[0:00] This is the planning board meeting of August 25th, 2026. I have here tonight, Dan Berry, Andrew Osborne,

[0:13] Alisa Gardner-Toddress, and then, who are members of the board, and then we have Chris Ryan,

[0:21] director of planning and building, and Connor McCormick. I forgot your title. Can you please

[0:29] would mind me. Planning division manager. Okay, thank you. Sorry about that. And then I would like to call the meeting to order.

[0:41] So the first item we have on the list was election of officers. I thought we should just talk about things but I would prefer to defer until we have Steve here at our next meeting.

[0:54] So if that's okay with you, we will put that off to our next meeting.

[1:01] That sound amenable?

[1:04] Sure.

[1:05] Are you guys amenable to that?

[1:07] Of course for me.

[1:10] Okay.

[1:13] The next item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from August 4th.

[1:19] I have one minor comment, which was it said the meeting was remote, but it was in person.

[1:25] then I think that one mistake is carried through a few minutes.

[1:34] So I think it just needs to get fixed.

[1:39] OK, just also to let you know that we have Lynn O'Rigan tonight joining us.

[1:46] She won't be promoted to panelists, but she is our new planning and zoning administrator.

[1:52] and so after this meeting she'll be taking over from Michelle. So I just want to welcome Lynn.

[2:01] Great. Hi, welcome Lynn.

[2:06] We appreciate that. We know it's a really important piece of our job

[2:11] that are all of our jobs. So I'm glad to have someone on board to help us. So we have no new public hearing.

[2:24] next on our agenda. Did you want to vote on those minutes?

[2:32] Oh yeah, I'm sorry.

[2:36] Does anyone else have any other changes to them?

[2:41] No. Or edits?

[2:47] No. Andy?

[2:48] No, no changes. No ways.

[2:52] Alisa? No changes. No. Okay. Move to approve the minutes of August 4th, 2026, with that

[3:02] one edit about the meeting being in person, not remote. Do I hear a second? Second?

[3:14] All those in favor?

[3:15] Hi. Hi. Okay. Minutes are approved. So we have, as I said, no new public hearings are continued

[3:27] public hearing. Case 26-16, request to amend special permit and DSPR for 45 chestnut. I understand

[3:39] there's been a request to continue to September 8th, 2026, but I would like either Chris or Connor

[3:46] to address why we're postponing that. Yes, so we received a message from the applicant asking

[3:59] the hearing to continue to the 8th of September to allow the peer review consultants to complete their

[4:07] work. The peer review consultants have been retained and they're doing their work. They've

[4:13] already had a site visit, so I'm very confident that we'll have a report well in advance

[4:19] of the meeting of the 8th, and so that is the reason for the continuance.

[4:28] Does anyone on the board have any questions about that?

[4:31] All right. Well, I will move to continue case 26-16 to September 8, 2026.

[4:44] Second. All those in favor?

[4:48] Aye.

[4:51] Okay.

[4:54] So our next continued public hearing is the proposed zoning by-law amendments.

[5:04] And so Chris or Connor, whoever's going to ask through these if you could please jump in.

[5:15] I'd appreciate it.

[5:16] So the first one definitions, we are not going to be discussing at the moment, correct?

[5:22] Correct.

[5:24] Yeah.

[5:24] I'm sure my screen can really see that.

[5:27] Yes.

[5:28] Okay.

[5:29] Great.

[5:29] So I believe.

[5:31] Before you get going, I think I see Madeline in the attendees list of, oh, okay, let me get her.

[5:39] Oh, there she is.

[5:44] Great. Thank you.

[5:52] Was she able to join? I think so. Yes. Thank you.

[5:56] Great. Okay. Thanks. Hi, Madeline. Welcome to the planning board. I don't know if you've met the other members on the board, but if you could take like one minute and introduce yourself.

[6:11] Sure.

[6:12] Great.

[6:13] Sure.

[6:14] Thanks.

[6:15] Hi, sorry.

[6:15] I was looking for the Zoom link.

[6:18] Now I know where to find it.

[6:19] Sorry.

[6:20] My name is Madeleine Fraser Cook.

[6:23] And I live on Orchard Street.

[6:27] I've been in town for many years now.

[6:33] My kids have gone through the schools.

[6:36] Have a sophomore in college and a senior.

[6:39] starting up in at Belmont High. I am a planner by training. I went to MIT, the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, got my Masters in City Planning, and my background is in the intersection of affordable housing, community development and sustainability.

[6:59] I've worked with the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a lead technical assistance provider for them for their community planning development programs and have spent many years in the community development finance institution sector working for the local initiative support corporation.

[7:24] And my husband is a professor at the Harvard Medical School, and he does access to health care research, health policy, and I am really happy to be here with you all and learn from you.

[7:46] And so I will be soaking it all in this evening. Thank you.

[7:49] Thank you very much.

[7:53] Welcome.

[7:55] Welcome.

[7:56] Welcome.

[7:57] Thank you.

[7:59] All right, Chris.

[8:02] Yes, so we have a presentation for you of slideshow that has most of what we're going to be talking about tonight.

[8:11] Starting with the inclusionary housing section 6.10.

[8:16] So let me get to that, but I just before I do that, I just want to talk about our agenda tonight.

[8:22] We're going to discuss the inclusionary housing, the new zoning draft for the HCOD, the use table.

[8:30] We'll talk about roof types and graphics, and then we're going to get from the board hopefully feedback

[8:35] and closing out of the discussion of the uses and comments and direction on design.

[8:40] And then at the end, we'll have a brief discussion, very brief on rules and regulations.

[8:47] So we're going to start with the inclusionary housing text edits and I will turn it over

[8:52] to Connor with the next slide.

[8:55] Thank you.

[8:57] Yeah, so I just wanted to follow up mostly from our discussion at the last meeting on the

[9:03] 4th. I think as most of the members know, although this is maybe a good refresher for Madeline,

[9:12] we are looking at a series of proposed amendments to section 610, the inclusionary housing

[9:18] by-law within the zoning by-laws. These changes were initiated by the Belmont housing trust,

[9:23] along with staff partially in relation to a review of a recently completed inclusionary housing

[9:30] development. So some of those changes that were included were clarifying and adding definitions,

[9:39] increasing the time frame of the development from two years to five years,

[9:43] capping the cash payment in lieu option for affordable developments to six to ten ownership

[9:50] units rather than just six or more ownership units, clarifying that cash payment option shall be

[9:57] equal to 5% of the total projected sale price of the entire development instead of just

[10:02] the affordable units.

[10:05] And to require disclosure of related development activities and adding requirements for monitoring

[10:12] for affordable ownership units.

[10:15] At the last meeting we reviewed some additional proposed changes from Robert McGaw, folks are

[10:23] probably familiar with him.

[10:24] And some of the types of changes that he proposes, it was a lot of capitalization, clarifying

[10:31] terms, adding definitions, things like that.

[10:34] So we reviewed those additional proposed changes at the last meeting, and I think without

[10:38] any significant concerns, those were incorporated into the version that was provided to you

[10:47] in your packet ahead up to night.

[10:50] And then there were a couple other ones that we, a couple other small changes that we reviewed during the meeting that came up during the meeting and they're outlined here.

[11:00] One was just to remove some language from the definition for a monitoring agent.

[11:07] It's just getting it into the board's public or nonprofit so that any qualified entity would be eligible to be the monitoring agent.

[11:17] For the regulatory agreement, we added that is agreement between the town, the EOHLC, and

[11:25] the property owner, while we didn't have HLC previously in that definition.

[11:31] And then in section 610.9B, this is the section where we had language that required any affordable

[11:43] units to look at any related contiguous or commonly controlled lots that the development

[11:51] had.

[11:52] And there's some discussion regarding how that would be interpreted.

[11:58] So we came up with some revised language where we're tying the contiguous or commonly

[12:04] controlled lots to any activity that is part of the same development.

[12:07] So you can see in that green underlying section there where it says, where such activity

[12:13] is part of the same development project, a phase development project, or otherwise

[12:17] represents a coordinated development of the lots.

[12:21] So I think that kind of captures what we were trying to achieve there.

[12:26] Yeah.

[12:27] And then otherwise, unless there's any question on those few changes that were discussed

[12:31] at the last meeting outlined here, the next step would be to approve the proposed amendment

[12:37] as they are now. And then eventually incorporating into the final public hearing recommendation vote,

[12:45] when we get to that point for all of these proposed amendments that are part of this public hearing.

[12:51] I just have one tiny minor question with the capitalization of development in that 6, 10, 9,

[13:00] be the last one coordinator development seems like that's a slightly different use of that word

[13:07] that shouldn't be capitalized. I do think it fits in the general sphere of the same intent.

[13:18] Okay. I mean I can talk to town council next time we speak to them but I do think that falls

[13:25] in the domain of that definition that we're intending to be capitalized.

[13:36] I have a question to do.

[13:38] I'm wondering it says that information, let's see, information reasonably required by

[13:46] the inspector buildings or planning board, but we don't get to opine about permits unless

[13:54] they're special permits, isn't that correct?

[13:57] Well,

[14:00] there is a provision in 610 currently that does, and that's actually a preview to what will be coming at probably at your next meeting.

[14:10] There is a provision in 610 that requires a planning board to review and approve certain documents related to affordable units.

[14:21] So I think that's where the planning board gets roped in here as well.

[14:26] Okay, so if somebody is getting a permit by right, they still would have to go through this step.

[14:32] You're saying if it's an inclusionary housing.

[14:34] Yes.

[14:35] Yeah, if the inclusionary housing requirements are triggered then the planning board to be the reviewer in the case.

[14:42] Okay.

[14:43] One other thing.

[14:45] Actually, I'm glad Andy brought that passage up.

[14:47] I we're going to have to change the inspector of buildings to building commissioner.

[14:55] Okay, yeah, we can make that.

[15:04] So, where the last comment is about a final public hearing recommendation vote, are we voting on all of these amendments in the same meeting? Or are we doing those individually? Yeah, I think that was confirming. To make sure that people weren't confused by having them drawn out in different votes over a period of time.

[15:32] I think we talked about it that the last meeting and I think that makes sense.

[15:38] Okay, so does anyone on the board have any questions, concerns about these additional items that were updated or the inclusionary zoning changes?

[15:58] is

[16:02] okay. Seeing none, should we? Does anyone wait a minute? How do I get back there?

