2026-06-17 - Urban Affairs Committee

0:01I'm going to call the city council urban

0:03affairs committee to order. It's June

0:0517th. It's a little past 7:30. Uh we

0:08have two items on our agenda. I'm going

0:11to take them out of the listing here.

0:14We're going to begin with order number

0:162600

0:1819747, the application for modification

0:21of a special permit from Matthew

0:23Donnelly on behalf of Target to amend

0:26condition number nine, signage

0:27requirements to increase the wall

0:29signage from 3 to 4 for the target

0:32located at 423 Donald J. Lynch

0:34Boulevard. So, Mr. Donnelly, if you'd

0:36like to come up to the well. Um the

0:41city clerk did put your

0:45PowerPoint back on the screen. Um so if

0:48you anybody needs to refer to it or if

0:51anybody brought their copies that we

0:54were given at the public hearing that we

0:57had on the 8th um it might be helpful. I

1:00know you were all given a communication

1:02also that came from the

1:05um

1:07city solicitor late today.

1:10I am

1:13going to begin quickly going through

1:17as required for special permits comments

1:21from department heads. So we had really

1:24no comment from the engine engineering

1:27department, the fire department, the

1:28police department, conservation or the

1:30board of health,

1:32the building department. Uh Commissioner

1:34Payton indicated that the four new signs

1:38will have a total new aggregate area of

1:41plus or minus 422 square ft. Will Target

1:45need to reduce the sign size of the

1:48signs to meet the 300 square foot

1:50maximum or will the city council allow

1:53the increase of the aggregate area? Um

1:56so based on the comments from the

1:58solicitor's office that I think

1:59everybody received

2:01because the project proposes flat wall

2:04signs with an aggregate of 421.46

2:0746 square feet of variance from section

2:1152695

2:13from the planning board is also

2:15necessary. So along with us amending the

2:17special permit um they will then need to

2:20go to the planning board which

2:22unfortunately was not relayed to um the

2:27applicant until this evening. So, I

2:29apologize for the confusion in all of

2:32this, but I don't know if you have any

2:35comments before we begin. We do have the

2:39decision on the amendment to a special

2:42permit. Um, if you have anything you

2:44want to say or if not, we can just get

2:46right into the order.

2:50>> Okay. Um so the uh decision on the

2:54amendment to a special permit order

2:56number 26109747

2:59we have the procedural findings of facts

3:01which really lists the business of the

3:05company and 1 Nicolet Mall in

3:08Minneapolis, Minnesota. The applicants

3:10attended at 423 Donald J. Lynch

3:13Boulevard. On May 6, 2002, the council

3:16voted to grant the special permit

3:18authorizing New England Development

3:22to

3:23have to conduct and operate a retail

3:25store, shop, service establishment, and

3:28restaurant pursuant to section 217C

3:32and section 217E.

3:35On April 30th, 2026, the applicant filed

3:38with the city clerk an application to

3:40modify condition number nine to increase

3:43the wall signage from three to four

3:45signs. In connection with the

3:47application, the applicant submitted a

3:49certified list of abutters, the filing

3:51fees, and the site plans. The applicant

3:54was certified by the building

3:55commissioner acting on behalf of the

3:57city planner as having compi complied

3:59with rule four

4:02and pursuant to the rules and

4:03regulations of the city council. The

4:05city council established a date for a

4:07public hearing on the application and

4:09the city clerk advertised the public

4:12hearing. That public hearing was held on

4:14Monday, June 8th and the hearing was

4:16closed. The applicant through its

4:19representatives presented testimony

4:21detailing the change in hours describing

4:25its impact upon municipal services, the

4:27neighborhood, and traffic. I think

4:28detailing the change in signs, not

4:32hours.

4:35At the public hearing, no members of the

4:37public spoke about the use or submitted

4:39written comments and the procedural

4:41findings specified above supplement

4:44those made at the original special

4:46permit. So based on all of that, the

4:50city council takes the following action.

4:52The applicant has complied with the

4:53rules and regulations promulgated by the

4:55city council for the issuance of the

4:57special permit. The city council finds

4:59that the increase in wall signage is in

5:01appropriate use and in harmony with the

5:03general purpose and intent of the zoning

5:05ordinance. City council incorporates by

5:08reference finding E in the original

5:10special permit and amended special

5:12permit. The city council pursuant to its

5:15authority under master laws chapter 4A

5:18and the zoning ordinance grants the

5:20applicant an amendment to modify

5:22condition number nine as follows. by

5:26deleting condition number 9A in its

5:29entirety and inserting in its place the

5:31following 9A wall signage for signs not

5:35to exceed 300 square ft in the

5:38aggregate. All other conditions of the

5:40original special permit shall continue

5:42in full force and effect and are

5:44incorporated by reference as part of the

5:46decision.

5:48So I know um

5:51in the detail that was also sent with

5:55the solicitor's letter was a file that

5:58was given to the building department

6:01that had some signs that were really

6:04window signs that we don't need to deal

6:06with at all. I think what we need to

6:08deal with is

6:10what we were given at the public hearing

6:13which is really adding in the one sign

6:18which has

6:20the language of

6:23where is it?

6:26Uh drive up

6:29and you probably have a copy of this. I

6:33know it's confusing to me because the

6:35front page has where it looks like this

6:38drive up sign is going on the front of

6:41the target building, but then further in

6:44it looks like it's going on the side of

6:47the building.

6:52>> I'm looking at page or none of the pages

6:55are marked, but it has the big picture

6:57of the drive up. Um, and it says generic

7:02partial elevation. Note placement can

7:04vary. So, it's this page.

7:07>> Yes.

7:13>> Oh, sorry. Can you make sure that that

7:14button is lit? So, it's

7:17>> Sorry.

7:17>> Thank you. So, this picture really isn't

7:21a definitive picture of where it's

7:23going. Correct. It really will go

7:26>> where you have it

7:27>> on the wall. Yes, that is just a generic

7:29detail

7:30>> because we usually reference

7:33um documents and I don't know if we need

7:35to

7:37specify

7:38four signs

7:40as designated on the design package of

7:43May 10th, 2025.

7:46I'm looking at our council president,

7:48president Hosing. So, so Madam Chair, so

7:51the solicitor will make sure that the

7:52correct drawings are referenced as part

7:55of the package if that's where they are

7:56and if those are the right sign because

8:00we need the dimensions and locations for

8:01the signs and because that's what will

8:04become part of the uh special permit.

8:06>> All right, because the original language

8:09was actually a little more

8:14informative. It had two signs located

8:17over store entrances and one pharmacy

8:20sign not to exceed 300 square ft in the

8:23aggregate. So this now just says four

8:25signs. It doesn't say where they are. So

8:28I don't know if we need to keep it with

8:30what's currently there. Two signs

8:32located over the store entrances, one

8:34pharmacy sign and one

8:38sign reading what did I just say it was

8:41called? Uh drive up.

8:42>> Drive up.

8:43All located on the front elevation.

8:49>> Correct.

8:54>> Rather than just simply four signs.

8:59>> Does that make sense?

9:03I don't know if anybody else looked up

9:05the original special or I think there

9:08was a copy floating around of the

9:10special permit in 2002.

9:14It says, as I wrote, read wall signage,

9:17two signs located over store entrances

9:19and one pharmacy sign.

9:22So, we could keep that.

9:25Get rid of the and do a comma.

9:29One pharmacy sign and

9:33one

9:38sign

9:42reading drive up

9:49or signifying I we'll let him

9:53>> Madam Chair

9:54>> councelor Fillo

9:56>> thank you madam chair just a quick

9:57question on that note I mean I'm I'm

9:59comfortable with that addition right

10:00making sure that we clarify what what

10:02signs in particular but I guess um you

10:05know the special permit before us is the

10:06deletion of condition 9A the wall

10:09signage So that would completely

10:11eliminate four signs not to exceed 300

10:14square ft. I guess my my question is are

10:17we losing control of the square footage

10:20if the language just includes what kind

10:22of signs or

10:23>> No, because it still is in there. The

10:24current language says the two signs, one

10:26pharmacy sign not to exceed 300 square

10:29feet in the aggregate. So we're already

10:32over the 300 feet which is why they need

10:34to go for the variance.

10:36>> Okay. because

10:40they didn't ask us and I don't know if

10:42we can put in here

10:45the the current aggregate.

10:47>> Okay.

10:49>> All we're doing is changing the number

10:50of signs. This total square feet I think

10:54is in the zoning

10:58>> which is why the solicitor said they

10:59needed to get the variance because

11:01they're over that.

11:02>> And just one one final question madam

11:04chair if I may. So as it exists now

11:06though they are able to have four signs.

11:10>> They are able to have three signs. Two

11:13signs located over the store entrance

11:15and one pharmacy sign. That's three.

11:17>> Okay.

11:18>> They want four.

11:20>> So the fourth one would be that drive up

11:22sign

11:24>> because they also have the freestanding

11:26pylon which is a different language.

11:29>> Not included in this. not included in

11:31this change, but it's currently in the

11:34code or in the special permit. And as

11:37long as they don't change the height or

11:40the square feet per side of that sign,

11:44they're good to go because I know

11:46there's a picture of the pylon sign in

11:48one of these drawings.

11:51>> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

11:53>> Madam Chair,

11:54>> Councelor Naven.

11:55>> Thank you, Madam Chair. [clears throat]

11:56Um, I'm in agreement with Council Fill

11:58and yourself on the language. I think

12:00that's completely sufficient. I just I

12:02want to revisit a question I had during

12:04the [clears throat] original public

12:05hearing because I'm not sure if I was

12:06clear enough, but I walked away still a

12:08little confused just on the the purpose

12:11of the drive up sign. Is this to is

12:14Target is this particular Target West?

12:16Are they changing the way that um drive

12:20up orders are done? So, right now, if I

12:23order on the app, I go to the parking

12:26space with the assigned number on it. I

12:28you say I'm here. or I'm in spot four

12:30and somebody brings it out. Is this

12:32going to move that service to the front

12:35of the building or is that

12:37>> Yes. So, the drive up is already um

12:39approved to be um I'm not sure exactly

12:42where in the parking lot it is at the

12:43moment, but it is going to be moved kind

12:45of right in front of where this sign is

12:48going to be.

12:48>> Right. Yeah. Right now it's on the other

12:49side. It's like

12:50>> it's going to be moved to where that

12:51sign is going to be. So,

12:53>> and that'll just and the spots now will

12:54just be returned to regular parking

12:55spots for customers.

12:56>> Yep.

12:57>> Okay.

12:58>> All right. sort of follow up on that

13:00because I had the same concern.

13:01Currently, the whole front of the drive

13:05of in front of Target is marked no

13:07parking, fire. Yep.

13:09>> Um use whatever. So, cars can't pull up

13:13and park there. So, how will you be able

13:16to load?

13:17>> Um so, restricted

13:19>> in the parking lot itself. Um, we're

13:22going to convert some of the stalls that

13:24are in front of the building to be the

13:27new drive up stalls and then the

13:30existing drive stalls we're going to

13:31convert back to um regular stalls.

13:33>> So, they're just going to be closer to

13:36the building, but nobody's going to be

13:37pulling up below that sign expecting

13:40somebody to walk out and load their car.

13:44>> Correct. No, we're going to have um

13:46multiple other kind of indicators that

13:49will have um and then we're also going

13:51to have stalls that have the number at

13:53the top of the um stall that will be

13:56correspondent to the order number that

13:58they have on their phone and then

14:00they'll be able to come in and then pull

14:02into that stall and get their order

14:05delivered to them.

14:07>> Okay. And I'm sure that if it becomes an

14:10issue, it'll be brought to code

14:12enforcement or somebody. I don't think

14:14the fire department wants to be pulling

14:16up and finding cars parked in front of

14:18the store.

14:20>> Councelor Presiato,

14:21>> Madam Chair, thank you so much. Um,

14:24[clears throat]

14:25so

14:27I in my view I I think the signage is a

14:30bit excessive. Um

14:32and um you know moving forward if we do

14:35approve this it will set a precedent for

14:37Target and for other businesses. Um to

14:41me that drive up is very

14:43self-explanatory right now. Um

14:47if it's moved to the side that drive up

14:49sign is not visible from the street.

14:52Right. I don't know if you're if you're

14:54familiar with the locations, but there

14:56the target is set back in a parking lot

14:58off of a pretty fast main road. Um

15:02there's one entrance or two entrances, I

15:04believe. Um but they both kind of loop

15:07around the building, so you can't see it

15:09from the forward facing um view. Um so I

15:13I'm not sure who it's going to benefit

15:16having that extra sign there. Um, if you

15:18do have pylons in the parking lot, I

15:20think that would be more effective than

15:22having an extra sign thrown on the

15:24building. Um, just kind of curious as to

15:27if if you guys had considered the actual

15:31views and and sight lines off the road.

