That's great. John can come. Valley. Christmas. Okay. >> Good evening and welcome to the 13th meeting of fiscal year 2026 uh for the Milton Planning Board. At this time, I would like to uh call the meeting to
order and begin by introducing the members of the planning board and our staff. Um, if you'd like to begin. >> Sure. Cheryl Tagayas, secretary. >> M Yieldfield, member. >> Jim, member. >> Yes. And Meredith Hall serving as chair.
Um, Sean Behey will not be uh joining us this evening. Um, but we do have our staff here. Bonte >> Avante Grady, assistant director >> and Liz Manning, planning director. >> Great. Thank you. And thank you all for joining us. We can begin with our um
administrative items. Um we don't have any minutes currently. >> We have one set. >> Oh, we have one set. I'm sorry. We do. Um and that was I don't have that date. >> And it was December 11th. >> Yep.
And I'll just say that um I spent time trying to whittle them down because I felt as if we don't need to capture quite everything that's said. Just kind of it's good to capture some
of the gist of the dialogue, I think, but not everything that's said because I feel as if it's going to be difficult for people to want to read really lengthy minutes. So that's I've kind of taken the approach I've been a secretary
for a few years now. >> Yeah. Just to summarize, I think um you know the approach u that for the years that I've been on the board was to try not try to be >> um check that balance between capturing
everything and not being too long. So and you've been doing a great job and I think you've been you know going with probably more detail which covers everything. So that's great. >> Yeah. And I'm not uh and I want I was hoping to get it out sooner so maybe we
wouldn't have to have as many longer, but I'm happy to go through the ones for January. Um >> I I will say it did take me longer to go through them when they're longer like that, too. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. I And I definitely hear you,
Cheryl. Um yeah, I definitely don't want to make it so that it's you know extremely time consuming to like go through them and you know review them you know because of the length. So yeah um I think I did air on the side of being more detailed >> which I appreciate
>> kind of at the beginning but yeah um I'm I'm definitely going to work on making those more succinct >> going moving forward. So >> okay well thank you thanks for your work on them appreciate it. >> Of course. >> Great. So, I did review them and I was
>> Yeah, I only found one typo on page seven. >> Reel peers and >> pair. >> Oh, book pier. >> So, with that amendment, um, if I could have a motion to approve the minutes
from December 11th >> as as >> as amended. I'll make that motion >> and I'll second all. We'll have to do a roll call because we're not all in person. Um Cheryl, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Jim,
>> yes. >> And myself, yes. >> December 11th, minutes are approved. Um then our next um meeting dates we have u our next meeting scheduled is February 26th
and then we are in March which actually falls on the 12th again. So followed by the 26th again. Those will be the next three dates up. Okay. Um
staff update. So, I've just got a couple of quick things tonight. I'm going to I'm going to uh bring up to date on the um the Boston to Blue Hills project. I know Cheryl had I appreciate very much, Cheryl, you you following up on this
because this is kind of moving faster than I than I realized. Um so now, so so it's good. So, so we've got everyone's attention and and what have you. I'm gonna um share my screen
to show the um alternate that's that's basically the um the preferred option at this point. >> So this is this alternative four center running shared use path will have 11 conflict points with intersecting roads.
So it's it is um the single lane on the northbound I believe, right? >> I think it's single lane now on both sides. >> Single lane on both. Okay. >> So, which I drove the pike drove the
parkway yesterday. What it looks like they're doing is they're taking the second lane and they're putting another row of planting and putting the bike path on there, which is actually >> a gain of of green space, right? >> I was every all of us were
>> another row of trees >> and another row of trees, >> right? >> Why was I thinking that this was two they were maintaining two lanes on on one side. Okay. So, >> one of the options you did have that >> not this one. >> One of the options.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yes. I thank you. Yes. Um so so I had a quick meeting this morning, a quick huddle this morning with the new town engineer. He provided some comments on you know what the town might be looking for moving forward. Had a conversation as well with the project
manager at MAPC um to you know to get a better handle on where they were in the process. And then I shared some of that information out with um with Cheryl and Meredith and I'd be more than happy to share it out with the rest of the board in terms of what has been reported up to the DCR. So um
the folks at um MAPC basically it's had offered to they offered a couple of things. They said the uh project manager's email can be used directly for uh public comments. So that was sort of that was one item that was asked to be followed up on. um they offered to come
and do a meeting with us if if folks are interested if if they'd like a a if the board would like a presentation on this before, you know, things are are fully finalized. This feasibility study is fully finalized. Um I know our town engineer and our DPW director were
interested in things like kind of like next steps, like you know, where what what happens after this feasibility study is finalized. you know, sort of like who's involved, what needs to get checked off, what the what are the funding sources. So, those are some of the things that they that they wrote in their in their um comment here today. Um
also understanding some traffic count information that might be a little bit fresher based on the Randolph A road diet. Um so, these are some of the different things that were have been are kind of in the in the mix as part of the discussion. So, I'm available to have them come back in to talk to you folks
directly if you'd like. Um, I'm available to help draft a comment letter if that would be useful. Just what what you know, let me let me know how you want to how you want to proceed. >> Um, I was wondering, did the neighbors know about this along the Parkway?
Because they do have, I think, um, like a neighborhood association. Have they in? And if maybe it's not a true association, they definitely have um like they communicate via email. So they're fairly active, right?
>> So have they had an opportunity to weigh in? >> So I know that that they reported that they had about 75 people in attendance at that meeting on January 15th. Um my my guess would be that there was attempts to do outreach for sure to to
the to the neighbors and and the direct the people that are directly impacted. I one of the possibilities if folks wanted to maybe if we did some kind of a Facebook post or something that said there's still opportunity to get comments in here's the here's the contact information for the project
manager. um there could be an opportunity to try to get that to the right person in that association and make sure that they just blast it out to their network. >> But but based on the participation at that meeting, it seemed pretty it seemed pretty full. Um
>> yeah. >> Okay. And we could Yeah. I mean I think it would be nice to maybe have them come in. >> Um and I don't know if the 26 How soon do they think they're going to have They're finalizing pretty soon. So, I
think we would need to have them at the next meeting. >> The next meeting, we could have them come just and let people know if they have any comments that they could. >> Um, Absolutely. >> And I think it would be nice to to submit a letter. Um and part of it would be that the planning department, the
engineer town engineer engineering department and planning board would like and and perhaps others you know would like we do have um I don't know how active it is but we do have a bicycle advisory committee um and they have were very interested in the
pedest the bicycle pedestrian master plan that was completed a couple of years ago. So, um I think uh showing support from the town for this effort would help because this is kind of uh would my understanding
from looking at it is an effort led by MAPC and uh NEPRA the Panza River Wershed Association and then >> encouraging DCR to you know move in this on this I think showing that we would be
supportive I think would be helpful. >> Yeah. Did you I haven't compared the um the bike master plan to this plan. Do they match up? Because I think the the bike plan, you know, I'll find their
thoughts for I think Blue Hill Parkway. >> That was MAPC also. So, I would think it matches up. But >> I I don't I don't know. I don't know. Were were there were there sort of like um were there renderings for like different areas and sort of what they
what they wanted for like a typical >> it wasn't this detailed of what the roadway might look like but it was pathways like roadways that would >> uh make connections and part of that was this understanding that they were working on more initiatives in adjacent
communities so that these connections were part of what they were interested in. So, I'd be surprised if it's not in there, but it it's definitely worth um >> so consistency with that plan. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And maybe it's something that needs to be revisited if the if I don't
How old is the plan? Is it >> It's not that old. Um but I definitely think it should be revisited because, you know, part of the plan affects my my neighborhood and my neighborhood association uh wrote in a letter and attached it to
the plan. um the plan wasn't changed to um >> so one of the things that the plan does is that um it was a a grant and the um Jim Sinsky
is the original coordinator you know through the planning department but so it was a matching grant too so the master plan implementation committee was the match and so their touch points were to uh to our committee Okay. >> But the bicycle advisory committee was
also participant you know in it and there was you know a survey and public meetings and um but one of the things that was identified is that um you know some things are kind of lowhanging fruit and some things would require more study right and so I think um like the area
that Maggie's talking about would have pretty significant changes to things which would require more study but other other areas uh for seemed to be something that could be um done
relatively easier. Now, I will also say that um Nick Milano applied on behalf of the town to the CPC for some funding which would I think um was targeted for this connection from I guess it would be
like on on central um no not central Brooklyn. No. What's the street that um you if you could kind of connect East Milton on the other side of Milton Academy from
Cantonav Canton's own >> center street? Yeah, maybe it was center street. >> Some um so and he cited the bike ped master plan in that application. >> Okay. So the implementation of that plan >> a very narrow road if that
>> the implementation of that plan um >> I don't know who it lies with >> okay >> if it lies with select board you know DPW planning and I don't know if there's been much action on it >> which is similar to unfortunately to other planning efforts they the
ownership >> so this is one of the things that we put in our the master plan implementation committee report was ownership of a lot of these things once the committees completed their work. Yeah. >> Um is not always clear and therefore followup
>> after you know after a lot of good work has gone in some followup um isn't as strong as people would hope. >> Yeah. I mean, in this plan in particular, I would think there'd be less push back because it is decreasing
um surfaces and increasing um um green spaces and trees and that will help slow down traffic, which is a problem there. I lived on the Parkway uh for a number of years and um so >> I can hear speed like a speedway from my
house on that at night when people race something or whatever they do. This would be an improved kind. >> Yeah, it definitely would be an improvement. >> So question. >> Yes. >> Yes, Jim. >> Just wondering um with regards to CPC
money, who's paying for this? Wouldn't the state be paying for this? Why would we be giving our CPC money to >> Sorry, the CPC was not this. This the CPC was a is a component of the bicycle pedestrian master plan, but not this. Not this.
>> Excellent. Okay. I thought you said some kind of a connector or something. I must have misheard you. Sorry about that. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um >> January 15th meeting. Liz, is there a link to that? Was that recorded that MAPC presentation or >> the January? >> So I have um I have notes. I I don't
believe it was recorded, but I do have notes from that meeting, so I can share those out with you folks. >> Right. >> Okay, >> that's all right. Just Yeah, it would have been nice to watch if it was recorded. That's okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, I don't I don't believe so. She she I asked her for a recording and she sent me she sent me the notes from the
meeting, so I can I can follow up again, but I didn't see any cameras. It was in the library at the high school. >> Okay. >> So, I don't friends on the um who live on that street. It would be nice to just tell them, hey, this is what's going on and in case they don't know. >> Yeah, for sure. >> That's good.
>> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Anything else, Liz? Um, >> so did we agree that we're going to invite them for? >> We should. >> And should we ask Liz to draft a letter on our behalf?
>> I don't think it has to be highly Yeah, a comment letter. I don't think it has to be um highly detailed but just you know expressing support or want interest in involvement as it moves forward like that.
>> So prior to them coming to them >> just having a draft because we the comment period ends so soon after the next meeting. >> That's I think that's great. And one thing I'd like to know is um how many parking spaces um are are they reducing
the number of parking spaces along the Parkway? Because the Parkway is a DCR road, you can park overnight on it. Um, and so I know I lived on the Parkway and I lived on West Street a little further down and um, living down there, we
relied on um, parking on the Parkway um, and you don't need to get a hardship permit. So I would hate to see um, any parking spaces get reduced um because there are two families. I lived in a had
two family down there and so um you kind of need that extra parking out on on the street. >> It's showing the parking. >> Yeah. So I was just wondering just to get a parking count because I know when they redid East Milton Square I think they lost like 11 parking spots which
they didn't really anticipate >> until after it was completed. Um so I would hate to see any um parking spaces lost. So, one thing that I think I saw in the notes, which I think is a comment I would like to um include, you're talking about the person who fell.
There's very few places to cross the Parkway and high schoolers do cross there to, you know, to get to Gal Road. Um, and I walk that and I ride my bike and, you know, there's very few places you can cross and it's a very long way
far between. So those would those are I think why they lost spaces in the east building is to have safer pedestrian way. So there may be where they add crosswalks that may impact but if they're adding them at the streets I it probably won't.
>> Right. Yeah. >> But there's a long stretch where there's not a street that's from Cantonav down toward to >> Guile. Yeah. >> And that's where people cross I think. Also, there's no I take the path that's
along Pine Tree Brook and cross over to get to Pope's Pope's Pond and there's no crosswalk there either. >> And so there's paths on both sides of the of the roadway and no way to connect two paths which is crazy.
>> Yeah. especially with there is CPC funding to make improvements to those pathways around Pope's Pond >> and eventually probably um the Pine Tree Brook because that studies for that have been funded as well
>> which will be great and it'll increase the use so having safe travel to get there. Okay. So, that's another that's another that's another thing to to loop in here too is the um is the CPC funded
design work for for PATs sort of in that >> there's um >> it may have already been cap captured by by the the design team, but I I just want to make sure that they that they've they've got that. >> I'm pretty sure I read in there about crosswalks. I'm sure that would come
because this is just a little slice here. Okay. All right. Good. >> Yeah, it does see it does seem like the consensus the public consensus and and what I'm hearing, you know, kind of very
initially out of the engineering and DPW is that they also they're also supportive of this alternative board. So, that's good. Yes, we're if we're generating consensus, that's a good thing. Very good. Okay.
