[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:03] Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this committee meeting of land use. I call this meeting to order. I am Councillor Bennu and Kampen. Let me bring up the warning to read at the beginning.
[0:17] pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025 this meeting of the city council's
[0:21] web land use committee will be conducted via remote participation and we will post an
[0:26] audio video recording and comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting
[0:31] on the city of summerville website and local cable access government channels.
[0:36] Clerk can you please call the roll? Yes, it can. Councilor Davis. Yeah.
[0:43] Councillor
[0:47] Clingan. Councillor Clingan, I do see that you're here.
[0:52] Why can't I hear you?
[0:54] Yeah, sorry, uh, here, President. No, it's got it. Thank you. Councillor St. here.
[1:01] Councillor McLaughlin. Yeah.
[1:05] Chair Young Campan. Here.
[1:07] All right, with that, all members are present, so we do have quarantine.
[1:10] Excellent, so we have agenda items one and two are approval of the minutes for a May 21st
[1:18] and June 18th, seeing no discussion on those, let's lay those on the table for approval
[1:24] at the end of the meeting.
[1:27] So colleagues, I was informed today that there are going to be six amendments coming at
[1:32] our next city council meeting from the administration.
[1:36] So we have a lot of work coming up and one of our goals is to clear the path and take care of business.
[1:46] So that is why we're going to try to have as regular cadence of meeting as we can all fall.
[1:50] And tonight we have two items on our agenda that we have had public hearings on that we've had a little bit of back and forth on.
[1:58] And I think we're in a good place to deliberate tonight and see if the committee's ready for a vote on one or both of these.
[2:03] So let's read agenda item number three.
[2:06] Please clerk, and we'll take that up first.
[2:08] Item number three, ID number 26-0746 for for a combination,
[2:14] requesting approval of the Urban Center Housing
[2:15] Tats increment financing zone, and in form of agreement
[2:19] for assembly square in East Somerville.
[2:23] Excellent.
[2:24] So I see a number of members of economic development
[2:28] are here who would like to kick us off.
[2:35] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[2:36] My name is Katie Reese, I'm an economic development planner with the economic development team.
[2:41] I'm happy to share more details.
[2:44] I can give a reminder back in July, I believe, right before the committee and the council took
[2:52] a break for the summer, I gave a presentation about the Urban Center Housing Tax and Command
[2:57] financing zone that we are proposing for the East Summerville and Assembly Square neighborhoods.
[3:02] I'm happy to refresh the committee's mind about the details of that.
[3:08] But tonight what we are looking to do is deliberate and move forward the zone itself,
[3:17] which encompasses parts of the assembly square and parts of e-Summerville.
[3:23] Going forward, that would allow projects to come to us development projects to come to the city and for
[3:30] request the use of an urban center housing tax increment financing deal, but that would be in a future time it would require a public hearing and it would require deliberation from the finance committee tonight would only be to allow for this district to be created.
[3:50] So depending on what the chair prefers, I can share more information or we can launch into discussion and I'm here to answer any questions.
[4:00] Excellent. I think we, I'm happy to open it up for questions and deliberations. I think just to
[4:06] table set my recollection of the council's conversation around this is that the goal is to
[4:13] encourage development to happen without giving up on our 20% inclusion area or better.
[4:19] You know, put simply that's what we're trying to do here, right?
[4:22] Housing starts are really, really, really down.
[4:26] And so one option that, you know, you could imagine would be, well, let's get rid of the affordable housing requirement, make it cheaper.
[4:35] Obviously, there's not going to be a lot of support for that in summerville amongst elected officials or the public.
[4:41] And so this is an alternative where you still get the affordable housing and the way that you do it is by relieving some amount of the future tax levy.
[4:52] So, we've deliberated on this a bit, but Councillors, are there questions on this comments?
[5:08] Councillor Graham. Yeah, Mr. Chair. So just a recap and confirmed from the folks at the account development. This would give us the option to use this tool in this area, without having to go through a whole lot of oops, but at the same time, we also, like I say, there's an upturn, right. So saying development starts picking up and, you know, we're not forced to enter into these agreements.
[5:36] It's the developer was to come along and say, hey, this is the zone here, we want to use this tool.
[5:43] Are we bound to have to use that?
[5:45] Just object tool?
[5:48] Through you, Mr. Chair.
[5:49] Thank you, Councillor Clingon.
[5:51] No, that's exactly correct.
[5:52] It would not be obligated in any way to use this tool.
[5:55] It just provides the opportunity to launch negotiations to see what kind of projects we can try to move forward.
[6:04] Thank you. And then just for quick follow up, Mr. Chair. And so, in doing this, it's
[6:13] streamlined, like I guess, as far as the process goes in the past, when we've done it,
[6:17] I mean, I'm Broadway is more of an involved process. This would whistle. This is basically
[6:26] what it allows us to do this a lot quicker. That's right.
[6:31] I see Dr. Nick Carney, would you prefer to respond for it?
[6:34] Thank you.
[6:36] So, it's really true.
[6:37] This actually enables us to get to where we were continuing.
[6:41] The state has to approve the use of this tool across the, in any, in any part of the state.
[6:47] And so, we need this approval for the district in order to move forward any particular project.
[6:54] What's been pretty typical, was to know it was actually pretty typical because there haven't been that many of these active zones.
[7:01] created in the last 10 years. So it's been more typical that communities have had
[7:06] a zone and a project coming at the exact same time. We thought the tools very
[7:12] effective in moving things forward with student and Broadway and so the
[7:15] idea is let's see if we can use that to unlock some of the sites that have been
[7:18] really stuck and are sitting big in across the east out of our boat and a
[7:23] this way. Okay, yeah, I mean, again, I was just trying to recap and but ultimately, I mean,
[7:33] it sounds like the workhouse or has something to say about it, but you know, this has been a
[7:37] helpful tool and if you know, while we're in a town chair and if, and we don't know,
[7:42] when things are going about it's back, if you could to have all the tools and the tool locks
[7:47] and I was stated by the chair, it wouldn't affect or we wouldn't lose the ability to impose
[7:52] 20% inclusionary. So I'll listen to discussion, but I'm leaning towards
[7:57] impediments.
[8:00] Thank you, Councillor. Councillor McLaughlin. This map is all in Ward 1.
[8:06] So we're interested to hear from the Ward Councillor, again, please.