15:34>> Yes. So, um, the stalls themselves are

15:36going to have um like a beacon or um

15:40that'll be able to let the customer see

15:43that when they're closer to it. But when

15:45they're trying to navigate the parking

15:46lot itself, this will kind of give them

15:49guidance and not kind of create, you

15:51know, traffic jams within the um within

15:55the parking lot trying to have them

15:56trying to find those stalls where they

15:58are. There kind of be like a a long

16:01elongated signage where you can see

16:04where the stalls are generally and then

16:06as you get closer you'll be able to see

16:08the stalls themselves.

16:10>> Yeah. Um, if if I'm familiar with this,

16:13as you're driving up to that target from

16:15this the entrance at the light, you are

16:18actually facing that door where you want

16:20to put the new drive up sign already.

16:23So, people that that area is already

16:25visible to anyone driving up

16:26>> the existing or the proposed.

16:28>> Yes, the existing area. So, um, again,

16:32like I I don't know who it's going to

16:34benefit entirely if if there's already

16:36designated parking spots, there's

16:38pylons, there's lots of markings where

16:40cars go. Um, I don't think this really

16:42necessitates another sign on the

16:45building itself. Yeah, I think it's just

16:47for mostly that um when the customers

16:50pull into the lot itself, they'll be

16:52able to find the um stalls a lot easier

16:54than trying to find these beacons that

16:57aren't going to be as visible as a sign

17:00would. And then um it would create less

17:03traffic jams and things like that within

17:05the parking lot.

17:10>> Any further questions? Councelor Fillo.

17:13>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one

17:14follow-up question. Um I know uh just

17:17across town at Boston Post Road East,

17:19right, is our other target location in

17:21the city. Um just looking at like GIS

17:24and looking at the mapping, I can't see

17:25if there's this driveup sign there, but

17:27is there a similar sign at the other

17:29target location in the city or

17:31>> um there's not yet. Um

17:33>> but I seems like this is something

17:34that's

17:35>> it has been approved and it will not

17:37violate a special permit. So um we just

17:41haven't kind of gone through the process

17:43of that just yet. Um so

17:46>> but that location does currently service

17:47the drive up the beacon. Right.

17:50>> They do have a drive up. They um they

17:52don't have a they have one beacon at the

17:54moment. Um we are also going to do a

17:57remodel on that one as well. The drive

17:58up stalls.

18:00>> I was just curious just for consistency

18:01across the Thank you. I appreciate that.

18:03>> It as the as of right now um we haven't

18:08started the process of getting one

18:10there. Um but there is a drive up and

18:14Yep.

18:15>> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

18:20>> All right. So,

18:23and I know there were the very last page

18:25of this has the order pickup, which to

18:27me is just a window decal, which we

18:29don't have to approve because they

18:33aren't considered something that is

18:37necessary. So, so long as you don't

18:42cover too much of the window. There's

18:44there's a an amount that

18:47>> where th that goes. Um all right.

18:50Further discussion.

18:52Do I hear a motion?

18:59>> Councelor Fillo.

19:00>> Thank you, Madam Chair. And bear with me

19:01here. So, we would be approving

19:04um the four signs with the lang the

19:07specific four signs with the language

19:09that you had referenced earlier.

19:10>> Do you want me to read it again?

19:11>> If you don't mind.

19:12>> Wall signage. Two signs located over

19:15store entrances,

19:17one pharmacy sign, comma, one signifying

19:20drive up. U period all signs will be

19:25located on the front elevation as shown

19:28on the plan stated May 10th, 2025. So

19:31moved.

19:33>> All right. It's been moved and seconded

19:34to amend the and also then to change

19:38that one word of

19:42whatever was that I had uh number nine,

19:44the hours to signs um which is really

19:47just a typo I think. Um

19:51to amend the amendment.

19:54All those in favor?

19:57All those opposed. And then all those in

20:00favor of the

20:05um signed permit as amended.

20:10Three and those opposed. All right. So,

20:13councilor Presiato. So, as I had said to

20:16you, I will report this out at Monday's

20:18meeting and then we don't meet again

20:20until July. So, this has got to be

20:23referred to the solicitor so he can make

20:25sure that these changes are all in this

20:28draft uh in proper form

20:31>> and then we will be voting on this at

20:34our July meeting and the hope is that

20:37the planning board will have this on

20:39their agenda and then and the planning

20:42board meets before we do. So if they

20:45approve the variance but we don't

20:47approve the amended special permit then

20:49the variance is really

20:52null and void I guess. So unfortunately

20:56um okay so that's the next steps and you

21:01need to reach out to the planning board

21:02to make sure that you fill out the

21:03paperwork and pay any fee that is

21:07required so you're on the agenda. All

21:10right. Thank you very much for your

21:12>> patience working through all of this. Of

21:14course. Thank you.

21:22>> Okay. Next on our agenda is

21:28order number 109705,

21:31a communication from attorney Robert C.

21:34Buckley on behalf of Redgate Real Estate

21:37Advisors LLC regarding a proposed zoning

21:40amendment to chapter 650 zoning to add a

21:43new section to create the Forest Street

21:45Residential Overlay District FSR OD.

21:49So we have attorney Buckley with us. We

21:52also have Elizabeth Bellow

21:57from Redgate and Christine Hung from

22:02>> Reamer Bron. [laughter] That's the

22:04attorney's office.

22:06All right.

22:08So,

22:10we have

22:13the draft. Uh, we have the letter from

22:17the planning board. Attorney Buckley, I

22:19don't know if there's anything you want

22:21to bring up before we start. Again, I

22:24believe your information is also on the

22:27screen if anybody needs it. So

22:30>> um first uh thank you madam chair

22:32members of the council for for the

22:34record Robert Buckley Christine hung my

22:36partner and Elizabeth Bell from Redgate.

22:39We have our presentation that you saw at

22:41the council meeting. I don't know if you

22:43want us to go through it again but we

22:44can refer to it. Um but I can I can also

22:47summarize why we're here and what what

22:50we think that uh we're trying to

22:51accomplish and uh that might be the most

22:54efficient way of doing it. Um if it if

22:57it pleases the chair.

22:58>> Sure. That sounds good. I know it's up

23:00there and I think everybody's got their

23:02copy if

23:02>> we do have we passed

23:03>> a big copy and a small copy so I can

23:05share.

23:06>> I I probably don't have to remind the

23:09council that and if you read the press

23:11and I'm sure you have applicants coming

23:13before you constantly what a difficult

23:14time it is out there in the commercial

23:17sector right now. Um particularly with

23:20uh office and um be it lab or any other

23:24components. But what has what has seemed

23:27to resonate to the extent anything

23:29resonates in the marketplace right now

23:31is the mixeduse concept um which we're

23:34trying to accomplish here and uh create

23:36a little vibrant pocket that would be

23:39self-contained and activated and

23:41hopefully uh uh result in stabilization

23:44of of that area in the market and

23:47enhance uh the product and also the tax

23:50revenue for the city. So, we pattered we

23:53patterned again. I apologize. I know I

23:56told you I lost my tooth from three

23:59weeks. I was told today I'll have it.

24:01So, I won't be slurring my words. Uh but

24:04I am going to look up that tackle from

24:06Yale because I think he's still alive.

24:08Um but um the um you have the executive

24:15residential overlay. So, we use that as

24:16a template. So we went starting from

24:19scratch to reinvent something and

24:21introduce something that would require a

24:24a tremendous amount of analysis. We have

24:26gone to the planning board. Uh I thought

24:28the conversation was robust and very

24:31good and uh by and large we agree with

24:34uh the comments that the planning board

24:35has forwarded to the council with a

24:38couple caveats. Would like some

24:39clarification on some of them and I can

24:41go into that. Um the two that we focused

24:44on are the number of units. the 450

24:47doing 50 town houses. Town houses would

24:50eat up a lot of the land mass um that

24:54we're trying to preserve as a natural

24:56buffer and create a natural amenity. But

24:58when you do separate standalone town

25:01houses or string them together, it it

25:03does eat up a lot of the land. But what

25:05we're proposed to do and what we would

25:07be willing to explore as we proceed is

25:10to create a project where the units the

25:14the main unit themselves have first

25:16floor entrances so that it appears that

25:19there's almost like a lack of a better

25:21term a brown house in the uh you know in

25:24the front that instead of going into a

25:26hallway and down the hallway if you're

25:27on the first floor you may have direct

25:29entrance into your your unit on the

25:31first floor. So to the outside it would

25:33look like a townhouse but it condenses

25:37it and preserves the open space which is

25:38what we're trying to do. Um we we we

25:42feel strongly that the 450 is the

25:44appropriate number for purposes of

25:46financing and making it a reality. Um so

25:49we'd like to hold that number but we

25:50would work at trying to pro provide a

25:53diverse

25:54living experience and Liz Smith can talk

25:56to that if if if the council would like.

26:00And the second is on the height. We're

26:01fine with the height. Um but under the

26:04new building code where Massachusetts

26:06has gone essentially all electric. Um

26:10most of the units now have separate uh

26:13heat pumps or heat units. And you don't

26:16want those on the ground. You want them

26:18on the roof. Um, when the words tower

26:22and spire, I think evoke, you know,

26:24radio towers or church steeples, but

26:27we're talking about units that are

26:29probably a maximum 3 or 4 feet off the

26:33ground, but maybe screened. So you can

26:36have the 60ft height with a um an

26:38additional mechanical area on the roof

26:41that's screened so you really don't see

26:43it, but it would hold all the utilities

26:45that you'd have to have because

26:47otherwise you're putting them on the

26:49ground and it looks horrible. It really

26:50does. And I and with the weather and the

26:53snow and everything that it causes more

26:55problems than it work. So the height we

26:59could live with with the se with subject

27:01to exclusion exclusion of the

27:03mechanicals on the roof that is

27:05appropriately screened and the I don't

27:07know what the height would be probably

27:0910 feet

27:10>> actually

27:12>> 5t 5 to 10 feet so and usually it's set

27:15back so if you're standing at grade

27:17you'll never see them um it's just a

27:20safety factor also um and I so those are

27:23the two major issues right

27:31Oh, the real Yeah.

27:34>> Press. There you go. You want to bring

27:36it?

27:45We want to be able to deliver

27:48the first building

27:51and then 26 forestry building. we just

27:54can't commit to that control the market.

27:58Um, but you know, I think this is one of

28:00those things that we're more than happy

28:01to work with the council and continue to

28:03provide updates regarding our outreach

28:05efforts,

28:07um, marketing efforts and how it's

28:08going. Hopefully, it does align.

28:13>> All right. So, what let me read the

28:14letter from the planning board and then

28:16we can get into your draft of the actual

28:19zoning and have a conversation about

28:22some questions I had and then bring in

28:24the planning board's comments as

28:27appropriate. Um, so, honorable President

28:30OAN counselors at its regularly

28:32scheduled meeting on May 18th, 2026, the

28:34planning board took the following

28:35action. On a motion by Dr. Finbeby,

28:38seconded by Mr. Russ, the board voted to

28:40forward specific recommendations

28:42regarding the proposed zoning amendment

28:45to the city council. The consensus of

28:47the board was to provide a generally

28:49favorable recommendation subject to the

28:51inclusion of the board's recommended

28:53modifications. The board provided the

28:56following responses relating to the

28:59board's fourprong zoning standards. The

29:01board agreed that the proposal as

29:04currently presented has the potential to

29:06negatively impact neighboring

29:07properties. However, the board concluded

29:10that with appropriate modifications, the

29:12proposal could be in keeping with the

29:14character of the neighborhood,

29:16particularly considering the newer

29:18development along Lazot Drive. The board

29:20further agreed that the proposed zoning

29:22amendment is in in its current draft

29:25form could negatively impact the

29:28neighbors. The board noted that with the

29:30modifications outlined below,

29:32the amendment could potentially mitigate

29:34those impacts. The board reached a

29:37consensus that the inclusion of town

29:39homes and mixeduse components such as

29:42retail would provide a greater benefit

29:43to the city than a low occupancy office

29:47building. The board also agreed that if

29:49properly modified, the zoning amendment

29:52would align with the intent and purposes

29:54of the city's zoning ordinance. The

29:57board provided the following

29:58recommendations. Limit the number of

30:00gardenstyle apartment units to 400 with

30:03the option to include up to an

30:05additional 50 town homestyle units.

30:09Increase the required perimeter property

30:11line setbacks from 20 ft to 50 ft while

30:14exempting existing structures from the

30:17revised setback requirement. Restrict

30:20building heights to the height of the

30:22existing structure or a maximum of 60

30:24feet inclusive of spires and towers.

30:28Remove the term public from section G2

30:32as there will be no public ways created

30:35as a result of the new zoning.

30:38Require the incorporation of retail and

30:40mixeduse components as part of the

30:42construction of the first building

30:44phase. Encourage the inclusion of

30:47underground parking to reduce the extent

30:49of imperous surface. Encourage the

30:52development of publicly accessible

30:54walking trails and or bicycle paths.

30:57Recommend that the the developer conduct

30:59a balloon test to evaluate the potential

31:01visual impact of the surrounding area.

31:04And recommend that no demolition permit

31:07be issued until the special permit

31:09application has been approved. The vote

31:11was yay, FA, Finnby, Foron, use,

31:14Leventure, and Russ. And there were no

31:17no votes. The motion carried six to

31:19zero.