Thank you for following up on that, Liz. >> Yeah, that's great. Um, and is that it? Anything else, Liz? >> So, Monte had um update on um I think Maggie's question from the last meeting. >> Yeah, I just wanted to look into I know
there was some questions regarding the shade tree advisory committee and kind of information related to how are trees funded, who chooses where to put them and and stuff like that. So, I reached out to Cassandra who is the
environmental coordinator and um yeah she replied back with a few comments um which I wanted to share. So um she says the DPW collaborates with um shade tree advisory committee uh on the DPW shade
tree program um where residents can request a shade tree that will be planted in the right of way in front of their homes for free. Um the property owner is responsible for maintaining the tree that is requested. Um they submit a request via an online form. The DPW
forestry staff review the request. Um and if the location is suitable, they will plant a tree. Um the shade tree advisory committee, they um provide DPW with a recommended tree species list. Um I believe they update every year. um and
that helps kind of choose what trees the DPW purchases and um they the shade tree advisory committee also works with Eversource um on tree removals and replacements. Um in terms of budget uh the DPW um I guess
they've historically have had a line item where um in their annual DPW budget um $10,000 for planting shade trees. Um, apparently DPW is trying to get approval to add a line item in their FY27 capital
budget for $20,000 for trees in addition to the annual DPW budget of 10,000. Um, Cassandra, she meets with the Shade Tree Advisory Committee once a month and um, yeah, I know kind of looking at like
past minutes from the Shade Tree Advisory Committee. I know they've expressed interest in having a higher budget for, you know, trees. They've expressed u 40,000 in the past. So I think there's been some like negotiations between the two terms of um
funding trees, but that was sort of the information I found and received from Cassandra which I wanted to share. So, >> so at the 350th there was about $40,000 raised for shade trees and do and I you don't have to answer it right now but um
I think the question is where where is that money being held and is it I mean it doesn't sound like the shade tree committee has it and it doesn't sound like the DPW has it. So >> there was a considerable amount and it was from residents in the town to
celebrate the 350th. Um that would be one further question and then the other would be when the conservation commission gets you know a project like the memory care we know that there are about I I think the the amount that's
being paid is about $300,000 for med you know mitigation. Um, obviously we would like those to be on the Highland Street, you know, around some of this those neighbors, but that's a lot of money and that should go to um shade trees for the town as well if they
can't be planted on the site. >> Yeah. I think when there was um a violation of a scenic road application where there were trees taken down from the public way where Maggie is, I think they couldn't put an they put them back
there. Do we asked for that some of that to go to the shade um to the shade? >> So they replanted they replanted the strip. Yeah. I don't I don't think that they made a financial contribution. I think it was all um
planted. >> So I think what we found on Highland with the memory care was that there's not enough space for the numbers of trees so that they needed to go elsewhere. you need to make a contribution >> and and which I understand that but
there are maybe some people on the latter streets like Spafford or Buckingham where they have larger front yards >> um and so perhaps the trees can't be planted along Highland but the first priority should be planted
>> along on the ladder streets um to help um mitigate any cut through traffic. So there were also some direct abutters who um to me anyway are pretty or more impacted in some ways right if some of
those if they had an interest in them but did they have to be in the public way not when they were being replaced for the memory care right >> a good question >> for how we wrote that permit >> how the concom wrote the
>> decision >> yeah and concom doesn't have a a budget. So that's where I'm kind of looking for that piece of information is where does the money go to >> the funding. Yeah. That's supposed to be
set aside for charge of the money. >> Yeah. Because also we have a great program in town too that a homeowner can purchase a tree and they can buy a tree um in case they want a different tree or
a larger tree, they can purchase it um at any local nursery and then the DPW will come and pick it up and plant it for free. So um >> so that's another great program that's offered.
>> That's great. So I think coming back to that concom question I think avant that when the a tree is removed and conservation commission approves it there's a replacement that's what three
trees to to one >> three to one >> and is there um if they don't have a an account >> and if the trees aren't all able to be placed on site what happens.
>> Yeah. And I think it is a dollar value. >> Um I think pretty much it it's a dollar value. And um and that's the other thing I know Concom was reviewing what that dollar value should be and I know
recently one concom member was advocating for a higher dollar value um just um because she had gotten information from other landscapers on what the value is of planting one tree.
So, she was advocating that it would be a higher replacement value, but I don't think con the majority of the Cong did support her um her endeavor, which I think was a little bit of a shame. Jim,
you had your hand up. >> Yeah, Meredith, thank you. I was just going to say that on on capital, we approved an extra 15,000 for trees. So, that 10 is going to become 25. Um, but once again, I'm not sure exactly where that money goes. I think it goes
to the DPW um for the tree initiative, but not 100% sure. I am sure about the 15,000. >> Okay. >> And it maybe, you know, I wonder because I've always thought maybe staffing related like what is the capacity of how
many trees that they have time to plant. >> I don't know if the DPW would ever consider outsourcing that to the nurseries who have all the equipment, have the capabilities. it almost, you know, might be something that they could outsource. I know like snow plowing, you
know, gets outsourced sometimes. Um, it's more efficient to maybe have somebody in the nursery business to do the planting, but um >> great idea. >> Just a thought. >> Then it is guaranteed. >> Yeah. Yeah. And it could be a number of nurseries
that that you know that could be on the list and depending on who has what trees and you know so um okay um good. All right, thank you for that. >> Of course. Okay.
Is anything else from staff? Thank you for that those reports. Um and we can now move to our public um comment if there's anyone here for citizens speak who would like to speak. Um see
any hands up on No hands up >> actually to promote. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh so the next item on our agenda is the MBTA community zoning the
economic feasibility analysis by MAPC. And are they with us this evening? They are both tuning in as we speak. >> Okay. >> Hello. Hello. Welcome. >> Hi. >> Hi there. Thanks for joining us.
You would like to introduce yourself and then um possibly you can present your findings. Sure. >> Um my name is Adam Plats. I'm the housing manager at MAPC and I will hand
it over to Avante to do introductions and then she can uh take it away. >> Um hi, hello. Uh my name is Avanti. I'm a senior regional land use planner here at MAPC. Um, my understanding was actually that
we were here kind of more just to answer any lingering questions there might be on the analysis, but if it'd be helpful, I'm uh happy to kind of maybe walk through some of the scenarios. I don't like have any presentation prepared, but if there were
any questions you guys had as you were reviewing the materials, Adam and I are happy to answer them. >> Um, yeah, that's absolutely fine. And I just thought for the public we could tell sort of explain um what the purpose is of of doing this exercise and what
was required by EOHLC on affordability just sort of an overview. I think your and I think your um I think your your introduction on this memo of is is pretty is pretty succinct. So
>> yeah. Yeah. I can um I can just So yeah, for the purpose of the public, we're working on the economic feasibility analysis for Milton. Um, and the goal with this economic fees fe
feasibility analysis is to assess different development scenarios in Milton's MBTA districts and make sure that whatever inclusionary or affordability requirements are um in the zoning for those 3A districts are
feasible and won't necessarily hinder development uh coming into specifically in this case a 3A multifamily overlay district. Um so we ran five different scenarios of different scales and we spent a lot of
time uh thinking about the assumptions around those scenarios. Um thinking about you know what could realistically come into the district and our analysis showed that all five scenarios were feasible under um the affordability
requirements that are there for Milton zoning. that is um 15% of units at 80% AMI. Um, there were also some other affordability inclusionary requirements that we were considering and that's what
we contemplated in December, the last time Adam and I were here. And after that meeting, my understanding is that we proceeded at least for this for the purposes of this EFA specifically to use
that 80% or that 15% at 80% AMI. um that's already written into the current zoning bylaw. And so that's what we went with. Um we have the memo which is in your hands. Uh we also produced a little memo summarizing that
presentation from December that should also uh be with you guys. And we have the actual Excel sheet with the analysis. Um and yeah, that's a quick overview. again, happy to answer any questions or uh concerns you might have
having read over that. >> Thank you. And if you could just sort of explain what our next steps would be, obviously our our zoning does have the 15% 15% affordable with the 80 80% AMI.
Um should we decide to, you know, I think move forward with that at this time, not that we wouldn't consider the other options in the future. Um what how would that how would does that happen? Do you just do you draft a letter? Do you are you sending this to EOHLC? Um
and is that something that they need to accept then and let us know that they've accepted that? What is that process from your experience with other communities? >> I'm doing I see you kind of >> Yeah. Um
we submit that to EOHLC for approval for review. Um, and then they review it and we'll very very most likely approve it and you will get rec uh acknowledgement of that. I'm not sure how quick the
turnaround is on that. It's I know we just did one of these. One of these is a little further ahead than you. I the turnaround for that one was not was not slow. Um, so it is it is pretty they they do their due diligence, but the
reality is is um this is a fairly standard this what we're what the what we are proposing and you're kind of looking at is a is is well within the the normal bounds of what EOHLC has looked at in
respect to 3A EFAS. Um, so they they know what they're looking at and they they 100% know our work. I think this is like the 20th of these we've done in MAPC's region. So, we've done a lot of these and they they know they know what
our model is. They respect it and they know exactly what to look for when we submit. >> Great. Thank you. So, and and I would probably just add just based on a really quick conversation with the town administrator today that once the planning board makes their
recommendation then um it would be it would be either the town administrator or potentially a vote of the board of selectment. I'm not 100% on that to to have MAPC submit the the um the documentation to EO EOHLC. So, that'll
be the that'll be the that'll be the path. a path is the town will need to officially, you know, say this is let's let's go ahead and submit it. >> So, I want to thank you for the followup memo. I I think that was something that I I thought would be nice to have in
memo format rather than just in the presentation. And one of the things um I just recently um finished a detailed review of our December meeting minutes. And we had um I I guess instead of we
had asked whether there's been any um tracking at MAPC of uh what the percentages of something uh projects that are getting built as compared to permitted and you weren't sure if that was something MAPC was tracking but you
thought you could ask within your organization. I was just curious if you had an opportunity to to check into that. Can you can you the question was related to zones and what is being permitted or was
it actually being built? Was that the question? Permitted versus built. Yeah, because I I had expressed that I'd seen in Boston at the uh the BPDA board meetings in November and December and in
fact it happened again in January where applicants came in and asked for relief on their inclusionary zoning requirements that were for approved projects because the projects weren't moving forward and they were looking for
some change in their affordability requirements. And so, uh, I was just, um, concerned that, you know, we're we're as current as we we can be on, uh, the economic conditions and and this idea of
what tips something to be unaffordable. >> Yeah. Um, we do not track, we're definitely not tracking at that that fine grain. Um we we have begun conversations about about tracking I
policies in the region just to get a sense of the different scope in respect to 15% at 80 like the actual bylaw language. Um because no one's looking at that. Um the last time anyone's kind of looked at that is at least five years
ago. Um and that was done at a national level. Um that's something we we want to look at but that is not that's not what you're asking. I can I can say from our conversations regarding kind of trying to track just policies alone that's
labor intensive and certainly kind of the challenge of tracking the challenge of tracking kind of individual projects through um individual planning board hearings is would be I'm not saying it's impossible
but it would be difficult. I I have heard I've had conversations with people in Boston about this issue. So I I definitely hearing that I mean obviously there's been um you know there's there's a lot of conversations out there about
policy um been in the been in the news over the past 45 60 days. Um I think you know I we we stand by our feasibility analysises in relation to um whether or
not these projects would pencil out. Um and with the caveat that you know they I think I probably said this the last time we were here um this is an iterative process. these things are not set in
stone. Uh and you need to be willing to uh crack these things open and tweak them if need be. Um and that's that would kind of be what I would say about this and any I policy.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Any other questions from members? I just have a quick one regarding um appreciation and I don't know if you guys can answer it. I was just wondering with the um with the subsidized units,
have you uh observed do they appreciate at the same rate as the non-subsidized units? >> Market market appreciation. >> So in respect to their to their overall value, right? That's what you're like
what you're not asking like whether or not you can charge increased rents year-over-year, which you >> which you can. I mean, those are dictated by HUD rent standards. Um, it it's we're doing another project similar. It's a little more it's a
little more indepth and technical than than this work. But we've looked at we've kind of looked at appreciation um from the perspective of property taxes and how like you know assessor how the assessment rate on a subsidized unit
versus a market rate unit. The assessment rate is going to be lower o always um I don't think that entirely answers your question but you know I think assessor's data is a tell on on appreciation
um overall. So, I think they do appreciate, but they're not going to appreciate certainly as quick or as fast as a market rate unit. I feel like I mean developers understand that and they're also getting, you know,
they're getting that's coming they're getting the benefit of that on the property tax side. >> All right. Yeah, I was thinking of it more if I was um buying one of these subsidized units
>> if if saving I don't know 20% or whatever whatever the savings is and then the the the unit appreciates less. >> Yeah, that >> really making out over five or 10 years because you're not gaining I mean Boston appreciation is insane. So it would be a
shame to leave that on the table. Now, if it gets you into a unit and you actually can't afford a house, then you forgo a little appreciation. I get it. But I thought I was just wondering from >> I can speak to that a little bit. I think the vast majority of projects that
are triggered by an IC policy are going to be rental are going to that's generally the case throughout the United States. Um there are examples of homeowner home ownership units. Um some communities
kind of approach those differently. Um set different standards for um I units that would be home ownership. Gen generally speaking a a deedrestricted home ownership unit is part of
you are you're going into that understanding that the the amount of mark you are not going to get the same amount as you would if you were in a in a market rate unit. It's kind of the trade-off, right? like you're getting you're getting assistance. You're qualifying as you're you're income
qualifying for that. The understanding is when you sell that that is going to remain a deed restricted unit that's going to be sold to another income eligible person. The amount of appreciation you get is not going to be equal to a market rate property um or
unit whatever whatever typology we're talking about. But that is any anyone buying this is going to understand that upfront. It is a tradeoff. Um, and it's a trade-off that I mean, honestly, people in the affordable housing community kind of struggle with. Um, and
it's it's not it's not an easy answer, you know. >> Well, I wasn't the only guy thinking about that. >> No, you're not. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> I'm good. >> All right. Thank you.
So, Liz, would you suggest that we um that we have a vote to send it to um in supporting what is in the zoning at the 15% 80% AMI um at this point to that to EOHLC?
>> I Yep. I think I think if the select board and request that they send it to EOHLC. >> Yep. I just have a question. Was the affordable housing trust um I know that you sent it to them. Did they have any comments back? >> So, I I did not receive any comments
from from um that group. I I reached out a couple of different times to the chair. Um, I did get an email today from from Nick saying that he has not had a chance to have it on the select board for agenda for discussion, but his view is that um that that it we should submit
to EFA to increase affordability requirements in line with what the town meeting voted and um and that um if other policy options are preferred, we can work to come up with new language to amend zoning and submit for a subsequent
town meeting discussion. So, I think that um would this fall into a discussion what in an updated housing production plan? >> You think I'm just trying to think who
takes it next to think about whether the >> there should be other options should be studied. Is it the affordable housing trust? Is it the housing production plan? Is it us? Is it the select board? I just like one of those things where this just goes and it's gone and then
who's who picks it up? >> I don't know. >> Maybe maybe someone from MAPC can jump in on this one. Does the housing production plan would it necessarily um include like an strategy? Before >> I I can chime in on this. >> Could it?
>> Um >> should it? >> It it it think I think it depends. I mean I think let me give you an I'll give you an example. We just completed a housing production plan on the Northshore. One of the recommendations out of that housing production plan was
to create an IC policy. >> Um they didn't have one. The housing production plan identified it as an issue as something that should probably be uh included in the overall kind of housing policy kind of portfolio that this community has. I think so. I think
that's one way to look at it. I think on a more basic level, you you can absolutely scope out an I review in a housing production plan. Um, and you could you don't necessarily have to do
the you don't necessarily have to develop a new a new bylaw, but it's something that could be done. Part of that work could be some of the stuff that like some of the upfront research um if you had an existing I policy um you know looking at different scenarios
and options that might be um worthwhile pursuing. I mean that's certainly that's certainly within the scope that could certainly be put in a scope of an of a housing production plan in my eyes. >> Good. Okay. And I I also think, you know,
um you know, we're going to enter into another kind of housing action plan because it's not a production plan, but the the affordable housing trust is the client in that in that project. So, I mean, it's the relationship between
and AHTS I think are important. Um, and I think it does not doesn't you should not be looking at that in a vacuum in respect to like ignoring like the affordable housing trust I think provides really good insight on can provide really good
insight on how these things can work. Um, and yeah, certainly certainly all those things could be on the table. >> Awesome. Right. So, um
I guess I'd like to to make a motion to submit or to recommend submitting um the the report, the final report. um make that recommendation to the select
board and then also include a recommendation that the memo for other inclusionary zoning options be part of the consideration in the development of the housing production plan.