[8:08] That is Mr. Chair. So you correctly point about the two options that we could either
[8:15] eliminate the affordable inclusionary rate or we could give this octave. There is a third option where
[8:22] do nothing and nothing gets built. And that's the situation we're presently in and that's the least
[8:28] acceptable to me. I have spoken to a lot of people from the city and people in the development
[8:34] community and in my community that we zone this area to get built for housing and right now with
[8:40] the voting costs, the interest rates and the affordable rate, it's just not happening. So that's why
[8:46] support this. And I'm happy that East Summerville is included, not just assembly. I fought for that,
[8:53] because I've had many businesses on that street that have been abandoned long before this recession
[8:59] happened and long before the interest rates of building costs went up. I'd like to see something
[9:04] happened in this neighborhood and get more housing and make sure 20% is the inclusionary that
[9:12] right in the state. So if you look at a place I brought in from Mont, they did something very similar
[9:17] to this, where they gave tax incentives to get the inclusionary rate. The other alternative is to just
[9:23] have 100% mark and rate. So I view this is more of a compromise than anything. So what it stands
[9:31] so it comes up quite clinging this question to, I also brought up to the city, the idea of making
[9:38] sure that we're not giving away tax deal and then a few years later the market turns around
[9:43] and this is a windfall for developers. That'll be something that can be negotiated later
[9:47] up and I just want to say that out loud because that's what I will expect the city to negotiate
[9:51] in arrangement that says that if the market is around I end you actually don't need this tax deal
[9:58] that we would get out money.
[10:02] So that's why I support this. Thank you very much.
[10:09] Excellent. I appreciate that. And second to everything that the ward council just said. Are there
[10:15] other questions, comments from the committee?
[10:22] Seeing none, Councillor McLaughlin, do you wish to make a motion?
[10:32] I move to approve. Excellent. Councillor McLaughlin moves to recommend approval of agenda item number three.
[10:41] Seeing no further discussion. Can we please call the roll?
[10:46] All right, on recommending approval of item number three. Councillor Davis. Yes
[10:51] Councillor Clingon. Yes
[10:53] Councillor say yes.
[10:56] Councillor McLaughlin.
[11:00] Yes.
[11:02] Cheerio and campan. Yes. All right, with that, that is all about to be affirmative.
[11:07] Excellent. Thank you all and thank you very much to economic development. I know that this has been a lot of work and
[11:12] And we're all hopeful that this will unlock some good projects.
[11:17] And with that, we'll take up agenda item number four, clear.
[11:21] Can you please read that?
[11:24] Yep, agenda item number four,
[11:25] ID number 26-0835 referred for recommendation by councilors.
[11:29] Davis, you in campaign cleaning, council link,
[11:32] and by heart, say, in Wheeler,
[11:34] proposing an amendment to section 2.1.1,
[11:36] of the zoning ordinance for guarding homeless shelters.
[11:40] So the big question, will this get the votes?
[11:55] down there and the
[11:58] as a reminder for anyone who's maybe tuned in to
[12:02] didn't see the discussion in chambers.
[12:05] At the castle level, this was something that I submitted.
[12:08] Based on, it says feedback during the process of ultimately
[12:14] opening a homeless shelter in where six,
[12:16] and in fact that there is, at least some confusion.
[12:22] But the way our current zoning was drafted and suggested
[12:25] that we got to clear that up and go through the process here.
[12:28] to make the zoning more clear and I thought that was a good idea, so that's where we are and that's the intent here to enable potentially additional shelters around the city with more clear state of process.
[12:42] And I should know that, you know, my specific ask was that there, whatever the process
[12:49] be, that there still would be required, you know, maybe in communication to sort out logistics
[12:56] and that sort of thing.
[12:57] So I'm sure about here from this car, but that was kind of the one, the one record that I wanted
[13:04] to make sure we still had in there, so there's still a collaborative process as we move forward
[13:08] related.
[13:11] Excellent, and Samantha before we turn it over to you, just one note, the planning board has made a positive recommendation on this, and this is available if you just search the agenda item number in this city council website, but they note that they recommend considering a revision to require a special permit in what they call residential districts, which I wasn't here there deliberations, I assume they're referring to the neighborhood residents.
[13:40] bus that I just want that on the record that that was there recommendation and with that
[13:45] Ms. Car please take it away. Thank you, Chair. Happy to speak to a couple points from folks
[13:52] that were raised at the previous session where this item was deliberated if we'd be able to
[13:57] flash to the slide deck.
[14:03] So just wanted to provide a couple contextual slides to follow up on
[14:07] some inquiries from the Council in June when we last took up this item. So the first request was
[14:13] Just having a map side by side comparison of what the zoning might look like if this amendment was adopted to both include the neighborhood residents district as well as a scenario without the inclusion by right of shelters within the neighborhood residents.
[14:29] So this first map is inclusion area of that scenario if you go to the next side you'll see the difference without the and our parcels included.
[14:39] And so just taking a brief contextual look between the two, and I have included both maps
[14:46] as attachments to the handouts for the smeeting.
[14:49] I folks want to enlarge those in a PDF version, but you can see a fairly substantial portion
[14:55] of coverage is deteriorated in terms of removing the antardustrics.
[15:00] From the scenario for this item. And if you do progress to the next slide, there's some additional
[15:07] context that we received from Stummer Stot just to put that further into percentage numbers. So
[15:14] thinking about the distribution of parcels across the city. Currently 74% of all zone parcels
[15:22] across the city are neighborhood residential parcels and 60% of all dwelling units exist within
[15:28] neighborhood residential district that may also include a helpful summary chart here where you can see
[15:35] approximately 23,000 units are within the neighborhood residential district versus 7,000 in the urban
[15:42] residential and then roughly 8,000 in the remainder of non-residential zone parcels in the city.
[15:50] So this just gives a little bit of comparison to think about when we're deliberating whether or not
[15:56] to include the sound within the proposal and happy to speak to that for their folks have any questions about that piece.
[16:07] And then two other things to consider in the conversation this evening if we flash to them next slide.
[16:14] There was some additional conversation around whether there should be a wide-end scope of additional uses to consider in relation to this item.
[16:24] So, one term that was previously mentioned in conversation was domestic violence, and sexual assault refuge centers,
[16:33] doing a little bit of diving into this.
[16:36] Typically, the use case for this type of facility would be treated as a dover protected use,
[16:41] so a use falling under religious or education institution coverage,
[16:47] and would therefore be accelerated outside the permitting process that we're considering here.
[16:52] So the context of this item specifically is permitting the use of homeless shelters, but
[16:58] don't fall under a dover protective use so that might mean they're not operating under a
[17:03] primarily predominant religious or education institution and are still seeking approval
[17:09] to be cited in locations throughout the city.
[17:12] For these particular types of shelters due to state confidentiality and privacy concerns
[17:17] regarding survivors who would be residing within the facility. They're typically brought through
[17:23] the dover process to provide additional and a moment to the project address and public hearing
[17:30] process related to the facilities. So just wanted to provide that context happy to discuss that
[17:37] use further if there's interest, but that's the typical process that would be followed for
[17:41] facility to be cited and therefore maybe outside the scope of this particular item we've
[17:47] been considering. Two other uses that I've highlighted here are kind of demographics
[17:56] specific shelters if folks have an interest in parsing out the use table to regulate those
[18:02] differentially from the overall blanket category of homeless shelters at large. So the first
[18:08] option to consider here would be family housing stabilization shelters and those would be shelters
[18:15] primarily dedicated towards women experiencing pregnancy or parents and children that are
[18:22] amidst a rehousing emergency. They typically include additional supportive services including
[18:28] employment counseling and school supports for children that are residing within the shelter itself.
