1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:13,040
This is the planning board meeting of August 25th, 2026. I have here tonight, Dan Berry, Andrew Osborne,

2
00:00:13,520 --> 00:00:21,080
Alisa Gardner-Toddress, and then, who are members of the board, and then we have Chris Ryan,

3
00:00:21,360 --> 00:00:29,440
director of planning and building, and Connor McCormick. I forgot your title. Can you please

4
00:00:29,440 --> 00:00:40,380
would mind me. Planning division manager. Okay, thank you. Sorry about that. And then I would like to call the meeting to order.

5
00:00:41,180 --> 00:00:54,240
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.

6
00:00:54,840 --> 00:01:00,820
So if that's okay with you, we will put that off to our next meeting.

7
00:01:01,520 --> 00:01:04,120
That sound amenable?

8
00:01:04,860 --> 00:01:04,980
Sure.

9
00:01:05,460 --> 00:01:06,980
Are you guys amenable to that?

10
00:01:07,460 --> 00:01:08,260
Of course for me.

11
00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:10,960
Okay.

12
00:01:13,080 --> 00:01:18,480
The next item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from August 4th.

13
00:01:19,220 --> 00:01:25,820
I have one minor comment, which was it said the meeting was remote, but it was in person.

14
00:01:25,820 --> 00:01:34,030
then I think that one mistake is carried through a few minutes.

15
00:01:34,350 --> 00:01:37,970
So I think it just needs to get fixed.

16
00:01:39,090 --> 00:01:46,510
OK, just also to let you know that we have Lynn O'Rigan tonight joining us.

17
00:01:46,790 --> 00:01:52,730
She won't be promoted to panelists, but she is our new planning and zoning administrator.

18
00:01:52,730 --> 00:02:00,050
and so after this meeting she'll be taking over from Michelle. So I just want to welcome Lynn.

19
00:02:01,130 --> 00:02:03,090
Great. Hi, welcome Lynn.

20
00:02:06,710 --> 00:02:11,210
We appreciate that. We know it's a really important piece of our job

21
00:02:11,210 --> 00:02:22,450
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.

22
00:02:24,930 --> 00:02:30,330
next on our agenda. Did you want to vote on those minutes?

23
00:02:32,270 --> 00:02:33,630
Oh yeah, I'm sorry.

24
00:02:36,010 --> 00:02:40,390
Does anyone else have any other changes to them?

25
00:02:41,370 --> 00:02:43,210
No. Or edits?

26
00:02:47,590 --> 00:02:48,530
No. Andy?

27
00:02:48,530 --> 00:02:51,990
No, no changes. No ways.

28
00:02:52,490 --> 00:03:02,870
Alisa? No changes. No. Okay. Move to approve the minutes of August 4th, 2026, with that

29
00:03:02,870 --> 00:03:13,790
one edit about the meeting being in person, not remote. Do I hear a second? Second?

30
00:03:14,470 --> 00:03:15,630
All those in favor?

31
00:03:15,630 --> 00:03:27,210
Hi. Hi. Okay. Minutes are approved. So we have, as I said, no new public hearings are continued

32
00:03:27,210 --> 00:03:39,150
public hearing. Case 26-16, request to amend special permit and DSPR for 45 chestnut. I understand

33
00:03:39,150 --> 00:03:46,670
there's been a request to continue to September 8th, 2026, but I would like either Chris or Connor

34
00:03:46,670 --> 00:03:59,070
to address why we're postponing that. Yes, so we received a message from the applicant asking

35
00:03:59,070 --> 00:04:07,270
the hearing to continue to the 8th of September to allow the peer review consultants to complete their

36
00:04:07,270 --> 00:04:13,850
work. The peer review consultants have been retained and they're doing their work. They've

37
00:04:13,850 --> 00:04:19,210
already had a site visit, so I'm very confident that we'll have a report well in advance

38
00:04:19,210 --> 00:04:24,250
of the meeting of the 8th, and so that is the reason for the continuance.

39
00:04:28,480 --> 00:04:31,400
Does anyone on the board have any questions about that?

40
00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:43,320
All right. Well, I will move to continue case 26-16 to September 8, 2026.

41
00:04:44,320 --> 00:04:47,500
Second. All those in favor?

42
00:04:48,320 --> 00:04:48,500
Aye.

43
00:04:51,510 --> 00:04:52,010
Okay.

44
00:04:54,900 --> 00:05:04,500
So our next continued public hearing is the proposed zoning by-law amendments.

45
00:05:04,500 --> 00:05:15,260
And so Chris or Connor, whoever's going to ask through these if you could please jump in.

46
00:05:15,420 --> 00:05:16,260
I'd appreciate it.

47
00:05:16,280 --> 00:05:21,760
So the first one definitions, we are not going to be discussing at the moment, correct?

48
00:05:22,620 --> 00:05:23,320
Correct.

49
00:05:24,180 --> 00:05:24,720
Yeah.

50
00:05:24,900 --> 00:05:26,780
I'm sure my screen can really see that.

51
00:05:27,260 --> 00:05:27,700
Yes.

52
00:05:28,300 --> 00:05:29,000
Okay.

53
00:05:29,120 --> 00:05:29,300
Great.

54
00:05:29,560 --> 00:05:31,160
So I believe.

55
00:05:31,160 --> 00:05:37,700
Before you get going, I think I see Madeline in the attendees list of, oh, okay, let me get her.

56
00:05:39,920 --> 00:05:40,900
Oh, there she is.

57
00:05:44,730 --> 00:05:45,890
Great. Thank you.

58
00:05:52,160 --> 00:05:56,060
Was she able to join? I think so. Yes. Thank you.

59
00:05:56,580 --> 00:06:11,300
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.

60
00:06:11,300 --> 00:06:12,040
Sure.

61
00:06:12,560 --> 00:06:12,920
Great.

62
00:06:13,740 --> 00:06:13,980
Sure.

63
00:06:14,160 --> 00:06:14,480
Thanks.

64
00:06:15,300 --> 00:06:15,680
Hi, sorry.

65
00:06:15,920 --> 00:06:18,040
I was looking for the Zoom link.

66
00:06:18,240 --> 00:06:19,180
Now I know where to find it.

67
00:06:19,320 --> 00:06:19,500
Sorry.

68
00:06:20,820 --> 00:06:22,660
My name is Madeleine Fraser Cook.

69
00:06:23,320 --> 00:06:27,200
And I live on Orchard Street.

70
00:06:27,840 --> 00:06:32,980
I've been in town for many years now.

71
00:06:33,320 --> 00:06:35,800
My kids have gone through the schools.

72
00:06:36,100 --> 00:06:39,740
Have a sophomore in college and a senior.

73
00:06:39,740 --> 00:06:59,760
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.

74
00:06:59,760 --> 00:07:21,900
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.

75
00:07:24,220 --> 00:07:45,980
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.

76
00:07:46,180 --> 00:07:49,940
And so I will be soaking it all in this evening. Thank you.

77
00:07:49,940 --> 00:07:52,280
Thank you very much.

78
00:07:53,800 --> 00:07:54,260
Welcome.

79
00:07:55,300 --> 00:07:55,860
Welcome.

80
00:07:56,480 --> 00:07:56,680
Welcome.

81
00:07:57,740 --> 00:07:58,760
Thank you.

82
00:07:59,960 --> 00:08:01,420
All right, Chris.

83
00:08:02,360 --> 00:08:10,620
Yes, so we have a presentation for you of slideshow that has most of what we're going to be talking about tonight.

84
00:08:11,260 --> 00:08:15,400
Starting with the inclusionary housing section 6.10.

85
00:08:16,140 --> 00:08:21,260
So let me get to that, but I just before I do that, I just want to talk about our agenda tonight.

86
00:08:22,080 --> 00:08:29,740
We're going to discuss the inclusionary housing, the new zoning draft for the HCOD, the use table.

87
00:08:30,060 --> 00:08:35,800
We'll talk about roof types and graphics, and then we're going to get from the board hopefully feedback

88
00:08:35,800 --> 00:08:40,800
and closing out of the discussion of the uses and comments and direction on design.

89
00:08:40,800 --> 00:08:45,280
And then at the end, we'll have a brief discussion, very brief on rules and regulations.

90
00:08:47,300 --> 00:08:52,440
So we're going to start with the inclusionary housing text edits and I will turn it over

91
00:08:52,440 --> 00:08:54,240
to Connor with the next slide.

92
00:08:55,560 --> 00:08:56,500
Thank you.

93
00:08:57,180 --> 00:09:03,440
Yeah, so I just wanted to follow up mostly from our discussion at the last meeting on the

94
00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:11,240
4th. I think as most of the members know, although this is maybe a good refresher for Madeline,

95
00:09:12,020 --> 00:09:17,560
we are looking at a series of proposed amendments to section 610, the inclusionary housing

96
00:09:18,290 --> 00:09:23,480
by-law within the zoning by-laws. These changes were initiated by the Belmont housing trust,

97
00:09:23,480 --> 00:09:30,980
along with staff partially in relation to a review of a recently completed inclusionary housing

98
00:09:30,980 --> 00:09:38,200
development. So some of those changes that were included were clarifying and adding definitions,

99
00:09:39,140 --> 00:09:42,920
increasing the time frame of the development from two years to five years,

100
00:09:43,440 --> 00:09:50,300
capping the cash payment in lieu option for affordable developments to six to ten ownership

101
00:09:50,300 --> 00:09:57,060
units rather than just six or more ownership units, clarifying that cash payment option shall be

102
00:09:57,060 --> 00:10:02,320
equal to 5% of the total projected sale price of the entire development instead of just

103
00:10:02,320 --> 00:10:03,320
the affordable units.

104
00:10:05,380 --> 00:10:12,540
And to require disclosure of related development activities and adding requirements for monitoring

105
00:10:12,540 --> 00:10:14,660
for affordable ownership units.

106
00:10:15,580 --> 00:10:23,460
At the last meeting we reviewed some additional proposed changes from Robert McGaw, folks are

107
00:10:23,460 --> 00:10:24,460
probably familiar with him.

108
00:10:24,460 --> 00:10:31,240
And some of the types of changes that he proposes, it was a lot of capitalization, clarifying

109
00:10:31,240 --> 00:10:33,460
terms, adding definitions, things like that.

110
00:10:34,540 --> 00:10:38,900
So we reviewed those additional proposed changes at the last meeting, and I think without

111
00:10:38,900 --> 00:10:47,440
any significant concerns, those were incorporated into the version that was provided to you

112
00:10:47,440 --> 00:10:49,620
in your packet ahead up to night.

113
00:10:50,920 --> 00:10:59,960
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.

114
00:11:00,900 --> 00:11:07,320
One was just to remove some language from the definition for a monitoring agent.

115
00:11:07,900 --> 00:11:17,180
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.

116
00:11:17,180 --> 00:11:25,200
For the regulatory agreement, we added that is agreement between the town, the EOHLC, and

117
00:11:25,200 --> 00:11:30,340
the property owner, while we didn't have HLC previously in that definition.

118
00:11:31,300 --> 00:11:43,100
And then in section 610.9B, this is the section where we had language that required any affordable

119
00:11:43,100 --> 00:11:51,480
units to look at any related contiguous or commonly controlled lots that the development

120
00:11:51,480 --> 00:11:51,880
had.

121
00:11:52,500 --> 00:11:57,800
And there's some discussion regarding how that would be interpreted.

122
00:11:58,500 --> 00:12:04,600
So we came up with some revised language where we're tying the contiguous or commonly

123
00:12:04,600 --> 00:12:07,940
controlled lots to any activity that is part of the same development.

124
00:12:07,940 --> 00:12:13,460
So you can see in that green underlying section there where it says, where such activity

125
00:12:13,460 --> 00:12:17,060
is part of the same development project, a phase development project, or otherwise

126
00:12:17,060 --> 00:12:20,260
represents a coordinated development of the lots.

127
00:12:21,320 --> 00:12:24,360
So I think that kind of captures what we were trying to achieve there.

128
00:12:26,640 --> 00:12:26,800
Yeah.

129
00:12:27,080 --> 00:12:31,120
And then otherwise, unless there's any question on those few changes that were discussed

130
00:12:31,120 --> 00:12:37,920
at the last meeting outlined here, the next step would be to approve the proposed amendment

131
00:12:37,920 --> 00:12:44,720
as they are now. And then eventually incorporating into the final public hearing recommendation vote,

132
00:12:45,000 --> 00:12:50,900
when we get to that point for all of these proposed amendments that are part of this public hearing.

133
00:12:51,960 --> 00:13:00,920
I just have one tiny minor question with the capitalization of development in that 6, 10, 9,

134
00:13:00,920 --> 00:13:07,640
be the last one coordinator development seems like that's a slightly different use of that word

135
00:13:07,640 --> 00:13:16,540
that shouldn't be capitalized. I do think it fits in the general sphere of the same intent.

136
00:13:18,100 --> 00:13:25,480
Okay. I mean I can talk to town council next time we speak to them but I do think that falls

137
00:13:25,480 --> 00:13:29,440
in the domain of that definition that we're intending to be capitalized.

138
00:13:36,190 --> 00:13:37,410
I have a question to do.

139
00:13:38,970 --> 00:13:46,450
I'm wondering it says that information, let's see, information reasonably required by

140
00:13:46,450 --> 00:13:54,430
the inspector buildings or planning board, but we don't get to opine about permits unless

141
00:13:54,430 --> 00:13:57,310
they're special permits, isn't that correct?

142
00:13:57,310 --> 00:13:58,390
Well,

143
00:14:00,660 --> 00:14:10,040
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.

144
00:14:10,880 --> 00:14:20,280
There is a provision in 610 that requires a planning board to review and approve certain documents related to affordable units.

145
00:14:21,160 --> 00:14:25,280
So I think that's where the planning board gets roped in here as well.

146
00:14:26,300 --> 00:14:31,860
Okay, so if somebody is getting a permit by right, they still would have to go through this step.

147
00:14:32,060 --> 00:14:34,240
You're saying if it's an inclusionary housing.

148
00:14:34,680 --> 00:14:34,880
Yes.

149
00:14:35,100 --> 00:14:42,340
Yeah, if the inclusionary housing requirements are triggered then the planning board to be the reviewer in the case.

150
00:14:42,640 --> 00:14:42,860
Okay.

151
00:14:43,960 --> 00:14:45,100
One other thing.

152
00:14:45,240 --> 00:14:47,300
Actually, I'm glad Andy brought that passage up.

153
00:14:47,960 --> 00:14:52,720
I we're going to have to change the inspector of buildings to building commissioner.

154
00:14:55,650 --> 00:14:57,470
Okay, yeah, we can make that.

155
00:15:04,140 --> 00:15:32,620
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.

156
00:15:32,620 --> 00:15:37,580
I think we talked about it that the last meeting and I think that makes sense.

157
00:15:38,520 --> 00:15:58,020
Okay, so does anyone on the board have any questions, concerns about these additional items that were updated or the inclusionary zoning changes?

