Speaker 1: To join us. So I'll call to order this meeting of the Natick Planning Board at 5 0 2 on the 30th. The meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast on Pegasus. To comment or ask a question, please use the raise your hand feature. If you are on a phone, press star nine. An individual wishing to speak during public speak or during a public hearing must first display their first and last name on the screen before their mic is can be unmuted. To make changes in your name as it appears on the screen, click on participants to open the participants menu.
Hover your cursor over your entry and click on more. Click on rename and type in your first and last name. So, and E, even though this is a, a shorter meeting, we are still obligated to have public speak. So any individual who may, may raise an issue that's not included on the agenda, and it will be taken under advisement by the board, there'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. And the section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes. Any individual addressing the, the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes.
Amanda, do we have anyone with hands up? Speaker 2: I'm not seeing anyone with a hand up. Speaker 1: All right. And then let us proceed to the next item on the agenda, which is town meeting zoning articles, public continued public hearings for articles 23 and 24. Speaker 2: Great. So in your packets, but also emailed out to you on Friday was a copy of the updated use regulation schedule and definitions for Article 23 and also was provide also the bylaw
and use regulation schedule for Article 24, which is the west central corridor. We did not receive any comments from the anybody for Article 23, which is the use regulation schedule and definition. So what was sent on Friday is what were, is in the packet for today and then for 24, Speaker 1: I'm sorry, the date date on that was the 26th. Speaker 2: I believe it was 9 26. Speaker 1: Okay. It does have that one addition on car wash mine. Mine is handwritten in the car wash and detailing center. Speaker 2: Okay, I'll add that in. Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 2: And then for you would've received an updated, so not an updated use regulation schedule for the West Natick. So that one still remains the one that was sent on Friday, but an updated actual draft zoning bylaw, which includes all of the sections from comments received from board members and also members of the public. So just wanted to run through those if anyone had any questions. I don't know if Doug wants to touch on a lot of those 'cause you did a great job. Speaker 1: Duh. Speaker 3: I so article that, which article is that one?
West Central. That's 24. 24. Okay. Yeah. So yeah, I mean Amanda, I think, you know, you've done a yeoman's work here, Terry, everybody pulling this together. I think we got lots of very constructive feedback, particularly from one of the, a representative of one of the major landowners there in West Natick. I think they were very thoughtful comments. We got a lot of, you know, good feedback from the public as well to, you know, to move in this direction. So, you know, I did spend some time, you had sent the last version of it over the weekend.
I did spend some time looking through it and I think, you know, I think it's in really, really good shape. You know, my edits were really more of streamlining, clarifying, trying to avoid undefined terms even though I got what the point was, you know, on, on a lot of it. Just kind of making it kind of hang together a little more cohesively and sort of in that way sort of describing what the vision is for the corridor. You know, particularly when we describe each one of those subdistricts and what they are, what they're intended to do, where they're placed. So, you know, form-based code light is, is what it is.
And you know, I think it's in really good shape. And again, I think the feedback, you know, from even some of the folks who who showed up at the hearings was, was very positive. So I'm excited by it and think it's ready for prime time. Speaker 1: Great. And thank, thank you very much for that. It helps having two planners involved in a process, but, and it, and I think it, it went a long way to, to kind of clarifying and making accessible the kind of proposal that Amanda has has presented us with,
which I think is very exciting. So Andy, Speaker 4: Thank you. I, I've been very gratified to see certain me very interested stakeholders, members of the public attend most of the meetings on this. I was a little more nonplused by their comments the other night and it's left me feeling like I usually do on, on big things like this. I think it's a successful zoning bylaw. I think it's well written. I think it's well done. I'm, I'm taking the comments to heart that the landscaping requirements might be too large,
that the parking might be a deterrent towards this being actually developed in the marketplace. And I, I don't know how to resolve those, those feelings. Speaker 2: Yep. I can switch base Amanda, because we definitely heard those concerns. So one of the big things that, of the two actually you just spoke about that we made in an amendment in the Friday edition was the parking. It is well understood that there is a certain level of parking that is demanded by commercial. However, when you mix residential in there, it does kind
of sometimes offset based on what is and isn't allowed or what isn't is allowed. So what we did was in this draft that you will see towards the end of the document, we were gonna add a new section, no numeral five D three y, which, Speaker 4: What page is that on? Looks like we have nine pages. Speaker 2: Yep. It's on page seven. I Speaker 4: Just wanna read along. Okay. Yep. Speaker 2: Oops. So there's one little typo there. But it basically states that what the applicant would do, because right now the way a project would work,
if you want a mixed use project, you have to give us enough parking for like a restaurant and office, all of the uses. And then you add them together and that's your total amount of parking. However, in a mixed use project, a lot of the times you would, you could find uses that are actually complimentary to each other. And so you could mix the uses. So what why allows us to do is the applicant would actually be submitting a professionally conducted parking analysis to the planning board based on industry standards, parking demand factors for the probe, for the proposed uses,
the hours of operation and the patterns of the shared parks, pro parking and the proximity to the public transit. The planning board would then review it and determine if what is being provided for parking is adequate. However, in no case shall the number of parking spaces required exceed what is required if they added up all the uses together. So this would allow for additional review because a mixed use project is so different. Would that being said, this is a fix for this time because section no numeral five D needs
to do a complete update. It's about 20 pages and it's, it's time for it update, but we're not doing that until the spring and the fall as a two-parter of next year. So that is what we were proposing. I don't know if Alan or Doug who work kind of in that had any thoughts on the way we were proposing that parking and then I'll get to the other ones after that. Speaker 5: No, I think this is a good way to approach it because yeah, as you mentioned, it all depends on the uses. You know, if this is something that's busy during the day, you know, maybe that's parking that could be, you know, it's not assigned to a particular unit or whatever.
