Good evening and welcome to the 43rd meeting of fiscal year 2025 of the Milton Planning Board. At this time, I would like to now call the meeting to order. Um we have um we are all on Zoom this evening. So we'll begin by
introductions um of ourselves if we would like to go around. Uh let's see we can start with Sean Sean Fehey member Jim Jim Davis member Cheryl Cheryl
Tagayas secretary and Maggie Magguil member and myself serving as chair and our staff this evening we have Cheyenne Diane Frasier, assistant director of plan and Cheyenne will be here for uh
the first part of the meeting and then we have Julia thank you and welcome all. Um the first item um on our agenda tonight is the approval of minutes and um thank you for getting these all over. Um have the
members had a chance to take a look? They are um from April 10th, April 24th, April 30th, May 5th, and May 6th. Mhm. If everyone's good with those, uh I
would entertain a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from April 10th, 24th, 30th, May 5th, and 6th. Thank you. Is there a second? Well,
second. Sorry, Jim. Uh, can you clarify as amended? Uh, yes, as amended. Thank you. Great. Great. Okay, so we'll do a roll call since we're all on Zoom. Uh, Jim,
yes. Maggie, yes. Cheryl, yes. Sean, yes. And myself, yes. Great. Thank you. And we now have our um our upcoming um next dates for our meeting uh will be we
have next Thursday. Our regular scheduled meeting is May 22nd. And then we also will our following meeting would be um June 5th. It's actually June is it June 5th or June 12th? Double check that.
Two weeks from the 22nd would be the 5th. That's what I had. Okay. the fifth, but it's usually the second and fourth Thursdays of the month. Go ahead. Right. That's why I think I was I think it's Yeah. So, it's actually the 12th. That's It's the 12th. Yep.
Yep. Okay. Great. So, those will be our next um meeting dates. And um then let's see. Um do we have any
um any other items Cheyenne that you would like to discuss? Um just the main item is our town meeting articles for June. Those will have to be decided on tonight to the select board so that we can get
everything um done in time for for the warrant. Great. Great. Thank you. Good. Oh, um, Meredith, um, there there's a myar here for, um, Pine Gardens that needs to be signed. Just a reminder.
Thank you. I think three people have signed. Um, and just we're missing two signatures. So, whenever people can get a chance to stop and town hall, they're on the file cabinet. Thanks, Julia, for that reminder. Um, so if there is that it Cheyenne and
Yes, that was our the big one and yeah, great. Um, so the next we can now move to our citizen speak. Um, and if anyone would like to speak um you can please raise your hand and we will welcome you um introduce you and welcome
you and there's one hand up um from the attendees. Oh, there's a couple. Okay. Um, first we had Karen Freriedman. Hannah, oh, you just muted yourself. I just unmuted. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Hi, I'm Karen Freriedman Hannah, town
meeting member, precinct 2. Um, I live at three Norway Road. And um I wanted to thank all of you for doing a really wonderful job, especially Cheryl Tagas for putting together the 25%
um plan. I am really really hopeful that you will submit that plan. Um and also the uh discussion that's going to be taking place regarding the new um business down where the Bank of America
building is down at the end of Elliot Street. I wanted to say that I support both plans. Well, I don't know what exactly what that plan is yet, but I support both concepts tremendously. I am very thankful that you're considering
putting the 25% plan to us at town meeting. I will support it. I am hopeful. Um some of my um uh neighbors did raise they were a little bit confused by the um the map with the way
that it shows it says delete um Elliot East and delete Elliot West. And I'm hoping that when you're in discussion, I'll be able to have a better understanding about that of whether it still encompasses um the areas that are within those red
markings, the red outline or not. Um they a few people were confused by it when I sent out information about it. So, I'm hoping that that can be clarified. But again, thank you so much. I am very hopeful that you will be submitting the 25% plan and that the
select board will accept it and the warrant committee will recommend it. Thank you so much. Thank you. And next we have Meg's iPhone. Okay. Can Hi, can everyone hear me? Yes. Okay. Wonderful. Um yes, kind of echoing
um what Karen just said, I want to thank the planning board for the tremendous job that you all have done. I know that this really has been a a a challenging task. So, um I am calling in from Geo Field from a softball game.
So, I'm a little uh dogs are barking, kids are playing, but um I just would like to say two things this evening. Um, I am in support of the 10% compliance plan. Um, I feel really strongly that Milton was
miscatategorized. I am prodevelopment. I am pro-af affordable housing, but unfortunately, as we've seen, um, sometimes things get mislabeled and, um, I I really feel like this is a strong example of that. I also want to say that
I am also in huge support of the new project that will potentially um go into the old Bank of America. I think this is a tremendous step forward for Milton and for this area. So um I appreciate the, you know, the the thoughtfulness around
that as well. Um thank you so much for your time and um I'm gonna try and mute myself again. Before you mute yourself, could you give me your last name and your address, please? Oh, sure. Yes, yes, yes. Sorry. Um, my name is Meg Maripole and I live
at 45 Avalon Road. Um, thank you. You're so welcome. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you, Meg. Um, next we have Matt Morang. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes.
Welcome, Matt. All right. Thank you. Um, my name is Matt Morang at 136 Elliot Street. Um, and I think like everybody, I'm going to address two items. Um, both the MBTA zoning and the proposal at 2 Elliot Street. So, um, to start really quickly um, with MBTA zoning. Um, first
I want to share my sincere gratitude for advancing the 25% plan for consideration by town meeting. Um, it's clear that many members of this board aren't necessarily in favor of this magnitude of zoning for our town. Uh that said, I'm grateful that despite this and in spite of all the difficulty we've had as
a community reaching this point, you were able to advance this to the select board. I appreciate that you've left this option open um since it is currently the only legal option that we have. I know that there are efforts to change that, but until that happens um and it seems that those efforts have no
traction so far, this is it. Moreover, um this is the only option that acknowledges the reality that we live in. We are a town served by rapid transit via the trolley that I use every time that I go to my office in the city and we are in the midst of a housing crisis that shows no sign of slowing
down. So, thank you, a sincere thank you for your hard work on this. The only option that I see as reasonable um and that we move ahead toward a resolution of this matter. Um to switch gears, I also want to throw my support behind the development proposal for two Elliot Street that's in front of you tonight.
Um I'm a close neighbor of Steel and Ryan. It is unquestionably one of the best things about living on my end of Elliot Street. Um when my wife and I looked at our house at first, um the Steel and Ry's location and the trolley were the two things that really sold us on this location as the best one in
Milton. Steel and Ry uh has not only been a great restaurant with excellent coffee and baked goods and service, um but it embodies the character of what I would hope for every gathering place in this town. Um it's a place to spontaneously run into neighbors. It's a comfortable and welcoming place to work
when I need a change of scenery. Um, and it's a place to take family and friends from out of town to introduce them to Milton. Dan and his staff have created an institution that enhances our neighborhood and I'm confident that they will continue this with their new market. So, I can't think of better people to continue to develop our
district. Um, and I'm really happy that they are interested in increasing their investment in our community. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, next we had Brian O'Halerin. Yes. Hi. Uh, good evening. Um, even Brian O'Halerin
uh, seven Morton Terrace uh, precinct 3. uh Milton's uh trans transit categorization by EOHLC and the MBTA should be based on analysis of the existing physical characteristics and operational ability
of the Matipan line as well as a detailed comparison of the Matipan line to other transit systems within the MBTA network. It is significantly abundantly clear that Milton's classification as a
rapid transit community The EOHLC's MBTA Community Act guideline failed to account for the unique qualities of the Matipanad line to distinguish it from the rest of the MBTA and Rabbit Transit systems and should
therefore be classified as an adjacent community. We now know by the MBTA's own admission that Matipan highspeed line was never converted to rapid transit. Manipan line remains a highly unique detached suburban trolley system
essentially untouched from when it opened in the 1920s. It should not be considered rapid transit. The Metapan trolley service is distinctly dissimilar and operationally inferior to rapid transit. The historic Madapan Ashmont
trolley separates operates on a short self-contained standalone route with its own two termini and eight trolley stops spanning a short distance of a little over two miles in Milton Dorchester and
Matipan with no direct access to Boston and operates as a bus line on railroad tracks. In summary, reclassification will ensure that Milton, its transit riders, and all residents are treated fairly and equit equitably. Please
support a 10% plan. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Brian. And we have a phone number uh ending in 011 next. And you're muted. Hi.
Hello, Meredith. Hi. Yes. Hello. Good afternoon. It's Mark Crystal calling. Hello to you and the board. Hello. Welcome. You can state your address for the record, Mark. Of course. 17 Waldo Road. Great. Thank you. I would like to
thank the board for your tireless effort and for your commitment in putting forth a 10% zoning plan for Milton. Contrary to what some have implied, Milton has not lost its case in court. The case brought before the SJC had nothing to do but correcting an unjust punitive
sloppily assigned faulty classification. A court challenge for reclassification of the Matapan trolley is most credible at this time considering HLC's inability or unwillingness perhaps to address our long-standing concerns. The fact that
the SJC called HLC out for not having properly promulgated their own regulations is extremely telling. First consider that HLC has failed to recognize the operational inferiority of the Matipan trolley. The trolley is a single vessel with limited carrying
capacity that has no ability to transport even one passenger downtown. Also consider that HLC has failed to recognize that Ashmont is the rapid transit terminus. That is indisputable. The trolley sits entirely
beyond that terminus and it only feeds into it just like a bus. And also consider that HLC has ignored the MBTA board of directors acknowledged abandonment of their very plans to convert the Matapan trolley to rapid
transit, giving no consideration to all the transit related material changes that would have resulted. How much more time are you willing to give HLC to responsibly step up and do the right thing? Letting the clock run out and
hoping to force Milton into into compliance to a plan that lacks footing is simply too much and without basis. Worse yet, advice HLC and out. For all the reasons stated, I cannot endorse a 25% plan, but I am strongly supportive
of moving forward to achieve a fair and equitable 10% plan's adoption. Thank you for all you do. Thank you very much. Are you still there? Um, could you give me your last name, please? Sure. Uh, Chris Ellis spelled C H R I S
T O. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Great. Thank you. And next we have Katie Willlet. This is actually Carolyn Cahill, 40 Essex Road, Precinct One. Welcome, Caroline. Um, I just I'm actually here
tonight to first and foremost express my sincere support for the two Elliot Street redevelopment of the former Bank of America. Steel Rye has become a community gathering spot and has completely immersed itself into our
community. This has been a welcome addition considering our very first restaurant, official restaurant in Milton came in 2009, not that long ago. I hope the planning board works with the developer and the owner of Steel and Ry
to put together um a of a what's best for our town, which everything I'm seeing so far looks like it's doing that. Um so that's all I wanted to say. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much,
Carolyn. Okay, next we have Doug Hine. Good evening. Doug Hine, uh 453 Elliot Precinct 2, also a town meeting member. Um wanted to first and foremost thank you all for um your your efforts to put forth both a 10% plan and a 25% plan.
And I really thought about the board meeting last week a lot over the past few days. And the more I thought about it, the more I was just really I think impressed and grateful um at the actions that the board took because I know it
wasn't easy. Uh and and I and I think at some on some level maybe was the the meeting with HLC earlier in the day that kind of a sense of realism and that might not be the right word but I guess you know prudence you know really crept
in and and thought you know this is the best we can do. I think actually Mr. Davis might have even made that comment when when voting for the 25% plan, but I wanted to thank you because I know it's difficult to do something that you don't want to do, but you have to do. Um, and
and that really kind of speaks to me because it's it's a lot of it it covers a lot of the mixed emotions that I've had about the MBTA Communities Act for a number of years. And I've I've hated to see kind of what this town has gone through over the last couple years where
we're really not acting neighborly toward one another. And I think um your efforts last week went a long way toward healing the town. And by putting forward both a 10 and a 25% plan, you don't foreclose any options. You you keep
options open. And I know that's been a common theme of of this body over the past year. And I want to commend you for that. That that that to me, what you did last week in voting for a plan that maybe you don't like, but you knew was the right thing, that showed a lot of
character. It showed a lot of character and and I know you invest a lot of time uh in this more more so than I think any of us can ever imagine. And I wanted to thank you for your time, for your thoughtfulness, and for your character.
I I really appreciate that from the bottom of my heart. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much. Um, next we have uh Jeff Goodman. Welcome, Jeff. If you can unmute yourself.
Hi there. Sorry. Jeff Goodman, 599 Adam Street. Uh, welcome. Hi. Welcome. Thanks for having me. Uh first off, uh I agree that I would much prefer to be in the the 10%. However, uh I feel like that
decision has been made for us and we need to stop fighting this and spending money that would be better spent in other ways. Um, I also like to thank the consultants who I think did a great job last week and uh even though uh a lot of
this was coming down to the wire, I thought they showed a lot of patience and grace and uh helping us come up with two different plans that uh hopefully gets us past this point in
the town's history. Uh, and I also agree with Carolyn Cahill that Seal and R has been an excellent addition to the town and uh, I support their new venture. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And next we have Kathleen
O'Donnell. Thank you very much. Kathleen O'Donnell at um 12 Belchure Circle, precinct 7. And um I call in to uh first of all echo the appreciation that's been
expressed by all the prior speakers for the hard work that you guys have done to address the concerns of you know my neighborhood in particular um that were raised by the the former um zoning article and that you've tried to move this along in in a in a way that sort of
addresses the the successful the the loss case that in this SJC and um the sort effort by everybody to sort of include more areas of town to reduce the impact in East Milton. But, you know,
unlike some of the prior speakers, I would point out that we did lose the case at the SJC. Um, the law is legal. The AG can enforce it and the Commonwealth can refuse to give us grants. And, you know, that has an impact all across the the town, not just
in the areas that are affected by this overlay district. Um, for example, grants that we are trying to get for improving the marshlands and the deposit probably won't be awarded if Milton's name appears on the application. So, we've been told. So, it has an absolute
impact on us already. And so I know that everybody has said that, you know, you've listened to the residents and all that sort of thing, but I would say that when this article for the 25% or the 10% goes forward, that you've only had one
public forum. And so a lot of people don't understand what has changed from the last version we looked at a couple years ago. And so, you know, I would say that in advance of town meeting, I think the planning board and staff are really going to have to do a lot more about
reaching out to to towns people to explain the differences. E if you go forward with 25 or if you go forward of 10, people need to understand what is going on. And I don't think they do. They think they maybe are looking at the same article they looked the last time.