31:21Signed, Sean Fay, chairperson.

31:24So, the zoning ordinance requires us to

31:28get an opinion from the planning board.

31:29What we do with it is up to the body. We

31:32have um followed it sometimes, we have

31:36ignored it other times, but we'll see.

31:39Um, councelor Neon. Thank you, Madam

31:40Chair. Um Bob, just to clarify, so the

31:43you the proponent is ex finds it, excuse

31:48[clears throat] me, finds the comments

31:50from the planning board acceptable

31:51except for the 50 town homes andorating

31:55retail.

31:55>> Yeah, we'd like to have the number 450

31:58and and the town houses will try to

32:00incorporate. We'll work we can draft

32:01language to the effect that we'll work

32:03with the council,

32:04>> but 450 is a number from a financial

32:07standpoint that makes it real and and we

32:10think that we can achieve that

32:14separate diverse housing feel by putting

32:16these things on first floor entry. But

32:20if you were to do 50 town houses that

32:22are on the perimeter, it would eat up a

32:24lot of the open space that we're trying

32:26to preserve, which again provides a nice

32:28natural buffer to the roadways around.

32:30So that

32:32>> No, understand. I just I want to make

32:33sure as mentally as we're preparing to

32:35go through these, I want I'm checking

32:37these off from the planning board

32:38saying, "Okay, these are good. These are

32:40>> we agree with the concept. We just want

32:42to tweak it so that it works and it's no

32:45one benefits if we do something that no

32:47one can execute, you know." So

32:48>> that's correct. Yeah. And and we think

32:50this would would enhance the execution

32:52of this so that it would be attractive.

32:54>> And if you've been out there, the

32:56terrain

32:57>> the topography the topography drops off.

33:01So it creates some nice ambiance that we

33:03we intend to incorporate into the

33:06>> overall plan. So

33:07>> very good. Thank you.

33:09>> Okay. So I went through this looking at

33:13results mixeduse overlay district rather

33:16than the residential overlay which is ex

33:19the language is almost similar except

33:22where they talk about their muds where

33:25you have your terminology a project in a

33:28phase so it's similar but there are some

33:32differences so I uh I I've noted them

33:35where appropriate. Um, so let's see. We

33:40begin with your draft pursuant to

33:43chapter 48 of the general laws. The city

33:46of Malbor having received for its

33:48consideration changes in the zoning

33:50ordinance to further amend chapter 650

33:53now ordains that the zoning ordinance as

33:56amended be further amended by amending

33:59and adding the forest street residential

34:01overlay district. The purpose and

34:03objectives. The forest street

34:05residential overlay district allows the

34:07application of supplemental land use

34:09controls within the boundaries of a

34:11certain overlay district subject to city

34:13council approval as an alternative to

34:15land use controls that exist in the

34:17underlying district. The establishment

34:19goals of the SFR OD are to enhance land

34:24use development and encourage desired

34:26growth patterns for the benefit of the

34:28public health, safety, and welfare by

34:30promoting integrated pedestrianfriendly

34:33residential and mixeduse development to

34:36allow for the development of housing,

34:38retail, and workplaces within close

34:40proximity of each other. consistent with

34:43the stated economic development and

34:45smart growth objectives of the city. I

34:48will say I've got my head down as I'm

34:50reading. So if anybody else has issues,

34:52please uh yell out and I will stop. B

34:56location of the FSR development phasing

35:00for the purposes of of this section 650

35:03number to be figured out. The FS OD is

35:07comprised of parcels identified on the

35:09city's assessor's maps as parcels 98,

35:1391,1124,

35:14and 102-1 containing approximately 30.96

35:19acres as indicated on the city zoning

35:21map and more particularly described and

35:24shown on exhibit A annexed here 2 and

35:26incorporated by reference therein.

35:30Um, number two, within the FSRD, there

35:34may be one or more phases of

35:35development. An applicant may submit a

35:38site plan and or special permit

35:40application for the entire project, the

35:43FSRO project or for one or more phases

35:46of the project, each a FSRO phase. The

35:51FSRO project or phase may consist of one

35:55or more parcels of land and may include

35:58any eligible use set forth in subsection

36:01D below which may be co-mingled within a

36:04single structure or located in separate

36:07structures on one or more parcels.

36:10Parcels within the FSROD may be combined

36:12or subdivided and held under separate

36:15ownership or lease holds. the FSRO

36:18project or the FSRO phase shall be

36:20subject to site plan approval.

36:24Number three, upon the issuance of site

36:26plan and or special permit approval for

36:29the FSRO project or phase on a parcel or

36:33parcels in the FSROD, this section shall

36:37govern said parcel as developed in

36:39accordance with the site plan approval.

36:42Four,

36:44except as specifically provided herein,

36:47the provisions of the zoning ordinance

36:49relating to the underlying zoning

36:51districts not otherwise impacted by this

36:54section shall continue to remain in full

36:57force and effect in the event of any

37:00conflict between the provisions of this

37:03section and any other provisions of the

37:05zoning ordinance. The provisions of this

37:07section shall govern and control

37:13C. The authority of the permit granting

37:15authority.

37:17The city council shall be the permit

37:19granting authority for special permits

37:21and site plan approvals in the FSRD.

37:25Special permit shall require a twothirds

37:27vote of the city council except when

37:29only a simple majority vote is required

37:32pursuant to master law chapter 48

37:35section 9. Site plan approval shall

37:37require a simple majority vote. So this

37:40is my first question. Does the city

37:43council want site plan approval or do we

37:46want to just be special permit approval

37:49and let site plan do their thing?

37:54>> Opinions. Councelor Fillow.

37:56>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I am

38:00always in favor of maintaining authority

38:03with our council. So, I'm I would be

38:04fine with keeping it as it is to um

38:07continue to keep us as the site plan um

38:10I guess not granting authority but the

38:12site plan approval authority. Um but

38:14happy to have further discussion. Thank

38:16you, Madam Chair.

38:17>> Any other opinions? Madam

38:19>> Chair, I'm not a fan after having gone

38:21through this personally. I would just

38:23rather have site plan do it. But

38:25councelor [laughter] A.

38:28>> So as we as we know, we don't do any

38:31site plan votes on this council until

38:32the site plan actually tells us what

38:34we're supposed to do. So it really is in

38:37line with council villain. It maintains

38:39our overall authority, but we we don't

38:43we don't do the plumbing and all the the

38:45details that site plan does. We rely on

38:47them. So I again I'm following and I

38:49guess I want to correction, M. Attorney

38:51Buckley. I'm following the executive

38:53overlay district wording. Is that how

38:55you modeled the plan or the the zoning

38:58change?

38:59>> Yeah.

38:59>> The difference between this and and

39:01Albero Hills on the the other is that

39:03was that was really master planning of

39:05an entire

39:06>> right

39:07>> and and this you already have this

39:08template in place,

39:09>> right? And results way also has the

39:11council being site plan approval and

39:14special permit. It's just that's the one

39:16that and and you

39:17>> but it was so it was so comprehensive

39:19that at the time

39:22some of the councils could remember it

39:24was it was really he wanted to maintain

39:27control because it was an entire section

39:29of the city. So when I drafted that I

39:32wanted to make sure that everything one

39:34way or another came through the council.

39:35Now madam chair to your point earlier

39:38about um when I made the comments about

39:41how we would work to on retail to keep

39:44the council advised of how we're doing

39:46and whatever. I do think it's important

39:48to have the council

39:50informed um because we will make

39:53commitments on the housing the diversity

39:55and I think that as councilors you you

39:58should have that. So we could bifrocate

40:00it. The technical could go to the site

40:02plan review but there could be an

40:04obligation in a permit to periodically

40:06advise the council as to how we're doing

40:08on terms of those other issues.

40:10>> Okay. So my sense of this committee is

40:13that we want to keep site plan. So,

40:15we'll leave it as is. Uh C2, at the

40:19request of an applicant as part of an

40:21initial application or as part of a

40:23modification pursuant to subsection H,

40:26the city council may elect by simple

40:28majority vote to vary the dimensional

40:30location and number of parking spaces

40:33design and landscaping requirements.

40:36upon finding that section such change

40:39shall result in an improved design and

40:42will not nullify or substantially

40:43deraggate from the intent or purpose of

40:46this section. So I have two questions on

40:49this one. Um the city council may elect

40:53by simple majority vote to vary. So

40:56we're talking about a site plan is

40:59simple majority but a special permit is

41:02a twothirds vote. So the special permit

41:06would could have the

41:10dimensional location number of parking

41:11spaces and landscaping varied but it's

41:14not a simple majority. So,

41:16>> well, if I if I may, um, yes, when when

41:19you're going through the site plan

41:21process and you're you're presenting a

41:24site plan or special, I'm sorry, special

41:26permit application to the council for

41:28consideration, you'll see that there are

41:30dimensional requirements in terms of

41:32parking, design, etc. You may look at

41:35that and say, you know what, if we were

41:37to move the parking over here, it makes

41:40for a much better site. So, it's not

41:41after you've granted the permit, it's

41:43during the process. So are you okay with

41:46removing may electlect by simple

41:47majority vote and just have the city

41:50council may

41:52>> vary that's fine if you want to

41:54>> and then figure out whether it's site

41:56plan which is twothirds of special

41:57permit which is we still have to approve

41:59the special permit and I know we varied

42:02>> the flexibility because a lot of

42:04communities have filed and there are a

42:05lot of communities now adopting this

42:07type of an approach that

42:11when you're going through the project

42:13you you locating a parking or you know

42:16landscaping island here makes more sense

42:19than over there that rather than having

42:21to go back to square one and start that

42:24during the process they could say we

42:26think this makes a better project by

42:28putting it over here and that's your

42:29call but yeah very fine and you can you

42:32can determine how you want to do it

42:34>> okay then my other question is on page

42:36six of this

42:37>> chair before I'm sorry that's okay

42:39before you leave that madam chair

42:41>> but if you eliminate the words by simple

42:43majority vote. It aligns with what's in

42:45the executive overlay district.

42:48>> It does align. Okay. So, we're all okay

42:50with eliminating. It would just read the

42:52city council may vary the dimensional

42:57that work.

42:59All right. Um under

43:04what page are we on? Under um

43:08F the parking. No, under G design

43:11standards. Three is landscaping.

43:14Landscaping shall conform to the

43:16provisions of 65047 landscaping. So if

43:20it has to conform, can we vary it or do

43:24those two things conflict?

43:26>> If it conflicts and this controls,

43:28>> but they're both in the same zoning

43:31language. One says we can vary. One says

43:33you have to conform.

43:36that we will conform initially to it,

43:39but during the process, if you wanted to

43:41vary it, you have the authority to vary

43:43it by the process going through the the

43:47special permit. You're you're telling

43:50the applicant upfront that you should

43:53conform to this design criteria. As

43:56you're going through the process, the

43:58applicant may say, "If we were to do

44:00something different, then it would

44:02enhance the project." And then then it's

44:04the call of the council. So you have the

44:06authority to alter that during the

44:08process.

44:09>> Okay. So I if you look at the parking

44:11requirements which is on page 5F, it

44:14says except it's otherwise provided

44:18the FSRO shall conform to the

44:21provisions. Couldn't that same language

44:23be in

44:26G3 except for

44:29>> Yeah, I think that that's fine.

44:32I mean, I

44:33>> Yep.

44:35>> I I guess I would leave it up to legal

44:37to decide if they conflict or if in fact

44:40just because it says it in one place

44:41doesn't mean we can't do it in the

44:42other.

44:43>> The only the only comment there, Madam

44:45Chair, if I could, that on the parking,

44:47I don't have the ordinance in front of

44:49me, but for instance, 1.5 for dwelling

44:52unit, three for commercial.

44:55>> Right. Yeah. you already have your um

44:57except at the provisions conf that

44:59you're looking to vary or are specified

45:02here and you might not for the

45:04landscaping. All right. And then the

45:06final question is as part of a

45:08modification pursuant to subsection H

45:11which is really your

45:13modifications after approval. So why

45:17would you ever come after something's

45:19been approved and ask to vary the

45:22dimensional location number parking and

45:25landscaping? We've approved it already.

45:27>> Yeah. There there may be a major change

45:29either in the marketplace. I mean for

45:31instance while this is retail and and

45:34housing you know seven years ago office

45:37space was if I told you office would be

45:40upside down. You'd tell me I was crazy.

45:42Um, and now office buildings are being

45:45modified and altered to try to attract

45:47tenants and make major changes to the

45:50plan. So, you make the determination

45:53whether it's a major or minor. If it's

45:55major, you have to go through the whole

45:56process again. But what we're saying is

45:58that you don't want to forstall or

46:01eliminate the ability to adapt to

46:02changing economic conditions or changing

46:05market conditions, but you don't want to

46:08lose control at the same. So would if

46:10you're varying the dimensional location,

46:13number of parking spaces and

46:14landscaping, wouldn't you almost be

46:16changing what you're building, which

46:18would really be a major modification?