[16:11] There is anybody in the public right now that has their hand raised. You may want to call for

[16:16] that, but right now they don't. Okay. Any public comments on inclusionary zoning?

[16:25] Okay.

[16:28] So do we want to move on to the next one then?

[16:32] Yes, yes, we can do that.

[16:35] Thank you.

[16:37] Do my madam chairman, if I take these out of order from the agenda?

[16:42] Sure.

[16:42] That's fine.

[16:43] Great, I appreciate it.

[16:44] So the first thing we're going to talk about are the overlay text edits for hills crossing.

[16:54] and hopefully you saw the new draft in the folder in the shared folder.

[17:01] It's been available for several days now.

[17:05] We have a clean version in there and we have a red line version.

[17:10] So hopefully you've had an opportunity to take a look at them.

[17:13] And so just a summary of the recent actions that we've been taken.

[17:17] We revised this HCOD by-law based on comments from the board and the public.

[17:24] We also, in parallel with that, revised BCOD based on comments from the public.

[17:31] Town Council is reviewed and provided comments on BCOD, but their comments on the HCOD are pending.

[17:38] Able City, our consultant, has contributed revisions to the Zoning Text and are prepared to revise the graphics and tables after this meeting.

[17:45] and their subcontractor tangible impact is in the process of developing the build-out analysis.

[17:55] So, just as you...

[17:56] Oh, can you explain why you included the two things on the same?

[18:02] Why do changes of BCOD matter to the HCOD?

[18:09] I just compiled them in this one slide to have a little...

[18:14] Okay, we do the rest of the slide show is split between they're separated.

[18:19] So, okay, thank you for that.

[18:21] Yep.

[18:22] Okay.

[18:24] This, these are the revised maps, the regulating plan, which is the zoning map and the revised

[18:30] special requirements map.

[18:32] You can see in the special requirements map that there is what's called side yard accommodation,

[18:38] which is down here below by Hamilton and up here by Troy.

[18:43] Jason to the residential parcels. You can see this very small purple area right

[18:50] here which is called required corner storefront frontage which is intended

[18:56] to allow the transition between the community path and the storefronts on

[19:01] Brighton Street to be seamless. And then you can of course see the this kind of

[19:08] aqua-colored line which is the community path frontage and of course on the right side you can see the

[19:16] changes that were made based on your vote to the zoning map.

[19:22] In terms of the dimensional table

[19:25] the changes that were made from the last draft to this draft include flipping the columns for

[19:33] for FP2 and FP3 so that they were in order.

[19:38] So basically we just took the numbers for one

[19:41] and just moved it over to the other column.

[19:43] That's all that was done there.

[19:46] And we redeveloped the FP6 based on the new sub-district

[19:51] that members created at the last meeting.

[19:56] And if you can see down below,

[20:01] suggested maybe calling it the innovation and enterprise center sub-district. If you guys don't

[20:06] like that, please let me know, but that seemed to be something acceptable at the last meeting, but

[20:13] we have time to deal with that. We increased the accommodation in FB6 adjacent to residential district

[20:23] to four stories so that would be a transition down from 6 to 4 as it got to a

[20:31] certain distance toward residential zone land. And then finally we need to

[20:38] rename the maximum rear and side yard accommodation to residential proximity

[20:44] accommodation which is something you'll see later on in the text. So I'll just pause

[20:50] here for a second to see if anybody has any questions about the zoning

[20:54] dimensional table. I will say that Abel City just sent me an email about an hour

[21:01] ago saying that they had a couple of small tweaks to the dimensional table but

[21:06] largely they felt like everything was fine.

[21:11] Great.

[21:11] You're going to me, Chris, why are we eliminated FB4?

[21:17] We eliminated FB4 because we just renamed it actually because we wanted to make sure that each

[21:27] of our FB districts were the same across all areas. Like for example, the FB2 here has the same

[21:37] dimensions as the FB2 in the center zoning. So what we're trying to do is we're trying to use a

[21:44] very consistent typology across these areas.

[21:55] So in the use table, you can see that we added the word minimum to parking requirements,

[22:03] although we're not really talking about that yet.

[22:06] Live work space has been changed to live work unit.

[22:11] Senior active living residential has been changed to independent living facility to be consistent

[22:17] across all of our bylaws.

[22:19] We talked about uses at the last meeting and one of the slides talked about all these

[22:26] different potential innovative type uses that we could include.

[22:30] And there was one slide that said we could also put them under an umbrella category of

[22:36] business innovation enterprise.

[22:39] And so I just threw that in there in case that's something that you wanted to go with.

[22:45] But if you wanted to also get more specific, we could do that as well.

[22:50] And then we broke the hotel into the three classes that they are in section 6.15, 1,

[22:58] 2, and 3, and then laid out the different zoning districts that, you know, we felt like

[23:03] they would be appropriate in.

[23:06] And then we moved mixed use from commercial down to other uses because it's not just commercial,

[23:13] it's commercial and residential. So that was moved down here. One of the things that came across

[23:21] my desk in the last week is that there is actually another category of senior housing, which is

[23:28] called active adult. It's something that's becoming more popular. And the difference between active

[23:36] of adult and independent living is that active adult typically does not have the medical

[23:42] services or other assistant services that the independent living facility does.

[23:49] So there was a company that said you may be interested in adding that category because

[23:55] there are a lot of companies that are looking to build specifically that type of housing.

[24:00] So, the board may feel that we should add that as well.

[24:04] I think it might be a good idea.

[24:06] Two other things.

[24:08] Number one, presently this table in the draft, I missed it, is also labeled 3-2, so that

[24:15] needs to be corrected.

[24:17] And then finally, for FB1, because we do want to encourage a certain type of commercial

[24:23] activity in there, we may want to consider certain types of uses like landscaping and

[24:28] nursery, veterinarian, specialty craft fabrication,

[24:32] which is a native use type of typology,

[24:35] artisan production, which is framing ham,

[24:38] or other types of heavier uses

[24:40] not focused on motor vehicles.

[24:43] So we're gonna get down to the use discussion

[24:46] as we go down below.

[24:51] So continuing on to some of the changes that were made,

[24:54] we, the board talked about a 250 foot separation

[24:58] of things like bars, taverns, breweries, and distilleries,

[25:03] and rooftop bars, things like that.

[25:05] And so I added some language to provide a 250 foot separation.

[25:12] In the section D, which is now labeled use requirements,

[25:16] instead of mixed use required, we are still requiring one residential floor.

[25:22] We haven't really made any decision on that yet.

[25:24] But note that if we do continue to go that route, note that the FB6 will need to be a separate article if it remains commercial only.

[25:40] And then members talked about allowing hotel uses to be a part of a mixed use building so that the type 1 hotel could potentially be in certain districts

[25:53] as part of a larger building, so we added that provision that a hotel use may be incorporated

[25:59] into mixed use building that also includes residential and or other commercial uses, provided

[26:04] the provisions of section 6.15 are adhered to, and that language has to be added.

[26:13] Let me pause there.

[26:16] Oh, you're going to let me fly through this, aren't you? Okay.

[26:19] Well, I have a question. Does anyone else on the board have a question about this?

[26:29] I did have a question about the parking.

[26:32] I'm just wondering if the hotel comes in and they choose the minimum 0.5 spaces per room.

[26:39] And what happens if they have an overflow situation where there's more cars?

[26:45] Are we giving them any kind of options for where to park those?

[26:48] Yes.

[26:49] You remember that when we were talking about the center zoning, there's all sorts of shared

[26:54] parking provisions.

[26:56] and so those would apply here as well, okay?

[27:02] So my question is about the 250 foot separation

[27:06] from our districts.

[27:09] So did you lay it out on the map?

[27:13] I did one area.

[27:17] It was the one near Baker Street, but I haven't done it in all areas.

[27:22] So I think we should look at it because I just worry

[27:27] that you end up with, like, just a couple parcels where anyone could do anything like that.

[27:35] Okay, yeah, Conor and I can do that.

[27:37] So I just think it's worth checking. I'm maybe wrong, but, you know, I think of Hillestates or I don't know.

[27:47] Some of the other ones.

[27:48] Actually, what maybe we can ask GIS to do a buffer map for us.

[27:54] That would be great.

[27:56] Yeah, I think that would be great too.

[27:58] Okay.

[27:59] I think visually for other people as well just to see what we're talking about.

[28:05] Okay.

[28:06] Thank you.

[28:07] My thought is a 250 maybe too big a number.

[28:11] Right.

[28:12] Okay.

[28:13] Thank you.

[28:16] All right.

[28:17] So in the building type table,

[28:20] we removed several types,

[28:23] And particularly because of, you know, the, we're not, we no longer have the, the Hill

[28:29] of States in there.

[28:31] So the building types that remain our main street mix use type, a high rise type, and

[28:40] an artisan commercial type for the FB1.

[28:44] And you can see that we added the key and also a general key of not allowed allowed in

[28:52] the text of the zoning so people know exactly what that means instead of having to read it in the text.

[28:59] Coupled small edits are necessary. When I went through this slide show, I saw a couple things

[29:04] that need to be tweaked, but nothing substantial, but these would be the three building types

[29:11] allowed in the overlay. If you guys would like some other building types, that's great,

[29:17] But these are the three primary types,

[29:24] Alan.

[29:25] So in terms of these building types,

[29:28] were these three that are no longer in here previously included,

[29:33] or they, and they've been taken out for some reason?

[29:38] Or is it that we are just considering these three that are approved

[29:44] and those were just a remnant of some other overlay district?

[29:47] No, they were they were they were definitely considered previously and I think because of how we've evolved in terms of the different zoning districts changing

[30:00] I think we have some heights and eliminating some other districts. We just sort of moved on beyond. So, for example, the live work building. I think that typology was probably flawed to begin with. I think what we want to, you know, say is a live work unit. So that was something that, you know, was kind of a path that we went down that was a dead end. In terms of the high rise, it used to be called high rise multifamily.

[30:28] I was intended for the Hillestates, and you can see that we changed the seven stories to six

[30:36] stories because the Hillestates already has seven story buildings, so we were going to allow that.

[30:41] So this high-rise category essentially replaces the mid-rise category,

[30:47] because essentially we felt that the main street mixed use really kind of mimicked the mid-rise.

[30:55] it really is sort of the same thing. So we eliminated the mid-rise, and then the small scale mixed use

[31:03] was really intended for a district that doesn't exist anymore, so we don't need that either.