And so I think that's important to get a lot more outreach than has been done so far. And I I do ex I do express my concern with the idea of going for 10% which we know is not legal. So we
continue to violate the law. We continue to fail to get grants. We continue to lose money. We could go back to court and address the issue of the reclassification of the Matipan line, but we spent $300,000 on that case the last time. And
when that argument was raised by our council, the um Supreme Judicial Court um chief justice cut him off. So, I don't see the point of going forward and spending another $300,000 on a case that um would be
better handled by addressing the continued negotiations with the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities instead of going to court. Everyone knows if you're a litigator. I'm not, but I've always been told by litigators that that's the last thing you want to do because it's an outcome
you cannot control. Negotiations, we can. And so I highly recommend you proceed with your the original vote to do the 25% and to continue to negotiate the fine points of that 25% plan with
HLC. And the 10% plan, as far as I'm concerned, is a non-starter. People who have taken an oath to defend the Commonwealth of Massachusetts laws and that sort of thing should be following the law, not leading us down to continual violation. Thank you very much. Thank you. And we have two more
and then we'll have to if you can be quick we'll get both of you in. Um and then we're going to have to um move on to our next subject. So I'm seeing um H we have Helmunger. Um there's Liz uh Goodman is up. Oh I
thought she took her hand down. I'm sorry. Liz Goodman and then that's okay. Um I just want to say so I'm Liz Goodman. I live at 599 Adam Street in precinct 7. I just wanted to echo what Kathleen O'Donnell said about pointing out that sort of people had this
misunderstanding about what's going forward. And I noticed that last year, even during the vote, that people had a misunderstanding that if they voted to allow this to pass, then we were automatically going to have an extra
thousand homes in town. whereas what we were just trying to vote for is to do the right thing by the law. I felt there was a lot of miscommunication around that, especially living in Eastman Square. Um I think we do need to, like she said, we need to stick with that
original 25%. We need to actually do what the law is telling us that we have to do. There are ways to deal with it once we go past, but we can't continue to hemorrhage money to fight something that has been decided and every other
town around us has decided that this is what we need to do. Um, I also want to express support for two Elliot Street. I think Steel and Ry is a great location. I think that business has done a wonderful job and I just think that area
is also a great area. So that's my other those my other two cents. Thank you very much. And Heler Oh, sorry. Go ahead. All right. That's all right. Thank you. And Hel Munger will be our last speaker for tonight because we will need to move on.
Hello phone number before I think that's Mark Cristo who spoke earlier. Okay. Forgot to put his hand on. Sorry. Okay. Hello. Thank you. Yes. Hi. Thank you for uh letting me speak. I was wanted to
echo some of the things were said tonight and express my sincere thank you and uh gratitude and congratulations to the planning board, the town staff, and the various consultants that worked uh diligently over the last several years, especially over the last year to get us
to this point of a compliant 25% plan. And I look forward to the next steps where we uh bring this forward to the the public and have robust and uh sometimes difficult conversations as we proceed to uh the town meeting in June where hopefully we'll have uh a meeting
and a conversation with the public that will uh get us over the finish line in compliance with the state. Again, I just wanted to say thank you to the planning board. All the members have worked very hard, a lot of hours, and uh look forward to the next steps. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Um and we are we are
excited that we will be hearing um from two Elliot Street. But before we um before we open that public hearing, I just felt like um we needed to just discuss something as a board which is which is critical um because the select
board is is currently meeting. um since since our last meeting and I I think many of you who were at that meeting and know how hard we were working to do the both a 10% and a 25%
um I personally have been struggling with this decision with the decision to send a 10 and 25% um particularly um as Kathleen O'Donnell mentioned that we have not even had a chance to offer a public forum for the
25% sent uh for people to understand what would be um what impacts that would that would create. Um for many reasons I am concerned and feel that really moving the 25% may be premature and as as there
are many um uncertainties right now including the restoration of Milton's reclassification and the unfunded mandate. I also felt that a lot of the board members that I was pushing for that 25, but that a lot of the board
members felt uncomfortable um voting for that. Um therefore tonight I just wanted to provide the opportunity to open that discussion with our board and confirm whether we indeed do want to move that 25% forward um or do we want to um or
the 10% and the 25 or do we just want to move a 10% forward at this time. Um, so I just would like to um invite my fellow board members and and understand how difficult this is for for our board and
um and we understand the responsibility um to do the right thing for the town. So um Cheryl, I see your hand up if you would like to go first. Uh yes, thank you. I um I think we have a responsibility
um and an obligation to u move forward um at least with a 25% um plan and I'm willing to go forward with both um as a way to see what would happen between now and the June town
meeting. I don't think we should deprive town meeting members who are elected to represent the entirety of our precincts of the opportunity to vote to stay to become compliant and to become eligible again for grants that we are no longer
eligible for. Um it's not our decision to decide whether uh to pursue any legal actions. It's our responsibility to deliver zoning options. Um, and I know that people still believe and people are working on um, an opportunity that they
think might exist with HLC for a reclassification. I've pressed those of you who have been in meetings, you know, to to be clear about what you've heard. Um, it's I don't think anything has been decided and and given uh, clear direction given back on your uh,
meetings and the results of the submission of that 10% option that we submitted to HLC. So I think uh we should proceed with submitting both the 10% uh and the 25% and if we have some decisions before
uh the June town meeting then one of them can either be um withdrawn or uh one or sent back uh or denied and then uh we would have at least the option available to us to become compliant by the deadline of July 13th.
Great Cheryl. Thanks. Um, I see Jim Jim has his hand up. Yeah, thanks Meredith. Um, I guess you're right. I have been thinking about this since our last vote. Um, and what's pushing me
um to rethink it is that I've heard that um the Falcone project in East Milton Square because we've overlaid them with with about 50 more units, they're thinking about adding more units. I didn't hear it directly from Falcon, but
it might be a rumor, right? So, if that happens, um, more units means more stories. D, you can go you can only go up at that in that in that area. So, on that parcel, so I think if we do seven or eight, if if this goes through and we
have seven or eight stores in East Milton Square, um, I think that would be devastating to East Milton. And I think it would be devastating and set a dangerous precedent for Milton in general as a town. And I don't want that. You know, I um I put those units there thinking they
would never be built. And if there's a chance that they're going to be built now, um I think that's a risk I'm not worth I don't personally don't want to take. And I think the only way to remove that risk is to remove those additional
units. So, it leads me to kind of like my next point about this is that we're still tweaking districts, right? Cheryl made some suggestions for the Fairmont area. Now, I think we should adjust East Milton Square and then if what's true in
East Milton Square may be true at 7-Eleven Randolph, right? I mean, who's to say they won't add a few more stories, units, whatever. I think we have to go back and rethink that one. So, um I don't think the 25% plan is ready yet. I think it needs to be scrutinized
a little bit more. Um, and I think Kathleen O'Donnell might be right where we do need a lot more public input. We should have at least one more forum. Um, even if we schedule it a week or two from now, we we should have that, but we we have a lot of work to do here and and
I think it might have been a little premature. So, and then we also um need net new numbers before we vote on anything. I think in the future we kind of rushed that and skipped over that, but I really think we have to look at net new numbers and see what's going
where as a true comparison. Um, so that's where I am right now. I mean, I've got more of it, but I'll stop there. Right. Uh, Maggie, I see your hand up. You like to go? Are you muted?
Oh, sorry. Um, so as you know, I abstained from voting last week and I abstained because I didn't feel like I had enough information to take a position. And if I was feeling like I
didn't have enough information and I've spent three years in this chair listening and talking with all of you guys, listening to the the consultants, how could the
public realistically understand and have enough information? and I still don't have enough information even, you know, a few days later. Um,
so I was hesitant to vote no last week. Um, but if I have an opportunity again, I would vote no. And I didn't say this last week, but one of the reasons I
um which is something that's really bothering me is I do feel like during last week's uh citizen speak, a resident kind of was a
bully and stated that if the planning board didn't put forth a 25% plan, then he would petition the select board to put forth a 25% plan. And I don't take kindly to
bullies. And I don't think that's a respectful thing to say to an elected board, especially a board who's been working on this for three years. Um, and no good decision ever
comes from a position of fear. And if a decision is made out of fear, then it can only lead, I think, to a negative outcome. And if if this is going to be
the new reality that residents in this town don't trust the work of the planning board and they're just going to hijack the process and go straight to the select board, then why do we need a planning board?
Like why are we needed? Why waste all of our time if we're being threatened that our work has no value and no respect? So I'm a little annoyed at that. Maggie, let let's just stay on the
10 and 25 because I want to let everyone have a chance to speak on that and I appreciate your comments. And then um I think we all support a 10%. I think
um I think we should move forward with the 10%. I don't think we actually voted to move a 10% plan forward to the select board and the warrant committee. Um, I am afraid following Jim's comments about
the Falcone building, we all know that Falcone and Corkran got $5 million um, you know, an interest free loan to to proceed with their 40B. And the understanding is they're going to receive another $5 million from the state um when they're a little bit
further along in their um so I I am afraid that they're going to take advantage and we don't have any net new numbers and I if you're going to open up the um discussion if we should move a
25% um forward then I'm ready to be more um uh definitive in my vote. Thank you. Thank you. And um I know Cheryl, you
have your hand up, but uh Sean, did you want to comment at this point or wait after till after Cheryl? Uh I'll I'll wait till after Cheryl. I I I have some questions, but I'd let Cheryl go, please. All right, Cheryl. I um I just
wanted to mention a couple of things with respect to timeline and forums. Um, you know, I right after the referendum over a year ago, I um suggested to our to all of you
that we should develop a very robust public engagement plan that we needed to make the public aware of what the the Supreme Judicial Court decision was and what we were going to do as a result of that decision. We spent $50,000 of
taxpayer funds um to working with UTIL um for the last year plus. We were working at a at a good pace through the summer until the fall when a resident advised many of you and tried to advise the board as as
council that we shouldn't be working on a 25% compliant plan at all until the SJC issued its decision. So the public forum that we had scheduled for November was cancelled or rescheduled until the
middle of April. We didn't res then we didn't resume work with UTIL until after that uh Supreme Court decision in January. And I even all along I've continued to say we needed to hold more public forums and we needed to have a
realistic timeline. And so I I I uh I take um some of the comments about how we're we're at this time and we need more time. We've had ample time. We've had almost three years to work on this and we have worked on it and it we should have had more public input but we
are up against yet another deadline that keeps us out of compliance and we have a responsibility to use the next six weeks or whatever however many weeks it is between now and June 16th town meeting uh to bring the public up to speed with
where we are. And I don't think we should continue to continue to spend taxpayer dollars uh chasing plans uh that we know aren't going to work. Uh we have a plan that can be tweaked. We can but we have a plan that works. It has a
lot of work that's gone into it and I think we should move forward with it and let the voters at town meeting uh make a decision. Great. Thank you, Cheryl. Sean. Well, I I am certainly struggling with
this and I've struggled with it since our meeting last week. Um, you know, I think I think my point of view was pretty well outlined last
week. And yet, you know, when Cheryl proposed, um, I seconded. So, I certainly was advocating um to support what Cheryl had in mind for the 25% plan. Um so, that's a fact.
But, you know, I am struggling with this. You know, one of the things that I I you know, that plan has 1,526 units for the side of town that's essentially from
um the Milton station area all the way over through Matapan. 1,526 units, you know, and it breaks down for 555 for Elliot Street, you know, that's the TS 1, 2,
and three. Milton Station, East Western Bridge, 609 units. And then Matapan and Blue Hills, 362. So that's a total of 1,526 zoned units for that side of town.