46:21>> That that's your prerogative, but we

46:23don't know. It it could be a minor tweak

46:24that, you know, I trying to think, you

46:27know, moving the handicap from one

46:29location to another to be more

46:31convenient. That's technically a change

46:33in the in the plan, but generally that's

46:35a minor modification.

46:37>> All right. Madam Chair,

46:39>> councelor Austin.

46:39>> So, so again, that section H again is

46:41word for word what's in the executive

46:44overlay district. And if you recall,

46:45that served us well when they changed

46:48onebedrooms to two bedrooms or studios

46:52or efficiencies. And it worked real well

46:54to come back to the council. So, the the

46:56wording is the same.

46:58We were just and and I compliment you

47:00for having that because we're just

47:02trying to avoid a situation where the

47:04market changes dramatically and

47:05everyone's paralyzed and you can't

47:07respond.

47:08>> Okay,

47:10I will leave it there. I know the

47:11solicitor has it. I had a con a question

47:14on it. So, we'll see if he's okay with

47:15the language when it gets to that point.

47:17Um, number three, an applicant for site

47:20plan approval for an FSRO project or

47:23phase shall comply with chapter 270

47:26building and site development of the

47:28Marorrow City Code. An application for a

47:31special permit for a use in the FSROD

47:33shall comply with the requirements of

47:3565059

47:37of the zoning ordinance.

47:40D. The eligible uses number one, the

47:43following uses are permitted by right in

47:45the FSR. A uses allowed by right in the

47:49underlying which is limited industrial

47:51district as set forth in the table of

47:54use regulations including but not

47:56limited to offices, banks, insurance and

47:59financial institutions and brew pubs. B.

48:03Accessory uses as defined in 655B of the

48:07zoning ordinance, including not not

48:09limited to above ground and underground

48:11parking garages on the same lot as the

48:14principal use, community amenities,

48:17parenthesis, business center,

48:19indooroutdoor recreational uses, fitness

48:21studio, or the like in parenthesis.

48:24And

48:26two, the following additional uses are

48:29permitted by special permit in the FSR.

48:34A multif family dwellings. So here's

48:36where we would put a limit. Do we want

48:40>> Yeah,

48:41>> councelor Asing.

48:41>> So So you're you're spot on, councelor

48:43Roby. So in the executive overlay

48:46district it says multifamily dwellings

48:48provided that the total number of units

48:50within the entire in this case it would

48:52be the fso shall not exceed

48:56enter your number. So so that that

48:58though that wording does need to be here

49:01to put some context as to how big the

49:04complex or how many units the council if

49:07they approve it wants to authorize. And

49:10in what we were shown at the public

49:12hearing, again, those are always just

49:14proposals, but they did have building A

49:17having 210 and building B having 240.

49:21Um, if we go with 250 as our max, how

49:24they design it later is really up to us

49:28when we get to the special permit.

49:29>> 250 or 450.

49:30>> I'm sorry, 450. I can't add. [laughter]

49:34Um,

49:36and we can decide if we want to deal

49:39with the planning board's recommendation

49:41that it's 400 with the option to include

49:44an additional 50 if they're town home

49:47style units or if we want to deal with

49:50that issue at the special permit phase.

49:53>> Again, you are correct because I don't

49:55think you want to get into the details

49:57now. You you might want what nine

50:00buildings with 50 units each. I mean,

50:01who knows what the council's purview or

50:04what the developer thinks is going to be

50:07suitable at the time that they come

50:09before us uh with a project. So, the

50:12number is good. It's no different than

50:15um what we did with green district. You

50:17set the number. We do the same thing

50:18with Lazot. You set the number and

50:20they'll come back and tell us how many

50:21buildings are going to put it in, how

50:22many units are going to be in the

50:23building. Um and then we get to decide

50:26whether we like it or not. If madam

50:28chair if I could comment it would be by

50:30special permit so you would have the

50:32discretion to comment on the design but

50:36if we have the 450

50:38we're going to try to have a diversity

50:40of product but we just don't know at

50:42this point what that would be and so the

50:45council would have by special permit the

50:47discretion to say yay and a at that

50:49point

50:50>> right so I will make sure I have the

50:52language it's um Lazat drive has by

50:55special permit multif family dwelling

50:57ings including multiple dwellings on a

51:00single lot provided the total number of

51:01multif family dwellings shall not exceed

51:03250. So that was a little bit different

51:05but

51:06>> if you want to read it one more time and

51:08we'll make sure everybody agrees.

51:10>> Sure. So as it states now it says multif

51:14family dwellings and then there'll be

51:16comma provided

51:18that the total number of units

51:22within the entire fsd

51:27shall not exceed 450.

51:30Okay,

51:30>> that's

51:32>> so is that okay for

51:35councelor Prosiato says no that's too

51:36many for you

51:37>> too many for me counselor I would like

51:40to take the re recommendation from the

51:42from the board and do 400 units limit it

51:46to 400 units and 50 now homes

51:49>> so how do we get 400 and then the

51:51additional 50 there it's all by the this

51:54is by special permit

51:57you're not going to permit permit 400

51:59and then special permit an additional 50

52:02that are only townhouse. They're going

52:04to want townhouse. They might want more

52:06than 50 town houses. They might.

52:09So, as councelor Oing said, and I think

52:13I would agree for the zoning piece, we

52:16just want the maximum number. We'll deal

52:19with the weeds when the special permit

52:22comes in.

52:24>> Understood. I would still like to limit

52:26at 400 units then. 400

52:28>> specify town homes 400 400 total.

52:32>> All right. Um I mean we can have the

52:35discussion. How does anybody else feel?

52:37I mean we were shown a proposal that had

52:40450. That doesn't mean that's what we

52:42approve.

52:42>> Councelor Fill.

52:44>> Thank you, Madam Chair. You taking the

52:46words out of my mouth there. I think

52:47right we we've seen a proposal that

52:49again we're in the zoning phase. So take

52:51it with what you will. Um but that

52:53proposal does anticipate 450 units.

52:56Right. in good faith. I I am comfortable

52:58with that number. Um I think the way

53:00that um President Austin had provided

53:03right um that that is our max and we'll

53:06get into the details when the special

53:08permit is before us. So I'm I'm

53:09comfortable with 450 um and I'm more

53:12than happy to have that conversation

53:13down the road when a special permits

53:15before us. Thank you, Madam Chair.

53:17>> Okay. Anybody else? Councelor Naven.

53:20>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I share a

53:22similar um sentiment to councelor Fillo.

53:25Um and I think a majority of the folks

53:27here um one of the things that I find

53:30compelling about taking up this zoning

53:32um conversation we've had before um is a

53:35similar conversation that we had with

53:36Lozad is what this actually can achieve

53:39um by incentivizing developers to come

53:41in and help a problem that we have with

53:43some of our um lowerass office buildings

53:46and help convert them. I think by

53:48tackling it and making it a decent

53:50incentive during the zoning, we can at

53:52least have developers come to the table

53:54and say, "This is what we can do." I

53:56think, you know, the point Bob made, um,

53:58I think what you guys are seeing out

53:59there in the market, it is a tough

54:00market. Um, we do want to be able to

54:02find out. We don't want to overbuild

54:04something, but we want to know what it

54:06is going to take to actually build it.

54:08Um, you know, everybody understands the

54:11cost of money these days is not cheap.

54:13Um, and it certainly doesn't seem to be

54:15getting any cheaper out there. So, um I

54:17think that in this phase when we are

54:19talking about the zoning, I think

54:20putting the putting the 450 cap that's

54:22been identified is and we can certainly

54:24negotiate a little bit further when we

54:25do get to the special permit. Excuse

54:27[clears throat] me. So, I would support

54:29the 450 in the zoning piece. Thank you,

54:31Madam Chair.

54:32>> Okay. So, it looks like not I don't

54:35know. Do we need a vote because this is

54:38going to go forward I think as

54:41a total package. Councelor Fill. Madam

54:44chair, I would move to amend section 2A

54:46to say multif family dwellings, comma,

54:49provided that the entire number of units

54:51within the FSRO shall not exceed 450

54:54units.

54:55>> Right. It's been moved to amend 2A as

54:58just read through.

55:00Is there discussion? All those in favor?

55:04One, two, three. So it's and those

55:06opposed.

55:08So it still does carry. So that will be

55:10changed. Uh the next two B is restaurant

55:14cafe with or without table service

55:16including outside seating and service

55:18without drive-thru. C a restaurant cafe

55:21with or without table service including

55:23outside seating and service with

55:26drive-thru provided that said facilities

55:29have no dedicated driveway with a curb

55:31cut on a public way. So with this one I

55:34question because in limited industrial

55:38this is not allowed

55:42>> correct

55:42>> a drive-thru. So you are asking us to

55:45allow it by special permit even though

55:48the code doesn't allow it in the

55:51underlying district

55:51>> because madam chair the the introductory

55:54paragraph the following addition says

55:55you are per permitted by special permit

55:59and the reason for that is that in the

56:02perfect world if we do this correctly

56:04you're going to have office some retail

56:06some mixed use you want to activate it

56:09and but we're not taking it off a public

56:11way we're not taking it off

56:13It's going to be internal to the site.

56:16So trying to control and create a sense

56:20of identity for the site.

56:22>> Okay. I'm just making everybody aware or

56:25council oing

56:25>> and that's verbatim what's in the

56:27executive overlay district.

56:29>> Okay.

56:29>> The words.

56:30>> Uh D is health sports and fitness clubs

56:33indoor or outdoor and related

56:36facilities.

56:37E is retail sales and services which is

56:40both under 75 square feet and over 75

56:43square feet are all special permit

56:46currently in the LI. Distilleries with

56:48attached restaurants. G is accessory

56:51solar install solar energy installations

56:55including but not limited to rooftop

56:57systems and solar parking canopies. H,

57:01this is the one that I'm questioning

57:04uses allowed by special permit in the

57:06underlying zoning district. So, I don't

57:10know what that has, but I went through

57:12the underlying zoning district has a

57:14whole lot of allowed by special permit

57:19that I'm not sure I want allowed. I

57:21mean, I suppose we can deny the special

57:23permit, but hotels are one of them. And

57:26I'm not sure that I want a hotel in this

57:30little subdivision. I don't know that I

57:33want outdoor storage, a shopping mall.

57:35These are all allowed by special permit.

57:38And I again I looked at results way.

57:40Results way has a whole list of uses set

57:43forth as follows are expressly

57:46prohibited.

57:48And I don't know if we want to You don't

57:50really have a anything that's prohibited

57:54uh list. Do we want one or do we want to

57:58leave this H there and then we can deny

58:02stuff we don't want when it comes to a

58:04special permit which then we have to

58:06deal with them filing a lawsuit. So I'm

58:09going to go to councelor Presiato first.

58:10>> Thank you madam chair. I would make a

58:12motion to remove uh h uses allowed by

58:14special permit in the underlying zoning

58:16district. Um I believe by allowing

58:20things like this including uh C um it

58:23sets a precedence for the applicants to

58:26come in and this council more than

58:29likely is

58:31usually in in

58:34favor of things that applicants propose.

58:37Um when it comes to council I feel like

58:38the council does feel like they are

58:40forced to make these decisions and say

58:41yes to the uh applicants. So, I would

58:44just make a motion to remove that.

58:46>> And I guess I would agree except that

58:48I'm not sure because it's the underlying

58:51district. So, I don't know how we can do

58:54this. Councelor Oing.

58:56>> Um, again, sound like a broken record,

58:59but the exact same language, you know,

59:02is in the executive overlay district,

59:04which was

59:05>> Do they have any exclusions where you

59:07can't have these any these specific

59:09things?

59:10>> Nope. because it's I mean

59:13>> so the the only one that's not in and I

59:15guess I'd ask the applicant um

59:20the executive overlay district has an

59:23item for brew pubs yet you do not

59:25>> because it's by right

59:26>> and item what

59:27>> it by right

59:28>> oh it's by right okay no you are correct

59:30okay yep that's correct never mind

59:32>> but

59:33>> I I'm sorry I didn't

59:34>> brew pub

59:35>> oh the brew hub

59:36>> that's that's by right as as an

59:38accessory use

59:39>> yeah Um, you are correct. Sorry about

59:42that. But

59:43>> yeah, which would then be a use allowed

59:45by special permit because brew pubs are

59:47allowed by special permit. I believe I

59:49didn't list it, but um

59:52>> so madam chair, if I may, the reason the

59:55underlying zoning special per we kept

59:57the special permit uses in again you

59:59have broad discretion as the special

1:00:01permit. One of the findings I believe is

1:00:03it has to be compatible with the

1:00:04neighborhood. If it's not compatible,

1:00:08I don't care what you think about an

1:00:10appeal, but courts have got to defer to

1:00:12the the council or the permit granting

1:00:15authority as making that determination.

1:00:18Again, zoning should be predictable, but

1:00:22flexible. And we're trying to be

1:00:24predictable, but also flexible because

1:00:25things could change dramatically.