You know, at p usually for residential ities at night, and obviously if this is, you know, a lunch place or whatever might be busier during the day, there's so many ways to manage it. I, I don't think we want to get kind of, we want to I think, give, give some leeway I guess to the board to kind of review each one in their, you know, their specific development, you know? Speaker 3: Yeah. I think it's restrictive. It, it's a pretty, that's a con
but it's definitely, you know, an accepted approach to doing mixed use projects like this. And Alan, I'm sure you've run across this stuff in your, in your travels as well. Yeah. You know, and there's definitely there, there are industry standards, ITE other, you know, parking, parking institutes, et cetera. There's all kinds of standards on, on how to do this kind of analysis from, from a, you know, professional analytical standpoint that, you know, we can turn to. And I think also if anybody is worried about, you know, under parking, over parking, you know,
this really, I think this kind of review is serious and I think that, you know, the, the applicant, it, it, it's, no one, no one's gonna wanna under park their site, no one's gonna wanna over park it. It's going to be a matter of economics and, and, and marketing, you know, for, for the, for the project. So I think there's gonna be, you know, a lot of that at play in what fits. So, you know, again, I think it's a serious approach. I think it gives the playing board, you know, a lot of leeway to kind of dig in
and say, you know, we think it's, it's under par, we think it's overpowered. Tell us more about how you approach this piece of the analysis. So, you know, it's not gonna be a science project, but, you know, I think it's a way to sort of ameliorate or mitigate some of the concerns we heard last week around, you know, strict application of parking and you total up per use and by the end of it you're gonna have a, you know, a photo mat kiosk or something at the end of the day. So I think it's a pretty, it's, it's a common way to do it. It's, you see it, you know, in different places and I think it's, you know, it, it, it settles that,
that issue I think pretty well. Speaker 2: That's great. And then another one was the open space requirements. So one thing that we did look at was the open space requirements. 'cause we understood that in terms of there's two open space requirements. There's one regarding the setbacks. And so basically what how we had it drafted previously was we were requiring two almost setbacks. We were requiring the setback in no numeral four C, which is the new intensity regulations that we were creating. And that's the one where it's a minimum of 20 feet setback,
but then if you go above 30 feet, 35 feet, you were adding the extra feet, the extra footage to push the building further away to create that setback. But then in the actual bylaw itself, we were requiring a minimum 10 foot width of a vegetated buffer. But then for every five feet in height, we are actually requiring an additional five feet in that width of the buffer. However, what we are proposing now is requiring that minimum of 10 foot wide buffer, but then just relying on the setback that's shown in nomine numeral four C
because the idea was to make sure that it was adequately buffered also to pull the building away from the rear set line. But when we added all that extra landscaping, we weren't actually getting a stronger buffer. What we were doing was prohibiting things like fire safety, so fire safety wouldn't be able to circulate other like pedestrian pathways or required loading and unloading parking, et cetera. So we are requiring a 10 foot wide vegetated buffer and then the requirement for the setback in noman numeral four C.
So that was one of the items that we had resolved there. In the next item regarding open space, we had this requirement for residential outdoor space. And I did highlight that because that was one point of question that I had not, wasn't able to address earlier today with Mr. Faye. And he's on, if you would like me to elevate him when you would like, if you'd like to talk with him on that. But on section three J, which occurs on page five, it is titled residential outdoor space when applicable.