So it's a twofold um motion if that's okay or two separate motion >> or one big one. Well, I guess it it depends if every if people want to vote separately, but I initially thought I would make it as as one motion, but if
you'd prefer it split, I can do that, too. >> One one's okay. >> I'm fine with one. I'm fine with one. >> Second question when you >> So, we have a second. All right, let's do roll call. Um Jim, >> yes. >> Maggie, yes.
>> Cheryl, >> yes. >> And myself, yes. Okay. Um would the would the board be comfortable with me um soliciting maybe like additional pricing for that from the from the consultant that we're because I think that
>> that might be that might be a bit of a bit of a >> I can imagine that that might be in addition to what's already been scoped. So I'll is that shall I go ahead and solicit a price and then we can come back and see >> I don't think that changes or if that's something >> because it has been included in our past
one. >> Okay. it might not be that difficult to you know to sort of re >> okay >> I think we'll then further study would would need to be done which would be a whole separate >> yeah I would think at the very minimum they're going to um identify where we do
have inclusionary zoning we've included it since that report was done um you know Milton Village uh East Milton Square the MBTA communities um even some in the memory care although it's not quite inclusionary zoning right But >> they um
>> uh so there would be definitely a lot of update to even the the number of units the pipeline on SHI with the 40B. So >> um >> yeah so that would be great if you could just see if >> what it would what additional if it would be an additional cost and if so
>> yeah yeah absolutely and >> and okay just can I ask a question about the housing production plan? Did the select board vote their share of the funds for that? >> I believe it was on their agenda Tuesday night. >> So, I haven't heard otherwise.
>> And who's leading the effort in the Is that is it good? Did you say the last time we talked about this that it would be a small committee? >> Yeah, I think I think it was settling around like two two and two >> two and two. Okay. >> So, so yeah. So, so that'll that falls in line too with what with what Adam was
just saying and having the you know having the affordable housing trust, you know, the table and part of the conversation. So, so two I don't know if it's two planning board members or if it's two planning board design. I'm not really sure. I don't know that that's necessarily been been finalized yet.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. And thank you um for joining us tonight. Um, >> thank you for your work on this. >> We appreciate you joining us >> and your work at MAPC. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> No problem. Thank you.
>> Thank you for hanging in there with us. You guys are great. >> Problem. >> No problem. It was a pleasure. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Um so now we can move to our final agenda item which is the um just
finalizing um the last tweaks of the signed bylaw um zoning amendment and just um because most likely people haven't really had a chance to read it since just um it was
sent out this afternoon. I just wanted to point out what what changes >> one thing before I forget. Um I saw some places where it said sign review board and then it said sign that okay >> I know because we were loose on that
>> some things. So, so there were a couple of things that um that had just popped out to me when I was reading which um related to some things that the sign review committee um currently does and I think that they would like to keep
doing. Um I didn't I had no issues and we can go through or I had no questions on anything up through page eight. I thought everything looked good. Um but on the top of page nine um number I Roman numeral three
you have to you have to go like this guys. Sorry it's the way >> I thought I printed it this way. >> It's the way I print it out. >> Um what I just wanted to make sure because John had said that he still wanted that the applicant to to come
before them even though they they would have to go to the ZBA. He had asked that they typically would have the presentation. So in order for them to be able to make a recommendation, they would need to see what they what what they were making a recommendation on.
>> Sorry, what page you go on? >> So So it was um top of page nine. Okay. And let's see. So number three, the the last version did not have anything stating that the applicant should still
come to the side review committee. So I just wanted to make sure that although the sign review committee doesn't have to do a public hearing. >> Yeah. that they should >> that they should still come to the sign review committee >> so that there'll be time to review all
the materials, make sure everything, you know, if the if the if the sign review committee is making a recommendation that a special permit is granted, they need to know what they're, you know, um and have be able to meet with the applicant. So, I just wanted to make sure that that was documented that they
still would need to come through. So, that was um one of the changes that was made and I'm now looking at the language. >> Didn't Weren't there some questions for us though before that? >> Do you Yeah. Do you do you would that be useful to kind of to kind of just sort
of do you want to just kind of quickly go through like all of Carolyn's like comment boxes maybe? >> Yes. >> Make sure people are comfortable that that that those questions have been have been answered. I've been over this so many times that I'm comfortable now. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. we should make sure that um
if there is something that someone isn't comfortable. Um so on page one there's a there's a note on so essentially the the the yellow highlight is are places where she incorporated the last round of comments. Y
>> and then what I did today was I tried in this email to to summarize the four specific sections that had been updated as late as today by Carolyn. one of those we just talked about which was that 5G3. Um so so when you're looking
at these edits the yellow is the again is the is what she collected at our last meeting and um and then there those four minor things or smaller things that that Meredith and I had talked to Carolyn directly about today. So we can we can make sure we get Yeah. I don't
>> follow those bullets and then and then make sure we cover those four items, you know, clearly because I know Carolyn's going to be wanting from us a response, you know, to that it's finalized or what have you. >> Um so do you want to do that? Do you want to look at the different comment boxes like page by page or
>> Sure. Because I thought some of those were old, but I that's why I'm um but yeah, let's go through page by page and um >> so the the first page the comment about the free speech. I think that that was fine. I don't have any questions about that.
>> Yep. Same. >> Um >> interesting. Guys, we're on the one that was sent nine hours ago, right? The email, the last email, >> Liz, the attachment that was sent because there were two on that. All right. Good. >> Yes. >> Just to be make sure I'm on the right one. >> Yep.
>> Following Cheryl's advice in opening up the last email. Thank you, Cheryl. That's good. smart. So, page one where everyone's good with that. >> So, yeah. And I think she added commercial and non-commercial there,
right? For for free speech purposes, >> right? That's crystal clear, >> right? Okay. >> Page three, she wanted to highlight the sire review committee sooner, >> which makes sense. That's good.
some highlight highlight on four about non-commercial speech and infringement on first amendment right. >> Yeah. >> And we talked about the um center of the the business window a transparent door. >> I thought that was good.
>> Okay. Um, back to the on page five, back to the freedom of speech. Um, little bit of a question mark on the adopted island. >> I think there was the the the minutes were sort of a little our recollection
of the conversation on that was she had she she had it pretty clearly at three square feet, but there was some indication that it might have been six. So, I don't know if there's a if there's a desire to to revisit that or if three square feet is is what people are
comfortable with for that adoption island. I do have I do have a um >> that seems small. >> Seems small. >> I think it's small. Um and and then I don't think the DPW has a clear um
>> I think it should be the same as the real state office sign. >> Yeah, I think consistency. >> You agreed, Jim? Okay. So, let's just say six feet from both >> and and they can make it smaller if they want because some depending on the the width of the you know some on Central
Avenue or smaller. So, yeah, it's the max. So, >> yeah, I think that's six square feet is good. >> Okay, great. All right. And then number um was added, right? We didn't have that
before. 19 >> on page five under the exemption still. >> Yeah, we talked about that. That was that was that whole conversation about you know what this is this is the one thing you can do,
>> right? >> Agreed. Yeah, that's fine. >> Um so on page six that was that first change from the conversation today um that got moved back to the prohibited uses, right?
So, so prohibited signs start on page five and then we continue on to page six. So, that item number 13 was moved back to um prohibited uses and then you want to summarize that conversation because you probably remember it better
than I do. Yeah, because I I think we clearly wanted that this section to be prohibited use except for I think what we did talk about was in the case of the gas, you know, using the gas stations that right now we have four gas stations
in town. One gas station has the LED price signs and they've already been approved to have a second gas station with LED price signs. So, it seems reasonable to say that an LED price sign
at that third gas station in East Milton Square, it would be unfair to tell him no when the other two, they may never apply for it, but this gives a pathway to allow for um but I'm a little unclear. Is this we talked about having
an option to have a signs by special permit if they had an exposed um light source that for example we we use the example of the the lights on the Baker Chocolate
headquarters where they're on mounted on the building and you have an exposed light source. I thought we all agreed that those should be allowed by special permit. Is that when we go later? So what I and this is what I clarified with Caroline
and we'll talk about the rooftop signs too because >> these are two different things. >> They're two different things that both would be allowed to buy special permit. I thought the last minute I was using Trillium or a brew pub as an example on like on a
>> brick building in Milton Village maybe it would be appropriate to have that kind of a sign. And I thought we all agreed to that. I don't think I I because it sort of opens a can of worms when you put it when you start putting everything saying, you know, we don't
really want it, but there will be times that we could give you a special permit for it. I think we have to be careful if somebody if somebody wanted to have that a bright lit light like Walter Baker Chocolate, which I don't I think that's in Boston. I think that it's there's a
difference when you come into Milton um on what type of bright lights that we would like to have, but if somebody feels strongly enough any of this, they can they can still go to the ZVA and appeal it. >> Well, we we did speak at about this at
length at the last meeting. So, >> I you made changes. I thought you've made changes to what I thought we all agreed to last time. So when I >> I'm with Mer Meredith on this one. If there are two gas stations that already have this approved,
um it is going to be tough to tell the third guy he can't do it. >> Yeah. No, Jim, I'm I was referring to here is combining that concept with the concept of an exposed light source. So
we we spoke at the last meeting about a a sign let's say channel letters which might have a light source that's visible like the kind of theater light you know lights within a channel letter and how we said that that might be appropriate
for something like a brew pub or like something like the scale of an extra space storage and it wouldn't be every everywhere that it's appropriate but I thought we all agreed that that we shouldn't prohibit it completely. Um,
>> is that different than what Meredith is saying in this >> the way I read this combines both of them. >> So, we've never allowed that. We've never allowed those in Milton. >> I understand. >> And it opens up then it's somebody it's it's sort of a sliding I it just felt
like a slippery slope. Then you're like, okay, well, they have that. Well, why can't I have a neon light? You know, it becomes if you've got neon kind of a historic sign, that kind of a sign. Um I >> well I I'd like us to come back and
revisit this because these need to get split apart at the very minimum. They shouldn't be lumped together in the same paragraph >> because a gas station sign is one thing. This other kind of sign with a visible light source
is another. So I can even think of like color you know like if you have an LED that provides a color um you know there can be let's just say it's an art at the art center wanted to do something you know there would be
limited places that that might be appropriate but it um >> but once you start doing it then the then once you make that ex you know an exception what I was was discussing with Carolyn I think there are rare except like I
wouldn't disagree that there are rare times but the bar is higher. It's a higher bar for the ZVA and I would much rather see it prohibited but then if they wanted to go to the ZVA that the sign review committee could say you know
what this is a rare special occasion that I think it would be appropriate where it doesn't seem that one business wants once you one business has something another business is going to want it so you could have all lower mills all wanting to have
>> I thought that she said that a variance doesn't apply to a sign. So you're >> to the to the to the use to the use. So you can you could you could get you could get a use variance. But that's actually interesting because
I didn't think that we would be able to do as much in here with the sign review committee in terms of like what they could and couldn't sort of like vary. Like I I I I wasn't aware that that would would be okay. So, so and I'm clearly Carolyn clearly is the expert on
this and I think it's great because it gives that flexibility on the design side right now. I don't know whether or not a positive recommendation out of the sign review committee would sway the zoning board to give a variance. I don't know. But the way this is structured, it
really does give that sort of like more juice to the to the >> to the to the sign. You know what I mean? like like I'm just I'm just thinking out loud that I can see how that could could work. Um but um but clearly yes. Yes, a special a variance
is is is going to be a higher is a higher bar. It's going to be a higher bar. So if it's prohibited then then it's it's going to be a tough it's going to be a higher bar to somebody to try to do one of those signs. At a minimum I disagree. We spent a lot of time talking about this last time. I don't think it
should be prohibited. I'd like to get John's if he's on opinion about it, but at a at a bare minimum, I don't think you should >> I've never seen I've never seen a sign like that in Milton. >> So, I like agree with Cheryl. I do like the Walder Baker sign. And I do think
that um that the instances I think would be rare. you know, it might even be appropriate even at like the paper mill site, you know, if that ever gets developed because that's on Boston the Boston side and if it's a brick building
or whatever. Um, so because it's rare. Um, like it's not going to happen frequently. Shouldn't we sort of prohibit it >> and give it the option? >> But why is somebody going to spend a lot of time designing something that's
prohibited there? It's just not going to happen. >> And you know, we already are have a reputation of being a very difficult town to work in and to work get your permits in. And so if something's in your zoning as prohibited, you think people are going to say, "Yeah, I'm going to just try and slug my way
through it." I don't think so. And so, you know, you stifle kind of the the business identity for a potential business. Uh, you know, people were talked about exciting things that could come to um the property, you know, that JD Wild owns and he has some nice ideas
for it. Um, it just doesn't seem >> just because Milton doesn't hasn't had a sign like that. We haven't had very vibrant areas. You know, >> I think this is going to be great. But I think what they're doing, you know, across the street, they're doing some
gooseseneck lighting. you know, their plans with their light. They're doing gas lights. I think I, you know, if you have gas, real lit gas lanterns, I don't think that's the vibe that we're going for. And I think this is this is we have
to think sort of long term. And, you know, I I >> So, I think I think we're >> we shouldn't be dictating 19th century technology of gas lights for all new businesses. I'm not I'm not dictating that for all. No, no. We had said, you
know, this wouldn't it be great if this is the gaslight district? If this becomes a gaslight district and JD liked the idea, so they they are implementing that. So that's sort of the vibe and the feel that I I think our business districts, we want them to be more charming. We don't want them to feel more urban.
>> But we haven't asked the residents and the business community that question. When you say we don't want that, who's the we? Who's decided that? What public would approve me doing John at his thoughts.