158
00:15:58,020 --> 00:15:58,360
is

159
00:16:02,080 --> 00:16:10,860
okay. Seeing none, should we? Does anyone wait a minute? How do I get back there?

160
00:16:11,500 --> 00:16:16,220
There is anybody in the public right now that has their hand raised. You may want to call for

161
00:16:16,220 --> 00:16:23,220
that, but right now they don't. Okay. Any public comments on inclusionary zoning?

162
00:16:25,950 --> 00:16:26,590
Okay.

163
00:16:28,430 --> 00:16:32,490
So do we want to move on to the next one then?

164
00:16:32,670 --> 00:16:34,450
Yes, yes, we can do that.

165
00:16:35,630 --> 00:16:36,590
Thank you.

166
00:16:37,970 --> 00:16:41,310
Do my madam chairman, if I take these out of order from the agenda?

167
00:16:42,210 --> 00:16:42,430
Sure.

168
00:16:42,830 --> 00:16:43,390
That's fine.

169
00:16:43,870 --> 00:16:44,670
Great, I appreciate it.

170
00:16:44,810 --> 00:16:51,970
So the first thing we're going to talk about are the overlay text edits for hills crossing.

171
00:16:54,230 --> 00:17:01,210
and hopefully you saw the new draft in the folder in the shared folder.

172
00:17:01,850 --> 00:17:04,510
It's been available for several days now.

173
00:17:05,390 --> 00:17:09,730
We have a clean version in there and we have a red line version.

174
00:17:10,550 --> 00:17:13,030
So hopefully you've had an opportunity to take a look at them.

175
00:17:13,810 --> 00:17:17,210
And so just a summary of the recent actions that we've been taken.

176
00:17:17,210 --> 00:17:23,530
We revised this HCOD by-law based on comments from the board and the public.

177
00:17:24,630 --> 00:17:31,030
We also, in parallel with that, revised BCOD based on comments from the public.

178
00:17:31,650 --> 00:17:37,150
Town Council is reviewed and provided comments on BCOD, but their comments on the HCOD are pending.

179
00:17:38,110 --> 00:17:45,810
Able City, our consultant, has contributed revisions to the Zoning Text and are prepared to revise the graphics and tables after this meeting.

180
00:17:45,810 --> 00:17:52,750
and their subcontractor tangible impact is in the process of developing the build-out analysis.

181
00:17:55,390 --> 00:17:56,310
So, just as you...

182
00:17:56,310 --> 00:18:02,030
Oh, can you explain why you included the two things on the same?

183
00:18:02,490 --> 00:18:08,890
Why do changes of BCOD matter to the HCOD?

184
00:18:09,250 --> 00:18:14,550
I just compiled them in this one slide to have a little...

185
00:18:14,550 --> 00:18:19,350
Okay, we do the rest of the slide show is split between they're separated.

186
00:18:19,690 --> 00:18:21,690
So, okay, thank you for that.

187
00:18:21,810 --> 00:18:21,870
Yep.

188
00:18:22,990 --> 00:18:23,070
Okay.

189
00:18:24,150 --> 00:18:30,570
This, these are the revised maps, the regulating plan, which is the zoning map and the revised

190
00:18:30,570 --> 00:18:32,030
special requirements map.

191
00:18:32,510 --> 00:18:37,850
You can see in the special requirements map that there is what's called side yard accommodation,

192
00:18:38,110 --> 00:18:43,570
which is down here below by Hamilton and up here by Troy.

193
00:18:43,570 --> 00:18:50,450
Jason to the residential parcels. You can see this very small purple area right

194
00:18:50,450 --> 00:18:56,110
here which is called required corner storefront frontage which is intended

195
00:18:56,110 --> 00:19:01,630
to allow the transition between the community path and the storefronts on

196
00:19:01,630 --> 00:19:08,230
Brighton Street to be seamless. And then you can of course see the this kind of

197
00:19:08,230 --> 00:19:16,390
aqua-colored line which is the community path frontage and of course on the right side you can see the

198
00:19:16,390 --> 00:19:19,750
changes that were made based on your vote to the zoning map.

199
00:19:22,980 --> 00:19:25,120
In terms of the dimensional table

200
00:19:25,860 --> 00:19:33,380
the changes that were made from the last draft to this draft include flipping the columns for

201
00:19:33,380 --> 00:19:37,080
for FP2 and FP3 so that they were in order.

202
00:19:38,320 --> 00:19:41,220
So basically we just took the numbers for one

203
00:19:41,220 --> 00:19:43,100
and just moved it over to the other column.

204
00:19:43,680 --> 00:19:44,940
That's all that was done there.

205
00:19:46,300 --> 00:19:51,140
And we redeveloped the FP6 based on the new sub-district

206
00:19:51,140 --> 00:19:55,880
that members created at the last meeting.

207
00:19:56,820 --> 00:19:59,060
And if you can see down below,

208
00:20:01,380 --> 00:20:06,960
suggested maybe calling it the innovation and enterprise center sub-district. If you guys don't

209
00:20:06,960 --> 00:20:13,540
like that, please let me know, but that seemed to be something acceptable at the last meeting, but

210
00:20:13,540 --> 00:20:23,420
we have time to deal with that. We increased the accommodation in FB6 adjacent to residential district

211
00:20:23,420 --> 00:20:31,260
to four stories so that would be a transition down from 6 to 4 as it got to a

212
00:20:31,260 --> 00:20:38,920
certain distance toward residential zone land. And then finally we need to

213
00:20:38,920 --> 00:20:44,240
rename the maximum rear and side yard accommodation to residential proximity

214
00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:50,640
accommodation which is something you'll see later on in the text. So I'll just pause

215
00:20:50,640 --> 00:20:54,740
here for a second to see if anybody has any questions about the zoning

216
00:20:54,740 --> 00:21:01,120
dimensional table. I will say that Abel City just sent me an email about an hour

217
00:21:01,120 --> 00:21:06,260
ago saying that they had a couple of small tweaks to the dimensional table but

218
00:21:06,260 --> 00:21:08,480
largely they felt like everything was fine.

219
00:21:11,520 --> 00:21:11,800
Great.

220
00:21:11,920 --> 00:21:14,400
You're going to me, Chris, why are we eliminated FB4?

221
00:21:17,340 --> 00:21:27,220
We eliminated FB4 because we just renamed it actually because we wanted to make sure that each

222
00:21:27,220 --> 00:21:37,300
of our FB districts were the same across all areas. Like for example, the FB2 here has the same

223
00:21:37,300 --> 00:21:44,520
dimensions as the FB2 in the center zoning. So what we're trying to do is we're trying to use a

224
00:21:44,520 --> 00:21:48,140
very consistent typology across these areas.

225
00:21:55,120 --> 00:22:03,540
So in the use table, you can see that we added the word minimum to parking requirements,

226
00:22:03,680 --> 00:22:05,380
although we're not really talking about that yet.

227
00:22:06,260 --> 00:22:09,220
Live work space has been changed to live work unit.

228
00:22:11,120 --> 00:22:17,100
Senior active living residential has been changed to independent living facility to be consistent

229
00:22:17,100 --> 00:22:18,660
across all of our bylaws.

230
00:22:19,780 --> 00:22:26,200
We talked about uses at the last meeting and one of the slides talked about all these

231
00:22:26,200 --> 00:22:30,060
different potential innovative type uses that we could include.

232
00:22:30,780 --> 00:22:36,600
And there was one slide that said we could also put them under an umbrella category of

233
00:22:36,600 --> 00:22:38,640
business innovation enterprise.

234
00:22:39,740 --> 00:22:45,100
And so I just threw that in there in case that's something that you wanted to go with.

235
00:22:45,100 --> 00:22:49,680
But if you wanted to also get more specific, we could do that as well.

236
00:22:50,700 --> 00:22:58,120
And then we broke the hotel into the three classes that they are in section 6.15, 1,

237
00:22:58,320 --> 00:23:03,680
2, and 3, and then laid out the different zoning districts that, you know, we felt like

238
00:23:03,680 --> 00:23:04,900
they would be appropriate in.

239
00:23:06,300 --> 00:23:13,540
And then we moved mixed use from commercial down to other uses because it's not just commercial,

240
00:23:13,540 --> 00:23:21,320
it's commercial and residential. So that was moved down here. One of the things that came across

241
00:23:21,320 --> 00:23:28,700
my desk in the last week is that there is actually another category of senior housing, which is

242
00:23:28,700 --> 00:23:36,240
called active adult. It's something that's becoming more popular. And the difference between active

243
00:23:36,240 --> 00:23:42,540
of adult and independent living is that active adult typically does not have the medical

244
00:23:42,540 --> 00:23:48,880
services or other assistant services that the independent living facility does.

245
00:23:49,880 --> 00:23:55,760
So there was a company that said you may be interested in adding that category because

246
00:23:55,760 --> 00:24:00,040
there are a lot of companies that are looking to build specifically that type of housing.

247
00:24:00,040 --> 00:24:04,220
So, the board may feel that we should add that as well.

248
00:24:04,300 --> 00:24:05,520
I think it might be a good idea.

249
00:24:06,820 --> 00:24:07,720
Two other things.

250
00:24:08,380 --> 00:24:15,540
Number one, presently this table in the draft, I missed it, is also labeled 3-2, so that

251
00:24:15,540 --> 00:24:16,480
needs to be corrected.

252
00:24:17,180 --> 00:24:23,160
And then finally, for FB1, because we do want to encourage a certain type of commercial

253
00:24:23,160 --> 00:24:28,580
activity in there, we may want to consider certain types of uses like landscaping and

254
00:24:28,580 --> 00:24:32,220
nursery, veterinarian, specialty craft fabrication,

255
00:24:32,520 --> 00:24:35,380
which is a native use type of typology,

256
00:24:35,880 --> 00:24:38,020
artisan production, which is framing ham,

257
00:24:38,620 --> 00:24:40,420
or other types of heavier uses

258
00:24:40,420 --> 00:24:42,340
not focused on motor vehicles.

259
00:24:43,080 --> 00:24:45,460
So we're gonna get down to the use discussion

260
00:24:46,220 --> 00:24:47,700
as we go down below.

261
00:24:51,080 --> 00:24:53,860
So continuing on to some of the changes that were made,

262
00:24:54,700 --> 00:24:58,480
we, the board talked about a 250 foot separation

263
00:24:58,480 --> 00:25:02,980
of things like bars, taverns, breweries, and distilleries,

264
00:25:03,240 --> 00:25:05,320
and rooftop bars, things like that.

265
00:25:05,740 --> 00:25:10,260
And so I added some language to provide a 250 foot separation.

266
00:25:12,160 --> 00:25:16,420
In the section D, which is now labeled use requirements,

267
00:25:16,420 --> 00:25:22,580
instead of mixed use required, we are still requiring one residential floor.

268
00:25:22,680 --> 00:25:24,960
We haven't really made any decision on that yet.

269
00:25:24,960 --> 00:25:38,500
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.

270
00:25:40,500 --> 00:25:53,920
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

271
00:25:53,920 --> 00:25:59,440
as part of a larger building, so we added that provision that a hotel use may be incorporated

272
00:25:59,440 --> 00:26:04,960
into mixed use building that also includes residential and or other commercial uses, provided

273
00:26:04,960 --> 00:26:11,120
the provisions of section 6.15 are adhered to, and that language has to be added.

274
00:26:13,570 --> 00:26:14,250
Let me pause there.

275
00:26:16,940 --> 00:26:18,920
Oh, you're going to let me fly through this, aren't you? Okay.

276
00:26:19,260 --> 00:26:26,380
Well, I have a question. Does anyone else on the board have a question about this?

277
00:26:29,300 --> 00:26:30,820
I did have a question about the parking.

278
00:26:32,640 --> 00:26:38,620
I'm just wondering if the hotel comes in and they choose the minimum 0.5 spaces per room.

279
00:26:39,840 --> 00:26:44,220
And what happens if they have an overflow situation where there's more cars?

280
00:26:45,260 --> 00:26:47,720
Are we giving them any kind of options for where to park those?

281
00:26:48,660 --> 00:26:48,800
Yes.

282
00:26:49,040 --> 00:26:54,500
You remember that when we were talking about the center zoning, there's all sorts of shared

283
00:26:54,500 --> 00:26:55,420
parking provisions.

284
00:26:56,300 --> 00:27:00,340
and so those would apply here as well, okay?

285
00:27:02,630 --> 00:27:06,990
So my question is about the 250 foot separation

286
00:27:06,990 --> 00:27:08,770
from our districts.

287
00:27:09,670 --> 00:27:11,550
So did you lay it out on the map?

288
00:27:13,610 --> 00:27:16,530
I did one area.

289
00:27:17,270 --> 00:27:21,390
It was the one near Baker Street, but I haven't done it in all areas.

290
00:27:22,250 --> 00:27:25,490
So I think we should look at it because I just worry

291
00:27:27,470 --> 00:27:35,390
that you end up with, like, just a couple parcels where anyone could do anything like that.

292
00:27:35,830 --> 00:27:37,630
Okay, yeah, Conor and I can do that.

293
00:27:37,630 --> 00:27:47,180
So I just think it's worth checking. I'm maybe wrong, but, you know, I think of Hillestates or I don't know.

294
00:27:47,700 --> 00:27:48,660
Some of the other ones.

295
00:27:48,960 --> 00:27:53,840
Actually, what maybe we can ask GIS to do a buffer map for us.

296
00:27:54,560 --> 00:27:55,820
That would be great.

297
00:27:56,380 --> 00:27:57,760
Yeah, I think that would be great too.

298
00:27:58,500 --> 00:27:58,940
Okay.

299
00:27:59,060 --> 00:28:05,200
I think visually for other people as well just to see what we're talking about.

300
00:28:05,620 --> 00:28:05,880
Okay.

301
00:28:06,480 --> 00:28:07,220
Thank you.

302
00:28:07,400 --> 00:28:10,300
My thought is a 250 maybe too big a number.

303
00:28:11,140 --> 00:28:11,280
Right.

304
00:28:12,400 --> 00:28:13,040
Okay.

305
00:28:13,500 --> 00:28:13,980
Thank you.

306
00:28:16,620 --> 00:28:17,140
All right.

307
00:28:17,400 --> 00:28:20,060
So in the building type table,

308
00:28:20,440 --> 00:28:23,140
we removed several types,

309
00:28:23,140 --> 00:28:29,600
And particularly because of, you know, the, we're not, we no longer have the, the Hill

310
00:28:29,600 --> 00:28:30,680
of States in there.

311
00:28:31,640 --> 00:28:40,220
So the building types that remain our main street mix use type, a high rise type, and

312
00:28:40,220 --> 00:28:43,840
an artisan commercial type for the FB1.

313
00:28:44,420 --> 00:28:52,740
And you can see that we added the key and also a general key of not allowed allowed in

314
00:28:52,740 --> 00:28:57,940
the text of the zoning so people know exactly what that means instead of having to read it in the text.