[18:36] So, this would be, currently, if we didn't include any additional
[18:40] verbiage, a use that could be considered under homeless shelters
[18:43] writ large, but if there is an interest in getting to that level of
[18:47] specificity in the table to say permit this type of shelter in
[18:51] certain zones versus the overall blanket category being perhaps more
[18:56] restrictive in certain zones, that's something that can be considered.
[19:00] If we did have an interest in going down that route, this would be an
[19:04] additional use that would be added under institutional housing as a separate line item in the tables.
[19:11] And then similarly, the second consideration here would be for runaway and homeless use shelters,
[19:18] which are similarly capturing a particular demographic of folks looking for shelter in place.
[19:24] And this typically would be for youth between the ages of 18 to 24 that would be residing in the facility.
[19:32] so there's a bit of an age-based restriction to folks being able to access the particular site.
[19:38] Similar process there if there was an interest in allowing this particular type of shelter facility
[19:44] distinct from overall homeless shelters writ large in particular zoning districts.
[19:49] That's a term that could be explored for addition within the item.
[19:54] And then lastly there's a few uses that are grouped here under the right column.
[20:00] And this is just more for informational purposes after having some conversations with the planning team about blanket category of community or group residents. That's currently host under institutional housing uses and the code.
[20:14] These are a few types of facilities that are federally protected and are permitted currently under the community or group residents designation.
[20:23] And so in another scenario where those weren't protected uses, that might be something to consider
[20:29] in the conversation here, but currently there is coverage for these facilities under the
[20:35] community or group residents use.
[20:37] So that's inclusive of the list here, including sober living houses, transitional housing,
[20:42] veteran group housing, and supportive housing for aging adults with disabilities.
[20:47] So capturing the full spectrum of transitional and supportive housing, as well as shelter-based housing options.
[21:00] And then the last piece, there's a few dense slides here, and I'm happy to kind of flash through the highlights of them.
[21:08] And include them as a point of reference for folks.
[21:11] But this portion of the presentation was coming from a request from the planning board at our joint public hearing in June,
[21:18] asking for a comparison of what is the baseline current conditions in summer
[21:22] bell compared to pure communities of how homeless shelters are treated as a
[21:27] permitted use. So just a brief summary slide here of the current conditions prior
[21:33] to this item being introduced so currently in summer bell homeless shelters are
[21:38] allowed by special permit and the urban residential district the mid-rise three
[21:42] to mid-rise six districts as well as the high-rise district and this is just
[21:47] inclusive of some additional considerations that are taken into account when a project comes
[21:52] forward to be considered for special permit. So folks are considering locational suitability
[21:58] compared to other principal uses of the site. What the impact of the project would be to
[22:03] affordable dwelling units housed in the location under consideration, the concentration of similar
[22:10] uses in the neighborhood and particular demand being seen from the community where a site is being
[22:15] opposed to the hosted, and just as a reminder for folks, what this item would be proposing
[22:22] currently is to allow either urban residential or neighborhood and urban residential use by
[22:31] right, as well as the mid-rise districts, three to six, the high-rise districts, and two of
[22:36] the special districts that allow residential housing, which include the Powderhouse School District
[22:41] and assembly square mixed use district with the caveat that properties that are
[22:47] fronting pedestrian designated streets would not allow ground story uses of this particular
[22:53] permitted use for those buildings, and we're currently not considering commercial districts
[22:58] to allow this as a permitted use outside of what would be protected under the dover amendment.
[23:05] And if we go to the next slide, this portion of, and this is the categories I was speaking
[23:15] to here for the proposal.
[23:18] Thinking about the peer comparators, I've looked at a couple of peer jurisdictions and happy
[23:25] to kind of flash through the high-level takeaways here, so looking at a direct neighbor
[23:29] in Medford as a comparison. Medford uses the category of lodging or boarding house to fall
[23:38] under homeless shelters as the closest proxy as a transient housing use. If it's treated
[23:44] as this category, when the project comes through for a proposal, then the conditions would be slightly
[23:50] more permissive and some are well compared to Medford. As it's currently allowed as a special
[23:56] permit use in the urban residential, the mid-rise districts, and the high-rise district,
[24:02] whereas in Medford, we're seeing the roughly the equivalent of the urban residential
[24:06] and a couple of the mid-rise districts, so roughly mid-rise 3 and mid-rise 6,
[24:12] allowing by special permit.
[24:16] And the next slide for a Cambridge.
[24:18] This is something that came up a lot in the review that it's fairly common for cities
[24:23] not particularly reference this as specified use within their use tables. So it's open to a bit of
[24:29] interpretation and discretion as to what would be the closest fit for the use or whether this would
[24:34] be a use variance that was requested. But for Cambridge taking a look at, you know, likely
[24:41] proxies institutional uses of the other category which are institutional uses not specified or
[24:48] or a lodging house for transient facilities.
[24:51] So taking a look at institutional housing uses,
[24:54] summer belt does allow homeless shelters currently
[24:57] in different zones, but in a greater...
[25:00] A portion of the city's land mass, relative to zoning coverage, as the residential districts encompass a greater
[25:07] portion of the city's land area compared to commercial. We're currently Cambridge allows this use by special permit, primarily in the commercial and industrial zones of their city.
[25:19] For lodging houses, if a facility was deemed under that subuse, summer bill is less permissive.
[25:27] As Cambridge does allow this use both in the residential and commercial districts across the city.
[25:35] And then looking at Boston, Boston was an interesting point of comparison.
[25:40] Currently, the city's adopted form-based districts, as well as traditional zoning.
[25:45] So, took a brief look at both of those contexts to consider for comparison purposes.
[25:50] So taking a look at the form-based zoning, currently the city has two distinct uses,
[25:57] shelter facilities and supportive housing, which are treated as discrete categories within
[26:02] the code. Looking at the category of shelters, some are well as currently more permissive
[26:09] in low density, so residential zones. But Boston is more permissive and can a high density
[26:16] cord or downtown intensive use zones, as well as along commercial nodes in the city itself.