>> John, sorry. >> Sorry. Uh yeah, I was looking that your illumin illumination section is different from what we discussed last week or a couple weeks ago cuz back then we had a section that was permitted by
right which I still see in there. We had permitted by special permit where we had uh reverse lit lights and then internally illuminated lights. Now it says C section 5H2
and there's no 5H2. >> So >> and then it talks about 5H3 under variances, but I don't see those sections in here. 5H2 is on 5H2 is on page nine. Picks up on page nine. Signs
>> not under section. >> Oh, I see. I'm >> Yep. Signs allowed by special is on nine. >> Yep. Picks up on page nine. Signs allowed by special permit from the zoning board of appeals. >> And yes, that and that would be the section. You're correct, John. That would be the section that was amended by
moving that those those illuminated signs out of the special firm category and into back into the prohibited category. Yes. >> Which is where it had been originally. >> Uh reverse. Okay. Reverse lit signs
illuminated by white light only and internally illuminated signs. Okay. That's where they got put. Okay. Thank you. So I have in my notes from the last meeting that by special permit we were adding three things internally lit signs fabricated letters with the visible
light source and roof mounted signs. So now outside of that discussion there's been a total change in that approach. No, it was still the first two because that last
>> So there's still the the roof roof signs are there. The reverse lit illuminated by white light only and eternally illuminated signs are all still under special permit. The the the but yes >> that section under three was amended and
and uh moved back to prohibited. Yes, you're correct. So part of what was discussed for special permit was was um moved back to go to prohibited. >> It was originally in prohibited. >> So I think I'm going to need time to
compare these drafts because this is enough difference from what I thought we agreed to at the last meeting. So I'm fine going through what's in here. But I would like an opportunity after the meeting to go through Sure. ities. >> And I cuz I think what cuz I didn't hear
what you were talking about having the digital signs like up on the top of the roof. I heard that you were thinking a rooftop sign which that's another thing that and maybe we can you can we can think about this or if we want to discuss tonight. I'm
I'm more concerned now like after our conversation thinking about again having this in the by special permit that you can have an above the you know on the roof a sign up above and thinking again
if we're ever going to get rid of the sleepy sign on top of that I think the ZVA will have a really hard time in not in not reapproving that every time and I think that's the goal. is that we we don't we did not let want you know
that's not the look that we wanted in Milton. So I would even suggest taking um and when I talked to Carolyn again if somebody wants a sign up on top of the roof they can go to the ZVA still. So I
would like from Carolyn the the rationale on being able to get a variance for signs for these kind of signs when you have a special permit process is different than the kind of variance they get now. This is going to the zoning board of appeal and it's
I thought that she raised some question about that last meeting about getting variances for this type of sign. >> Yeah, I think she was pretty clear that it would be a really high bar. It's but you can you can get a special permit for
it. So it's not prohibited. >> No, she's saying at least should be prohibited and the the bar is super high >> and so it's a it's totally No, it's it's super high. >> It Well, >> because it's almost I think >> I do kind of like this this sign review
committee thing though. I think we might be able to finagle a bagel there a little bit. John, um what's we spoke about this last week and did did you um what's what's your feeling about an idea of a special
permit versus a prohibition when the the bar is really high on being able to get a variance on internally lit roof mounted or fabricated letter signs with a visible light source? Yeah, we could we could review it and
then make a recommendation to the ZBA and then it could go to them for approval. >> I think that's a good path. >> Do you want to make it extremely hard to have that happen because of the bar that's necessary for a variance or do
you want to have it be something where there's a public hearing um and there's consideration given so the bar is not quite as high? I think the special permit bar is high enough. I don't think they should have go for variance.
Does variance guy show hardship? It it's a it's a much higher level. I think if it went to special permit, we reviewed it and then it went to the ZBA. I think then you have two two boards reviewing it. >> That's my feeling. So, would it give it
I thought one of the things was that the our bylaw doesn't give enough teeth to um to prohibit. So, if it's in the prohibit list
and then it can be reviewed as opposed to being reviewed and then prohibited. So, if I was an applicant, I would want to go in saying, "Oh, this sign that I wanted is a really it's it's
going to be a tough hurdle for me to clear, but maybe I can do it as opposed to if it's by So, I wouldn't be disappointed. If it was the other way around is, oh, you can get it by a special permit, then I'd be really
disappointed that I couldn't get it, >> right? they would have to meet they would the criteria spelled out in the bylaw. If you if you meet the if the applicant meets the criteria spelled out in the bylaw that's not to say that the permag granting authority can't be arbitrary or
capriccious but if they do meet those requirements ultimately they should prevail. So it's there. It's it's all there like the the the you know the criteria the spe so >> so so that's why maybe it should be in the prohibited and then with the the
pathway to get a special permit for it. >> But so two different two different things. >> It would it would end up being two different things because because prohibited means it's not allowed. >> You can't even it's just not. Well, it's kind of like billboards. Like you guys
definitely don't want billboards, right? I mean, that that to me was sort of like front and center, right? You definitely don't want billboards. Billboards are going to get prohibited. Somebody could try to maybe come and get a variance for a billboard. >> They're not going to get the sign review committee to to say they want the billboard. I'm guessing I don't know
why. I don't know why the sign review committee would want to want to, you know, help somebody get a billboard. Um maybe I don't know. Maybe there could be some fantastic billboard. I don't know. I mean, sometimes there's all these creative things that happen, but but um so yeah, so it's it's it's not it's not
both. It's it's either going to be prohibited and you need a variance or it's going to be a special permit use. It's one of it's one or the other. >> And then if you got a variance by use, then it really can just be with that current business and it would not be
transferable to the next owner. >> No, it would be transfer >> be transferable. That was what we said last time meeting >> because that's the problem with the sleepy sign. It is transferable and we're trying to opt out to stop it so it's not transferable.
>> No signs are not transferable from one from an old business to a new business. >> But the sleepy the former sleepy sign because that was granted they keep getting to new businesses keep getting to be able to put a sign there at that
size place. It was never it was never granted by the sign committee. It keeps getting granted by I assume either the ZBA or the select board. One of the other. >> Right. Right. But that I think um I mean
this is an area that we're looking at being a local historic district like one of the areas that you're talking about where the brew pub the only place that really would be where JD Wild's property is. And I just I don't I don't drive around other communities that I think of
Milton being similar and and see signs on top of buildings and you know >> they're limited and that's why there would be special permit. And I mean John uh we spoke about this last week as a a roof mounted sign in a limited
um in limited areas or limited applications. the same for the fabricated letters with a visible light source. Um, do you do you still think that those should be allowed in in limited uh applications? I mean, because
Meredith is really talking about banning them completely. >> Yeah. I mean, we we talked last time about halo lit reverse lit signs like you have on um >> extra space storage, >> you know. So, >> and those are special permit. Those are
and those are fine. >> A special permit, >> right? >> And internally internally illuminated signs. Is that what you're talking about, Cheryl? >> Internally illuminated. >> Well, the internally illuminated are going to be allowed by special permit in
this. So the um the question was what you know my understanding is that there was agreement at our last meeting that we would also by special permit allow fabricated letters that have a visible light source. So you know like if you
have like the theater kind of sign uh light >> oh like with little bulbs on it or something >> bulbs on it. Yeah. Um I mean if we were ever to have a theater let's say or you know u a use I used brew pub the last
time as an example but you know there could be >> um >> it could be yeah >> some application where that would tie to the use and then a roof planted sign >> you know in in industrial buildings those were were common in extra space
storage baker chocolate was industrial um that whole building uh complex was industrial at one time and the paper mill would be industrial as you said. Um Maggie, >> yeah, those buildings did tend to have rooftop in the olden days, rooftop
mounted signs. Correct. >> Right. And and it's I think it's different. I have a rooftop mounted sign, but it's not lit. >> Although the these are separate. >> Yeah. >> They don't have to be necessarily lit. So, under on the page 10 where it says
um >> they're only allowed upon the grant of a special permit. Yep, I understand that. So we're talking about on page six the right the addition of the
>> number eight is really combining the visible light source and then it combines the price signs and uh digital displays um and neon
um related to gas stations. So, those are really two different kinds of >> I mean, this seems like it would actually not even pass our light trespass bylaw that we just passed. >> Good point. >> This would be this is this is dark sky
compliant. You know, we worked really hard on that light trespass and now we're saying, okay, >> light trespassing. >> We were going to tell developers that we want, you know, >> you know, this kind of lighting is not going to trespass onto other people's property. Um if it's on a
>> light pollution that's the next light pollution. >> Yeah. >> And there are there's Milton Hill neighbor I mean there's just I'm just thinking because we're talking about these Baker Chocolate there's people who live you know on that who this that would be what they would be looking at.
>> I mean this is a a much tighter level of regulation. I think people would be supportive of not having billboards, but this level of >> we're his every sign has to be historic. Um I think >> No, I
>> and and this was originally prohibited. Correct. So So it's not a change. >> Yeah. >> I think it wasn't a prior draft. It was >> Yeah. So originally in our old >> up until up until Monday up until Monday. >> So all these years it's always been
prohibited. No, it's just in the >> in this in in this in this new version in our in our handbook in our regulations, it has always been prohibited. If you look at our handbook, >> but it's not in the zone it's not in zoning that way. It's in the >> that's why we're doing this.
>> That's why we're doing this because >> what's been in our regulations, which has always been what has been used by the sign review committee, what is in the regulations was not in the zoning. And so that's part of what we're doing is we're putting what has always been
the practice into our zoning. We're not we're not >> we're not the goal is not to expand. >> No, this is this is all prohibited currently. >> So John, is that your understand >> when I trying to trying to look that up?
>> Yeah, I Yeah, I I'd want to look that up, too. >> Is it guidelines or by Sorry, Jim. I didn't mean to speak over you. Oh, >> that's okay. So, I just remember when I owned vents from 2008 to 2013, I tried
to do the neon open sign in my window and the building inspector came in. He was a customer and he just said, "Look, you can't have that sign. There's no neon allowed in this town." And I was surprised at that, but I took it down. >> So, I don't think we're doing anything new here um by by getting rid of neon.
And I honestly I can't think of a place where you would actually want a neon sign besides a gas station. The only place I've ever seen neon look good is up in Newbury Port and it's a restaurant called the Black Cow. It's an old industrial building. It used to be
ironically Davis Auto Electric, an auto repair shop. I'm sorry, Auto Parts Shop. And on the outside of the building, it says carburetor repairs in neon. It's a really old, really neat retro sign. It's got nothing to do with the Blackout restaurant. It's just a cool sign, almost like a trademark of of that area
of Newbury Port and the owner left it there. I mean, if that guy didn't have that sign there, his business would not suffer. Um, and I I I kind of agree with Meredith where I I I don't think neon's appropriate for Milton. And there might
like the Walter Baker chocolate factory, that gigantic Walter Baker sign up there is there, but you would never build that building and and want to put that sign up top. And you know what? I like that in Boston. I don't like that in Milton. Um, so yeah, that's where I
am on that. >> So I guess I like this the way it's written. I mean, I'd like it a little bit. I'd like to get um get rid of the neon somehow so you can't have it unless it's grandfathered. And
that's the way I read this but not allowing it by special permit would would completely omit it. So this the question of >> very high >> makes the the question of whether it's special permit or prohibited and the question really is if it's
prohibited and you can how open is really a variance option and my understanding from our meeting that with Carolyn that it's it's a super high bar which leads me to
think it's not likely and if you think about zoning or variances. Typically, you have to show um some kind of hardship >> and what would be the hardship uh on a sign. So, I I I I just don't I
don't think it's right to say, well, you could still get it by variance because I I really don't think that that's going to be a a possibility. So, it's either a question of whether you you allow it by special permit or you just ban it. I think that's really the two options. I feel like even it's a little off topic,
but getting variances even to build a an addition on your house seems to not be a high bar these days. You're if it's a hardship, if it's a topography, and there's one other thing, um, soil composition or something,
those are supposed to be the only reasons you're supposed to be able to get a variance. And if you watch the ZDA, they hand out variances left and right. And um as long as a neighbor doesn't complain about it, then um it's
granted. So um variance to me seems like it's easy to get in this town. >> And if you have someone who is opposed, if your next door neighbor is opposed to it, you're not getting the variance. And also you can have an appeal um of those,
right? So an appeal an appeal on a variance is is >> rare. >> Well, and it's it's pretty much guaranteed to prevail unless unless unless there's a Yeah. Unless there's a really
>> most people just don't have the wherewithal to follow through on an appeal. the the appeal I mean the like you said they they grant them but if somebody appealed it then the grounds for which they've granted that come under scrutiny
and I know that there I've heard of people in Milton where their neighbors have appealed as EBA decision and they didn't you know it got overturned because so the problem we have and there's a reason so many are given out is zoning was added after much of it was
already built built and the zoning didn't match what was built so everything's non-compliant and otherwise you would restrict anybody >> and I yeah and I understand all that but it's just um to say that getting a variance is a high bar I don't think it
necessarily is >> I think it would be for the signs versus the what it is for the houses for the reasons that just >> probably >> and I think I think if it had the recommendation of the signed review
committee if it had if it was you know they're going to the ZVA for it. If it was a situation where the sign review committee could say you know what this is a this is a situation where this would be good you know this would be recommended it was supported by residents you know I I think I think it
would be granted and I do think it's yeah they're more a little more lenient with variances um and and I don't think I I just I think this is not something that we want to to encourage. And I
think I do feel like if they saw it in special permit, they're like, "Oh, that might be cool." Like, they might not have even thought about doing one, but if they saw it in here, they would be like, "Oh, maybe that could be sort of neat and we could do that." Which they would have otherwise done something um
completely different. >> Plus, this can be tweaked in the future. I mean, we're going to put the zoning into effect. if it's if if there are things that come up, it it can be amended at town meeting. So, at some point, we're going to have to put this out there and agenda.
>> I know. >> Okay. So, I don't have a problem with um changing this to a variance and making and and kind of getting rid of neon except where the existing gas stations have it and and the other two gas stations in in in the name of equity
have the option to do it. I I don't think anybody I don't think most builders or developers or restaurant tours are going to not open a business in Milton because they can't get a neon sign. >> It's not just neon though. Um
>> it would be there's a lot of things listed here. >> Yeah, like you well you said like like a theater like a theater type of sign with the ball. >> I'm not so sure I'd want you know my name and lights in the middle of East Milton Square, you know, like like >> like an old theater sign.
Well, >> it's going to fit. We just don't have that giant commercial area that that warrants. >> You're you're conflating like rooftop sign with the fabricated letter sign, which they don't necessarily have to be rooftop mounted.
>> I'm just I'm just addressing the situation. I'm not talking. >> Feels like everybody's had change of heart since the last meeting. >> I think I misunderstood. So maybe that's that's my fault because I had always that was one of the impetus in doing this was because we did
it did get appealed and we didn't have enough teeth to really keep a neon sign from being put up. >> So what I would say is you're taking you say that you want to make it less like more teeth. So but we're still giving oh if the sign review committee says it's
okay then it's still okay. So there's still a lot of subjectivity in it. So >> prohibitive, >> let's just say it's prohibitive. >> Way I understood that was the sign review committee writes a recommendation and then and the ZBA would make the determination. >> Correct.