315
00:28:59,640 --> 00:29:04,140
Coupled small edits are necessary. When I went through this slide show, I saw a couple things

316
00:29:04,140 --> 00:29:11,360
that need to be tweaked, but nothing substantial, but these would be the three building types

317
00:29:11,360 --> 00:29:17,300
allowed in the overlay. If you guys would like some other building types, that's great,

318
00:29:17,300 --> 00:29:20,320
But these are the three primary types,

319
00:29:24,300 --> 00:29:24,520
Alan.

320
00:29:25,120 --> 00:29:27,780
So in terms of these building types,

321
00:29:28,220 --> 00:29:32,920
were these three that are no longer in here previously included,

322
00:29:33,480 --> 00:29:38,120
or they, and they've been taken out for some reason?

323
00:29:38,360 --> 00:29:44,380
Or is it that we are just considering these three that are approved

324
00:29:44,380 --> 00:29:47,900
and those were just a remnant of some other overlay district?

325
00:29:47,900 --> 00:29:59,780
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

326
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:28,880
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.

327
00:30:28,880 --> 00:30:36,180
I was intended for the Hillestates, and you can see that we changed the seven stories to six

328
00:30:36,180 --> 00:30:40,740
stories because the Hillestates already has seven story buildings, so we were going to allow that.

329
00:30:41,140 --> 00:30:46,800
So this high-rise category essentially replaces the mid-rise category,

330
00:30:47,840 --> 00:30:55,340
because essentially we felt that the main street mixed use really kind of mimicked the mid-rise.

331
00:30:55,340 --> 00:31:02,700
it really is sort of the same thing. So we eliminated the mid-rise, and then the small scale mixed use

332
00:31:03,520 --> 00:31:10,680
was really intended for a district that doesn't exist anymore, so we don't need that either.

333
00:31:11,240 --> 00:31:13,080
Okay, all right, thank you.

334
00:31:18,430 --> 00:31:24,890
So in this section, we revised the frontage types. We just made the language a little bit more refined.

335
00:31:25,670 --> 00:31:32,490
You know, it basically talks about the relationship of frontages to ground story active uses.

336
00:31:33,210 --> 00:31:38,190
The required storefront frontage, which connects to the special requirements map.

337
00:31:39,670 --> 00:31:45,610
We did some changes to the four courts, and I'll show you that later down in this slideshow.

338
00:31:45,870 --> 00:31:53,910
But essentially, when I show you the graphic of the four court, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

339
00:31:53,910 --> 00:32:01,450
So, the floor court graphic was really a residential building in a large city that had

340
00:32:01,450 --> 00:32:07,290
a very deep floor court, which is typically pretty standard for that type of building.

341
00:32:07,830 --> 00:32:12,590
But we weren't interested in the floor court typology for a residential building.

342
00:32:13,190 --> 00:32:19,910
We really wanted it to meet or fit in with a more of a storefront environment.

343
00:32:19,910 --> 00:32:37,050
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.

344
00:32:37,050 --> 00:32:40,430
The four court in a residential building is not public space.

345
00:32:40,770 --> 00:32:42,770
It's not intended to be public space.

346
00:32:43,050 --> 00:32:52,490
But the four court for us here is definitely intended to be publicly accessible as part of the the storefront frontages.

347
00:32:53,110 --> 00:32:56,470
And so I will show you further down what we mean by that.

348
00:32:57,290 --> 00:33:03,730
We also felt like the colon aid, and I did ask this question, and it's certainly still

349
00:33:03,730 --> 00:33:06,370
up for debate, if you want to bring it back, that's fine.

350
00:33:07,210 --> 00:33:12,010
But I think really Conor and I give it a lot of thought, and we felt like the colon aid

351
00:33:12,010 --> 00:33:14,690
typology was not appropriate for Belmont.

352
00:33:15,270 --> 00:33:17,110
There isn't anything like it in Belmont.

353
00:33:17,530 --> 00:33:19,810
You have to go to air, I think, to see it.

354
00:33:19,810 --> 00:33:29,070
So I just I'm proposing that the colon aid typology be removed and then right

355
00:33:29,070 --> 00:33:35,170
here we have the required storefront frontage which basically talks about the

356
00:33:35,170 --> 00:33:40,030
frontage shall continue around the corner for a distance shown on the special

357
00:33:40,030 --> 00:33:44,530
requirements plan in order to reinforce a continuous and pedestrian oriented

358
00:33:44,530 --> 00:33:49,550
building edge. This is the section on required community path

359
00:33:49,550 --> 00:33:54,630
frontage. As we know, we want to make that a very active area

360
00:33:54,630 --> 00:33:59,210
as well. And then we have a provision for other frontage areas.

361
00:33:59,590 --> 00:34:03,370
So I think really the key elements here are that it requires ground story

362
00:34:03,370 --> 00:34:07,810
active uses as we've done in other zoning and the storefront

363
00:34:07,810 --> 00:34:11,590
frontage typology. And it also includes that community path

364
00:34:11,590 --> 00:34:15,650
frontage, which I think is probably the most exciting part of the overall program.

365
00:34:21,900 --> 00:34:24,900
All right. Any questions, comments?

366
00:34:28,040 --> 00:34:32,880
No, I mean, I think for the colony, I would say like I remember this discussion with Belmont

367
00:34:32,880 --> 00:34:38,300
Center and we eliminated it there. So it makes sense that we would not include it here as well.

368
00:34:39,020 --> 00:34:45,240
Yeah, yeah. I agree with you, but I do think that the four court might be an interesting feature.

369
00:34:45,240 --> 00:34:47,820
and I'll show you some pictures as to how it could look.

370
00:34:51,640 --> 00:34:55,560
So we added that public benefit incentive for the building height.

371
00:34:57,000 --> 00:35:03,760
Basically, if you want that additional seven feet of height, you must step back the fifth

372
00:35:03,760 --> 00:35:06,220
and six stories by ten feet each.

373
00:35:07,180 --> 00:35:15,080
And this is something that has already been proposed by a potential 40B project that has

374
00:35:15,080 --> 00:35:19,540
not made any progress, but we thought that the idea seemed like a good one for a building

375
00:35:19,540 --> 00:35:20,080
of that height.

376
00:35:22,020 --> 00:35:28,080
We also modified some of the requirements for the community path, you know, dealing

377
00:35:28,080 --> 00:35:34,760
with how it's measured, and so also in the pedestrian zone, the minimum depth instead

378
00:35:34,760 --> 00:35:37,160
of the minimum width, and thank you, Connor, for that catch.

379
00:35:45,560 --> 00:35:51,720
Now, have you measured to make sure there's enough room to do what?

380
00:35:52,980 --> 00:36:00,020
Well, if you're so between the buildings and the community path.

381
00:36:03,330 --> 00:36:07,190
There should be, yes, yes, there should be.

382
00:36:07,790 --> 00:36:15,150
Because essentially you're saying that those lots need to provide 12 feet to the public

383
00:36:15,150 --> 00:36:17,610
or 16 to 24.

384
00:36:18,930 --> 00:36:21,230
Yes, but that also includes right of way.

385
00:36:21,230 --> 00:36:22,090
Okay.

386
00:36:24,980 --> 00:36:26,100
I guess saying.

387
00:36:28,490 --> 00:36:31,770
I mean, it's it's from so are you measuring it?

388
00:36:32,590 --> 00:36:36,930
It says from the community path right of way where it intersects with a lot.

389
00:36:37,310 --> 00:36:43,870
So that's your from are your rear property line, depending on where it lies, right?

390
00:36:45,530 --> 00:36:47,030
Yeah. It's a good point.

391
00:36:47,190 --> 00:36:48,450
I'll take another look at it.

392
00:36:48,590 --> 00:36:53,310
And we'll ask Abel City to do that measurement for us before we continue with it.

393
00:36:53,310 --> 00:37:01,150
Thank you. I just my concern is that a lot of these lots are not very big. So when you require them to

394
00:37:01,150 --> 00:37:14,810
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.

395
00:37:15,290 --> 00:37:17,230
We'll double check it. Thank you.

396
00:37:17,230 --> 00:37:17,670
Yeah,

397
00:37:20,110 --> 00:37:27,170
so we're renaming the side yard accommodation to residential proximity accommodation.

398
00:37:28,490 --> 00:37:35,830
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.

399
00:37:36,410 --> 00:37:45,010
So it's a good term and also we provided a footnote for an upper story step back.

400
00:37:46,210 --> 00:37:51,450
that it's any portion of a building above two stories should be stepped back in additional

401
00:37:51,450 --> 00:37:56,910
10 feet from the required side set back adjacent to a residential zoning district boundary.

402
00:37:57,570 --> 00:38:01,850
And that is provided that a step back is not already provided as a half story.

403
00:38:02,010 --> 00:38:05,670
And I think we have to add side or rear into this as well.

404
00:38:07,810 --> 00:38:15,790
And then the landscape buffer and screening, this provision reads right now, landscape buffer

405
00:38:15,790 --> 00:38:19,410
with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided, Jason to any residential district

406
00:38:19,410 --> 00:38:25,730
boundary, a fence wall planting screener accommodation thereof may be used to satisfy this requirement.

407
00:38:26,490 --> 00:38:32,450
I just wanted to see if the board agreed with those different options, or if you felt any

408
00:38:32,450 --> 00:38:42,510
of these would really be not that workable in terms of providing that kind of buffer.

409
00:38:42,510 --> 00:38:48,730
or if you've got a tall building adjacent to a residential district, you know, a fencer

410
00:38:48,730 --> 00:38:54,330
wall probably is not going to do a whole lot for you, but, you know, the screening,

411
00:38:54,450 --> 00:38:59,550
the planting materials probably take a while to grow to a sufficient height as well.

412
00:39:00,330 --> 00:39:04,070
So what do you have any thoughts about that or, you know, we could certainly talk about

413
00:39:04,070 --> 00:39:05,870
it later, but I just want to bring this to your attention.

414
00:39:10,680 --> 00:39:12,460
Does anyone have any comments?

415
00:39:15,320 --> 00:39:18,600
I think mechanical equipment should be screened.

416
00:39:20,200 --> 00:39:20,640
Right.

417
00:39:21,700 --> 00:39:22,820
Oh, that's absolutely.

418
00:39:23,600 --> 00:39:25,640
I mean, it's already required in our by-law.

419
00:39:25,840 --> 00:39:32,300
But I'm not sure it needs a five-foot-buffer, but I think it needs something.

420
00:39:34,560 --> 00:39:35,560
Yeah, no, I definitely agree.

421
00:39:35,640 --> 00:39:40,960
This is more of a broad-based buffer and screening for, you know, the overall building itself,

422
00:39:41,200 --> 00:39:44,660
no matter what, you know, features were included, mechanicals there, otherwise.

423
00:39:45,640 --> 00:39:51,960
But yeah, I mean if we need to be more specific and include that is the in the description, we can do that.

424
00:39:52,480 --> 00:39:55,480
I just trash is always the other big one.

425
00:39:56,460 --> 00:39:57,520
Absolutely. Oh yeah.

426
00:39:57,980 --> 00:40:03,660
And all of our, you know, waste containers, there have to be, have to be screened anyway.

427
00:40:06,020 --> 00:40:07,320
But anyway, think about that.

428
00:40:07,320 --> 00:40:23,300
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.

429
00:40:24,460 --> 00:40:34,780
I don't know how you deal with it in language, it doesn't kind of start kind of putting out their aesthetics.

430
00:40:34,780 --> 00:40:45,560
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?

431
00:40:46,680 --> 00:41:03,460
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.

432
00:41:03,460 --> 00:41:10,080
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.

433
00:41:10,740 --> 00:41:13,280
But if not, you know, we can certainly remove the wall.

434
00:41:18,070 --> 00:41:18,670
Thank you.

435
00:41:19,690 --> 00:41:31,670
And then screening service areas, service areas, loading areas, mechanical equipment, shall be screened from view from Jason residential properties as per the BCOD105E5B.

436
00:41:32,730 --> 00:41:34,590
I think that's what you're talking about right there.

437
00:41:35,330 --> 00:41:35,510
Yeah.

438
00:41:35,510 --> 00:41:36,630
Yeah, okay.

439
00:41:40,030 --> 00:41:52,670
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.

440
00:41:53,210 --> 00:42:02,230
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.

441
00:42:02,230 --> 00:42:07,850
So I'll go back and double check that, but I do believe that we've made a lot of

442
00:42:07,850 --> 00:42:14,170
consistencies across the two. Thank you. And we're getting rid of the Water

443
00:42:14,170 --> 00:42:21,590
Body Accommodation and the specially planned area provision because we

444
00:42:21,590 --> 00:42:23,650
don't have the health states anymore.

445
00:42:27,320 --> 00:42:29,140
And there was other sections that related

446
00:42:29,140 --> 00:42:32,700
to Water Body and specially planned area, we remove those also.

447
00:42:35,700 --> 00:42:36,920
So that is the

448
00:42:38,120 --> 00:42:46,400
HCOD by law, be glad to answer any final questions on it before we move on to the BCOD.

449
00:42:49,600 --> 00:42:57,300
Hey, Chris, we talked at the last meeting about possibly letting all the floors be commercial.

450
00:42:58,300 --> 00:43:05,080
Maybe all the floors, I guess, along we've been out requiring all the floors to be residential, all the floors to be commercial.

451
00:43:05,080 --> 00:43:09,160
So is that, I mean, that's still an open issue, right?

452
00:43:10,080 --> 00:43:15,600
Yeah, I think one of the things that we would not do is make allow all floors to be residential.

453
00:43:15,800 --> 00:43:21,700
I think we want to have that required ground floor commercial pretty much universally.

454
00:43:22,960 --> 00:43:29,940
But I think that the question would be whether the upper floors could basically be either or.

455
00:43:29,940 --> 00:43:43,560
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.

456
00:43:44,340 --> 00:43:51,620
By requiring the one residential floor, we are allowed to do a simple majority vote.

457
00:43:52,300 --> 00:43:54,600
So, that's really the question.

458
00:43:56,000 --> 00:44:00,840
One of the things that you'll note that I mentioned earlier is that for FB6,

459
00:44:01,420 --> 00:44:05,440
because there is no residential provision in that sub-district,

460
00:44:05,800 --> 00:44:08,840
that's going to be required to have a supermajority vote anyway.

461
00:44:09,900 --> 00:44:13,880
So, I guess the question is, is the board comfortable with a supermajority vote

462
00:44:13,880 --> 00:44:16,140
for the whole program or not?

463
00:44:18,060 --> 00:44:28,640
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.

464
00:44:28,900 --> 00:44:45,180
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.

465
00:44:46,880 --> 00:44:47,640
That's my thought.

466
00:44:48,200 --> 00:44:53,800
Well, I can certainly remove the required residential provision if that's the desire

467
00:44:53,800 --> 00:44:54,200
of the board.

