >> than believe me than any lawyer trying to describe to the public you know what a particular type of sign is. It'll just be in the guidelines. So, >> okay. And um seven awning. Um John was in
agreement. We he we rarely get and they they really don't like writing on the awnings, but if they did, it would be just the word the the wording that they would take the measurements of, not the entire awning. So I I did address or I will address
that when we get into um later on we have the total sign area and how it's calculated. >> So I will something maybe it was before um so we don't so okay so I certainly understand we're just going to count the lettering
that's on the valance of the awning. So I assume we don't allow anything on the sides. And what if somebody wanted to put something in the center on the top of the awning? >> Yeah, we've we've had that happen before.
>> And and is that still considered part of the sign? If if >> Yes, you have. >> That should be part of the square footage. Yes. >> Okay. So >> any any advertising or graphics on the awning should be considered part of the square footage of the sign
>> but we limit it to the graphics itself or the lettering itself. >> Correct. Correct. >> Not the entire area occupied. Okay. >> Correct. >> This is great to be clarifying all of this and just putting it in so it's good practices and what's in the bylaw. Um,
so next on uh this page on page eight under action, that's where John agreed the building commissioner within seven days. He said that would be wonderful. Um and he also agreed with the 60 days
um period and and that allowed for um additional time if there was if it's mutually agreeable later that there would >> I I can add that in to make it clear. >> Yeah, because I I just do say at some point. Um >> yeah, it's under the sign review
committee section later on. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. So this was this was where I had I had pulled out that non-binding recommendation >> sign committee makes a non-binding recommendation to the building commissioner.
>> What line is that under >> under findings? It's actually um >> it says third paragraph down page eight >> because the way it actually currently and John you can speak to this
>> but basically when they approve the sign it is binding. So they've in um the way the process has been happening is they give the approval of the sign they come you know they have all the materials everything they approve it and then John
does it does the building commissioner just issue the permit based on your findings? >> Yeah we we send an approval form to the building commissioner saying it's been approved and then he can issue the permit. >> Okay. And if the sign review board
either >> if it's a recommendation but there's conditions or you recommend denial what happens? >> Yeah. Sometime it's it's pretty rare that we deny something. We and that usually requires a resubmission or then
they will um they typically appeal it in the past to the select board and now we'll go to zoning. Um, but we usually if we recommend it goes to the zoning board of appeals for approval because there are some there are some uh
areas in town where signs are not allowed by right. So those we usually they have to go to the zoning board of appeals. So we usually either recommend or not recommend and send that note to the ZBA. So the building commissioner doesn't get
to override the sign review committee basically is what you're saying. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So if you're agrieved by the sign review committee appeal to the ZBA. >> Yes.
>> Okay. I'll change that. And you have a set form that you send to the building commissioner John. >> Yes. Okay. That's great. >> Okay. Anything else, Liz, on on that? Did you have
>> I was just want to make sure we covered that. >> There was there was one note, if I may, um I think in from your um from Liz's email >> um talking about some having some flexibility for dimensional relief.
>> Yes. Um this is kind of it's it's intertwined with what we just talked about because of the role that the committee plays in terms of you know not that you know kind of veering away from sort of that
typical like if an applicant came in met everything met all the requirements as of right and you know building commissioner might be in a position where he would have to issue the permit. So we talked about that a little bit last night. the way it's currently structured, the current bylaw gives the
sign review committee sort of like quasi quasi authority to to do some dimensional varying and and what have you. Okay? Because I think of a dimensional variance and I think that goes to the zoning board of appeals. Not that you
couldn't allow the sign review board to have some leeway. Um, but I don't want to call it a variance because that has a very different meaning to folks under the zoning act. >> But when they appeal, say they did deny somebody and they appealed to the zoning
board, >> what would what would the appeal be? Would the appeal be the sign review committee's decision? Would it be the what would they be appealing? >> Well, I guess it depends on how we structure this. You know, if we if we give the sign review committee some authority
to vary the dimensions, are we limiting that or are we saying that the sign review board can do whatever they want to do? In which case, you wouldn't go to the zoning board of appeals. Or are we
suggesting that the sign review board could say, you know, in this instance, I know you're limited to 50 square ft total signage. You've come in with an application of 51 square ft and given your location or setback from the
roadways, it makes sense. So, do we give the sign review board some limited parameters to grant that type of relief? Or is it that the sign review board says we support the application for 51 square ft, but you've
got to go to the zoning board of appeals to actually get that approved. >> So, yeah. So, >> yeah. >> John, do you want to speak to this? You you use the example of sometimes >> Yeah. A lot of a lot of times, you know, we we
get the uh application there's a certain size they're allowed, but we look we look at a lot of the signs aesthetically how they fit on the facade of a storefront. And sometimes we want to make adjustments like line it up with maybe like the center of a window below or the edge of a window below. And
that'll change the square footage slightly. It may make it smaller, may make it a little larger, but we just want it to look right on the building. So for you know we would like to have that leeway to then force that person to have to go to the ZBA and add another 45
60 days to their approval seems a little tough for a minor adjustment. So what about putting it within a certain range of the requirement has they have flexibility but above that range goes to
the CPA because that could give um our protection against somebody coming in and saying well you granted it over here but you're not granting it for me you know
um Right. And and I think you do have to set some kind of parameters around it because it'll always be a moving target and that's exactly the situation you wind up in is but you've just granted that for the business across the street from me and
>> you know there's also a certain element of this you were talking at your last meeting. You'd like to be a little more business friendly about this. So we go from a sign review committee to a ZVA. you know, we're adding a whole other layer and it could be it could be, you
know, six months before somebody actually gets to put a sign up out in front of their their business. >> So, John, do you agree with having a range that and do you have a sense of what that range might be? Like um >> I don't I don't I agree with having a
range. I just don't know what it is. Um because I can't >> I can't think of an an a specific example. I said a lot of times we just want signs to line up with with elements on the building facade. So >> we make, you know, we ask them to make
adjustments to look better on the building. >> So it seems like to me double would be too much. >> Oh yeah, double be too much. >> 25% 30% 50% I don't know. >> I would think 20 would be fine. language
in the existing bylaw that sort of that that contemplates this, right, John? I think there's language in the existing bylaw that basically says like the sign review committee shall have the dot dot dot. I can't I'm trying to bring it up.
>> I don't have a copy with me. Sorry. >> I have it. It basically gives you guys that authority to I mean I'm saying wave dimensional requirements but I guess that's not what we're what we're doing. We're giving them the authority to
within a certain standard something like that. Well, John said 20%. So maybe that can just be I don't know. >> I hate when I hate when things are too prescriptive.
But I don't know. I mean, it could work. The one thing about it is I mean, in my view is if if it's discretionary and if it seems discretionary, it's when you can have one of those situations where someone challenges on appeal and they say,
"Well, you granted it over here." >> Yeah. >> That's twice as big or that's whatever. Why why are you limiting me? >> Right? and you know that you don't have if you say you give a range and you say well that's within the range.
>> So so your current bylaw simply says and again this is only as signs in the business district but it does say the sign review committee may allow additional allowable area for signs if good cause has been shown.
>> So it kind of yeah it's pretty it's pretty broad. It is pretty broad, >> which isn't necessarily bad. >> And you also have pretty tight standards now, >> right, >> for for for the sign review committee, right, in terms of what they're going to
what they're going to assess. >> So, what I've understood when we've done design standards and design guidelines is you want to be um you want to give direction. you don't
want to just say that it's it's consistent with the existing building or you you want to be more specific. I mean, I just did the um the webinar again on design review through um the ask planning training collaborative. I
think that's what it's called. Um and and again, that was a point. It wasn't necessarily signage, but it was design review on broad level. So I think having it something be too broad is a risk if you don't put
some parameters in. >> So >> it just leaves it open for someone to challenge I think. >> So you >> but if they challenge the >> challenge the right >> we have to set that up. Yes. Um so you
could do something like allowing a sign review committee to allow um an additional throughout 25% of sign area. You might also want to think about setbacks as well because I know John also raised an issue primarily with
respect to gas stations but could come up elsewhere that you know certain sites have to be at least 15. um and they would like discretion on that that you put that in there but say unless otherwise determined by well if
we're going to allow sign review board to have some discretion we could say to allow a 20 up to a 25% increase in sign area or to adjust the setbacks
when good cause is shown or we might want to we want to beef up that good cause aspect that you know you know what does that mean we're back to beauty is in the eye of the beholder something but um you know that might >> you know I can't think of I mean really
the setback and the size >> so I think you could tie it to the findings like on page eight you know for cause such that the science scale is determined to be in reasonable relation
to the development scale you know, kind of tie it back to the things that they have that we here, which makes sense. I think it's consistent with what John saying, >> right? >> Does that sound
play with that language a little bit and see what makes sense? >> I think you can tie it back to all of those. >> Well, at least the first two, the first three Not all of them. So, one other question I had again from the notes. Um,
you wanted to add a provision that the signing review committee must hold a hearing with an illuminated sign is proposed. Correct. They currently review um there's a public hearing for a need sign right now. So they wanted to
continue that process of still having public hearing lit sign. Um and then of course VBA was an internally led or you know special permit that they would also have their
own public. >> So it was indirectly Well, this is my my suggestion is that >> if it's if it's internally or reverse >> reverse
zoning. So, I didn't think it made sense to have >> Yes, that's what I was wondering. >> Especially with the business. Um so >> no it would just be one they they would not would not be a public hearing with
the sign review committee >> for internally liter reversal. Okay. >> They would not hold that public hearing. It would only be right John. Is that what you were saying? I'm having a hard time hearing
you >> that it would only be your the public hearing that the sign review committee would just have on lit signs but not the prohibited signs. Lit signs >> just in just indirectly
>> well currently it's all lit signs. >> That's current correct. That's current. We talked last night about not wanting to have competing public hearings. Oh, that was my suggestion. Maybe maybe we didn't maybe we didn't talk as much
about that. Maybe more talk about that more. Something's in front of the ZDA. They're they're conducting a public hearing. So, I didn't know if it made sense to have a public hearing with the sign of the committee as well.
>> I'm some you I'm not sure why the mic's not picking you up very well. And I'm getting a lot of echo. >> Oh >> yeah. Hold on. We're gonna try to adjust that sound. >> Is that better now? John, can you hear? >> Oh, there we go. Yep. Oh, perfect.
>> All right. Great. So, we'll just repeat that again. We were talking about um the public hearing process that you would you would have a public hearing on a lit sign, but if it was a prohibited under our prohibited that would be that the
ZBA would hold that public hearing. Is that way you understood it, John? >> Uh well, I mean it would it would come to us first >> because then we would write a recommendation to the to the ZBA. So, it's a matter of do you want to have two
public hearings or one? >> Right. >> Right. >> I if you have a public hearing with us, you start to get some feedback >> which would which we could then maybe incorporate into a recommendation.
>> Okay. Or if not, we just, you know, we review as as the sign review committee give a recommendation and then they would then get public comments at that point. >> What do you think? Personally,
I think it's a bit expensive and timely to expect that >> two public hearings, >> two public hearings. I mean, it'd be one thing if they were consolidated and that gets a little complicated, too. Um,
>> yes, I understand you get feedback, but you know, it's not cheap for certain businesses to depending upon where you're advertising. um you know there is a cost and a time associated with all of that. So so maybe the public hearing is with the sign
review board is only for um indirect lit signs and then but they still would hear and the sign review committee would still review other lit signs and then a recommendation would would then go to
the CVA with their >> and they would have the hearing at that point. Yeah, we could do it that way. >> Okay. Um, then moving to be,
>> excuse me, one moment >> because I didn't hear some. Did we did we uh get to the bottom of page eight in the comment uh for the special permits findings or variances that uh that uh it's more
appropriate for the sign review board. Oh yes, John agreed with you um Caroline on this that this could that this would be appropriate. You have it in two different places. The criteria. >> Mhm. >> Okay.
>> So we now have three special permits, >> right, for the zoning board. >> The reverse lit signs. >> Reverse lit. And there was a third one that Cheryl mentioned. >> The roof mounted roof mounted. We're going to add
>> So that So they're gonna So the the zoning board's going to move these two probably, right? >> Or maybe I don't know. >> It says special permanent findings or variances right here on page eight. Right. So that's right.
>> And then they were added on on page 10 to the criteria for review, which makes sense to me, >> right? Well, I mean, I could have a separate section that's criteria for review and cross reference it if we don't want to. >> All right. You don't
>> space twice. >> Okay. >> Cross referencing. >> That's good. I think we're trying to move towards that, right? Okay. And then under criteria for review under under
one in the event that there is a conflict between this bylaw and the sign and facade guidelines this bylaw shall prevail. So that language is in the event if this bylaw gets passed and we haven't updated our handbook yet.
>> Right. The bylaw still >> So what about the design guidelines and the business districts that have signage? um sections, how do they um interface with this?
The guidelines are going to have what whatever ultimately passes town meeting, the guidelines are going to have to be reviewed and brought into brought to be consistent with the bylaw. So, if we've changed illumination, if we've changed
sign area or if we the the double face sign in the business district is now only going to be one face of the sign counted towards sign area, any references like that in the guidelines would have to be updated. But in terms of any um like if an applicant came came
in and said, you know, the business district for Milton Village might have different requirements or recommendations in East Milton Square, for example, and they might be different than than this. You're saying, okay, they have to be consistent with this. But then
it it seems to me um there's still room for conflict like because they come to the planning board for a project and we're going to look at the design guidelines and the zoning. We're not going to look at the signage because that's not I mean
we're not going to look at the signage guidelines and the signage bylaw because that's not our purview, but we're going to look at the signage related to what's in the design guidelines like we've looked at signage review. Yeah, we should review our guidelines. I know that East Milton says internally lit
signs are um should not be it was something about >> discourages them should be yeah are discouraged. But >> so I I I think >> we should review >> if there's any conflict or any discrepancies between the two. I guess
you know this would have its um it would be take precedence, right? Maybe we should add something in our design guidelines that say under the sign section reference the signage bylaw or something that it mentions that
>> just defer to the sign review committee. That's what I would say. If we're making a decision, we look at the sign. >> We should we should address the final say, >> right? I think we need to go back and revisit both of those >> and maybe have Caroline come up with some language that we could put into our design guidelines to connect the
>> right those. Okay, that's good. >> Yeah, because we just look at this by line. We don't look at individual if there's some special sign in some other district. We haven't looked at those. We we look at this bylaw and our guidelines
>> and I think ours are very vague. They're they're sort of very general when I was looking at them, but we should we should have some language in there to reference this. >> There should be one for the entire town. We shouldn't have >> Right. Yes.