So this would be for s subdistricts, S five, S four, and S3. And what this was trying to aim at is making sure that if it is a multifamily with a residential or a project with a residential component, that they have adequate amounts of open space. And so with that being said, a it was, we have re, we did reduce it to 150 square feet per unit and that can be common decks, lawn areas, patios, balconies, et cetera. It can be a roof deck, they can be creative,
but it does say that we have to 50 50 square feet of that 150 have to be some type of pervious material just so they're having access to actual outdoor area. So they can satisfy that by putting it either on site or they can actually provide it elsewhere within a half mile, which would be reviewed and approved by the planning board of a parcel. That is basically the pervious surface surface component may be provided onsite or satisfied by securing
and permanently preserving equivalent pervious open space that is not already protected within a half mile of the project site. So it would provide two options for the developer to meet that requirement of the pervious open space. But like I said, they could do a roof deck, they could provide patio area that would help with that 150 square feet, 150 square feet. When you multiply that by, let's just say 200 units, yeah it adds up to quite a bit. But if you can put that as balconies
or roof deck, that can eat up a lot of space as well. And I think those were the three big comments that were brought forward. And the last item was, I know there was some questions as to wanting straight residential. I don't think in any conversations with Nate at 2030 that the project was ever intended to be straight residential, especially in the the hub area. Those are those S fives because what we're trying to do is create a walkable center. So there's gotta be something, what we did do is we did clean up that language, which was
provided in the addition on Friday. And I don't think we actually received any amendments other than just clean up language to that section, which is you need to provide 50 perc, or I think it's 50% of the frontage that faces a major street, which is West Central Street or a minimum of 50%, 50% of the length of the frontage, whichever is greater I think. And so the reason for that was so that the, if the building was angled at like a point, well the point that's facing West Central Street, you get zero square feet, it would be 25 feet in depth.
And what it would be is the planning board would actually confirm at that first meeting the amount of square footage, the developer would then be able to take that square footage and put it how they would like to on the property. 20% of that can be for residential amenities such as gym, workspace, lobby, those kind of types of uses that support a residential project. But there does need, there needs to be some other kind of component in there. But like I said, they can put it into an outbuilding where maybe they have a standalone restaurant or a standalone office.
If they had a residential building, they could put it in the first floor of that or if they had a parking deck they could put it in the first floor of the parking deck. It was try to allow the developer to be creative with that space. But the planning board at the first public meeting would basically confirm yes, this is the amount of space which would then be final reconfirmed at the end because changes happen. And I don't know if anyone else has any ideas on that, but that was no real pushback and that's actually pretty consistent with other communities requiring 25 feet and 50% with a portion being
dedicated to the residential use. Other than that, I think those were the big topic points. Speaker 5: I guess, Speaker 1: Oh sorry, go ahead. Speaker 5: So the, I guess two quick questions. First of all, for the previous one that we were talking about, is there a reason why it was five y? Because it looked like it was right underneath. I just wonder why the letter y Speaker 2: Whereabouts Speaker 5: For the on Speaker 1: Page six and seven Speaker 5: Previous discussion? Speaker 3: Yeah, Speaker 1: It jumps Yeah, from B two Y,
Speaker 3: Microsoft Word, right Amanda? Speaker 2: Oh no, B two Y it actually, yes, this is actually not an error because our parking regulations, which is no in section three of the parking, we actually have parking requirements all the way from A to, oh shoot x. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 2: So that is the reason why it's at, it's at the very end of this list. Okay. So water is the only next vacant letter. Okay. Speaker 5: I've, I think there might be a reason for it. The, the question about allowing the parking, sorry,
the open space to another lot. I do kind of worry about that opening a can of, I mean there seems to be a can of worms. Are they gonna say yes Joe? You know, somebody who lives up the street or, or in West Natick. Yeah, they're reside residential lot. They promise they're gonna, you know, keep so much space open. Like are there really much for restrictions on this? Speaker 2: So it would have to be reviewed and approved by the planning board. Okay.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 1: And then it's meant to be in perpetuity. Speaker 2: Yes. Yep. Preserved in open space in perpetuity. Speaker 5: Well you know, like if you've got a residential lot, obviously a lot of it's gonna be imp per gonna be pervious, right? So I just wasn't sure if that needs or should be applying to commercial lots or you know, something something along 1 35. Speaker 2: Yeah, it was really, oops, sorry, what's that? Speaker 1: No, I was just gonna say, would it be for the board to encourage, like if there was, there was an area
that they, they thought could use it that was offsite, is it, would, would we play a role in recommending or encouraging, you know, do we start getting into, into that about where, where that space might be secured? Speaker 2: Well one of the things we could, it, it's always best to fall back on a document. So you do have like the open space and rec plan or if the town had a list of parcels that they would like to see protected, which aren't protected, that is always an item that you would want to fall back on because it gives an option. And then, so we could put that in there.