468
00:44:56,510 --> 00:44:56,710
Yeah.

469
00:44:56,790 --> 00:44:58,070
I said this the last minute.

470
00:44:58,130 --> 00:44:59,970
My concern is if we don't allow-

471
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:28,740
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.

472
00:45:28,740 --> 00:45:44,300
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.

473
00:45:45,900 --> 00:45:57,140
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.

474
00:45:57,820 --> 00:46:02,040
But, you know, there is a risk and you know, it's whether you guys are up for that risk.

475
00:46:02,040 --> 00:46:11,930
Well, I agree with the lease that we should do good zoning and then worry about the vote.

476
00:46:12,890 --> 00:46:24,530
You know, we should vote. We should zone for what is appropriate for Belmont and what makes sense and go from there.

477
00:46:27,210 --> 00:46:27,450
Okay.

478
00:46:29,090 --> 00:46:30,990
Andy, Madeline or

479
00:46:36,590 --> 00:46:42,150
anything to add. Yeah, I agree that we need to do those, we need to focus on the

480
00:46:42,150 --> 00:46:51,610
zoning first. I would hate to force residential like Alyssa said where it might not be warranted

481
00:46:51,610 --> 00:46:59,910
and or and then foreclose the opportunity for for someone who's interested in strictly commercial

482
00:46:59,910 --> 00:47:08,210
That made sense. Okay. Can I take that as a consensus out of the board? Yes, please. Okay.

483
00:47:10,230 --> 00:47:15,370
And Chris, to flip that around requiring, I love commercial, I think more than anybody,

484
00:47:15,590 --> 00:47:21,850
but if we require a graphical commercial, just alleviate an anxiety, I have. Would that,

485
00:47:22,830 --> 00:47:27,190
if a waterstone type place, well, I guess using the vocabulary recap here is it

486
00:47:29,110 --> 00:47:32,670
Independent living facility is going to be the term that will replace senior active

487
00:47:32,670 --> 00:47:33,650
with this great consistent.

488
00:47:34,330 --> 00:47:38,210
So independent living facility, or we talked earlier, you mentioned earlier, active adult.

489
00:47:39,970 --> 00:47:43,210
Basically, a water stone type place or an active adult, which I guess is a little bit different,

490
00:47:43,230 --> 00:47:44,270
but both appealing.

491
00:47:45,610 --> 00:47:50,790
If we require ground floor commercial, would that reduce our chances significantly of getting

492
00:47:50,790 --> 00:47:55,750
one of those places because it appears to me that those are purely residential.

493
00:47:56,550 --> 00:48:05,510
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.

494
00:48:06,530 --> 00:48:19,510
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.

495
00:48:20,090 --> 00:48:24,950
Does that make sense? I mean, we really want Brighton Street to be a commercial street.

496
00:48:24,950 --> 00:48:40,530
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.

497
00:48:41,550 --> 00:48:50,210
Maybe we try to get, try to encourage the location on a side street or an internal to a parcel.

498
00:48:50,690 --> 00:48:51,730
Does that make sense?

499
00:48:53,230 --> 00:48:57,270
Well, there's one question I have with those kinds of uses be considered purely commercial.

500
00:48:59,790 --> 00:49:05,010
Well, I mean, technically a multi-family is commercial code building.

501
00:49:05,570 --> 00:49:09,770
Okay, but not from a use standpoint, it's really a residential use.

502
00:49:12,700 --> 00:49:17,940
Well, my only concern is I think there's demand in the community for adult active independent living.

503
00:49:19,820 --> 00:49:23,160
We've had people, you know, having to go move to Waterstone and less than 10, who probably

504
00:49:23,160 --> 00:49:24,440
would have liked to have stayed in Valmont.

505
00:49:25,680 --> 00:49:31,940
That kind of development would be likely to be very profitable for reasons that I've

506
00:49:31,940 --> 00:49:33,460
been discussed over the last year and a half.

507
00:49:35,380 --> 00:49:38,460
So if someone wants to put one in Hills Crossing,

508
00:49:41,960 --> 00:49:44,720
you know, that'd be okay with me because I'd

509
00:49:44,720 --> 00:49:49,500
like to see something happen somewhere that maybe thinks I would prefer to happen in Hills

510
00:49:49,500 --> 00:49:55,060
crossing but it'd be a shame if for whatever reason even though we want something to happen if that

511
00:49:55,060 --> 00:50:00,360
doesn't happen and if we zone for the possibility of a waterstone adult active

512
00:50:02,100 --> 00:50:06,240
and we would have gotten it and we choose not to zone for that possibility allow that to happen

513
00:50:06,240 --> 00:50:11,820
then that we could be missing out on an opportunity that'd be my concern. Would you be open to a waiver

514
00:50:11,820 --> 00:50:17,480
provision? My only anxiety there is if people have told me he would know more about this than me that

515
00:50:17,480 --> 00:50:19,080
when you put things like special permit,

516
00:50:19,320 --> 00:50:20,920
the developers often think that means no.

517
00:50:21,180 --> 00:50:23,320
So if there's a way to do that in a way

518
00:50:23,320 --> 00:50:25,660
that really signals, no, we're really serious here.

519
00:50:25,780 --> 00:50:27,140
We may want something else to happen there.

520
00:50:27,240 --> 00:50:28,120
I'm listening to you, Chris,

521
00:50:28,240 --> 00:50:29,640
if we may want something else to happen to there

522
00:50:29,640 --> 00:50:32,400
and I'm deferential, but we don't see it happening.

523
00:50:33,740 --> 00:50:34,960
If we can communicate that,

524
00:50:35,060 --> 00:50:36,720
we would through whatever the magic words

525
00:50:36,720 --> 00:50:38,280
are, a special permit or whatever consider,

526
00:50:38,960 --> 00:50:41,840
other things being allowed, allowing other things

527
00:50:41,840 --> 00:50:47,020
to happen there, you know, I can get there, sure.

528
00:50:47,660 --> 00:50:55,680
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.

529
00:50:57,500 --> 00:51:09,880
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.

530
00:51:10,940 --> 00:51:13,940
Yeah, maybe there are other parts of town because you're not going to get like a water

531
00:51:13,940 --> 00:51:19,160
stone in the middle of Belmont sector probably, I don't know, the Belmont street to probably

532
00:51:19,160 --> 00:51:19,820
road corridor.

533
00:51:20,500 --> 00:51:26,300
My fantasy someday, the country club, if they're willing to give up some acres, if they think

534
00:51:26,300 --> 00:51:28,440
that's good for them, if they think it's good for them.

535
00:51:29,020 --> 00:51:33,800
I'm not sure how many other, maybe South Pleasantry, I just don't know where, there's some acres

536
00:51:33,800 --> 00:51:38,100
here in Hills Crossing, I'm not sure if we have other places that would potentially provide

537
00:51:38,100 --> 00:51:44,860
the kind of acreage that an active adult or independent living folks would want.

538
00:51:45,300 --> 00:51:49,200
You know more about that than I do, but that does seem to be a firm on a space here potentially.

539
00:51:49,840 --> 00:51:56,700
We'll do our research. South Pleasant Street does allow, I forget how it was defined,

540
00:51:56,700 --> 00:52:07,780
And senior living, I can't remember if it's, I think the idea was active, but I can't

541
00:52:07,780 --> 00:52:12,000
remember the actual definition as that was done years ago.

542
00:52:13,120 --> 00:52:14,820
Well, I'll take another look at that overlay.

543
00:52:15,500 --> 00:52:21,220
You know, we're working with the general code corporation on recodification of the bylaw.

544
00:52:21,220 --> 00:52:35,660
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.

545
00:52:36,420 --> 00:52:39,480
That's why I've changed the independent living.

546
00:52:40,520 --> 00:52:47,220
And so hopefully it does say that because we don't want to create more inconsistencies.

547
00:52:47,220 --> 00:52:56,720
but yeah I'll do that and Dan I will research how we can be nuanced about it. Thank you.

548
00:52:57,180 --> 00:53:04,620
You got it. Just to add I think that there are developers out there that do active living or

549
00:53:05,140 --> 00:53:12,540
senior housing that have good experiences with mixed use development where you have first floor

550
00:53:12,540 --> 00:53:19,940
commercial, which can include a medical office, for example, and other, you know,

551
00:53:20,100 --> 00:53:29,240
community needs, small groceries, or whatever, or convenience stores for people's

552
00:53:29,240 --> 00:53:36,640
needs. So I think, you know, we should also be thinking about developers that are

553
00:53:36,640 --> 00:53:48,520
creative and that have a desire to build these amenities into the residential buildings that they're

554
00:53:48,520 --> 00:53:58,020
trying to create. And by definition the active living being located in a place that has such close

555
00:53:58,020 --> 00:54:05,960
proximity to public transportation and to the city should they need to go in. That kind of fits in

556
00:54:05,960 --> 00:54:13,640
naturally with that idea of a first floor commercial and not just a purely residential building.

557
00:54:14,380 --> 00:54:22,580
It's a great point, Madeline. One of the things that we did for the hotel zoning

558
00:54:22,580 --> 00:54:29,420
by law 6.15 is that we did say that a hotel would still be required to have a certain amount

559
00:54:29,420 --> 00:54:36,320
of commercial space on the ground story, but it was less than typically what we would have

560
00:54:36,320 --> 00:54:43,100
required in the center. And two other points that you made, I think are excellent. Number one

561
00:54:43,780 --> 00:54:52,200
is that there are, as you say, often retail or service type of businesses that are aligned

562
00:54:52,200 --> 00:54:58,160
or actually integrated with a senior housing concept.

563
00:54:58,920 --> 00:55:01,300
And they could also serve the public as well,

564
00:55:01,660 --> 00:55:06,000
but that would perhaps be counted for that space.

565
00:55:06,580 --> 00:55:13,680
The final thing I'll say is that we're really less sort of hung up on commercial per se,

566
00:55:14,180 --> 00:55:18,880
and more interested in the active ground floor active space.

567
00:55:18,880 --> 00:55:36,300
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.

568
00:55:36,300 --> 00:55:50,700
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.

569
00:55:51,000 --> 00:55:52,020
So we'll look at all of that.

570
00:55:56,190 --> 00:56:08,010
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

571
00:56:08,010 --> 00:56:08,950
hit

572
00:56:11,830 --> 00:56:19,890
Hills Crossing? Yeah and that's designed. Okay and then I would like to open it up for

573
00:56:20,830 --> 00:56:29,230
some public questions and comments for 10 to 15 minutes. Absolutely. Please.

574
00:56:29,530 --> 00:56:36,910
This is just a rehashing I know Madeline hasn't seen it but we talked about uses that we could

575
00:56:36,910 --> 00:56:41,530
to add to the use table. I think there were at least two members that said, are we limiting

576
00:56:42,210 --> 00:56:49,090
the uses? Could we have some additional uses that might be really robust in the Hills

577
00:56:49,090 --> 00:56:57,390
Crossing area? And we talked about technology. We talked about the different types of offices,

578
00:56:57,690 --> 00:57:05,090
biotech offices, semi-conductor, vehicle research, robotics, computing research, things

579
00:57:05,090 --> 00:57:14,390
like that or a single term for advanced technology enterprise. And then we talked about some

580
00:57:14,390 --> 00:57:20,570
of the other different innovative uses that we could consider. Corporate and professional,

581
00:57:21,030 --> 00:57:28,470
medical and life science, education, food innovation, like test kitchens, business support,

582
00:57:28,470 --> 00:57:35,650
and the creative economy. All of those were things that I pulled together from

583
00:57:35,650 --> 00:57:43,670
other bylaws and my research on the web. And then of course we talked about other

584
00:57:43,670 --> 00:57:49,950
things like innovation, campus uses, venture ecosystems, and then other uses that

585
00:57:49,950 --> 00:57:55,270
are becoming common and forward-looking zoning like drone technology, circular

586
00:57:55,270 --> 00:58:03,610
economy businesses. And then finally, we sort of wrapped it up by talking about maybe having one

587
00:58:03,610 --> 00:58:11,310
umbrella term called innovation enterprise, which is a business-engaged primarily in research

588
00:58:11,310 --> 00:58:20,490
development software, etc. And so we did add that to the use table in case that was enough for you.

589
00:58:20,490 --> 00:58:39,790
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.

590
00:58:43,430 --> 00:58:47,110
Is anyone on the board have any thoughts about this?

591
00:58:47,110 --> 00:58:53,050
I like this short version. I like this short version also because, again, with the

592
00:58:53,050 --> 00:58:57,790
I hope that we can zone for at least a decade. We don't know what's going to be

593
00:58:57,790 --> 00:59:02,550
10 years from now. So I'd rather keep it general so that something that doesn't

594
00:59:02,550 --> 00:59:11,110
exist right now and it exists in five years is allowable. You know. Yeah. Yeah.

595
00:59:11,110 --> 00:59:15,050
So I think that was part of the reasoning for it as well.

596
00:59:18,570 --> 00:59:21,350
But still hold on to the office general use, right?

597
00:59:21,670 --> 00:59:27,930
So financial advisor, whatever tutor, they always could, you know, that used to be here

598
00:59:27,930 --> 00:59:28,670
as well, right?

599
00:59:28,950 --> 00:59:29,030
Yep.

600
00:59:30,070 --> 00:59:32,830
And I think we've also spelled out medical office as well.

601
00:59:33,930 --> 00:59:38,710
Just to be just, you know, as we talked about the last time, sometimes you want to be very

602
00:59:38,710 --> 00:59:45,570
specific about a use type because you want to encourage it specifically. You want those out there

603
00:59:46,260 --> 00:59:55,730
in the economy to say, hey, did you know that Belmont's zoning by law allows accelerator

604
00:59:55,730 --> 00:59:58,550
programs or robotics.

605
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:29,200
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.

606
01:00:29,200 --> 01:00:33,920
otherwise not have. And as long as we have office general, which I think hopefully covers a

607
01:00:33,920 --> 01:00:38,740
lot of front of anything that might happen in the decades to come, I'm okay with that combo and

608
01:00:38,740 --> 01:00:43,600
just nothing else to create. Regardless, I appreciate the effort you made and the incredibly creative

609
01:00:43,600 --> 01:00:49,280
list you put together. Well, I appreciate that Dan. And one final thing that I could do if you're

610
01:00:49,280 --> 01:00:55,160
interested in, I'm not looking for you to necessarily say yes or no right now, but I could provide a very

611
01:00:55,160 --> 01:01:03,780
simple Google Forms survey, I could list all the uses and then I could see who agreed

612
01:01:03,780 --> 01:01:09,780
with maybe the top three or something, or if you got at least 10 votes, maybe we could

613
01:01:09,780 --> 01:01:10,300
put it in there.

614
01:01:10,480 --> 01:01:12,240
But I'd be glad to do something like that.

615
01:01:12,580 --> 01:01:13,420
It's not a heavy lift.