>> sign sign guidelines per district. >> Yeah. Okay. Um so back to eight. All right. N criteria. Um
the next was number two. Um whether the sign scale is reasonable in relation to development scale, viewer distance and travel speed and sign sizes on nearby structures.
And John wanted to add or works in harmony with >> Yes. And take out architectural elements. >> Yeah. Rather than saying enhance. >> Okay. >> Work in harmony with architectural elements. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Instead of define or enhance, work
with harmony. >> With >> you want to get rid of define as well, John? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. So it would read a placement serve to work in harmony with architectural
elements of the building. >> Got it. So then I think the next thing on that page really gets to 6A where we start talking about um setbacks for ground signs at 15 ft.
And maybe we've resolved that by including some language that's going to give the sign review committee some leeway to deviate either 25% of the area of the sign
and or um adjustments to setbacks. M >> so maybe if 15 ft is really ridiculous in some locations because it's going to be in the middle of the parking space for example. Um unless otherwise yeah
determined by the sign review committee. >> Recommended by >> or recommended. Okay. >> Unless otherwise recommended by the sign review committee. Okay. >> Um, page. >> Was there anything else on that page?
>> Um, >> well, back up. >> Back up to D5. We just talked about this last night a little bit where uh where it talks about sign materials, colors, lettering, style,
you know that we don't want, you know, >> because if a company comes in, they have a certain graphic package or logo, certain colors, we don't want to deny that just because it might be different from the building next to it. So consideration of of the company's
logo or logo. >> I'm not quite sure how you write it in there, but >> but having that as being one of the considerations whether the signs are compatible with the building design neighborhood context. I I guess what
what struck me in that was the neighborhood context verbiage >> because I would I I mean there are some buildings where there's four tenants in one building and all the signs look alike and that makes sense but they shouldn't all have to look alike from
building to building. >> So maybe you strike out neighborhood context in instead and then then that would make sense to me. I think we could add on to that, John, because when I think of neighborhood context, I think of, you know, a
historic like the lower mills area, you know, there's certain um res if it's in a residential neighborhood, for example, a non-conforming >> in the neighborhood context. Like Maggie's sign would have a neighborhood context. She doesn't even have a lit
sign, you know, you it adjusts to that. So I almost I like keeping neighborhood context but adding in something consideration of unique um the unique business um >> logo
>> or and unique business logo brand something brand. >> Yeah >> branding and logo. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you John. That was Yeah, we talked
about that last night. Um I think that was and then page 11 right away. Um >> can I go backwards? >> Oh yeah. >> I just want to understand what John was saying. And I think we you're you're hoping to have
>> you're hoping to be able to have a sign be influenced by maybe the sign on the next building on either side. Is that is that what you're saying? >> That there's that there is a cohesive look. Yeah. >> Not that every sign is going to look identical. Some some buildings do have identical signs, but but that there's a
cohesiveness. So, in in context. >> Yeah. John, were you were you hoping to just judge a sign individually based on the building it was going on? Is that what you were saying? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. I mean, we always look at the
surrounding buildings, but we we first look at how it looks on the storefront that it's going on. >> And if that fits the storefront, then it fits in to us within the neighborhood context cuz all the storefronts work together and then you have a a sign size
on each building that's appropriate. So, in that way, it should all they should all be similar. But no, as far as graphics and colors, I think there that should be up to the business, >> right? >> So, both can be true at the same time. I
think >> that's the only reason I paused. >> That's >> Do you think so? John, do you think so? >> I think they could be. Yeah, in my mind they can be. Yeah. >> To my In my mind, like I said, neighborhood context means more size to me. Size and lighting.
>> I see. Okay. Not not material type. >> Not material type. No. >> Okay. But how do you feel about that? Are you looking for a common material type? >> Not not to that level. I mean I
>> it's nice when we have, you know, a lot of like the Franny's Corner came out with a nice wooden carved sign, you know, but I don't think that every >> every sign should be a carved sign. >> We have similar material type repeating right across. So we do have a consistent
and we have consistent canopies and that was the choice of the building owner. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> But then but it's nice to have I mean I think Abby Park sign is great. No, you know they're all different >> the uniqueness of >> and the uniqueness of different signs >> but they work together like Abby Park
like all that whole strip >> to me all all works well together. I would say Santandere >> was not >> that side of the street works a little better together. Yeah, it's that that side of the street and the buildings are more historic on that side of the street, too.
>> Okay. Okay. >> I'm good. Just wanted to make sure >> those individual signs just give the neighborhood some a little extra life. I think a little extra interest. >> Yep. Yeah. I I like that too.
>> Um see structure. Um, yep. So, 10 page 11 under right away. Um, I think that was good except for sandwich or A-frame signs. Did you have anything, Carol? >> I was just going to note I know in the
notes um there was a really good point brought up about uh maintaining ADA clearance and absolutely right about that. So, I'll add that in here as well as when we the separate section on sandwich signs so that we don't have a
whole bunch of sandwich signs. >> Liz, that was under that was under sidewalk signs. >> That was further on under sidewalk signs was the accessibility, >> right? But we we we also say here for the right of way.
>> Okay. that you know no sign unless you know authorized by the government or public agency shall be located in any right of way. I think it bears repeating ADA clearance there. Not that I'm expecting our DPW to block a you know an
apron at the end of a sidewalk but these things happen sometimes. Okay. Um then down to jumping down to maintenance. Um John agreed with that. That's under the building commissioner.
Um and then under illumination, you just under the permitted by special permit. That's where we would just want to add internally lit. >> Right. And >> we also need to add the fabricated letters. >> And thank you.
>> The inside light source. I knew there was another one we talked about. And also the roof size will go here too. >> Okay, I think that was
that page. Follow business districts. Uh John agreed with this for the awning signs. the area >> calculated >> um I under the residential districts
the nine square feet so that seems small John I'm thinking like Winter Valley Fuller Village um house I mean those are definitely bigger than 3x3 and we did talk about that
because Liz was saying you know we have some um some of our 40B projects, you know, the entry some of those. >> Yeah, I think the Winter Valley, I go by that a couple times a day, probably. And I'm going to guess that it's it's
probably at least 6 by3, if not more, be easy enough to go take a measurement of it. Um, and that seems an appropriate size. John, are you familiar with that sign? Right. >> I'm No, I'm not. I've I've been I kind
of know it in my head, but I haven't really focused on it because we don't we don't review those signs. >> Yeah. So, you will be under this bylaw. >> Oh, I thought it says as of right. >> Well, the this is now applying to signs
in that are located in residential districts, right? >> The following signs shall be allowed as of right. So, if they were allowed as of right, would they be coming to us? >> Well, this this is a change from your current bylaw because under your current
bylaw, >> the sign review committee was just looking at signs in the business district. >> When we met two weeks ago, we had this conversation and at least the consensus then was you wanted the sign review board to look at all signs, >> right? because there's signs.
>> You can still backtrack from that, but >> well, there's signs that are I mean, there are many businesses that are located in residential districts, the Milton Marketplace, the 7-Elevens, dental office, that big building opposite the post office where the heart dental is, those are all in residential
districts. And so, um, it we felt as if it was important to capture those, >> uh, under your review. So, you might be busier than you were before. No, no. We we do re review businesses in the residential district and but those are the ones that we provide recommendations
to the ZBA. >> Okay. Well, uh we've reviewed like um the memory care facility, the um uh the
nurseries or the daycare centers. At least there's been three that Little Sprouts, the Goddard, the Gardener, they all have signs. They're all in residential districts. >> I don't know if those have been reviewed by you. Um, but the review
>> Yeah, we reviewed Little Sprouts. We reviewed Goddard and those >> maybe what's being added then would be the residential. But I also think well and then like Milton Hospital that those signs are are also
that the hospital's not located in a overlay district which is what might want to be but it's in a residential district. Would you have a recommendation for size? I think is what Cheryl was asking if that
seems small. I >> Yeah, I don't I'd have to go take a look at some of them and see what they look like. I think the signs for the 40BS might be on their applications, >> the drawing application drawings, right? >> Those aren't going to go to the sign review board, though. That's all going
to be the zoning board of appeals under the comprehensive permit. Um, I'm just looking for your current. >> What's your size of the sign? >> I don't know. Yeah, it's all in my >> I was trying to look. >> Is it bigger than
>> 3 by3? >> But it's very it's >> and it's probably closer than 15 ft. But it's but it's very it's very tasteful and the size is although it's a very large property too. So
this is about 3 feet I'd say and I'd say this is about 30 in maybe. So, >> I like your suggestion about Winter Valley because that that the density and
the in the busyiness of that site is a good proxy for the for the other 40bs. >> Yeah, if you think about Winter Valley, it's um it's senior housing, >> right? So, that's true. >> Fuller village is senior housing and
um there's a lot of unit is not that large. But it's not. >> I don't think it's three feet. I think it's wider than 3 ft. >> I think it's wider than 3 feet, too. >> So, maybe we should get the dimensions off. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And this is another one that has the
nine square feet and not more than three and a half square, you know, feet in any one dimension. I don't know that the 3 and 1/2 ft matters if you set a maximum square footage. >> No. Right. I agree. Aanti, that could be your tomorrow.
>> You wanted to get out of the office. >> And then you'll tell us that it's a 100 square feet. Well, that's way too big. >> No, I can go up and take some measure. I can go check some, too. >> But if you go tomorrow, you need to bring a shovel. It's probably buried. >> Right. Right.
>> I think it's up on It's raised um in a planting bed. stone stone planting bed. >> Um on the business district, John, I'm really curious about this because I was looking at the example of one Adam Street and it's there's one they submitted for Muscle and Flow. Avanti um
sent me those today. Thank you, Avanti, for responding to my voice message so promptly. But that facade, it says 93 and 1/2 ft wide. And if you use one and a half square feet for each horizontal linear, that means you're allowed 140
square ft of signage for that facade. And the muscle and flow sign is a is 20 square ft. So it seems like 140 is a lot, I guess, which is something you mentioned earlier. Um, so what if somebody came in
and said, "I want to put 140 square feet of signage on here." Do you do they have standing to say no to that? Really? >> Yes. >> If the math I mean, if the math works
out as this is currently written, no, I don't think they have any authority to say, "Oh, no. You can't put up a sign that technically complies with what's in the bylaw. So that's where I think that really
needs to be paired back. >> Can we listen to John's response? It was a little different than Carol. I think John was hoping >> I mean, well, that's where we review a building as far as aesthetics and what
looks good on the building. I mean, just because they're allowed to have 140 square feet doesn't mean it looks good on the building. So, we usually work with the owner and we've uh we've never had any push back about, you know, how a
sign fits on a building, where it should go. And, you know, mo, you know, I can't say it would never happen, but most building owners, they they want a building that looks they want a sign that looks good on their building.
And just because you can have something that large doesn't mean it's going to look good on the building. like we had no issue with Muscle and Flow. They came in with very nice signs. It was a very easy review. >> Yeah. I'm just thinking about the um the
legal grounding for that because let's say Extra Space Storage was bought by some different storage company and they wanted to apply this bylaw to it. They could put a lot more big signs on that building. >> Yes, they could. >> And you might say no and then they'd
say, "I'm going to appeal that." And if the ZBA says no, they could appeal that too, right? >> So >> if the bylaw says they can have 140 square feet of signs, the judge is eventually going to say, "Town in Milton, that decision was arbitrary and capriccious because your own bylaw
allows a sign to be this large on this particular type of site." So >> So I think we need >> we think about shrinking this somehow. >> Yeah. 100. I just raised that. >> But but then does that shrink it on a
you know when you have a smaller storefront >> then that's going to leave them with a minuscule sign >> because it's it's based on the building size. >> Right. Right. And it's and it's all the signs too. Right. >> Right. So if you have a small
storefront, >> it's just that, you know, where you have a couple large buildings in town that it skews it. >> Yeah. You're not you're not going to have a lot of those sort of like large blank faces because other things will limit,
right? Other things will sort of limit where you can put the sign. So you need to have that sort of like large blank space to max out the size. Well, not I guess not technically if you're allowed know if we stay with that same example. If you're allowed 140
square feet and they want to put a sign over the windows. Yeah, we could the side view boards could say >> well you can I don't see where it says you can't >> you can I don't think you can cover >> cover the windows but looking at the one
Adam Street there's a lot of masonry so I mean they could do some vertical banners they could do something across the top the current owner wouldn't but you know we're talking about a bylaw >> and so like if you look at this like photograph right there's a lot of blank
brick on that facade that somebody might want to take advantage of. >> I don't think >> Yeah. And they could. I mean, if if if they wanted to break it down into smaller signs and put some banners and put something else if it looked good. Yeah, that could be approved. But I you
know, I don't if it was one large sign. Yeah. I mean, I don't I don't know how we stop that. But yeah, 100. If they wanted to take that and break it into smaller signs across most signs don't reach the limit. Is that true for the smaller uh facades as
well? Because if that's the case, then I think we could pair it back. Um but if you think that majority of the signs, >> so maybe that's something we should look at. Um maybe it's in your applica in your if
it's in the applications and you have a record of the applications. Not that I want to add things to Avanti, but you know having an kind of an inventory of the signs is something I've asked about before. And I I just feel like
we we are keep our ZBA busy in Milton because we have so many pre-existing non-conforming houses that anytime they want to change, they have to go to the ZBA. And um you know, I just would hate to have to um
uh well, this wouldn't trigger the CBA here, but I I do think uh we should be mindful of what we have and so that we kind of can consider that and what we put into these regulations. >> Yeah, I shared I shared with you guys
last minute about 13 of the of the packages from the most recent ones. Um and pretty much all of those have all the dimensions contained within. So that at least gives sort of like the more recent examples of what is getting in
front of the sign review committee. Um my my inclination is that is that the is that the the the two square feet or the two two the linear footage times two is is way way beyond what most of these
people need. So that's and then the Starbucks was allowed to do some window coverings as well, which I thought was kind of interesting. I took a ride by there. So they've fully they've wrapped their windows on the side of the building,
>> the side that faces um Abbeby Park, >> right? Because it's like a car down to the bathrooms there. >> Yeah. So that would be that that would be one where maybe they're maxing out because if they're covering those full windows there, they might have maxed
that out. >> Yeah. And there's an example where they took the square footage and broke it down into smaller signs around the building instead of one gigantic sign. >> It looks good. I like it. I like how they wrapped the windows on. I think it
looks cool, but maybe not everybody likes that. I don't know. >> Well, it it made sense because like you said, we want we want people walking down the street to be able to look into the through the building storefronts and see the activity inside. But on that side, it's a carter down to bathrooms or
back entrance. So, it made sense to to cover those windows up. Mhm. >> And ju just like we allowed the uh the uh wall mural on the side of uh of the restaurant across the street. Yeah. In Abby Park.