1:00:28>> Okay. Do you would you object to having

1:00:31the similar language to expressly

1:00:34prohibited and I can read through but

1:00:36first we got to deal with there was a

1:00:38motion from councelor Presiato. Is there

1:00:40a second?

1:00:43>> No. Okay. So, I guess we're leaving uses

1:00:45allowed by special,

1:00:47>> but if there are certain uses you want

1:00:48prohibited, you can run them off. And we

1:00:51>> um what the um results we had are adult

1:00:55entertainment, including an adult

1:00:57bookstore, video store, paraphernalia,

1:00:59tattoo, body piercing, parlors, and

1:01:01shops, die works, biosafety level four

1:01:05laboratories as defined by the

1:01:09US Center for Disease Control and

1:01:11Prevention. And I think that was

1:01:13>> none of those bother us. We'd agree to

1:01:16that.

1:01:16>> [laughter]

1:01:17>> Uh they had more establishments for

1:01:20construction uh in such services but not

1:01:23limited to building building

1:01:24maintenance, plumbing, landscaping,

1:01:26electrical masonry, carpentry, well

1:01:28drilling, electroplating, hazardous and

1:01:31toxic chemical dis manufacturer,

1:01:33trucking terminal, automotive sales and

1:01:36service, retail gasoline stations,

1:01:39commercial bakeries, on-site sales and

1:01:41rental of heavy machinery, laundry and

1:01:44dry cleaning establishments, except drop

1:01:46off which I think you specify as

1:01:51uh or did you specify? No. Um any

1:01:55activity or use directly or indirectly

1:01:57involving the dispensing, use sale,

1:02:00growing, storage or transportation of

1:02:01medical marijuana, including medical

1:02:03marijuana treatment center and any

1:02:06on-site facility or clinic devoted to

1:02:08the treatment of substance addiction,

1:02:11including narcotic detox and or

1:02:13maintenance facility. I'll defer to the

1:02:16client, but from a legal standpoint,

1:02:18those seem to be incompatible with what

1:02:20we're trying to achieve.

1:02:22>> They do or don't.

1:02:23>> They do. Incompatible.

1:02:26>> Madam Chair,

1:02:27>> Council Austin.

1:02:28>> So, so again, go back up to the top.

1:02:30Number two, the following additional

1:02:32uses are permitted by a special permit.

1:02:35Then when you go to H, uses allowed by a

1:02:38special permit in the underlying zoning

1:02:40district. So, the underlying zoning is

1:02:42LI.

1:02:43>> All right.

1:02:44>> Yep. And if stuff in LI needs a special

1:02:46permit, it will still need a special

1:02:49permit, right? I mean, trying to make

1:02:51this as simple as I can that nothing's

1:02:52changed. I mean, that's

1:02:54>> all they're saying is you need a special

1:02:56permit to do things above which aren't

1:02:59allowed in an LI district. But just

1:03:01reinforcing the fact that if you're

1:03:03going to do something in an LI that

1:03:05needs a special permit, you have to get

1:03:07a special permit. Is that correct?

1:03:10>> Correct.

1:03:10>> Yes.

1:03:14But if the council feels better than

1:03:17some of those uses, there's no way we

1:03:18would contemplate doing some of those

1:03:20uses. But

1:03:23>> all right, is everybody okay with the

1:03:25language as is just leaving it uses

1:03:27allowed by special permit and we'll deal

1:03:29with them as they come to us.

1:03:32Okay. Thank you for your indulgence in

1:03:34my

1:03:35uh I is mixed use development consisting

1:03:39of a combination of by right or special

1:03:42permit residential business uses as

1:03:44listed in this section.

1:03:47Number three, all uses not specified in

1:03:50subsection D1 and two above shall be

1:03:52deemed prohibited in the FSROD.

1:03:56Number four, once an FSRD project or

1:04:00phase receives site plan or special

1:04:02permit approval, a an individual as of

1:04:06right use within the FSRO project or

1:04:09phase may be changed without further

1:04:12site plan approval unless such change

1:04:15would otherwise require site plan

1:04:18approval under section 270-2

1:04:22of the Marble City Code or modification

1:04:24to a site plan approval under subsection

1:04:26H3.

1:04:29So, can you explain or kind of give me a

1:04:32what would you want to change?

1:04:37>> Well, without further

1:04:39>> if you change the configuration of the

1:04:41building, that's that's a site plan

1:04:43modification. The use may be permitted,

1:04:45but you still have to go through site

1:04:46plan because you're changing site

1:04:49circulation, you're changing parking,

1:04:52whatever you would require today under

1:04:54your site plan review, we're saying

1:04:56we're subject to that. If it's just

1:04:59doing a a grocery store for a dry goods

1:05:03store, it's retail for retail. That's as

1:05:06of right as of right. So, not changing

1:05:08the building, not changing the skin. it

1:05:10it probably doesn't require site plan

1:05:13site plan approval.

1:05:15>> So why have the modification piece where

1:05:18it talks about after approval you can

1:05:21modify?

1:05:23>> Well because the issue becomes whether

1:05:25it's major or minor

1:05:26>> but you still have to come back to

1:05:28either the building commissioner or the

1:05:31>> determination of it's major.

1:05:32>> This to me says you can just do it

1:05:34without any approval.

1:05:37If if the building commissioner says

1:05:40that this is merely a change of as of

1:05:42right useful one as of right use making

1:05:45no changes that require site plan

1:05:47review. Yes. But we have to make that

1:05:50determination. If if the commissioner

1:05:53were to determine that this may require

1:05:55some modifications to the building or

1:05:57site circulation around the parking lot,

1:06:00this may have to go to the council to be

1:06:02determined or to the site plan review to

1:06:05see is this major or minor. So, it's a

1:06:08two-step process, but we're not changing

1:06:10anything that doesn't exist today. You'd

1:06:12have to do that today.

1:06:15>> Okay. And and again, this is a question

1:06:17I have for legal. I think they're going

1:06:18to look at this to determine if it's

1:06:21appropriate and

1:06:22>> madam chair. So, so again

1:06:24>> they'll have a set of plans when they

1:06:26submit whatever the project's going to

1:06:28look like and they have to follow the

1:06:29plans

1:06:30>> and if they deviate from the plans they

1:06:32need building commissioner weigh in and

1:06:34if it's minor the building well we'll be

1:06:36site plan we'll end up getting a thumbs

1:06:38up at some point but

1:06:40>> if it's major then it comes back for a

1:06:42special permit for eight votes and again

1:06:45you hate hearing this it's the exact

1:06:47same wording in the executive overlay

1:06:49district

1:06:50>> this is there the exact same wording as

1:06:52you're reading I'm following along

1:06:54executive overlay district you I could

1:06:56be reading this from the executive

1:06:57>> overlay it's not in results way and it's

1:07:01>> yeah I don't think results way is a fair

1:07:03comparison because it's a two different

1:07:05concepts

1:07:06>> it that that was really master planning

1:07:08>> but it's still almost everything else

1:07:10except for this is not in there um and

1:07:12then B of that is an individual use

1:07:16already granted a special permit within

1:07:18the FSRO project or phase may be changed

1:07:21upon the grant grant of a new or

1:07:23modified special permit as appropriate

1:07:25for that changed use and will be subject

1:07:28to site plan approval provided. However,

1:07:31if the change is to an as of right use

1:07:35in the FSROD, no further site plan

1:07:37approval is required unless such change

1:07:40would otherwise require site plan site

1:07:43plan approval under

1:07:45section 270-2 of the Marboro City Code

1:07:49or modification to a site plan approval

1:07:51under subsection H3. So, I mean, the

1:07:55these to me seem like they're really

1:07:58duplicating modifications which say if

1:08:01you want to modify something, you've

1:08:03been approved. You either need building

1:08:05commissioner to approve a minor or you

1:08:07need the council to approve a major.

1:08:09>> What madam chair what we're trying to do

1:08:12is articulate the procedures so there's

1:08:15no confusion on the part of the and the

1:08:18city I I I would submit these are what

1:08:20the city does today. Um, what we're

1:08:24trying to say, [clears throat] be it

1:08:25this developer or someone else, if you

1:08:28have a special permit use, the council

1:08:31grants us a special permit used to

1:08:34occupy a building, build a building, and

1:08:36five years from now, you say, "We're

1:08:38going to change the use to a use that's

1:08:41permitted as of right." Well, you don't

1:08:44have to get another special permit

1:08:45because you're going from a special

1:08:46permit to an as of right use. You're not

1:08:49changing anything. So under your

1:08:50procedures, you go you go through the

1:08:53process of the building commissioner or

1:08:55whatever. It's just articulating what

1:08:59probably occurs. Say we're not trying to

1:09:01change anything.

1:09:02>> Okay. All right. Your your the point

1:09:04that you just brought up. I guess the to

1:09:07me that doesn't even seem like it's

1:09:09possible. If we've given you a special

1:09:11permit, that special permit goes with

1:09:12the property

1:09:13>> until you change it. you know, someone

1:09:15goes out of business and they say,

1:09:16"Okay,

1:09:18>> it's still a special permit with the

1:09:19property." So, the property is has a

1:09:21special permit on it. It has to be the

1:09:23but

1:09:24>> no, if you change the use, then that

1:09:27special permit is being obained.

1:09:28>> I don't think you can change the use,

1:09:30but I'm not the legal. So, again, this

1:09:33is a question for legal department.

1:09:35We'll see. And if it's already in one,

1:09:37we'll see

1:09:38>> verbatim, word for word.

1:09:39>> All right. Um C. The special permit and

1:09:41or site plan approval shall be deemed to

1:09:44have been vested upon the issuance of a

1:09:46building permit other than a demolition

1:09:48permit for all or any portion of the

1:09:51FSRO project or phase and I guess I had

1:09:56forgotten I threw in

1:09:59>> so madam chair this is not in the exe

1:10:02this is not in the executive overlay

1:10:04district so it' be interesting to have

1:10:06what the applicant

1:10:07>> said I had put in

1:10:12somewhere else

1:10:15to add in a demo permit. Um, oh, I was

1:10:18back in location development phasing.

1:10:22Um, within the FSRO, an applicant shall

1:10:25submit a site plan and I said, do we

1:10:29want to add in language read no demo

1:10:31permit allowed until site plan or

1:10:34special permit has been approved? And

1:10:36that was really just going with the

1:10:38recommendation. Nothing would be allowed

1:10:40until site or what?

1:10:41>> Until

1:10:42>> what? What? What?

1:10:43>> Demolition permit.

1:10:44>> Demolition permit.

1:10:45>> You can't because currently there's

1:10:47nothing in the code about a demolition

1:10:49permit that says you can't apply for

1:10:50one. You can apply for one anytime,

1:10:53>> right?

1:10:55>> Planning board is suggesting that you we

1:10:57not allow you to demo something without

1:11:00a site plan or a special permit.

1:11:02>> I want to preserve the value of the

1:11:03taxes. Yep.

1:11:04>> So, I wasn't sure where to put it. I

1:11:07figured it could go in location

1:11:09development phasing number two where you

1:11:11talk about you have to submit a site

1:11:13plan or special permit application for

1:11:15the entire project or one or of the

1:11:17phases and then add in no demo permit is

1:11:22allowed until special permit or site

1:11:26plan has been approved.

1:11:28Does that

1:11:31>> work for everybody?

1:11:33I mean, I'd have, Madam Chair, I I would

1:11:36have legal review it. I just I'm seeing

1:11:38it for the first time. Well, as part of

1:11:40this news, so I don't legal says it's

1:11:42okay. I'm I'm guess I'm okay.

1:11:44>> My My sense is that because there's been

1:11:47talk in the marketplace on buildings

1:11:49that are not responsive, just scrape

1:11:51them, take them down. And communities

1:11:54don't want to do that because it does

1:11:56have a negative impact on tax.

1:11:57>> We're seeing it across the street.

1:12:00But the purpose uh I think there was a

1:12:04commonist to see the a lot of

1:12:07communities

1:12:08have a 2year or threeyear period where

1:12:11you have to execute a special permit.

1:12:14Now the case

1:12:15>> it's mas general law

1:12:17>> right but the case law has said that

1:12:19what is execution the case law says

1:12:22execution is detrimental reliance when

1:12:25I've started to change my position based

1:12:27upon the grant of a permit. So I go and

1:12:30I spend $10,000 for plans or I do site

1:12:34grading whatever I'm starting to rely on

1:12:36that permit.

1:12:38So I theoretically have executed or

1:12:41vested that permit. I've satisfied that

1:12:43requirement. What we're trying to do

1:12:45here is to say we're doing we could be

1:12:47doing two or three phases of this

1:12:50simultaneously.

1:12:51You know, maybe we're doing the housing

1:12:53and we're doing that spurs some retail

1:12:56and that spurs some uh office use. It's

1:13:00all going on at once. The likelihood of

1:13:03being able to do that in two years is

1:13:06pretty remote. I mean, it's probably

1:13:08going to take three or four years to do

1:13:09all the components or four years. And we

1:13:12want the lenders who are financing this

1:13:14to say the permit's going to stay in

1:13:16place once once you start and you get

1:13:18your building permit.