616
01:01:14,220 --> 01:01:16,440
Can I just ask a basic question?

617
01:01:17,360 --> 01:01:21,060
I think because we're designing zoning here on our use table.

618
01:01:21,640 --> 01:01:30,720
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.

619
01:01:31,280 --> 01:01:37,960
Isn't that really like an economic development exercise more than a zoning exercise in here?

620
01:01:38,160 --> 01:01:47,980
Since I know obviously we don't have like an economic development department, but are we sort of blending to tasks?

621
01:01:49,320 --> 01:01:55,560
Well, I mean, developing a use table does have an economic development, you know, element

622
01:01:55,560 --> 01:01:56,040
to it.

623
01:01:56,220 --> 01:01:57,140
There's no doubt about that.

624
01:01:57,240 --> 01:02:03,320
It also has a housing policy element to it, and, you know, maybe some other overlaps

625
01:02:03,320 --> 01:02:03,780
as well.

626
01:02:03,980 --> 01:02:12,260
But, yeah, I think there is a confluence between those two, but, you know, I think I feel

627
01:02:12,260 --> 01:02:19,600
still fairly lucky to be able to say that I am not only an economic development professional,

628
01:02:19,780 --> 01:02:20,980
but a planning professional as well.

629
01:02:21,760 --> 01:02:27,000
And so I feel like I can speak both languages, so to speak.

630
01:02:28,480 --> 01:02:34,280
But yeah, I mean, we certainly would welcome public input on this as well.

631
01:02:35,220 --> 01:02:40,800
We would welcome the Economic Development Advisory Committee to opine on this as well.

632
01:02:40,800 --> 01:02:48,000
and they're going to be actually visiting us on the 8th, so maybe we can rehash this discussion

633
01:02:48,000 --> 01:02:48,680
at that time.

634
01:02:51,000 --> 01:02:57,880
Well, if I could weigh in briefly, I would go with the, as you might guess, the more

635
01:02:57,880 --> 01:03:07,540
simple version. I think you need to write it in a way that covers things we haven't thought of,

636
01:03:07,540 --> 01:03:19,480
which I think this does. And I am opposed to zoning that the use table becomes 30 pages long

637
01:03:19,840 --> 01:03:28,040
with a long list of things. And what if we forgot one version of it? I mean, I can't imagine,

638
01:03:29,360 --> 01:03:36,100
I mean, I know in Cambridge, they have most of those things in your list. And they're not called out

639
01:03:36,100 --> 01:03:44,280
individually in their zoning. So, you know, the shorter the sweeter the more general we can get

640
01:03:44,280 --> 01:03:47,060
for that I think is better.

641
01:03:49,260 --> 01:03:54,640
Thank you. Appreciate it. I agree as well. The shorter the better,

642
01:03:55,280 --> 01:04:03,080
I would, I'm just curious if this did kind of veer towards the economic development strategizing.

643
01:04:03,080 --> 01:04:07,820
Is there a resource available somewhere?

644
01:04:08,340 --> 01:04:09,800
Maybe it's not part of the zoning,

645
01:04:10,040 --> 01:04:16,380
but it's part of the town's kind of a vision document

646
01:04:16,380 --> 01:04:18,040
or a resource document for developer,

647
01:04:18,080 --> 01:04:21,860
or whatever it is that does give a list,

648
01:04:22,200 --> 01:04:25,260
or kind of say these are the kinds of things

649
01:04:25,260 --> 01:04:27,100
that we encourage.

650
01:04:27,480 --> 01:04:31,400
You must look at the zoning bylaws

651
01:04:31,400 --> 01:04:36,280
to make sure that those, you know, uses are allowable.

652
01:04:36,880 --> 01:04:41,520
But just, you know, throwing out that it might be, you know,

653
01:04:41,660 --> 01:04:47,540
some other resource document in the context of economic development that is put out by the town.

654
01:04:48,240 --> 01:04:49,200
Yeah, absolutely.

655
01:04:49,540 --> 01:04:53,880
Connor will probably hit me over the head for repeating this so many times.

656
01:04:54,260 --> 01:05:00,570
But there is a website for a project in Cleveland called the Midline.

657
01:05:00,570 --> 01:05:10,590
line, and it's essentially a marketing website for development of a fairly difficult

658
01:05:10,590 --> 01:05:14,170
area that hasn't seen any growth in almost a century.

659
01:05:15,310 --> 01:05:22,590
And so this particular website shows the types of uses that they're looking for, the types

660
01:05:22,590 --> 01:05:27,270
of industrial uses and commercial uses that they're trying to encourage.

661
01:05:27,270 --> 01:05:33,490
It's a marketing tool that's put out by an economic development entity.

662
01:05:34,430 --> 01:05:38,910
And so I talked to the Economic Development Advisory Committee about that last week,

663
01:05:39,210 --> 01:05:44,430
and I think it would be the perfect place to have something like that a list like you're

664
01:05:44,430 --> 01:05:44,970
talking about.

665
01:05:45,170 --> 01:05:46,370
So yes, absolutely.

666
01:05:50,780 --> 01:05:50,980
All right.

667
01:05:51,140 --> 01:05:55,000
Let me quickly move on to the design issues to address.

668
01:05:56,180 --> 01:06:05,780
We talked about roof types briefly. I asked members to send me any pictures. I did get one response,

669
01:06:06,680 --> 01:06:14,840
and so as you know right now we only have flat roofs in the HCOD and the BCOD. At the last meeting

670
01:06:14,840 --> 01:06:23,520
we talked about it, and the two types that were recommended were the peaked or gabled roof and the

671
01:06:23,520 --> 01:06:28,640
The question is, does the board want to include these two types because Abel City is going

672
01:06:28,640 --> 01:06:30,480
to have to develop the language for it?

673
01:06:31,380 --> 01:06:34,040
Or do you want to propose any additional roof types?

674
01:06:35,220 --> 01:06:40,940
And so this is just sort of a rehashing of the different types of roofs that you could

675
01:06:40,940 --> 01:06:41,680
typically have.

676
01:06:41,880 --> 01:06:47,420
Most of these are not appropriate for commercial, but the gable roof certainly is.

677
01:06:47,420 --> 01:06:56,580
the HIP roof is, the Gambrill and Mansard roof are, and the Pyramid as well. I mean, you

678
01:06:56,580 --> 01:07:04,940
even see some in Boston and down by the seaport that are salt box. And if you go to Portland

679
01:07:04,940 --> 01:07:10,480
Maine, you can see some salt box, old industrial buildings or mixed use buildings as well. So,

680
01:07:10,480 --> 01:07:14,420
So why does this question need resolution now?

681
01:07:15,540 --> 01:07:19,880
Well, the zoning tax needs to reference the type and to establish those requirements.

682
01:07:21,400 --> 01:07:26,220
The area under the roof may need to count as a half story in some cases, so we have

683
01:07:26,220 --> 01:07:31,540
to have sort of an extension of our half story definition and sort of fleshing that out.

684
01:07:32,460 --> 01:07:38,260
And anything extending above the height of a flat roof will necessarily add additional building

685
01:07:38,260 --> 01:07:44,880
height to the heights that we have right now, and so the question is, do the board want

686
01:07:44,880 --> 01:07:51,260
to add these types to the HOD alone, or do you want to reconsider going back and adding

687
01:07:51,260 --> 01:07:52,160
it to the BCOD?

688
01:07:53,180 --> 01:07:58,180
And so I mean, I think after this meeting, there really won't be much more time to reconsider

689
01:07:58,180 --> 01:08:03,100
this question because it takes time to really put this stuff together, so I would definitely

690
01:08:03,100 --> 01:08:05,320
love your feedback if you have any.

691
01:08:05,320 --> 01:08:06,200
I

692
01:08:09,050 --> 01:08:19,800
mean, I do think you could do a mansard within our existing bylaw because it doesn't necessarily

693
01:08:19,800 --> 01:08:28,720
add height. You're basically just sort of articulating the top floor. I mean, I'm not sure

694
01:08:28,720 --> 01:08:39,270
people are really doing mansard groups these days, but I think there are some developments

695
01:08:39,270 --> 01:08:45,630
like I think the one that I showed you, Crocker Park, I do believe they might have had a

696
01:08:45,630 --> 01:08:54,510
Mansard Roof or two there. They might have one in Somerville at their new development.

697
01:08:56,090 --> 01:09:01,550
So I've seen them around here and there, but yeah, that was one of the ones that was recommended

698
01:09:01,550 --> 01:09:03,810
and the Gable Roof was another.

699
01:09:12,260 --> 01:09:16,240
I mean, so as the one person who responded, I for one would like

700
01:09:16,240 --> 01:09:23,200
variety besides just flat because I think even though a gable or a hip adds a little height it

701
01:09:23,200 --> 01:09:32,800
also adds more interest and it's not a flat it's not a wall of height it's a peak so um I

702
01:09:35,040 --> 01:09:35,160
don't

703
01:09:35,160 --> 01:09:39,660
know I just think you know if it's if it's not gonna pencil out they're not gonna propose it so I

704
01:09:39,660 --> 01:09:45,580
I think, but if it makes it go attractive, then I

705
01:09:48,370 --> 01:09:50,350
agree with you.

706
01:09:53,320 --> 01:09:54,120
I agree.

707
01:09:54,700 --> 01:10:02,600
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.

708
01:10:03,100 --> 01:10:11,240
So kind of kind of tying back to the design feel of the town.

709
01:10:12,340 --> 01:10:18,440
and not having flat all the way across might be a nice option for developers. They don't have to take it.

710
01:10:18,620 --> 01:10:26,080
They could still have the flat roof if they'd wish, but this might give some more architectural interest to the streetscape.

711
01:10:26,640 --> 01:10:32,320
Sure. And keep it within the context, the design context of town.

712
01:10:35,020 --> 01:10:42,280
And you Dan? Well, of course, does the roof type, depending on, is there a possibility

713
01:10:42,280 --> 01:10:46,200
that a certain kind of roof type would then count as a half story? And then maybe if

714
01:10:46,200 --> 01:10:50,460
fact, you know, someone wants to have six stories or four stories, if they go with a certain

715
01:10:50,460 --> 01:10:54,460
roof type, they have, they're going to have to have, maybe lose the floor, lose a half

716
01:10:54,460 --> 01:10:55,760
floor. Is that the possibility here?

717
01:10:57,820 --> 01:10:59,800
Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, from the standpoint

718
01:10:59,800 --> 01:11:04,180
of a gable roof, I think it's probably most appropriate in those two sub districts where

719
01:11:04,180 --> 01:11:13,000
we allow a half-story already. So in a way, it's a perfect fit. For those districts that

720
01:11:13,000 --> 01:11:24,120
are not half-story districts, the gable would probably be an uninhabitable, extra height,

721
01:11:26,320 --> 01:11:33,300
the way that we were proposing it for, I mean, we actually did have it in the MBTA-3A,

722
01:11:33,300 --> 01:11:41,020
but we eliminated it for the center because people didn't want that extra 10 feet.

723
01:11:42,650 --> 01:11:50,210
Well, I guess I can't house my canacles. Right. Exactly. Obviously, if the

724
01:11:50,210 --> 01:11:54,990
development is going to be profitable for the town, create vibrancy, and if we

725
01:11:54,990 --> 01:12:00,230
feel that the more usable space, the better. It'd be a shame if the roof type

726
01:12:00,230 --> 01:12:27,450
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.

727
01:12:28,650 --> 01:12:46,790
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.

728
01:12:47,590 --> 01:12:56,890
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

729
01:12:56,890 --> 01:13:08,150
need to regulate. One of the questions that I could ask you is fairly substantial. Probably

730
01:13:08,150 --> 01:13:16,870
the easiest thing to do would be to go back and add it to the BCOD and then just have

731
01:13:16,870 --> 01:13:24,970
it because the BCOD is kind of serving as the feedstock for the rest of these overlays.

732
01:13:25,410 --> 01:13:30,030
You know, we could just have those design requirements there, and I think that would make

733
01:13:30,030 --> 01:13:30,850
a lot of sense.

734
01:13:31,850 --> 01:13:37,950
So that would be my recommendation to you if we're going to go with multiple roof types.

735
01:13:39,170 --> 01:13:43,710
And that wouldn't allow anyone to go over the height restrictions we have in the BCOD already,

736
01:13:43,870 --> 01:13:43,990
right?

737
01:13:44,130 --> 01:13:47,830
They were just making a choice, and they're going to have to live with the overall height.

738
01:13:48,010 --> 01:13:50,550
This roof is not going to get some sort of a dispensation.

739
01:13:50,550 --> 01:13:54,490
they have to, they can't go higher than the height limit that we have in the BCOD, right?

740
01:13:55,910 --> 01:14:00,970
Yeah, we could do it that way, and then we could have the height limitations in the HCOD.

741
01:14:03,750 --> 01:14:05,990
We'd have the height provisions in the HCOD.

742
01:14:06,490 --> 01:14:11,810
Yeah. So that way anyone is concerned about height here. If we go that route, they wouldn't

743
01:14:11,810 --> 01:14:16,790
see this as a way of us trying to increase the permissible height beyond the number of feet

744
01:14:16,790 --> 01:14:19,490
that we have in the BCOD. Right, it would have to be that way, yes.

745
01:14:19,490 --> 01:14:23,970
are here. Yeah. Now, I mean, the developer a chance to do something that they may feel strongly

746
01:14:23,970 --> 01:14:28,550
about in which case, you know, God bless. Yeah. I mean, in the end, I'm going to have to talk to

747
01:14:28,550 --> 01:14:34,250
Abel City about it and see what their thoughts are as well because they have a lot of experience

748
01:14:34,250 --> 01:14:40,230
in putting these types of provisions together. But in the end, that's how I think it would work

749
01:14:40,230 --> 01:14:43,630
in a most elegant way. I'll see if we can make that work.

750
01:14:45,750 --> 01:14:46,350
Thank you.

751
01:14:48,660 --> 01:14:54,840
Okay, I've heard Gable, Hip, and Mancerd as three types.

752
01:14:55,220 --> 01:14:58,260
I think going beyond that's going to be time-consuming and expensive.

753
01:14:59,180 --> 01:14:59,980
But I think it's a good...

754
01:15:00,000 --> 01:15:28,180
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.

755
01:15:28,660 --> 01:15:33,260
So I think you have to trust the process a little bit that, generally speaking, they're

756
01:15:33,260 --> 01:15:37,540
going to want to make something that's attractive that will sell, you know, that people will

757
01:15:37,540 --> 01:15:44,140
be willing to use and will admire, and I don't, I don't, I mean, some of these are ridiculous,

758
01:15:44,360 --> 01:15:49,100
you know, and Bonnet Roof, nobody's going to do that, so, you know, but I don't think we

759
01:15:49,100 --> 01:15:53,040
should call it out and restrain in any way at this point.