That was just such a nice idea. It made sense to allow it. >> So, should we keep it for now and then think about this and try to get some And yeah I >> or do we think we can reduce it? >> I think we should reduce it but by how much I think it
it would be good to understand whether any of the applications or how many of the applications have used it all for these smaller ones that John referenced. >> Yeah. What is sort of this normal standard
>> and then on the um >> All right, let's let's >> I'm I'm on to the building or the signage size. Um on the next one as well, the total area of 50 square feet for any one business. Do you think you've reached that on on many of the
businesses, John? You think that's >> I would say no. >> Good number square feet. I would say we've not reached that size. >> This is on the principal signs. >> But again, does wouldn't that go by the
uh by the formula? >> I'm I'm not sure what the difference. >> Certainly, it certainly could go. I, you know, this was the the draft that I think your former planning director had built some of this language into that flat wall signs would not exceed 50
square feet. Maybe that makes some sense. >> Well, this is a total area, so it's not so it could be comprised of multiple signs, right? >> Well, this is the one under principal signs. It's the that you're reading is the total area of all flat wall signs,
>> right? flat wall sides. Okay. >> But but if the bench if by the formula they're allowed more, >> right? So this would just be if they had a flat wall sign as one of their signs,
but it all goes into the calculation of their total sign area. >> So maybe we don't need this paragraph. >> Yeah, I'm not sure what it does for us. I I like the no more than two principal signs,
>> but I'm not sure about the size portion of it. >> I think it limits those limits those big signs, >> right? >> Especially if you've got a big open wall. >> Limits those big signs like the self storage and the healthcare and the it must have been a couple of
them that came through, >> right? >> So that's what that that >> Okay. So >> I think it's good. >> Okay. So do we think 50 is a good number then by 10 for example pretty big >> and the healthcare one is is 123 square
feet it is okay >> and extra space storage is a lot larger than 50 square ft >> and I think that I I think I'm good with that because I think that when you get into that large of a sign there should
be a special permit on that. I think you don't want that to be the norm. Size of extra space. >> So that's going to be another special permit because right now it's a variance. Right. >> Right. So that's going to be four. That's going to be four special
permit for a larger wall sign. >> Well, we we don't that's not in this draft, but that sounds like what's being suggested. Yes. or just prohibit it. Just >> Well, you always have the option of a variance. Yeah, a variance. It would be
a variance. Even if it's prohibited, it's it's all there's the option of the variance. >> But the variance runs with the um the building. So even if there's a change, still goes with the building. So it doesn't give us the opportunity to
review Is it? >> Well, if they're making any change to the sign, we won't >> we won't. >> So, maybe that should be special permit with a recommendation of because that's a unique building because of the size of
that building and it's set down low and its location set back off the street, far off the street. So, they really they wanted to capture, you know, for people to be for it to be visible. So, I think I thought it was too large when it went in, but I can see why they would want
it. Well, you've got that 25% discretion. So, what would that get you up to? If the sign review committee was like, "No, no, no. They should be able to go 25% above 50, right? Did we talk about giving them that sort of discretion to potentially
>> We did, but I thought I thought what I'm hearing is you actually want to go less than 50 square feet on the wall." Oh, no. I'm good with 50. Yeah. But no, I'm not saying to go smaller, but Well, >> well, I guess I guess what you're saying is you're not looking for them to be able to increase it by 25% by the sign
review board. If anything, >> the way it's written, the way it's we're talking, it it would apply to this. >> I would agree with you. Yes. Yes. >> 10 is big. >> So 25% on 50 is what? Like 12 and a half feet.
So 62 63 feet. >> I mean that size is appropriate for an extra space storage type building but it's not >> it's Yeah. Yeah. >> So maybe we should reduce that and then give an allowance to increase.
>> But again this is also all flat wall signs. >> Yeah. >> So think about you know a business that's on a corner. >> Right. All right. So 50% or 50 square feet. What do you think, John, about that with 25%
increase possible without a variance? >> I I think it's a monster sign. >> Monster sign. >> You know, you got a you get you get Abby Park. You get Abbeby Park and you put a 50 square foot sign on there. That'd be huge.
>> Yeah. I mean, let me look at the other ones I I did here. Um, >> will they be limited though? So, Abbeby Park would be limited. Are you talking about the sidewall where the where the mural is? >> Um, they have >> something like that.
>> They have they have two walls. So, you know, would that mean they get two principal signs and if and if that would be total area. So, if they wanted to put two signs, it' be 25 square ft each. That'd be okay. But if they Yeah.
on that the blank wall facing uh facing Starbucks. That's a that's a really big sign. But see, why wouldn't that go back to the the dimensional requirement, you know, you know, for each horizontal lineal foot you get?
Of course, on that building it might be bigger because they have two sides. >> We we could do that too and and cross this paragraph out entirely. Yeah, I don't know. Well, it seems like we would
what this does was would be discouraging someone coming in with a really large sign. I mean, if by saying that there's a limit to how big one sign can be. So, I think conceptually that's a good idea. >> Yeah, I think conceptually you're right.
If there's a certain size sign, it could trigger a special permit or something, right? But then but then that if that's but would that then allow anyone to go up to that sign without a that size without a special permit? That's what concerns me.
>> Yeah. So, is there a square footage that would you would be comfortable with setting that limit at if it's not 50 square feet? Yeah, I'm not sure because then you you don't want to just be triggering a bunch of special permits either,
>> right? >> So, why don't you just stick with total sign area in rel and whether it's stands at 1.5 square ft for every horizontal foot of a building facade. Maybe you tweak that,
but a larger building is going to be entitled to larger signage. Smaller building less, >> right? >> We're not locked into pick a number. Which one do we like? >> Right. >> Yeah.
>> Makes sense because that 50 square foot it is the way it's written out is applicable to any building, right? So you like the idea of no more than two principal signs allowed for each business that can stay in but can remove
this requirement, right? But I'm fine with that. >> So strike the first bullet point. >> Yeah. First bullet point. So, what's going to dictate the square footage then is
the length of the building, right? And the one and 1/2 square foot allowed per horizontal foot. >> But I think that we should adjust the one and 1/2 square ft down. But I don't know what that number should
be until we we look at some of the other signs that have been approved. >> Yeah. Yeah, I know. I I'm just thinking, you know, some some of these some of these spaces are pretty narrow, not very wide, right? >> Yeah. A lot of East Milton has very I mean, the buildings are large, but the signs are very small.
>> Yeah. >> On the buildings, >> but as John said, they they rarely they they they rarely hit the >> They rarely hit the the um allowed amount. So, it seems to me we could reduce it just to protect
against somebody coming in with something that is that total amount that's allowed which could be quite big on some of the big buildings. >> So Cheryl like some some tenant spaces can be as narrow as 15t wide right >> some retail tenant spaces. So a 15t wide
space at a foot and a half 22 and 12 square feet. >> That's still pretty big. >> Yeah, I know. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying it might be too big. I'm I'm agreeing. I'm just I'm just trying to do some math to think about when when you're talking about reducing it. So let's say we could do a little
>> inel on what's the craft and crew sign it area because that's a narrow facade and the little business next to it >> is a narrow small building. So, you know, central lab businesses are small business. >> William James has a small. So, if we got
a sense of, you know, some of those are newer, John, you may have in your records, too. Um. >> Mhm. >> But those are the ones that you could test on the small to see if it >> one and a half is the right thing. And so maybe you, you know, you say, you
know, one and a half square feet per each horizontal on buildings up to 40 feet in width or 50 ft in width, whatever the width is. And then you could say for like the ones like this, which is, you know, 90ome, then it's
different. That could be a way to handle it. But if we haven't even used a one and a half square feet per horizontal on those small buildings, then the total that could come down for everything and then
even more so on the the bigger building. So Albario is 12 square footage is 12 ft. >> What's 12t? >> Albario. >> The square footage of the sign is 12 feet. square footage of the sign is 12 feet. >> Central the word.
>> That's the one in the little where the Sullivan insurance is. >> That's central. >> Yeah, >> that's central. >> Yeah. Central a business district. >> Business district. >> Yeah. >> So that's 12 square feet and that storefront's probably 15. Might be 20.
>> Yeah. Even if you even >> So it' be 40. You'd be allowed 40 there. So that So that sign is 12. And that's pretty that tracks with like the deluxe nails and it tracks with the um so it the Franny's Corner >> a quarter of what they're allowed.
>> Yeah. So this one and a half is way too much then. >> Yeah. Even a foot might be too much. You know like I was thinking about 15 feet. 15 lineal feet at a foot is 15 feet. It's a 3 foot by 5 foot sign. That's big. >> Big.
>> I think I could 75. Central Liquors 14T if Elarios is not a small sign for that facade. >> And if that's a quarter of what they're allowed, >> but that's but that's but that's everything though. That's everything. So
there could be some situations like like that citizens bank where they had multiple signs. >> So it's it's it's everything. It's not it's not just the um you know it's not anything in the window. It's anything if you have a secondary sign, if you have a pilein sign, you know. So, so it it does
seem like the corporate brands max out from what I've seen. They they probably know how much advertising they can get on their on their building. >> And so the smaller the smaller people are are are doing the you know the the 12 square foot sign that they can afford
to put out. So in in my >> that's what I was going to say probably cost. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. In my day job uh office as an architect years ago, we partic um were hired by the city of Lawrence and the
city of Boston and their main streets programs and a lot of it had to do with signage and storefronts and there was always they always ran workshops for business owners who thought that more signage was always better and it wasn't the case. they, you know, so you know,
corporate, you know, they've they've got their standards, but it's not always the best, you know, and they survive in places like Cape Cod towns where they have to do a lot less than they do in strip mall locations. >> So, um
I think lowering this is makes sense >> and at least in half because it seems to me that is still going to be ample. And then um it'll show that we're not
necessarily encouraging plastering the facades with signs. >> So 75 change that number >> on anything over a certain size or on just across the board. I like anything over a certain size idea, but it would
go across the board. I think it would I still think it's worth kind of testing it out and seeing how you know how how many signs have are they all at a quarter of what they're allowed and if they are then you know maybe we don't
need to have a gradation. Um, >> but if some of them were hitting it and others weren't, then maybe a gradation would make sense. >> And we should do a test, I think, on maybe that muscle on the muscle and flow to see what size sign that is and how
many litter feet linear feet because it could be we could say and for a building over a certain size, we reduce that >> because this is too I mean >> exactly. >> Yeah. >> We want because if you look at the you
know, on the other side that JD's purchased where Eclipse hair, you know, Eclipse Hair Salon, those are not big signs and it's a massive building, >> right? >> So, >> yeah. >> Well, well, do we some of these >> suggestion what? Well, like Muscle and
Flow, that's really large because it has it has two facades that run along a street front. So, that gives them a lot more linear footage. So, do we do something that if a building has two street fronts, have them have a lesser
percentage? >> I think you know what I calculated for this was just the Elliot Street I mean, uh, sorry, it was the Adam Street facade. So, I didn't even calculate what the Elliot Street gives them, but the
Adam Street gave them 140 square feet >> and the Elliott would give them more. Right. >> Yeah. >> So, I I mean I I think it's makes sense to have signage on both facades because you're people coming from two different directions would see it.
>> Correct. But I I think um that that because it's such um a big building and there is blank wall, they could use that total area. But if we said more only two signs, then maybe
they would never reach it because they otherwise they'd only they'd be covering windows, right? So we do have that >> that that limiting feature in here. You're also limited to where you can place the signs. >> Makes me nervous because you look at JD
Wild across the street at one Elliot when he put signs on the Adam Street sign and the Elliott Street sign and then around the corner on >> Hi >> High Street. >> Yeah, I see it seems to me two signs per facade makes more sense than two signs total
>> because this building could have this this building could definitely have more than two signs per facade given its size. Oh, another facade. That's that's like avoid. >> Well, he does he does they do have two signs on muscle flow. They have one on
each each facade. >> Yeah. But does it I'm just curious is this this what we have on page 12 um now says no more than two principal signs for each business. So, I'm
thinking that it should be two principal signs per facade for each business. >> No, because then you No, because then you have >> per street facade. >> Per street facade then? >> Per street facade? Per business?
>> Yes. Per Yeah. If a building has two sides, I think it could have a sign on each side, but we don't want two signs if it just has a single storefront. >> When you're looking at it, you don't want two, >> right? So, I'm just looking at page on page 12 under business district B.
>> It says no more than two principal signs shall be allowed for each business establishment. So, that's for any business. Right now, if it's a single facade business, they're allowed two signs, >> which >> if you're looking at a building like the one Adams, which has two facades now,
now this would limit them to one size, one sign per facade. So they're getting a business establishment. >> Yeah. But they're multiple tenants then, right? >> Yeah. But they're getting less signage available to them as a corner building
than they would be if they were an infill building. >> Is that what we want? But I but I guess the definition is what's a princip Oh, principal sign may be a flat wall sign sign attached to a wall but projecting out or a free sanding sign.
>> I don't think an infill building would want to duplicate signs on the front. You typically would just see >> William James. You wouldn't put William standing sign depending. Yeah, if they had the if they had them.
>> If you think about the signs that uh Liz showed us for is citizens. >> They have a lot more than two signs. That's for sure. >> So, I think it's good to limit it to >> But they also need more than two signs.
You know, they need a sign for the ATM. They need a sign into the lot. They need a sign out of the lot. They, you know, they they >> are primary. >> Well, is is that a principal sign though? Is that you know ATM? Is that a principal sign? I would say no.
>> I would say the sign that says citizens is the principal sign. The sign that says ATM is not a principal sign. >> Oh, that is how it's defined in the front. It's not. So, do we want to make the change or do we want to do we want
to wait until we do some measurements to change the to 75? >> I think we should do some analysis because you know I know I know we got rid of that 50 square feet but if your building was 66 lineal feet you'd be back to that's 75 you'd be back to a 50
square foot sign. Do you know what I mean? >> Any anything bigger than 66 feet is going to be bigger than 50 feet if we gave them 75. All right, let's do some calculations on that. >> I think we should study it. >> Yeah.
Do that pretty easily. Moving on to page 13. There was nothing else on on 13. >> Did anyone have anything? >> Um, a projecting sign >> shall be no more than 12 feet in area.