1:13:20It's vested, you know, so you can it may

1:13:23take three or four years, but it's all

1:13:25going on and you don't have the fear of

1:13:27losing the permit.

1:13:29>> And I think this is language that legals

1:13:32should look at because I'm sure the next

1:13:34page has even more concerning where you

1:13:37get into the six years kind of thing.

1:13:39Um, to me the special permit is once

1:13:42it's approved and there's no appeal that

1:13:46starts the clock. You've got three

1:13:48years.

1:13:49>> Well, I I I I would like to agree with

1:13:51that, but there is there is some

1:13:53argument that what what does

1:13:56theoretically you have to record the

1:13:58permit to trigger the act activation of

1:14:00it. But what you want to you let's take

1:14:04a situation now. Let's assume we're

1:14:07going to do an office building for sake

1:14:10of discussion.

1:14:11We get a special permit to do the office

1:14:13building.

1:14:14>> But you don't need a special permit. You

1:14:16only need site plan. So

1:14:17>> pick pick a building. You need a special

1:14:18permit for um

1:14:21multif family right in front of us.

1:14:23Okay. So we say, okay, we're coming in

1:14:25for a multif family special permit.

1:14:30No one is going to spend the developer

1:14:34is going to spend all of the money to do

1:14:36the final construction drawings to

1:14:39support that permit until the permit's

1:14:41granted,

1:14:42right? Because you're you're putting

1:14:44money out where we don't have a permit.

1:14:47You could be spending a million dollars

1:14:48to do construction drawings and not have

1:14:51a permit because the council hasn't

1:14:53voted.

1:14:54>> Right. But you would need the final

1:14:56drawings for site plan approval.

1:14:58uh not construction drawings. There's a

1:15:01difference between site plan and

1:15:04construction. So now the council

1:15:07approves the whoever it is. The council

1:15:08approves a special permit. We get site

1:15:11plan. We're ready to go. We go to the

1:15:14architects and say we're ready to go.

1:15:16Let's do the construction drawings and

1:15:18get get moving. The architect is likely

1:15:21to say well it's probably going to take

1:15:2310 to 12 months to do the construction

1:15:25drawings. So already you've eaten into a

1:15:29year of of the three years.

1:15:34So detrimental reliance we're spending

1:15:37money and the courts have said that is

1:15:39sufficient but we're trying to make sure

1:15:41that it's financable. So once we say

1:15:43okay

1:15:45once we get the construction drawings we

1:15:47get the building permit it may take

1:15:50three four years to execute the

1:15:52development of the project to build it

1:15:54all to do the infrastructure the roads

1:15:56the buildings because again this is one

1:15:58area it's not just one building in an

1:16:00area with master planning the whole area

1:16:03we could be building simultaneously and

1:16:06doing infrastructure it could be a three

1:16:09or four year project

1:16:11>> and again I and legal. I'd be more than

1:16:13happy to talk to solicit when I talk to

1:16:16them today.

1:16:16>> We're doing nothing other than make sure

1:16:18that it's a reality and no one gets hurt

1:16:20in the park.

1:16:20>> Yeah, cuz cuz they he looked it up. The

1:16:23code says two years for site plan, three

1:16:25years right

1:16:26>> for special permit.

1:16:28>> The question becomes when does it vest?

1:16:31>> I would think it's vested as soon as the

1:16:33appeal period is over. But we other than

1:16:37one special permit that we have, we've

1:16:40never had an issue where they haven't

1:16:42been built and they've actually

1:16:44>> completed it in the time period alone.

1:16:46>> Well, it's doesn't have to be completed.

1:16:48You have to start. That's what we're

1:16:50trying to protect. You know, it doesn't

1:16:52say that in the statute. It says three

1:16:54years. Permit's good for three years,

1:16:56>> right? You need to have shovels in the

1:16:58ground at the end of

1:16:59>> the statute doesn't say that. That's why

1:17:01and that's why we're trying to be clear.

1:17:03what legal is saying that was their

1:17:05>> well no I agree with them that's the

1:17:06detrimental reliance once we you've

1:17:08relied but and the courts have held that

1:17:11but what we're trying to be cautious

1:17:13here and say okay there could be two or

1:17:16three projects going on simultaneous

1:17:18we're just trying to protect everyone

1:17:19>> right and I think we're getting ahead of

1:17:21ourselves [clears throat] to the next

1:17:22section it's now does the the demolition

1:17:25permit that the planning board is

1:17:28suggesting that you shouldn't have until

1:17:34>> building

1:17:34>> special permit application has been

1:17:37approved.

1:17:38>> Um, does it belong in C? Does it belong

1:17:41where I suggested we maybe we can just

1:17:43ask legal to put it in there somewhere

1:17:46>> and you're okay with having that in

1:17:48there and everybody's okay with having

1:17:50it somewhere in there?

1:17:52>> All right. So

1:17:54D, the applicant shall apply for the

1:17:57first building permit for vertical

1:17:59construction within 3 years of the date

1:18:02of issuance of the special permit and or

1:18:04site plan approval for the FSRO project

1:18:07or phase. This is the questionable

1:18:11part. If within six years from the date

1:18:14of the issuance of a special permit and

1:18:16or site plan approval for the project or

1:18:19phase which shall not include such time

1:18:22required to pursue or await the

1:18:24determination of an appeal. The

1:18:27applicant has not applied for all

1:18:29building permits necessary for the

1:18:31construction of the project or phase

1:18:33approved by the special permit or site

1:18:35plan approval granting authority. Then

1:18:38further construction under the special

1:18:40permit or site plan approval is not

1:18:42authorized unless the applicant seeks

1:18:45and received an amendment to the special

1:18:47permit or site plan approval that

1:18:48extends the time for for performance. So

1:18:51this is where legal is saying they have

1:18:53they don't have six years. They have

1:18:55three years. That's it. Well, they have

1:18:57three I I'll speak to the solicitor, but

1:19:00the intent here is really to protect the

1:19:02city because what you want to avoid here

1:19:05is if you're trying to do fiscal

1:19:07planning and you know that you have an

1:19:09approved project at results way. Um that

1:19:14and you start baking those numbers into

1:19:16your your fiscal analysis what you're

1:19:19going to have. If someone sits on the

1:19:21permit for five, six, seven years and it

1:19:23never happens and then they say, "You

1:19:24know what? we're not going to do it now.

1:19:26We We can't, you know, office is no

1:19:28longer viable, so we're not going to do

1:19:31it. So, you've you've been banking on

1:19:33that anticipated revenue. What we're

1:19:35saying here is you can't sit on a permit

1:19:38for a long period of time. It's going to

1:19:40if you don't use it, you're going to

1:19:41lose it.

1:19:43So, but I'll I'll speak to I would argue

1:19:46and this the legal department would

1:19:48argue you lose it after three years

1:19:50>> again. But the question becomes when

1:19:52does it vest? I I'll speak for this.

1:19:55>> Okay. Uh, anybody else have questions on

1:19:58there? All right. Number five,

1:20:00multifamily dwellings in the FSOD shall

1:20:03be subject to 65026

1:20:06affordable housing of the zoning

1:20:07ordinance notwithstanding anything set

1:20:08forth in 65026 to the contrary,

1:20:11including without limitation the

1:20:13provisions set forth in 650261B,

1:20:17which is actually there's two parts of

1:20:19this. There's one A that's at least 12%

1:20:21of the dwelling units be affordable to

1:20:23households earning not more than B is

1:20:2680% of the area media income but the

1:20:29solicitor will fix that. The city

1:20:32council shall have the discretion to

1:20:34vary such affordability upon a finding

1:20:37that such action advances the city's

1:20:40housing objectives to modify the

1:20:42required affordability mix applicable to

1:20:44the particular development. And the

1:20:47solicitor's initial comment was, "No,

1:20:50you cannot vary. It is 12% and it's 80%

1:20:54AMI." So, we weren't sure whether you

1:20:56wanted to increase the 12%, decrease the

1:21:0012%, increase the 80, decrease the 80.

1:21:03If I could comment on that, Madam Chair.

1:21:05Yeah, there's a lot of debate going on

1:21:07primarily arising out of the city of

1:21:09Boston and the city of Cambridge

1:21:11>> where they went up to, I believe it's

1:21:13now almost 20%.

1:21:15>> 20%.

1:21:16>> 20%.

1:21:17>> And if you drive through downtown

1:21:19Boston, there are no cranes in the sky

1:21:20anymore. It's it's it's killed the

1:21:23market in terms of housing.

1:21:25>> Yep. So what we were trying to do here

1:21:28is say look

1:21:30these are

1:21:32MRO doesn't have a I believe your SHI

1:21:35your subsidized housing inventory you're

1:21:37above 10%. So

1:21:38>> we are yes

1:21:39>> so this is just qualifying units to be

1:21:41on the inventory. You may decide that

1:21:4512% is too high. I know that at the

1:21:47state level there's they're trying this

1:21:50talk about potential legislation to

1:21:52alter that to bring it down to you know

1:21:54for instance on the MBTA communities you

1:21:56can't go beyond 10% because they were

1:21:58finding that beyond 10% people weren't

1:22:00doing the deals and you weren't

1:22:02achieving housing. What we're trying to

1:22:04do here is say it's 12% as your

1:22:08ordinance says today but going forward

1:22:10the city may say 12% doesn't work. We

1:22:13have to make it 10% or whatever. So

1:22:16we're saying you have the flexibility.

1:22:18>> Madame councelor Austin.

1:22:20>> So so I I would take a little bit of

1:22:22exception of that attorney Buckley. The

1:22:23reason we we used to have 15%, we went

1:22:26down to 12 and it's basically to

1:22:27maintain that any new construction that

1:22:29comes into the city, we always stay

1:22:31above our 10%. Because we have some

1:22:34>> of our affordable units that aren't, you

1:22:36know, 99 years or whatever, they're

1:22:38going to fall off in five or 10 years

1:22:40from now. So that that's why that number

1:22:42was was selected. I would I would argue,

1:22:47Madam Chair, we can let the solicitor

1:22:49look at it, but if you go back again to

1:22:51the executive overlay district, it's

1:22:53just that first sentence. We follow

1:22:55what's in our zoning ordinance because

1:22:57once I start saying

1:22:59>> you get 15 or you get 10 and the next

1:23:01guy gets 20. I'm I've now messed it up

1:23:04and I don't have a policy because why

1:23:07did this one get more or this one got

1:23:09less? We have a policy that says 12 and

1:23:12that's what the council

1:23:13>> extremely valid point. I have I can't

1:23:14argue against that. So I mean

1:23:16>> Yeah. So my guess is the the solicitor

1:23:19is going to remove the city council

1:23:20shell.

1:23:21>> Yeah.

1:23:21>> Have discretion. Um because he doesn't

1:23:24they don't feel that we do. It's 12%.

1:23:28Uh E dimensional requirements

1:23:31notwithstanding any provisions of the

1:23:33zoning ordinance to the contrary.

1:23:35Development in the FSROD shall be

1:23:37subject to the following dimensional

1:23:39standards. Minimum lot area none.

1:23:43Um, and I don't think the planning board

1:23:47had anything on that one. U minimum

1:23:49front

1:23:51minimum lot frontage 50 ft.

1:23:54Minimum front yard setback 20 ft from a

1:23:58public way only. And this was what I

1:24:01wasn't sure the planning board

1:24:03suggesting increase the required

1:24:06perimeter property line setbacks

1:24:09>> to from 20 to 50. The only one that's

1:24:12listed as 20 is this one. And it's only

1:24:15a front yard setback. It's not

1:24:17perimeter. So, is that what they're

1:24:20talking about? Any

1:24:23>> I I I interpreted that as around the

1:24:26perimeter of the property line.

1:24:28>> Yeah. which would be minimum lot

1:24:31[clears throat] frontage, minimum yard

1:24:33setback, and a side and rear yard

1:24:35setbacks which you have at 25 ft because

1:24:39they're saying from 20 to 50.

1:24:42The only 20 is the minimum front yard

1:24:46setback

1:24:46>> because all the internal it's all

1:24:48internal private roadways.

1:24:49>> It's all in the these are off of we have

1:24:51a lot of internal private roadways that

1:24:53we're taking frontage off of and

1:24:55setbacks off of. But if it's the

1:24:57perimeter, that's the public ways. I

1:25:01don't think we have any problem with the

1:25:0250T along the perimeter. If you want to

1:25:05add along the property, the perimeter of

1:25:08this district shall be 50 ft. That's

1:25:10fine.

1:25:11>> It's internally that

1:25:12>> I don't think in

1:25:15the dimensional requirements, it doesn't

1:25:18talk about perimeter. It's got fronted

1:25:21minimum lot area. It's got frontage.

1:25:23It's got rear yard setback. And it's got

1:25:25side and rear.

1:25:27I mean front yard. There's no perimeter

1:25:30frontage or no perimeter.

1:25:33>> You can add it. You can say

1:25:35>> what's the difference between perimeter

1:25:36and front yard

1:25:39>> because

1:25:39>> side and rear yard.