760
01:15:53,040 --> 01:16:03,460
I think where we're running into an issue is by doing sort of the design guidelines piece

761
01:16:03,460 --> 01:16:12,940
of the work Aval City is doing where they prescribe more closely what kind of design

762
01:16:12,940 --> 01:16:21,960
we're looking for and I think what I'm hearing is the less restrictions or the fewer restrictions.

763
01:16:23,100 --> 01:16:24,000
The better.

764
01:16:24,480 --> 01:16:24,840
Correct.

765
01:16:26,100 --> 01:16:26,480
Okay.

766
01:16:26,620 --> 01:16:32,560
I'll see if I can find a way to maybe write the language that provides for a multiplicity

767
01:16:32,560 --> 01:16:33,880
of roof styles.

768
01:16:34,520 --> 01:16:40,140
I mean, obviously, we don't want like, you know, I don't think we want the bonnet or the

769
01:16:40,140 --> 01:16:46,480
butterfly or the a frame, but I think we can maybe create a fairly inclusive list.

770
01:16:46,480 --> 01:17:07,480
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.

771
01:17:09,220 --> 01:17:09,920
Thank you.

772
01:17:10,260 --> 01:17:10,840
Thank you.

773
01:17:10,940 --> 01:17:11,760
First is what?

774
01:17:12,080 --> 01:17:15,360
You know, what I said, and I think I interpreted it.

775
01:17:15,360 --> 01:17:16,640
Andy is kind of going in the same direction.

776
01:17:17,660 --> 01:17:20,200
Is this making you at all uncomfortable terms?

777
01:17:20,200 --> 01:17:21,660
We have a form-based code concept.

778
01:17:22,120 --> 01:17:24,740
I sense a lot of people want to go that way.

779
01:17:25,040 --> 01:17:27,240
If we get too wide open with the roofs,

780
01:17:27,440 --> 01:17:30,680
is there a tension between the concept of a form-based code

781
01:17:30,680 --> 01:17:33,180
that's somewhat restricts what can be built

782
01:17:34,880 --> 01:17:36,940
and giving tremendous latitude on the roofs?

783
01:17:36,940 --> 01:17:44,680
If there's a tension there, you know, not really Dan. I think it's okay. Okay. I appreciate the the question anyway.

784
01:17:46,040 --> 01:17:49,300
Just a few more slides on design and then we'll jump back to the BCOD.

785
01:17:51,460 --> 01:18:05,620
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.

786
01:18:06,440 --> 01:18:13,600
I agree and so I put these slides together to provide my critique and I want to

787
01:18:13,600 --> 01:18:18,480
hear what your thoughts are. Essentially the FB1 looks like just an extension

788
01:18:18,480 --> 01:18:22,520
of a storefront district and that's that's not what we're going for.

789
01:18:22,620 --> 01:18:31,680
We're going for a commercial low-scale low-density sort of a not necessarily

790
01:18:31,680 --> 01:18:38,220
in office park but something that's more aligned with the pictures on the top that you see these

791
01:18:38,220 --> 01:18:44,540
older industrial buildings either from the Art Deco era or previously that have been retrofitted

792
01:18:45,440 --> 01:18:53,220
into commercial buildings. Essentially, I'm looking for something that does not have a storefront

793
01:18:53,220 --> 01:19:00,680
frontage or the awnings and it's not pedestrian centric either. I'm looking for them to maybe mimic

794
01:19:00,680 --> 01:19:08,140
some sort of older commercial district that has this type of older building in it that has

795
01:19:08,140 --> 01:19:20,060
a site typology to it or some sort of philosophy. So that was my critique here. And if you don't mind,

796
01:19:20,200 --> 01:19:25,120
I actually want to run through all the sub districts and then I'll go back and whatever you guys want to

797
01:19:25,120 --> 01:19:31,040
say we'll just take anyone you want to talk about. Sounds good.

798
01:19:33,980 --> 01:19:41,480
FB2, this critique may be less relevant now that we've decided we may want to go to

799
01:19:41,480 --> 01:19:47,760
a different roof types. As you can see, there's both a salt box, which is the one closest

800
01:19:47,760 --> 01:19:55,740
to you, and pitched roof. So I did critique it from that standpoint because they basically

801
01:19:55,740 --> 01:19:59,280
proposed zoning that didn't have those roof types, but they provided a graphic that

802
01:19:59,280 --> 01:20:05,940
did. So I didn't understand that. Also they provided for a stoop, frontage type, which

803
01:20:05,940 --> 01:20:10,740
we've eliminated that too. So I told them in this slide that they need to correct that.

804
01:20:11,520 --> 01:20:17,960
Finally, I think that they need to have greater depth of a building on the lot because, you

805
01:20:17,960 --> 01:20:23,120
know, this is not making use of much of the lot, and I think it could go deeper.

806
01:20:24,160 --> 01:20:28,800
And then finally, there should be some corner treatment here.

807
01:20:29,440 --> 01:20:31,720
There's going to be a front street and a side street.

808
01:20:32,060 --> 01:20:37,120
There should be a wraparound to continue the storefronts a little bit to the side street.

809
01:20:37,120 --> 01:20:40,720
So, those were my critiques on this right here.

810
01:20:43,340 --> 01:20:52,120
For FB3, I thought this was the worst, it looks like my text is a little bit washed out,

811
01:20:52,560 --> 01:20:55,980
but I can change that, I think, no I can't.

812
01:20:56,640 --> 01:21:03,700
Anyway, this is the most important sub-district I think of all in terms of being creative,

813
01:21:04,520 --> 01:21:06,560
It's related to the community path.

814
01:21:06,680 --> 01:21:08,540
It's supposed to front on the community path.

815
01:21:09,300 --> 01:21:11,120
And essentially what they've provided us,

816
01:21:11,420 --> 01:21:15,380
you know, looks like a library in a college town.

817
01:21:16,860 --> 01:21:19,420
It really doesn't have much of a street presence.

818
01:21:19,560 --> 01:21:22,620
I think they try to show that it has awnings,

819
01:21:22,620 --> 01:21:24,900
but to me it just looks like a shadow.

820
01:21:25,860 --> 01:21:30,160
And it has this inset that is intended,

821
01:21:30,160 --> 01:21:32,320
I guess to be a forecourt.

822
01:21:32,320 --> 01:21:40,760
But, that's not at all the image that I thought would be best to portray the community path.

823
01:21:41,360 --> 01:21:46,680
I think the community path needs greater differentiation and modulation in terms of the facades.

824
01:21:47,460 --> 01:21:49,820
Perhaps 50 feet at the most in width.

825
01:21:50,300 --> 01:21:53,440
Shopfront should be aligned at the zero lot line at the path.

826
01:21:53,600 --> 01:21:55,840
Maybe a little bit of a setback I can talk about earlier.

827
01:21:56,580 --> 01:22:01,800
I don't think the roofs should be pitched here or at least not, you know, consistently.

828
01:22:03,240 --> 01:22:07,520
And there's also a side yard prominence that I didn't think worked very well.

829
01:22:08,400 --> 01:22:13,440
And I also think the lower right corner needs to be that transition from the pass

830
01:22:14,040 --> 01:22:17,220
to Brighton Street, which should continue the storefronts.

831
01:22:18,980 --> 01:22:24,940
And I'm sorry, this text is washed out but, you know, essentially I think

832
01:22:24,940 --> 01:22:29,960
these two photographs while they're not exactly the design that I would

833
01:22:29,960 --> 01:22:36,760
recommend. They do show that kind of bringing it right up to a path. The one

834
01:22:36,760 --> 01:22:42,940
below here is from Atlanta and I really hate the architectural design but you

835
01:22:42,940 --> 01:22:48,920
can see that it's literally within 25 feet of the path. And then this one is I

836
01:22:48,920 --> 01:22:55,900
believe in Indianapolis, and you can see there's a kind of a tree lawn separating the path

837
01:22:55,900 --> 01:23:02,300
from the storefronts, but it's still pretty close. So I really want to make the community

838
01:23:02,300 --> 01:23:10,100
path subjectric special. And so I think this rendering needs to be special.

839
01:23:18,300 --> 01:23:18,900
That's just

840
01:23:18,900 --> 01:23:22,220
Again, this to me is just so homogenized.

841
01:23:22,300 --> 01:23:23,780
I know there are different colored buildings,

842
01:23:24,020 --> 01:23:26,840
but basically it looks like they took Lego blocks

843
01:23:26,840 --> 01:23:28,080
and just lined them up.

844
01:23:29,520 --> 01:23:32,720
I feel like we really don't wanna have

845
01:23:33,560 --> 01:23:35,060
these separated buildings.

846
01:23:35,220 --> 01:23:39,660
I think they should be essentially a connected

847
01:23:39,660 --> 01:23:43,480
like a town center's buildings typically are.

848
01:23:44,260 --> 01:23:46,400
I think it's okay that there is a separation

849
01:23:46,400 --> 01:23:52,720
between the one that's to the farthest left and the next one because you might you might have

850
01:23:52,720 --> 01:23:59,500
that as a as either a pedestrian or a vehicular access to the rear and I can see that as being

851
01:23:59,500 --> 01:24:06,860
something that would be you know reasonable. But again I think that there there needs to be a

852
01:24:06,860 --> 01:24:15,600
little more thought put into this. I also think that because the FB5 does have the provision for a

853
01:24:15,600 --> 01:24:21,100
density bonus of seven feet in height, show one building like that. I think we

854
01:24:21,100 --> 01:24:26,120
need to at least show one building that shows what that would look like. And then

855
01:24:26,120 --> 01:24:33,120
finally, I thought this was probably the best one that they did. I think that

856
01:24:33,120 --> 01:24:39,680
the gray building at the top probably is a little too deep on this side right

857
01:24:39,680 --> 01:24:46,700
here on the right, but because we changed this sub-district to include the backland area

858
01:24:46,700 --> 01:24:52,040
where the church is and then going all the way back to Channing Road, I think there

859
01:24:52,040 --> 01:24:59,540
needs to be some diversity of building types and lot features in the rear that shows what

860
01:24:59,540 --> 01:25:01,620
this particular sub-district could be.

861
01:25:02,520 --> 01:25:04,600
And so I think it just needs to be rethought.

862
01:25:04,600 --> 01:25:11,540
plus the other thing is that there is no side street in FB6 and they've got a side street here

863
01:25:12,520 --> 01:25:18,320
and so I think that they need to rethink a lot a lot of that part of it as well so I'm

864
01:25:18,320 --> 01:25:26,040
going to leave it at that because I don't have any more slides about design and see if you guys

865
01:25:26,040 --> 01:25:30,020
have any thoughts or any if you feel differently about some of these than I did.

866
01:25:32,330 --> 01:25:33,190
Well Chris I agree

867
01:25:33,190 --> 01:25:38,730
with you that none of these look any good but I'm thinking back to the way this whole process

868
01:25:38,730 --> 01:25:44,350
started and that was that they did a bunch of renderings and then people were showing the

869
01:25:44,350 --> 01:25:50,190
renderings and they voted on them and there were some streetscapes that people liked and there

870
01:25:50,190 --> 01:25:54,390
were some that they didn't like and I thought that was much better you know that I thought that was

871
01:25:54,390 --> 01:26:00,210
very persuasive and I'm wondering if we can go back and look at those original renderings and choose

872
01:26:00,210 --> 01:26:05,850
some of them that we think would be better fits for these scenarios, these FB scenarios.

873
01:26:06,450 --> 01:26:12,630
Yeah, I mean, are you talking about the kind of can't think of the word right now,

874
01:26:12,630 --> 01:26:16,750
because it's been such a long time, a visual preference survey that we conducted.

875
01:26:16,910 --> 01:26:19,190
Yes, absolutely, we can do that.

876
01:26:25,150 --> 01:26:28,990
Well, Chris, I appreciate all the comments you made, because you said this around comments

877
01:26:28,990 --> 01:26:33,410
that I think it was.com below had a lot of insightful observations about the

878
01:26:33,410 --> 01:26:36,830
renderings that I think it's great. It seems to me you're addressing a lot of

879
01:26:36,830 --> 01:26:41,530
the concerns you expressed. I appreciate the time you put into it to look at

880
01:26:41,530 --> 01:26:45,130
these things. Come up with those thoughts and I think that you're making a great

881
01:26:45,130 --> 01:26:48,910
good faith effort to respond. Great. Appreciate that Dan.

882
01:26:52,340 --> 01:26:54,320
Any other comments

883
01:26:54,320 --> 01:26:55,380
the board?

884
01:26:58,450 --> 01:27:03,610
You're muted Lisa. Yeah. I think the the one where you said I think

885
01:27:03,610 --> 01:27:08,250
May it was FB2 where the roof thing is irrelevant now because now we are allowing that.

886
01:27:10,470 --> 01:27:15,530
I think that's not, so we can take away the roof comment because now that kind of roof

887
01:27:15,530 --> 01:27:22,170
can be done and just tell them to not show a stoop and that's, this one's not bad.

888
01:27:23,210 --> 01:27:28,670
Yeah, I think it's pretty close if, yeah, that, and the other thing is that all of the

889
01:27:28,670 --> 01:27:34,150
different roofs of the different buildings have the same dormers and I just

890
01:27:34,150 --> 01:27:40,150
think that's that's one of the things that to me is where is your creativity

891
01:27:40,150 --> 01:27:46,830
where is your you know design expertise you need to be a little bit more

892
01:27:46,830 --> 01:27:52,450
thoughtful and make this appear more organic right now it looks like it's you

893
01:27:52,450 --> 01:27:57,010
you know, sort of a reconstruction of, you know,

894
01:27:57,230 --> 01:28:00,610
colonial, yeah, there's something like that.

895
01:28:02,350 --> 01:28:05,190
Yeah, my assumption was that was a limitation

896
01:28:05,190 --> 01:28:06,430
of the design software,

897
01:28:06,510 --> 01:28:08,690
but if they can certainly make it do more

898
01:28:08,690 --> 01:28:09,350
than they should.

899
01:28:09,990 --> 01:28:10,950
Yeah, I agree.

900
01:28:12,550 --> 01:28:16,350
I would recommend that they look at the language

901
01:28:17,630 --> 01:28:20,070
and I just haven't made it over there

902
01:28:20,070 --> 01:28:28,430
and I won't be back until next week to Washington Street in Newton because they did form-based code.

903
01:28:29,290 --> 01:28:37,570
They did, you know, it's one of their village center things. And it's West Newton.

904
01:28:38,970 --> 01:28:44,670
They have new buildings, but they have varied heights, varied materials.

905
01:28:48,090 --> 01:28:53,850
I mean, I can only see it from the highway, so I haven't walked down seen how it feels

906
01:28:53,850 --> 01:29:02,030
along the street, but it looks pretty nice from the mass pike, and it's using form-based

907
01:29:02,030 --> 01:29:03,710
code to get that.

908
01:29:04,290 --> 01:29:06,250
Is it near the star market that goes over the road?