That seems I guess I'm thinking of a projecting sign as blade sign. The blade signs 12 square feet seems large. Let's say 2 ft by 6 ft. That may not be large again on a one Adam Street building, but it would be
large on a building like where Elbario is. >> Yes. says this has a different this has a 0.5 square foot for each horizontal linear foot allowable area of a projecting sign. So this is so this is tied to the to the to
the size of the building >> but 12 square feet >> that's capped at 12. So so.5 of your square foot. So, so 20, if you had a 20 foot wide
storefront, that's going to that's going to limit you to to 10 square feet. So, it's so it's it's it's contemplated. I think that's how that's how I'm reading it. no more than 12 square ft.
>> So if it has to be 10 ft above the sidewalk and it can be no more than 20 feet to the top of the sign, that means it can be 10 ft tall. >> Yeah. So one one by could be one by 10. >> So it could be one by 10. I mean, if
somebody really wanted to do something funky with like a like a, you know, name of the business this way in in a single row, it's possible. It's larger than most uh say like village business district blade
signs are. you think of >> there's a couple. >> How about in the guidelines? Did there show one in there? >> Yeah. Usually we've seen the blade signs on the second floor of of a a two-story business.
>> Do you recall roughly what those sizes are? >> I do not. >> The guidelines. I'm looking the guidelines to see. size. >> We don't have too many of them. Isn't there just one down on the muslin flow building? It's the only one that
>> can't be too. >> That's not That's not a big one. >> When you think about like a lot of business districts that people find active, they have play times. >> Yeah. >> Charming. >> Yeah, that's what I'm trying to think
of. um over by where Milton Kito was. What is that? There's a couple of places. >> I think there's a couple in East Milton. >> Yeah. On Adam Street. That's what I'm trying to >> right
upstairs. >> And that's what like a >> maybe a two by three. >> It's not big. Maybe we should get a measurement on. >> So, and all right, I think we should look at that. And then in secondary signs, the same secondary signs is
allowing one square foot for each horizontal linear foot. This is getting to what I was talking about a moment ago about two facades, but we just were saying we should be less than one for the primary or the
principal. So it should definitely be less than one for the secondary. >> Right now for projecting sign it's um shall not be more than six square feet in area on each face. And this is one area where the bylaw if it's
double-sided each face counts in computing the sign area. We're now not going to compute both signs, both sides of it in the sign area. So I think that's where you get the the 12
square ft here as a total. >> Yeah. And it looks like most of this was sort of scaled back off of the existing two two square feet per or time two per linear square foot. Looks like they kind
of scaled it all back from there. So the 1.5 and then the 0.5. And so if you want to scale back that initial number from 1.5 to one, then the rest of it probably scales back to or 1.5 1.5 to 0 75 because you guys were
talking about 0 75 as well, right? Five I think is even. Yeah. >> So that would be more than half of what's currently allowed. But I'm just thinking if the concern is that every change we make potentially
starts to render things non-conforming, if you stick with six square feet in area, which would be currently allowed, you're not really rendering any of them non-conforming. >> Right. >> Right.
>> That makes sense. And again, would be consistent here and say that we're only counting one face of the sign for purposes of sign area, >> right? And anyone who's non-conforming going forward has to go to the zoning board,
>> right? Whereas in the past a legacy business might have been able to come in and swap something out. Yeah. Just by going to the sign review committee. So, it's just something to think about. problem has been there's a sign on the building in East Milton that's really used as advertising
um for 93 and the there's not been a lot of support for that but it's always been said well they it was pre-existing and they can continue to have the signage right >> and so that's the thing that people didn't like
because it's lit it's it's not for the person who's in East Milton trying to find the business. You wouldn't see it. You'd have to go up. Oh, it's up there. >> It's for the highway. So, it functions as a billboard.
>> Mhm. >> Which sign is that? Tell me again. >> It's been many businesses over the years, but what is it now? >> It was Rebuilt Fitness was the most recent. >> The um Sleepy's mattress mattress. I mean, that was really bad. It was originally Kennedy carpet, but when the
Sleepy's mattress came, it was like, "Oh, >> really bad." >> Yeah, we've rejected it every time. >> That came in today. What would happen? >> They rejected it, but it never got held up. We always get said, "Well, we have this right." >> So, that came.
>> Yeah, we've rejected it. They go on appeal and on appeal it gets approved. >> Well, I guess that's always available. People have property rights, right? See, that's the sign I thought we were talking about when we said billboard.
>> There you go. >> That's the reason. >> Yeah. So, we'll go back to six. >> Six square feet for projecting sign. >> Okay. >> And then if we cut, we said for example 75 on the one and a half. So that would mean if it's cut in
half. So this one if it's cut in half would be 0.5 but we would to Sean's point we we should do analysis first but we should highlight that we may reduce this makes sense to do some testing >> and we can back it up that we've this
has been tested. Um, okay. >> I just have a question on awnings. It says retractable. Are all awnings retractable? >> No. >> So, this only covers the retractable ones. >> Where are you? Um,
>> page 13. >> They're at the bottom. >> Oh, okay. Thanks. I don't really know why it matters that an awning is retractable or stationary for purposes of a signed bylaw to be honest. So we have delete retractable
unless someone feels strongly about this. >> Yeah. And this does say that the such signage shall not be included in the calculation of the total permitted sign area. A lot >> right. So I'm going to have to >> Yeah, John, you were saying it you do
you would include it. Yes, it should be included. I would say would be my opinion. Yeah, >> because then people are getting free signage. >> Do we like >> Yeah. Do we like lettering on on awnings? >> Sometimes that can be the primary signage um depending upon the building
facade. >> Well, this this um I mean the reference here is to the six inches in height, right? It's not included as long as the lettering is not greater than six inches in height. So that's the exception.
I still feel that way. >> I just think it should say should say such signage shall be included in the calculation >> instead of shall not. >> Instead of shall not. >> Okay. The way this reads does this only
apply to retractable awnings? Well, I think we're going to delete retractable because that just seems silly to me. >> Yeah, I agree. >> The mini split isn't keeping up. >> It's always It does get cold. >> Blowing cold. It's 12° out. So,
>> bring this. >> Put some blankets in here. I >> was going to say the veteran attendees are on this side of the table. >> Maybe there's something about that side. Look at Avante. He's ready for summer. >> Warm.
>> All right. So, >> well, now that we Well, if we can just go back to that sentence on awnings, if we're going to say such signage shall be included in the calculation, I don't think it makes sense then to keep in the provided no lettering
>> agree >> is greater than. >> Okay. >> Doesn't matter. >> Yeah. Right. Good. Good. Catch up. Okay. And then on page 14, we just had under sidewalk signs. Um, however,
Sandber signs shall not be subject to review by the sign review committee. We did have a little discussion on this. um because they don't really typically overlook, you know, look at this sand sandwich
signs, um sidewalk signs. But he said, "What if there's a sign which is really building the inspectors like this is awful. It's got pricing all over, you know, all kinds of crazy stuff going on." They would want to review it at that case. And I'm not sure how,
John. I don't I don't know if you feel that I don't think you necessarily want to review all sandwich board signs. >> No, that just No, but just how do you regulate what goes on the sandwich board signs? I I guess it should be some
method of regulating what goes on there. Well, I know John, you made one suggestion that there should be a limit as to how many can be permitted annually or how many the building commissioner
can actually allow, say, per business per year. That might be one way to tamp down. You know, if a business is only going to be allowed to say get six sandwich board permits in a in a 12-month period,
we in theory keep some of the littering of the sidewalk down. And I suppose >> Go ahead. It No, it's not the littering of the sidewalk. It's the littering of the sidewalk sign itself,
>> right? >> You know what what goes on it, >> right? And there's not much for the building commissioner to necessarily regulate, but I suppose if a particular sign becomes a bit offensive, well, you're only allowed a
few per year. Is it only offensive a few times per year? >> I mean, we're not we're not really regulating content or taste. We're trying to, but we're not really doing that here. I mean, I suppose another way to do it is just to say that a sidewalk
sign is going to be limited to something. You know, that, you know, limited to advertising a sale or a particular, you know, dinner special or something like that or do we even need sidewalk signs?
>> We do have some times that people do want them in town. So, >> and typically for the most part they're tend to be very tasteful. >> They can be sometimes a garden club, you know, sale or >> a play, you know, >> but then but then are those really
temporary signs, you know, just advertising like a particular event as opposed to >> temporary. Yeah. >> You know, I think of a sandwich board sign like, you know, the restaurant >> that sandwich board out, you know, every day on the sidewalk telling you what their specials are,
>> right? I see I see what you're saying now. Yeah. >> Some would be temporary, some would be sidewalk. Okay. >> I wasn't picking up on that.
>> Maybe we could say um cuz it just right now it goes through the the building commissioner. Correct, John? And they >> I believe that's what it does. Yes. >> Yeah. and that way he can give a permit for them and so he can put a little sticker
or something so the DPW doesn't pick them up because that was one of the his comments. >> Sometimes they get picked up by >> um DPW. >> The argument is that if it's a really bright not necessarily bad warning, but just like an egregious sign when you drive by you're like, "Wow, that's
horrible." >> Do we let the sign review committee regulate that? Right. I >> I it's tough to do. You don't want to bog these guys down, but it would be nice to get a second set of eyes on it. I
>> mean, I have had a sandwich board sign that's bright yellow background. It says, "Buy two perennials, get two free." And I put it bright yellow to, you know, cuz it's 328. Then I change it to pink. I don't think
it's egregious. >> So then it's roses. So then it's a roses pink. So then it looks like I'm doing something new. >> Maybe I'll keep my mosha, >> but I don't. >> Okay. >> I don't
have to. >> John, how do you feel about reviewing sandwich board signs? >> If you want us to, we will. >> Yeah. No, it's okay. It's not >> we don't we don't have that many that come before town, but >> yeah, I see what the difference is. I
was thinking about all the all the uh A-frame signs that go up everywhere, but there some of those are temporary. So would be just the so maybe they should go to the sign review committee of the sandwich boards
or do we make an exception that since temporary signs are exempt we make it clear that this isn't just a sidewalk sign that's popped up and put some place advertising
you know the school play right is running this weekend. This is a permanent >> This would be something of a more permanent duration. >> You know, a business that wants to put one of these out every single >> You really have like maybe three or four
in town. >> And does it really have to get taken down every night? >> And yours isn't on a sidewalk. So, it's really doesn't constitute. >> You don't have any. >> Yeah. Sidewalk. So, for the Boy Scout
retail, we we get a permit, you put them out, and it's a two-eek permit. It be anything beyond two weeks. >> Well, here's another thought. Just have the select board do sandwich board signs. >> No, I mean, it it seems it seems
>> or you know, so that there's >> But it does go through the building commissioner. I know. I know. >> That's the only >> But I'm just thinking most sandwich board signs, not all in Maggie's case, but a lot of them are typically going out on a sidewalk, >> right?
>> Or just in front of a building >> and they bring them in at night. >> And they bring them in at night. But the fact that they're also going on a sidewalk, a public sidewalk, you need the select board's permission to put it down. So, does it make sense to just
>> if you need if it needs their permission to put it there, they should they should review it and review it. >> That makes sense to go to the sign review committee. >> Yeah. >> No, if it's already going to select board anyways. Yeah. They should just take a look the whole thing. >> Yeah.
>> But so say um I I think I like the building commissioner because he's the enforcement officer. He gets the complaint for from a resident. So he would then have it in his file to look up and say, "Oh, they have permission. I gave them a sticker. They
paid their permit fee. Does it really have to go to the selectman the select board?" So I won't ever change that. Well, again, it's going to depend on the location.
If it goes on a public sidewalk, you technically putting aside the ADA issues that do you have 5 ft of clearance for somebody, you know, in a wheelchair to get through? That might prevent some of these sidewalk signs.
But assuming you've got that width, the road layout is technically within the purview of the select board. Just like you want to put a banner across the street advertising again the school play. You're crossing over the public way.
You've got to go to the select board for that. >> True. But if you're considering ADA in compliance with ADA, you'd rather have the building commissioner dealing with that issue and not put that burden on the board, >> you know, like uh blade signs which go
extend out over the sidewalk. I know in some jurisdictions require approval like in Boston is the public improvement commission or if you have a canopy or something that's out over that public way. So, do our blade signs currently require or projecting signs
require that? >> Yeah, >> that's true. I mean, really, it's just elevated, but yet it's above the public way >> that's I mean, so much of what we have in here doesn't require the approval of the select board.
And then if it was at the building commissioner, say we have a storm, the building commissioner um could just send out an email to all the um people with the permit saying, "We're having snow. Bring in your make sure your your signs are brought in for
the x number of weeks until we clear the snow." I mean, then the select board's not going to do that. >> They may not be. I feel like you might want a town staff to do that. >> Well, you go back to You could certainly
just say it's done by the building commissioner and that's what's proposed. Um, but if it's an ugly sandwich sign, >> you're stuck with sign >> because, you know, I don't think your building commissioner is going to say,
"Well, would you make it pink as opposed to chartreuse?" You know? All right. So, let's just keep it with the building department. Okay. >> Okay. So, no sign review board. >> So, this says um the sign shall not protrude on the sidewalk in such a way
as to obstruct pedestrian traffic to reduce the open sidewalk width to less than four feet. That's should that be five feet? I'm going to put in that it has to maintain ADA compliance. So, because there were a number of these bullet
points when we talked last time, they could be moved to your guidelines. They don't all have to be in the bylaw, >> but we didn't really go through to identify which ones do we want to put where. >> I think all of those could go in the guidelines.
Yeah, we had talked >> anything to make this um fewer pages. >> Yes. >> I mean, it's a lot of text or a sign that is less impactful than many others. >> There certainly is. Yes. >> So, striking that we'll move the bullet
points into our that'll be to our facad book. And if there are a few that as I go through it, I think, well, that really should stay in the bylaw, like, yeah, ADA clearance, we'll keep that. Yeah, I have the I have the
accessibility guidelines. It says width of walkway shall not be less than 48 in. So, it looks like this was written correctly. If that's his 48, >> anything on page 15,
moving down to special provisions for restaurants. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yeah. >> Um, so the bylaw refers to the insurance that isn't that under >> the sandwich boards. Yes.
>> Insurance. So if we ever >> wanted or needed to change the coverage requirements, we have to amend the bylaw. >> Well, that's why I'm suggesting we move most of these to your design guidelines instead. >> Okay. So that so all of those go >> Exactly. Right. Because if you suddenly
decided, oh, a million's not enough. We need two million and >> Yeah. >> You're right. You'd have to go back to town meeting. >> Great. >> Yeah. And also a lot of the um A-frames don't have um a cross brace.