[31:11] Okay, all right, thank you.

[31:18] So in this section, we revised the frontage types. We just made the language a little bit more refined.

[31:25] You know, it basically talks about the relationship of frontages to ground story active uses.

[31:33] The required storefront frontage, which connects to the special requirements map.

[31:39] We did some changes to the four courts, and I'll show you that later down in this slideshow.

[31:45] But essentially, when I show you the graphic of the four court, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

[31:53] So, the floor court graphic was really a residential building in a large city that had

[32:01] a very deep floor court, which is typically pretty standard for that type of building.

[32:07] But we weren't interested in the floor court typology for a residential building.

[32:13] We really wanted it to meet or fit in with a more of a storefront environment.

[32:19] So we looked around and saw what other communities were doing, and we saw that many of them had a much shallower and smaller forecourt that really was intended to be an extension of the outdoor space in the sidewalk in the public area.

[32:37] The four court in a residential building is not public space.

[32:40] It's not intended to be public space.

[32:43] But the four court for us here is definitely intended to be publicly accessible as part of the the storefront frontages.

[32:53] And so I will show you further down what we mean by that.

[32:57] We also felt like the colon aid, and I did ask this question, and it's certainly still

[33:03] up for debate, if you want to bring it back, that's fine.

[33:07] But I think really Conor and I give it a lot of thought, and we felt like the colon aid

[33:12] typology was not appropriate for Belmont.

[33:15] There isn't anything like it in Belmont.

[33:17] You have to go to air, I think, to see it.

[33:19] So I just I'm proposing that the colon aid typology be removed and then right

[33:29] here we have the required storefront frontage which basically talks about the

[33:35] frontage shall continue around the corner for a distance shown on the special

[33:40] requirements plan in order to reinforce a continuous and pedestrian oriented

[33:44] building edge. This is the section on required community path

[33:49] frontage. As we know, we want to make that a very active area

[33:54] as well. And then we have a provision for other frontage areas.

[33:59] So I think really the key elements here are that it requires ground story

[34:03] active uses as we've done in other zoning and the storefront

[34:07] frontage typology. And it also includes that community path

[34:11] frontage, which I think is probably the most exciting part of the overall program.

[34:21] All right. Any questions, comments?

[34:28] No, I mean, I think for the colony, I would say like I remember this discussion with Belmont

[34:32] Center and we eliminated it there. So it makes sense that we would not include it here as well.

[34:39] Yeah, yeah. I agree with you, but I do think that the four court might be an interesting feature.

[34:45] and I'll show you some pictures as to how it could look.

[34:51] So we added that public benefit incentive for the building height.

[34:57] Basically, if you want that additional seven feet of height, you must step back the fifth

[35:03] and six stories by ten feet each.

[35:07] And this is something that has already been proposed by a potential 40B project that has

[35:15] not made any progress, but we thought that the idea seemed like a good one for a building

[35:19] of that height.

[35:22] We also modified some of the requirements for the community path, you know, dealing

[35:28] with how it's measured, and so also in the pedestrian zone, the minimum depth instead

[35:34] of the minimum width, and thank you, Connor, for that catch.

[35:45] Now, have you measured to make sure there's enough room to do what?

[35:52] Well, if you're so between the buildings and the community path.

[36:03] There should be, yes, yes, there should be.

[36:07] Because essentially you're saying that those lots need to provide 12 feet to the public

[36:15] or 16 to 24.

[36:18] Yes, but that also includes right of way.

[36:21] Okay.

[36:24] I guess saying.

[36:28] I mean, it's it's from so are you measuring it?

[36:32] It says from the community path right of way where it intersects with a lot.

[36:37] So that's your from are your rear property line, depending on where it lies, right?

[36:45] Yeah. It's a good point.

[36:47] I'll take another look at it.

[36:48] And we'll ask Abel City to do that measurement for us before we continue with it.

[36:53] Thank you. I just my concern is that a lot of these lots are not very big. So when you require them to

[37:01] lock off 12 to 24 feet of their lot for tables and chairs and stuff, which are great amenities, but then they're left with nothing to develop or built.

[37:15] We'll double check it. Thank you.

[37:17] Yeah,

[37:20] so we're renaming the side yard accommodation to residential proximity accommodation.

[37:28] I think this actually is a really good term and because it doesn't deal with just side yards, there's also rear yards as well.

[37:36] So it's a good term and also we provided a footnote for an upper story step back.

[37:46] that it's any portion of a building above two stories should be stepped back in additional

[37:51] 10 feet from the required side set back adjacent to a residential zoning district boundary.

[37:57] And that is provided that a step back is not already provided as a half story.

[38:02] And I think we have to add side or rear into this as well.

[38:07] And then the landscape buffer and screening, this provision reads right now, landscape buffer

[38:15] with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided, Jason to any residential district

[38:19] boundary, a fence wall planting screener accommodation thereof may be used to satisfy this requirement.

[38:26] I just wanted to see if the board agreed with those different options, or if you felt any

[38:32] of these would really be not that workable in terms of providing that kind of buffer.

[38:42] or if you've got a tall building adjacent to a residential district, you know, a fencer

[38:48] wall probably is not going to do a whole lot for you, but, you know, the screening,

[38:54] the planting materials probably take a while to grow to a sufficient height as well.

[39:00] So what do you have any thoughts about that or, you know, we could certainly talk about

[39:04] it later, but I just want to bring this to your attention.

[39:10] Does anyone have any comments?

[39:15] I think mechanical equipment should be screened.

[39:20] Right.

[39:21] Oh, that's absolutely.

[39:23] I mean, it's already required in our by-law.

[39:25] But I'm not sure it needs a five-foot-buffer, but I think it needs something.

[39:34] Yeah, no, I definitely agree.

[39:35] This is more of a broad-based buffer and screening for, you know, the overall building itself,

[39:41] no matter what, you know, features were included, mechanicals there, otherwise.

[39:45] But yeah, I mean if we need to be more specific and include that is the in the description, we can do that.

[39:52] I just trash is always the other big one.

[39:56] Absolutely. Oh yeah.

[39:57] And all of our, you know, waste containers, there have to be, have to be screened anyway.

[40:06] But anyway, think about that.

[40:07] I mean, to me, it looks fine, except for my discomfort a little bit is with a wall and different people's kind of interpretation of what that is, especially right next to a residential area.

[40:24] I don't know how you deal with it in language, it doesn't kind of start kind of putting out their aesthetics.

[40:34] but just something that, when I saw that, I was like oh, you know, I'm okay with a wall generally, but what kind of wall might that be?

[40:46] Right, it's a good point. And, you know, we do have some information in our section 7.3. And also, I believe there are some elements in our Belmont Center overlay district as well that might relate to this.

[41:03] So let me cross check that as well and see if there's something that might, you know, at least inform that a little bit more.

[41:10] But if not, you know, we can certainly remove the wall.

[41:18] Thank you.

[41:19] And then screening service areas, service areas, loading areas, mechanical equipment, shall be screened from view from Jason residential properties as per the BCOD105E5B.

[41:32] I think that's what you're talking about right there.

[41:35] Yeah.

[41:35] Yeah, okay.

[41:40] Okay, again, this is the changing the side yard accommodation to residential adjacency and of course we're are we going to change that in the Belmont Center overlay district as well.

[41:53] I think I might have done that, but I will I'm doing a transcript of this meeting so I'm basically getting this word for word.

[42:02] So I'll go back and double check that, but I do believe that we've made a lot of

[42:07] consistencies across the two. Thank you. And we're getting rid of the Water

[42:14] Body Accommodation and the specially planned area provision because we

[42:21] don't have the health states anymore.

[42:27] And there was other sections that related

[42:29] to Water Body and specially planned area, we remove those also.

[42:35] So that is the

[42:38] HCOD by law, be glad to answer any final questions on it before we move on to the BCOD.

[42:49] Hey, Chris, we talked at the last meeting about possibly letting all the floors be commercial.

[42:58] Maybe all the floors, I guess, along we've been out requiring all the floors to be residential, all the floors to be commercial.

[43:05] So is that, I mean, that's still an open issue, right?

[43:10] Yeah, I think one of the things that we would not do is make allow all floors to be residential.

[43:15] I think we want to have that required ground floor commercial pretty much universally.

[43:22] But I think that the question would be whether the upper floors could basically be either or.

[43:29] And as you know, if we decide to not include a required residential floor, then we would be required to have a supermajority vote on that.

[43:44] By requiring the one residential floor, we are allowed to do a simple majority vote.

[43:52] So, that's really the question.

[43:56] One of the things that you'll note that I mentioned earlier is that for FB6,

[44:01] because there is no residential provision in that sub-district,

[44:05] that's going to be required to have a supermajority vote anyway.

[44:09] So, I guess the question is, is the board comfortable with a supermajority vote

[44:13] for the whole program or not?

[44:18] Yes, well, I am comfortable with the super majority vote, because I really think we should focus on the zoning and making the zoning is the best possible zoning we can have.

[44:28] And if we draft a good zoning plan, then it should pass and not try to require residential where it doesn't have to be, I mean, it could always be an option, but doesn't have to be a requirement.

[44:46] That's my thought.

[44:48] Well, I can certainly remove the required residential provision if that's the desire

[44:53] of the board.

[44:56] Yeah.

[44:56] I said this the last minute.

[44:58] My concern is if we don't allow-

[45:00] All commercial, then we're for closing. I'm not prepared to be educated. I think we're for closing the possibility of a medical office building or, you know, a gap, baby gap, gap kids, because they're not going to want to throw it for residential. Also, and this is my ignorance. But what a hotel is a hotel considered commercial. Yes. Right. So we're acquiring a residential floor. I mean, I guess this is the last meeting. Maybe Sataj and Boston has like.

[45:28] You know, some permanent resident of one or more floors of permanent residents, but most hotels don't have that setup. So if we require, I guess one anxiety is if we require at least one floor of residence, we also maybe before closing the possibility of hotel.

[45:45] Yeah, no, that's true. And it certainly would make it much more, you know, streamlined and easy to, you know, to work with this, this bylaw that provision wasn't in there.

[45:57] But, you know, there is a risk and you know, it's whether you guys are up for that risk.

[46:02] Well, I agree with the lease that we should do good zoning and then worry about the vote.

[46:12] You know, we should vote. We should zone for what is appropriate for Belmont and what makes sense and go from there.