[26:24] So currently there's a conditional use for shelter facilities, along the main street
[26:30] mixed use corridors, the major squares, place making squares, as well as civic squares
[26:36] and a provided a brief description of what those in tail. So we're really seeing
[26:41] conditional use in incentivization of this type of facility in those mixed use and largely
[26:48] downtown commercial zones in terms of the skyline districts, which are including low rise,
[26:57] but high density and high rise development on major growth nodes. They are allowed by
[27:03] right and the support of housing category is more broadly permissive and Boston compared to
[27:08] or bills, current use permitted as of homeless shelters, supportive housing is allowed
[27:13] by right throughout the districts. So they have our stout that level of specificity for
[27:19] supportive housing, which might be including a variety of services versus a shelter based
[27:25] facility.
[27:30] And then looking at traditional zoning in Boston, because both of those elements are
[27:35] still in play, you'll see a similar pattern to other jurisdictions in terms of looking at
[27:41] transient group housing facilities, such as lodging houses, dormitories, or hotels,
[27:48] if a facility were to fall under Boston's traditional zoning. Currently, it's more
[27:53] permissive than summer bill. It's allowed this use is allowed in the residential zones by
[28:00] special permit and by right in the commercial business zones, so in other words, more
[28:05] extensively allowed than what's currently permitted by special permit in summer bill.
[28:13] And then there's a secondary use in the traditional zoning for Boston group care residences.
[28:20] That might be another likely use that this could be nested under if a project was submitted for consideration.
[28:26] So if a project came under the group care residents, this would also be more permissive than summer bills current regulations.
[28:35] This uses allowed in the residential zones by special permit and by right in the commercial business zones so very similar to the lodging facilities we just previously discussed.
[28:49] And then lastly looking in Maldon as a peer comparator, Maldon's code was an interesting case.
[28:57] It's the use is not mentioned, and these use categories are a little bit broader in terms of interpretation of this being a potential subuse or permitted use under that category.
[29:11] But the closest proxies in their code would be a motel or nursing home facility with the logic that motel would be a proxy for a transit residents.
[29:20] And nursing home would allow the logistics provisions for more on care active on care site usage of some of those supportive elements of the site.
[29:32] And it's worth noting that if neither of these uses was deemed an applicable proxy for a shelter, a use variance would need to be sought from zoning board of appeals, which would be quite a time intensive and our just process for that particular facility to be cited within the city.
[29:48] If the facility was considered under the motel use, summer bell can similar to in Cambridge allows the use of different zones.
[30:00] But in a greater proportion of the city. So right now, molding allows the motel use by special permit in the business district, the highway business and industrial corridors, whereas compared to some reveals regulations in the residential district, which cover a much larger portion of the city's land mass.
[30:21] And then for the nursing home, if a shelter was to fall under the proxy of a nursing home use category,
[30:29] some reveal is less permissive, as this use is allowed by right in several residential zones,
[30:35] as well as the commercial and highway business zones of the city.
[30:43] And there's also a group dwelling residence that could be another option to consider under Maldon zoning.
[30:51] So if the use fell under this category, summer bill is less permissive than Maldon, this is
[30:59] allowed both in the residential and commercial zones, those higher coverage of these.
[31:08] And so in conclusion, that was a lot of information that I just given the tables and the
[31:13] different cities that were under comparison, but these are some of the key takeaways from
[31:17] research so Summerville's current regulations, most closely aligned with peer community and
[31:24] Medford in terms of the scope of where homeless shelters are permitted and the allowance of the
[31:29] use by special permit. And then we're seeing broadly a split between two trends from peer
[31:36] jurisdictions. So in some instances, Summerville allows the shelters in the residential zone
[31:42] rather than the commercial zones, but by doing so allows them in a greater proportion of the
[31:47] And this is, in compared to Cambridge and for particular uses in the law, in example.
[31:55] And in other cases, summer belt is less permissive due to the requirement of a special permit,
[32:00] which is one thing that's being considered with this item,
[32:03] amending the current regulations, as well as the restriction of shelters
[32:08] to residential rather than residential and commercial zones.
[32:12] So conversely, if some cities are being more permissive to allow in both use cases,
[32:17] they are seeing a higher degree of coverage for the facilities, and then the other trend that's
[32:22] come forward is that summerville is less permissive of supportive housing when compared to
[32:27] its peers. So if there has been a bifurcation split of that use to allow a supportive housing
[32:34] exclusive use as well as homeless shelters typically supportive housing is more permissive
[32:39] in terms of where it's permitted zoning-wise throughout the city. Typically allowed by-right
[32:45] development and or by a special permit across a broader spectrum of zones, we are starting to see
[32:52] some new reforms and trends like Boston's adoption of the squares and streets and skyline
[32:58] form-based zoning that are becoming more permissive of both of these types of uses.
[33:03] So we're in a good environment to be considering these changes relative to our peers in the region
[33:10] And the remainder of the slide deck is just looking at the particular use categories and definitions themselves.
[33:19] So, happy to just point to those as a reference if folks had additional interest in digging into the sub uses that are included in the definitions for the uses that were included as peer comparators and the slides.
[33:34] And happy to answer any questions if folks wanted to chat through the maps further, wanted to discuss particular use changes or additions or any of the peer comparison research.
[33:46] Thank you.
[33:48] Thank you very much.
[33:50] You really appreciate that.
[33:52] Are there questions on this presentation colleagues?
[34:01] All right.
[34:01] Well, Councillor Davis, how would you like to proceed?
[34:06] Thank you.
[34:06] chair, and thank you to, to his car. So, you know, what when I presented this, as I, as I,
[34:16] when I, first and before the council, I noted that the amendment as drafted includes the
[34:24] neighborhood residence test, where we've heard a whole discussion about, but that, the reason
[34:29] for that was so we could have a discussion about it, right? And hence, here we are, I think there is,
[34:36] So, in thinking about it, at the time there was some argument sort of, well, there are
[34:41] some considerations.
[34:43] And I still would value any input from my colleagues in that.
[34:47] I will say that, you know, my thinking initially, before I started digging in and, you know,
[34:56] and seeing now laid out in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, let's,
[34:59] uh, slides.
[35:00] This is, you know, kind of reinforces what I, what that digging sort of turned out. But, you know, my initial kind of thinking in terms of including neighborhood residents were two things, two sort of specific examples.
[35:15] At one point in the years past a friend owned home house somewhere in summerville that not there being a not their primary residence and wanted to donate it to the homeless shelter to be used as a family shelter.
[35:29] And that ultimately didn't fly the zoning, you know, to allow it, and this is, this is, I think this may even have been pre-present overhaul, but it was a while ago anyways.
[35:41] And then the other example is, was in a house in the neighborhood residence district in what's actually where there were,
[35:51] And it was owned by a church, so there's a whole fear.
[35:54] But let's say the overwhelming aside for a moment,
[35:58] just it was used as supportive housing,
[36:01] recovery housing, a couple of different varieties
[36:03] operated by companies that specialize in operating
[36:09] those types of facilities.
[36:10] And I never heard of people from anybody about it.