I I I think it's overwhelming, you know, that side of town and it's overwhelming our neighborhoods. And the only reason we're overwhelming our neighborhoods and overwhelming that side of town is because we have something that I
think is unjust and unfair and improper and it's driven by the classification. Um, I have very uh strong concerns for the negative impacts that many people in town can't
see or or don't see or maybe prefer not to see. Um I I am aware of the express concern of a $300,000 case to litigate if it
costs us that to litigate. But I think an awful lot of people are ignoring what the cost would be if we ever had 25% zoning and what happens to our town
um uh in the years ahead. I think $300,000 is will pale in comparison to what we will pay as a town. And I you know obviously if we're paying it as a town it's the taxpayers that are paying
it. So I think the cost ahead is many many many multiples greater than the expense of uh pursuing classification. Um I do believe that our select board
should pursue classification. I uh it's the opportunity although a speaker earlier tonight said that we lost. We didn't lose this this the fact is that there's been no ruling on classification. You know, I said it last week, it has yet to be adjudicated. Um
nothing has changed with respect to the adjudication and that opportunity exists. Um and you know, I would urge our select board to pursue adjudication and and get to a conclusion uh if our
classification has been fair and get there through the court system. We we started in January of 24 um talking with HLC or meeting with HLC. So it it's not that HLC is not
aware of this, but HLC has done nothing to provide us relief from the 25%. Nothing. And um it appears to me that HLC is reluctant to do anything to provide relief to Milton. Um, and the
only way Milton can get relief if is if we pursue our classification and go back through the court. Um, I I you know the 10% uh zoning that we submitted um that is
a that is a uh a zoning plan that we 100% undoubtedly are responsible for. We are within a half mile of three commuter roll stations. And you know, I've never
been a zero% person. I've always been a 10% and potentially more than 10%, I think we have an opportunity to increase beyond 10%. Uh but without an opportunity to have a compromise from from uh HLC for something that might be
a middle ground between 25% and 10%. I don't like being in the position where um we're pushed and forced to 25%. You know, I I don't know if people that are watching tonight saw Senator Driscoll's
presentation last week to the Senate body. Um it might be I don't know, it might be 15 minutes long. Maybe it's a little longer. Maybe it's 20 minutes long, but it was an excellent presentation. um you know and it outlined Senator Driscoll's reasoning uh
for why he feels you know Milton is uh being you know unfairly treated in this. We also have the the leader of the house who has come out and stated essentially the same thing that he feels that Milton
isn't being fairly treated. Um, we have residents, you know, there are residents that were once in favor of the 25% um that are now speaking for and advocating for a compromise between 10% and 25%. And and I didn't expect that,
but um that's out there. Um, you know, RKG's cost analysis that says that this would be cash positive, I don't believe that for a moment. We have no internal or second party assessment of cost analysis. So,
we're placing all of our faith in RKG's cost analysis. And I don't think that's sound judgment for a zoning initiative of this magnitude. You know, and I do believe that RKG's cost analysis is is not inclusive of all of the real and actual cost outcome. Just the simple
fact that their projection includes only 275 additional students. 275 275 additional students from zoning that would add 2,461 new units. That alone should cause
everybody concern because that can't be real. I've talked at length about what I refer to as the empty neester transition. When these units are built, families that live in Milton that no longer need the homes with the number of bedrooms they have, they likely would
sell their home and and move into one of the units that would be built. And when I questioned RKG what they had calculated for the number of of um students that would be derived from that, they calculated zero. And the
reason they said they calculated zero was because they didn't have a model to use to derive a calculation. Well, I don't think that's responsible because we all know that many of the residents in town, if they have the chance to move into one of these units, they very
likely will and their home will then be occupied by a family. So to assume that we're not going to have students derived from that transition is wrong. So the the cost of this uh I believe hasn't
necessarily been assessed and when you consider a public initiative and whether it's a federal initiative, a state initiative or a local initiative when when has an optimistic outlook in
terms of cost ever really materialized? The answer is probably almost never. You know, and our most recent example of this is with our fire stations. You know, we set forth with a budget to build three fire stations, and what have we learned? We only had enough money to
build two. So, for those that think that this is going to be cash positive, and it's not going to create a financial burden for the town of Milton, I I think that's a a very very risky and and I will go as far as to say an incorrect
supposition. So I have huge concerns with 25%. And um I'll think a little bit more about this you know as we continue this conversation and I would like Meredith to
understand if we withdraw this what is there an opportunity what happens? So, if we vote if we vote to um withdraw the 25%
um I think we all are in agreement at least a 10% is what we would want to um submit to the warrant committee and to the select board. um we would make we would make a vote and the reason why I'm putting it on early is because the select board are meeting tonight as well
discussing um zoning articles and I just wanted to when they get to the agenda item be able to hear from what what the intent is of the planning board so that they are clear with uh decisions that they need to
make. Is that helpful? So once we make once we decide what we want to do um I'm Cheyenne is going to send an email to Nick um just letting him know. So I think it's completely irresponsible to be at the same night that the select
board is meeting to decide to make a different plan of action and I think it's also um disrespectful to the applicant who has a public hearing scheduled for 705 to be right for this conversation. We have some of you said
that UTI should pull allnighters in order to do the work that they've prepared for us that we have yet to discuss and we should. No one said that. That is not accurate. People did not say UTL should pull all nighters. I think actually what happened was UTIL had said they wouldn't pull allnighters. I think
that's what was said. In any case, they did a lot of work that in between our meeting on Thursday and today and we have that work to review yet. And I I think we should give that careful consideration and I would rather not
delay the further the 705 public hearing for the two project and so that we can come back to this discussion and give it the due consideration that it deserves and review the work that's been submitted not only by UTIL but by Nick Milano in terms of the zoning language
which I spent time this afternoon reviewing and providing edits for. We can't do that and continue to delay the public hearing uh in good faith uh to the correcter opinion. Yes. No. And I that is we we need to get through that tonight um because we needed to get to
the warrant committee. But this is an important conversation because it's going to direct that later conversation. I told Nick um of my concerns and he asked that we we make a decision early in the meeting and let so he can let the select board know. So that's why um and
my apologies to to uh the applicant for two Elliot, but um I'd like to wrap up this conversation in in the next five minutes. Can we wrap it up without having a review of the materials? We are making presumptions about rumors that somebody can do development when
they have a six-story building approved and we haven't reviewed the fact that what's in this zoning allows for four and a half stories. So, we haven't talked about the realities of what's being proposed against rumors that I haven't heard. But this we need to work
we need to work on facts and we need to review the presentation and show what the facts are in the presentation. And Cheryl, we did agree we agreed to a plan. I mean, what we voted on last last week was the districts and the number of
units. That's what we and we now are working on the zoning language. So we know and it was presented to the residents publicly what that plan looks like. So even if we if it's minor tweaks um you know I get that it's it's more of
the impact of the overall decision of a 25% plan at this time. Um so I understand your feeling on this and and I and we've done I I think our work was not um in vain. I mean, we may
ultimately need to use the 25% plan. I just don't think we're to me. I don't I don't think we're there yet. And we're out of time, but we have to get it to the warrant. We have to get something to the warrant. And I fully intend to have
a plan set forth for our June town meeting. And I I think it should be the 10% at this point. and then you know shell we need if we need to we we have a 25% plan that's pretty
much ready to go. So, back to my comments about facts. Sean, you made a comment that we are going to have 2461 new units. And we know that though that's not true, and we know that it's more likely to be 1,600 or less net new
units uh when we factor in the existing housing units that are in these districts. And so, you know, I think we have to be careful about using fear or h saying things that may cause fear if that's not even the intent of the speakers who've said them, but saying
things about Falcone can do more building so they're going to suddenly change their plans or we have more net new than what we actually have. And then also speaking about Senator Driscoll's bills uh and or amendment amendment that
he withdrew and other amendments that failed. There's been amendments put forth um to change our designation um and other things about the MBTA Communities Act, none of which have advanced. The final regulations were
issued not long ago. You know, there's at a certain point we have to accept where we are. As other speakers have said, I don't support just sending a 10% plan. We I think it's our obligation to submit both. Okay. Right.
It would be an awful shame if if if we submitted our plan, it got voted in, and then the unfunded mandate ruling came down, and it was determined that towns actually would get money for um
this mandate, the MBTACA act. Um that would be such a huge missed opportunity. And I think that given the fact that the town's broke and we did a $9.5 million override that we actually should wait to see what that unfunded
mandate ruling is. And the way I understand that, and this is not fact, I don't know for a fact, but I think within the next 30 or 60 days that's going to come down. I think in June a ruling is due. I personally am dying to see what happens there. And I and I'm almost sure
that if we pass zoning, we lose the opportunity to benefit from that unfunded mandate ruling. But so you're saying take away the the right of town meeting to actually make a decision. You're saying the five of us should make a decision whether town meeting has the option to be compliant to vote to make a
decision themselves. You'd rather the five of us decide we should not deliver them that option. Well, we've been making the decisions all along, Cheryl. At some point we have to keep making the decisions. I would like to just follow up on a couple facts too on um about
RKG. So RKG, we hired RKG to do a fiscal analysis. And at the time that we hired them, I can speak for myself, I did not know that RKG was paid by the state of
Massachusetts to build the compliance model. So they built the compliance model that every single one of these 177 towns use. They then got paid by the
state to be consultants for for some of the 177 communities. And during the process with RKG, we learned that we also learned that their beginning numbers were incorrect. They didn't even
have the population of Milton accurate. So the starting number was incorrect. They also the compliance model did not allow for parcel assemblage. They couldn't even tell us
that. So this goes back way back. So for those people listening, we have been through this. We have made certain decisions. I have made certain decisions based on information that we've been receiving for the past
three years. So Sean has focused on the number of school kids that he questions and I question everything else about it because I think they entered with a bias and they should not have um been listed
as one of the consultants. Um so that's a fact because they stated that publicly. They stated publicly that the population was incorrect and they didn't have the information the time to fix it. and they stated publicly that they're the ones who created the compliance
model. So those are facts. Okay. All right. So I think it I don't think there's new information. I think we've we've all struggled with this um and I think we've done a lot of really good work um in
getting us um you know close to a 25. But at this time, I I think we need to make a decision and we need to take a vote so we can let the select board know um what we would like to do. And the uh process on that would be we would need
to um we actually need to take a vote on the 10% and we need to um take a vote uh to resend our vote on the on the 25% plan. And if we can have a motion, I'm going to open it up back up for discussion if that's okay.
I I don't think we can take we I don't think we can take a vote on the 10% without reviewing what the language is that we would be voting on which is what was submitted to us as zoning. Okay. Something that's not zoning and so um
well we that's how we voted on we voted on the 25% that way. So maybe then we don't need to resend that vote because we didn't have that language either. Right. I thought I mean my understanding was that we were going to vote the language tonight. We voted to the intent
of the what we approved was always needed to be finalized by UTI. Right. So that was let's vote on the intent. All right. Let's vote on the intent then because that's all that we we need to do this um per Nick's request um at this point at the meeting. So, can I just ask
all of you? I didn't hear I maybe got three emails since our last meeting. Two thanking us and one saying that they supported the 10%. So, how did all of you between
Thursday and tonight all of a sudden totally decide that this was not the direction that we should go in? Was there some kind of meeting I missed? Was there some kind of um email exchange amongst a lot of
people that I missed that somehow I wasn't included on because I have a different point of view on this. I'm just curious because you all have a very similar um over the last over the weekend over Mother's Day weekend. You all have a new
reflection. I think it's really it's really insulting that you're asserting that you're excluded from a discussion that we had. I I I'm sure you have volumes of emails um from people you communicate with,
Cheryl, that are never shared with us. I I I am insulted that you'd even assert that. I'm asking All I'm doing was ask if there was anything that I missed. Sean, I didn't I'm just wondering how changed so rapidly over a few days a
period of time. I don't there's nothing that I know that you've missed. It might be so simple as when it was brought up tonight, I was able to rethink my decision. I've been consistent.
I have haven't changed my position and um all it allows me is to take a more firm stance and however um I know people don't like me talking about my business here on the planning
board, but it's mother it was Mother's Day weekend and I was super busy and I've had so many people come in and um express their concerns about the 25%. They had questions about the 25%. They said, "Oh, is the planning
board putting are they endorsing a 25% plan?" Because that's not what they've heard from the pling board for the past three years. And I said, "I am not endorsing a 25% plan. Um, there was some pressure, you know, put, this is how I
explain it. There was pressure. I felt there was pressure um put on the planning board at the last um week's meeting and maybe that's why some members felt like they were pressured into it because it was either we do it
or we were it was going to be circumvented. So that's how I explained it, but I've been pretty consistent. Um so I haven't I've worked all weekend. So I don't think I have to explain myself.
I mean, I spoke pretty strongly last week about how I felt about our case and um the pathway to resolve this through adjudication and um nothing's really changed in my mind
in terms of pursuing that. I feel like the town should defend its residents against a 25% zoning plan by utilizing the courts to adjudicate and determine what our classification should be. Um
that's no different than what I had said in our last meeting and I feel really strongly. Senator Driscoll's presentation was pretty influential for me. here. He is the senator representing our area and and he is an ardent 10%
person. Um that is very influential for me too. I would agree that presentation and I did have a lot of people to reach out to me with um with concerns individually. So um but even prior to that I I really felt like we were under
a deadline. I was trying to get this pushed so we could get this to the warrant committee and I regretted I I felt like it was hastily done and I I know we've had a lot of time um people will say that we've had a long time to
work on this Cheryl but the regulations only came out a few weeks ago so there have been a lot of unknowns and there's still a lot of unknowns and I just want to make sure that that we are not putting something forward that that we will regret and I know I'm comfortable
with the 10%. I'm It's the impacts, the potential impacts of the 25%. I just don't know if I'm prepared. So, this board promised the residents of the town to deliver both a 10% and a 25%
plan. And the emergency rags and the final rags are um virtually the same. A few minor uh adjustments that um basically reaffirmed. Yeah, reaffirmed that we were a rapid transit community
as of February. Um, so we've known that we that's the view of HLC is that we're a rapid transit community and they communicated that uh my understanding is to both you um Meredith and Sean as well as um our town administrator and
assistant planning director. And so really the only way to not be considered out of compliance is for a different body, the select board, um, to well, we'll still be out of compliance as far as HLC is
concerned, but either the law changes and which to date hasn't succeeded as I mentioned, or the select board makes a decision to pursue legal legal action. But we don't have the authority to make that
decision. So the things that we have authority to do are present um a 10% and a 25% uh compliant plan through the work um that we've done and through uh the work of that the town staff and our
consultant and taxpayer dollars have funded. um to give the town the opportunity uh to continue to negotiate but also to have a compliant plan in hand for town meeting in June um so that we can uh
stop the the loss of funding uh that we currently sit in. I mean there's it's uh folks have been keeping track uh it was mentioned $300,000 in legal fees. There's also the um the referendum the cost of the referendum vote itself at
40,000. there's lost grants push pushing um well over a million dollars and that's going to continue um and I I think from a point of view of our responsibility as people who took an
oath to uphold the law the law is what the law is at the moment and town meeting members took an oath too and if we don't get them an opportunity to vote on a compliant plan what does that say about us as the body that's supposed to
deliver town meeting uh the zoning uh that allows them to decide uh what the right path. I continue to think that the five of us have an obligation to deliver the zoning. It is not our obligation to decide whether we remain or whether we
will be compliant or not. That's up to Tom Being and and we should give them that opportunity to decide it. I I appreciate that. I think it's our obligation to support our state rep and our state senator and all their efforts they're making on Capitol Hill. So if
they're up there saying that we, you know, we're a 10% community, we have a hard time finding 25% and then we just pop up a 25% plan that is pretty flawed in my opinion and we're undermining their efforts and that's doing a disservice to the to the uh all the
Milton Knights who actually voted for those guys. They're working real hard to try and represent Milty and we're basically undermining them with a 25% plan. Um, I also want to add that, you know, before this mandate came down from the state, I didn't meet one resident
who said, "Hey, you know what we ought to do? We should increase our housing stock, our zoning by 25%." Because this is going to be great for the town. Nobody wants this. It's been forced upon. It's a mandate that's been hammered down to um on Milton. Um, and
and now people might want it, but they don't want it in their backyard. They want it when it's on Granite Street, or they want it off of Elliot Street. I mean, it's just nobody is happy with 25%. And as long as there's a decent chance for 10, that's what I'm going to
support. Um, and I I'm not going to say I'm one of them, but I do know that there are plenty of people who would want to see this taken all the way to the US Supreme Court where they feel that we'll actually get a fair shake in a non-biased court. Now, you know, that's
that's one side. The other side is 25% and the middle of the road, the compromise is 10. Um, if you're saying the select board's going to get together with the resident that was pretty adamant about giving us an ultimatum at the last meeting that if
we don't do it, he's going to, I can't control the select board and what they do. I think that's no different than a developer saying, "If you don't approve my development, I'm going to go 40B." I mean, nobody likes it when that happens, but um, if ultimatums are where we're at, I agree with Maggie. What's the
point of having a board here? Okay. So, all right. ask about I ask about this everyone's saying that a a resident giving an ultimatum residents don't have the authority to give us ultimatums and I think residents have
have asked us to do what they think is um the prudent thing to do which is give town meeting the opportunity to take this vote. So I don't like the characterization of us being threatened. I don't think anyone felt threatened at our last meeting um about a vote that
they needed to take. I think people felt perhaps conflicted, but threatened. Well, I felt backed into a corner, honestly. If I didn't vote for this 25%, this guy would go to the select board and do his own thing.