[46:27] Okay.

[46:29] Andy, Madeline or

[46:36] anything to add. Yeah, I agree that we need to do those, we need to focus on the

[46:42] zoning first. I would hate to force residential like Alyssa said where it might not be warranted

[46:51] and or and then foreclose the opportunity for for someone who's interested in strictly commercial

[46:59] That made sense. Okay. Can I take that as a consensus out of the board? Yes, please. Okay.

[47:10] And Chris, to flip that around requiring, I love commercial, I think more than anybody,

[47:15] but if we require a graphical commercial, just alleviate an anxiety, I have. Would that,

[47:22] if a waterstone type place, well, I guess using the vocabulary recap here is it

[47:29] Independent living facility is going to be the term that will replace senior active

[47:32] with this great consistent.

[47:34] So independent living facility, or we talked earlier, you mentioned earlier, active adult.

[47:39] Basically, a water stone type place or an active adult, which I guess is a little bit different,

[47:43] but both appealing.

[47:45] If we require ground floor commercial, would that reduce our chances significantly of getting

[47:50] one of those places because it appears to me that those are purely residential.

[47:56] It's a great question. I think it's not as simple to answer that question as saying, yes, we should or no, we shouldn't.

[48:06] My feeling is that a waterstone type of project or a similar type of senior housing project probably should not be located on Brighton Street frontage.

[48:20] Does that make sense? I mean, we really want Brighton Street to be a commercial street.

[48:24] And so I'm leaning toward saying that if we did provide, for example, an exception or a waiver for a senior housing type of project from that provision.

[48:41] Maybe we try to get, try to encourage the location on a side street or an internal to a parcel.

[48:50] Does that make sense?

[48:53] Well, there's one question I have with those kinds of uses be considered purely commercial.

[48:59] Well, I mean, technically a multi-family is commercial code building.

[49:05] Okay, but not from a use standpoint, it's really a residential use.

[49:12] Well, my only concern is I think there's demand in the community for adult active independent living.

[49:19] We've had people, you know, having to go move to Waterstone and less than 10, who probably

[49:23] would have liked to have stayed in Valmont.

[49:25] That kind of development would be likely to be very profitable for reasons that I've

[49:31] been discussed over the last year and a half.

[49:35] So if someone wants to put one in Hills Crossing,

[49:41] you know, that'd be okay with me because I'd

[49:44] like to see something happen somewhere that maybe thinks I would prefer to happen in Hills

[49:49] crossing but it'd be a shame if for whatever reason even though we want something to happen if that

[49:55] doesn't happen and if we zone for the possibility of a waterstone adult active

[50:02] and we would have gotten it and we choose not to zone for that possibility allow that to happen

[50:06] then that we could be missing out on an opportunity that'd be my concern. Would you be open to a waiver

[50:11] provision? My only anxiety there is if people have told me he would know more about this than me that

[50:17] when you put things like special permit,

[50:19] the developers often think that means no.

[50:21] So if there's a way to do that in a way

[50:23] that really signals, no, we're really serious here.

[50:25] We may want something else to happen there.

[50:27] I'm listening to you, Chris,

[50:28] if we may want something else to happen to there

[50:29] and I'm deferential, but we don't see it happening.

[50:33] If we can communicate that,

[50:35] we would through whatever the magic words

[50:36] are, a special permit or whatever consider,

[50:38] other things being allowed, allowing other things

[50:41] to happen there, you know, I can get there, sure.

[50:47] Well, do you mind? I mean, I think we're going to have to give some thought to how we would approach it in a way that I think aligns with what you're saying.

[50:57] So let Connor and I kind of wrestle with it a little bit and see if we can come up with an idea that, you know, takes care of my worries, but also meets your needs.

[51:10] Yeah, maybe there are other parts of town because you're not going to get like a water

[51:13] stone in the middle of Belmont sector probably, I don't know, the Belmont street to probably

[51:19] road corridor.

[51:20] My fantasy someday, the country club, if they're willing to give up some acres, if they think

[51:26] that's good for them, if they think it's good for them.

[51:29] I'm not sure how many other, maybe South Pleasantry, I just don't know where, there's some acres

[51:33] here in Hills Crossing, I'm not sure if we have other places that would potentially provide

[51:38] the kind of acreage that an active adult or independent living folks would want.

[51:45] You know more about that than I do, but that does seem to be a firm on a space here potentially.

[51:49] We'll do our research. South Pleasant Street does allow, I forget how it was defined,

[51:56] And senior living, I can't remember if it's, I think the idea was active, but I can't

[52:07] remember the actual definition as that was done years ago.

[52:13] Well, I'll take another look at that overlay.

[52:15] You know, we're working with the general code corporation on recodification of the bylaw.

[52:21] and they've laid out a restructuring of the numbering system, so I'll take a look at that and I will obviously want to keep the typologies the names the same.

[52:36] That's why I've changed the independent living.

[52:40] And so hopefully it does say that because we don't want to create more inconsistencies.

[52:47] but yeah I'll do that and Dan I will research how we can be nuanced about it. Thank you.

[52:57] You got it. Just to add I think that there are developers out there that do active living or

[53:05] senior housing that have good experiences with mixed use development where you have first floor

[53:12] commercial, which can include a medical office, for example, and other, you know,

[53:20] community needs, small groceries, or whatever, or convenience stores for people's

[53:29] needs. So I think, you know, we should also be thinking about developers that are

[53:36] creative and that have a desire to build these amenities into the residential buildings that they're

[53:48] trying to create. And by definition the active living being located in a place that has such close

[53:58] proximity to public transportation and to the city should they need to go in. That kind of fits in

[54:05] naturally with that idea of a first floor commercial and not just a purely residential building.

[54:14] It's a great point, Madeline. One of the things that we did for the hotel zoning

[54:22] by law 6.15 is that we did say that a hotel would still be required to have a certain amount

[54:29] of commercial space on the ground story, but it was less than typically what we would have

[54:36] required in the center. And two other points that you made, I think are excellent. Number one

[54:43] is that there are, as you say, often retail or service type of businesses that are aligned

[54:52] or actually integrated with a senior housing concept.

[54:58] And they could also serve the public as well,

[55:01] but that would perhaps be counted for that space.

[55:06] The final thing I'll say is that we're really less sort of hung up on commercial per se,

[55:14] and more interested in the active ground floor active space.

[55:18] We want we want to we want to activate the street and so we want to have pedestrians. We want to have interaction between the building and the public right of way through, you know, glazing and windows and, you know, entry doors.

[55:36] And so that's that's another thing that we could look at. And maybe there are some ground floor active uses that maybe they're not 100% commercial, but they do still activate the street.

[55:51] So we'll look at all of that.

[55:56] Okay. I'm actually going to skip Belmont Center and continue on because there's some other things that are related to the to our

[56:08] hit

[56:11] Hills Crossing? Yeah and that's designed. Okay and then I would like to open it up for

[56:20] some public questions and comments for 10 to 15 minutes. Absolutely. Please.

[56:29] This is just a rehashing I know Madeline hasn't seen it but we talked about uses that we could

[56:36] to add to the use table. I think there were at least two members that said, are we limiting

[56:42] the uses? Could we have some additional uses that might be really robust in the Hills

[56:49] Crossing area? And we talked about technology. We talked about the different types of offices,

[56:57] biotech offices, semi-conductor, vehicle research, robotics, computing research, things

[57:05] like that or a single term for advanced technology enterprise. And then we talked about some

[57:14] of the other different innovative uses that we could consider. Corporate and professional,

[57:21] medical and life science, education, food innovation, like test kitchens, business support,

[57:28] and the creative economy. All of those were things that I pulled together from

[57:35] other bylaws and my research on the web. And then of course we talked about other

[57:43] things like innovation, campus uses, venture ecosystems, and then other uses that

[57:49] are becoming common and forward-looking zoning like drone technology, circular

[57:55] economy businesses. And then finally, we sort of wrapped it up by talking about maybe having one

[58:03] umbrella term called innovation enterprise, which is a business-engaged primarily in research

[58:11] development software, etc. And so we did add that to the use table in case that was enough for you.

[58:20] But I wanted to just, you know, let's you know that we can still add some some uses from some some of these lists or any place else that you think, you know, might really be a positive contribution to the to the useless for Hills Crossing.

[58:43] Is anyone on the board have any thoughts about this?

[58:47] I like this short version. I like this short version also because, again, with the

[58:53] I hope that we can zone for at least a decade. We don't know what's going to be

[58:57] 10 years from now. So I'd rather keep it general so that something that doesn't

[59:02] exist right now and it exists in five years is allowable. You know. Yeah. Yeah.

[59:11] So I think that was part of the reasoning for it as well.

[59:18] But still hold on to the office general use, right?

[59:21] So financial advisor, whatever tutor, they always could, you know, that used to be here

[59:27] as well, right?

[59:28] Yep.

[59:30] And I think we've also spelled out medical office as well.

[59:33] Just to be just, you know, as we talked about the last time, sometimes you want to be very

[59:38] specific about a use type because you want to encourage it specifically. You want those out there

[59:46] in the economy to say, hey, did you know that Belmont's zoning by law allows accelerator

[59:55] programs or robotics.

[1:00:00] You know, that's something that may make a difference. You never know. Yeah, my thought is, since we have office general, so this will hopefully cover us for anything wonderful that might happen in the next 10, 20 years, 30 years. I kind of want to validate your effort, Chris, because I think it's really impressive. All the things you came up with. And as you said, it may have some value, almost from a marketing perspective, to maybe have those, you know, all those entries you've come up with. It may strike a court with somebody and get us a development we make.

[1:00:29] otherwise not have. And as long as we have office general, which I think hopefully covers a

[1:00:33] lot of front of anything that might happen in the decades to come, I'm okay with that combo and

[1:00:38] just nothing else to create. Regardless, I appreciate the effort you made and the incredibly creative

[1:00:43] list you put together. Well, I appreciate that Dan. And one final thing that I could do if you're

[1:00:49] interested in, I'm not looking for you to necessarily say yes or no right now, but I could provide a very

[1:00:55] simple Google Forms survey, I could list all the uses and then I could see who agreed

[1:01:03] with maybe the top three or something, or if you got at least 10 votes, maybe we could

[1:01:09] put it in there.

[1:01:10] But I'd be glad to do something like that.

[1:01:12] It's not a heavy lift.