The ous service component may be provided on onsite or satisfied by securing and permanently se preserving equivalent pervious open space area space that is not already protected within a half mile on the project site as recommended town dock. Speaker 3: Well as approved by the planning board. I I, I think that would, that would, that would kind of seal that up a little bit. I think, you know, I'm not speaking for everybody here, but I think the preference would be on site, right. And I think that, in my opinion, I think that other piece would be exercised fairly rarely
because you know, again, I think the open space should accrue to the people who are living there. But if it's not possible or there's a creative another approach, then it's something the planning board can dig in with the applicant and ultimately if you don't like the idea, we don't approve it. If we like the idea, you know, we can condition it and we can make sure that it gets, it gets done and you know, button it up with a, a tightly crafted decision, you know, in that regard. But, so Speaker 1: Is this something, and I, if somebody wants to, wants to propose a particular site, I'm just thinking about, you know, parcels
that the open space advisory committee has looked at and talked about and so forth and is there a place for some sort of dialogue between the open space advisory committee and the parcels, some parcels that they may have an interest in and anything coming forward through this mechanism? Speaker 3: Well, it's gonna be a half a mile, right Amanda? Speaker 2: Yeah, I put a half mile just to make it pretty consistent with everything else like the MBTA communities and it seems like a half mile also good walking distance is the other reason.
'cause you would want it assessed. You want Speaker 5: People who live there to be able to use it. Speaker 2: Yeah. But it could be not already protected within a half mile or within the, like, I guess it, if it was somewhere in the WCC that would be fine too. Like if, if it was all the way at the end, like say a of the parking lot next to the dog park was like, hey we're getting rid of this, we want to revert it back to open space. But your project is on the Framingham Natick line that, that seems like it would be fine too, Speaker 1: Is could it have the makings of something for a
CPA pro funded project if say an applicant wanted data to do a certain amount, but there might be an opportunity because of, because of the role of open space as a CPA. Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't see why not. Okay. That'd be a, as long as you can meet the requirements of the CPA, that would be great. So not already protected within a half mile Speaker 3: Of the project site or, or within the That's what we calling the district.
The overall district Speaker 2: With, yeah. Within the WCC. Yeah, Speaker 3: I like that Amanda, with the approval of the planning board. Speaker 5: I'd probably like it being the WCI think that might even be more important than the half mile. Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah, good point though Alan. Yep. I Speaker 2: But yeah, if you could get this to start kind of thing and then like the CPA was able to fund the rest, like that would be a great, a great project Speaker 1: I was and I mean I'm, we, we've talked about that because of course there, there wasn't any open space project put forward in the first
round for the CPA and so there's a thought of maybe there are instruments we can partner with. Speaker 2: Yeah. And then the only other one that I did add, which was not, it was a conversation, I was at the transportation advisory committee last night. It's on page four in F noman numeral four. Is it basically right before G This was something that I wanted to bring up to the planning board and ask non-residential and residential mixed use development projects with frontage on West Central Street, mill Street,
speed Street shall support non vehicular modes of transportation through design and construction. A multi-use path or sidewalk along the frontage of said lot. Is that something that we is necessary or is it already kind of given? Because I guess what I was trying to make sure is when the planning board was reviewing 2 47 West Central Street, which was the daycare and the board did require the parking, or sorry, the sidewalk along the frontage of that parcel along with the accessibility components across boat and lane. I wanted to make sure that it was straight up forward
that projects were sidewalks weren't, but also creating that multi-use path on that north side or on the south side. Speaker 4: So Speaker 3: I personally, I think saying it here, you know, makes it clear that's, that's our expectation. I know Andy in the past has talked about it. I know Alan, everybody's talked about it and I think stating it here as an expectation isn't a bad idea. Speaker 2: Okay, Speaker 4: Cool. I agree it, I I I, I mean I, I can't see any reason to to not include it. We can de recapitalize the L in lot by the way. Oh,
Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 4: But no, I think it's a good idea. Speaker 2: Should we say property? The other reason I was using lot was 'cause it's a defined term, but should I can just change all the lots to property? Speaker 4: Yeah, maybe so. So Speaker 1: Problem leaving it with lot. Speaker 2: What's that? Speaker 1: I just said is there a problem leaving it with lot? Speaker 3: It could be multiple lots. I don't know. I mean property not of use property here too. Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll just put say on said, said project property of the project. Speaker 3: Yeah, I'd say property. Speaker 2: Okay. And then I'll change that elsewhere.
'cause I, we've used that elsewhere. Actually, I think well Speaker 3: Actually go back to that. So non-residents run projects with frontage. So I would say in that context, I would say frontage of said projects or projects as you say this, right. Non-residential and residential mixed use development projects with frontage on West Central Mill and speed shall support non-vet modes of transportation through the design and construction multi use pathway or sidewalk along the frontage of set project or projects. I think that that makes it more consistent. Speaker 2: Okay. Perfect.