909
01:29:08,170 --> 01:29:17,430
It's closer to West Newton's cinema and Trader Joe's on Washington Street is between

910
01:29:17,430 --> 01:29:24,570
Trader Joe's on Washington Street and they're also redeveloping the armory that's right

911
01:29:24,570 --> 01:29:25,090
there.

912
01:29:25,090 --> 01:29:25,710
Don't say.

913
01:29:27,670 --> 01:29:29,570
That's not what I work for.

914
01:29:30,290 --> 01:29:31,150
Oh, sorry.

915
01:29:31,690 --> 01:29:35,190
I mean, it looks great over there.

916
01:29:35,190 --> 01:29:37,150
So any

917
01:29:39,200 --> 01:29:42,560
slides that you guys want me to take a look at?

918
01:29:46,420 --> 01:29:50,360
A lot of recognize that this is not the view that most people are going to have, right?

919
01:29:51,000 --> 01:29:52,320
They're down on the street looking up.

920
01:29:53,040 --> 01:29:55,000
They're not looking down from an airplane, so.

921
01:29:55,640 --> 01:29:59,920
Right, I mean, this is just a, you know, the each.

922
01:30:00,000 --> 01:30:29,140
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

923
01:30:29,140 --> 01:30:36,080
But is more for the zoning purposes than for the late person to see like what is this

924
01:30:36,080 --> 01:30:36,640
going to look like?

925
01:30:36,740 --> 01:30:41,820
It's more for the designer to say like, okay, what can the building look like?

926
01:30:43,160 --> 01:30:43,320
Right.

927
01:30:43,720 --> 01:30:51,820
And we also provided those street views when we had our public meeting at the library on those

928
01:30:51,820 --> 01:30:52,500
panels.

929
01:30:53,280 --> 01:30:57,880
And I think many of them, if not all, I don't think all of them, but many of them still may be

930
01:30:57,880 --> 01:31:01,920
relevant. But we'll have to take a look at that. But I do think that those could be revised

931
01:31:01,920 --> 01:31:04,280
and those street views are important too.

932
01:31:10,710 --> 01:31:14,030
Okay. I'm going to take if you're okay with it.

933
01:31:14,450 --> 01:31:20,450
You said about 15 minutes for public comment. Yes, we have a hard stop at nine so

934
01:31:21,370 --> 01:31:27,150
but I feel like we need to allow some public comment. Okay.

935
01:31:30,590 --> 01:31:33,810
If there is any. So far no hands are raised

936
01:31:33,810 --> 01:31:38,550
but we have nine people in the attendees list.

937
01:31:39,190 --> 01:31:40,310
And we have one raised hand.

938
01:31:40,430 --> 01:31:42,550
We've got Ira Morgan's turn.

939
01:31:45,210 --> 01:31:45,830
Go ahead, Ira.

940
01:31:47,570 --> 01:31:50,270
Hello, it's Ira Morgan's turn, precinct seven.

941
01:31:51,990 --> 01:31:54,090
You guys have done a great job with this.

942
01:31:54,910 --> 01:32:03,210
The piece that I'm looking for is the financial impact of this.

943
01:32:03,210 --> 01:32:08,110
It's unclear who's doing it when it will be available.

944
01:32:09,650 --> 01:32:15,970
I think it's a critical part for town meeting to be looking at.

945
01:32:17,650 --> 01:32:20,090
So I'm wondering what the status is.

946
01:32:21,430 --> 01:32:24,670
Yeah, I'd be glad to take this.

947
01:32:25,830 --> 01:32:33,190
So at this point, as I said earlier, we're having the consultant do the build-out.

948
01:32:33,190 --> 01:32:39,250
analysis, which is sort of the foundation for any type of fiscal impact analysis to be conducted.

949
01:32:40,010 --> 01:32:47,070
Right now, our office has not been authorized to take that next step to do a fiscal impact analysis,

950
01:32:47,170 --> 01:32:53,650
but we certainly would be, you know, we would do that if we were asked to do that.

951
01:32:54,510 --> 01:33:00,630
Well, who needs to ask you? It's from the select board. They're the ones that would have to,

952
01:33:00,630 --> 01:33:03,070
or the planning board could ask for it as well,

953
01:33:03,410 --> 01:33:05,570
but the select board is sort of taking

954
01:33:05,570 --> 01:33:10,510
a, you know, they're the ones that are sort of

955
01:33:10,510 --> 01:33:13,450
taking it upon themselves to kind of take care

956
01:33:13,450 --> 01:33:15,310
of that element of it.

957
01:33:16,750 --> 01:33:19,870
And I think there needs to be some clarity

958
01:33:20,590 --> 01:33:24,850
about when it's expected, who's doing it,

959
01:33:25,490 --> 01:33:27,310
the assumptions, et cetera.

960
01:33:27,310 --> 01:33:36,310
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.

961
01:33:37,030 --> 01:33:42,210
Yeah, and I have conveyed, I have conveyed your message to the select board.

962
01:33:43,130 --> 01:33:48,090
I'm not going to, I'm not going to, you know, become an annoyance to them by doing it multiple times.

963
01:33:48,690 --> 01:33:55,090
But I have conveyed the interest in the physical impact analysis and so they're aware of it.

964
01:33:56,470 --> 01:34:04,330
Yeah, and I did hear back from one of them with an answer that was complete Marshmallow.

965
01:34:05,210 --> 01:34:13,210
So I think it is important that found meeting members and the citizens see this and I look

966
01:34:13,210 --> 01:34:18,630
forward to the answers of when it will be available, who's doing it, et cetera.

967
01:34:19,110 --> 01:34:19,570
Thank you.

968
01:34:20,310 --> 01:34:21,110
Thanks, Ira.

969
01:34:29,230 --> 01:34:39,510
I just wanted to briefly comment on there was some discussion of buildings that are entirely commercial or buildings that are entirely residential.

970
01:34:41,230 --> 01:34:52,950
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.

971
01:34:52,950 --> 01:34:59,830
code. And so it will always have a good chunk of that character. And so I think something

972
01:34:59,830 --> 01:35:07,190
that I would love to see in this plan when we're trying to maximize the impact on the housing

973
01:35:07,190 --> 01:35:11,270
market in the area. We're trying to create a place where you can rent a home, have a job,

974
01:35:11,430 --> 01:35:12,470
and also do your shopping.

975
01:35:14,750 --> 01:35:17,130
That's how we get cars off the streets, right?

976
01:35:19,430 --> 01:35:20,470
So we're aiming

977
01:35:20,470 --> 01:35:30,270
for that kind of districts in many ways, and I think it would be valuable to have a significant

978
01:35:30,270 --> 01:35:37,630
amount of first floor area be allowed to be used for housing, even in a mixed use project.

979
01:35:38,550 --> 01:35:45,450
To be talked, we like to talk very much about a floor of commercial on the ground floor

980
01:35:45,450 --> 01:35:50,490
in the residential above that. And I guess I'm most interested in what does that actually

981
01:35:50,490 --> 01:35:54,090
mean because you got to have the very least a lobby with an elevator and a flight of stairs.

982
01:35:55,110 --> 01:35:58,690
But can you actually stick some units in there on that ground floor if it's a building,

983
01:35:58,790 --> 01:36:04,830
the gunna filling? I think that would be a good thing to allow. And what we make that look like,

984
01:36:05,190 --> 01:36:11,220
what kind of amenities we let new housing project put onto the ground floor. I think that's

985
01:36:11,220 --> 01:36:16,540
important question to that flaring on and I would support being fairly lenient there.

986
01:36:17,700 --> 01:36:24,380
Well thank you. I appreciate that and we actually do have some provisions for how the ground floor

987
01:36:24,380 --> 01:36:33,460
is to be utilized by percentage and we'll take another look at that and see if we can create some

988
01:36:34,100 --> 01:36:36,660
additional flexibility for that floor. Thank you.

989
01:36:41,720 --> 01:36:43,580
We do not have another hand raised.

990
01:36:44,500 --> 01:36:52,180
All right, well, let's move on and thank you very much on the comment by Mr. Morgan for

991
01:36:53,440 --> 01:36:53,840
financials.

992
01:36:54,340 --> 01:36:57,380
I think it was helpful that we had that for the Belmont Center overly but there was

993
01:36:57,380 --> 01:37:03,080
a training after that and before now I corner was there and maybe maybe a lot of people

994
01:37:03,080 --> 01:37:09,580
were there on fear housing law and I was just maybe if I heard if I remember correctly what

995
01:37:09,580 --> 01:37:17,320
But I heard there, we may have to talk to town council about just how much discussion

996
01:37:17,320 --> 01:37:21,000
we can have about financial impact while also complying with the fair housing loss.

997
01:37:21,000 --> 01:37:27,820
So if someone who, an attorney who works in this area specifically could give us some guidance

998
01:37:27,820 --> 01:37:32,060
as to what sort of latitude we have in doing financial analysis, given the kind of topics

999
01:37:32,060 --> 01:37:36,220
that's going to get into that may touch upon fair housing law concepts that might be worth

1000
01:37:36,220 --> 01:37:36,660
thinking about.

1001
01:37:36,660 --> 01:37:37,520
Do

1002
01:37:39,600 --> 01:37:42,020
you want another, you want to allow a response from Ira there?

1003
01:37:44,190 --> 01:37:45,830
Just quick, please.

1004
01:37:46,290 --> 01:37:46,930
Like two minutes.

1005
01:37:52,140 --> 01:37:52,880
Ira, go ahead.

1006
01:37:53,220 --> 01:37:53,420
Okay.

1007
01:37:53,560 --> 01:37:54,500
Can you?

1008
01:37:54,600 --> 01:37:55,700
Am I unmuted?

1009
01:37:55,980 --> 01:37:56,060
Good.

1010
01:37:56,700 --> 01:37:56,800
Yeah.

1011
01:37:57,460 --> 01:38:05,680
Dan, are you saying that the piece that we heard from our outside attorney?

1012
01:38:06,140 --> 01:38:13,720
I believe it was at the Belmont Center vote or that those, those town meetings.

1013
01:38:13,720 --> 01:38:16,280
things. They are no longer correct. Is that what you're saying?

1014
01:38:16,900 --> 01:38:21,660
No, no. All I'm saying is that there was a fair housing law training. I think some

1015
01:38:21,660 --> 01:38:28,040
of the folks at this meeting may have been there. And there are things that were stated

1016
01:38:28,040 --> 01:38:32,860
there that would make me feel more comfortable if our town council gave us some guidance

1017
01:38:32,860 --> 01:38:38,860
as to what if any restrictions they may be on doing financial analyses. And what sort

1018
01:38:38,860 --> 01:38:43,880
of topics they could get into while also being compliant with the fair housing law. I think it's

1019
01:38:43,880 --> 01:38:48,440
nice to have more information than less. So, financials are obviously relevant to me,

1020
01:38:48,880 --> 01:38:53,800
but I also want to comply with the law. No, and I agree with you. I do know that his,

1021
01:38:54,060 --> 01:39:01,320
if I remember, his talk was fairly detailed. I'm talking about what was stated at a fair housing

1022
01:39:01,320 --> 01:39:07,300
training at the library. Yeah, it's a different different event.

1023
01:39:09,600 --> 01:39:14,080
All right. Thank you. So let's let's

1024
01:39:14,080 --> 01:39:22,480
move on. I want to just very, very quickly go through the BCOD cleanup. I'm not going to spend

1025
01:39:22,480 --> 01:39:31,860
any time on on any one slide unless you guys want me to but essentially most of the stuff

1026
01:39:31,860 --> 01:39:38,720
relates to adding clarity, your capitalizations, alternative terminology or better referencing

1027
01:39:38,720 --> 01:39:47,100
of sections. You can see the upper right, many examples of changing a word from project

1028
01:39:47,100 --> 01:39:52,240
to development, properties to lots, floor to story, and things like that. That's a lot

1029
01:39:52,240 --> 01:40:00,520
of this. For example, the table on frontage type, there was a request to change the excess

1030
01:40:00,520 --> 01:40:08,520
to wise and ends. So we did that. We just added additional clarity language in many different locations.

1031
01:40:09,980 --> 01:40:16,620
We added one new section 10-2-C related to interpretation and measurement because there was a question

1032
01:40:16,620 --> 01:40:22,720
from the public on that. And we made the dimensional table more clear and consistent

1033
01:40:22,720 --> 01:40:30,500
between the HCOD and the BCOD, same thing with the use table.

1034
01:40:31,080 --> 01:40:33,840
You can see that we added live work unit.

1035
01:40:35,540 --> 01:40:38,540
I think we have to change senior active living residential.

1036
01:40:38,660 --> 01:40:41,380
That has to be done, but we added business innovation enterprise

1037
01:40:41,380 --> 01:40:45,980
and we moved the mixed use down to the other category.

1038
01:40:45,980 --> 01:40:53,520
We added a subsection under wide facades on the concept of storefront rhythm to better

1039
01:40:53,520 --> 01:40:57,840
articulate how specific storefronts should be differentially modulated.

1040
01:41:00,080 --> 01:41:03,780
We refined the ground story active use subsection.

1041
01:41:04,020 --> 01:41:12,560
This is when I was referring to, related to Angus' question in terms of the use of the ground

1042
01:41:12,560 --> 01:41:19,040
story basically talking about devoting 80% of the gross floor area to commercial uses,

1043
01:41:19,260 --> 01:41:26,160
lobbies, circulation areas, and other areas not serving commercial uses. So this is just a

1044
01:41:26,160 --> 01:41:35,280
clarification of that. This is the four-court section that I was talking about. You can see the

1045
01:41:35,280 --> 01:41:43,420
The photograph on the lower right really was what I was trying to avoid and the rendering

1046
01:41:43,420 --> 01:41:48,720
on the lower left is kind of what we're trying to encourage, something that's less deep

1047
01:41:49,340 --> 01:41:54,440
and you can see it carries around the storefronts, around the side and there's a commercial entrance

1048
01:41:54,440 --> 01:41:59,660
right here. It just provides some additional space for seating and landscaping and things like that.

1049
01:41:59,660 --> 01:42:05,740
it's a nice, you know, alternative frontage type. But we did, you know, have to have some

1050
01:42:05,740 --> 01:42:13,840
provisions to make sure that it didn't extend more than 15 feet behind the build 2 zone and

1051
01:42:13,840 --> 01:42:19,520
didn't occupy more than 20% of the building frontage. We also wanted to separate them so you

1052
01:42:19,520 --> 01:42:23,260
couldn't have them clustered in a tight space.

1053
01:42:25,910 --> 01:42:29,070
Just a question on loading. There was a question

1054
01:42:29,070 --> 01:42:34,670
from the public that loading and delivery activities, this was not an appropriate time,

1055
01:42:35,690 --> 01:42:42,550
frame, 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. Monday through Saturday. The idea initially was that we really wanted to

1056
01:42:42,550 --> 01:42:48,350
limit it. We didn't want it to take place from the earliest morning to the latest part of the evening

1057
01:42:48,890 --> 01:42:54,990
and maybe giving Sunday off. But there were some also that felt maybe this was too restrictive.