[36:12] It was perfectly fine.
[36:13] And so the thinking was like, well, we certainly don't want
[36:19] have any interpretation of our zoning preclude the second example there. And maybe there's
[36:27] a way to enable what wasn't allowed in that first example.
[36:35] I think that some of these
[36:37] earlier slides here that Annals Car showed kind of lead me to thinking that maybe there's
[36:45] a more nuanced way of addressing sort of that thought process that I had that probably isn't
[36:53] something we do right now.
[36:58] Slide that mentioned Family Housing Stabilization, right away,
[37:03] homeless, you shelters that perhaps a future amendment could add some definitions to enable those
[37:11] like we enable similar types of uses and the so we're living in a transition housing.
[37:20] That seems like it might be a pretty good hesitation to compromise but for the lack of a better
[37:28] reasonable approach.
[37:32] I think the thing that is, if we go back to the slide that shows the maps
[37:38] at the very beginning, it's a pretty stark difference between including the neighborhood residents
[37:44] and not including the resident neighborhood residents, but what isn't here is what is permitted
[37:53] now, right? And everything here requires a special permanent, right? And so I think that we would
[38:06] accomplishing. I think there's an argument that we would be accomplishing a good deal of, we'd
[38:12] be making progress in sort of our approach in enabling these types of facilities and I'm not
[38:17] proposing this. I'm just kind of thinking out loud because no one else wanted to talk about it.
[38:20] So I'm going to throw it out there for people to kick around. Yeah, I think there's an argument to
[38:25] to take the approach of not changing the designation for neighborhood residents from the
[38:32] where I currency ends, which is, which is that homeless shelter as defined right now would not be permitted.
[38:39] You know, making the changes so that in urban residents and the other districts, it is permitted by right with the neighborhood meeting.
[38:48] That lists a lot of barriers, I think, doing that.
[38:51] And that was my ultimate, that was my initial goal and objective here.
[38:55] So I think what I was, what I said out to do would be accomplished by doing that,
[38:59] But I do think that there, then, it would be worthwhile to have a conversation about are there uses that are fully appropriate in the neighborhood residences that we should make easier and make sure that there aren't barriers to that.
[39:12] But it sounds like that, I think from what else, guys, that's a little more of a nuanced.
[39:17] Amendment and what we haven't front of us, so maybe that's a next step if we feel that that's right, what to go.
[39:25] You know, that said there's other, you could also just leave a special permit requirement in the namehood residence.
[39:32] You know, you can also imagine how that might play out, I suppose.
[39:36] But I'm trying to kind of play the devil's advocate with myself here, that I think there's, I think some folks would raise some concerns that, you know,
[39:45] It wouldn't be without basis if we were to go with the entirely more permissive approach.
[39:56] But I could be convinced otherwise.
[39:57] So I'll stop talking and try to set up some kind of...
[40:03] So I can
[40:12] share how I've been thinking about this, and I have not really been considering
[40:15] the nuance difference between the family shelters and runaway shelters, etc. I think that for me,
[40:22] the question has been, should the neighborhood residents be included by right or by special permit?
[40:28] And that's how I've been thinking about kind of the two options that I'm going back and forth on.
[40:35] And just to kind of talk out loud up and thinking about it, I think.
[40:41] So sometimes when we're talking about allowing something by right, for example, the affordable housing overlay,
[40:46] there are, you know, folks in the community or you imagine this is like throwing open the floodgates and things are going to just start happening.
[40:54] In reality, in my experience, the way it goes for these kind of uses that don't make anybody
[41:01] money is that they're actually very rich.
[41:04] They're rare on usual things that every once in a while there is the money, the property ownership,
[41:10] the political will to do one of them.
[41:13] And when those magical circumstances happen, we don't want to be the kind of barrier.
[41:18] We want them to be able to happen when those things do happen and acknowledging that's going to be rare.
[41:26] So that would lead me to say it's okay to, you know, we don't need a special permit process as the neighborhood meeting should be sufficient.
[41:32] On the other hand, I think, so in ward 3 is the warming center that the city is run for the last two years and I'm extremely supportive of it and also I am keenly aware that there have absolutely been challenges with that.
[41:45] that's in a neighborhood residence zone.
[41:47] Well, I don't think the parcel is an old school,
[41:49] but the street is largely neighborhood residence.
[41:55] And many parts of it work very well
[41:57] and many parts of it are also really challenging.
[42:00] And there have been meetings
[42:01] and the city has responded to things,
[42:03] but I would just say it totally makes sense to me
[42:08] that there might need to be a public process around a situation
[42:12] like that and negotiations might not be the right
[42:15] word, but kind of accommodations to specific concerns. And that would lead me to think, I think,
[42:20] a special permit. So it kind of comes down for me of kind of how I'm thinking about this
[42:24] special permit process. Is this going to be something that is a soon to be granted and it's just,
[42:32] okay, there's going to be a meeting, but they're going to grant it or is it going to be a soon
[42:35] to be like, no, there's going to be major major, major pushback on all of these in an incredible political,
[42:40] you know, obstacles and actually the special permit is really going to mean they're not going to happen.
[42:46] Where I come down currently is that I don't think it's either of those. I think it's going to be a legitimate process.
[42:51] You know, I think the the various planning and zoning boards take this process seriously and will not automatically approve or not approval.
[43:02] These things will will seriously listen to what the concerns are and decide whether it's an appropriate permit to grant.
[43:10] You know, maybe that's optimistic or naive, but that's kind of coming into this meeting, that's where my head was at was, I, you know, fully support the intent of this and for the neighborhood residents, it would make sense to me to have a D by special permit.
[43:23] But I, you know, I definitely like my interest has been teaked by what Councillor Davis is talking about of whether it's there should just be nuance about, you know, the nature of the shelters in neighborhood residents, so I'm totally open to rethinking where I'm at.
[43:40] any colleagues want to share their thoughts at this point?
[43:48] Councillor Claiming.
[43:53] Well, admittedly not having called this discussion super closely, but I just want to say that
[43:58] like I'm somewhat confused as far as where it talks about additional uses, like I don't know,
[44:07] I think when I think of a shelter, it's a well, there's dropping shelters, but then there's
[44:14] also family shelters like we used to have on cross street where they sort of have, you know,
[44:21] people living there for extended grade time. But when I think of like group homes and stuff like that,
[44:29] you know, I mean the fair housing, I know that there's like a group home up near me and I remember
[44:33] the neighbors were, I'm only blame the exalt the former older man that he thought he could have
[44:38] blocked it, but I explained to them that we can't. So that would be like something that
[44:44] is the neighborhood residential. You have like a group home. So I'm just, I don't know, I'm
[44:52] just not following like so, are we talking about opening up a drop in style shelter and
[44:59] neighborhood residential?
[45:06] Yeah, Councillor Davis, do you want to respond?