[1:01:14] Can I just ask a basic question?

[1:01:17] I think because we're designing zoning here on our use table.

[1:01:21] And I think like your concept, Chris, of like putting stuff in there so that the word gets out that we're looking specifically to attract this kind of business.

[1:01:31] Isn't that really like an economic development exercise more than a zoning exercise in here?

[1:01:38] Since I know obviously we don't have like an economic development department, but are we sort of blending to tasks?

[1:01:49] Well, I mean, developing a use table does have an economic development, you know, element

[1:01:55] to it.

[1:01:56] There's no doubt about that.

[1:01:57] It also has a housing policy element to it, and, you know, maybe some other overlaps

[1:02:03] as well.

[1:02:03] But, yeah, I think there is a confluence between those two, but, you know, I think I feel

[1:02:12] still fairly lucky to be able to say that I am not only an economic development professional,

[1:02:19] but a planning professional as well.

[1:02:21] And so I feel like I can speak both languages, so to speak.

[1:02:28] But yeah, I mean, we certainly would welcome public input on this as well.

[1:02:35] We would welcome the Economic Development Advisory Committee to opine on this as well.

[1:02:40] and they're going to be actually visiting us on the 8th, so maybe we can rehash this discussion

[1:02:48] at that time.

[1:02:51] Well, if I could weigh in briefly, I would go with the, as you might guess, the more

[1:02:57] simple version. I think you need to write it in a way that covers things we haven't thought of,

[1:03:07] which I think this does. And I am opposed to zoning that the use table becomes 30 pages long

[1:03:19] with a long list of things. And what if we forgot one version of it? I mean, I can't imagine,

[1:03:29] I mean, I know in Cambridge, they have most of those things in your list. And they're not called out

[1:03:36] individually in their zoning. So, you know, the shorter the sweeter the more general we can get

[1:03:44] for that I think is better.

[1:03:49] Thank you. Appreciate it. I agree as well. The shorter the better,

[1:03:55] I would, I'm just curious if this did kind of veer towards the economic development strategizing.

[1:04:03] Is there a resource available somewhere?

[1:04:08] Maybe it's not part of the zoning,

[1:04:10] but it's part of the town's kind of a vision document

[1:04:16] or a resource document for developer,

[1:04:18] or whatever it is that does give a list,

[1:04:22] or kind of say these are the kinds of things

[1:04:25] that we encourage.

[1:04:27] You must look at the zoning bylaws

[1:04:31] to make sure that those, you know, uses are allowable.

[1:04:36] But just, you know, throwing out that it might be, you know,

[1:04:41] some other resource document in the context of economic development that is put out by the town.

[1:04:48] Yeah, absolutely.

[1:04:49] Connor will probably hit me over the head for repeating this so many times.

[1:04:54] But there is a website for a project in Cleveland called the Midline.

[1:05:00] line, and it's essentially a marketing website for development of a fairly difficult

[1:05:10] area that hasn't seen any growth in almost a century.

[1:05:15] And so this particular website shows the types of uses that they're looking for, the types

[1:05:22] of industrial uses and commercial uses that they're trying to encourage.

[1:05:27] It's a marketing tool that's put out by an economic development entity.

[1:05:34] And so I talked to the Economic Development Advisory Committee about that last week,

[1:05:39] and I think it would be the perfect place to have something like that a list like you're

[1:05:44] talking about.

[1:05:45] So yes, absolutely.

[1:05:50] All right.

[1:05:51] Let me quickly move on to the design issues to address.

[1:05:56] We talked about roof types briefly. I asked members to send me any pictures. I did get one response,

[1:06:06] and so as you know right now we only have flat roofs in the HCOD and the BCOD. At the last meeting

[1:06:14] we talked about it, and the two types that were recommended were the peaked or gabled roof and the

[1:06:23] The question is, does the board want to include these two types because Abel City is going

[1:06:28] to have to develop the language for it?

[1:06:31] Or do you want to propose any additional roof types?

[1:06:35] And so this is just sort of a rehashing of the different types of roofs that you could

[1:06:40] typically have.

[1:06:41] Most of these are not appropriate for commercial, but the gable roof certainly is.

[1:06:47] the HIP roof is, the Gambrill and Mansard roof are, and the Pyramid as well. I mean, you

[1:06:56] even see some in Boston and down by the seaport that are salt box. And if you go to Portland

[1:07:04] Maine, you can see some salt box, old industrial buildings or mixed use buildings as well. So,

[1:07:10] So why does this question need resolution now?

[1:07:15] Well, the zoning tax needs to reference the type and to establish those requirements.

[1:07:21] The area under the roof may need to count as a half story in some cases, so we have

[1:07:26] to have sort of an extension of our half story definition and sort of fleshing that out.

[1:07:32] And anything extending above the height of a flat roof will necessarily add additional building

[1:07:38] height to the heights that we have right now, and so the question is, do the board want

[1:07:44] to add these types to the HOD alone, or do you want to reconsider going back and adding

[1:07:51] it to the BCOD?

[1:07:53] And so I mean, I think after this meeting, there really won't be much more time to reconsider

[1:07:58] this question because it takes time to really put this stuff together, so I would definitely

[1:08:03] love your feedback if you have any.

[1:08:05] I

[1:08:09] mean, I do think you could do a mansard within our existing bylaw because it doesn't necessarily

[1:08:19] add height. You're basically just sort of articulating the top floor. I mean, I'm not sure

[1:08:28] people are really doing mansard groups these days, but I think there are some developments

[1:08:39] like I think the one that I showed you, Crocker Park, I do believe they might have had a

[1:08:45] Mansard Roof or two there. They might have one in Somerville at their new development.

[1:08:56] So I've seen them around here and there, but yeah, that was one of the ones that was recommended

[1:09:01] and the Gable Roof was another.

[1:09:12] I mean, so as the one person who responded, I for one would like

[1:09:16] variety besides just flat because I think even though a gable or a hip adds a little height it

[1:09:23] also adds more interest and it's not a flat it's not a wall of height it's a peak so um I

[1:09:35] don't

[1:09:35] know I just think you know if it's if it's not gonna pencil out they're not gonna propose it so I

[1:09:39] I think, but if it makes it go attractive, then I

[1:09:48] agree with you.

[1:09:53] I agree.

[1:09:54] And, you know, in thinking about the gable, the hip and the man's, or those are probably the ones that we see most around town anyways.

[1:10:03] So kind of kind of tying back to the design feel of the town.

[1:10:12] and not having flat all the way across might be a nice option for developers. They don't have to take it.

[1:10:18] They could still have the flat roof if they'd wish, but this might give some more architectural interest to the streetscape.

[1:10:26] Sure. And keep it within the context, the design context of town.

[1:10:35] And you Dan? Well, of course, does the roof type, depending on, is there a possibility

[1:10:42] that a certain kind of roof type would then count as a half story? And then maybe if

[1:10:46] fact, you know, someone wants to have six stories or four stories, if they go with a certain

[1:10:50] roof type, they have, they're going to have to have, maybe lose the floor, lose a half

[1:10:54] floor. Is that the possibility here?

[1:10:57] Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, from the standpoint

[1:10:59] of a gable roof, I think it's probably most appropriate in those two sub districts where

[1:11:04] we allow a half-story already. So in a way, it's a perfect fit. For those districts that

[1:11:13] are not half-story districts, the gable would probably be an uninhabitable, extra height,

[1:11:26] the way that we were proposing it for, I mean, we actually did have it in the MBTA-3A,

[1:11:33] but we eliminated it for the center because people didn't want that extra 10 feet.

[1:11:42] Well, I guess I can't house my canacles. Right. Exactly. Obviously, if the

[1:11:50] development is going to be profitable for the town, create vibrancy, and if we

[1:11:54] feel that the more usable space, the better. It'd be a shame if the roof type

[1:12:00] ended up costing us some space there, but I guess I'm inclined to say, is there a reason why we wouldn't allow all these roof types and let the developer decide what they obviously don't want some of these outrageous in terms of what we have a vision for this neighborhood or what's what's used in other parts of the town, but I lean towards letting someone be creative and the developer having the kind of roof they want to have, and yeah, as a someone just mentioned, they have to do the penciling out.

[1:12:28] Yeah, I could I could talk to Abel City about that, but I think that having a specific root type is going to require some specific language that you know, at least identifies where the height is measured and how if it's going to be a half story or not a half story.

[1:12:47] It's not a lot of language, but it's, you know, it's enough that, you know, it's going to create some additional

[1:12:56] need to regulate. One of the questions that I could ask you is fairly substantial. Probably

[1:13:08] the easiest thing to do would be to go back and add it to the BCOD and then just have

[1:13:16] it because the BCOD is kind of serving as the feedstock for the rest of these overlays.

[1:13:25] You know, we could just have those design requirements there, and I think that would make

[1:13:30] a lot of sense.

[1:13:31] So that would be my recommendation to you if we're going to go with multiple roof types.

[1:13:39] And that wouldn't allow anyone to go over the height restrictions we have in the BCOD already,

[1:13:43] right?

[1:13:44] They were just making a choice, and they're going to have to live with the overall height.

[1:13:48] This roof is not going to get some sort of a dispensation.

[1:13:50] they have to, they can't go higher than the height limit that we have in the BCOD, right?

[1:13:55] Yeah, we could do it that way, and then we could have the height limitations in the HCOD.

[1:14:03] We'd have the height provisions in the HCOD.

[1:14:06] Yeah. So that way anyone is concerned about height here. If we go that route, they wouldn't

[1:14:11] see this as a way of us trying to increase the permissible height beyond the number of feet

[1:14:16] that we have in the BCOD. Right, it would have to be that way, yes.

[1:14:19] are here. Yeah. Now, I mean, the developer a chance to do something that they may feel strongly

[1:14:23] about in which case, you know, God bless. Yeah. I mean, in the end, I'm going to have to talk to

[1:14:28] Abel City about it and see what their thoughts are as well because they have a lot of experience

[1:14:34] in putting these types of provisions together. But in the end, that's how I think it would work

[1:14:40] in a most elegant way. I'll see if we can make that work.

[1:14:45] Thank you.

[1:14:48] Okay, I've heard Gable, Hip, and Mancerd as three types.

[1:14:55] I think going beyond that's going to be time-consuming and expensive.

[1:14:59] But I think it's a good...