>> It says must be constructed with a cross brace. >> So just get rid of that part. It just say the sign must have sufficient strength to stand by itself. >> And we can make those any changes. >> Look at that.
sign the guidelines the handbook. >> Okay. Anything else on page 15? >> Well, sorry, but the bed and breakfast that the sign must be not be illuminated and it must be set
back not less than half the depth of the front yard. If I think about bed and breakfast, there's usually a little light on it. And especially if it's half the distance back, it could be pretty far back from the street to how big the front yard is. I'm not sure where those
dimensions came from. And and the and the four square feet, that's only 2x two, which is pretty small to advertise. For someone to they're driving at night, they're looking for the bed and breakfast. They're going to have a hard time finding it here with these requirements.
So, do you want to allow illumination and allow it to be closer to the property line? >> I don't think you're going to find it otherwise. So, I think yes. And I think it needs probably to be bigger than four
square feet, maybe six square feet. Would it not follow the same regulation as any other business? >> Primary facade width multiplied by a certain square foot
by certain breakfast like I think it's viewed to be kind of like a house. >> Yeah. um like an inn kind of which we don't allow currently in our zoning. But um
I'm thinking about those historic houses that you might find in Vermont uh or something as a bed and breakfast. You would have a it most likely would be within 10 ft of the street >> and have a little light on it.
>> Yes. So only direct illumination, >> right? Direct >> and six feet. >> Six feet. And how close to the property? Like >> you could do it like 15 feet like the
others. And with the with the discretion of being able to change that >> if we want to be somewhat consistent. >> Sounds good. >> Yeah. Like consistency. Okay. And then under fuel service station on
page 16, John was looking reviewing that and he felt that um possibly the the 20 ft uh square feet in area might be too small. And John, I think you had suggested 25
square feet area to allow >> I was thinking about it more last night after we chatted. >> Last night after we chatted >> um I'm not sure I'm not sure. >> Can I share something for a second? Am I allowed?
>> Sure. Yeah. >> Let me Yes. >> Here's um here's the show station. You're frozen on our screen. You've been frozen for quite a while, actually. >> Oh, am I moving again?
>> No, we can hear you very well. And we have been able to, but you've been looking down for a long time. >> I'm not sure why I'm frozen because on my screen I'm not. But anyway,
>> can you see can you see the screen? Do we go? I can see I can see your screen. >> It's coming. It's coming up on mine. I think it might be because you're frozen on your end and you're trying to share. >> It could be us here. >> It could be. >> It might be our Yeah, I think it I think
it might be I think it's on our end because it's we're not catching up to you because I can see you moving on my screen but not not on the big screen here. >> Oh yeah, that's true. >> Yeah, we're gonna try to He's moving here but he's not moving there. So something's up with that.
Yeah, he's sharing screen and I can see it on mine because I'm I'm a host, but it's not coming up on this on the TV. trying to pull it up. John, so you can just turn her screen around. >> Yeah, that's true. I could I could I
could I could I could let everyone take a peek at my screen if you want. However you'd like to do it. >> On frozen. That's true. We do lunch on frozen. >> Look at it. >> Oh, there we go. There we go. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. >> Am I in the screen now? >> We got it up on the screen here. >> Okay. See, I I think when we're dealing with gas stations, each station's different. So when you talk about
>> not exceeding nine square feet or >> he's not muted. >> Are you not hearing me? >> One or the other. So let's take a quick hearing you John or we don't get >> here. It's not on his end.
>> It's not on his end. >> Maybe John should try leaving and coming back. loses share screen too though psychics >> that British version. >> What language do you want? English.
>> They just put him on speaker. >> Yeah. >> Hi Meredith. >> Hey, we lost you on sound. Um but we do have your screen up and I have you on speaker phone. >> Okay. if any people here. >> All right. So, if you want to walk us
through um your diagram and maybe um our tech guys here think it's on your end possibly. So, um >> can I log out and come back in again? >> Yeah. Why don't you go through this and then Yeah. You know what? Why don't you do that? Why don't you try to log out
and come back in? See if that works. Okay. Bye. Except for you don't hear. No, it's not. Or not. >> Oh, yeah. >> This has got to be something here.
Do you see him? I'm just waiting for him to come in as an attendee. Yeah, he just came in. Was promoted. Almost there. >> It looks like I'm still frozen on your screen. >> There. >> All right.
>> I can't hear. Can we still hear audio? Can you hear us, John? >> I can >> hear us. But we >> Yeah. If If someone says, "Can you not say yes?" >> He said, "Yes, he can hear us."
>> And we can hear him. >> No. >> No. >> Although, >> and I'm still frozen on your screen. I can see Try it again. John, can you hear us? >> I can hear you. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> You just can't see me because I'm still frozen. >> We can see you. So, yeah. You can share your screen again. Yep. >> Okay. So strange. >> Okay.
>> Try speaking once more just to confirm. >> I can hear you. >> Super. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, in in thinking about this a little more after we spoke yesterday,
Meredith and Liz, I was, you know, I was thinking cuz when we were talking about that 25 square ft, I was thinking about this upper portion of what I call their pedestal sign. I don't know if there's a correct term for this. They all have them. Right.
>> So I was thinking as this top part as 25 but as I was thinking of it more maybe we restrict or put a size limit on this overall element that all the gas stations have and then they can you know
then they can fill it up as they need it because this this portion right here is a little over figured out. I don't know where I wrote it down. I think it's a little it's a little over it's like 10 10 foot n from the bottom of the sign to
the top and then they don't have a clearance here underneath because this was an existing sign that they were recladding. But this is the discussion point that we all get into is what is the correct height of one of these, >> right?
I mean, you need a certain distance to the bottom so that you can see through it as you're driving, you know, because this is located uh Yeah, this is located on the corner right here.
So, you need to be able to visually see through it. >> Right. Um >> John, wasn't there um an application for a gas station on Granite A where across the street was
a house or >> Yeah. I was trying to find that one. I couldn't find that one. >> And I just remember there being a controvers Yeah. >> Yeah. It was it was the due to the excuse me it was due to the lighting of the sign and that's one of the reasons
why we started going to the internally lit like you see on this example the nighttime it's just the shell logo that's lit up you in the past this whole box would have been lit up >> okay >> so now we have it limited to the logo we
have it limited to the numbers of the gas price so not everything is lit and that's what we had there. But the neighbors still thought this logo PE was still too bright. So I I believe we had that one put in with dimming, but I'm
not I can't remember. That was a long time ago. But I think if we could somehow come up with a size for these, that's the major port portion of a gas station. I mean, it's it's hard to regulate, you know,
the things that go on the building because a lot of them relate to the the size that's available on the building. >> So, John, maybe keeping it to a keeping the logo to that logo portion to the 20 square ft makes sense.
>> Uh, well, this one is this one is 4 by little. So, this one's about 16. >> Excellent. >> The actual logo size and then then the posts are when you include the post, it
gets larger, but it's 48 and 38 in by 50 and 3/4. So, it's roughly 4x4 and 10 ft. So maybe we so we reduce the 20 square ft and but but make it pertaining to the logo
portion and then cap the height. Is that a standard? >> You're saying you want it to be open at the bottom. >> Yep. It needs to have a certain height underneath it. So, I don't know what the height is here because like I said, this was an existing sign that was being
refaced. So, they didn't give us the the dimension on the bottom. But, we could probably do some research and see what what this height should be. Unless uh unless someone that controls traffic would have an idea of what that
should be. It shouldn't doesn't need to be that high for a car, but >> right, >> they don't necessarily have to have it um open and see through. >> I think it's for traffic. I think this
is on a corner. >> If it's on a corner, you need to be able to see through the sign. >> Unless it's coming down um >> Brian Brian. Yeah, Bryant. >> And with the And the post office is
right across the street to the right. >> Yeah. >> Post office. >> Yeah. I >> They've applied for a new sign. >> The one on the the right side. So, it's not up yet. >> It hasn't been installed yet, right, John? >> Oh, I don't know. This was approved. I don't know. I don't know if it was
installed yet or not. >> I don't think it has been yet. So, they have two signs on either corner of their um >> Yeah. One, >> one on each corner, >> right? >> One on the left, one on the right. >> I think they're going to take down >> these gas stations are filled with
signs, but they >> they're all pre-existing, right? >> But technically, John, they can't >> they can't keep up their other sign once they put this sign up. >> What What sign is that? You mean this
sign right here? They're existing. >> Yeah. Yeah. See that sign doesn't have a >> all the way to the ground, >> right? That one doesn't. Yeah, but I Yeah, I don't know why. Someone must have approved it that it had vision.
See, we didn't approve this one. >> So, my understanding is they're taking that one down, >> right? That's my understanding with the other one >> with this one. >> Right. But and they're putting it in a new location, >> right? the reload because this this was
a a reface of an existing sign >> and they're not they're not >> No. So maybe if it's they're replacing the existing then that's >> make it look like that. >> Yeah. Okay. >> They're not putting up another one
>> cuz the one on the right corner is down. the one closest to the post office. >> So, they're not putting that one back up. >> Did they clarify that, John, that they are going to reuse the existing sign? >> Yeah, if you go back to where John was
earlier, see this? >> Yeah, cuz see this this sign right here is A and that's what this sign is. It's sign A >> and it says proposed main ID sign reface. They're going to reface the
existing sign. >> But John, >> there was one that was knocked down to >> see. What does that say there? So that existing main ID. >> So I'll take
>> I thought that existing ID is being replaced with the proposed main ID, right? Just assess total sign height is 20 ft. >> This one looking at where it is here with the where the pumps are.
>> This one should be uh let me get my bearings right here. Oh yeah, that would be that's that spot. So, >> but that one's see when they reviewed it to us, they said letter A was letter A.
And it also says that the well that's the existing main ID was 20 feet. >> Yeah. 20 ft total height. >> That's higher than the street lights. Look at that thing. >> That's pretty tall. >> That would mean that space.
>> Yeah. And that would that would you know if this was 10 ft and then 10 feet open under uh that doesn't look right proportionately. If this is our if this is 10 nine, that wouldn't be 10 feet. >> No, just that's what it said on that.
>> Right. Correct. For the >> on the photograph, >> right? >> I'm I'm just looking at the in permitiz they they they filed their application like two days ago. So there's a there's a more there's a
more probably a more upto-date drawing in here for the building department. Um, >> so this >> do you want me to share my screen or or or I I don't know. I mean, it doesn't seem like it's the same sign.
>> It hasn't it hasn't been assigned yet. >> Looking at it. Looking at it, that looks like it's down further. >> Yeah, this looks cuz you would see if it was across to the post office, you should see the post office here, >> right? I think you're looking >> view. You can see a um spot or a sign. >> I was pointing to it on the corner, but
I think that sign's down on the left. Yeah, that's what I think, too. >> No, they're they're showing that, but that's not that's not accurate, right? >> I don't think that's accurate. >> I think it's down on the left. >> It is down on the left. >> Yeah, >> it's when you're exiting.
>> Oh, wait. Down here. Down on the left is Jack Rabbit. >> I'm sorry. You're right. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Oh, that's Yeah, Jack Rabbit's there. >> Okay. >> So, is it is it >> up there? That's the sign that was knocked down that I thought they were going to replace, but I >> Yeah, that's the one that's not there.
>> Okay. Yeah, I see. You can see it on the ground >> on Boulevard Street. >> Now they're parking a car there. >> Yeah, >> it's probably full of snow right now. >> But the 20 feet does not look correct even though that's what they put >> graphically. But is it showing on that
what you're finding on permitiz? Is it showing a 28 ft height? >> That's what I I don't I I was trying to find the other one you were talking about before across from the residential cuz there we had a lot of discussion about the height and I don't know why
14 14 15t sticks in my head. 146 >> I'm not sure why. >> 20 ft high from the ground >> for this one. Okay. >> No, for this one. I think the other one that was across from the residence, I think it was shorter. >> Yeah. >> And we were trying to get Shell to do
that, but they said they were just refacing an existing sign. >> They weren't taking it down. >> Yeah. I think 20 feet would be too tall then. >> 14T. >> So, I was going to say, what do you usually say for lights?
>> Well, we usually say 12. >> 12. >> So, 20 is way too tall. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think no higher than street light. >> This is again targeting the highway, >> right? >> But if you're on the highway, you really
I guess I followed that one. >> Do you really Yeah. Do you really care that it's $2.34? Like if you need gas, you need gas and you're kind of desperate. You're gone. >> Yeah, because you can't get to it. You're 100% right. You got to go down and then come back down. No, no, it's I
think it's really for the offramp on the other side. >> You know, you come up the other side, you come in, you smelt the screen, you come across the other side. I think that's that's all it's applicable for. I don't think it's applicable for the highway. >> That's the case. And you don't need a 20 ft. >> No, >> 12. >> I think you could do 12 or 14 suffice.
>> I would say 12. I would rather see 10, but 12 seems >> and then if if the >> Well, remember though if you if you if you make it that low, you you unless it's narrow, you need the space underneath to see it. So >> if you remembering that the one other
one was 14 ft. >> So if you think that's what that was, then it seems like that one works, right? >> Yeah. I I' I'd have to dig through and see if I could find that one. >> Okay.
>> I don't know if I >> I think they >> So Shouldn't we have a record of those? >> They also can. Yeah, we there should be a record probably a paper file of it somewhere. >> But I think they can also decrease the size of the graph the digital which is
part of my the LED digital pricing. >> Oh, sure. Yeah. >> Reduce make that much smaller. >> Yeah. Like it could be it could be this size right here. It doesn't need to be that size. >> Right. >> So 8 inch right. I was going to say if
if it just is limited by the overall height of 14 feet, do we really care how what size is their logo at the top and what size they have um say for their >> No, and I guess that's what I was trying to get to. I think the overall size of
the sign is more important than the components on it. >> Yeah. So, what about that 4 foot width? Should we limit the width? So, the dimensions the dimensions on this application are 130 in height, 49
in width, and total square footage of 45. >> That's the So, so what's 130 for height? >> 11, right? >> 120 is 10. >> And I don't know if And that may not include the p the pylons, so I don't know.
>> Say the dimensions again. Was that Liz? >> This is just on the permit application. It's it's um 150 130 >> 130 in height 49 width >> and then the square footage is 45. So it may not it may not and it says that it
says that it is >> it says that is installing new faces in existing price sign cabinets existing footing to remain as is. >> Right. So that matches up because this is 129 and a half. So they made it 130 and this is 48 and 3/4 38. So they said
was 49. >> So that's it does not include the uh >> the structure the pylons that are going up all the way up to the top. >> And the corner clearance is in here too and that that that references back to the section of the bylaw that defines
corner clearance. >> Mhm. So that's probably has to abide by that 275 10.7B. Yeah, cuz see I don't think they need all the all, you know, I think it could
be a 8 in LED. I don't think they need to have room to say service center full service or maybe they say full service but not V power. >> Yeah, they don't need all of that. >> Yeah.