>> Correct. >> And prohibited signs aren't coming to the sign review committee. They're prohibited. >> No, they still No, they they still would, John. We made sure that they would still come to you >> if there's an >> prohibited signs.
>> If if there's an application in front of the zoning board >> for a variance, then yes, then you your committee. >> Okay. Then they would ask us to to weigh in on it. Okay. >> That's I I wanted to make sure that that they would always any lit sign would come to the sign review committee.
>> Okay. >> Prohibitive. So, so that was the one piece, but how do people feel about the rooftop signs? It does I I Well, before you get to that, I think you still need to split these two kind types of signs. You're
you're combining a lot of different types of signs in in number eight. Signs fabricated with letters, numbers, designs, or images consisting of an exposed or visible light source emitted from the face of the sign,
including but not limited to incandescent and fluorescent bulbs, light emmitting diode diodes or LED price signs, LED digital display signs, neon tubes, and neon LED signs. Provided, however, that LED price signs
at fuel stations in the business may be permitted by special permit. So that would get added back under special permit uses. LED price signs and fuel service stations in the business districts that would get added back under special permit uses.
Okay, that's pretty much where it was before. >> So it end neon LED signs period kind of prohibited and then the last sentence would go under >> LED price signs at fuel service stations
in the business districts. be a special will be a special permit use for fairness to the to the gas stations >> because that seemed re we don't want to be unreasonable >> and that's something I didn't realize
the fairness part of it last meeting >> and then you guys need to decide sounds like you want to keep the the balance of the paragraph under prohibited >> yeah I'll keep because it's really not going to happen
all that often. I I can't really one thing I heard during all of our, you know, whether it's MBTA or anything that we've been working on is we want Milton to stay a town and not start looking like a
city. I've heard that. I can't tell you how many times. Everyone's like, "Please, we do not we want to keep this a a town." You know, we have terms on our website, you know, say a bucolic treeline community with stone walls and green space. It just I think um we want
great businesses. We want to encourage them, but I don't think this is necessary to get to achieve that um and it just opens some just I think fights that we don't need to have, you know, unnecessarily um from the community. You know, I know
how upset East Milton was when that one gas station went in. It was front page, you know, Milton Times, every neighbors were coming out. It was neighbors get upset about so much these days. The light trespass all of, you know, the issue at Turner's Pond like if we had
those regulations in place, that would have never happened. And this is just to pro to make it clear to make it simplified and and to not >> there's such a thing as overregulation which inhibits business and we get very little business tax revenue and we have
very underperforming business district in Milton Village in particular. >> Well, it's we have a lot of things in the pipeline that are coming which are exciting. So, >> and I'm the prime example of overregulation. So, I am sympathetic to overregulation
100%. Um, but I'm also sympathetic to everything that Meredith said about keeping us a town we do above Boston. And that really, you know, when people come into my business, I can literally
see them taking a deep breath, you know, and that's what it is. You leave the city to come to a summer and it's like the green spaces and the trees and um space and the parking. I mean, your spot
is awesome. You get out of you get out of your car, you walk around, you go to the barn, but you get to park. It's it's relaxing. >> So, I understand being overly regulated, but I think a new business coming into town,
um I I to Jim's point, I don't think having a sign is going to make or break that business. And I do love the look of a brew pub sign and I love the the um Pepsi sign up by me. I love it, but I
think I just love it from a historical perspective >> um not from a new business perspective. So, I think I'm okay keeping it in prohibited and then moving the last sentence to that to a special.
>> Okay. I think that was that was the biggest thing for that page. Um, >> do you want me to do you want to pick back up with just these these these bubbles? Um so just to just to confirm
John John um that the both faces of the of the freestanding signs do not count. It's just the single face. So she made that correction there on page seven. >> Um yes. >> Yep. She included that cross-section as we discussed at the last meeting. >> Um yes
>> page nine number three second paragraph. If the application proposes any type of illumination, the applicant shall meet with the sign review committee prior to said committee issuing a recommendation to the building commissioner or zoning
court of appeals as applicable. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, >> I just just a question. Why does it go to the building commissioner, not the ZDA? >> Uh, so if it was something that is um as of right as opposed to >> Okay, go to the building commissioner.
Yep. >> Okay. Okay, >> gotcha. Thank you. >> Y um and then this next section I I there's no comments on it. I'm comfortable with it. I don't think I really need to read through it unless anybody has any questions on it, but it
it's that specific to um and again, this is where I this is where I'm kind of positing that the sign review committee's role is is enhanced here where you can issue a denial that the that the building commissioner needs to
uphold. So um I thought you guys were more of an advisory recom recommendation sort of role and this is giving you that power of denial. So um the sign review committee kind of has more teeth in this I think and it's it's really this is
really reflective of the way it's been working anyway with >> with the denial. >> So that was so that I think that that's why that was highlighted. Just want to make triple triple sure we're okay with that. Um, so moving on to page 10. This
is what we were just talking about. The special permit section signs located on the roof. Reverse lit signs illuminated by white light only. Eternal internally illuminated signs. And now we've just added back LED price signs at f fuel stations located in the
business districts. So um and her comment here was just to be very clear about direct signs that are have direct lighting are are as of right.
So we allow direct illumination by right in section 6F. So I think this should be signs illuminated by means other than direct lighting. So, so if you look on page, if you look on page um 12 under illumination, that's
where that references is to externally illuminated signs. Signs may be externally externally illuminated by white steady stationary light um or upward is brown mounted and directed solely at the sign. That's permitted by right.
Okay. I just want to make sure everybody's comfortable with that. that that that comports with everyone's understanding of of what you what you can and can't do by right. So, if anything in the special permit section is confusing about lit signs, we
just want to make sure we we're all kind of on the same page. And so if um when a sign is lit um do we when does it get shut off? Is it allowed all night long to be? No, there's still hours.
>> There's still hours of operation. >> Yeah. Okay. >> It's the same 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. >> is off. Okay. >> So, that >> I think that's coming. >> Yeah. So, that applies to um as >> Yep. Okay. >> Yep. >> applicable to all signs.
>> Okay. So the question is under at the top of page 10 the grant that can be granted by special permit >> Cheryl you're number I Roman numeral one um signs
located on the roof >> I had said okay with that last time but I don't I sort of rethought it and I think I I think that we don't want to include that in there. >> I've said my piece about these.
>> So, wait. So, that would go myself. >> So, located on the roof of the building. I mean, I have one of those signs. So, I would want that to be special permanent. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it doesn't extend above the building's roof line
if um Well, >> does yours Yeah. So, where is it then? >> Um, it's between two dormers. >> Oh, >> so that's not above the roof line. >> It doesn't extend above the roof line, but it's still a roof mounted.
>> And it's not lit, right, Maggie? >> And it's not lit. >> No, >> I think that's the real dealer. >> I think it's a the the lighting I think is the the biggest thing. And then if you did it so it extended above the roof
line, then you're just increasing the overall height. >> So building, >> but mine doesn't go above my roof. >> No. So this could allow for an internally lit sign on top of a building
>> only if special permit. >> Special permit. >> If they recommend it. >> Yep. >> A special permit. Right. and the impul and the and the sign review committee. I don't know if the sign review committee has the power to deny an application that's in front of the
zoning board, but they could definitely issue a negative recommendation. >> Correct. Yeah, it'd be either a positive or a negative recommendation to the ZBA. >> Right. >> And John, at your meetings, how um how often do you listen? Not this is the
sounds. This is How often do the neighbors come and air their grievances and how much weight do you do you give that? >> Uh, typically it's around lit signs. >> Okay. >> Is when they show up. >> All right. >> If it's not a lit sign, not too often.
>> Okay. >> So, you do take into consideration their their I >> Oh, absolutely. >> thoughts and feelings. >> Yep. I just don't see our the sleepies sign ever ever ever being denied by CBA if if it says they're they're going to
look at this and say that you can do it by special permit and we've already allowed it. I I just don't I don't see them I don't see us ever being able to get rid of that sign with if this is unless this isn't prohibited.
>> Huh. >> Can't get rid of it. That sounds like >> No, I mean unless they make a complete change to the sign. >> Yeah, but we're just trying to avoid another sleepy sign, >> right? >> Correct. And I think this I I think this
allows another new another sleepy sign to go into special permit unless unless it's prohibited. Is that is that sign internally illuminated or reverse lit?
>> It's like LED. >> It's like LE. It's digital. >> It's it's it's a message board basically. >> So, okay. So, they So, they wouldn't necessarily be able to do that type of sign, but they could put it in the same location potentially by special permit. >> Right.
>> True. >> But it's at a billboard. >> Yeah. Right. I know. >> True. So, it could be denied on a billboard. And >> I think a billboard was didn't you guys settle on billboard was very specific that it was not on at the location of the of the business. >> So you
>> Well, it's not advertising the business. It's advertising something other than the business that's located at the >> Okay. Okay, that's fair. Yeah. Yeah. So I guess you could Yeah. But I think you also have you you've also got um dimensional dimensional guard rails on
that one, right? >> 50 square feet. So it would have to be smaller than what exists. >> Yeah. So yeah. Yeah. Somebody probably Yeah, you could you could put something up and be advertising whatever the heck >> would have to prohibit rooftop
illuminated signs to avoid the sleepy sign situation in the future. >> You prohibit Maggie signs. >> No, but I'm not illuminating. >> But it's rooftop. >> It's roof. So it' have to be rooftop.
>> Oh. rooftop and >> so it's rooftop and >> and >> so it be okay with sleepies if it wasn't illuminated. So you would need if you wanted to change your sign and it's on it's considered a roof sign you would need a special permit
if this go if this gets adopted as it's written even if it's not illuminated or anything >> although my sign >> and if it's prohibited you would need a variance >> correct that's I think we should put in the prohibited sign
in the prohibited section But number one, number one, >> can you say a rooftop sign that is illuminated? >> You say a non illuminated sign located
on the roof of a building or that descends above the building's roof line could be a special permit. >> I would be fine with the ones that are lit. >> I would be fine with that. So, non non illuminated signs located on the roof of the building.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And then what about ones that extend above the roof line? >> Sides. Okay. So, if it extends above the roof line, I mean, I'm not an engineer, but to me that's more of um
you know, I'd be afraid that the wind could get behind it and um create like a sail of it. That's I think one of the reasons why we put ours where we put it, so the wind wasn't coming from behind it.
>> Do it need a building permit. Yeah. >> Haven't demonstrated that it met the >> the requirements of the building code. Then the only reason why I wouldn't want to prohibit it above the roof line is is if there's a flat roof building
>> that guy gets no sign at all. >> Yeah. Right. >> I was thinking of that too. >> Sometimes you have those faux those sort of like what are they called that in the storefronts? It's like a faux kind of >> pit wall. >> Yeah. Like a Yeah. Yeah.
And that's above the roof line. That's just that's just the opaque. >> And this can be nice, too. >> So, >> okay. So, what do we >> So, this is So, this is so So, so far we've got non non-illuminated signs
located on the roof of the building. So, they extend above the roof line. Reverse lit signs illuminated by white light only and internally illuminated signs. And then the LED for the gas stations. Those are the four special permit uses that I' that I've got. Are they all
staying? What you would have to do then is put would Are we covered already for not for illuminated roof mounted signs under prohibited? Is that covered already or
does it do that need to be added? >> Illuminated signs above the roof line. Yeah, >> because we're saying here not illuminated. >> So, >> yeah, that's a good point. >> Say, >> so that would be number eight. Yeah.
So, that would be what? 14. Yeah. Okay. So, 14. >> Is it X I I I I I or is it I I before the other one? No, it's X I I I I right. >> Is it X? >> No, I think it's X I >> IV. Yeah,
>> X I V. Isn't that 16? Oh, that's 14. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Um, >> it's been a while. >> Okay. So popular using Roman numerals. >> Okay. >> So, so illuminated signs located on the
roof. That's what's going there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. the prohibitions. The 14th prohibition before you get to the waivers, this next paragraph, I'm looking up the general law, chapter 48,
subchapter 9, and it says special permits. It doesn't say. So that's so that's what's governing it governing it. I don't see anything related to signs under chapter nine. So I guess I still would
like to have Carolyn talk about >> Yeah, we did talk about this a little bit today actually on on the phone. So So yeah, absolutely. Yeah, this was this was definitely a my question was whether or not you know we would be specifying like a finding versus the special permit
criteria and she made a distinction between a special permit capital S capital P and a special permit >> lowerase lowerase P. So it's pretty much it pretty much comes down to you know the
basis upon which you're making you're making your your finding. Um, but yes, we can definitely we can definitely clarify that more. And and and I and I also want to clarify as well with Carolyn um the process. She walked me through the process for pre-existing
non-conforming signs, but I just want to make sure I'm crystal clear on something new that comes through in a residential zone because I'm still not 100% clear how that's going to work. >> Yeah. And then there is no section five
H4 below in that same paragraph. To go to section five, there's no H. >> Yeah, I think >> I think there's a numbering issue with this because you on page four, you have section five sign permit which runs
through the top of page 10 and then it goes to three, >> four, five again. Yeah, she may she may she may have moved that section, John. That's good. That's a good catch. >> Um >> I think because that was what throwing me off, too. I went to five variances.
>> Yep. >> More than one place that that references section 5H4. >> Yep. Absolutely. Yep. Yep. Section 5H4. Yep. Yeah. We'll fix that. And I And there was another section too where some of the lettering there was a there was
an there was a repeat of one of the letters. So, we'll we'll we'll get we'll get that we'll get that stuff we'll get that stuff cleaned up for sure. >> You got two sections, fives right now. >> So, the >> two threes, two fours.
>> Fine. John, do you have the most current version that she sent today, nine hours ago? >> I have the Oh, she sent it to me at 4:18. So, >> probably the same one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's I know it's it's kind of a moving target, guys. I apologize.
>> Oh, yeah. She sent it to you, Jim, at 137. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'm not seeing it, but >> so the So, how do you So, next steps on that section then. So, you want to have a we
want to have another conversation with Carolyn about that specific that the specific language there, Cheryl? >> Well, I just would be >> I just like to understand it. You know, it's it's referencing the general law which I'm looking at. I
just would like to understand myself >> what in here applies >> or how it applies maybe. Yeah, >> because somebody may ask us at like a town meeting or something. I just we've never talked about these references and
I'd like to understand them, >> especially because we're talking about special permit versus variance versus as of right. >> And I think people might want to understand the three. >> Yeah, >> absolutely.