[1:15:00] Is there any objection to that? I thought it is don't restrict the roof. Just tell the person that has to be functional. Consistent with the nearby buildings. And tasteful. I mean, I think ultimately they're going to have our architect. It's going to be. It's not just the roof. I mean, it's a facade too. I mean, you know, there's all sorts of options for doing the facade that might you might find objectionable.

[1:15:28] So I think you have to trust the process a little bit that, generally speaking, they're

[1:15:33] going to want to make something that's attractive that will sell, you know, that people will

[1:15:37] be willing to use and will admire, and I don't, I don't, I mean, some of these are ridiculous,

[1:15:44] you know, and Bonnet Roof, nobody's going to do that, so, you know, but I don't think we

[1:15:49] should call it out and restrain in any way at this point.

[1:15:53] I think where we're running into an issue is by doing sort of the design guidelines piece

[1:16:03] of the work Aval City is doing where they prescribe more closely what kind of design

[1:16:12] we're looking for and I think what I'm hearing is the less restrictions or the fewer restrictions.

[1:16:23] The better.

[1:16:24] Correct.

[1:16:26] Okay.

[1:16:26] I'll see if I can find a way to maybe write the language that provides for a multiplicity

[1:16:32] of roof styles.

[1:16:34] I mean, obviously, we don't want like, you know, I don't think we want the bonnet or the

[1:16:40] butterfly or the a frame, but I think we can maybe create a fairly inclusive list.

[1:16:46] And maybe we can make the language not necessarily specific to a single roof type, but just talk about height in relation to the peak and other elements of the roof so that we make sure that we meet our height requirements as well.

[1:17:09] Thank you.

[1:17:10] Thank you.

[1:17:10] First is what?

[1:17:12] You know, what I said, and I think I interpreted it.

[1:17:15] Andy is kind of going in the same direction.

[1:17:17] Is this making you at all uncomfortable terms?

[1:17:20] We have a form-based code concept.

[1:17:22] I sense a lot of people want to go that way.

[1:17:25] If we get too wide open with the roofs,

[1:17:27] is there a tension between the concept of a form-based code

[1:17:30] that's somewhat restricts what can be built

[1:17:34] and giving tremendous latitude on the roofs?

[1:17:36] If there's a tension there, you know, not really Dan. I think it's okay. Okay. I appreciate the the question anyway.

[1:17:46] Just a few more slides on design and then we'll jump back to the BCOD.

[1:17:51] You may have gotten from me that I wasn't happy and there are many other people that have expressed their disappointment with the graphics that were provided for the different sub districts.

[1:18:06] I agree and so I put these slides together to provide my critique and I want to

[1:18:13] hear what your thoughts are. Essentially the FB1 looks like just an extension

[1:18:18] of a storefront district and that's that's not what we're going for.

[1:18:22] We're going for a commercial low-scale low-density sort of a not necessarily

[1:18:31] in office park but something that's more aligned with the pictures on the top that you see these

[1:18:38] older industrial buildings either from the Art Deco era or previously that have been retrofitted

[1:18:45] into commercial buildings. Essentially, I'm looking for something that does not have a storefront

[1:18:53] frontage or the awnings and it's not pedestrian centric either. I'm looking for them to maybe mimic

[1:19:00] some sort of older commercial district that has this type of older building in it that has

[1:19:08] a site typology to it or some sort of philosophy. So that was my critique here. And if you don't mind,

[1:19:20] I actually want to run through all the sub districts and then I'll go back and whatever you guys want to

[1:19:25] say we'll just take anyone you want to talk about. Sounds good.

[1:19:33] FB2, this critique may be less relevant now that we've decided we may want to go to

[1:19:41] a different roof types. As you can see, there's both a salt box, which is the one closest

[1:19:47] to you, and pitched roof. So I did critique it from that standpoint because they basically

[1:19:55] proposed zoning that didn't have those roof types, but they provided a graphic that

[1:19:59] did. So I didn't understand that. Also they provided for a stoop, frontage type, which

[1:20:05] we've eliminated that too. So I told them in this slide that they need to correct that.

[1:20:11] Finally, I think that they need to have greater depth of a building on the lot because, you

[1:20:17] know, this is not making use of much of the lot, and I think it could go deeper.

[1:20:24] And then finally, there should be some corner treatment here.

[1:20:29] There's going to be a front street and a side street.

[1:20:32] There should be a wraparound to continue the storefronts a little bit to the side street.

[1:20:37] So, those were my critiques on this right here.

[1:20:43] For FB3, I thought this was the worst, it looks like my text is a little bit washed out,

[1:20:52] but I can change that, I think, no I can't.

[1:20:56] Anyway, this is the most important sub-district I think of all in terms of being creative,

[1:21:04] It's related to the community path.

[1:21:06] It's supposed to front on the community path.

[1:21:09] And essentially what they've provided us,

[1:21:11] you know, looks like a library in a college town.

[1:21:16] It really doesn't have much of a street presence.

[1:21:19] I think they try to show that it has awnings,

[1:21:22] but to me it just looks like a shadow.

[1:21:25] And it has this inset that is intended,

[1:21:30] I guess to be a forecourt.

[1:21:32] But, that's not at all the image that I thought would be best to portray the community path.

[1:21:41] I think the community path needs greater differentiation and modulation in terms of the facades.

[1:21:47] Perhaps 50 feet at the most in width.

[1:21:50] Shopfront should be aligned at the zero lot line at the path.

[1:21:53] Maybe a little bit of a setback I can talk about earlier.

[1:21:56] I don't think the roofs should be pitched here or at least not, you know, consistently.

[1:22:03] And there's also a side yard prominence that I didn't think worked very well.

[1:22:08] And I also think the lower right corner needs to be that transition from the pass

[1:22:14] to Brighton Street, which should continue the storefronts.

[1:22:18] And I'm sorry, this text is washed out but, you know, essentially I think

[1:22:24] these two photographs while they're not exactly the design that I would

[1:22:29] recommend. They do show that kind of bringing it right up to a path. The one

[1:22:36] below here is from Atlanta and I really hate the architectural design but you

[1:22:42] can see that it's literally within 25 feet of the path. And then this one is I

[1:22:48] believe in Indianapolis, and you can see there's a kind of a tree lawn separating the path

[1:22:55] from the storefronts, but it's still pretty close. So I really want to make the community

[1:23:02] path subjectric special. And so I think this rendering needs to be special.

[1:23:18] That's just

[1:23:18] Again, this to me is just so homogenized.

[1:23:22] I know there are different colored buildings,

[1:23:24] but basically it looks like they took Lego blocks

[1:23:26] and just lined them up.

[1:23:29] I feel like we really don't wanna have

[1:23:33] these separated buildings.

[1:23:35] I think they should be essentially a connected

[1:23:39] like a town center's buildings typically are.

[1:23:44] I think it's okay that there is a separation

[1:23:46] between the one that's to the farthest left and the next one because you might you might have

[1:23:52] that as a as either a pedestrian or a vehicular access to the rear and I can see that as being

[1:23:59] something that would be you know reasonable. But again I think that there there needs to be a

[1:24:06] little more thought put into this. I also think that because the FB5 does have the provision for a

[1:24:15] density bonus of seven feet in height, show one building like that. I think we

[1:24:21] need to at least show one building that shows what that would look like. And then

[1:24:26] finally, I thought this was probably the best one that they did. I think that

[1:24:33] the gray building at the top probably is a little too deep on this side right

[1:24:39] here on the right, but because we changed this sub-district to include the backland area

[1:24:46] where the church is and then going all the way back to Channing Road, I think there

[1:24:52] needs to be some diversity of building types and lot features in the rear that shows what

[1:24:59] this particular sub-district could be.

[1:25:02] And so I think it just needs to be rethought.

[1:25:04] plus the other thing is that there is no side street in FB6 and they've got a side street here

[1:25:12] and so I think that they need to rethink a lot a lot of that part of it as well so I'm

[1:25:18] going to leave it at that because I don't have any more slides about design and see if you guys

[1:25:26] have any thoughts or any if you feel differently about some of these than I did.

[1:25:32] Well Chris I agree

[1:25:33] with you that none of these look any good but I'm thinking back to the way this whole process

[1:25:38] started and that was that they did a bunch of renderings and then people were showing the

[1:25:44] renderings and they voted on them and there were some streetscapes that people liked and there

[1:25:50] were some that they didn't like and I thought that was much better you know that I thought that was

[1:25:54] very persuasive and I'm wondering if we can go back and look at those original renderings and choose

[1:26:00] some of them that we think would be better fits for these scenarios, these FB scenarios.

[1:26:06] Yeah, I mean, are you talking about the kind of can't think of the word right now,

[1:26:12] because it's been such a long time, a visual preference survey that we conducted.

[1:26:16] Yes, absolutely, we can do that.

[1:26:25] Well, Chris, I appreciate all the comments you made, because you said this around comments

[1:26:28] that I think it was.com below had a lot of insightful observations about the

[1:26:33] renderings that I think it's great. It seems to me you're addressing a lot of

[1:26:36] the concerns you expressed. I appreciate the time you put into it to look at

[1:26:41] these things. Come up with those thoughts and I think that you're making a great

[1:26:45] good faith effort to respond. Great. Appreciate that Dan.

[1:26:52] Any other comments

[1:26:54] the board?

[1:26:58] You're muted Lisa. Yeah. I think the the one where you said I think

[1:27:03] May it was FB2 where the roof thing is irrelevant now because now we are allowing that.

[1:27:10] I think that's not, so we can take away the roof comment because now that kind of roof

[1:27:15] can be done and just tell them to not show a stoop and that's, this one's not bad.

[1:27:23] Yeah, I think it's pretty close if, yeah, that, and the other thing is that all of the

[1:27:28] different roofs of the different buildings have the same dormers and I just

[1:27:34] think that's that's one of the things that to me is where is your creativity

[1:27:40] where is your you know design expertise you need to be a little bit more

[1:27:46] thoughtful and make this appear more organic right now it looks like it's you

[1:27:52] you know, sort of a reconstruction of, you know,

[1:27:57] colonial, yeah, there's something like that.

[1:28:02] Yeah, my assumption was that was a limitation

[1:28:05] of the design software,

[1:28:06] but if they can certainly make it do more

[1:28:08] than they should.

[1:28:09] Yeah, I agree.

[1:28:12] I would recommend that they look at the language

[1:28:17] and I just haven't made it over there

[1:28:20] and I won't be back until next week to Washington Street in Newton because they did form-based code.