And then the only other place I had a question on was page six. I highlighted this in your document. It's right below the new numer four C table. It's rounded to the next hole number. My question was, is it the next hole number or the next five? Sure. Like, do you know what I mean? Like, because we're saying additional 10, so is it rounded to like, if you're at Speaker 1: Eight, are we round, are we rounding up or rounding down? It's not, you can round either way. I think you should specify Speaker 2: Yeah, round.
Okay. Round up. But so like if you were at like 7.5, would you round up to 10 or would you run it round it up to eight? I, it doesn't matter to me either way. It's only two feet, but Speaker 1: I'd round it to eight. Speaker 2: Okay. The next hole number then? Yeah. Perfect. Great. Speaker 1: So what's, what do we have that's next? Speaker 2: That's all I had. Okay. Like, I don't know if any, I don't know if I addressed all the questions Andy had or if anyone had any other or public comment or, Speaker 4: No, I, this is, this is big for me. I don't know if he had a chance to run it by the,
the landowner that's been, the property owner's been attending. But my biggest fear about, about wonderful ideas is that they're wonderful ideas but they're, they're not practical or, or sought in the marketplace. So the fact that we've addressed these as best we can is responsive. And I think these are, these are justifiable changes. So, oh, I see Mr. Faye is joining in, so I'd be curious to hear what their thoughts are. Definitely. But I, but I'm, I think, I think it's in, I think it's in good shape. I think it's ready to be recommended.
Speaker 1: Okay. With that, at that, do any other board members have comments before we turn it over to others? Alright. And actually, Mr. Faye, I see, I see that you're, you've joined us and welcome your comments and thoughts. Speaker 6: Well, thank you. I really appreciate all the thoughtful ideas that have been kicked around here. And Andy, I do agree with you. I think this is really dramatically improved and really going in a very good direction now. And I think it's something that you all can be proud of. Never know all the answers until somebody dries it out and you see how it works.
It doesn't work. So I, I think it's been nice for me and I think hope, hopefully Amanda feels the same way of like taking this language that you're coming up with and kind of testing it a little bit and see how it, see how it works. So I think a lot of things that have, you know, evolved on this have been in, in response to that and sort of thinking about this practically in terms of a site plan. So I think it's, I think it's really in a, in a very good spot. I'd like to just talk a little bit about the outdoor space issue.
And again, this is the outdoor space is a per residential unit add to the overall project requirements that are otherwise applicable under the zoning. So an outdoor space is not exactly the same as open space under your definition of the zoning, right? So it, it's a little, little bit different. But the pervious outdoor space is pretty much equivalent to open space, I guess the way you define it in your zoning. So the only, only I guess my concern is just that
the way this is drafted, so your, your base requirement of o open space, right? Green space is 10% in this district, 20% and 30% in the other district. So it's, it's, it's, it's pretty modest, but 10% is 10%. And what this requirement is adding on is a, is a substantial increase, right? So as Amanda sort of calculate, if you wanna calculate the 150 feet times 200 units, it's, it's about 30,000 square feet and 10% open space.
In addition now brings you to 45,000. So a whole acre out of a four acre site, it's dedicated to either outdoor open space and that's in addition to anything that you also have from your setbacks and the setbacks in the front and the rear have landscape open space requirements as well. So you're, you're actually hitting up there with, given that the goal is to sort of create this transit oriented higher, higher density development, it's kind
of pushing in the, in the other direction. So, you know, I think we had looked at this and just said that if, if, if you didn't exclude the setback areas from this calculation, it probably works okay. Particularly it like if you have other, obviously you have other lots in this district, right? That in many cases are smaller lots than this one. And so when you start to look at the impact of not being able to count any area in your setbacks towards your open space requirements,
it really becomes, I think, challenging. Right? So just to throw out for your consideration, maybe you just remove the language that doesn't allow us to count the area within the setbacks towards your outdoor, outdoor space calculations. Speaker 3: Sure. I know we've Speaker 6: Gone, it's gonna be a lot. It's gonna be a lot a big area. It's gonna be an acre. Yeah. Right. So it's, yeah, it's a lot. And it seems like you should be able to count anywhere on your lot actually, right? I mean, to meet that requirement,
Speaker 1: Is there a sense that there should be a, a percentage that should not be gone above in terms of, you know, what is say required setback that should there be a, a limit to how much of the open space is, is in the setback? Speaker 6: Well, I, I think if, you know, it's kind of funny that I, you know, you're saying you can't count it in your setback area, but if you put it on somebody else's property, you can count it, you know, and get a restriction. So it's, I don't know,
I I conceptually it seems like you're trying to make sure, recognize this is relatively high density development, but making sure there's areas on your site that are amenities to the residents of the project, that open space they can use and enjoy. Right? And so yes, you could put it somewhere else down the street, I guess, but that doesn't really make it an amenity to people who live there. So I mean, I I I, I would like to find a way to make it work on the site first and foremost. If you can't, then yeah, you could look at some offsite