1:25:40>> You're going to have an internal

1:25:41[clears throat] private ways.

1:25:43>> Madam chair, it's taking into

1:25:44consideration the public ways, I

1:25:46believe. So when there are public ways,

1:25:48that is not accounting for the

1:25:49perimeter. It's accounting for the

1:25:50public way where it is.

1:25:5525 ft from a public way only.

1:25:59Yeah. I mean that's that that one that

1:26:02preference from planning board was

1:26:03confusing to me. I don't know what they

1:26:05want.

1:26:08>> Is the um So you're saying that that 50

1:26:11ft setback would not hinder your

1:26:13construction whatsoever.

1:26:16So, why don't we just add remove these

1:26:20minimum front um and the side and rear

1:26:24and just change it all to 50 ft from the

1:26:28perimeter

1:26:29and clean it up to satisfy the planning

1:26:33board

1:26:35and the applicant seems to have no

1:26:36problem with it.

1:26:38>> I mean, C and D say public way only. So,

1:26:41if you had if they had 50 people from

1:26:43public way only. Yeah,

1:26:47>> the same thing to public way

1:26:55>> or do we care

1:26:59whether it's only 20 ft because we're we

1:27:02had already said we could vary the

1:27:04dimensions and this is one of the

1:27:06variant variations

1:27:08>> when it's specified here. I think their

1:27:11the planning board's intention is to

1:27:13preserve the view from any public way in

1:27:15similar fashion they did with forest

1:27:17names. They had the same similar

1:27:19suggestion.

1:27:20>> They're not talking public way. They're

1:27:22just talking perimeter property line

1:27:24setbacks. And there is no such thing as

1:27:26a perimeter property line setback.

1:27:30It's front, rear, and side.

1:27:33I mean that taken together. That's the

1:27:35perimeter. But they're all different.

1:27:37But

1:27:37>> the perimeter abuts the public ways.

1:27:41Yeah, the internal are not public ways.

1:27:44The is it Washington Street? What?

1:27:47Forest Street and what's

1:27:48>> Williams? Williams.

1:27:49>> Williams.

1:27:51>> The perimeter runs along Forest Street

1:27:53and Williams.

1:27:55So that's why we put the public way. You

1:27:57know, we want to make that. So, are we

1:28:01okay with adding in to have a perimeter

1:28:05property line setback of 50 feet

1:28:08>> from a public way?

1:28:09>> Yeah, from a public way.

1:28:10>> Well, this says exempting ex existing

1:28:13structures. So, I don't even know what

1:28:15why would you exempt Well, I guess

1:28:17because they're already there. Um, and I

1:28:19have no idea what they are. And I'm okay

1:28:22with doing nothing with that

1:28:23recommendation of the planning board.

1:28:26Does anybody else feel like they really

1:28:29want to

1:28:31deal with it?

1:28:32>> Yeah, I'll make a motion to change um E

1:28:36C E1C from minimum front yard set back

1:28:3920 ft from a public way to 50 ft from a

1:28:41public way as well as D minimum sid and

1:28:43yard and rear yard set back 25 ft from a

1:28:46public way to 50 ft from a public way

1:28:48only. The applicant has no issue with

1:28:51that.

1:28:52>> All right. And I'm sorry because I can't

1:28:54hear you. So, I don't know if it's that

1:28:55you need to get closer or if I need my I

1:28:57don't like wearing that when I'm doing

1:28:59most of the talking. So, take it B. You

1:29:02want to in minimum lot frontage

1:29:03currently says 50. You're okay with

1:29:05that?

1:29:05>> Yeah.

1:29:06>> Minimum front yard is 20. You want to

1:29:08change that to

1:29:09>> 50.

1:29:10>> 50. Keeping the from a public way,

1:29:12>> correct?

1:29:13>> And then side and rear is 25. Keep that.

1:29:17>> Change it to 50 from a public way.

1:29:19>> From a public way. Okay.

1:29:22So, it's been moved and seconded to

1:29:24change E1 C and D. 20 will become 50. 25

1:29:29will become 50. Is there discussion?

1:29:33Those in favor? One, two, three. Okay.

1:29:37[clears throat]

1:29:38All right. Thank you all for that one.

1:29:41Um, minimum building height is 80 feet.

1:29:43No limitations on stories. results way

1:29:47has a limit of 70 and you had said

1:29:50>> no ma you want maximum not the minimum

1:29:52is they're going to build skyscrapers

1:29:54it's the maximum you want the maximum

1:29:55building height

1:29:56>> yeah well results way has a limit on

1:30:00residential of 70 ft you said

1:30:05that one had 60

1:30:07>> no it's a executive overlay has 80 feet

1:30:10maximum building height 80 ft no

1:30:12limitation on stories same exact wording

1:30:15>> okay So, the planning board is

1:30:16suggesting

1:30:1960 feet,

1:30:23the height of the existing structure,

1:30:25which if you're going to knock it down,

1:30:27then I mean, if you're only going to

1:30:29renovate, you wouldn't increase the

1:30:31height anyway. But if you're going to

1:30:32knock it down, the max would be 60 ft

1:30:35inclusive of spires and towers. To me,

1:30:38those are different than mechanicals. I

1:30:40believe there's specific language in the

1:30:42code that says mechanicals don't count

1:30:45in the height,

1:30:46>> right? We'd like to say exclusive of

1:30:48mechanicals and screened mechanicals.

1:30:52>> Um, so [snorts]

1:30:57exclusive of mechanicals, but we don't

1:30:59want we don't need to include the

1:31:01inclusive of spires and towers.

1:31:03>> No, we don't know what that means.

1:31:06>> Yeah. Well, I I guess they're talking of

1:31:08fancy stuff on a top of a roof, which

1:31:11I'm not even sure that counts with the

1:31:13building height. So, um, are we okay

1:31:16with changing the maximum building

1:31:18height to 60 ft?

1:31:22Um, exclusive of mechanicals,

1:31:25>> rooftop mechanicals,

1:31:26>> I'm sorry,

1:31:27>> rooftop mechanicals.

1:31:28>> Exclusive of rooftop mechanicals. Okay.

1:31:32>> Second,

1:31:33>> councelor Presto.

1:31:34>> Second that. Well, you you can move. I

1:31:37can't move to anything. So, you're

1:31:38you're

1:31:40I'm not really keeping track. I just is

1:31:43Do we need to take a vote? You're Well,

1:31:45he moved it. It I'll second it. All

1:31:47those in favor? 60 ft exclusive of

1:31:49rooftop mechanicals. Okay. And you guys

1:31:52are okay.

1:31:55>> Madam Chair,

1:31:56>> Councelor Presiato, I mean, I'm sorry,

1:31:58Council Chillo. [laughter] Wrong.

1:32:01>> We're on opposite ends over here. Um

1:32:04just one question there. We are

1:32:05maintaining that the the no limitation

1:32:07on stories. Correct. Even with that

1:32:08amendment that language will still be

1:32:10included.

1:32:10>> I I yeah I don't think stories has any I

1:32:14think typically a story is a certain

1:32:16height. So then you figure out the

1:32:18stories based on the total height of

1:32:21>> I feel bad for the building

1:32:22commissioners because you could have is

1:32:26this one story from here to the top of

1:32:28the

1:32:28>> Sure. Right. Right. Right. I'm not

1:32:30advocating that we do. I just want to

1:32:32confirm that that language still is is

1:32:34maintained

1:32:34>> and we're going to keep All right. So,

1:32:35everybody's okay with keeping the no

1:32:37limitation on stories which I I think

1:32:39they're two different issues. I'd rather

1:32:41have height and not stories.

1:32:43>> I agree. Y

1:32:44>> okay.

1:32:44>> Thank you, Madam Chair.

1:32:45>> Maximum lot coverage 60% over the entire

1:32:49FSR on an aggregate basis and not based

1:32:52upon individual lots which I think still

1:32:54matches the code. 60% is the maximum

1:32:57coverage. All right. Number two is

1:33:00exception.

1:33:02There shall be no front side or rear

1:33:04yard setback requirements or planting

1:33:07strips required as to internal lot lines

1:33:11within the FSR OD. So that one is

1:33:15confusing to me because I don't know if

1:33:19we just set

1:33:22minimum.

1:33:23>> Well, this is internal now. So we're

1:33:26we're doing the setbacks from the public

1:33:28way. So now we're we may check let's

1:33:31think of it checkerboarding the internal

1:33:33we may have a building here that abuts

1:33:35another building. It's internal

1:33:37driveways so that one building may be

1:33:40closed and set back but they're not

1:33:42public ways.

1:33:44>> All right. And to me none of this is

1:33:46going to be public way. I think that's

1:33:47another change in the language that if

1:33:50hopefully I we haven't missed. But I

1:33:52guess I the planting strip concerns me

1:33:54because I don't want to make Priscilla

1:33:57mad. I know she's very adamant that

1:33:59parking lots have planting strips

1:34:01between them. Um if we're saying that

1:34:04they shall be no planting strips

1:34:08will not make her happy. So, I may be

1:34:11okay with the no front side or rear yard

1:34:13setbacks,

1:34:16but the planting strips are a concern

1:34:21cuz to me, they don't have anything to

1:34:22do with internal lot lines. They're your

1:34:24parking lots, which are going to be

1:34:26internal anyway.

1:34:27>> But those are going to be subject to

1:34:28your review anyhow.

1:34:31>> Councilor Presiato,

1:34:32>> I'll make a motion to remove um plante

1:34:34strips required.

1:34:37There

1:34:39should be So we're

1:34:40>> there shall be no planting strips

1:34:42required. Remove planting strips.

1:34:45>> All right. So it will just be there

1:34:46shall be no front side or rear yard

1:34:48setback requirements

1:34:50as to internal lot lines within the FSR.

1:34:55Council

1:34:55>> Prescott moved. Second. All those in

1:34:58favor of that. Okay.

1:35:03Um three exception. The limitation on

1:35:06height of building shall not apply to

1:35:09building mechanicals, chimneys,

1:35:11ventilators, towers, silos, spires, or

1:35:14other ornamental or screening features

1:35:16of buildings. Which features are in no

1:35:19way used for living purposes? This is

1:35:21probably where there are silos and

1:35:22spires comes from.

1:35:23>> Take those out.

1:35:25>> So, uh only the first part, the

1:35:28limitation on height of building should

1:35:29not apply to building mechanicals.

1:35:31Period.

1:35:32>> And chimneys, ventilators. Ventilators

1:35:34are the air exchanges. Okay.

1:35:36>> And so I would I would say take out t

1:35:39towers, silos, spires

1:35:44>> or ornamental or we can keep that in

1:35:46because you're going to you want them

1:35:47screened,

1:35:48>> but it has to be screened anyway. So

1:35:51okay,

1:35:54which I think pretty much is covered

1:35:56under the exclusive of rooftop

1:35:57mechanicals, but we'll keep that in

1:35:59there. Um,

1:36:01number four, internal lot lines may be

1:36:04established pursuant to a subdivision

1:36:06plan filed in accordance with the map

1:36:08general laws chapter 41 section 81K. Lot

1:36:12lines may be altered from time to time

1:36:14in accordance with the procedures of

1:36:15section 81P of chapter 41 of MGL for

1:36:19so-called approval not required plans

1:36:22and are applicable provisions of section

1:36:2581K through 81G of chapter 41 of mass

1:36:30general laws for any subdivision within

1:36:33the FSR.

1:36:35Any single lot line within the FSROD may

1:36:38be deficient with one or more of the

1:36:40dimensional requirements contained

1:36:42therein so long as all the lots within

1:36:45the FSROD taken in the aggregate comply

1:36:48with the standards contained therein

1:36:52herein. Um this one was confusing to me

1:36:56because this is not a subdivision.

1:36:59No, but you will have to you may have to

1:37:02create legal lots for different

1:37:04different parties may own various

1:37:06parcels,

1:37:07>> right? Which I get the ANR part. I just

1:37:09didn't get the subdivision.

1:37:11>> We don't know how they're going to break

1:37:12up. You may have to do a a subdivision.

1:37:15You may not build out the roadway. You

1:37:18may do a paper subdivision to create the

1:37:20legal lot. What we're trying to do is be

1:37:22able to create you do the one

1:37:25residential building, someone else is

1:37:26doing another residential, you're doing

1:37:28the office building. You're all going to

1:37:30own them. So, we have to create a way to

1:37:32convey title to you. But you can have a

1:37:35paper subdivision, not build it out to

1:37:38create the legal lot.

1:37:39>> Okay. So, again, this is one so

1:37:41solicitor

1:37:42>> legal needs to look at because I don't

1:37:44know that they were sure what you wanted

1:37:47out of this one. And then five is for

1:37:49purposes of lots within the FSROD.