[45:08] Yeah, I'm happy to thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm through to Councillor Clingan. Essentially, yes, I think if I understand
[45:15] your question, Councillor Clingan, the slide that's here, the right if I understand it correctly,
[45:22] and let's call, please drop it if I, if I'm not. But I think what we're saying is that there
[45:28] are uses that are currently permitted, like the sober-limin house, the transitional housing,
[45:33] Russian group housing, et cetera,
[45:37] and there's a few on the left hand side that maybe aren't,
[45:40] but we could consider including those to be allowed in neighborhood residents.
[45:50] What we haven't
[45:51] front of us now would allow a homeless shelter as it's defined, which is any kind of shelter,
[45:58] but you can imagine, including what you described as a drop in shelter in the neighborhood
[46:04] residents either by right, always with a neighborhood meeting and conversation, but, you know,
[46:10] the question is whether it would require a special, whether it be permitted at all or
[46:13] permitted with a special permit. And so that's what I was trying to, the point I was trying
[46:21] to make was I'm seeing all this laid out. I think that there is an argument for, you know, maybe
[46:28] addressing some of the nuances in the neighborhood residents to allow other uses other than
[46:34] how you described, consequently, in a drop in shelter that are worth considering, and that's what
[46:40] I was trying to lay out. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for about the afternoon explainer.
[46:44] Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, the council through the chair. Thank you, that's helpful.
[46:53] Yeah, I mean, I agree with what councilor you would camp instead of that, you know, whenever we
[46:57] have something in front of us, we can imagine sort of whatever you want to call doomsday scenarios,
[47:01] It was probably never going to materialize, but we also want to make sure there will be a permissive enough that we can address the needs of our community without being to quote unquote nimbee.
[47:19] Yeah, I'd like to kind of think about this a little more follow up with more comments.
[47:23] Councillor
[47:27] say?
[47:29] Through you chair.
[47:32] First of all, thank Ms. Crawford the presentation.
[47:36] I'll be honest before getting the presentation.
[47:39] They have not been thinking about all the different types.
[47:44] All the different uses in neighborhood residents.
[47:48] So this is very helpful to see also what.
[47:51] How other towns cities are approaching this.
[47:55] So, I think it's worth that we discuss and give it the time it needs, like for neighborhood residents or the different types that we would like to see there.
[48:09] Um, I am supportive of, um, um,
[48:13] on the shelters in, um, neighborhood residents, uh,
[48:18] ACY, you know, would, like I'm inclined to, uh,
[48:23] approve something that with special permit.
[48:27] Um, not just a neighborhood meeting.
[48:30] Um, but I think, again, there's like a whole piece of, like,
[48:34] what are all the different things that will be approved and they're like anything
[48:37] or first defining all the different types that we'll see there before we approve, you know,
[48:48] neighborhood residents with special permit without. And I need to have a question to staff
[48:56] here about the special permit. Is this different from the special permit that we get for, you know,
[49:06] kind of trying to build, you know, in the city is, how is this different, if we were to go with,
[49:14] you know, home of the shelter, you know, in the neighborhood residence, of course, special permit.
[49:17] What does that mean, you know, for the public and also for us?
[49:28] Uh, Deputy Director, do you want to take that one?
[49:31] The special permit process in this context?
[49:33] Yes. Thank you. I'm sure to share through you.
[49:36] This process wouldn't be, you know, this special permit process for home of shelter wouldn't be
[49:41] differently than a typical special permit process, you know, their findings would be made by the
[49:47] respective granting authority and conditions may or may not be opposed in pose rather based on the
[49:55] the conversation that unfolds. So, you know, there's a...
[50:00] There really no difference. The process would be the same. Obviously, on a case by case basis, depending on what is proposed, and I generate more discussion, or maybe different lengths of time for hearing, but otherwise, no. Thank you.
[50:18] Thank you, director. And there are a list of considerations that the planning board or the zoning board, I guess zoning board, in this case, would refer to, right?
[50:28] would have to do with site specific issues, et cetera.
[50:32] Yes, that's great.
[50:38] Count their site. Is that all you have?
[50:41] Yeah, I'm sad.
[50:46] Well, Councillor Davis, I will admit, I came prepared to vote,
[50:49] but I'm more than happy if you want to take some time to think about
[50:55] a potential amendment to this. Obviously, we should do that then.
[50:59] Oh, and I see Ms. Carr.
[51:02] Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to raise one other consideration for folks in the conversation
[51:08] this evening in terms of the timeline for this item, so because it was introduced prior
[51:13] to the summer recess period and had a 90 day window for final action following the public hearing
[51:20] process September 16th would be the final day for action for this active item. So I just wanted
[51:27] raise that as part of the conversation and of course if folks are interested in continuing to
[51:33] iterate on it an additional item could be brought forward but would require a new public hearing.
[51:38] Thank you. Thank you for that. Certainly relevant.
[51:44] So, thinking out loud here but you know,
[51:47] we could prepare possible amendments to this for our next regular meeting. We could
[51:54] would move on what's before us in some version, or, obviously, we can recently,
[52:02] recently, and have another public hearing, not the end of the world.
[52:04] If there's stuff that counselors want to work on, but that's helpful to know.
[52:09] Thank you.
[52:10] What do you think, Councillor Davis?
[52:14] Thank you, Ann, let's car for reminding us of the timing of this.
[52:20] I'm open to, you know, whatever, you know, we collaboratively, where the contentious is
[52:26] here, you know, I think
[52:29] given the way this was presented, you know, how I laid it out when
[52:33] I submitted it, the idea that we are specifically wanted to have a conversation about, you
[52:38] know, the neighborhood residents and that approach, I think, and, you know, the compelling argument
[52:45] that the chair made, I would be perfectly comfortable, and we'd have to, I guess,
[52:53] per conversation here about the mechanics, but if, if I would be perfectly comfortable,
[52:58] you know, proposing and amendment to the proposed amendment to this evening to,
[53:04] to change the, to change the status of neighborhood residents to require a special permit,
[53:09] leaving, leaving the rest as, as it was,
[53:12] And I think that would, if anyone, just an endless target, particularly if, if I've got that right,
[53:19] I think that would be the only chain that would literally have to change one P to an NR on one of the tables to accomplish that.
[53:26] That seems like a, you know, a reasonable approach.
[53:33] And I still think as a conversation about other, other uses that maybe maybe wouldn't be considered homeless shelters like that.
[53:40] And then those are the sides we talked about, but that's a big, that's a separate conversation
[53:46] because probably not close enough to what was advertised and what we had here in I do
[53:50] as so I'm kind of inclined to do that.
[53:54] Make that change, recommend it out if that's the will of the committee.