And so the same would apply for the variant wherever that language is, you know, making sure we understand it. I'm sure there's a reference somewhere >> there. Well, yeah. >> In terms of general law. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I I have no I have no concerns that she can she can walk that down. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. Um All right. So, so the next section is the waiverss by the sign review committee. 25% waiver on dimension, 25%
increase on pull out sign area, 25% reduction in the required setback. Um, did you want to circle on that with John that 25 reduction? I yeah because we had we had talked about putting language in um saying that you know there's a 15
foot setback and we had said unless otherwise uh determined by the sign review committee. The way Carolyn wrote it is was a percentage that you that the sign review committee could have and I thought you might want we might want to increase
the granting of a waiver to to reduce the setback of a sign not to exceed 25%. You might want to move that closer to the street than 25%. Right. >> You might. Yeah. >> So I was going to suggest
>> Yeah. If it's a like it's a parking lot entrance sign, you probably want it up very close to the street so they can so they can see it. >> So at least a 50% you could make a waiver of moving it up.
>> Can I ask where the 15 ft came from? Just curious. >> That was in the I think the um article that Tim had presented us that was language that was pulled from there. >> I just don't know if that's problematic. So, I I um
asked Liz about Fuller Village today and she sent me um what had been applied for in 24. And I saw on this drawing in that application that the signs are set back 17 ft from Blue Hill A. So maybe it's a
sight line on a road like, you know, Blue Hill. I don't know if you can see that here, but >> did you send Did you send that to me? Do you want me to try to share screen or do we need to? >> You sent this um you sent this to me in a in a sent that was in the folder in the folder. Gotcha. Gotcha.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. I'd like to I'd like to give more discretion to the sign review committee to >> but yeah to I'm fine with the discretion. But Liz asked where the 15 came from. I don't know where it came from exactly, but I thought this was interesting relative to that discussion
that it's 17 here >> and maybe that's where it came from. But I can see where it again it's it depends on the application. >> It it does come down a sideline. I think maybe that's what the 15 comes in
because of the length of the car. >> Um >> it's what how long's the car? 10 ft. >> Maybe that's where I came from. >> Okay. So maybe increasing that to at least 50%. Um
>> so that would allow you to go down as low as like seven and a half ft. Does that sound Does that sound um reasonable, John? >> Yeah, I mean we look at it case by case and you know look check visibility, you know, cars approaching it, cars pulling
out. All right. So, we'll increase that to give more flexibility. >> So, you said they're asking 50%. >> Do a 50%. Yeah. Rather than the 25 that last one on these 25%s.
Um, I was looking at the the table that you provided. Thank you for looking at that. Um, >> you know, some the amount utilized in the current zoning, for the most part, they're not
hit. But with this proposed change, some of them would be now larger than what's allowed, but maybe within the 25%, but some of them would not even be within the 25%. So, I'm curious what did John get a copy of this, by the way?
>> Yeah. So, I just am curious what your thoughts are about the 25%. Or maybe it's not the percentage, but maybe it's where we are with the uh the area allowed. So, I don't know, maybe we want to table it until we come back to there, but it's a combination of
the two, right? >> Yeah. And sometimes we like to make adjustments on how the the build the sign sits on the building facade. >> So >> I'm just wondering if that should be like 30% instead of 25 or
>> or whether we just need to go back to a little bit higher number which is a little different. This is a little different section here. The 20 I mean the 25% probably gets a lot of these close. >> Yeah.
>> Nails and spa at one central maybe not. But I think they did a lot of window lettering. So, and and honestly, like if you're, you know, if you've got these if you've got these, you know, um mixed juice
buildings with the with the retail on the first floor and the apartments above like you probably you might get that type of a design, >> you know, where you've got those big windows and >> and they can they can they can they can letter letter them up as long as it's
within that, >> right? So, keeping it smaller and having the percentage is what you're saying is still a good thing. >> Yeah, that probably is the only one that couldn't get all that lettering with the with the 25% waiver. Rest of them are pretty it looks like
they're pretty close. Well, the Brush Hill Center is not a good example because that's really sort of an outlier. Mhm. >> Most of the most of the um the sort of um >> and they uh >> typical ones they don't meet the they
don't they don't even get close. Although this doesn't this doesn't really this doesn't really capture a lot of the window stuff. I mean, you'd really have to go back and really look at the window stuff because the only reason I had the data on the nails and spa was because it was a recent approval and they dimensioned every single every
single lettering that that they that they put up on these put up in those windows. There's lots of businesses that there's there window signs and so it's not in here. But I think what this demonstrates is that reducing it is not going to be detrimental because even the
ones that are allowed don't even meet the amount that they're allowed. >> Right. Right. Yeah. Based on your analysis. >> No, I thought the analysis was really helpful. Right. And the pictures and photographs because it backs up whatever
we, you know, are putting into this. So, are we leaving the 25% or good enough table that and >> sounds like we're leaving it? >> I think that Yeah, I think I think that's a good number. And if we ever find we need to adjust something,
>> we can >> we can. Is that it for page 10? Oh, yeah. Sorry. Um, I'm still I'm down that I'm down that rabbit hole trying to find that that section that was mis that was mislabeled. It's driving me nuts. Um, all right. So,
so page 11 talked about adding that language about the brand or the logo, which I think is great for the sign review committee's work. Um I don't think there's any question under that section on variances. Um definitely
need to double check those section numbers though for sure. Uh permited by special permit. That just refers back to that section we were talking about at length about the different special permit uses. I'm on page 12.
So now this is where we get into some of the questions about dimensions. Just to confirm these dimensions. >> Yeah. So the residential the fuller sign is 5t wide
by let's see 3T 7. No 3T n. No. What is 3t 7? Sorry. um which uh is 18 square feet. That doesn't count
the granite posts. And the winter valley is 6' 6 by 3T, not counting the stone base and the vertical post. So that's 19 1/2 square ft. So 9
square feet seems like way too small. Just using those two as examples. these apartments, town houses. I I almost wonder do you want to do you want to separate out by this by the size of the the size of
the development maybe? I don't know because you are you trying to have it so that people can't put up sort of goddy like goddy signs in front of like you know six lot subdivisions. Well, there's nothing that um guides the signage in uh residential areas,
>> even businesses in residential districts, which are there's a lot of that um in East Milton Square, that big building where Rockland Trust is, that's in the residential district. So, if you think about all the signs in residential
districts, you can take hospital. Um so, it's not just residential uses. So, I think this would need >> seems a little small >> this well it's small number one but I also think it's
we need to consider signs that are in residential districts but they're not at entrances to subdivisions or multifamilies or apartments they're also at like let's just say the 7-Eleven and the dental office at the corner of Reedsdale and Randolph that's in a
residential district um that hospice on the corner is in a residential district. Um the hospital is not zoned for >> so that so that would be so I think that gets captured under B which is the
pre-existing non-comp non-conforming commercial uses located in the residential zones are subject to the same requirements as business districts. >> Okay. >> But but I totally hear you because that doesn't doesn't anticipate something new like the memory care
or like >> childcare facilities, >> right? which which are what because they're on the do, right? >> So, I'm not sure how much it's a commercial use. >> I I don't know. >> Signage >> is the the use is allowed, but the is
the signage considered >> separate like a separate consideration >> regulated. >> It can be reasonably regulated, I think. >> Okay. Well, that's good because because Avanti got a call on that. >> We should confirm that with Carolyn, right? What's interesting I found, you know,
that most of our multif family housing don't have signs. You know, the new Henry's building, 88 Wararf, they don't they they have, you know, engraved in their Walcott Woods just has it in their columns. You know, there a lot don't
have signs, >> but but there are the do, you know, there are some and especially our senior living, our Fuller Village, our Winter Valley. Um, and these these new comp permits, too. >> They're all going to need they're all going to need something. >> They'll all have something. >> And the thing is, it comes down to just
the the size of the lot and the proportion. It's all based on proportion. And some lot sizes and locations can tolerate a larger sign and others can't. Like imagine doing a big
sign at the 7140B. like you have all those little houses on either side. So having an oversized sign there would be totally out of scale with the existing >> I would say though that nine if you're
thinking about where we have these signs 9 square feet is is too small. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So yeah I don't know what the correct >> I was going to say 20 square feet because that's what Fuller and Winter Valley are and they seem appropriate for
That's what I was going to suggest too. >> Yeah. >> So, and then that's a maximum again. So, that the discretion come goes back to sign review committee. >> Um, >> I'm good. I'm good with that. >> That seems >> that's exclusive of a base and post. So,
I don't know how we want to say that. We do. >> Is it though? >> It is. Is it the dimensions are the dimensions calculated exclusive of the base or post? So, John, when John, that's a good question for you. If we said that the
the sign area can't be more than 20 square feet, do you understand that to exclude the posts and the base? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That's the way we typically review it. >> Okay. >> And then the next piece of this 5t in
height. The fuller sign is five feet. Um because it's elevated and the I uh I didn't measure the stone. >> What did you get for winter valley? Because I got it closer to like seven or eight.
>> Really? Because um the stone What did you get for the stone base then? >> Did I climb? >> I did it. I just I just I just scaled it off. I mean I'm I'm 59 510. I'm basically six feet. and it was it was another two feet over my head. So, so I
just kind of roughly said said eight feet tall. Um, when you're dealing when you're dealing with height though, like it is going to be it is going to be from the ground level. >> Even if it is on like some kind of a base, it doesn't really matter because it's 10 it's 8 feet above the the sidewalk or the driveway or whatever.
Oh, I see. Because it's a bit elevated, it's about eight feet. >> Yeah. Height will go from height will go from the grade. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I would say Okay. because I'm looking at the photo now. The sign is elevated above where they have the plantings because they had the plantings
so that you wouldn't see the sign if it wasn't elevated. And then they have the granite uh or stone rather. I I'm guessing like the stone was like 18 in. And then uh you you could be right then in terms of the overall height. If you
add another it's elevated two feet. So, you're saying like seven or eight? So, >> yeah, was it? Yeah, it's about I'd say closer to eight, especially when you add in the light and um Yeah. Yeah, about eight.
>> There's a couple. >> You're saying, but >> but the um >> Yeah, cuz it lifts it doesn't look that large because it's up on a stone. >> Yeah. See how it's >> base? So, I wouldn't include Scott with the the >> They measure it from grade
>> from grade even though it has a stone island. It's sitting on a stone island. >> You pull it up so John can see. >> We would measure from the base of the stone. >> Yeah, I can. >> Um, did you send me a picture of it from from the bottom up? >> You send it to me. I can send or I said
pull it up. Okay. If not, I can um >> You can send it to me. I can send it to John. >> Want me just text it or email it? >> You can text it and then I'll see if this works, guys. Oh. Oh, you got it. All right. Never
mind. Okay. Was that it? Did you send me something else besides that? >> That's a close photo. >> Very close. >> Second second photo. Here we go. >> There we go. There's the stone base. >> There's the stone base.
>> And I'm guessing it's like 18 to 24 because I stepped up without >> Yeah. Yeah. 18 to 24. But it was a it was a good eight feet because I stood in front of it and it was it was it was a good it was a good foot or foot and a half two feet over my head.
>> The actual sign itself is probably >> if you're saying >> I was going to say maybe the posts are six feet. It's probably an eight foot post with two foot in the ground. So six feet six foot post. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly.
>> Yeah. The post on that fuller was five feet. So 20 feet for the for the sign. And um and then I I found one that was easily 10 >> square feet. >> Personal personal medicine, personalized medicine on the corner of um Brook and
Central and you know that little doctor's office. >> Oh yeah. >> Easily 10 feet. >> 10 square feet. >> 10 feet high. >> Oh 10 feet high. >> Oh wow. >> Yeah. Easily. That might have been at that well that could have been a
pre-existing non-compliant, but it also could be higher because that's a busy intersection. >> Um I think maximum 8 ft >> I would agree in a residential neighborhood. >> They can
>> and they and they can give a variant. They can they can they can go they can increase that by 25%. >> If they need to >> but what was the height? >> 8 ft.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. It says measured from the natural grade to the top of the highest component of the sign. Right. >> So that would include that light in this case >> for winter valley. Yeah, we could we would include the light on this, correct?
>> Okay, >> 75. You guys settled on that? >> It seemed to align with what you the data that you provided for what is existing. You see, like if I looked at it, what was approved compared to what
was allowed before, you know, there's a few that went above 50% of the area, but there's a lot of them that were even a far less than that. >> So, we we we're cutting this back by half, right?
>> So, I think that's we can do that. And then they've got the other 25% to go >> more than half from two to 75. So more than half. >> Yeah, more than half. But even so, I still think what given the the 25% increase that's allowed.
>> Yeah. I mean, half of these half of these will be will be non-conforming. >> But with the 25%, it won't be half. >> Yeah. But more regulation they have to go through to get that 25%. Are we talking about making it easier for people? You'd have to make the case to the sign
review committee to get the 25% extra extra square. >> Yeah, the sign review committee can allow a variation which they do do because sometimes it doesn't look right on a building >> that they approve larger signs to make
it look but even so they have in in the examples that we have they haven't done that on a lot of them. Yeah, it's not many. >> So, John, what do you think about this at this 75 square feet in area?
>> I was looking at this and I was thinking, why bother change it? I mean, if if if most of the 90% of these signs aren't using the max that they need, if Starbucks is the only one that's really maxing it out, right, at 95%.
I'm just thinking why even bother changing it if we want to be more regulationfree and make sure that we lose our reputation of being a tough town to do business in. Well, if you go back to what Meredith said earlier about kind of the character of the residential
district and not plastering buildings with more signs than necessary, this scales it back to something to at a scale at which signs have been approved. So it's more consistent with
signage that exists. So I mean broken if it isn't broken, don't fix it. You know, I don't think anybody's coming to us complaining about having too big of a sign in their residentially zoned business that they live next door to. And I'm
>> I think it was the concern with the the large scale buildings that are now going to be redeveloped. The >> um the one Elliot Street that are just massive. Um >> that's in the business. Are we talking about in the business district or the residential district?
>> These are this is in the business district. Business >> business. Okay. All right. >> And and it and it also applies to any pre-existing non-conforming commercial signs that are in the residential districts. And because the town has a lot of residential zoning, you got a lot
of you get a lot of historic businesses in the residential districts. >> But yeah, I don't know. I I just I just don't see an issue with it, but um if you guys want to regulate it, I'm not going to say no to it. I just I just don't see the need, I guess. I don't
think it's been a problem, and I don't see it being a problem. So I I think it maybe we could adjust it from 75 to one. >> Yeah. I was going to say we should do one. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Make the math simple. >> Yeah, >> that's true. It's a good point.