Okay, I'm not threatened by that heavily on my decision. I think one last thing. If we time. June 16th for a town meeting is an arbitrary date. It's an arbitrary date.
If we feel like we need more time, perhaps we should petition the select board to push back the town meeting date and that would allow possibly the um Plymouth Superior Court to make the
decision on um the unfunded mandate. It would also allow our senator Driscoll to make um his case with more of his peers uh at Beacon Hill. So, I would think a prudent thing that the board our board
could do would be request more time and push back the the um town meeting from June 16th, which is an arbitrary date, which um I know some people the the argument is people go away on vacation,
but you know what? This is a very very impactful zoning change for the whole entire town. And if people feel a a strong way one way or the one way or the other, they should reschedu their
vacations. Okay. On vacation. Oh, I have Thank you. You know what? Cheyenne had her hand up. I just want to hear if Cheyenne had something to say. Yeah, I just have a little bit to add. I think on one note, yes, June 16th is an
arbitrary date, but uh we have had July 14th for a while now. So, we've had a little bit of time to get some stuff in the works. But on another note, overarching um it's been an hour on this topic and we do have our applicants here. They're supposed to start an hour ago. So, I
think um we do need to figure out something whether we want to wait till the end of this meeting to take a vote after we review materials, which you know, we did have UTL work on it for the last few days. So, they spent a lot of time and you know, we're spending a lot of money having them do that. So, I
think it couldn't hurt, but again, we do have our applicants waiting. Um, yes. So, I think we should be a little more respectful. I would like to I would like to continue the conversation after the public hearing on two Elliot Street. I think there's plenty to continue to talk about.
I know Nick has asked that we make a decision and then we can talk whatever we decide. We can dictating how we're making a decision. Meredith, he's requested to give the information to the select board because it's an item on their agenda. They they as far as their
they know, as far as I know, this board did not talk about this until this meeting. So, as far as the select board knows, we took a vote last Thursday. So, I don't understand why our timing of this discussion and whether it's rushed or not when we're when we have a a
public hearing scheduled at 7:05, it it It it doesn't seem right to me. I mean, this board took an action last week and as far as uh the select board knows, that's the still the action that's sitting on the table. So, why are they asking us to reconsider something? I think it's I think it's the
determination. I think it is, Cheryl. I I think it's the it's going to determine how we spend our time later this evening in the material that we're going to be going through. because if if we're not going to move forward with the 25 if we're going to vote for that, we should focus our time on the
10% and going through the zoning language on that. I disagree. I think we need to talk about both. We have both prepared for tonight. We asked UTL to spend a ton of time on it. Uh our town administrator put zoning language together. I reviewed that language. I spent a lot of time looking at it before
that even arrived in preparation for this meeting, not knowing that this was going to be reopened. and I feel as if we need to spend the time to discuss it before taking a vote. So, I would like to just say I've been an applicant before. I do apologize to
the applicants, but as an applicant, you understand that sometimes you have to wait an hour or two or three. So, I do apologize in advance to the applicants. They are Milton residents. So I would think that they would be um appreciative
of all the time and discussion around this topic because it will affect them personally at their residences. It will also affect their businesses. So, I think it I I apologize to the applicants, but thank you for your and
um I think this we just need to take a vote now. I will make a motion to resend the um the um the decision from last week to
put forward a 25% plan. Is there a second? You need I'll second it if that's the motion you need. Did that make sense? Any further discussion? Seeing none or Well, I guess I guess before you go to a roll call, I I
I think every decision has risks. Um and and this decision certainly has risks. Um the decision the select board
makes whatever they do whether they pursue adjudication or not um has risks. So um this is a hard one. Um, I'm okay to go for a vote, Meredith. I don't I don't The reality of it is,
you know, whether whether we move it forward or pull it back, we're taking a risk. Understood. Okay. So, there's So, we have a um a motion and a second.
Um, so we'll do a a roll call. Um, uh, Maggie, sorry. Can she No, just can you restate your motion? Um, my Sorry, I didn't plan a formal motion. So, my
motion is to resend the um the um the 25% plan that was put forward last week at
last meetings and I we should probably amend it and just say um and with the intention of putting voting on a 10% plan. So, I'll my motion is to resend the 25%
plan that was voted at the May 8th planning board meeting and put forward a 10% plan. All
set. And I'm going to u make another comment. Um I think uh this is a grave mistake and I I think it reflects very poorly on this board um to decide that
it knows better and shouldn't send uh to the select board and to the town meeting uh something which would allow the town uh to be compliant with the law as it exists today. We all took an oath to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth and it is a law of the Commonwealth whether
some of us like that or not and I think um u I'm really disappointed in the rest of you and I plan to vote no. All right. Thank you, Cheryl. And I appreciate this because this is not an easy decision. Um
um All right. Let's start with Cheryl. No. Um Sean. Yes. Okay. Jim, yes. Maggie, yes. And myself, yes. All
right. Thank you and apologies. Um, and thank you for everybody who's here and all of your comments cuz this is not an easy one. Um, okay. So, with that, um, I would like to now move to open,
uh, the public hearing for two Elliot Street and we can, uh, invite the applicants in who are at town hall, I understand. And I again apologize for the delay. And oh, is Cheyenne.
Yes. is trying. Can you please um send uh Nick an email letting him know so he can let the select board know and CC me on that? Yes. Of of the vote that we took? Yep. Okay, great. Thank you so much.
Yep. Okay. Sorry, Ned. Go ahead. That's Thank you. Um Ned Corkran and I'm sitting here with JD Wild in Tim Zerwinsk's old office. Um we didn't get the memo that uh this meeting would be remote. Um and so here we are at town
hall. Um and we're heartened by the number of comments that came and during citizen speak in support of the project that JD and um his team have put forward. I think the last time we were here was uh April 24th. There were
several specific uh requests for us. Um, and JD's got a PowerPoint uh to share, but I think there were as I as my notes indicated that you wanted to see a roof plan with a parapet um a bike rack
located on the site. Um, elevations with lighting the heights of lights, lightings and lanterns. Uh, treatment for the corner uh at U Elliott and Adams and uh separately not a not directly a
part of site plan, but you know, we acknowledge that we'd agree with the work with the town rep regarding the replacement of the tree. Um, and so with that, we have a brief PowerPoint that uh responds to those uh specific uh questions and and uh um and so uh
Cheyenne or Julia, if you can allow um JD to share screen um and we can move forward. Thank you. Panelist so should be all set. Thank you. Uh, good evening members of the board. I'm going to share my screen.
Can you guys see my screen? Yes. Okay. Uh, good evening, members of the board. I appreciate all of your time. I know it's getting late in the evening, so I'll jump right into it. Um, I've updated the slide presentation to reflect the items that were brought up at the last hearing, as uh, Ned has
indicated. So, um, one of the comments that came up was around the discussion regarding the seating that we are proposing at the intersection of Elliot and Adams. What you're looking at is an existing conditions photo. Um in at the prior hearing uh everyone including
ourselves and and um your board agreed that it's a really important corner in that um you know it needs to be thoughtful and that and that seating there is appropriate but uh the concern specifically was regarding um the planters that we had proposed. Um, one
of the comments that came up was that um, the concern was that the planters uh, might actually feel like they encroach on the sidewalk based on the height of the brick wall and that they're solid. So, what I've done today is I've I've I've brought back the image that we presented last time just to refresh the board. Um, this was the
visual that we provided at the last hearing. Um, and the again the comment was was that the concern was can we see something else that maybe is a um, an alternative to the planters. So what I've done is I've I've come up with a concept that keeps the existing railing.
So if you look at this existing conditions, you'll see that there's a black iron railing. So we explored a lower, more modest planter that incorporates the railing, and that's what you're seeing right here. So um uh
what we've done is we've we've put together a concept including the railing with a low modest planter with flowers and and kind of seasonal growth that'll flow down and then uh more vineelike growth that will come up because it is it is important that there is screening
there. It is a busy intersection um you know for people to sit outside. We do want to create um a little bit of privacy there and make it feel a little bit intimate and romantic on that corner. Um, you know, a lot of our design intent and a lot of the theme I've I've referenced, you know, kind of
the energy and design inspo we've been targeting is like a behind the book store. I even pushed at one point for a name called Among the Flowers, but Dan wasn't too happy with that. So, um, we really want to kind of carry that energy in this design. So, that was, um, that was the intent behind this slide. So,
um, what I've done is I've kind of thrown together a sample of the planting that I would kind of anticipate and those lower planters to execute on this vision. Um we would try to incorporate some small maybe dwarf boxwoods some hostas. It's a part sun location so we
don't get a ton of sun on that corner. Uh that that um large parry does uh have a pretty big presence over on that Adam Street elevation. It does block some of the sun. So a lot of this was based around sunlight um you know busy intersection, low maintenance. Um, so
what you're looking at is a, you know, kind of a visual representation with those specific plants. And then on the right is an actual photograph of a planter box that I was kind of using as inspiration uh for color, texture. Um, so um that's how we we came up with an
alternative for the um the corner. So again, this is what we proposed. Uh this is the other alternative that we're bringing to the table. Uh the next issue uh that came up was um uh board members had questions about the
um the lanterns that we had proposed. Uh there was two main questions. One was uh a request that we consider incorporating gas lanterns. Uh another was uh curiosity on elevations and how they were going to kind of line up on on the exterior of the building.
So, what we've done is we've uh we've changed from all electric fixtures on the building to four gas lanterns and the remainders will be electric. So, the the four gas lanterns we've located at the two main entrances and uh from a
design standpoint, what we've done is we've actually oversized those fixtures. So, the electric fixtures will be the same exact fixture. They will be a slightly smaller version. They're a 20-in total fixture size. the uh the gas fixtures will be a uh 26 inch total
size. So they'll be a little bit more prominent. Um the exact same fixture, same manufacturer, just a different heat source, excuse me, light source. So um the other thing that came up was when we started to play with that design was that it felt odd to keep them on the exact same plane on the building. Um
because of the difference in size, we really want to kind of separate the two lines. So what you're seeing in this slide is um you know the four gas lamps will be at the two entrances evenly spaced around the entrances mounted at consistent height of um 74 in um above
the average grade at the uh the handicap entrance there. This is the um intersection we were just talking about. This is the vantage there. So these fixtures will uh still be uh electric fixtures again matching the front. Um this individual
slide I actually overlaid the specific fixture to replace the one we had provided in the rendering originally so that you could see what the actual specific fixture would look like. Um this other slide you can see those are the original ones that we proposed that were electric. They are going to be um
the same matching ones. You can see it over here on the left hand side. I did leave it in this visual. That was a somewhat difficult task to kind of overlay that. So, and these ones will be at a higher elevation. When we were when we were working on what height to have these ones at, uh, we chose the center line of
the upper sash of the window. Um, there's a currently an existing um, flood light on the exterior of the building. Excuse me for jumping around. You can see there's a pack flood light right here, right at the center of the sash. It feels appropriate. We spent a lot of time standing over at extra space storage standing at one Elliot corner
kind of looking and trying to figure out the height. They're they drape down. They have a nice presence. They provide low-level lighting. So, we wanted them high enough as to where they're clear from, you know, traffic, but not too high as to where they felt like they were floating. So, um that's the design intent and how we arrived at those
specific heights. Uh this was just uh a slide I thought was helpful just to show you that it's a nice clean line on the corner where we're proposing uh presenting them. those white dots are just meant to reflect the uh sconce locations because sometimes it gets lost in these busier
visuals. Um, one of the other comments that came up was uh a question about a little more detail on the roof plan and the mechanicals uh that were going to be placed on that roof and how we um were planning to screen it. So, what you're looking at in this uh slide is the
existing conditions. So, this is taken standing in front of the hardware store across the street. I did zoom in just um for conversation purposes. It's really hard to have this conversation without being a closer view. So, something I want to point out uh before we jump into the content is you're actually seeing an
existing condenser. This is um the condenser that was on the building from Bank of America supporting the forced hot air system. Uh we did remove that in anticipation of all these new mechanicals. So, this is a Google Earth picture uh from last year. Um, but you
can see that that did protrude from the parapit. Um, and quite honestly, I think most of us probably look past it. It never I don't think it was overly offensive to the point where it came up in conversation. This copper vent is actually still there that is also going to be removed. Um, so this is the uh
vantage of the existing conditions. This is uh a detailed roof plan that we put together. So, there's four four mechanical items that we're putting on the roof for this conversation. One is a makeup air unit uh for the kitchen and for the rest of the building. One is a kitchen exhaust.