[1:28:29] They did, you know, it's one of their village center things. And it's West Newton.

[1:28:38] They have new buildings, but they have varied heights, varied materials.

[1:28:48] I mean, I can only see it from the highway, so I haven't walked down seen how it feels

[1:28:53] along the street, but it looks pretty nice from the mass pike, and it's using form-based

[1:29:02] code to get that.

[1:29:04] Is it near the star market that goes over the road?

[1:29:08] It's closer to West Newton's cinema and Trader Joe's on Washington Street is between

[1:29:17] Trader Joe's on Washington Street and they're also redeveloping the armory that's right

[1:29:24] there.

[1:29:25] Don't say.

[1:29:27] That's not what I work for.

[1:29:30] Oh, sorry.

[1:29:31] I mean, it looks great over there.

[1:29:35] So any

[1:29:39] slides that you guys want me to take a look at?

[1:29:46] A lot of recognize that this is not the view that most people are going to have, right?

[1:29:51] They're down on the street looking up.

[1:29:53] They're not looking down from an airplane, so.

[1:29:55] Right, I mean, this is just a, you know, the each.

[1:30:00] Form-based, um, transector or sub-district needs to have something that kind of gives an example of what might be built. It's not intended to be a catch-all, but it is intended to be, you know, aligned with what the zoning does provide for. So that's, that's why we're trying to calibrate it, you know, correctly. Well, I think, um, and into your comment, I think the view that we're looking at

[1:30:29] But is more for the zoning purposes than for the late person to see like what is this

[1:30:36] going to look like?

[1:30:36] It's more for the designer to say like, okay, what can the building look like?

[1:30:43] Right.

[1:30:43] And we also provided those street views when we had our public meeting at the library on those

[1:30:51] panels.

[1:30:53] And I think many of them, if not all, I don't think all of them, but many of them still may be

[1:30:57] relevant. But we'll have to take a look at that. But I do think that those could be revised

[1:31:01] and those street views are important too.

[1:31:10] Okay. I'm going to take if you're okay with it.

[1:31:14] You said about 15 minutes for public comment. Yes, we have a hard stop at nine so

[1:31:21] but I feel like we need to allow some public comment. Okay.

[1:31:30] If there is any. So far no hands are raised

[1:31:33] but we have nine people in the attendees list.

[1:31:39] And we have one raised hand.

[1:31:40] We've got Ira Morgan's turn.

[1:31:45] Go ahead, Ira.

[1:31:47] Hello, it's Ira Morgan's turn, precinct seven.

[1:31:51] You guys have done a great job with this.

[1:31:54] The piece that I'm looking for is the financial impact of this.

[1:32:03] It's unclear who's doing it when it will be available.

[1:32:09] I think it's a critical part for town meeting to be looking at.

[1:32:17] So I'm wondering what the status is.

[1:32:21] Yeah, I'd be glad to take this.

[1:32:25] So at this point, as I said earlier, we're having the consultant do the build-out.

[1:32:33] analysis, which is sort of the foundation for any type of fiscal impact analysis to be conducted.

[1:32:40] Right now, our office has not been authorized to take that next step to do a fiscal impact analysis,

[1:32:47] but we certainly would be, you know, we would do that if we were asked to do that.

[1:32:54] Well, who needs to ask you? It's from the select board. They're the ones that would have to,

[1:33:00] or the planning board could ask for it as well,

[1:33:03] but the select board is sort of taking

[1:33:05] a, you know, they're the ones that are sort of

[1:33:10] taking it upon themselves to kind of take care

[1:33:13] of that element of it.

[1:33:16] And I think there needs to be some clarity

[1:33:20] about when it's expected, who's doing it,

[1:33:25] the assumptions, et cetera.

[1:33:27] Right now, you know, the number of us have been asking for about this for quite a few weeks and we're not hearing anything.

[1:33:37] Yeah, and I have conveyed, I have conveyed your message to the select board.

[1:33:43] I'm not going to, I'm not going to, you know, become an annoyance to them by doing it multiple times.

[1:33:48] But I have conveyed the interest in the physical impact analysis and so they're aware of it.

[1:33:56] Yeah, and I did hear back from one of them with an answer that was complete Marshmallow.

[1:34:05] So I think it is important that found meeting members and the citizens see this and I look

[1:34:13] forward to the answers of when it will be available, who's doing it, et cetera.

[1:34:19] Thank you.

[1:34:20] Thanks, Ira.

[1:34:29] I just wanted to briefly comment on there was some discussion of buildings that are entirely commercial or buildings that are entirely residential.

[1:34:41] I'm not sure, I recognize the want to make sure that Brighton is a commercial corridor. Right now it is very much a residential corridor, just a few feet down the road.

[1:34:52] code. And so it will always have a good chunk of that character. And so I think something

[1:34:59] that I would love to see in this plan when we're trying to maximize the impact on the housing

[1:35:07] market in the area. We're trying to create a place where you can rent a home, have a job,

[1:35:11] and also do your shopping.

[1:35:14] That's how we get cars off the streets, right?

[1:35:19] So we're aiming

[1:35:20] for that kind of districts in many ways, and I think it would be valuable to have a significant

[1:35:30] amount of first floor area be allowed to be used for housing, even in a mixed use project.

[1:35:38] To be talked, we like to talk very much about a floor of commercial on the ground floor

[1:35:45] in the residential above that. And I guess I'm most interested in what does that actually

[1:35:50] mean because you got to have the very least a lobby with an elevator and a flight of stairs.

[1:35:55] But can you actually stick some units in there on that ground floor if it's a building,

[1:35:58] the gunna filling? I think that would be a good thing to allow. And what we make that look like,

[1:36:05] what kind of amenities we let new housing project put onto the ground floor. I think that's

[1:36:11] important question to that flaring on and I would support being fairly lenient there.

[1:36:17] Well thank you. I appreciate that and we actually do have some provisions for how the ground floor

[1:36:24] is to be utilized by percentage and we'll take another look at that and see if we can create some

[1:36:34] additional flexibility for that floor. Thank you.

[1:36:41] We do not have another hand raised.

[1:36:44] All right, well, let's move on and thank you very much on the comment by Mr. Morgan for

[1:36:53] financials.

[1:36:54] I think it was helpful that we had that for the Belmont Center overly but there was

[1:36:57] a training after that and before now I corner was there and maybe maybe a lot of people

[1:37:03] were there on fear housing law and I was just maybe if I heard if I remember correctly what

[1:37:09] But I heard there, we may have to talk to town council about just how much discussion

[1:37:17] we can have about financial impact while also complying with the fair housing loss.

[1:37:21] So if someone who, an attorney who works in this area specifically could give us some guidance

[1:37:27] as to what sort of latitude we have in doing financial analysis, given the kind of topics

[1:37:32] that's going to get into that may touch upon fair housing law concepts that might be worth

[1:37:36] thinking about.

[1:37:36] Do

[1:37:39] you want another, you want to allow a response from Ira there?

[1:37:44] Just quick, please.

[1:37:46] Like two minutes.

[1:37:52] Ira, go ahead.

[1:37:53] Okay.

[1:37:53] Can you?

[1:37:54] Am I unmuted?

[1:37:55] Good.

[1:37:56] Yeah.

[1:37:57] Dan, are you saying that the piece that we heard from our outside attorney?

[1:38:06] I believe it was at the Belmont Center vote or that those, those town meetings.

[1:38:13] things. They are no longer correct. Is that what you're saying?

[1:38:16] No, no. All I'm saying is that there was a fair housing law training. I think some

[1:38:21] of the folks at this meeting may have been there. And there are things that were stated

[1:38:28] there that would make me feel more comfortable if our town council gave us some guidance

[1:38:32] as to what if any restrictions they may be on doing financial analyses. And what sort

[1:38:38] of topics they could get into while also being compliant with the fair housing law. I think it's

[1:38:43] nice to have more information than less. So, financials are obviously relevant to me,

[1:38:48] but I also want to comply with the law. No, and I agree with you. I do know that his,

[1:38:54] if I remember, his talk was fairly detailed. I'm talking about what was stated at a fair housing

[1:39:01] training at the library. Yeah, it's a different different event.

[1:39:09] All right. Thank you. So let's let's

[1:39:14] move on. I want to just very, very quickly go through the BCOD cleanup. I'm not going to spend

[1:39:22] any time on on any one slide unless you guys want me to but essentially most of the stuff

[1:39:31] relates to adding clarity, your capitalizations, alternative terminology or better referencing

[1:39:38] of sections. You can see the upper right, many examples of changing a word from project

[1:39:47] to development, properties to lots, floor to story, and things like that. That's a lot

[1:39:52] of this. For example, the table on frontage type, there was a request to change the excess

[1:40:00] to wise and ends. So we did that. We just added additional clarity language in many different locations.

[1:40:09] We added one new section 10-2-C related to interpretation and measurement because there was a question

[1:40:16] from the public on that. And we made the dimensional table more clear and consistent

[1:40:22] between the HCOD and the BCOD, same thing with the use table.

[1:40:31] You can see that we added live work unit.

[1:40:35] I think we have to change senior active living residential.

[1:40:38] That has to be done, but we added business innovation enterprise

[1:40:41] and we moved the mixed use down to the other category.

[1:40:45] We added a subsection under wide facades on the concept of storefront rhythm to better

[1:40:53] articulate how specific storefronts should be differentially modulated.

[1:41:00] We refined the ground story active use subsection.

[1:41:04] This is when I was referring to, related to Angus' question in terms of the use of the ground

[1:41:12] story basically talking about devoting 80% of the gross floor area to commercial uses,

[1:41:19] lobbies, circulation areas, and other areas not serving commercial uses. So this is just a

[1:41:26] clarification of that. This is the four-court section that I was talking about. You can see the

[1:41:35] The photograph on the lower right really was what I was trying to avoid and the rendering

[1:41:43] on the lower left is kind of what we're trying to encourage, something that's less deep

[1:41:49] and you can see it carries around the storefronts, around the side and there's a commercial entrance

[1:41:54] right here. It just provides some additional space for seating and landscaping and things like that.

[1:41:59] it's a nice, you know, alternative frontage type. But we did, you know, have to have some

[1:42:05] provisions to make sure that it didn't extend more than 15 feet behind the build 2 zone and

[1:42:13] didn't occupy more than 20% of the building frontage. We also wanted to separate them so you

[1:42:19] couldn't have them clustered in a tight space.