So I think if you made it if you took and made it the 50 and the 50 that's what 4t 2 in 4t 2 in that's we'll say that's 8 ft and then you left 6 feet below it or 7
ft below it that gets you to a 14 or 15 foot overall height. I think 14 sounds and that's probably what is across the street and then it's a matter of you know cuz then as we see in in this sign for some
reason they didn't need to have that opening below it so it gave them more place to put signage on it. So, we should say the height if the height's 14, the overall sign area. We also want
>> Well, do we care? We don't care what the overall sign areas because they're limited. >> We don't want it to be the whole thing. We don't >> Yeah, but they could be limited by the corner clearance. >> Yeah. >> Right. But if they're not, >> like apparently this sign is not.
>> Unless you know, >> is that an actual sign? I wonder. >> Yeah. >> Is it there now? >> Um, >> can you make them do some better landscaping, too? >> We need a >> You know, like a half dead, you know,
like a half dead tree. >> I think they did say they were going to try to do some landscaping. So the overall sign area, so the height of would be 14 feet, but
>> 8t of signage on on looking at this example, it' be like 8 ft of signage and then six feet open below it. >> So we could probably reduce that though, right John? You could >> How far up is your >> reduce that? >> Six feet. Six feet or
>> excuse me from 8t? Could we reduce that down to six feet? >> Um, I don't know. I guess you could >> overall sixoot sign area and get a lot of that some of that stuff. >> Well, if you get 8 feet, these these two
come out and so we know whether they get whether that makes all this stuff smaller because they want to get that in here or not, I don't know. eight because if it's it's the 8 in >> I mean we could we could limit the size of the LED. We could say it's you know 8
in LED >> for the uh price information. I'm with you. I almost rather just have the overall size reduced and let them figure that out without dictating. >> Let them figure it out. >> Yeah. >> Cuz I don't know. I've never I never look at the two prices,
>> right? >> Yeah. >> They have to post cash and credit by law, right? Because it would be misleading otherwise. >> Oh, they have to show both by law. >> Yeah, but it's I'm not sure about that actually. But I'm all right lowering I don't mind the width. I would I like the
height at 12 or 14 to be honest with you. Other than that, that's what we should be focused on. >> Yeah, that's what that's what I was thinking about. Focus on the overall size and not all the individual pieces. >> So, a maximum height of
to match to match what's at the other one because then that way they're consistent. >> Other station, you mean or >> other station? on the other station across the way. >> That one's high. >> I think they could do a 12 I I actually think a 12 foot would >> be adequate and still leave.
>> Just don't like it higher than a street light. Just >> and right now one of these renderings shows it down the corner. >> Unless the angle that we're looking at seems much taller than a street light. >> Oh, this is much taller than a street light. Yes. >> Yeah. And that's what we cap it at a
street light. I'd be happy. >> Yeah. But those chain those are not all the same either. Yeah. >> Yeah. Is it is it the ones mounted on the telephone pole? Is the standing on a pedestal? >> Free standing on a pedestal like shown in this picture. If we could just find
the average of those that's that's it's that or lower I would be happy. >> Like the like something like this. >> Exactly. Yeah. Mhm. >> And I don't know the answer. That's just my opinion. It would be >> Mhm. So I think if they had a a height
of 12t height and a sign area of 6x4 that's that's sort of what you were saying John when you said 25 if it includes
everything. Yeah, because four four feet I now four feet doesn't include the structure. Correct. It would just be the signage area. >> Correct. Signage area would be >> like a 4x6.
>> Yeah, cuz like I said, right now this >> from from uh I don't know if you can see my my hand here, my cursor, but from this point >> to the top is eight right now. >> Over eight. That could be condensed to six.
>> Well, I think it's just easier saying overall height do not exceed 12. >> If it's not a corner sign, they could fill that whole thing up with every litter it with everything. So, I'm
thinking if they if we give them a 6x4 area of putting all of their pricing, their logo, their service. Um, >> but this picture >> you're limiting for the next for the for
the next one that's going to come. >> Yeah, these we are already determined. So, it's just the future. I I mean I know this is a a photo so it's kind of tough to line things up but you know if if this if you
line it up with a street light if it's if it's say this is the height it's coming down to is that so bad if they have all this for signage if it's only 4t wide >> there's a UPS track >> I do you I think it it seems like six
feet by four you enough >> area that a lot of that could be condensed. >> It would be >> would I go >> more attractive? >> Here we are. >> Yeah. >> So, well, I'll go to the next sign review committee.
>> Is that what I'm hearing? Signs >> don't look much better. The >> new Yeah. And I mean, we had in here 20 square feet. >> Which was I was thinking was this top piece.
>> Yeah. Right. Because it's written as the business identification sign, >> right? >> Which I guess arguably would just be the shell symbol. So if you wanted to instead limit the total signage area to
say 24 square ft total >> and a maximum height of 14 or 12 feet, whatever you decide upon. >> Yeah. One question I have though is you see those canopies over the gas stations or and the pumps and also just
immediately above the pumps. >> You know, there's a lot of language and text and symbols there too. Are we counting all of that towards their sign area? >> I think that falls into >> I would say no. >> Yeah.
>> I would say that's just this principle. I don't know what we call it pedestal sign. principal information sign. I'm not sure what what we label this, but you know, they do need to have information. They do need to number the pumps. They do have to
have information on each pump. >> Yeah. >> Um they typically have something over the service bays. >> So, the accessory signs. >> Yeah. Accessory signs. And you know, they had this they called it the pectin
sign. I know we they were originally going to illuminate it and we asked them not to. So they did they did not you know so there are accessory signs that they do need. >> All right. So you want to limit the size of the principal sign for the gas
station. >> Okay. And 12 ft and a 4x6 sign area. Do you want to go so far as to say a a 6x4 sign area or just 24 square feet? >> John, do you have a
>> We should say 6x4 sign area. Yeah, >> 6x4. >> Well, we don't say that in any other part of the bylaw, don't we? Just do a total, >> right? >> We do. >> So, it should be consistent with the other parts of the bylaw.
Okay. >> Okay. They want it wider. >> Or if they want it narrower and come down lower because they're in a spot that doesn't need the visibility, they could do that. >> In their case, the columns already
exist. It's already it's a five foot dimension, right? Column above, whatever. >> Right. Yep. That's Yeah. So, they weren't going to change that, but somebody else could. >> Mhm. Right. That is a good point. Okay. Okay. I was trying to find that
sign in East Milton. I can't find it. So, John, if you find it, let us know if the 14 ft is the right height. >> Yeah, I'd have to dig through paper
issue that that was like the front cover. I don't know why it must have been something in it that I saved it cuz I came across it recently. I'm like, I that was >> But you just indicated you want this to be a maximum height of 12 ft. >> I think 12,
>> right? Okay. >> So then we definitely know we're not above the street lights. >> The maximum height of the sign is going to be 12t >> of the over of the totally. >> And what's the existing total height is
20, right? It's 14 across the across the way. The controversial one gas. >> I I don't know if it's 12 feet. It might be 14 ft. Like I said, for some reason
14T sticks in my head. >> Yeah, that one might be 14, but >> we were just trying to get it lower than the street lights. >> All right. So, are we good on that? Um, and then I don't think um Sony BA I
don't think there was anything else on page 16 or 17. Um, but I did there was one other thing, John, that we had talked about that um I had skipped. If we if we can go back to page five. >> Oh, wait. While we're on page 16, the
question on the right said, "Consider making the penalties consistent." >> Right. >> So, we're doing that. Correct. >> So, that's in the building department. That's going to >> Okay. So, I agree with that. Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah.
So uh on this really goes back to page five on numeral um Roman numeral 7 when we were going through this window signs which cover more than 25% of the commercial wind of the you know
commercial window signs which cover more than 25%. John felt that was much too large. He said you you don't they would never allow that much space of the window to be covered and so John suggested 10%.
>> Yes. >> Is that correct John? >> Yes. >> Yeah. The only other thing >> I'm sorry. What% was that? >> 10% 10%. He said he thought 25 was much cheaper. >> Okay. >> Could I share screen for a second again?
>> Sure. I believe this is the sign we're talking about, correct? >> Yes. >> So, this looks wider than 4 feet, but I Yeah, I I got to see if I can find this somewhere.
I know we reduced the height on it. >> 312 grand. I could try looking at 312. >> How tall is a telephone pole to 30? >> Don't know. >> And that's actually set up on a looks
like it's up on a >> Yeah, it's on a stone base for protection. >> So, which even lifts it up? >> Thank you, Tom. Sure. >> Anything else, Caroline, that you that we didn't address? I think >> if we button up those
>> Yeah, >> I think we did a good job tonight. >> Thank you. I know this is like continuous going through all this, but this is going to make it so much better going forward cleaner and more clear for
>> the sign review committee, the building inspector for Liz, you know, everyone who's involved with this. John, I I said it last night, but you your your committee does such a good job with this with really balancing the needs of the businesses versus, you know, sort of the aesthetics of the of
the sign and, you know, having architects and graphic artists on there. Really, that expertise is um we've done a great job. So, >> we try our best. >> Sure. >> And thank you for joining us tonight. >> Thank you, John. Sure. >> Thank you. Appreciate it.
>> Have a have a good night. >> Thank you. Thanks, John. >> Okay, >> great. >> So, I'll work on my next draft. >> Hopefully, your last. >> Yeah, this should be and then
>> third time's the charm. >> Yeah, if we get this circulated, I don't know if you've talked to Nick if he needs um us to submit it to the warrant committee before our next meeting. >> Yeah, >> I know he would like to have the draft of the language. Maybe once Carolyn has
a chance to do these revisions, it gets circulated to the members, if the members have any changes or concerns with anything, they can let Liz know. And if we don't hear by maybe the end of next, I mean, depending on when you know, not to rush you at all, but maybe
if by the end of next week, if people don't have any comments, we could send it over to the boarding committee, >> right? I think there's still a few things in terms of mostly height or sizes that I've got a lot of to be determined. So, >> Exactly. We want to get those Yeah. plugged in before we send it over.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'll just be communicating with him. I know he's anxious to get it as soon as it's as soon as we can get it to him. So, I know >> we'll work on we'll work on some of that research as well with some of the some of the approved projects and and try to get some of that get some of that
information out to you guys as well to help you form the final review of Carolyn's draft. >> That's great. >> And I will early next week to get this to you. So, >> thank you very much. >> Appreciate that. You Yeah, you've been
wonderful. Thank you. >> Good night. We are we appreciate your very welcome your clear concise wording. >> The only thing I can't do is give you dimensions. >> That's entirely up to you.
>> Let's push her forward. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Have a good night. >> Bye. Thank you so much. >> So sorry for an early meeting. >> I was I was only at a 4-hour meeting before this. >> I know. I know.
And Cheryl hadn't had dinner when >> I've been at jury what's for dinner. >> I had a little flower bar on my way. >> Got 70% left in my bed. >> Power bar is looking pretty good.
>> Thanks so much. You're losing Sean and me. >> Yeah, I know. So, >> I mean, we've all been following the budget committee. I don't know if you want to defer this to our next meeting, your update on this. So I'll be quick. Okay. Um
>> so the charge of the Milton budget coordination committee is to review current fiscal budget to actual analysis and to discuss the revenue and expenditure outlook for the next fiscal year and to review the town's long range
financial plan. So, with our budget currently what it is for FY27, we haven't had much of a chance to look at our long range financial plan. But, um, good news is, because I always like to
start with good news, is FY26 is in good fiscal shape. So, um, we had the override and we're in a much better financial position today um, than we were last year at this time. Um, and this is really due to the
collaboration of Nick Milano and John Failen. So, they seem to really work well together and um and um it's just a nice um thing to see.
But so however we're working on FY27 and that doesn't look quite so positive um because I the departments have been creating their budgets based on level service and that's created a projected deficit
of about $2.5 million. And so what we're realizing is the 9.5 million override isn't enough to cover level service funding. And um you know, not to
repeat history, but we all know that one-time money, including free cash was um used to fund the operating budget. And by doing that, that increased the department budgets. And so now um these
department budgets are um you know a little bit bloated. And so, um, another piece of information I need to find out is, um, a level service budget could also mean that
their department is requesting funding for positions that are kind of nice to have, um, positions and they've been approved, but they might not actually be um, positions that are filled currently.
And I'm not isolating town or school. This is just across the town as a whole. Um, so it'd be it'd be nice to know um how many positions are actually filled
versus approved. Um, and as I said, the FY26 budget seems to be working. And so maybe we kind of need to switch our mindset for now to a level dollar budgeting.