1058
01:42:56,470 --> 01:43:01,010
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.

1059
01:43:02,790 --> 01:43:05,150
What's in our by-law now and.

1060
01:43:07,310 --> 01:43:12,890
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.

1061
01:43:13,590 --> 01:43:16,250
But we can make it consistent with that if you think that works.

1062
01:43:16,250 --> 01:43:17,210
I

1063
01:43:19,350 --> 01:43:25,690
mean, I do see big trucks, you know, at night it's not very busy in Belmont Center,

1064
01:43:25,710 --> 01:43:26,530
for example.

1065
01:43:26,790 --> 01:43:34,510
I mean, not super late night, but you see big trucks doing their loading then, so places

1066
01:43:34,510 --> 01:43:41,290
like CVS where they can just pull up in front and otherwise they can't get a semi-truck.

1067
01:43:42,830 --> 01:43:43,170
Right.

1068
01:43:43,970 --> 01:43:47,730
Yeah, and it's going to be challenging, obviously there's not going to be a lot of dedicated

1069
01:43:47,730 --> 01:43:56,270
loading zones so they're going to have to be using the public right of way. So maybe 7am to 10am

1070
01:43:56,270 --> 01:44:04,490
is not ideal because there is a morning rush for the center. Morning months, yeah, school rush, yeah.

1071
01:44:06,550 --> 01:44:11,610
So we'll have to give this more thought. I don't think that's where we want it to be.

1072
01:44:12,210 --> 01:44:18,350
No, I think if if you look at what our zoning currently says and it seems to make sense or

1073
01:44:18,350 --> 01:44:23,850
not doesn't rise to the top of must be changed now we just go with whatever let's just be consistent

1074
01:44:23,850 --> 01:44:34,610
with what's already existing. Yeah okay okay mechanical equipment this was just sort of some additional

1075
01:44:34,610 --> 01:44:42,450
language to be a little more specific. One of the things that elicited a question from the

1076
01:44:42,450 --> 01:44:49,930
The public is that maybe we should be more careful about not allowing mechanical equipment

1077
01:44:50,230 --> 01:44:51,550
on the front facade.

1078
01:44:52,550 --> 01:44:59,810
This still does allow it on the front facade, but with architectural integration.

1079
01:44:59,810 --> 01:44:59,910
You

1080
01:45:00,370 --> 01:45:09,430
So do you folks have any feeling about allowing mechanicals on the facade? Are you going to allow window air conditioners?

1081
01:45:12,250 --> 01:45:13,830
That I hadn't thought of, Andy.

1082
01:45:18,780 --> 01:45:33,220
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.

1083
01:45:35,880 --> 01:45:39,760
You know, it's something to blow out on the sidewalk.

1084
01:45:40,160 --> 01:45:40,800
Right.

1085
01:45:41,420 --> 01:45:41,520
Right.

1086
01:45:42,120 --> 01:45:42,340
Okay.

1087
01:45:42,960 --> 01:45:45,180
However architecturally they're fine.

1088
01:45:46,580 --> 01:45:50,040
I think duck rents along the front.

1089
01:45:50,260 --> 01:45:53,060
I mean, if you're talking about running ducks at the face of the building,

1090
01:45:53,060 --> 01:45:57,320
that's clearly not a look we want to.

1091
01:45:57,820 --> 01:45:58,020
Right.

1092
01:45:58,480 --> 01:45:58,840
The courage.

1093
01:45:59,920 --> 01:46:00,200
Okay.

1094
01:46:00,200 --> 01:46:02,220
Alright, we'll give some more thought to that.

1095
01:46:05,740 --> 01:46:12,460
So this is a pedestrian accommodation related to the Port Coucher, you know, that passageway

1096
01:46:12,460 --> 01:46:13,900
underneath a building.

1097
01:46:14,860 --> 01:46:21,960
And this really just talks about being more conscientious of the pedestrian and making sure

1098
01:46:21,960 --> 01:46:28,260
that there is a safe interaction between the pedestrian flow and potential vehicular flow.

1099
01:46:33,640 --> 01:46:41,680
We added some additional information related to landscaping and maintenance and storm water to be more clear.

1100
01:46:43,400 --> 01:46:49,340
And we actually added some additional language related to construction management also to be more clear.

1101
01:46:52,690 --> 01:47:02,410
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.

1102
01:47:02,410 --> 01:47:04,010
Finally,

1103
01:47:06,940 --> 01:47:08,600
we have a few definitions.

1104
01:47:10,180 --> 01:47:16,720
The introduction to definitions was refined by staff and town council that just make sure

1105
01:47:16,720 --> 01:47:20,660
that people understand that the capitalized terms are intended to be the definitions.

1106
01:47:22,420 --> 01:47:26,980
We eliminated assisted living facility because it's already in section 1.4.

1107
01:47:28,320 --> 01:47:31,880
We refined the definition of heavier materials.

1108
01:47:32,940 --> 01:47:42,300
We changed a definition of independent living facility as that term is consistent across

1109
01:47:42,630 --> 01:47:49,000
the by-law and again the board may wish to consider the act of adult category also.

1110
01:47:52,000 --> 01:48:00,260
Family housing was modified just as a reference to mass general law and municipal parking facilities

1111
01:48:00,260 --> 01:48:07,800
was a new definition. Both residential zoning district and our zoning district were defined,

1112
01:48:08,100 --> 01:48:13,400
where the our zoning district refers to the residential zoning district. These are recommendations

1113
01:48:13,400 --> 01:48:21,440
from council. Everything you see in blue is from council. Council also recommended semi-active

1114
01:48:21,440 --> 01:48:27,740
of accessory use, which is a use that's already defined in section 9, 4, P, and 9, 6,

1115
01:48:27,800 --> 01:48:35,580
B, 8, C. And then a top story was an additional definition that was recommended by a member

1116
01:48:35,580 --> 01:48:43,660
of the public, and we thought it made sense. So that's it. That is those are the cleanup

1117
01:48:43,660 --> 01:48:50,240
items for BCOD, and I'm welcome to answer any questions.

1118
01:48:54,840 --> 01:48:59,520
Hey, Chris, I love the idea of adding active adult, I guess both to BCOD and Hills Crossing.

1119
01:48:59,520 --> 01:49:02,720
Is there a mechanism we have to go through to do that?

1120
01:49:03,280 --> 01:49:06,520
Yeah, I could just come up with a definition and put it in the use table.

1121
01:49:06,800 --> 01:49:07,180
Very simple.

1122
01:49:08,160 --> 01:49:09,800
That'd be great, if others agree.

1123
01:49:17,820 --> 01:49:21,720
It seems fine to me, but what do you guys think?

1124
01:49:30,050 --> 01:49:31,850
I'm sorry. Go ahead.

1125
01:49:36,230 --> 01:49:44,170
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.

1126
01:49:45,610 --> 01:49:46,130
Yeah.

1127
01:49:48,900 --> 01:49:54,720
Unless you wanted to see if there's any public comment about the BCOD part of it.

1128
01:49:54,720 --> 01:50:03,880
Sure. Any quick comments about what Chris just went over?

1129
01:50:08,440 --> 01:50:10,740
All right. Seeing none, let's

1130
01:50:10,740 --> 01:50:21,960
um, I move to continue the public hearing on the zoning bylaw amendments to, do we have

1131
01:50:21,960 --> 01:50:27,070
time on September 8th. Chris. I wonder what do you think?

1132
01:50:29,690 --> 01:50:31,290
Yeah, I think so.

1133
01:50:33,900 --> 01:50:34,240
Okay.

1134
01:50:35,920 --> 01:50:44,320
Move to continue the zoning by-law amendments to September 8th, 2026.

1135
01:50:45,640 --> 01:50:48,120
So I'm here as second. All those in favor?

1136
01:50:48,860 --> 01:50:49,520
Hi.

1137
01:50:51,680 --> 01:50:57,980
Okay. I'm feeling I also don't have time tonight because of our restricted time frame.

1138
01:50:58,320 --> 01:51:02,500
to even have that short discussion on rules and regulations. So I'll do that on the eighth.

1139
01:51:03,380 --> 01:51:06,980
Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. That's right.

1140
01:51:09,120 --> 01:51:15,120
And so our other business is McLean's own three,

1141
01:51:16,860 --> 01:51:23,520
the Fair Housing Marketing Plan. Did you want to discuss that this evening, Connor?

1142
01:51:23,520 --> 01:51:25,800
I can just give a quick update on that.

1143
01:51:27,360 --> 01:51:31,540
Yeah, if you recall, this is the 111 or 12-unit

1144
01:51:32,180 --> 01:51:35,740
pardoned complex that's near completion up at McLean,

1145
01:51:35,940 --> 01:51:38,220
part of the requirements because they're affordably units,

1146
01:51:38,420 --> 01:51:42,480
they have to include an affordable bear housing marking plan,

1147
01:51:42,640 --> 01:51:46,160
which as I mentioned earlier are by-law acquires of the planning board

1148
01:51:46,160 --> 01:51:48,280
if you're going to prove with the recommendation

1149
01:51:48,280 --> 01:51:50,600
of the Belmont housing trust.

1150
01:51:51,280 --> 01:51:56,540
The trust provided an initial memo to the board, which was in your packet tonight, they're

1151
01:51:56,540 --> 01:52:03,500
going to be reviewing it further and at their meeting in early September, I'm forgetting

1152
01:52:03,500 --> 01:52:03,880
the date.

1153
01:52:04,860 --> 01:52:10,840
They will provide some comments that they would like to see kind of aided to change in

1154
01:52:10,840 --> 01:52:18,700
the plan to the board and to the back to the prepares of the marketing plan.

1155
01:52:19,680 --> 01:52:21,540
So that's kind of just the update.

1156
01:52:21,680 --> 01:52:26,940
It will come back to the planning board at a later meeting for a review and approval.

1157
01:52:27,320 --> 01:52:37,900
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.

1158
01:52:41,570 --> 01:52:41,850
Yes.

1159
01:52:42,930 --> 01:52:44,830
Through you, Madam Chairman, to Connor.

1160
01:52:44,830 --> 01:52:56,410
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?

1161
01:52:58,130 --> 01:53:02,290
I can confirm with them if they will be available.

1162
01:53:03,610 --> 01:53:04,330
Great.

1163
01:53:06,560 --> 01:53:10,540
Thank you. Any questions on this?

1164
01:53:16,850 --> 01:53:24,010
Okay. So any other items you wanted to discuss, Chris, or Connor?

1165
01:53:25,290 --> 01:53:30,350
Nope, not for tonight. Thank you guys were very efficient. I appreciate it.

1166
01:53:31,110 --> 01:53:38,590
Well, thank you for all your work. And you've really been keeping us moving along,

1167
01:53:38,590 --> 01:53:45,350
which I appreciate and you both have done tremendous work for us so thank you. Thank you.

1168
01:53:45,830 --> 01:53:51,370
And we just confirm what our two September dates are. I've got the eighth but when is the

1169
01:53:51,370 --> 01:53:51,850
other one?

1170
01:53:54,970 --> 01:54:03,950
Believe it is the 22nd. Okay it is yes the 22nd so then we'll be back on our normal schedule

1171
01:54:03,950 --> 01:54:10,190
which is the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month for October and

1172
01:54:13,130 --> 01:54:18,960
then we have a lot go ahead.

1173
01:54:19,540 --> 01:54:26,960
Sorry yeah I believe we had the September 8th meeting was going to be remote and September 22nd

1174
01:54:26,960 --> 01:54:29,060
meeting was going to be hybrid in person.

1175
01:54:32,650 --> 01:54:37,870
And Madeline we meet in the select boards office.

1176
01:54:38,630 --> 01:54:41,590
or, you know, I mean, in the Slackboard room.

1177
01:54:41,830 --> 01:54:43,010
Okay, thank you.

1178
01:54:45,930 --> 01:54:49,090
And then in November, our schedule gets screwed up

1179
01:54:49,090 --> 01:54:50,790
because of the next selection.

1180
01:54:52,490 --> 01:54:56,790
So, Connor, do you want to resend to everyone

1181
01:54:56,790 --> 01:55:00,830
that's meeting the schedule, please?

1182
01:55:02,150 --> 01:55:03,890
Yes, I will do that.

1183
01:55:04,710 --> 01:55:08,050
Because we've gone through quite a few iterations of it.

1184
01:55:08,050 --> 01:55:14,970
So let's get the latest and greatest because I know Steve had questions today too.

1185
01:55:15,530 --> 01:55:18,930
So yeah, and it's really sorry Chris and it's really helpful.

1186
01:55:19,050 --> 01:55:23,790
If you can include like the date and whether it's remote only or hybrid.

1187
01:55:23,790 --> 01:55:29,810
So that because that often makes a difference of what I'm doing beforehand.

1188
01:55:29,810 --> 01:55:41,070
And if you can send it email it directly rather than the Google link is really hard, I'm

1189
01:55:41,070 --> 01:55:44,130
just going to say it's really hard to work with.

1190
01:55:45,610 --> 01:55:50,810
So if you don't mind just attaching it, I'd appreciate it.

1191
01:55:50,870 --> 01:55:51,630
Sure thing.

1192
01:55:53,340 --> 01:55:53,910
Hi Chris.

1193
01:55:54,550 --> 01:55:59,590
One final thing I do see that we do have two people in still in the audience that are

1194
01:55:59,590 --> 01:56:05,770
related to 45, 47, Chestnut, I don't think we're going to be taking any more public comment,

1195
01:56:05,770 --> 01:56:11,210
but I just wanted to let them know that at the beginning of the meeting, as per the agenda,

1196
01:56:11,890 --> 01:56:20,070
we did continue it till the 8th of September. And so we did provide a little bit of information

1197
01:56:20,070 --> 01:56:27,810
in terms of the progress being made by the peer review consultant. So if either of those people,

1198
01:56:27,810 --> 01:56:32,910
I'm Mr. Hamad, and Ms. Dunn, if you want to give me a call, I can give you an update

1199
01:56:32,910 --> 01:56:39,610
in terms of that very brief section of the agenda, but I just wanted to let them know.

1200
01:56:41,170 --> 01:56:42,630
Thank you for that.

1201
01:56:44,510 --> 01:56:47,710
All right, then I move to adjourn.

1202
01:56:50,090 --> 01:56:51,830
Second, all those in favor?

1203
01:56:52,650 --> 01:56:52,870
Hi.

1204
01:56:53,770 --> 01:56:55,430
All right, have a great night.

1205
01:56:55,850 --> 01:56:56,170
Thank you.

1206
01:56:56,170 --> 01:56:57,130
Thank you.

1207
01:56:57,130 --> 01:56:57,670
Thank you everyone.

1208
01:56:58,430 --> 01:56:58,510
Thanks.