>> Okay. And there's still a 25%. >> I think what it does, Jim, is it sets the >> tone or the standard for what you're trying to achieve, just the same as what you were talking about earlier, right? So, you know, the what the tone that's
set by the current is we we like a lot of signs. We we'll be happy with a lot of signs. So, this will say we're we're looking for more balance in the amount of signs. That's the way I see it. >> Okay.
>> All right. Uh, so on page 14, >> can I just Oh, >> sorry. >> Just on uh kind of back before we we touched on it, but I'm not sure this language is is uh clear. It says pre-existing non-conforming
commercial uses. We should also say for those are pre-existing non-conforming in a residential zone. So that what about a nonconforming in a residential zone? Is is there any such thing as that that wouldn't be
pre-existing? >> Well, so did you guys change the zoning for the memory care? >> We did. >> So that's in a new zone. >> It's an overlay zone. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um so I don't know. >> So just maybe Yeah, >> I think about that. I just wanted to make sure we're covered for the signs here. >> Yeah. Yeah. I Yeah, I had I had the same question about new new non-residential
uses in in the residential zones. Um Yeah, I'm sure she can add something there to make that clear >> because I think the hospital on that on the Highland Street side is very sensitive to being in a residential area. They have a very small sign on
that side. It's larger on the Reedsdale side, but they were, you know, the entryway feels very residential and it's small. >> So, the other thing is our MBTA zoning, we have mixed uses allowed um in areas that are currently only residential.
>> Yep. >> And so, we would want those new signs to have to follow for the commercial part of it to have to follow the business and they're not necessarily in residential zones. they're in this over these new overlay zones.
>> So you so you want them to be in the more restrict you want them to have the the the wider you want them to have the wider criteria of the business zones. >> Yeah. Because there's business uses there. >> Okay. And not to restrict them to this to
these this 8 ft and the >> because this is different, you know, we're talking about like something about I'm thinking like smallish commercial like you would have at um 36 central for example that could
come in one of those mixeduse buildings and so that that's more similar to that business district and like the ice house is going to have a new retail retailer coming in there >> that's residential we don't know what
yet anxiously waiting here Okay. All right. >> I have a question on 8B under principal signs. >> Yes. >> I I I don't understand that. I still understand the sentence. No more than
two principal signs shall be allowed for each business establishment. This to me that means you could have you could put, you know, you have a a storefront and you could put two two signs on it. That doesn't make any sense to me. I think where where this was
coming from, I believe, is there's I think it's an insurance company in East Milton. >> Mhm. >> And they had a sign on their front facade and then they had a parking lot along the side of their building. So then they had a another sign facing the
parking lot. And I think they wanted to get a third sign and we let them have two. So, I think there could be two principal signs if you have two building elevations ex, you know, exposed to the public, but I wouldn't want to see two
principal signs on a storefront. >> So, no more than two principal signs. A principal sign may be a flat wall sign, a sign attached to a wall projecting out perpendicular or a freestanding sign. So, yeah. So I So so the scenario being
somebody wanted to do two flat wall signs. >> Right. >> Right. >> So yeah, >> is that allowed? >> It looks like it would be >> Yeah, it does. I mean, can you think of any scenarios where someone has had the
type of building where they where would they might want to do that? No, the only time is like I said it has two two building elevations that are you know can be seen by the public like right >> like this one building they had one along the main street and then they had a sign that was along the parking lot.
So they wanted to put a sign on the parking lot >> and on the front and then like um the I always forget that the restaurant across from Starbucks they have you know two building elevations >> so they could have >> Yeah.
>> Abby Park right. So they could in in theory they could have two principal two signs, one on each elevation, but I would not want them to have two flat signs on one elevation. That >> so maybe we add language to this. >> Can we say that? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Provided no more than two signs provided >> like so so just repeat what you just said John which was basically that the the a single elevation a single elevation would not have two principal
signs something something along those lines. >> Yeah. Would be if if your building has two elevations that are I guess exposed to the public view something like that. >> Provided there are two elevations. a second. >> That makes sense. >> Allow per minute,
>> right? Then you could get two signs. >> So, provided there are two elevation. >> I mean, you can you can have two signs, but they're different kinds of signs. >> You can have a free standing and you can have Right. So, so but so that that the
ability to have the two signs remains, but you could only have two of the same kind of sign if you have two elevations that are exposed to the public view. like like a corner lot and just wall signs.
>> You don't want you you want to limit just to wall signs? >> I think so. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I mean, I've never had a business yet that wants to do a wall sign and a projecting sign, >> right? >> I mean, I guess they could. And I I'm >> surprised,
>> you know, >> and we would want them come to us for So, a freestanding sign. You mean something on the sidewalk? Well, like the freestanding sign in front of in front of like the nail place. >> Oh, I see what you mean. >> They've got they've got two principal
signs. >> Okay. Right. Okay. >> Yep. I can see that. >> Yeah, it would be two. I guess we'd have to specify for the flat wall signs, you need two building elevations. >> Okay. Yep. Okay, that makes sense.
Thank you. >> Are we ready to move on? >> Okay, now we're back to height >> on page 14. >> Yeah. So, this was a question um and Carolyn had put this in because she said in our current bylaw, we don't have any
height um requirements. So we had in the um the residential we had the five feet which we've now increased to 8 feet. Um she had had 12 feet in there in for commercial but we said that for gas stations but I thought do we want to
rethink that for other freestanding signs? Do we want them to be a little bit smaller given that there's a 25% allowance? 12 feet just seemed really tall for we just did 10 feet, right? Or did we do eight feet? Sorry.
>> Eight feet. >> We just did eight feet. >> So, we do eight feet here. >> So, who has the tallest? The eight was for the residential districts. >> So, the tallest sign is the Dunkin Donuts and the Citizens Bank.
>> And they both I drove by and like they are really big. Like they didn't they didn't need to be so big, >> you know? Obviously. That's why I'm my what went back to one of my points before is there can be such a thing as too much signage like and some business
just think that bigger is better more is better John you probably see that in applications >> oh yeah especially with a you know a Dunkin Donuts or Yeah banks they want to they want to catch your eye as you're driving by
>> yeah sign a low freestanding sign won't help them They want something up above the cars that you can see. >> So would 10 ft and then you could give an allowance. Would that be?
>> Okay. I don't know what the Duncan sign is. >> Shall be corrected. >> Didn't you Weren't you saying you were kind of surprised? I went by it. It was taller than I >> Yeah. Yeah. It's It's got to be If you thought it was tall, it's got to be at least as
tall as that that doctor's office. So it seemed like they shouldn't be as tall as gas stations. If we're saying gas stations are 12 feet. >> No. No. >> So maybe 10 10 feet and then there's discretion for the sign review committee to adjust that.
>> Well, I mean an 8 foot sign you could easily see over a car. Well, yeah, 10 ft's probably better. You're right. I mean I >> But if you go up 25%. What's that? >> Maybe we should be consistent and just do 8t. on fire.
>> Maybe it should be 8 ft and then they can add on too. >> If I think about like East Milton Square, cars are going slowly there and you you're trying to promote a walking walkable district, right? >> Even in Milton Village where the street's wider and they're going too fast.
You know, it would be nice to have even that get narrowed up at some point >> so that it really does feel more pedestrian friendly. So, I do think if we're in encouraging signs that are big enough for faster moving cars, then
we're going against what you said earlier about kind of setting up a a standard for the kind of district we want to see. And it's it's not the district necessarily that we have today 100%. Right. >> So,
>> and if it's 8 feet, 8 feet 25% will give us a two foot leeway. So, that would get them up to 10 if they want to. So I would say let's do eight. >> Okay. >> I think we might have skipped the the the question at the top of the page. Has more to do with the clearance.
>> Oh yeah, I'm sorry. Supporting devices or stands. Freestanding sign shall be erected upon. Supporting devices or stands shall not exceed feet in height and shall provide so many feet of clearance under the sign area. You know, I I was thinking about
that. Do we need to specify clearance? Because I sort of would trust the sign review committee. >> I think we don't need to determine that. >> Yeah, I don't think we need to regulate that because that that depends also on the facade of the building. >> Yeah. You know, if you got a taller building, it might look better up
higher. >> Okay. >> So, just eliminate that paragraph entirely. >> No, we would Oh, well, I guess >> Well, it says freestanding stand. Just setting the height and then you just
>> then you repeat it >> just you just >> so freeing size shall not be part of an attached building erected on supports >> thought you're just striking and shall provide >> okay got it shall not exceed >> that part shall not exceed so many feet
in height and shall divide >> the clear the part clearance >> keeping the eightt plug >> oh I see yeah that's that I was thinking of something different I was thinking of a sign projecting out from a building. >> Oh, I see. Yeah, this is this is freestanding standing, right? And it's
and this is the height of the support supporting devices or stands as opposed to as opposed to the the height of the the sign overall, which we which I think we've addressed under D for 8t in height. So, yes, we could probably just strike that whole.
>> I don't think we need the whole thing, right? Yeah, but that one another one's under principal sign >> and this one's underary sign or no. >> Do we have the height for the gas stations in a separate area? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> So, page 14 at the top that bullet point is underneath print the >> Oh, yeah. Secondary sign. So, we should have both. We should keep both. >> So, D is a separate item. So you could
strike it from B and leave it as D to address it. >> I think we can I think we can keep the part A freestanding sign shall not be part of or attached to any building. Period. It may be located elsewhere on a lot where it does not obstruct vehicular
traffic, sight lines or pedestrian traffic. A freestanding sign may contain signage for any or all of the businesses on a lot. A freestanding sign shall not have more than two faces. So I think we probably want to keep all of that because that's not related to height >> and just take >> but we probably just want to strike out
the part about the clearance. >> Yeah. >> And shall provide blank feet of clearance. Just cross that all off and end with a period after height. >> So that >> shall be erected upon. Okay. Got it. Got
it. So all right. Yeah. Since but but then you're repeating yourself under D. So, >> right. That's my point. >> Shouldn't you? >> Yeah. Why don't we just leave the height under D >> and then like I I think it was Liz that was just saying a freestanding sign shall be you you take out the height and
the clearance part under that bullet point. >> Yes. Yep. >> I see why you're doing that now. >> Yep. Okay. >> And then you put the height under D. >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay. Even though the one's a primary and one's a secondary
because secondary is C and height is D. >> So they're separate. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. >> Yeah, because it really it only comes up with a freestanding sign. Right. Right. >> Yeah.
All right. Thank you, John, for sticking with us with this. >> Oh my gosh. This is He's got he's got to be into this for at least 10 to 12 hours at this point. >> I know, for sure. >> But he's the most experienced of anyone with all of this. So, it's important to
have him. I agree. Get rid of the word fabric. Doesn't really add anything. It's fine. Y recommendation. >> Yeah, because it doesn't have to be fabric, >> right? Uh, and then just triple confirm we're sign review is not reviewing
sandwich board signs. Correct. >> Correct. >> Good. Um, and then I'm I'm comfortable. I think we already talked about this about moving all of this additional language to the guidelines, the sign review guidelines, >> but she kept some because we said some
should belong here. Is that right or not? Some of these could be moved. I know she's got I know she's got a section >> the very end. >> Yeah. Right. On page start starting on page 17. Yes. Right. So not for
inclusion in the zoning amendment. Put these in the design guidelines. So um sign shall only be displayed place of business. Yeah. So so yeah. So, there are there are um Yeah, I'd have to go back and look and
see. Maybe just this one that's highlighted is is she Yeah. Well, that was what we talked about with the ADA stuff. Um she probably wants to keep the ADA stuff in. >> That's that's not that's not repeated.
>> That's not repeated on page 17. >> Uh the first bullet is repeated on page 17. And the second bullet is repeated on page 17. >> I see. Yeah. >> The third bullet is not about the width and the height. That is not.
So yeah. So so we can we can do a better job and make that more clear. But are people comfortable with her suggestion that certain of these items can be in the guidelines? Is there anything that you feel absolutely should be in the zoning bylaw
>> to make sure that it doesn't get moved to the guidelines? >> I'm okay with her suggestions. >> So then these would be reviewed by the building commissioner, correct? >> Yes. >> The design guidelines. >> Yeah. So in this scenario, the building commissioner would be using that
handbook probably more than maybe in the past, which is probably a good thing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I just say the third bullet and then the one where it references the police department, the last bullet might want to stay.
>> I think it can go to the design guidelines. >> Okay. >> You're saying the sign shall advertise the business goods and services. That one. No, the the 24 by 48 just the size the overall size of the thing just so people
thinking huge. >> I'm I'm on the wrong page. Sorry. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. And then you know just when I see police department I think it should stay but um >> Yep. And and the one so three bullet points. Is that what we're saying?
>> Yep. >> Okay. Stay in the >> Those will stay in the bylaw. >> ADA. This is not the KDA one. >> Yeah. Okay, good. >> I think there's only one tough one left. Meredith
fuel service stations. And just under where it says the sign must be constructed with a cross brace for stability. Some of the sandwich signs don't have a cross brace, but they have an area that you can fill with sand. So,
um, so it doesn't have a cross brace. I don't know if that matters. >> I think we could say on that one, I think we could say must be constructed with a cross brace for stability or the sign must have sufficient strength to stand by itself without the use of other
materials to stabilize it. >> Just put it all in there and then that gets reviewed by the building commissioner. All right. Oh, so this was to do with like the conversation around how there's a service bay,
there's a there's a kino, there's gas, there's Dunkin' Donuts. I don't know. I I think that's the that was the that was the gist of Carolyn's question was was like how much of this signage
counts. >> Yeah. I I thought the last time when we discussed this we just focusing on the big freestanding sign and and regulating that and then the other signs would be reviewed by the sign committee because you know buildings are different sizes.
Some signs look better a little larger. Some signs look better, a little smaller. So, I'm not sure how you can regulate just pick pick a square foot number and have it be applicable everywhere >> for fuel stations only.
>> Cuz all the gas pumps need signage on them. You know, there might be a sign over the service bay. >> So, is the number of principal signs still only one for a service station?
Because I remember I think other service stations like you'll see soco in three places at least big snowco things or whatever it is. I don't know the brand but >> it's one thing to identify service bay and pump and whatever. >> It's another thing to have the name of
the company on the building on a freestanding >> on the um that hood thing whatever it's called. They they want >> I don't think those would be considered a principal sign though. I don't think those I think those would be
>> okay. Well, I don't know what that's considered, but it seems to me there should be a limit to number of those and that you know identifying the other functions should be allowed, >> right? I mean, these sizes seem appropriate on
the non non um principal signs, but maybe you're I think what John's saying is it's hard to put a number on >> three square feet seems kind of small for a sign that says, let's just say it's a re service bay,
you know, one foot by 3T. >> I thought that would be the nine square feet. >> Okay. Okay. >> Product identification signs for guests. >> No one no single sign to exceed three square feet in area. >> Yeah. Maybe that is small if it's a total. >> Yeah, that's really small. You never get
a service bay sign that size. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was thinking that was more sort of like, you know, state inspection stickers here, like that kind of thing. Um, >> I think those are regulated by the state, the size of those.