um since we know FY26 is working. Um, and then that would just mean that the departments would request what they had in FY26 and then when state aid comes in, which I believe the amounts came in, but we have not had a meeting since
they've come in, um, then the departments could request more based on um, the projected needs for the upcoming year. Um and you know department needs fluctuate every year you know so I
represent the planning um board and planning department and so we may need funding for recod our a recodification efforts and for um you know a townwide economic development study and so maybe
one year we might need more in our budget but we wouldn't need it the following year. So um you know we kind of all departments sort of have to work together and give and take and that's
why I think um not just doing um we just have to be more flexible I think um you know and again in my opinion what I'm seeing is that um the Milton has a
spending problem and I said at the meeting that I don't want the town spending problem to become our zoning problem. You know, people have moved to Milton or state and Milton um for various reasons and Milton has never
relied on um a big commercial tax base to fund the operating budget. And so currently, if we're $2.5 million short, we would need about $40 million of
commercial property um to bring in that $2 million. And so to put that into perspective, Milton would need about 18 fruit centers to bring in $2 million because the fruit
center brings in about $114,000 of property taxes. So when people say we need more commercial um you know I think we agree and we support all the small independent
um businesses around town and neighborhood businesses and we definitely could you know um zone some neighborhood businesses but I don't think the town in our traffic could support 19 fruit centers
all across town. Our traffic would be terrible and where would they go? Um, so Nick is being um creative in um in
trying to um kind of do some cuts, requiring the schools to do some cuts and then re reallocating some um um some debt, which kind of makes me a
little bit nervous. He's trying to consolidate the Cuttingham Collie cut with the fire station and just postponing paying that for another year. So, it's a savings of FY27 of about $200,000, but we're not
actually getting a relief. It's we're just kicking the can down the road a little bit. Um, so it kind of buys us time. Um the biggest driver is our insurance and we have a younger um
workforce in town and they are um more of them are going on to family plans and so a family plan costs around $20,000 more per year. Um and the town covers
about 76% of that. Um, and it's just not the town of Milton. That's not just a Milton problem. That's a everyone problem. Um, but it's something we have to deal with. Um, and
you know, we did end the year um, last year with a $4.58 million in free cash. So, that was a really positive thing. And now I've been hearing from different
people, you know, what should be doing that $4.58 million. And um you know, some say, and it's not just committee members, but people around town. Some say that um you know,
we should be paying down more debt. Some people say we should be buying property for either open space to help combat climate change. we should be buying properties to help with our affordable
um uh subsidized housing list. Um, some even say that um in theory if we ended the year with a point a $4.58 million free cash that perhaps the um the
taxpayers were overt taxed and maybe some of that money should go back to the taxpayers through an abatement of some sort. So um Nick is trying to figure out what to do with that $4.58 million. I
have reminded him that you know the planning board would like to see some recottification done. Um we also have the economic um development across town and we I think trying to um
do a housing production plan and trying to figure out um how we can increase some of our affordable units in town. So he's he's um you know working hard um in trying to
make it all work and I think that um you know it's it's a great committee. People are really respectful of each other and everyone's positions and um we're just sort of all trying to figure it out. At
this moment in time, the planning um board doesn't have a huge um role because we just haven't been focused on um future. Our revenues are coming in where they're projected. Um but a lot of
the the revenues are from um our 40bs from the building permits that are coming in. and we're not really sure when the next round of like 40B uh permitting will be done. So, he's very cautious and a little bit conservative
with that. Also, um you know, the town raises a lot of money in excise taxes. Um, so the question is, you know, in a broader view, are we still as a town going to be turning over
our cars, getting new cars? Um, or are we going to be driving our cars a little bit longer? So, are the is the excise tax maybe going to be reduced a little bit more? Um, the building permits, not just from the 40bs, have always been strong, but is it will it continue to be
strong? people >> doing the the um you know the kitchen renovations or additions. Um and that still is a strong he thinks that will be strong but maybe not just as as strong
as the the bigger permits have been. Um so um it'll be interesting. There's an interesting discussion going on. Um, you know, I have to fully disclose that my
daughter is a um teacher in here in town. And she was on the cut list last year, she's on the cut list this year. Um, and when she was on that list last
year, I and then the override went through and of course she was happy, she had a job. and I said, "But I wouldn't be celebrating too prematurely because I don't see that the town's overall health
is going to change. So, I wouldn't um anticipate that you're you might still have a job next year." So, um it's we've had a lot of conversations in my house about um municipal financing and um I
remind her that I am doing my part because she's still on my health insurance and she and she has not um she has earned her masters but she hasn't that has not increase her pay yet. So,
um, you know, it just will take time and people will have to, um, tighten their belts and, um, and just kind of work together. >> Can I provide two comments? >> Um, the commercial tax base, Nick knows this very well. You and I have this
conversation. Around 3% of our tax revenue comes from the commercial tax base. um it's a small value that represents all of the commercial tax base in town. This idea of creating a revenue stream
by expanding our commercial base is not realistic. You know, you would have to double our commercial business that we have in town to go from 3% to 6%. And and and what harm might we cause by doing that? You know, it's it's I just
think people don't understand how little revenue comes from all of the commercial business that we have in town. It's it's not going to move the needle. But >> I think we need economic development study to to see whether what economic
potential we have. When we did the Milton Village zoning and analysis back, zoning was adopted in 2020, but when we were doing the analysis before that, we had calculated that the amount of tax revenue coming out of the Milton Village
business district was really small because there's not a lot of business there. And we still not getting much improvement there because there's been very little redevelopment. But when you're looking at properties that are are where the rental rates are low and they're not generating a lot of income,
that's how the the assessor determines the assessed value for those properties. So the big taxpayer in Milton Village is 88 dwarf and extra space storage. So I think the economic development study is necessary for this conversation. The
other thing I was going to ask you is that when I was on the warrant committee, I had asked this question about when the revenue projections uh for things that are under construction hit the books. So, are they projecting the revenue for all of the
things that are under construction right now, all the 4Bs and the 440 granted F? Have they factored that into the revenue projection? Um so no they've just only factored in the um building permits yeah
>> that has been um pulled they haven't done a a more comp >> so like 440 grand I have it estimated for us several years ago that that would be $250,000 of tax revenue that's 24 units and how many units are under construction how
many hundreds of units are under construction so it would be good to under to get an understanding and I asked this um of the assessor during the MBTA community's discussion last year and uh about projection and they don't
go they don't really work off of projections they work off of things that are built. So they he wasn't um able to provide that projection. So, but if we looked at a different
um you know multif family or across the multifamilies from 88 wararf to 36 central to others I guess you could get some idea but I think that's worth your committee looking at like because
um and looking at when those are due the projections for when they're due to be complete because if 24 units is 250,000 that's 100,000 in a unit. I don't know that's the retail is factored in there too, but it would it would be worth getting those projections.
>> Yeah. And it's important to know also like how many kids. So if um we'll bring to the school department because that's really the driver um you know the fruit center brings in $114,000 a year. So that's for seven kids.
>> That's not a lot for a business. And it's and so that one property will educate seven kids. Um >> 250,000 >> split rate does have a split rate. >> I think it's 12 and 18. >> Yes. Yeah. Commercial 18. Yes. >> Yeah.
>> So the net's only six. >> I think you meant 10,000 unit, right? >> I haven't had my dinner and 10:00 at night. So, real quick, Maggie, the in the spreadsheet, the 2.5% levy, >> is that an automatic 2.5% every year
that they add 2.5% levy? >> Yeah. >> Do we does our tax base or our revenue increase by 2.5% every year automatically? Do you guys know that answer? >> Yes. So, it automatically increases by 2.5% but it actually goes up more than
that because of our assessed values. >> So, every year no matter what. >> Yeah. >> The town budget is increased by 2.5%. >> Yeah. The town plans >> and we just had an override last year >> and now we're 2.5 in the hole again even
with our 2.5%. >> I think we must right we have a spending problem big spending issue. >> I think our all of our property tax went up by 13%. >> Well 13%. >> Really? >> I think so. >> I know I'm paying mine tomorrow.
>> Mhm. My wife pays mine. She's probably not telling me on purpose. So, >> um, given the hour, I mean, Maggie, I I I think you expressed in your overview your opinions about things and what you're sharing with the committee based
on your own personal opinions. Um, I don't know at the next meeting maybe you can give an overview of this of the consensus of the committee overall. Um, which is what I gave for the CPC. I didn't represent my positions about any of the things. I I represented what the
committee decided, what the committee discussed. So, I think that's the that's the important part um that that I would like to hear. >> Yeah. And Yeah. So, it is um you know this >> we have both. We got both tonight. I
mean, you're entitled to give your opinion, but I think you get both. And this the school budget went up um you know was close to a 10% increase traditionally and then they were budgeting for a level service which was a 5.2%.
Um, and this is where some of the confusion what you know fell was Nick was look was hoping for a 3% from the school side and um so now well that's why they're kind of scrambling a little bit on the school side to reduce it and
the superintendent said well if the directive is that the school department can only have an increase of 3% then that's the directive. So, um, >> good for him. >> So, he is, you know, working hard. Um,
he's, um, he said that the balance sheet has not been in balance for quite a number of years with the school department. and he um was hoping to sort of more do
a fine surgical cut to the school department's budget, but now it might have to be a blunt cut, which he is not happy to do, but he also says if that's what needs to be done,
then um they could do it. Um they the other thing is we talked about um the school department themselves um you know increasing some of their internal revenues um and they have the
ability to um raise some funds internally so they can increase their athletic fees, their their um club sports, their rental of the high school. So they're doing that. They're also
looking at um like the food service um um group of employees they get I think federal funding and I think out of that federal funding they can pay their insuranceances from where traditionally
it would be coming from the town. So they're paying they're transitioning some of the um insurance from the town's responsibility to the food service um fees. So um you know everyone's working
really hard and digging deep and um it's um it's it's a challenge. Um, but as a planning board member, um, at this point in time, there's not a whole lot except
for I advocate I advocate for the planning department and, um, and in what I think the the funding that we need. Yeah. >> As healthc care costs go up, is there any talk about having employees share that burden? Has that even come up? Um
so that has been discussed and um that has um said it's under contractual um agreements. It was also discussed was um you know if we know as a town that we can only
increase our taxes by two and a half%. Then that's what we're limited to on our contracts, right? in our um raises and steps and lanes. Um so,
you know, it's um we want to encourage and support and employ employ. But there is we're just limited. We're limited by the tax levy and it's not sustainable to keep having these
overrides. The plan is really um to have they're talking about an override of every four years. Um and that's from a small business perspective that's not sustainable because if our
the homeowners property tax went up 13% small business property taxes have gone up more than that. Um so we want to encourage small businesses to come in but we also have to um recognize the fact that small businesses are
struggling um you know and small business are laying off people as well. So it's a it's a balancing act. Good. Thank you Maggie. That that was great. Um we're getting close to 11. So,
I think we just have a couple of um last agenda items. Um just an update on the open space and recreation um plan. Um from Horsesley Whitten. Uh Liz, if you want to speak to this. Um
>> let take that or >> Yeah. So, um, I did receive a cost estimate to finish up the open space and recreation plan, uh, on Tuesday. And so, kind of in this memo that I received
from him, it kind of discusses some of those outstanding items which remain. Um, in the cost estimate, there was a couple of options outlined in relation to um, environmental justice outreach, which is one of the requirements for finishing up
the plan. I as well as Liz have kind of expressed our interest in option number two where there's more individual engagements. Um just we feel like it'll be the best way to reach out to some of those um populations which have not yet
been um engaged as much yet like some of the youth population and obviously some of the people in the environmental justice block groups. So, um to summarize like total cost um
kind of based off of those options. So, kind of option one al together um would be $14,255 and then option two, the option that Liz and I prefer is just a little bit more $15,415.
So that cost um besides those engagement options includes those other items which need to be finished which includes things like finishing up the ADA self-evaluation and transition plan. Um a little bit of the inventory and map stuff. Meredith, you came in the other
day and helped answer some of those. So that was very much appreciated. Um yeah, and and a couple other things. But yeah, that's kind of the cost estimate to finish up the plan. Did um with that cost did did they give did um Craig give
any sense of time frame like how long doing those public outreach we've been I've been on this committee and we have been working on this for it's been a number of years and so it would be great to wrap this up because to complete this and the parks department is anxiously
awaiting because um receiving grants the town to receive some uh parks department grants relies on the completion of the open spa or the updated open space recreation plan. So, I would entertain a motion to approve
moving forward to finish this plan. It's almost completed. Um, but it would be great to find out what the timeline would be. >> So, Meredith, my understanding was that horse Horsley Whitten was the was the delay in
getting this done. Um, and was their contract not inclusive of the scope of work originally? >> Yeah. So, um yeah, Liz and I did ask cuz
we were kind of curious for um specifically like the draft report elements cuz we were like, "Oh, like you imagine like that would be like included as part of like the original budget for like doing the plan." Uh he left a few
comments related to that. Um I think it's kind of as you may expect um and what's been shared the inventory apparently took quite a while and that >> um >> yeah yeah again that took a while. He
also said that there was considerable effort in early 2025 with uh Cheyenne and Nick Connors to get them caught up on the plan, provide status updates, but without any resolution or additional data provided to move the project
forward and then just also notes that um late last year, early this year, he's been working with Liz and I um but said that he could discuss further to clarify if needed, But but yeah, that was his response when we asked about why there
are those costs. So, which I mean >> I support getting the work done, but I also think that they didn't live up to their prior contract by having such a long delay. Um, and the delay really um
led them into a situation where there were staffing changes, right? Um, so I don't necessarily not want to approve it based on that, but I would like them to commit to a time frame and and and deliver within the time frame. So if
this is going to be the funding, then I wanted them to say we will commit to have it complete 100% in six months or whatever that time period is >> or else. >> Seriously, >> I don't know. I I'm not uh I'm I guess
I'm just not entirely comfortable with the >> you know >> with what >> with authorizing another $15,000 for something that they didn't manage very well >> and put us in this position. So maybe I maybe I don't know. Maybe I'm not responding. >> I think a lot of it has actually been on
>> and and when Tim was leaving, there were a lot of things that were um put on hold that were >> by the town >> by the town. >> But it was an opinion though that they slowed their process down and and that led them into a period of transitions.