One is a a gas fired uh cooling condensing unit. And then another is um a mini split condenser that we are using uh for some of these smaller offices and rooms. We're going to put individual heads in those rooms for both makeup air and um heating and cooling. So, uh those
are the four units. The way we've uh intentionally aligned them on the roof is to put the lower height units in the front and put the taller height units in the back. Again, when you're standing on the sidewalk and you're looking up at this because there is a parapit because
um you are looking up at a vantage. It does help hide things. This condenser that you're seeing in this picture was uh almost 40 in tall sitting on 4 foot uh excuse me 4 inch wood blocks. So even though that barely shows above the parapit that is from the roof line that
is 44 inches up. So um we did put these units on the roof uh the uh makeup air unit is 39 in in height in the front and the kitchen exhaust is 36 inches in height. And then if you look at this uh we also added uh screening which we're going to go over but just so everyone
can see it here uh we did present it on the back side of the parapit. The reason being that it also can double as um safety railing for service of the equipment on that flat roof. Uh this is just another vantage uh to help the board. One of the questions
that came up was uh orienting the flat rubber roof when we were talking about it uh for context. So up top is just a a keyed zoomed in version of the flat rubber roof. The lower is actually the third floor of the building. Uh if you're looking down, you can see that the flat rubber roof is accessible from
the third floor. from that iron fire escape staircase. So again, this is the third floor floor plan up here. When you look at it from an aerial, this is the rubber roof we're talking about and this is the uh second egress fire escape from up there. So uh that's the roof plan. Um
next I'm going to present to you uh what we're proposing for screening. So um again this is existing conditions. Our uh our design intent and the thoughts we had was what materials and textures do we want to use for this screening? We really had two to work with. One was uh
this white shiplap. It's hard to see in this picture, but this is actually a a nickel gapped shiplap uh material on the exterior. It's also on the cheek walls of these dormers. So, we explored that. Uh to me, it felt uh too solid. It felt like it was um very fancy. It felt very full. So, what we decided to go was was
to match this um Chip and Dale railing on the top. So, what we're proposing is to actually um replicate that railing on a lower elevation. Um, and once we started playing around with that, it immediately felt right. It felt uh act I actually think it feels better than it
does without it. Um, it feels very naked and I' I've mentioned in uh earlier hearings with this board that that backside has always felt too much brick if it it feels off. So, I actually think it breaks it up nicely. What is also reflected on this slide is the depth of the parapit that came up in the last
conversation. So, it's 16 in from the top of the rubber to the top of the copper uh parapit cap. And then we're proposing a 26 inch reveal on this railing. So a total of 42 inches. And again, it doubles as our safety rail uh for uh service of the mechanicals on the roof
deck. Uh the last and final item that came up was a bike rack. Uh question about where it was going to be on site. So this is the style and and um specific bike rack that we're proposing. Uh it can handle um seven bike spots. So one,
two, three, four, five, six, seven. We're actually going to put it in front of the uh padmounted transformer that we add need to add to the site. Um and it's going to serve as our um uh a little bit of screening, but it's also going to replace some of the ballards that we replace there. So, we're actually going
to mount this to a concrete pad. So, it's doubles as a ballard. So, we kind of killed two birds with one stone. It also is a good location in the sense that it it gets the bikes out of the parking lot. It gets them to a place that um you know, you can easily handle seven bikes. And uh as well as I
mentioned on the prior hearing that over here on Adam Street, we do have uh two additional U style bike racks just like this. So there's another additional four bike rack spots on Adam Street sidewalk. So it's a total of 11 bike spots
provided uh at the site. Uh and those are the specific items that we had to address from the last hearing. Um I do have the rest of the deck available to me if there's any further questions, but a welcome conversation. Great. So, this is very exciting. Um, JD
and, um, I'd open it up to the board for comments or questions at this time. Cheryl has hand raised. Oh, sorry. I didn't see you, Cheryl. That's J. Can Can you uh Thanks for the update. Um, can you go back to the um the roof plan
and the and the image on the of that low roof? Is the um rubber roof all the onto the right side of that fire escape also? Yes.
Okay. And the exhaust is that going to come um now can you go to the image the photograph? So that exhaust is going to come up above the uh gutter line on the left side there between the uh the
gutter and the fire escape. Is that right? Uh it'll be below that line. Uh the this railing this um top of the fire escape railing, this is a 36 inch railing. And if you see this is um sitting on top of the parapit. It's got about a 6 in um iron deck that it sits
on. So I would approximate this about 42 in to get you up to about the gutter line. The um the hood exhaust is 36 in tall. So with a 16in parapit approximately 20 in will have be revealed. So describe how that hood
works. Is it coming up and and having a hood turn towards the outside parapit? Is it? Yeah, it's actually um it it is that um it's this style. So, it's a a central fan style hood. So, it's not a mushroom
a typical mushroom head. Okay. So, um the way it's it'll be blowing out towards the parking lot, not towards the fire escape. Correct. That is correct. Yep. And the unit that's 56 in high, which I
think is the makeup area unit, that will rise above uh the gutter line. Is that right? We don't intend any of it to rise above the gutter line. Um the excuse me, so the the condenser uh is 50 condenser. Yeah. Yep. The makeup air unit is
actually long and rectangular and lays down. Okay. And um thank you. And then um can you scroll through the slide again? I keep going. Keep
going. Right there. The bike um rack. There's a From there you can get up to the entrance on Elliot Street. Correct. On the left side of the building. Uh that is correct, Cheryl. So this is a handicap ramp. I assume you can see my
cursor. This is a handicap ramp right here that takes you all the way out to LA Street. Okay. And uh the striped is for the uh for the handicap spot next to it. Is that right? That's correct. This is a handicap spot right here. Yep. So the
bicycles when they're in that rack wouldn't be protruding into that handicap um maneuvering zone. No, it would not. There might be a little bit of overhang of the rear tire here, but there's a good 4T or so right here in front of the pad without the
transformer. So, realistically, a majority of the bike is going to remain on that what's currently a mulch bed um in front of it. And um my experience with the utility company is they need direct access direct access to the front of their transformer. Are they going to
be getting that then from where the dumpster enclosure is or you would have to move the bike rack or how would that work? Nope. So, the the transformer, this is uh what you're seeing right here is actually the pad. When the transformer comes, it sits on the rear. It's got two double doors in the front. They require us to put ballards in the
front uh for safety with cars. So, their access is actually behind the ballards. We're proposing to put the bike rack in line with the ballards so it shouldn't encroach on their transformer. Uh Sean has his hand. It will be removable as well, Cheryl. So if there ever was some sort of just like the
ballards, um you know, they obviously if it's an emergency, they need the ability to, but Okay. Um those are my questions. Thanks, JD. Yep. Great. Sean, um go ahead. Yeah. Hi, JD. Um, I think I think like everybody else, I think it probably it's
probable that everybody feels like it looks great. Can you go back to the mechanical roof area for a moment and that um so those two units, the makeup air unit and the um the condensing unit, those dimensions of height 39 and 56, is
that inclusive of the curb or will the curb be additional to that height? Yeah, so the curb will likely be additional to that height. This is the model spec dimensions. Um, this sits on a plenum. My estimate is that it's probably 4 to 6 in. Uh, it's not a huge plenum, the
makeup air unit. Um, the gas fired condenser doesn't I mean it sits on the pad. It's a rubber roof. There's certainly solutions. You could do um like anti vibratory pads if we need to go with something thinner. But what I'm reflecting is just the dimensions of the unit itself. Okay. So, they're probably
going to be a little bit higher. At least the makeup unit will probably be higher. I mean, most curbs in my experience is probably 8, 10, 12 inches. Um, and and I guess one other question on that. I I do think I I like I like
the idea that you're utilizing a parapit that replicates what's at the high roof. Um, it might be okay for that to be a little higher, you know, to screen a little bit more. Can you go back to that
image of uh this? Yeah. Is that is that dimension this that 26 is that the same dimension as the high roof? No, the high roof is a 36 inch high rail. Uh I was proposing 42. If this was built today, I think um actually there's no mechanicals
up there. So I don't right that it's probably okay for today's standard, but because of the mechanical access in the fall, I think 42 is probably required here. Well, you're trying to stay under the gutter line. Is that why you had the the height of 26 on top of the uh No, I
just I was uh pre presenting it as a 42 inch high rail. Um I could certainly make it taller. I was just doing the minimum for safety. Um you know, I wasn't sure if this board was going to be concerned with too much height. So, I thought that was the minimum that I needed for safety rail. Okay. Yeah. I
I'm just I'm just uh I guess throwing it out there that if you find that those units, you know, are, you know, more visible than you'd like above that, maybe making that um higher than 26 in might might be
helpful. Yes, sir. It's not it's not a it's not a I mean, this is the back of the building. I I I'm not too hung up over this, but if you're making an effort to screen it and and 6 in more in terms of
that um type of a uh of a a um whatever we want to call it, uh it might help it hide the top of the units. So, it's I'm not I'm not real hung up over
JD. I'm just offering it. I appreciate that. Yeah, as as um you know, the property owner and someone myself who's investing significant funds in this project, my my goal is to make sure that we're thinking through these things and executing on them well because it it serves me in many fronts, not only in
front of this board, in front of the town, but also as a proprietor myself. So, yeah. Well, I think architecturally um using a system here same as top is going to look good. you'll keep some, you know, some consistency in aesthetic.
And anyhow, I'll just leave it I'll leave it up to you for further consideration if you want to make a little bit, you know, taller. Thank you. Um, can I Yeah, go ahead. I I can't see hands up, so go ahead. Um, so just to
follow up what Sean said, even though it is the back of the building, um, a lot of residents from the town will actually see it coming down Adam Street. So, um I think more people will actually see it than maybe looking up the front of the
building. So, I think that is a good suggestion. Making it a little bit taller if you can um just to hide it a little bit more might be helpful. Um the other thing I'm concerned about is you mentioned that it's a flowering pair on
the street and I know it's a town. Um it's the town's responsibility to care for the street trees. Um but pear trees are now not being um um favored as a
street tree and actually are considered being invasive. So if for some reason the pear tree does um decline and needs to be removed, would you be willing to do a different type of tree instead of
um letting the do it because um the town seems to put in undersized trees in their sidewalks. So yeah, um I mean I'm I'm obviously heavily invested down the village as a whole. I think our interests are all aligned in the sense that um you know
what it could be and what it is are two different things. So um I'm open to that conversation. I anything that's going to improve the village as a whole. I' I'd love to be a part of that conversation if I can support it and help it. Um, it's certainly on the table on my end. Um, so,
um, I love the idea of keeping the, uh, the fence. I I think that looks really pretty and classic. Boxwood is a classic plant choice. Um, and I like the idea of a smaller planter. Um,
um, I I like the oversized lights. I feel like a lot of times people um undersize their exterior lights and I think all of your choices seem to be very thoughtful and um I just want to
say thanks for um for all your efforts and um I know we haven't talked about the right side yet but I like if we if we're going to keep the railing um as a you know the black rod iron railing
Then I think maybe keeping the other hardscape elements to a minimum. Um because I think if I recall you have a brick wall with maybe a granite cap and then if you go down the um the um the walkway to access the ice cream window.
I think there could be a concrete wall. There's just slight grading changes. So, um, it would be nice to kind of minimize all the hardscape elements and, you know, keep it to the rot rod iron, brick, and, you know, granite. Sure. I I
would agree with you. I think that's fair. And I love the name. If you're going to stick with two pence, even though I love flowers, I That's entirely Dan's call. So, I I think we're sticking with two pets.
Okay. And Jim, did you have any? Yeah. So, I'm walking because my computer's about to die, but I love it. Um, I gotta say, JD, I love the fixtures. I think those gas fixtures are gorgeous. Um, and the way you match the electrical fixtures, you know, the electric
electrified ones are fantastic. Um, I agree with Maggie. I love the railing. I think it's a great idea to keep that. Um, you know, Boston ivy grows great. I'm sure there's a lot of ivy. You're gonna you're going to make that look fantastic. Um, and yeah, I just like
what I see and I gota I got to reiterate what the board says. Thank you very much for doing this. I mean, that area is screaming for food and um I'm glad you're doing it. I understand you're investing in a lot and uh I'm I'm ready to vote when it pleases the board.
Thank you. And so I just want to um just a couple of items. One, I really do like it's actually a beautiful iron fence that's there. So, I'm I love the idea of preserving that. And yeah, that it just
is it it just fits with that corner. It's open. It's welcoming, inviting. Um I love just in this photo, you also have the use of lattice with some climbing things that I think could be great in that patio area as well. Um but
definitely and if you can keep on can we go to the pergola um the side with the the views of the different the pergolas. Um oh you want to uh from the last presentation the no from this one you have some just maybe
it's from the last one. Yeah you had some photos this one. Yes. Yes. Exactly. So maybe and there's one shot where it shows a little bit um to the right the stone the wall and where you would mount this. Yeah, it's from the um Yeah,
sorry. Excuse me for Yeah. Uh we did right there actually do two. There's two different versions. Yeah, this so yeah. So I I So I think keeping it simple so it's not detracting from the building
and I think a couple of those slides were examples of that. Um really keeping it sort of um minimalistic um not to detract or be too busy from the um to detract from the building. But the
question is and I know this is um how you would have this installed. Is it possible because I think I've seen it where you actually would have the footings on the right hand side on the high street side to mount within the within this stone wall area so that you
could maintain that gate. I'm thinking of consistency on, you know, you've got the beautiful iron railing off to the left and you've got it stairstepped going up High Street. if there was any way to mount it inside um into the brick or somehow I don't
know how you would how you would do that um from an engineer and architect's uh standpoint but if you could preserve that yeah if you could preserve that and have that you would obviously take off that inside gate but have it mounted within
um the high street wall the high street gates that that's fair I think that's achievable yeah the interior one that you're looking here is actually a retrofit. It's a aluminum kind of fake gate, right? I think we could we could certainly find a way to preserve this, especially if we're going to keep it on
the Elliot intersection as well. I think that would look great. It's actually a really really pretty iron gate. It needs some TLC, but it's a beautiful iron. So, that would be that would be a preference. I love what you've done with the lighting. Um, I really appreciate
that. And you know, the tree selection again, um I had mentioned a um Princeton elm, but you know, I I would leave that up to you. I just know Princeton elms are doing really well down in that area. And you had mentioned doing a a tree
guard around that. And I can send you some examples. They there's a company that did Assembly Square um tree guards all throughout Assembly Square if you're over o ever over there. And I can send you the uh the company name and the link for that. and they have a various
options, but I'm sure you have other sources, too. Sure. Yeah. No, I'm I'm open to the conversation. So, Yep. And so, and so my just my last question is because you do have in that little courtyard or that um gathering area
outside, you do have this the concrete retaining wall. How do you treat that? Uh you talking about the existing one right here on this side? So that comes out correct. I think there's right on the back of that wall like where this is all Yeah, it's all going to stay. So
there's an existing concrete retaining wall here on the back side and then there's one right here on the handicap ramp side. We're going to reuse those walls. You're going to wipe those walls? We're going to reuse those walls. They're they're existing. We're going to maintain them. Okay. I didn't know if there's anything you could put like a
lattice or anything on them. I I haven't looked at them closely, but I'm sure you'll there. Full disclosure, they're not the prettiest right now. Our intent is clean them up, put planters on top, grow stuff around them. You know, we're trying to minimize the the the hardscape package,
start bringing it it when we when we revisited this project after our initial um preliminary presentation to this board. We talked about how do we simplify the execution? How do we get open? The number one thing we keep hearing from people in town is how excited they are and when are we going to open? So, we wanted to simplify the
project uh and kind of strip it down to the bare essentials. So, we thought that minimizing the amount of new uh masonry and walls and hardscape was a pretty big impact on the budget and schedule. So, that's why we landed there. Okay. And just on that takeout window, it looks
like do you have to take out do a cutout of that window or can you reuse the current opening? Yeah, so there's an existing window right here. Yeah. We're going to widen it to the left. So, we're going to use this existing opening and then we're going to just widen it to the left. Okay. Can you match the trim
detail to the current window? Uh the wood trim. The wood trim. Yes, absolutely. Yep. Yeah. We'll we'll carry this uh soldier detail of the brick on the header line here as well. We'll make it look like, you know, we weren't even there, right? Perfect.