>> Yeah, probably. >> I think that's a standard sign that you get from the state and you just put it up on the wall. >> Yeah. Yeah. So when I was looking at the sign examples that Liz sent around the letters above this Pondere building
above the door are 2 feet by I think it was 16 ft which I which sounded awfully big to me but then when I saw it in the picture it did not seem that big. >> Two by 16 is what? 32.
>> Mhm. >> Correct. >> That's big. Uh, >> but it looked right on the building. >> It did. It did. So, I'm thinking above a service bay, you know, with the sign that says, you know, service bay. It would, >> right? That's why I think you've got to
kind of look at it per building. >> Yeah. >> And not not regulated by size, but regulated by the building itself. >> So, 24 square feet sign area seems small. When we looked at these residential like full or winter valley
being 20, >> remember that was uh I think we look at a sign. I I marked it up to 25. Yeah. 25. >> So you think that's
>> now that's the that's the freestanding sign? >> No, that's just the the that's just the top of the freestanding sign. top of the freestanding sign. Right. Okay. Got it. >> Got it. So, not including the the gas
the gas pump prices. >> Correct. >> So, do we take out the nine square feet and the three square feet and do something to the, you know, put wordage in that says, you know, up to the discretion of the sign review
committee? John, do they do they come to you for non principal signs? Do they come for to you for all of those? >> Oh, they come with the whole package. Oh, yeah. Everything they they come to us. Anything that goes on the building, they come to us. >> Oh, good. >> Stuff that goes on the pumps. Yeah. Everything.
>> So, you do have the discretion to Yeah. >> Mhm. Right. cuz cuz um like per Cheryl's question before on the I think it was the Shell station, they we didn't have them put the name over the pumps, but we
let them put a non-illuminated logo over the pump. >> Yeah. >> Like on the the canopy over the pump. We didn't let them write shell again. We just let them put the little Shell logo up on there that was non-illuminated. So yeah, we we we they come to us with a
full package on those things. >> So it sounds like this first one is really the freestanding sign. It's highlighting. >> Yeah, it's that freestanding sign that we looked at the last time. >> Yeah. So that >> uh it probably should
>> But are we requiring it to be freestanding? What if they wanted >> I think I think that's what I meant >> sign it just refers to it as principal sign >> and poor in this case >> I think you have in this case we're talking about 12 foot height limits I think you're talking about that standing
one >> but then then it goes on to talk about the total number of signage for the services but that there's still you would be that freestanding sign then you would still
probably be allowed a principal sign because the freestanding sign is putting pricing and other stuff on it, right? And then >> No, but that has a princip that has the principal sign on it that has the name of the gas station. >> Okay. >> I could see if I can find that one we looked at the last time.
>> Yeah. >> So, should we say product identification signs for gasoline service stations may be um may be maintained. Is it really maintained? Because >> yeah, it's not really that's
>> maybe deter maybe >> allowed >> allowed. I like I like giving I like giving the discretion to the >> giving the discretion. Yeah. Allowed. >> Yeah. Cuz how come that only fuel service stations are allowed to have
product identification signs and like 7-Eleven can I mean my sense is it would be connected to sort of the nature of the business >> right in terms of in terms of like in terms of safety
>> business. >> I mean I'm I'm sure I'm sure it's I'm sure it's it's it's maxed out as well as much as they can get away with but it's probably got to do with the nature of the business. It's kind gas stations are kind of like a utility in a sense.
I mean they're they're a necessary like they're a necessary sort of right. >> I think I think I think you can make that up >> and I didn't know if it was safety I don't know. >> So here on the on the box on the side it
says I noticed that we did not set any height limits for signs in the residential business district. So I've inserted proposed height for the board's consideration. If the board agrees with my suggested changes under business districts above, we do not need to limit
gas station signs to 12 feet in height. And if a gas station is limited to 50 square feet in total signer, this special provision may not be necessary. So does this mean that this whole paragraph it may not be necessary?
I don't know. I'm not really sure where where do we limit 50 square feet in total sign area is that is does that circle back on like our billboard is that the billboard thing >> but that's for a single sign right
>> yeah that's for a single sign I I'm imagining there could be scenarios where somebody could have more than 50 square feet right >> so there's also this question about whether is treating gas stations differently
than other businesses in that same box. >> Yeah, I actually don't have a problem with that treating them differently because there's just so much going on at a gas station. >> Yeah, I agree too. >> The fuel, you have the service base. Sometimes you have a convenience store, you have the little place where you go
get air for your tires. Sometimes they have towing. I mean, there's there's a lot. I mean, hopefully ours won't, but there's a lot going on, so they should be treated differently. I think we can justify that. >> Yeah. So, so I would interpret this that if you are going to treat it
differently, you're going to have to you're going to have to you can't be more restrictive than what other businesses can do. >> You know what I mean? With all the >> Yeah. So if so if if a if a if a regular business can do you know whatever based
on a multiplier for max dimensions if they you know what I mean like I think I think that's the the nut of her concern is that she's concerned that we're treating them differently and that um you can treat them differently. It's
just got to be more generous. I think we're doing that with a 12oot sign >> and that we are and that if we put something in the product identification signs um will be at the discretion of the sign review committee.
>> Is that what we're not wanting? >> We're offering more the product identification signs. We just need it on a case-by case basis for gas stations. Again, I don't think we would be discriminating against the gas stations.
I think this this sort of shows that we're favoring them >> in my opinion. >> Yes, that's you correct. We are favoring gas stations >> and I don't know 20 n square feet doesn't seem adequate for those additional signs. Well, that's
going to be the discretion of the sign that discretion the the sign that says, you know, >> the air, you know, this the air gun is over here. You don't need a 9 foot sign for that. >> Three feet.
>> I was just thinking cumulative. They all add up to a lot more. >> Oh, right. Yeah. Okay. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Total. Okay. Y right. >> And Yeah. Yeah. And you are limiting them to the one sign, the one principal sign. Other other businesses can have
two >> only only if they have two principal facades, right? >> No, you >> changed that. I thought >> No, it was it was >> you can't put the same type of sign. So like the male salon on Granite Granite A
has two signs. They have a wall sign and a freestanding sign. >> And those are both considered principal signs. I see. Well, then I think they should be allowed two principal signs. >> Yeah. I don't know how you can limit them to one.
>> Yeah. And one might be this the freestanding and one might be on the building or on the canopy. >> Yeah. They probably would have one on the >> but we wouldn't want them to be >> 12 feet tall. >> No. >> No. But that would just be the
freestanding one. So >> one freestanding. So we want one freestanding. >> But one freestanding. You don't want you don't want to allow two you don't want to >> allow two principal but only one freestanding. >> I think that's >> all right. So okay. So fuel service
stations of the business districts are allowed one freestanding sign identifying the business not to exceed 24 square feet in sign area and up to 12 12 feet in height. That's the freestanding sign. There probably should be a line about the second second
primary like second primary second principal sign is regulated by whatever whatever whatever is in is required in the business district.
I know that's really not very glib but it's I think that's what you need something like that. >> Okay. >> Um because you want them to be able to ch two signs. You don't want to limit them to just one sign I don't think. >> And then you should They'll have
something on the building too, right? On the front of the building. >> You still need to allow I think for the services that they provide. I don't think I say products necessarily like that way you don't get all the other stuff, but you could the services.
>> Yeah, it's for services. >> So, and then those could be uh total area as determined by the sign review committee. So, do you want to say instead of product identification signs, do you want to say service identification
signs? >> Yes, >> I think that would make more sense. Yes. That's it. for tonight. >> Yeah. And I I think just that last thing is the wayfairing sign. I agree Caroline
had said on that that I don't know if you saw that just that last comment on directional. I don't know of any town or state regulation that would require these signs. Would it be easier to all these wayfairing signs by right
without cutting without counting towards the total sign area? >> I'm sorry, Meredith, where are you? Did you say weight bearing >> under D for comments? >> How did total sign area provided no individual sign exceeds one and a half
or two square feet? So sometimes it's these little signs that get overly placed and then it becomes just >> I don't know looking. Yeah. Even like citizens like in whatever the signs were
provided there was just too many citizens. >> I mean can't you tell where the drive up is? >> Well and they they could they're using them as additional signage. >> Right. Right. >> If they put their logo on everything. >> Yeah. >> Or their name. >> These driven by by lawsuits and people
making mistakes and and coming in coming in the outdoor or driving entrance way. >> I think sometimes sometimes vehicular circulation, you want to go in a one-way direction. So if you don't mark what's what's in and what's out, >> you have people coming in and crashing
into each other, >> right? And then they sue the business because no one told them to drive out the entrance, >> right? >> Stay to the right. >> Yeah. So I kind of like her comment. I think it's pertinent. Easier to allow all these wering signs by right
without counting towards the total sign area provided when individual sign exceeds 1.5. that. So, it's just like how big are we going to allow these signs, >> right? >> That makes sense. >> So, I mean, >> okay, so >> two square feet is probably good. I wish she had some >> two square feet. Um,
>> because I feel like they're standard. You can just go online and order them. >> Yeah. >> Great. >> So, we want Caroline to make that change and do what she's suggesting here. So, okay. Right
then. I think that was everything >> is the the goal is for this to be in the annual town meeting warrant, right? >> Yeah. >> So, it's due to the select board. Um,
>> they know we have >> they know and they have it on their they have it included on their items to be in the warrant. Um, we I was just talking about what is what is our timeline with getting the warrant committee is going to want to review it.
Um, we want to send it to the select board obviously. Um, so can we get a a revised draft like at least the weekend before our next meeting like the Friday? Um,
just so that we can try and >> just go through it, >> you know, go through it. I think there's enough changes that we need to spend time on it, >> but I would like to be able to read it in advance because I think it's >> it's easier that way. >> Um,
>> what is our next meeting is the 26th. 26. Yep. >> She's been able to turn around things pretty quickly. She had a big 40B case which it took her a little longer to get the revisions to us um earlier this week
because if she could get it to us by the 26 and then it gives um select board and warrant committee. If doesn't it go to print like >> well she could give you remember like the warrant the warrant committee may have some things
that they want to suggest changes to and you would we would need time for that before going to print to your point. So I think if we can sort of say that the at the next meeting that
hopefully we don't have significant changes then we could at least submit a draft. >> Is there is there any scenario where if it gets circulated and folks are able to get back individually
is there any scenario where that can get kind of wrapped up faster? That's if we get it in advance, I think. Yes. >> If John If John can get it in advance and get us any comments he has before our meeting also. >> Yeah. >> Just um
>> so she could get it to us on Friday the 20th. >> Yeah. By the end of next week. >> Yeah. >> A week from tomorrow. >> We would have the weekend and then we send any comments to Liz. All of us. >> Yeah. Like by Monday.
>> Yeah. And that way if there's some edits that need to be done for Thursday. >> Yeah. Okay. >> But you definitely want to talk about it again on on the 26th. Right now you're thinking you want it you want it you don't want to finalize it before the
26th. Is that is that the sense? I I think as many changes as we've discussed, I'd like to see it again >> on the 26th. Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, we'll we'll get the >> We need to vote it otherwise we're >> voting so we can vote. Yeah. So, we'll we'll be
able to take the vote at least on that and if it >> Do you need to vote? Do you need to vote to send it? Because it's already been Do we need to because we still need to do a public hearing? >> We usually vote to submit it and then we do the public hearing. >> Okay. All right. Okay. That's fine. I
just I just wasn't sure. I I'm still trying to get my head back into town. >> Whether we have to do it or not, I guess, is a question. We usually do. We usually do vote to Yeah. Okay, that's fine. >> I'm going to say good night. >> Oh, thank you. Good night. >> I I want to head home. >> Appreciate your input.
>> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Thanks. Byebye. >> We have we have two applications that we left. >> Two two sign two sign applications are coming this way. >> Um so yeah, I think that makes I think that
makes sense. we can, you know, have any comments we can send over any questions. You know, if something arises that we have questions, Liz can get the answer from Carolyn. Do we feel like we need Carolyn to come? Did you want her to address some of >> As long as she if she can send in an
email or I mean, if everyone else doesn't need it, then maybe she can just call me, but if everyone else would like the same >> I think we should be able to explain. Yeah. which >> I think everybody might want to just have it in their email at least so if someone asks about it >> that would be great >> it's clear
>> yeah absolutely no absolutely I do and and I like I said Charlotte I had the same I had the same question around the you know the basis for the the basis for the variance the basis for the special permits like >> I think if I'm thinking of like if I
were you Meredith this at town meeting you know you want to make it clear that there's a process that that allows signs as of right signs by special permit and there are signs that are prohibited and
the um and what the process is you know for a typical application just because it you know for somebody to read through this and figure out like what's your you know one page much better
>> it's really it's so much better I would no trouble like defending this because it's so much more clear and it it it accomplishes a lot. It accomp it gets rid of all those silences. You know what I mean? >> It just it just it it's it's it's a big
improvement. I mean I know it's like 15 16 pages but it's but it's a big improvement. And the other thing that's was helpful I know with this like with the site plan review and when we and the ADU when we were presenting those is we did do a PowerPoint presentation which just takes the bullet points and maybe
we that's something um either Avante or you know we can work on together. Um but putting together and not long but just a few slides you know six or seven slides just to say this is what we're doing you
know these are the the gist of it >> the purpose for doing this you know just sort of the breakout of some of those items >> sounds good >> but yeah this is yeah I think it's this will be much
more helpful to >> just so I'm clear we'll give this back to her she'll She'll make the changes and she'll add new highlights where she made changes so we can see. >> I think she's cleaning up where the highlights she's already made. But maybe she'll
>> Yeah, honestly, Jim, I I I probably was going to talk to her a little bit about that because I I needed to I needed to break out very specifically like the latest round >> um of changes. So, this is going to be yet another round. So maybe we'll use a
different highlight color or something, but I think I think we probably need to differentiate a little bit or or drop or drop some of this highlight where we've already talked about it already start fresh. >> Yep. Yep. Drop drop some
>> because it's a good process. I mean, I like the high the highlight and then her comments on the side. >> Yeah, >> I love the comments. They're super helpful. The whole thing is great. But if just if we could just clean it up. So going forward from today on >> looking at new changes and that's it.
>> Agreed. >> That'd be great. Help helpful for me. >> Yep. Same. >> So with that, um I would entertain a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call. Uh Jim,
>> no. I want to keep going. >> Yes. >> Cheryl, yes. Yes. And myself. Yes. >> Well done, guys. Good night. >> Good night. All right.