I committ this um >> so the environmental justice communities outreach which is about 5,000 of it a little bit more actually because we were we were hoping for the more sort of enhanced option so it's about 6,000 so
six of the 15 um is new they changed the regulations >> that's what I thought that was the regulations what are they doing >> what what what is that what what does that look like that what are they >> in the packet Yeah, I mean it's there's a there's a popup there's a popup at the
food pantry. There's a >> So, I saw that list. Those are that's the that's that list that's in the >> that would be that th those were the four those were the four suggestions and it's kind of based on recent projects um conversations. You know, we attended the
connect the connect Milton um uh forum when we when I first came on board. So, I'm familiar with that group. Um I thought it would be important to to involve the seniors. Um, we thought maybe we could go to like Unquie House maybe and have a table, you know, that
sort of thing. Um, so it's hard to get people. It's hard. It's hard to It's hard to get people. You got to go to go where they are. So, it's a little bit more expensive to do to do the popups and just sort of hold a meeting in here and hope people come. I completely
support the the the outreach and that that's a new um component. I but and I do think that this is an important component because if we think about the where we have
the the environmental justice community in precincts I think one and 10 in particular is where there's the least amount of access to to open space opportunities to playgrounds etc. Um what is not required now is the ADA accessibility but I think that's an
important because it's a self-evaluation by the town of our ADA you know access to our parks and recreation although that it's no that piece is no longer required so they have changed some of the um
>> I think that's a good piece too um >> same thing you mean the state or what >> state has changed states dropped dropped that requirement. >> What's interesting? They would drop a federal law ADA and I'm very sensitive
to that. I have a special needs sister. My niece has Down syndrome. My mother has MS living. So, um to me ADA is like a huge thing. So, that's really disappointing that they dropped that
part of it. And a lot of families in our environmental justice neighborhoods have a higher percentage of kids with autism. And I, you know, I would think that the ADA component, it's just huge. So that's
really disappointing to hear. Um, and just back to like I know in my business when I give an estimate to somebody and if I have a change over in staff, you know, my customers are like, "Yeah, you
know, I'm not going to pay you more because you had a change over." >> Aren't it's the client side that's having it's not the consultants who's had a change, >> right? Right. We we so I understand that on a consultant side if you have a
project that drops for two years and you're not working on it. It's not the same price as what you gave when you started because you have an opportunity to increase your price. So plus you have a reactivation. You got to get people up to speed. Then you have to get the staff up to speed. I get that. I just want
them I want to get this done. I think it's important to have the opportunity to seek grants. I just would like um an end date that people can commit to and and not have it drag out. So, I'll make
a motion to um utilize the planning board study funds to complete the open space and recreation plan utilizing option two for outreach for the amount of $15,415. >> I would second. Is there further
discussion? And I just I want to say what one of the things I meant to say during discussion what took so long is mapping in our town of the land parcels and what who owned what what was in conservation what was what's town owned
what's under the parks department. This has been this has been a an unknown for a long time. So it's cleaning up something that has not been understood for years. I asked John Kieran one time. I said, "Do you know of your conservation land how much is
protected?" And he said, "You know, I I I don't know what's protected and what's not protected." So, that's going to be another layer that we're going to have to deal with because Pope's Pond, you know, we all know we everyone thought it was protected, but it wasn't. So, there
are parcels that we may think are protected and are not. But DCR, all the conservation land, who is under what jurisdiction? Is it under the conservation commission? Is it under the parks department? That's been like a web of trying to detangle all of you know
the Milton land trust was dissolved. Some of it went into the wild wildlands trust, others went into other parcels went into the concom. So this Tim was waiting through this and working on this for a long time and then he ended up
leaving unfortunately and so it just got that whole process got dropped. Um and so >> I thought a lot of that um was I thought Tim had completed a lot of that internally during the whole land swap. I feel like I have a spreadsheet somehow
of um identifying all sorts of the lands and who owns it. And that's when you know it was during the land swap when it was discovered that Pope's bond wasn't actually in protected and you know through my whole entire life it was
always assumed that it was protected because it was passed by um town meeting approved by town meeting and um I think federal funds were used to do it. So to me that was a huge surprise that they didn't that that that were just nobody
know like they were just black holes >> and it was supposed to be an easy fix because I called the um executive office of environmental and energy affairs and he said yeah all you have to do is come down and um change the deed like and this was I'm going back like three
years. I said oh so on Monday you know we could go and fix it and he's like yeah and it just hasn't been done. So that's I've been super frustrated by Pope's bond. >> I didn't mean to open that. I don't want >> So I want to come back to >> that's because it makes the land that much more
>> the ADA self assessment that's additional services that they would have had responsibility for initially. >> No, that was that was initially in their contract. It's no longer required, but
everybody felt it was still important to >> complete that work because they've started it. >> Okay. So if it was in the contract, I'm trying to understand why we're paying more for it. Now, >> my understanding from what Avanti said was that they've spent their fees on things that were not anticipated, which
is um bringing two layers, two levels or two layers of staffing completely u up to speed again and having to do additional mapping and and partial uh evaluation that they weren't anticipating previously. Uh, and then
this the environment environmental justice is a new piece that's required. So, it's >> Yeah, the environmental justice you've explained and I understand that our team would like option two. So, that's that's $6,000, but the the rest of it I guess I
just wanted to understand like as Avante said, the draft report, would they not have been responsible for a draft report initially? But there's uh there's there's another $6,000 there. Am I right? >> Yeah. No, there is
>> no $4,000 in a draft report. I I just want to make sure that they're being accountable to us. I mean, sure, if we screwed up and we had we had, you know, we've had changes in staffing and they had to do things twice because they have a different staff that I totally get that, but I also feel like they should be accountable for something that they
should have been accountable for. I don't I don't want to be paying twice for something that, you know, I'm only speaking for everybody in town. It's the taxpayers out to me. We're we're responsible for representing here. But that's my question, you know. >> Well, some I mean some of some of the items on the draft report like for
instance like section 8 public comments like they haven't finished the final public process yet, right? So So there's there's there's information that's missing from some of those elements, right, that that he just doesn't have
yet. So there's some energy involved in going back even if he's got you know 85% of a template for say section one or section two. There is some effort involved in going back and filling in those blanks because some of that information just hasn't been collected
yet. Part part of it is that I had the exact same I had the exact same um concern honestly which is why we which is why we went back to him and said people are going to ask like this was in the original scope. you know, you build against this item in the original scope.
So, where is it? So, I think but I think it is fair. I think it is fair that that that there are gaps that he can't fill yet because the answers haven't been given to him yet. Like for instance, like with the transition plan, it has to go to the disability commission, they have to prioritize things. Like there's
a process there that has to happen. It hasn't happened yet. So he needs to be able to take that information, collate it, get their prioritizations, and then get that in wrap that into this draft report. >> So this work >> is he doing it twice, Liz? >> Pardon me. >> Is he doing it twice?
>> No, because it hasn't gone to the disability. >> So that's why I don't understand why it's why it's a another charge, you know? That's I guess what I'm asking. >> I guess what I'm thinking. >> Yeah. Yeah, that I mean it's it's fair. It's fair. I think it's time. I think it's everything Cheryl said. I think it's the timing. I think it's the it's
the you know the lapse in the timing. It's the Yeah. I don't know it. So the way I would think of it and when I think of my business if I provided a proposal to a client five years ago, when did you start this? At least five years ago, right? >> And uh my set of assumptions were that
it was going to get done in two years and that you know the town would provide this information in this time frame and my team would have a continuous you know path of getting the work done. Um it's they when you have a gap of a year or two in doing work, their staff has to
may have changed also. They have to get up to speed on their end. It's not their fault that the that the and oftentimes these proposals will say that they're only valid for a certain period of time and if the work stops, there'll be a sort of re-engagement charge. I haven't seen >> I haven't seen this particular proposal.
So I don't know. >> I don't know. You know, I mean, if anybody thinks we're all business owners here, if you do a proposal for something, uh, and your cost of, you know, you based your cost on, you know, two years, the cost of doing things two,
five years ago, you can't just delay it forever and expect the cost to stay the same. So, that to me is part of why I think they're seek they need additional funds at this time to finish it because of some of the things that were not were
out of their control. From what I read, they're still were they were waiting for information from the town that they haven't received. >> True. >> Um and so they weren't able to finish the plan, you know, in looking at that. Um so I think there's probably um
the incremental um increases that they spent time doing things and therefore they're they're out of their their fee. And so >> yeah, we have nowhere else to go. I mean, we're not going to find somebody else. We're stuck with these guys. The the fact is if we had to redo this and
the fact that we're this is a a necessity for not only grant funding opportunities but for the work of the concom and others you know I think we're it's one of the um the effects of of um
you know of of having a shortfall in our department in the planning department for >> so then that goes back to if you look at our 4.5 million million free cash. What takes up or goes into that $4.5
million free cash is Tim's salary, Cheyenne's salary, Julia. >> So the so our department has contributed to the free cash.
So we need our department needs to get some of that free cash back. we're about to contribute more to it because we've got all of this fiscal year left and so we've got some opportunity to put it to good use. >> So I keep that's why I keep advocating
and I wanted a list of you know I I emailed Nick the other day and I said I want to know exactly what contributed to this $4.5 million free cash. >> Some of it is stock market gates. >> Yeah, it is correct. as the >> you got to be careful not to blow that
>> want to blow that in. Correct. And then because we'll start the next year at a deficit. Um but I really think some of that money should go back to the departments that actually contributed to it. Um
>> so on that note, do you think it would be could and parks pay for a little bit of this? Why does this all come out of our budget if it's for everyone's benefit? So, Kong will argue that they don't have an budget. However, they get all the tree moneyes.
>> They get all the tree moneyes. Not that I want to waste it on this, but if but to your point, they should use some of that parks. >> It's under the planning department's perview, >> the both the master plan, the open space and recreation,
um housing production plan. There's certain requirements that that are just that fall under the planning board. All right. >> So, we just need to advocate ethnic for more of that $4.5 million back to our >> That's all you got to do. >> That's all you got to do.
>> Yeah. >> So, I know we're not in a great pos. I understand. But we are where we are. >> Say no. >> Yeah. So, >> it's a nice business when you can just add things like that. >> Okay. Do we want to do a roll call or we
supporting this some I know it's >> but I I mean I think I think I'm at a disadvantage because I don't know what it started out as and I don't know where the breakdown is and accountability we have something you're asked us to uh to get this consultant to
finish the work and I don't know I mean I I think I'm I'm I'm approving something blindly to be honest with you >> which I don't like to do. Is this the same architect or consultant that's doing the park, the warf park? >> No, that's a different but they want to
tie in to you know I think some of the work that they will do will feed into you know this work >> and it will and it will help with the recreation master plan which is also underway as well. >> Right. So an ADA transition work will be
will be very helpful to inform that process. So there's there's there's a lot of there's a lot of good reasons to get it done. It's not it's not ideal. I was looking for the I was looking for the quickest route from A to B, >> you know. >> And if you listen to the Sleman's meeting the other night, what is it? 25%
of our population is over the age of 60. >> And they only, you know, each resident, I think, what is it? They get $60 per each resident. That's the funding that the Council on
Aging gets. So, I am a firm supporter of increasing um accessibility to our 60 years >> Oh, for sure. >> residents. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, let's have a let's have a
vote. All All in favor of supporting >> I >> I >> Anyone abstain? Oh, I said I >> Oh, you did. Okay. I don't. >> You looked an eye, but it's an I. >> Okay, I understand. Um, okay. So, we
have just one other >> item, Liz. Um, if you want to do you do you want to do you want to just sort of table this until until the 12th or do you want to do you want to try to talk about it? I I literally got an email today from Nick saying that the
affordable housing trust folks had had had voted or had agreed to partially fund this with the planning board. So, um do you want me to get you that information from that email and then
>> of that? >> I think I think it was a third and then maybe a third potentially through the select board, right? But I don't know if that's >> right. Let's let's take that up on let's put that on the agenda for our next meeting. But we really do we're we've been out of
>> this is expired. >> Refreshing to see a different consultant. That was for me. That was good. >> Well, she's the one who's done the last two or three. Yeah. >> Oh, I know. But I've never seen her name before in my three years that I did a great job. It was just refreshing >> and hopefully >> deal or MAPC or
>> so just um one of the questions I had was any uh role that other parties might play in it. I know that the last time I um I served on the committee and um I think Rich Beer did and it was a committee a housing committee that the
select board put together and Melinda Collins um chaired that committee and engaged with that consultant. So, um I just was curious whether the the select board and the and >> the planning board's rep to that committee, but they've never met. >> Which committee?
>> That another housing committee. >> The housing >> it was a housing committee. >> Oh, housing production. Housing >> committee doesn't exist anymore. >> Yeah, I know. Because it didn't exist. >> It disbanded that housing committee. So, >> so that was a question on by updating because that was an over a huge overhaul
of the whole housing production plan. If we're updating that housing production plan, that was the question maybe for Liz to ask to talk to the consultant. Do we need >> the full scope? >> Do we need the full scope? Do we need to reform a committee? I would like to see it this completed the update as soon as
possible. So the biggest challenge I recall is you actually have to pick locations where you think housing will and could go >> and they have to be realistic and so you know uh sites have
>> MBTA zoning go >> that's what I was thinking >> and wouldn't our ADU >> that's no that's for the consultant I think that's what I was going to ask because it's it's HLC who has to approve the housing production plan and HLC >> uh anything change >> overlay zoning all of our new that's all new since our last housing production we
had the East Milton overlay zoning the Milton village I think that was um >> sorry there's a ton of >> yeah I mean if if that's the case and we can use the we've already passed and I do think it's a quicker process then having to because the you know you need
a public process if you're going to designate other sites too >> but the one of the big benefits that I found with the last one was the data I mean they really provided a lot of really good data. >> We're going to need to update all of our
numbers. All of that data will be very helpful. >> It will. And how many affordable units we've been built, you know, how >> how much we've permitted, all those >> all of that data will be really helpful to have in one place. >> All the 40bs that have been approved, those were all post.
>> And I think it's great if the housing if the affordable housing trust and select would each contribute a third in a And I'm with that I would think one representative from each of those committee would want to be a yeah
participant >> one from the penguins and staff that seems to me is enough. If there's if there's an agreement and an understanding that be paid for by the three entities, a third, a third, a
third, do we is there what would we be doing on the 12th? >> But we would be we would be voting on the amount of our portion be approving that. Okay. >> So this all right. So this is the so this is the email that came in today.
affordable housing trust voted to commit to funding a third of the proposed fee. The affordable housing trust would also like to have participation on a committee >> to oversee the work. This is similar there was a similar working group that oversaw the 2020 plan. Would the
planning board like to contribute a third? Uh and then if planning board would like to do that then the select board could potentially do the other third. Um and he he's he is suggesting a nine member committee. Maybe like you
say maybe it maybe it's one member from each of the groups to be more to be more workable. So that's it. That was that was that was the that was the email from this morning. >> Is the fee identified? >> Yeah, the fee is in the scope. Yeah, that was in your in your packet. >> 23,000 is that
>> I think it's Yeah, some some somewhere around 22. I I honestly would have to circle back to see if if there was any change to this price based on kind of like what you guys were talking about like as far as you know that this isn't sort of like a comprehensive overhaul.
My sense I actually thought this price was going to be higher when I when I solicited it. So, I think it's just I think it's I think it's a she's terrific terrific um planner and and consultant, but I think it does hit all of the
regulatory requirements. >> So, it's 22,000 here. So, a third would be what? 7, >> 333. I mean, I think the details of the scope
um can be worked out between you and her and I think having a committee with at least one representative from the planning board makes sense. So, I would make a motion to um if you're willing to take it.
>> Yeah. No, I think it was >> to allocate, let's just say, up to $7,500 from the planning board's budget to go towards the um update to the housing production plan. U understanding that a
committee will be formed and at least one member of the planning board will serve on the committee. >> Second. >> Can we recommend that it's not a nine member board? because I do think the more people on a board it does become more cumbersome and it becomes harder to
get a quorum. So I don't I'm >> think we may have had like six before. Maybe it was more than six. >> Yeah, it looks like 6 7 8 9 10 11 minus Bill Clark.
>> Yeah, I can tell you that 11 didn't participate on a regular basis. >> So I think that's just two odd number, right? five or seven. >> We need a series seven, but I >> I don't think it needs to be in the motion. >> Yeah, >> that's
>> Can the motion be the doll valid $7,333 which is what is a third? >> Instead of up to 7,500. >> Why not be exact when we can? Right. We can be exact. >> All right. I'll take those friendly
amendments. >> Okay. >> Right. All in. You had a second. So Jim seconded. All in favor? >> Nice. >> Great. So >> yeah, let's get get her. >> One last thing for the 12th. Absolutely.
>> And so a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I >> thank you. Especially those three-hour meetings, four hour meetings before.