Right. Yes. So, I think this looks very, very good. So, um along the lines, can I jump in here on the that next slide over? Um well actually even on that one in terms of the
uh the header for the window um it was one of the reasons that I had suggested submitting building elevations because I think what we're going to end up needing to do is have a decision which describes some of these details or at least you're going to have to have some call outs on
the drawings just so that it's documented you know like uh what you've uh you know JD believe what you're going to do what you say you're going to do but we still have to have the documentation. So I think um certainly something like that can be called out on
in this set of images or in the language of the um decision. But it's those those details that um are going to you know be really important as you know and we just want to make sure that they get in the um in the
documentation. So on the next, can you go to the next one? So it looks to me like I asked I think the last time whether this pergola was going to attach to the building or detach. This looks detached which I think is actually a better approach. I don't know if you've given more thought
to that JD in terms of what how you're thinking of doing it. I would prefer to attach it. What we had anticipated doing was ledgering it to right here below this window course here. we had explored early on when we were doing these renderings detached. Um I really like
the idea of coming up that handicap ramp and having the pergola go over it. Um you know, one alternative to attaching it to the building would be to post down right on the inside of the building. It does require more footings and more um you know obviously earthwork, but um I I
personally really like the idea of the pergola spanning over the handicap ramp, having the beastro lights and all the greenery kind of flow over it, so it feels more like a like a really grand entrance from the parking lot. It also is a really nice transition down to the parking lot from the Elliot Street side.
Um, one thing you could consider is can levering over the walkway and then having a um a gutter, you know, um on the the side closest to the building, in which case you
uh Yeah. So instead of a post like you have a post there coming down, I think uh to the right side of the ramp, right? Yeah. In this image. Yeah. So if the if the pergola um extended over it's pretty high up to provide real weather
protection I think for that. So this louvered uh two things. So one is the louvered roof is uh waterproof. So it does when it closes it is waterproof. It is an aluminum frame not a steel frame. So uh I would have concerns with cantal levering and snow load. Um so that was
one of the design considerations we had. It's going to provide more protection uh in the elements. Um and it does, it's actually one of the uh nice features about the product we're using. It does have an integrated gutter system into the frame as well. So there is no exterior gutter. Um it is actually
integrated into the the tube frame. Okay. Well, um so you've selected a particular product. Do you think that that this is representing or you still that this these pictures correct? Yeah, these are
of the design inspo. We have um two manufacturers we're currently uh working on custom solutions with. Both have a very similar product. Uh it's pretty competitive space actually. There's a handful of people that provide almost identical products just depending on sourcing uh different levels of
customization. Okay. So like that image on the right where the heaters are like against the brick. Yeah. So, one of the things I think it's typical with historic properties is to tread lightly with how much you attach to the or change the
existing like if it was um like a n a um national park service, you know, secretary of the interior standards of historic preservation, they would want you to do things that could be removed without damaging the existing building. So, I guess what I would suggest is just
as you think about those heating elements, as you think about that connection to the building to um to see if you can do as much as possible to tread lightly on um on that brick wall. Sure,
JD. I would just um I'm looking at the top left um the pergola on the top left and it almost has a little bit more of an architectural detail almost. It looks like a, you know, what would it's obviously aluminum or steel, but um has almost like it looks like a a molding
trim on it. Um which has a little bit more of a classic look, which I think would if you could find something that looked like that that has a little bit more um of um a less just flat, you know, super modern, something a little bit
more classic um I think would be great, too. But I think it's so I I I think um I would be comfortable asking um Ned if he'd like
to draft a decision, but I'd also like that um these slides to have further notations that correspond to that draft decision. since we we don't have um like architectural elevations for this. Um
and then we could review those at our at our next meeting um and hopefully wrap it up at that time. I would agree um if the board would agree to that. I I don't
know if our next meeting is next Thursday. I don't know if that's too soon, Ned, for you to draft something. I I can certainly um make every effort to get it there in time. I have a simple ANR presentation also. Yeah. Thursday.
Would love to wrap this up next week if possible. So I will endeavor to have a a decision a draft of a decision out for review by you know the end of the week. Uh that gives us gives you opportunity for additional comment and hopefully we could you know share a screen uh with a
draft the final draft and make whatever final modifications are necessary uh right in front of us. Does the rest of the board agree on to that? That sounds great. I like that. That's fine with me, too.
Yeah. Only other question I have is um did Cheyenne go through a checklist? You know, sometimes she provides a checklist that everything's been submitted properly. I think she did. I think she did also. Um but I can
confirm that with her. She's not on any um she's on vacation. Actually, she might not be back, Julia. Right. She next Thursday she won't be here. Um, yeah, she won't be back until after Memorial Day.
Okay. So, we You know what? I'll check in with Nick on that because I think he's been working with Cheyenne. So, I'll check in on that. She Well, I know for a fact that she um asked us for a couple of additional components at the
time that we filed uh that were based on requirements of the checklist. That's what I thought. Yeah. Meredith, one question. Um, I'm gonna lower my hand. I've had my hand there, but uh Oh, sorry. That's That's No, no, no worries. Um, JD, have you made any
further progress with your building permit application? Uh, I did receive a round of comments uh in between the prior hearing and now. So, uh, that is good news, uh, that things are moving on that side. So, I'm hoping it's still not too late to kind of move this forward in parallel. So,
I'm hoping uh to return responses to those comments this week and then my hope would be by the time this decision gets signed and appeals period elapses and the building permits being issues about the same time. That would be my hope. Great. Thanks for that info. Right. And I'm texting Cheyenne because
she's um she might still be available just to ask about that checklist. So well um I just one more one more I don't know it's probably a statement not a question but um back to Cheryl's um uh
suggestion about staying away from the brick. I think it it might it looks to me like it's a separate structure that um you know the canopy is uh whatever you want to call that looks like your designer has kept it separate from the
brick but Cheryl's point is probably you know there might be some connection at the roof elevation to the brick just to keep um you know keep that roof weathertight but it does look like a separate structure that looks like the heaters are hanging from it not not attached to
the building. It can be either. So you can either attach to the building or you can uh instead of you know again ledgering right here, you can post down as well up building. Um you know I mean the the only real difference I think from my
end is that I obviously have to post down to footings. Right now I have mulch so I'd have to dig and excavate footings. Um I'd want to try to create coverage for this takeout area here. So that does introduce a post. um somewhere in this location. Um that'd have to figure out, but if that again, if that
was something that the board felt strongly about, that I've solved harder problems. So, I could certainly I think that would be great, JD. Um and what might be nice also if you're concerned about coverage for that um takeout is an awning. Maybe you could do it something
separate so you wouldn't have to carry it over. I don't know. But I think doing the separate post would be would be wonderful to not attach to the building. So JD, if you do that, would the awning be watertight to the building if you post down as opposed to ledger
it or would there be a little crack where water's going to get in and run down that wall? Yeah. Um, it's a great question. I it it's certainly if it's ledgered to the building, it's a lot easier to flash it. Um, we probably would have to find a way
to incorporate the flashing um into the brick course. I don't know. I'd have to think that through. But I mean, again, I I could solve it. Um, if we did ledger to it, it would it would it would make it easier. We could do a gasket or silicone on the top line there so nothing gets behind the ledger.
So, and then wouldn't that be more comfortable for your customers if they're sitting? Are there going to be tables against there or just the handicap ramp? It's just the handicap ramp in the service window. All the tables are out here. Oh, all right. It's not that much of an issue. Yeah. No, it's it's not.
And Cheyenne just got back to me that um everything um when they came was complete and Julia should have the scan in the server. She believes so. So, she had everything as complete
to Maggie's question. Okay. All right. So, does that sound like a plan that we will um wait to see? And Ned, if you get that done um in advance of our meeting, you
could send it over to Julia and she can distribute it. I'll send it as soon as I can. I would ask the board to continue to next Thursday evening so that this is obviously a date that's on the on your calendar. Yes. Otherwise, you'd have to
repost. Yeah. Yeah. If for some reason it's not ready, you know, we can we can continue it. We do a continuence, right? Great. So, I would entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for two
Elliot Street to um 7:05 on uh May 22nd. We have to do it at um 7:10 or later because the um the the other public hearing is 7:05. Okay. Sorry.
7:10. All right. I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing for two Elliot Street to 710 on May 22nd. All right. Roll call. All in favor? Sean? Yes. Cheryl? Yes. Jim? Yes.
Maggie, you're muted. Didn't hear you, Maggie. Yeah, I think you're muted. You're still muted, but I I'm not. There you are. Okay. Well, now you're muted. Yes. And myself. Yes. All right. We'll
see you um next Thursday then. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. So now um moving on to the only other agenda item that we had was um discussion of the
MBTA zoning. Um we have um we can either pull up we can either pull up the districts the map um and what we have for the 10% plan or we can start with the language that um the draft language that
Cheyenne has sent to the board. Do we want to just Why don't we for the public who is just watching? Um Julia, do you have the slide deck? I sent over. You want the um thing that was sent by
Nick today? The one that I sent to you for the 10% and then we'll look and then we'll look at the language. But just to review what the maps look like and where what the districts are that walk through
So, while she's getting that, this was the plan that we had voted to send to HLC for their review. Um, and you can scroll down, Julia. Okay. What? So you can go back up. This was just looking
at the districts within the half mile of the commuter station is on the next slide right here. This was just reviewing the 74 acres within the half mile. 37 and a half acres of developable
station land. you can go to the next one. Okay. So, this is the plan that we had voted again to send with all of the um for the adjacent community plan. We have still we have our um many of the same
districts in this plan. The Granite Avenue North, the Paper Mill site, the Blue Hill AB station, the Blue Hills Parkway corridor, Elliot Street corridor, and the 7-Eleven Randolph. Go to the next
one. This was the Blue Hill Station area mapped. All right. Next. Yep. And the Blue Hills Parkway corridor. And these are within the half mile. And then this is our um this is
how we came out with our our units, our numbers that we all had agreed to on this. So 48 and that's on our website. And then Yeah. So, and this is all on our website just so folks can can take a
look. Our minimum open space, the height of the buildings, the number of parking spaces, lot size, units per acre, etc. Okay. And you can go to the next
one. And actually, we added and then Yeah. So this was the also and this is not in um this should be above with the other districts. We'll have to um realign these for a presentation but this is the Granite Avenue North
District 8.9 acres. Yep. Paper Mill site 3.5 acres. Elliot Street corridor, 7-Eleven Randolph A. I think that was the last one. And we'll have to align these we'll have to
um make these maps consistent and we'll have to um provide street the street addresses so folks know. But this is at least a general the general uh location and map area. which we've been discussing in both the 10 and
the 25% plans and we would list out every parcel that would be yes they um UTIL has that there they they have that ability to do that quite easily so that would be available um as well. So that
would be on our website because it would be helpful for people to know if it's if their property is affected or if their neighbor is affected. I agree. Yep. And we would want that to be part of the
presentation for town meeting. Meredith, this um deck is dated May 2nd. Um there was one sent by Nick today. You want to take a look at that one? Oh, sure. That's I didn't see that. I just saw the um draft zoning language, but
maybe that's he's added incorporated this. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Maybe Nick needs to be aware that we like to get our materials the Friday before our meeting. pretty hard to do when the meeting was the Thursday before the Friday you're
speaking of. I know. That's rapid transit. I guess I'm I'm thinking of uh rapid transit stuff that he sent. Um but there is a Yeah, I didn't see the districts because we'd sort
of sort of finished with that and then moved to the 25% work, right? Okay. May AC. I feel like the May 8 deck that UTL did, they combined both the adjacent and the um rapid transit
did into one. Yeah. Which is the same. These were pulled from that. Okay. Previous up to date. So, I think what we want to do is make sure I I know
um there was some updates to the zoning language. Julia, can you pull that up? Sure. And we'll walk through that. And that was dated uh May 6th, but there might be a more recent update. Um
I'm working from the draft from May 6th. And I think Cheryl, you had some edits. Was it both to this or was it just to the rapid transit? I did not focus on this. I focused on the rapid transit. Okay.
Okay. So, this did anyone have any Oh, did anyone have anything on this first page? Trying to print it. So that's May. So on the May I just need to print it out. Yeah.
So it's the May 6 one. Yeah. And Nick had a few comments. Um, you'll see I believe these were Nick's comments in red or Julia, is that correct? Um, like under
purpose re review purpose clause. Yeah, this is what he provided today. So, um, this is what it is. I'm not seeing where any red though.
Oh, this is on I just have things highlighted like under Yeah, there things that are highlighted but right. Yeah, I had some comments that um
Meredith, there's another email from Nick. It was 3:21 today and I um Julia, you might um and he had his changes in red on it. That's what I Yeah. And that that's not
reflected on this. Yeah. This because the 321 one has the rapid transit with edits that I suggested. I did not supply edits to this one. Okay. So
that's okay. He had sent that. Oh, okay. So on May 6th, um we were emailed one with a couple of um and these are just some language um some slight language changes which um I
think we can we can look at later. I think what's most important as we make sure that the the question is that Nick really had for us is we want to make sure that the numbers are all correct um
the inputs but as the planning board do we want to now that we have approved the site plan approval do we want to make it subject to that site plan approval um that that and instead of having the design
standards. Maybe when we get down to that um we can talk about it and I can you know what why don't I read off just what I have in the red comments. So under purpose uh Nick has highlighted review the purpose
clause and I'm not sure if he just wanted if he wanted to change that or if he had thoughts on that. So he had reviewed that purpose clause on there. Um then on page he was fine with
everything was fine. Page two and three these were all the definitions that were essentially um lifted. The only one if you scroll down to page four. Julia, can you go down? Sorry, the pages aren't numbered. Oh,
okay. Um, so you can go down if the very last when you go down to the definitions. The very last definition is subway station. Yeah. So, this we didn't even May six. It's the May 6. Yeah.