[1:42:25] Just a question on loading. There was a question

[1:42:29] from the public that loading and delivery activities, this was not an appropriate time,

[1:42:35] frame, 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. Monday through Saturday. The idea initially was that we really wanted to

[1:42:42] limit it. We didn't want it to take place from the earliest morning to the latest part of the evening

[1:42:48] and maybe giving Sunday off. But there were some also that felt maybe this was too restrictive.

[1:42:56] So that's that's I would love to hear your thoughts on that if you have any any feelings want to be the way.

[1:43:02] What's in our by-law now and.

[1:43:07] I don't know if there is a time restriction in the the by-law rest of the by-law I'll have to look at it.

[1:43:13] But we can make it consistent with that if you think that works.

[1:43:16] I

[1:43:19] mean, I do see big trucks, you know, at night it's not very busy in Belmont Center,

[1:43:25] for example.

[1:43:26] I mean, not super late night, but you see big trucks doing their loading then, so places

[1:43:34] like CVS where they can just pull up in front and otherwise they can't get a semi-truck.

[1:43:42] Right.

[1:43:43] Yeah, and it's going to be challenging, obviously there's not going to be a lot of dedicated

[1:43:47] loading zones so they're going to have to be using the public right of way. So maybe 7am to 10am

[1:43:56] is not ideal because there is a morning rush for the center. Morning months, yeah, school rush, yeah.

[1:44:06] So we'll have to give this more thought. I don't think that's where we want it to be.

[1:44:12] No, I think if if you look at what our zoning currently says and it seems to make sense or

[1:44:18] not doesn't rise to the top of must be changed now we just go with whatever let's just be consistent

[1:44:23] with what's already existing. Yeah okay okay mechanical equipment this was just sort of some additional

[1:44:34] language to be a little more specific. One of the things that elicited a question from the

[1:44:42] The public is that maybe we should be more careful about not allowing mechanical equipment

[1:44:50] on the front facade.

[1:44:52] This still does allow it on the front facade, but with architectural integration.

[1:44:59] You

[1:45:00] So do you folks have any feeling about allowing mechanicals on the facade? Are you going to allow window air conditioners?

[1:45:12] That I hadn't thought of, Andy.

[1:45:18] I mean, I think louvers can be done quite tastefully. I mean, but it all depends on the size of the equipment behind. So if you have some huge fan behind it.

[1:45:35] You know, it's something to blow out on the sidewalk.

[1:45:40] Right.

[1:45:41] Right.

[1:45:42] Okay.

[1:45:42] However architecturally they're fine.

[1:45:46] I think duck rents along the front.

[1:45:50] I mean, if you're talking about running ducks at the face of the building,

[1:45:53] that's clearly not a look we want to.

[1:45:57] Right.

[1:45:58] The courage.

[1:45:59] Okay.

[1:46:00] Alright, we'll give some more thought to that.

[1:46:05] So this is a pedestrian accommodation related to the Port Coucher, you know, that passageway

[1:46:12] underneath a building.

[1:46:14] And this really just talks about being more conscientious of the pedestrian and making sure

[1:46:21] that there is a safe interaction between the pedestrian flow and potential vehicular flow.

[1:46:33] We added some additional information related to landscaping and maintenance and storm water to be more clear.

[1:46:43] And we actually added some additional language related to construction management also to be more clear.

[1:46:52] And we added some information related to the application review and staff report section to be more clear and to be more aligned with the rules and regulations.

[1:47:02] Finally,

[1:47:06] we have a few definitions.

[1:47:10] The introduction to definitions was refined by staff and town council that just make sure

[1:47:16] that people understand that the capitalized terms are intended to be the definitions.

[1:47:22] We eliminated assisted living facility because it's already in section 1.4.

[1:47:28] We refined the definition of heavier materials.

[1:47:32] We changed a definition of independent living facility as that term is consistent across

[1:47:42] the by-law and again the board may wish to consider the act of adult category also.

[1:47:52] Family housing was modified just as a reference to mass general law and municipal parking facilities

[1:48:00] was a new definition. Both residential zoning district and our zoning district were defined,

[1:48:08] where the our zoning district refers to the residential zoning district. These are recommendations

[1:48:13] from council. Everything you see in blue is from council. Council also recommended semi-active

[1:48:21] of accessory use, which is a use that's already defined in section 9, 4, P, and 9, 6,

[1:48:27] B, 8, C. And then a top story was an additional definition that was recommended by a member

[1:48:35] of the public, and we thought it made sense. So that's it. That is those are the cleanup

[1:48:43] items for BCOD, and I'm welcome to answer any questions.

[1:48:54] Hey, Chris, I love the idea of adding active adult, I guess both to BCOD and Hills Crossing.

[1:48:59] Is there a mechanism we have to go through to do that?

[1:49:03] Yeah, I could just come up with a definition and put it in the use table.

[1:49:06] Very simple.

[1:49:08] That'd be great, if others agree.

[1:49:17] It seems fine to me, but what do you guys think?

[1:49:30] I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[1:49:36] So that's my presentation. And we still have a couple of items on the agenda. So I think we have enough time for that.

[1:49:45] Yeah.

[1:49:48] Unless you wanted to see if there's any public comment about the BCOD part of it.

[1:49:54] Sure. Any quick comments about what Chris just went over?

[1:50:08] All right. Seeing none, let's

[1:50:10] um, I move to continue the public hearing on the zoning bylaw amendments to, do we have

[1:50:21] time on September 8th. Chris. I wonder what do you think?

[1:50:29] Yeah, I think so.

[1:50:33] Okay.

[1:50:35] Move to continue the zoning by-law amendments to September 8th, 2026.

[1:50:45] So I'm here as second. All those in favor?

[1:50:48] Hi.

[1:50:51] Okay. I'm feeling I also don't have time tonight because of our restricted time frame.

[1:50:58] to even have that short discussion on rules and regulations. So I'll do that on the eighth.

[1:51:03] Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. That's right.

[1:51:09] And so our other business is McLean's own three,

[1:51:16] the Fair Housing Marketing Plan. Did you want to discuss that this evening, Connor?

[1:51:23] I can just give a quick update on that.

[1:51:27] Yeah, if you recall, this is the 111 or 12-unit

[1:51:32] pardoned complex that's near completion up at McLean,

[1:51:35] part of the requirements because they're affordably units,

[1:51:38] they have to include an affordable bear housing marking plan,

[1:51:42] which as I mentioned earlier are by-law acquires of the planning board

[1:51:46] if you're going to prove with the recommendation

[1:51:48] of the Belmont housing trust.

[1:51:51] The trust provided an initial memo to the board, which was in your packet tonight, they're

[1:51:56] going to be reviewing it further and at their meeting in early September, I'm forgetting

[1:52:03] the date.

[1:52:04] They will provide some comments that they would like to see kind of aided to change in

[1:52:10] the plan to the board and to the back to the prepares of the marketing plan.

[1:52:19] So that's kind of just the update.

[1:52:21] It will come back to the planning board at a later meeting for a review and approval.

[1:52:27] But I think we're really looking for the housing trust comments and for the team putting the marketing plan together to make those adjustments based on the comments.

[1:52:41] Yes.

[1:52:42] Through you, Madam Chairman, to Connor.

[1:52:44] Conner, will we have at that meeting in September after the housing trust meeting, will we have members from the housing trust also available to answer questions at that meeting?

[1:52:58] I can confirm with them if they will be available.

[1:53:03] Great.

[1:53:06] Thank you. Any questions on this?

[1:53:16] Okay. So any other items you wanted to discuss, Chris, or Connor?

[1:53:25] Nope, not for tonight. Thank you guys were very efficient. I appreciate it.

[1:53:31] Well, thank you for all your work. And you've really been keeping us moving along,

[1:53:38] which I appreciate and you both have done tremendous work for us so thank you. Thank you.

[1:53:45] And we just confirm what our two September dates are. I've got the eighth but when is the

[1:53:51] other one?

[1:53:54] Believe it is the 22nd. Okay it is yes the 22nd so then we'll be back on our normal schedule

[1:54:03] which is the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month for October and

[1:54:13] then we have a lot go ahead.

[1:54:19] Sorry yeah I believe we had the September 8th meeting was going to be remote and September 22nd

[1:54:26] meeting was going to be hybrid in person.

[1:54:32] And Madeline we meet in the select boards office.

[1:54:38] or, you know, I mean, in the Slackboard room.

[1:54:41] Okay, thank you.

[1:54:45] And then in November, our schedule gets screwed up

[1:54:49] because of the next selection.

[1:54:52] So, Connor, do you want to resend to everyone

[1:54:56] that's meeting the schedule, please?

[1:55:02] Yes, I will do that.

[1:55:04] Because we've gone through quite a few iterations of it.

[1:55:08] So let's get the latest and greatest because I know Steve had questions today too.

[1:55:15] So yeah, and it's really sorry Chris and it's really helpful.

[1:55:19] If you can include like the date and whether it's remote only or hybrid.

[1:55:23] So that because that often makes a difference of what I'm doing beforehand.

[1:55:29] And if you can send it email it directly rather than the Google link is really hard, I'm

[1:55:41] just going to say it's really hard to work with.

[1:55:45] So if you don't mind just attaching it, I'd appreciate it.

[1:55:50] Sure thing.

[1:55:53] Hi Chris.

[1:55:54] One final thing I do see that we do have two people in still in the audience that are

[1:55:59] related to 45, 47, Chestnut, I don't think we're going to be taking any more public comment,

[1:56:05] but I just wanted to let them know that at the beginning of the meeting, as per the agenda,

[1:56:11] we did continue it till the 8th of September. And so we did provide a little bit of information

[1:56:20] in terms of the progress being made by the peer review consultant. So if either of those people,

[1:56:27] I'm Mr. Hamad, and Ms. Dunn, if you want to give me a call, I can give you an update

[1:56:32] in terms of that very brief section of the agenda, but I just wanted to let them know.

[1:56:41] Thank you for that.

[1:56:44] All right, then I move to adjourn.

[1:56:50] Second, all those in favor?

[1:56:52] Hi.

[1:56:53] All right, have a great night.

[1:56:55] Thank you.

[1:56:56] Thank you.

[1:56:57] Thank you everyone.

[1:56:58] Thanks.

Planning Board - 08/25/26

Transcript