opportunities, but it doesn't, it doesn't serve the residents as well if it's somewhere down the street. But it serves probably the public better, but not, not the residents. Speaker 3: I mean, I appreciate that comment, Jamie. I mean, Andy and Terry, you know, you've been on the board longer, you know, and I think, I guess the one project in my mind that sticks out with this issue, what is it, 30 Pleasant, was that the one right where it's the senior living project Speaker 1: I was thinking of Union Street
Speaker 3: Is that Thank you Union. Thank you. Yeah, that's the one right where it, it was, it was sort of a conversation with the board about the, the quality of the open space and the side setbacks and you know, there was walking paths and bird feeders and all that stuff. And I don't know, I mean, I kind of, I'm of the mind that if it's the, if if it's in the setback and it's quality, then it's open space, right? And, and it, you know, I I I'm tracking with the comments that were just made and if it's form-based code,
we shouldn't get too prescriptive about that, you know? So yeah, I, there there's definitely gonna be an equal or a point where, you know, diminishing returns, right? Number of housing units, whatever, footprint of the building, a lot of things competing to be in a, on a site, open space, circulation, parking, everything else. So I don't know if there's an easy way to address that question. I'd be, I'd be all ears for it. Speaker 1: Well, and it's tricky because the Union Street project is in the finishing stages
and it'll be interesting to see how, how that does work, because it was, it, it was noted to have particular merit in terms of the quality of the open space. So it'd be interest to have that as, and they were asking for a Speaker 4: Bonus. Speaker 1: What's that? Speaker 4: The, the other tricky thing is they were asking for a bonus Yes. Of units based on the, and, and that subjectivity revealed itself that, you know, we couldn't agree. This seems to, if I'm not mistaken, this takes the bonus nature out of it. So there is, you know, I think under the review process that we'll have, we'll be able
to comment on it, maybe shape it a little bit, but we don't have to make a determination that they get an extra floor or an extra 10%. And, and for that I'm grateful because that was, it was hard to make an objective decision obviously. So I, to me, I think there's enough here that under review we'll be able to kind of, you know, make sure that it's good and appropriate without being prescriptive and, you know, literally mandating materials or, or qualifying for bonuses. So I think we can work with it as it is. Speaker 1: I think the challenge, and I agree it's a, it's a lesser challenge than having a bonus provision,
but on what the word what, what quality, what constitutes quality space is what we'll have to kind of come to some sort of agreement, agreement on. Speaker 4: I I think we'll know it when we see it. Speaker 2: Could we actually just delete no numeral two, which is the required outdoor space shall not be counted towards the minimum open space or setback requirements of no numeral four C, which would then bump up three to two. But could you actually have it where the planning board is reviewing that, like the applicant presents it
to the board and says, here's where we're doing it. We're doing this whole like landscape terrace along the frontage to activate the street front and it's within the front setback and we're providing this open space elsewhere over here and we're actually creating a walking trail in the back to like loop around so people can walk around it, let the planning board figure it out during site plan review because it's planning board and the DRB that's reviewing it and letting the applicant kind of move it around. Because specifically the site that we're all kind of talking about right now, it would be a good walking path
if you think about it, if they walked, they created a walking path around the perimeter of that site so you could get a dog or something that'd be a good at least quarter mile. What, what, what page are you on that Speaker 3: You're thinking about possibly Speaker 2: Deleting? Oh yeah, so if you go to page five five, it's under J residential outdoor space. And so it would be number, number rule two, the required outdoor space shall have accounted towards the minimum open space or yard setback. Speaker 3: Yeah, Speaker 2: Delete that line.
But then rework number three, still giving the applicant the option to do it onsite or offsite, but it's gotta be reviewed and approved where it is like, I don't know, it just seems like you could do a nice front Speaker 3: Tip. I personally like that a lot. They really, really do. I think it gets to, it gets to the point of the comment that was just made. I think it, it, you know, yeah, it, it, it, it will preserve open space. It'll definitely be a requirement. How it gets arranged on the site. Again, competing with everything else
that's gotta go into a project like this. I think it gives us, you know, a lot of, a lot of flexibility to create a quality project that's not prescriptive. 'cause sometimes those prescriptions have counter effects, you know, and Jamie, I hope you appreciate, you know, past experience in any playing board, you know, comes into play in a regulation or a zoning bylaw says, let's, let's not repeat that conversation or let's not have that scenario show up again. Let's try to do it in a, you know, in a bylaw. And I think, you know, a lot of that thinking kind
of creep into to, to some of these conversations. So I'd be, I'd be before what you just proposed, Amanda. Speaker 2: Okay. And would you still want it the 150 with the 50 50? Okay. So yeah, Speaker 3: That, that's, that to me that's like, you know, stating it's a, that's gotta be a minimum. It's, it's tied to the enjoyment of the property and the project by the residents. You know, you're, you're, you're accounting for that. It's just where it gets arranged and how that calculates to the percentage is something the P board can work with an applicant on. I I like that. So, Speaker 2: Okay, so we'll leave number one alone.