In the email. Is that what you're using, Julia? I'm using the May 6 now. Yeah. But if you can see this came in today. Um, and I would think we'd want to use the one that came in today. It might We can We
can do that. And let me just see if he made the changes. So, if you scroll down to the last definition, okay, let me get rid of that. So, it's number 28. Oh, yeah. Um Yeah. So, yeah. So, you can see this is where this is the
highlight. It just doesn't look red on here. But under subway station, um, this this is not the same. Um, this is from the statute, but it's not what the regulations say. So, I think we'll have to probably look at changing that
language. Um, but we can ask Nick about that or Well, you don't think it should be consistent with the statute? Well, that's what's in there. Yeah, this was just a comment that he
had, but um I think we should um scroll down further. He didn't there was nothing for uh the next page then when it comes to the Yeah. community spaces. Yeah. Right here. Julia, if you want to just stop up at that.
So, district scroll up a little more. Yeah. So, this this was for the um the Granite A subdist. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, lot when we go down um to lot
size, a lot of this is templated from the 2023. So, lot size. Yeah, there is none. There's none. Uh the number of stories is
six. The minimum um height the maximum height 75 ft. And then height four and a half. Yep. And then Okay. Then standard
the minimum parking none. Did we change the minimum open space um to 30% or was that only in the rapid transit? That was 30%. Yeah, that we we we had had that which
was interesting. I when I was looking through it that because we changed it in the rapid transit plan, but it was we originally had it um as 30%. Okay. So, in the May 6th edition, it's 40%. So, Oh, wait. You know what? I'm sorry. I'm
looking at this and it said it had it had it had been 40%. So he has made some he has made some adjustments to this um because we had previously
40% and we had maximum units per acre at 45. Did we get a copy of this? Because this one is dated 513 if you know. Yeah, this this is what he sent me today on the left. This this
one over here is from 56. So it does say 40% there and it says 30% here. So I'm Did he provide a new calculations chart, Julia, for this? Um, I don't know. He just sent me this
as an attachment and said, you know, his notes there. But, you know, this should be highlighted if he changed it, I would think. You know what? But I But what's interesting is, you know what? He might have done this correctly in making these changes because if we go
back and we pull Can you pull up too? Um, can you pull up what the chart was that we had in that pres in that little slide presentation? Um, so we can do a side by side. Is that possible? The one from last week, the
one that you ju we just started with tonight. This where it has your your slides. Yes. because that's what HLC I mean that's what UTIL haded and it did say 30% there so maybe
this was um he was correct in changing this okay so that's a ver so we're look just so I'm clear we're looking at
um adjacent community version two and that's what he emailed us today at like 12 at 12:27. He emailed us three different art two different
article articles. Well, that's what we're looking at. Correct. But I but what we need to make sure is the inputs that he's added correlate with the util's calculations. So
the correct one. Yeah. And I'm going to pull it up because I can read through this. Um so my phone doesn't die. So, I'm gonna just I'm going to share this with the board right now
because we can then look at um or I'll send it actually Julia to you and I don't know if you can share it now. No, I'll share this because it's you emailing it to me. I'm going to
email it to it's what I sent to you which is just the slide presentation. So everybody will see the table because I we what we want to do is to make sure that the table is consistent with what is in in the zoning language because those are our calculation numbers. So
I'm going to send it to everybody right now so everyone can pull it up. Is this what you wanted? It's It's the entire chart for all the districts. So, we can do a sidebyside just comparison to make sure what we
have. And everybody hopefully just got that. Not yet. Okay. So, it's right before the Thank you. Got it. Now you got it. So we can open this up. So when we look at Granadav North, that's what we're the um
the Granadav is what we're looking at right now. There is 30% in there and it is six stories. So that's correct. We just want to make sure. And it's 48. So the changes that Nick made in here are the correct
changes to what UTIL provided us. That's what I just wanted to make sure. Okay. So 38 48 this is all correct set back frontage front yard set back 30 side set back 10
20 20 and 1.1 y okay so um so moving down Julia um those changes were all made
Um, April subd district. Which page are you looking at? So now it's not um now going to the paper mill. He only had one comment under eight. So it's
E8. And he may have made these changes right there. Yeah. So, the site where it says exceptions, renewable energy installations, the site plan review authority
um may wave the height and setbacks. And I think he wanted just to change that language to say um oh, he made that change because it had said a special permit granting authority. So, he's made that he's made
that change already. And then the following that's all good here. Um going down to B the going to the Blue Hill A subdist here. Um
he under number two Matapan Square and the Blue Hill AB commuter rail station. Yep. So he's up he updated that. Previously it just said across from Matapan Square. So, and he wrote in the and the Blue Hill AV commuter rail
station. So, yep. So, he's he's made these edits uh for us already. Okay. So, continuing down, this is the minimum that um under the table dimensions here
again, this was the the um minimum lot size 5,000 square ft. The lot area per additional unit 000. Height six stories. Maximum uh height and feet 75. Minimum open space
40% maximum units per acre 45. None front yard setback 15 20 going down 30 1.1.
So that was all completed. Um, let's see. We didn't have any other comments. Going down further. Applicability. Can you go to um Blue
Hills Parkway corridor subdist? Yep. Number two. Um so an applicant he had highlighted an applicant may develop multif family housing on certain parcels within Okay. We had said in the original
draft it had said um an applicant may develop multifamily housing on certain parcels within a half mile of the Matipan station along with along or adjacent to Blue Hills Parkway in accordance with the provisions of
this subsection. So in close. So he changed it to say in close proximity or why because some are outside the half mile. Yeah, probably we can ask him ask about that. Yeah.
So I would assume that that is why. So that he just highlighted that previously, but yeah, in close proximity. Okay. Right. Standard. All right. Looks like under five units per acre. Um he has that in
blue there to be added. And that's all consistent with with what we had previously. Okay. And then on Elliot Street under number three, let's see.
Um he had changed this to 7,000. Um the uses permitted as of right. Um he the parcels 7,000 square ft or more. and he made that change. So that's been corrected in
here. Um going down to the to the um on the chart, Julia. Yeah, if you can stop right there. Um he had changed it to be lots 7,000 to 9,999 square ft with
050 and then 10,000 to 14,999 square feet. Um, and that's 04. And then lots 15,000 square feet or more, uh,
27. So that those are correct. Those changes were made. Okay. Keep going down. So 71 Randolph Avenue. Yep. This all looked good here. There was not anything in here except for under
maximum open space. Um he added the words uh units per acre. So that is that is correct. So just as a side note um on 7-Eleven Randolph FAV does it ex does it have
existing 40% open space was that part of their 40B application? Do you know and maybe you don't know but I don't I don't know because um that was if that was consistent with what the 40B zoning was.
Yeah. Excellent. Um, I don't know if we need to clarify what open space is. So, on this particular 40B, and I did talk to Nick about it, this developer cleared every last tree up to the property
line. Um, so there's nothing there's nothing. We actually took down trees on the neighboring yard because I saw it um and I showed Nick pictures of it. So, I don't know. And I know it's a 40B and I know that they have different um
requirements and they don't have to follow basic principles, but um can we put in like open space? Maybe it just needs a clarifier. Open space just means like
soil. It's in the definitions. Maggie is um open space and I'll try to Yeah. Okay. pull it up because it does address open space under number 20. And I'll just read this. For the purposes of subd
districts subsection of this subsection open space shall mean a portion of a lot or of adjacent lots in common ownership exclusive of any building or buildings andor their associated driveways and
parking areas and shall include parks, lawn, gardens, landscaped areas, community gardens, terraces, patios, areas left in their natural areas left in their natural condition.
Athletic fields, open air, open air athletic courts, playgrounds, open air swimming pools, or any open vegetated areas, driveways and parking areas, permanent or temporary, shall not shall
not be considered open space. So that's the definition. Okay. So there's no there's no set like setbacks do not disturb area of like five or 10 feet or anything? No, we
didn't have that. And it wouldn't affect this anyway, Maggie. I mean, it wouldn't affect the 40B because this is overlay zoning. So thinking um they already have their permit. So
yeah, but for other projects. Okay. So all right. So we are pulling down exceptions. Let's see. Yep. So this was all all consistent with what we had
um up until the point where we get to be the general development standards if you scroll down. Yeah. Yep. Right here. So here we have this was prior to
our Oh wait okay so he's put this in let me see projects proposed in accordance shall be subject to section 275 site point approval. All right. So, he did take he did um Yep. All right. So, he did take this
because basically what had been in here with the design standards, if you remember in the in the May 6th, it listed basically all the design standards which are currently now implemented and incorporated into the site plan approval. So rather than
duplicating and having all of these standards that were previously listed, this just simplifies the article. Does that make sense? Yeah. That we don't need to have
both. Yeah. I mean, the only benefit of including it in um is it just saves applicants from having to reference another part of our bylaw. That's the only of having it in. But but again, I
printed out the May 6 and that's like 35 pages where this is, you know, 10 or 12 pages, right? It just makes it a cleaner article. I'd like to keep and so design guidelines the site plan review authority may adopt an amend by
simple majority vote and this was all in um what had been in previously and then the affordability requirements go down to that and Nick um thinks it's reasonable for us to put
in the 15% as as we had discussed previously. Um he does not think that there will be a um an issue with that with HLC. So he felt that we should we should put that in and um and send this you know for for review. But this is
consistent with what other towns are being approved for. And and he also feels we can bring the unit count to eight um to eight or more. Yeah. Yeah. that's what he rather than 10
that's what he had suggested which is consistent with what other towns like Newton are doing and um and he felt and if you remember our when we were working with the consultant on our economic feasibility
plan it was it they were thinking that we would be fine with this too. Now, it doesn't have any reference to making any type of contribution to the affordable housing trust, right? If
it's if it's um a development lesson because yeah, this does not address that. So, can we So, that's what I had sort of suggested we we do is um you know, we should make as much of a contribution to the affordable housing
trust or um holding authority and maybe it could be based on a percentage of the sale price or a percentage of the rental if they don't sell just so we are generating
some additional funds that we could help um the affordable housing trust in developing additional units. know we we Cheryl, what have you seen um other t other
communities how how are they calculating that typically or do you I I don't know what others have done on the MBTA communities uh on on whether HLC will allow a
contribution. I've heard that um they haven't been amendable to that, but I'm not certain if if they agreed to it for any community. Um I understand that this at 8 is um it's as far as they
were willing to go, but like I said, I don't know for sure if somebody else has done it or not. All right. So, that's a question that um I can follow up with Nick on and ask them. ask him. That seems like
something we should we should ask about if we can ask HLC if if that's something that would be allowable because many of our sites are actually going to only possibly generate three units. So, I feel like we're missing out on an
opportunity. And it doesn't have to be um you don't have to gouge them because I fully understand that it's either a resident um taking advantage of an opportunity that their house falls within this district or it's going to be
a smaller developer um a local developer hopefully. So I don't want to gouge them but um it might be that's why I was thinking a percentage of the sales price because If it's a down market, then they're not
being penalized. Um, and if it's an up market, then perhaps they contribute a little bit more. Okay. All right. Well, I'll follow up with that and and try to get that information so we could get language for
that if we if it's possible. All right. So, we can go down to terms of writing. Yeah. He put this language in just to protect ourselves if if for some reason they don't allow it. But then we return back to the standard
language. Right. Right. Yep. So, so that way we still have at least, you know, 10% affordability in there. Development standards. This was all consistent with what was in
before. And then severability and then the town vote. Um, so, um, I know N's been doing a and Cheyenne have been doing a lot of work on this and, um, a lot of this language
is the same language that would have been in the 25% plan. Cheryl, is there anything that you that jumps out at you that you would um, want to see amended in this? Were there items that
were I haven't done a cross comparison between the rapid and this. Um, so I don't know for sure whether there would be something I I would uh I would want to change.
Um, yeah, everything was pretty it was mostly the same except for obviously the the inputs, you know, the the lot size, the height, and so forth. But as far as the language um severability,
administrative, you know, everything that we've gone through other than those then the the title of the districts and the um and the inputs. Well, if we review the rapid transit compliant language, then we can see where the
differences are and see if we wanted to incorporate any of them. Um, do you have what your That was my You all have it because Nick sent it at I believe 3:20 it was. Yeah. So, yep. So,
just for the purp you have a redline version your redline markup is that that's what Yes, that's what Okay. What Nick sent to all of us at 3:20 today. So um so it does I
just wanted to make sure yes so if you um in intend to re review the 25% rapid then we can look at it and compare if there's if there are things that I marked up that we would want to
incorporate into this 10%. Um but I have not I haven't done a markup of the of the 10%. Okay, let's um Julia, can you pull that up to see if there's um if there were language
changes that um were made to the to the text that that we could incorporate? Oh. Um do you want to see the actual article? Yeah, if you could
pull that up. for are you talking about for rapid transit? For the rapid transit, yeah, there's a red Cheryl did a redline version so we can just see the language changes to see what we would want to incorporate. Cheryl, you know what? Would it be
helpful for if you pull it up and keep this on the screen and we scroll through together? That might be easier. And then we can edit this document. Can I offer a suggestion? Sure.
What What if we just pull up the document that um the rapid that Nick sent out at 321? If we just go through that and look at the red changes, we could just say whether or not we agree that those should also be
applied to the 10%. Okay. Do we have to change it while we're here or can we can we I would be fine with that because looking through it, I think we're going to find that um
a lot of these maybe applicable to both. Yeah. Yeah. Do you want to see them side by side? I think we could I think we could look at the uh No, I think we just look at the document that Nick sent 321 and we
might be able to acknowledge that the changes in that one should also be changed in this one. Are you able to do that, Julia? I Yeah, I'm I'm scrolling through the rapid
transit. I'm just not seeing any Mar. Yeah, me neither. Really? So, you have you have to have the one that says to Gaas edits and it has to be the one that was sent to 321. Yeah. I got one sent at 320, not a 321.
Well, you have to have review. You have to have the review on to see the markup. I don't know how what your settings are for word. The the specific email from Nick read, "I attached some track changes to the rapid
transit text from Cheryl." Yeah, got that. That's the one. If you open up that attached document, I I I see the tracked changes in red. All right. They look purple to me, but Oh, really? Okay. You have to download
them. You have to download the document. Then it comes up green on mine. Are you guys seeing this from Cheryl? No, I just have it on my own um my own computer.