[54:00] Then if we get feedback, if the rest of the council members and next Thursday have concerns,
[54:07] We can always, you know, effects we said about the committee, we advertise, have another
[54:12] there and a contingent conversation. We don't want to rush anything,
[54:17] but that feels
[54:18] like a perfectly reasonable landing point if that's where we ended up tonight. Thanks
[54:21] to me.
[54:26] Thank you, Councillor. I agree. I think that is where I would want to go. I guess I'm just
[54:35] in through the mechanics would the motion be to ask our staff to draft the amendment, just to
[54:43] make sure that we're dotting all the eyes, catching all the places to have almost shelters
[54:51] by special permit in neighborhood rhythms.
[54:55] I just want to confirm that that's the intent instead of trying to do the line at it.
[55:00] And must you're extremely confident that, you know, it's just a fun table.
[55:05] If I may, Mr. Chair, I think, ultimately, yeah, I think that's probably correct. I mean, I, and I see,
[55:11] endless carhals are ahead of, I think we probably can identify where that change would be.
[55:16] It's probably changing, you know, so one P2 and SP, but I think that we should,
[55:25] the,
[55:26] The motion should be to do for the concept and in the discussion of the motion we can point out we think this is what it's going to be but
[55:33] You know, request that we have a version before us that reflects that concept if there's anything else that we realize tomorrow that it helps to be there.
[55:42] I'd like to hear endless card on this chair if we could.
[55:47] If that's assuming it's not that you want to answer that question.
[55:52] Yes.
[55:52] Please. Yes. Through the chair. I think you just wanted to say I'm happy to prepare. It's quite as small.
[56:00] I'm changed to the current document before us so happy to respond. If the vote is to recommend approval.
[56:08] Amending the amendment to allow by special permit in the neighborhood residents to have that document prepared for the council meeting. Next Thursday. Thank you.
[56:17] excellent. Councillor Clingham.
[56:22] Yeah, so just in the quick question to
[56:25] where I met up the answer. So, as it stands right now, like, like, save a place
[56:29] like a thin thin place has like a license to do a group home.
[56:36] They don't go for a
[56:38] special permit as it stands now, correct?
[56:47] And let's car. You know, the answer to that one.
[56:49] Vin fan just yeah yeah through the chair if you were to go towards the end of this proposal
[56:58] actually to the summary table let me see I think I've got it pulled up a little bit further down
[57:08] document.
[57:18] Look at your page here.
[57:20] Thank you.
[57:20] It's 38, right?
[57:22] 30.
[57:24] Who goes down?
[57:26] Thank you.
[57:27] And if you go down to the residential categories, institutional housing, so the subuse, that's
[57:34] treated particularly for institutional housing, community or group residences.
[57:38] This is the current summary table between the districts.
[57:42] So you'll see in the residential zones, that is a permanent use currently.
[57:46] And it's my understanding that the facility you were speaking to councilor Clingan would fall under that and happy to
[57:53] differ to the planning team if there's any other nuance to consider there. Thank you.
[57:58] So that would be community or group residents. Is that what you're saying?
[58:02] Through the chair. That's my understanding. Thank you.
[58:07] Okay. Councillor Clingan, you need more on that?
[58:10] No, it's just yeah. I mean, I think I don't I think that if you're having a place for the
[58:17] how else people to show up more like a drop in versus like a family shelter like we had on
[58:25] prostrate before it closed. I don't actually work there. I don't know that I think we
[58:31] need a special purpose. I don't know how to differentiate between the two, but I definitely am
[58:35] leaning towards, you know, I do think a little bit of a moral of us in just a community meeting,
[58:41] just so that we know who the player is and, you know, kind of, if they have a track record or what
[58:45] what the situation is going to be in that area in terms of responsibility and, you know,
[58:53] responsibility, and all that. I do think that a special permit may maybe warrant it again
[59:02] to depend on the specific type of use, but if it's classified as a shelter, but it's
[59:17] I'm not a shelter expert, so I just want to make sure that we're, you know, doing what makes sense for, you know, for a neighborhood of street and so on.
[59:29] Okay. Thank you. Councillor Davis.
[59:33] Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[59:37] I guess I wanted to just jump in here and just sort of thinking about the logistics.
[59:45] And I would by value the input of anyone from NL's car or any for planning or just to kind of check me on this.
[59:56] I think there might be, it might be worthwhile to actually.
[1:00:00] The take of vote to amend the text. So that, as at least as long as we get it right, what we would
[1:00:09] then potentially vote on next Thursday is the item before us is the text that's before us, just
[1:00:15] so there's no question about having a separate submission or anything like that. I won't speak
[1:00:22] to the legality whether that would work or not work. I'm not saying it's from the outside.
[1:00:29] There's
[1:00:29] It's before I said, I think ALS car in my correct it would be I think both columns in the table 3.1.16 and then the summary table at the end is that are those the places we need to make a change to do what we're talking about.
[1:00:47] through the chair.
[1:00:50] Through the chair.
[1:00:52] That's my understanding.
[1:00:53] I don't anticipate there'd be additional
[1:00:55] changes to the document beyond that.
[1:00:58] But of course, happy to take a scan to
[1:00:59] make sure we're done in the
[1:01:01] icing crossing the teeth.
[1:01:02] Thank you.
[1:01:05] Mr. Chair, if I could.
[1:01:10] Yes, please.
[1:01:11] Unless anyone has a strong feeling
[1:01:12] otherwise and I see cancer cleans
[1:01:14] hand up.
[1:01:15] Before I make a motion, I'm happy to
[1:01:17] hear any.
[1:01:19] I was just a, oh wait, it's on call long ago.
[1:01:23] Guys, we're coming ahead.
[1:01:24] It's just a thought.
[1:01:25] I just was like, I see, you know, we're searching.
[1:01:28] I see the network on this and I just, I was just saying,
[1:01:30] and I don't know, maybe it's already in here, you know,
[1:01:33] like I said, I just got out of the document,
[1:01:36] but what if it was a way to differentiate by calling,
[1:01:38] like emergency housing or something along those bonds,
[1:01:42] which might help differentiate.
[1:01:44] But I want to sidetrack what you're doing.
[1:01:46] So just as I just thrown that out there,
[1:01:47] while you were figure out the logistics.
[1:01:51] Okay, yeah, let's finish up with Councillor Davis.
[1:01:54] I was thinking.
[1:01:58] Now you're an administrator.
[1:02:00] Yes, please.
[1:02:01] Thank you.
[1:02:02] So, looking at the text of the Met in the proposed amendment that's before us on what is page three,
[1:02:14] so this is the, yeah, I think that should be it, yeah, yeah.
[1:02:17] And there, that's that table there.
[1:02:18] So, table three, and just scroll back up a little bit.
[1:02:21] The use tables have two columns, if you look at the language in the beginning, the first column column one is just sort of the generally applicable what's what uses allowed in the zones.