Let me just share this so you can see what I'm, to make sure we get the language right. So number has, oh, there we go. Okay, so we've got number two here. So I've already deleted number two, bumped up this one. How about we write the outdoor open space component may be provided onsite or satisfied by securing permanently as approved by the planning. Like does that work? Speaker 3: Yeah, Speaker 2: Because it's got the onsite and it's got the offsite and it's approval of the planning board. Speaker 3: Yeah, because you're taking the words outdoor open space, you're, you're pulling down from one above and so in totality right,
it it gives us the ability to review it all and approve it. Speaker 2: Yep. It'll be a usable, open outdoor open space. Okay, great. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 6: I appreciate that. That's really, I think a very, very positive change if I can just on the parking revisions that you made, which I think are great and, and that, yeah, I mean I think that's pretty standard these days to do a time of use, time of day analysis of parking and making sure that the mix of all the uses there are
leaving you at a, at a point that's sufficient to meet demand but not excessive. Right. I will say, I mean I, i, I kind of hesitate to bring this up a little bit, but I think as you know, the property owner had some concern about retail parking and I'm, I'm just wondering, do you absolutely need to cap the amount of parking that is recommended in this study at the existing zoning requirements?
Or could if the situation develop that you might actually show you need a little bit more than your existing zoning requires? I'm just, I think the point is to have to set the parking demand, not based on the prescriptive zoning use by use requirements, but by, you know, professional traffic engineer study that shows what the actual demand is on this site, given all the factors. So I'm wondering whether you really need that cap or whether that could just come out. Speaker 5: I think she was kind of, I think in a way was
thinking about the, like the proposed or the, you know, I guess we say required, but are we saying the provided parking or required? I think maybe we just wanna be careful how we're referring to it because I, I think the point is that we're not, we wanna give some flexibility, right? Yeah, Speaker 6: Yeah. I Speaker 5: To work for, you know, the town and for, for you guys. So I think she was just trying to get a point where if you took each calculation separately, added them together, you know, the number really
that you might need for the site might be lower than adding them all together separately. Definitely wouldn't be higher, you know, it'd be that or lower. Yeah. So we said the required number of parking, that's not necessarily the provided number of parking. Like you could provide more than required by zoning, right? Yeah, Speaker 6: Yeah. That, that would probably work. Might Speaker 5: Not want to, but Speaker 2: I guess or we, or, or land bank it. Speaker 6: Yeah. So I think that was the thing we were thinking is that if, as long as you're not, you know, capping the numbers, certainly you wanna provide either
what the zoning requires or what the study says you require. But if, if you provide a little bit more as, as Amanda was outlining elsewhere here you can, you know, land bank it essentially, if you don't need it initially and then things change down the road, the use mix of use has changed or something like that, then you can convert them over to parking. So at least you have the opportunity to provide that. Speaker 2: So do we really actually even need this line? Because the study is, it was also to protect, like to make sure like you, you weren't providing,
but if you delete this, it's still at the review and the approval of the plan. Speaker 6: Yeah, it's still, it, it would, yeah. Yeah. I think it works if you take it out. It just means that the study ends up setting the requirements for the bargain. Speaker 3: It also, that last sentence stays right, which says, you know, we're trying to avoid unnecessary oversupply, right? Yeah. And so, Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah. I love that last sentence. 'cause I think that makes it clear what the goal is that we were trying to achieve, right? Yeah. Speaker 2: Because like right up here, just making sure, like it says submittal to, of the parking study, to the planning board for review and approval,
Speaker 6: Right? Speaker 2: So it's Speaker 6: Yeah. You, you have to approve it. It's not just what the consultant says. Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. And the intention is to ensure that it's adequate and we're not having unnecessary oversupply. Yep. Yep. That makes sense. Speaker 1: Very good. Any, anything else or We do we want a chance to see if there are other, other questions from people in attendance Speaker 6: If I can figure out how to no longer appear on the screen. That would make me happy. I don't know what I do. Okay. Speaker 2: I can promote you if you'd like. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Well, awesome. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: And Amanda, do we have any