We're still seeing the um the previous article, the 10% article. Yeah, Maggie's right. If you download it, it comes up. Cheryl, do you want to try to uh share your
screen? Would that be easier? Uh, let me open it. All right. Can you see it? Yep. Yes. Is it large enough? Yep. I
um noted that they util had renamed um the blue the Matipan station district the blue lab a station. I just think that's very confusing. We've been talking about a Matipan station district for three years now and it's the same
district. When I first read it, I thought he was talking about like the blue hill a like triplex and so um it will require the util chart to be consistent with batapan but I that's my
um I called Nick about that actually and um he agreed. Um, but just on that point, isn't it um doesn't isn't it tight in tight title the Blue Hill Lab Station, the commuter rail station?
Should we be consistent with what it's actually called? It's just the subd district has been called Madapan Station for a long time. I think it's confusing to change the name of it at at this point in time. Um,
there's two stations. There's Madapan station and then there's the Blue Hav station down the road. The closer one is Madapan. Um we're calling it the, you know, Elliot Street, etc. Um those aren't close to the commuter
rail station. So it it seems to me that uh the consistency for people you're talking about the public understanding the differences between what was done previously and what we're what's being proposed here. I think the changing the name of the district is confusing, but
if you if you disagree, then you could vote to keep it the way it is. So, that was a good point that it's two stations. So, that's correct. My mistake. Um, let's make sure we'll just check to make sure these are all consistent. Okay. Y So,
um, next is, um, making sure that we date the map. So that's on the same paragraph. This is the consistency of the naming of that subdist. Design guidelines is a paragraph later in the
document. So I I felt that definition shouldn't have been stricken. Uh it had been taken out from the 2023 version. So I put it back in. Okay. Okay. So, I would agree with that. We wanted to have
um that added back in because we should comment on these as we go. So, all right. So, so the first we want to make sure that our districts are consistent with the language. Right. So, the the map had a
date. The guide design guidelines has a definition section 3A of spelling out that it's chapter 48 the zoning act clear about what that
is. Okay. I didn't like using um in higher density because it's still midrise. Um, I felt like all of the subdists that are allowing six stories are considered
midrise. Um, it in the applicability section, most of them have more than just what was included here. They have more definition of the area. So, I added to
be more consistent with those other districts something here to define this district better. I'm fine with those. Yeah. On the rapid transit, we had said that
Grandadav North would not have a parking space requirement. The way the chart is set up is maximum spaces. Um, so I felt as if we should
leave maximum spaces and add a a line for minimum spaces and the minimum would be no minimum space requirement in this particular subdist for the rapid transit. And then
Under bicycle storage, the requirement to have the bicycle storage be enclosed for residential uh makes a lot of sense. But on the commercial, it's oftent times at the
entrances into the commercial space and outdoors. So, I added this sentence. Cheryl, I just while you're here, um I'm just I'm concerned that we had no um parking spaces per residential dwelling
unit. This is what Yeah, that's what under maximum under the parking spaces if that throw off the unit. That's what we had um agreed to with UTI last week that
Yeah, that was in the rapid transit plan. I'm just I'm concerned it's might throw off in the if we start fiddling with the parking spaces on the adjacent, it might throw off. Correct. Yep. This is for the rapid transit.
Yeah. Yep. Okay. Right. I think um you wouldn't need want to make that change here for the um 10%. But I think you could make the bicycle parking change. Yep. I agree. Yeah. I didn't think that these were necessary.
Nick had flagged these and they were designed for the Granada South. I think he had put a question in whether we wanted to keep these in or take them out. Um, and I think they might be in both of the 10% and the 25%. U, I don't
think it's necessary for Granad North to have these in. Wait, I just added again kind of a little more um description to the on the paper mill district on the uniquely situated because it is uniquely situated
and that kind of justifies some of the other things that we had agreed to there. Um again we had this applies to the rapid transit on the parking. So just like Grand North. Yeah. In fact I should have put
this same sentence here about the bicycle storage and I didn't. That would be an ad here. Um this is the renaming of the little back to the Madapan station that carries through in a couple of places here. And
then to your point Maggie, this I um I think this is where it had been included as both stations and I think Nick had put this one in. Yeah. Um another place tracing that through. This is that same bicycle
parking comp change. Um the parkway I added the the commuter rail station here as well. Yeah, that Nick had made that. Yep. Yeah. So he made it
in the other one in the Matapan, but he didn't put it in the parkway. So, it seems like it should be in both. Um, there's some numbering fractions. Instead of just units per acre here, for consistency, we we've had
maximum units per acre. And this is the Randolph Access Road uh subdist. Um this is before we got the UTIL presentation
which these had been blank before on these um setbacks. Though we would probably want to make these consistent with what UTIL submitted. Although I I do think a a greater front yard setback here like we talked about last week so
that they're the buildings would be further away from the residential buildings up front. Randolph A. So I don't know that you made that change. Have to double check that.
Um in Milton Station Central Lab. So that's the the three districts that comprise the the Milton station east, west, and bridge.
Um I had suggested some different setbacks here based on the kind of conditions that exist. Again, um I think util's got those a little different than that. So we could be consistent and keep with util. This is the the bicycle storage.
Uh this is I think East Milton Square is the same thing in terms of these setbacks. Our business districts don't really have the setbacks. The historic buildings are pretty much right on the sidewalk. The building meets the sidewalk without a setback.
Um, I think previously we had put larger setbacks in just to make sure that East Milton Square overlay was more attractive than this, but I don't know that those considerations need to be held for this. Um, and then again, this
is um, East Milton Square in the is not included in the 10%. So, this is all related to the rapid transit on this Those were next changes. I have made a couple of minor changes here that are in
red on my screen. And that's it. Okay. All right. So, I would agree, you know, I think most of those and and to be consistent, um I would agree with um those changes
that are that are relevant. I think we just want to make sure that what we're labeling our districts align with what our maps say. So, um, which I believe in the adjacent plan they they
do because they UTIL hadn't changed the maps for the adjacent plan, but we can double check it. Is he is Nick going to send us a complete package that would include the zoning language, the map,
and the Excel spreadsheet of all the parcels? Yeah, I can request that. Yep. So basically incorporating everything we have in our slide presentation with the correct the maps all corrected and consistent uh the
zoning language and the Excel spreadsheet for the package that would be presented to the warrant committee in the select board. So we're not peacemealing it. It's just nice to get one
complete package. Correct. Um, and I would also say we could Cheryl, what do you what do you think is the easiest to send? Nick obviously has your document because he shared it. Um,
but that we ask that he makes the changes that are relevant to the adjacent plan using your um, amended language or do you want to go through it? I I don't want to ask you to do it. Um, no. Um, I don't plan to do it for the
10%. Um, so however you think it's best to have it done, right? Okay. So, I'll ask Nick to go through. Was there any um did everybody agree with the language changes that Cheryl made that would be that were relevant
like the bicycle? Yes. Yes. Um, yes. I think there was only one that um see which one there was one that was not applicable to both. Uh see
It was one that we said we wouldn't apply to both. It might have been find it now. And while he's looking, I just double checked all of the zoning the referenced um districts are all consistent with what
we have um in our adjacent uh the plan that UTL put together for us. So I think those changes were made Cheryl with the 25% but um but Granite AB North Paper Mill
site, Blue Hill AB station, Blue Hills Parkway corridor, Elliot Street corridor, and 7-Eleven Randolph A. That's that's the way the language reads. So we don't need to make any of those changes on that first paragraph. But you said you wanted the
date. I don't think the Blue Hill station should be called Blue Station. It should be called Metapan stations. Is that what you were referring to? I'm just I'm saying what we h what you had labeled it and what's in our language is consistent.
Right. So I just think that's for the public. That's all. And when I spoke to Nick about that this afternoon because I said, "Okay, I I hadn't seen the UTIL presentation yet when he sent that and I said, uh, is
this is this the triplex? I thought we were not doing the triplex." And I think that's the same confusion people are going to have when they see it if we don't get the language change back to So call the Blue Hill A Station Madapan Station, right? Yep.
Okay. As long as we're consistent in both, I'm fine with that. I had the same reaction as Cheryl. I I thought it was referring to the triplex. So, you know, and and the counts are it's either called Matapan and you include the Blue Hill units in
Matapan or you do vice versa. But, right. Okay. I that's easy to change. UTIL can make that change on the maps. Yeah, I totally agree with the Matipan wording and it was a good catch on Cheryl's part.
There was one item. I can't find it now. It was one item that we said was not applicable to both. It was the uh no parking requirement for Grandaded A North and Paper Mill. Actually, it's not Paper Mill. Paper Mill.
Yeah, there is no parking requirement, but there is a parking requirement for Granite A North in the 10%. So you want to make you'd want to make that change in the paper mill site. That's how you were getting the density
up. They took the parking away. Um but you it's they had kept it in the Granite A North for the 10%. I'm just nervous about changing parking requirements that we would throw anything any of the unit count off.
I'm actually afraid of the parking maximum. I wouldn't want to deter maximum. Yeah. Um you're really tying someone's hands saying, you know, that there's a maximum. What if they want to build a few less units but allow two cars per
um unit, which I think is the most marketable. But that's just my opinion. Watch the maximum. It's the language that was there from 2023. The maximum. I understand that. I just don't agree with it. I don't think maximum is is a good thing to have in there. Well, whenever
it was put in there, I just personally think that it's wrong because you're tying developers hands. So maybe definitely for the Granite A subd district, I kind of agree with Jim and that sort of has been our argument
on other um developments too is just the the developer is going to do what is marketable. Forcing him to do one spot per unit, he might just not do it. or she or they
because I would think at that district you probably would need more than one cl. Juliet, would you mind pulling um pulling the the uh 10% plan back up
so we could look at those parking real quick? go through those real quickly for each district. Here it comes. Okay. So, yeah, we can leave it on this. So, we have Granad
North. Maximum parking spaces per unit, one and a half. one and a half. I'm sorry. So, do we want to just change that to read minimum? So, we do have
minimum underneath, but it's No, it'll change the compliance model completely because now you're going to you have to have something on the parking which sets that's how the compliance model works that it calculates parking requirements. I I don't think that's something you can
you can change. All I did with the other one was make it consistent with what was agreed to at the last u discussion with you two. But changing this would change how many the unit capacity. So I think we should leave
it. But yeah, that's fine. I mean I'm just looking at it from a practicality standpoint. You know, if if what's a onebedroom going to rent for? 2500 bucks a month. Is that what the going rate is? It's got to be close to that. So, if
you got to pay 2500 bucks for a one bed, that's 30 G's a year after tax income, right? So, you probably have to be making three times that. You know, oneird of your income goes to rent, 2/3 goes to everything else. So, that's 90
grand a year. Um, if a young couple living there, it's going to be two incomes to make that 90 grand probably and two incomes will probably require two cars. That's just my thinking. So, it's it's kind of unh
it's not practical to max it out is is and ju just because I've been in that situation, not as a renter, but as a landlord, I had a hell of a time trying to rent an apartment in Milton with one car parking. It was very detrimental.
So, Cheryl, if we did if we made it a minimum, it could be up to it could be up to the property developer how many units they wanted to create. We we're not forcing them to create all the units that are allowed for. I think the
maximum is the key that is in the compliance model because it it subtracts out um what the requirements are for land area for parking. The way I understand
it's been explained by UTI. So it will make a difference in the zone capacity. So, I don't think you can change this without consultation with Butail. Okay. All right. So, I'll ask Nick um to get
back us on on a to us on that question, but for now, we'll leave that. All right. So, um, is that does that sound good to everybody that
we vote to, um, send this to, uh, the warrant committee uh, for their review subject to incorporation of Cheryl's
um, zoning language amendments where were appropriate, where applicable um update our maps. Um request util makes gets our consistent our maps
consistent and in and we date that and then we have an Excel spreadsheet for all of the units and we reach out to UTIL for the question on parking. Well, an Excel spreadsheet for all the properties. For all the
properties. Yes. Meredith, looks like there's a Julia hand raised. Yeah, Julia. Um, I didn't mean to do that. Sorry. That's okay. All right. So moved.
That do you need second? Does that sound Does that sound good to everyone at this point? Sounds great. I'll make a motion to vote to send this um MBTA communities multifamily overlay
district adjacent community um bylaw to the warrant committee for their review subject to Cheryl's amendments along with the updated maps and excel
spreadsheet for all the affected properties. Second. Second. Okay. Right. Roll call. Um um before you do the roll call. Yeah. Discussion. Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm going to make a comment. Um I'm going to vote no, but I want to say why I'm voting no
because I've this board has promised um for a year and a half. In fact, in 2023, u it was promised to residents in the town that um you know, just with a little more time, the board could come up with compliant zoning. And a fully
year and a half later and $50,000 later, um the board's uh deciding to submit only a 10% plan, and I can't endorse that. Um and so I plan to vote no. Understand? Um okay. Uh, with that we'll
have a roll call vote. Um, Maggie. Um, yes. After doing our research and in consultation with our consult, I vote yes.
Okay. Um, Jim, after realizing how bad 25% is for the town, I'll vote yes. Okay. Sean, yes. Okay. Cheryl, no.
Right. And myself, yes. Thank you very much. Um, and thank you all. Um, I really appreciate it. This is a challenge and it's a challenge for our community. Um, and we'll continue to work um on seeking
compliance. So, with that, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. So, move. Before the motion to adjourn, I'm going to again acknowledge that we asked UTL to
do a lot of work for us last Thursday for tonight and we didn't discuss it tonight and I sure hope that you plan to have that on the agenda for the next meeting and that you plan to personally thank you Tiel for doing that work even though it wasn't discussed.
Absolutely. I No, it's been great and I don't think it's a waste of time. I I really don't um because we need to be prepared um to have a backup and and I think we are um well positioned should we absolutely need to
do the 25. So thank you. I appreciate that again. Um and I'd like to say Meredith, nice job tonight for walking us through the 10% um pay all you know it was a it was a logistically tough meeting. and thank
you for for getting us through it. And Cheryl, thank you for all your edits. There was a lot of work also. And unfortunately, we are up, you know, against a real tight timeline here. So, um I'm glad we're submitting this. Um we can always do more, but I think we at
least need to demonstrate that we are we are trying to work to to create um zoning in Milton. So, all right. Um was there a second to that? Adjourn. Motion to adjurnn. Was there a motion? Well, I said so. Moved. Wait a
second. Is there a second? Second. Okay, we'll do roll call again. Sean, yes. Cheryl, yes. Um, Jim, yes. Maggie, yes. And myself, yes. Good night. Good night.
Good night.