[1:02:31] The second is for adaptive reuse of building, so this is a scenario where you can see what it says it's a commercial building type.
[1:02:38] and constructed before the ordinance, so there's some sort of outliers and anyone on the
[1:02:43] call please correct me if I'm getting any of this wrong, but as it was explained to me and
[1:02:46] as I call if there's there are some outlier buildings and so there's there's there were some
[1:02:50] reasons why we might want to treat some of those differently. We don't I don't think we have to worry
[1:02:55] about that in in the context of this that unless someone disagrees but I think my inclination
[1:03:00] would be to make the change. For the sake of not getting into what adaptive reuse of specific
[1:03:08] buildings might apply to the neighborhood residence zone. Maybe just make this change across the board.
[1:03:13] And then if there is some reason to reconsider it, we could we could sort of do that Thursday,
[1:03:17] but that's a really, you know, nuanced issue if there is anything. So section, table 3.1.16,
[1:03:25] section 3.1, that's 16 in our zoning code, is the section that addresses residential uses.
[1:03:30] So this is the table for the neighborhood residence. And the neighborhood residence zones,
[1:03:35] and the uses that are permitted there.
[1:03:37] So this is what we're talking about.
[1:03:40] And so if you see on the screen in the section
[1:03:45] under residential, the red language homeless shelter
[1:03:48] is added there with a P4 permitted in both column 1
[1:03:53] and column 2, I must chair a move to amend the proposed amendment
[1:03:58] before us to change the P in both of those columns
[1:04:02] to the S-P, which would mean it requires a special permit in the neighborhood residence zone
[1:04:08] for a homeless shelter.
[1:04:10] A homeless shelter is a defined term, which is actually at the bottom of the submission here
[1:04:15] if folks want to take a peek at that, but we've talked about that in the vast, I don't think
[1:04:19] we need to get into that, but it's
[1:04:26] down there.
[1:04:27] And so should
[1:04:32] I do this in two votes?
[1:04:34] Let's do this in, well, now let's do it, because it has this exact same effect.
[1:04:37] let's do it in one bus. So my motion is to make two sets of changes. The one I just described
[1:04:44] to change those in a table 3.1.16 permitted uses for helmet shelter from P for permitted to
[1:04:52] for special permit in both columns and then in the summer table down below.
[1:05:00] Which is section 9, something,
[1:05:08] scroll in. You're all there. You're there first. Table 9.1.1, which is a summary table to make a corresponding change to, if you scroll down to residential categories there, you see for how much shelter for just the, actually way, yes. So for just the first column and are to change that P to an SP.
[1:05:32] that would effectively just, it's the same change. It's the same substitute that it just has, but makes the summary table reflect the substitute change we made about.
[1:05:41] I believe those are the only changes we need to, to make this slide. I so move Mr. Chair.
[1:05:47] I would welcome discussion on the motion as well as any feedback for anyone with more as only expertise.
[1:05:52] They may, if I've gotten any of that wrong.
[1:05:56] All makes sense to me, discussion on the motion. Are there counselors who want this as two motions so they can throw an insane monkey wrench where they vote for the substance of change, but not for the just kidding.
[1:06:08] Is there any discussion on this?
[1:06:14] Seeing none, let's call the roll on these changes to have homeless shelters and neighborhood residents be by special permit.
[1:06:21] Okay, just to make sure I have this fully reflected accurately, we're changing both columns of the first section from key to SP.
[1:06:28] And then we are changing this first column, this NR column, just this one in this section from P to S, P, just that one, right?
[1:06:36] Correct.
[1:06:38] Mr. Chair, I mean, I'm just going to say that loud.
[1:06:41] So to Annless Carr, I remember I was like, that's right, right?
[1:06:45] The first change in 3.1.16, that's entirely about neighborhood residents.
[1:06:50] The UR table is pages later.
[1:06:53] The summary table neighborhood residents is just that very first column.
[1:06:56] So that's why the motion is what is this.
[1:06:58] I got that right.
[1:07:01] See, I see nodding heads, I see thumbs up for folks
[1:07:04] who aren't looking at the cameras.
[1:07:06] OK, thank you all.
[1:07:07] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:07:09] Thank you, Councillor Davis.
[1:07:11] OK.
[1:07:12] Does the clerk have those?
[1:07:14] Yes, yes.
[1:07:15] Changing table 3.1.16.
[1:07:18] Change the P to SP in both columns.
[1:07:21] And in table 9.1.1.
[1:07:24] Change the first column, which is the NR column from P to SP.
[1:07:27] on that motion. Councilor Davis. Yes. Councilor Clinton. Yes. Councilor C. Yes. Councilor
[1:07:37] McLaughlin. Yes. Chair Young Cameron. Yes. All right. With that, that is all those in the
[1:07:43] affirmative of this motion. Excellent. Councilor Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to recommend
[1:07:49] a approval of the change. The amendment to the zoning code as amended this evening.
[1:07:57] Yeah, that's it.
[1:07:59] On the item as amended.
[1:08:02] Is there any discussion?
[1:08:04] Seeing none, let's call that roll.
[1:08:07] On the item approved as amended.
[1:08:09] Councillor Davis.
[1:08:10] Yes.
[1:08:12] Councillor Clinton.
[1:08:13] Yes.
[1:08:14] Councillor Cey.
[1:08:15] Yes.
[1:08:16] Councillor McLaughlin.
[1:08:18] Yes.
[1:08:19] Chair, you and Campan.
[1:08:20] Yes.
[1:08:21] All right, with that, that is all of us in the affirmative as well.
[1:08:24] Excellent.
[1:08:24] Well, thank you, Councillor Davis, for leading on this and everyone, for getting this over
[1:08:31] this important.
[1:08:35] Seeing no further business before the committee, can we take off the two items
[1:08:41] from the table and adjournment in one vote clerk? Yes, we can, and I'll just read those first two
[1:08:46] to the record. So, Edens number one, ID number 26 that's 0942, approval of the minutes of the
[1:08:52] news committee meeting of May 21st, 2006 and item number two, ID number 26,
[1:08:57] Statue 1147 approval of the minutes of the land use committee meeting of June 18th,
[1:09:01] 2026, so taking both of those items up together for approval as well as adjourning.
[1:09:07] How's it, AS?
[1:09:08] Yes.
[1:09:09] How's it, Client?
[1:09:10] Yes.
[1:09:11] How's it, AS?
[1:09:13] Yes.
[1:09:14] How's it, Client?
[1:09:14] How's it, Client?
[1:09:15] Yes.
[1:09:17] Cheerio and campan.
[1:09:18] Yes.
[1:09:19] All right, with that, it is 742 pm and we are adjourned.
[1:09:23] Excellent. Thank you all. Great meeting.
[1:09:27] Have a great weekend everybody. Bye-bye.