hands raised at this point? Speaker 2: I'm not seeing any hand raised. There's only, as you probably can see, there's one person in the audience. Well now two, but I, I'm not seeing any hands raised. Speaker 1: Alright. Do I, is there further discussion or do we feel like what we have now covers the changes that have been made and the questions and concerns that have been raised? Speaker 4: Well, we've made some, we've made some more changes, but I think we've agreed on all of them. So I'd say as amended and its latest form, I would make a motion
to recommend favorable action. Speaker 1: Are you good? Is there a second? Second Speaker 3: On article four. Okay. Second four, right Min? Yes. Speaker 4: Yeah, that is in fact ba following Speaker 1: What this article 24. Speaker 3: Okay. I second that. Speaker 4: Good enough? Yeah. Speaker 1: Alright, so the motion made and seconded for a vote. All of those in favor by voice vote. Andy. Speaker 4: My aye Speaker 1: A Speaker 5: Due to your Speaker 1: Doug Speaker 3: Landry. Aye. Speaker 1: And Evan's Aye. So that has passed. Do we wanna go back to 23?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 3: Should we close up upon the, close the hearing for 24? Speaker 1: Thank you very much. I move to close the hearing. Speaker 3: Yes, I move that second. Speaker 1: Alright. Motion made and seconded. All of those in favor, Doug? Speaker 3: Aye. Speaker 1: Andy Mayor. Speaker 4: Aye. Speaker 1: Aye. Alan Speaker 5: Re Aye Speaker 1: And Evans Aye. So the hearing is closed. Alright, so go back to 23. Speaker 2: Okay. So I don't know if anyone had any comments on 23. We didn't receive any edits. We did a lot of editing except for the one
that Terry you just mentioned regarding the car wash details center. The, everything else was, I think what we had captured in the public hearing on Tuesday of last week. I think these odd days and Wednesdays are messing up my schedule. Speaker 3: Yeah, I just say Amanda again just vastly simplifies our bylaw. Yeah. In, in, in and just vastly simplifies it makes it a lot more readable, user-friendly, less, less risk of contradictory terms and definitions.
And I think it's a major step forward. Speaker 1: You, you, you moved a lot of things to the active voice, which I think always makes things clearer and I, as I was reading through it, it, it was very striking because it, it takes it outta feeling kind of passive and was just bureaucratic. But I think it makes it more the, the language more powerful. So with the revised version, do I have a motion to recommend favorable action on subject matter of Article 23? Speaker 4: So moved. Speaker 1: Moved by Andy, second by Doug.
I'll, I'll make a roll call vote. Andy Speaker 4: Meyer. Aye. Speaker 1: Doug Speaker 3: Ry Aye. Speaker 1: Alan Speaker 5: Aye. Speaker 1: And Evans Aye. A motion to close the public hearing. Speaker 4: So moved. Speaker 1: Moved by Mr. Meyer. Seconded by, Speaker 3: I'll second it. Speaker 1: I second by Mr. Cloutier. All those in favor? Mr. Meyer? Speaker 4: Meyer? Aye. Speaker 1: Mr. Cloutier? Speaker 3: Cloutier. Aye. Speaker 1: Mr. Landry. Speaker 3: Landry. Aye. Speaker 1: And Evans. Aye. So that hearing is closed
and do we have other business this afternoon that we, that we still need to cover? Speaker 2: The only other business I have is just so everyone's aware that Microsoft Word is, has a mind of its own Today when we were reviewing the edits that were sent over trails was spelt correctly, but it provided me with an alternative grammar suggestion of, some words are similar but are used differently and they offered the word to substitute trails for trials. Speaker 1: Someone's on drugs. Okay. Speaker 2: Microsoft Office. Yes. But other than
that we don't have anything. We're at bin comm tonight for quite a few of the articles and then we'll be bringing forward 23, 24 and 25 to fin com next week, which is the seventh. Speaker 1: Right. And so this, this then completes the public hearings for us. Yep. For fall town meeting, right? Yep. Speaker 2: And we don't meet again. Actually do we? We Speaker 3: Meet on Monday. Speaker 2: Do we need to meet on the sixth? Because didn't we continue 50? I'll double check. I thought we continued 52 to October 22nd.
So let me, yeah, we did check. So we don't have anything scheduled for October 6th. Speaker 4: Let's cancel it. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. So wait, so when is, when is 52? Speaker 2: 52? I believe we continue to the 22nd. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: Yeah. 22nd. Yeah. Speaker 1: Alright, then entertain a motion to, we've closed all the hearings that need closing. Right? So I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Speaker 4: So moved with deference of watching the Red Sox Yankees baseball game in about five minutes.
Speaker 1: Oh, go for it. Alright. Motion made. Seconded. Speaker 3: Yes, second. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. All those in favor say aye Andy, everybody. Good night. Speaker 3: All right, thank you. Nice job, Amanda. Good luck tonight. Speaker 4: Thank you. Bye Speaker 1: Bye. Thanks.