1:37:52Frontage may be derived from a public or

1:37:54private way or on a way shown on a plan

1:37:57previously approved under the

1:37:59subdivision control law as more

1:38:01particularly set forth in 65041F1

1:38:04of the zoning ordinance or along an

1:38:07access easement which shall consist of a

1:38:10paved way that allows vehicular access

1:38:13connecting to a public rideway or

1:38:15subdivision. And I didn't market, but

1:38:19the solicitor wanted the language that

1:38:21was in

1:38:25um

1:38:28the of course the one that I cuz he none

1:38:32of this is going to be public. So, it

1:38:34would just be

1:38:36>> you could have a public you can have a

1:38:38private way an approved subdivision way

1:38:41that's private for public purposes.

1:38:44Well, yeah, because he said access has

1:38:46nothing to do whether it's public or

1:38:48private. You have to maintain them.

1:38:50>> None of this, at least as far as I'm

1:38:52concerned, would ever be

1:38:54>> accepted by the city as a public road by

1:38:57the city. So, there was language in

1:39:02the results way that he preferred.

1:39:04>> Okay, we'll take a look at that. The

1:39:07intent is that you can have a private

1:39:10subdivision way for public purposes for

1:39:12access.

1:39:13>> Yeah. So again, I think that will be one

1:39:16of the things that he will look at that

1:39:17one to make sure that it's it makes it

1:39:20clear that this is all private. Um

1:39:26okay. Uh we are at F parking

1:39:29requirements except as otherwise

1:39:31provided in this section. Parking and

1:39:33circulation requirements in the FSRD

1:39:36shall conform to the provisions of 65048

1:39:4065049 of the zoning ordinance. Number

1:39:42one in the FSR, adequate off- streetet

1:39:45parking shall be provided. the city

1:39:47council and the applicant shall have as

1:39:49a goal for the purpose of defining

1:39:51adequate off- streetet parking making

1:39:53the most efficient use of the parking

1:39:55facilities to be provided and maximizing

1:39:58or minimizing the area of land to be

1:40:00paved for this purpose. In implementing

1:40:03this goal, the city council shall

1:40:05consider complimentary or shared use of

1:40:07parking areas serving activities that

1:40:09have different peak demand times. It is

1:40:11the applicant's responsibility to

1:40:13demonstrate that shared spaces will meet

1:40:16parking demands by using accepted

1:40:18methodologies. Number two, parking

1:40:20locations. Parking may be provided at

1:40:23ground level, underground, or in parking

1:40:25garages. Parking garages may be

1:40:27freestanding or part of buildings

1:40:30dedicated to other permitted uses.

1:40:32Parking garages may contain accessory

1:40:34solar energy installations. And I know

1:40:37the planning board wanted

1:40:40>> to encourage us to look at

1:40:42>> encourage the inclusion of the

1:40:44underground parking. I think we would

1:40:45encourage it also, but it will depend on

1:40:48>> site conditions and topography,

1:40:50>> the special permit and the site plan. So

1:40:52I don't know that there's any way we

1:40:54could make you say that it can only be

1:40:58underground.

1:41:01>> Number three is the minimum required

1:41:02parking spaces. A residential 1.5

1:41:06parking spaces per dwelling unit.

1:41:08Commercial, three parking spaces per

1:41:111,000 square ft of space. And see,

1:41:14restaurants, cafes, and other eating

1:41:16establishments, one parking space for

1:41:18every three seats.

1:41:21And six, seven,

1:41:25my page eight.

1:41:34Um, parking dimensions. Is everybody

1:41:36okay with three, A, B, and C?

1:41:40Okay. Page six is the parking space

1:41:44dimensions.

1:41:46Each parking space shall be no less than

1:41:489 ft by 18 ft, except that the use of

1:41:51compact spaces no smaller than 8 ft by

1:41:5516 ft may be utilized throughout,

1:41:57provided that no more than 31 33% of the

1:42:01total parking spaces within the FSRO

1:42:05project or phase shall be compact

1:42:07spaces. The code says that compact

1:42:10spaces can't be intermingled.

1:42:15So I think this will be a legal opinion

1:42:19whether you can put them all over the

1:42:22place or whether in fact you need to

1:42:24keep them where a building is. So

1:42:27>> Madam Chair,

1:42:28>> councelor Austin.

1:42:29>> So that's word for word what's in the

1:42:30executive overlay district.

1:42:32>> Okay, good to know.

1:42:35G design standards design criteria. An

1:42:38application for the site plan approval

1:42:40under this section 650 whatever shall

1:42:43adhere to the criteria specified in

1:42:46section 270-2 site plan review and

1:42:49approval of the city code. Two, roadways

1:42:52to the extent feasible. Internal

1:42:55roadways, public and private, shall be

1:42:58constructed using the methods and

1:43:01materials prescribed in the rules and

1:43:03regulations of the subdivision of land

1:43:05in the city, but shall not be required

1:43:07to conform to the subdivision standards

1:43:10or dimensional requirements thereof,

1:43:12provided that those roadways shall be

1:43:14adjacent to the intended vehicular and

1:43:17pedestrian traffic. The design of ways

1:43:19and parking circulation should be as

1:43:22efficient as possible to reduce the

1:43:24overall development impact and areas of

1:43:27impervious services. So, council oing is

1:43:30that match

1:43:31>> the whole section is what even the next

1:43:33one and the next one and the next one

1:43:34they're all for

1:43:36>> because results way has

1:43:40EF

1:43:42I hate when all my papers get out of

1:43:44order. Um, three,

1:43:48four,

1:43:51five, six,

1:44:02six.

1:44:07Uh, of course I can't find it. That's

1:44:1026.

1:44:12That's 26.

1:44:23>> [laughter]

1:44:24>> Well, they had a they again it was the

1:44:27issue of that public and private that

1:44:31was concerning to the solicitor. But if

1:44:34it's in that one then um

1:44:38>> it is the intent the the internal

1:44:41roadways are going to be privately

1:44:42maintained. So would

1:44:44>> Right. But I think it it said public. So

1:44:47that was the concern.

1:44:50Um

1:44:52>> you can remove that.

1:44:54>> Yeah. If if they're internal and you

1:44:56want to remove the word public, we'll

1:44:57take the word public out

1:45:00that that we just want to make sure that

1:45:03people understand that they have access.

1:45:04Right. So

1:45:05>> Right. Because my my concern was it's

1:45:08going to be a private road, but you're

1:45:10going to let the public on it because

1:45:12you have public things that the public

1:45:14can you. It's kind of the same as

1:45:16results way. They'll want people to go

1:45:19up to use the restaurant to do the brew

1:45:21hub if that ever happens. So, it was the

1:45:25public private um that it's just that

1:45:29the roadway shall be constructed using

1:45:31the methods was all that they cared

1:45:32about. They didn't care whether they

1:45:34were public or private.

1:45:35Um D or no sorry G3 is landscaping

1:45:40in the FSROD shall conform to the

1:45:42provisions of 65047 landscaping and we

1:45:44already kind of had that conversation.

1:45:47Number four is storm water management.

1:45:50The project or phase shall have a storm

1:45:52water management system designed in

1:45:54accordance with the rules and

1:45:55regulations

1:45:56for the subdivision of land in the city.

1:45:58The Department of Environmental

1:46:00Protection stormwater management

1:46:02guidelines and the city stormwater

1:46:03ordinance chapter 271 stormwater

1:46:06management of the Marble City Code. And

1:46:09number five is signage accept as

1:46:11otherwise provided. Signage shall

1:46:13conform to the provisions of chapter 526

1:46:16signs. H is modifications. After

1:46:19approval, applicants may seek

1:46:21modifications to any approved special

1:46:22permit or site plan approvals.

1:46:27Where's my page seven?

1:46:30Oh my goodness. I said I hate doing this

1:46:33because I mess There it is. Um, two

1:46:37special permits. Major modifications to

1:46:40a special permit may be granted by a

1:46:42twothird vote of the city council and

1:46:45minor modifications to a special permit

1:46:47may be granted by the building

1:46:49commissioner.

1:46:50Uh, I don't know if I really need to

1:46:52read the rest of this. The building

1:46:54commissioner shall have jurisdiction to

1:46:56determine whether it's a major or minor.

1:47:00And then it just talks about all the

1:47:03same the typical language for

1:47:06minor modification what it means. Um

1:47:11three is site plan approval. Major

1:47:13modifications to a site plan approval

1:47:15may be granted by a simple majority vote

1:47:18of the city council and minor

1:47:20modifications to a site plan approval

1:47:23may be granted by the building

1:47:24commissioner. And again, the building

1:47:26commissioner shall have jurisdiction to

1:47:27determine whether a requested

1:47:29modification is major or minor. And

1:47:32again, the discussion on

1:47:35minor modifications and what it means.

1:47:39So everybody's okay with who gets to do

1:47:41what for um modifications and that is I

1:47:47think there's is there no in the special

1:47:51permit is where that language of

1:47:54it has to be filed but that's not in the

1:47:56zoning

1:47:58we made it through. My goodness. Well,

1:48:00it is a little late. Um I wasn't sure

1:48:02we'd even get this far.

1:48:04>> I'd like to compliment you. That was

1:48:05very thorough.

1:48:07Um, does anybody else have any

1:48:11changes that I missed that they want to

1:48:16go back on?

1:48:19We do have a deadline. This has to be

1:48:22approved by July 27th

1:48:26doing the 90 days from the public

1:48:28hearing. Our council meeting is July

1:48:3320th.

1:48:36So

1:48:38there was concern that if it had the

1:48:42eight votes but there was somebody

1:48:44objecting to passage in one evening if

1:48:47this isn't voted on until that July

1:48:49meeting

1:48:51that

1:48:52we would be stuck.

1:48:55So councelor Oing had suggested if we

1:48:57got to that point we could have a

1:48:59special meeting to then take that

1:49:02follow-up vote. We'll do whatever the

1:49:04council.

1:49:05>> So, I have no idea. There are only five

1:49:07of us here tonight. I don't know where

1:49:09this is going to stand for a final vote

1:49:12coming out of committee. On Monday, I

1:49:15can move to suspend the rules to refer

1:49:18all of this to the solicitor. So, it

1:49:21would be on that July meeting for

1:49:24approval. But then it first it needs

1:49:26eight votes. If it gets the eight votes

1:49:29but somebody objects then we need to

1:49:33deal with that aspect. If it doesn't get

1:49:36the eight votes then it doesn't pass as

1:49:39the as the zoning is my the solicitor

1:49:42said he would have to look at the

1:49:44language but my reading of Mass General

1:49:46law is it's still eight votes. The

1:49:50residential piece doesn't qualify. Um,

1:49:53but we'll wait for him to add his he'll

1:49:57add a quantum vote when he puts this in

1:50:01proper form. Otherwise, at this point, I

1:50:04guess I need a motion.

1:50:08Councelor Fatillo.

1:50:10Thank you, Madam Chair. Um,

1:50:13you know, with that, appreciate the

1:50:14conversation tonight. Fantastic job

1:50:16working through this. And I move to

1:50:18approve uh the zoning change with the

1:50:21amendments tonight pursuant that it's

1:50:22then referred to the solicitor.

1:50:26>> Councelor Fillo has moved. I will second

1:50:29uh to approve this as amended with some

1:50:32of the questions that still might

1:50:35legal will still put it in proper form.

1:50:38So we we won't worry about that. Uh is

1:50:40there further discussion on the motion?

1:50:43All those in favor?

1:50:46One, two, three. Those opposed. I'm

1:50:48sorry. Was that a in favor or opposed?

1:50:52>> In favor. Okay. So, the votes four zero.

1:50:58>> So, as I said, I will report this out.

1:51:00>> 4.

1:51:01>> 4 in favor.

1:51:04>> Councilor Austin is not a member of the

1:51:05committee. He will have a vote when it

1:51:08comes to um the actual

1:51:12um final vote.

1:51:14>> Oh, yeah.

1:51:15We are our fifth member is not here.

1:51:17Councelor Ducet is the fifth member of

1:51:19the committee.

1:51:20>> So procedurally you have a council

1:51:22meeting on Monday.

1:51:24>> We have a meeting on Monday

1:51:26>> and then we don't meet again until July

1:51:28which is the week before the deadline

1:51:31for this which is sort of fortunate. So

1:51:35>> we just need to play it by ear. If you

1:51:37get your eight votes that you need but

1:51:39somebody objects which could happen. Um,

1:51:44councelor Oing.

1:51:45>> Yeah. So, just based on we've got a bond

1:51:49that we've got to approve and the

1:51:51timelines have been suggested to do it

1:51:53by the 20th. We may have to move the

1:51:55vote up depending on what the timelines

1:51:58are. So, we could have a meeting before,

1:52:00but right now we're going to hold to the

1:52:0120th to vote on the bond. May have to

1:52:04move up. if we do that would facilitate

1:52:08this. But I'm more concerned about the

1:52:10bond for the school to make sure that we

1:52:13get that voted on properly and meet the

1:52:16timelines that the MSBA wants.

1:52:22>> All right. Yeah, my understanding was

1:52:23the vote was supposed to happen on the

1:52:26July meeting.

1:52:28>> Yeah. June 24th. the MSBA will approve

1:52:30it and we should be able to

1:52:32>> to vote on the July July

1:52:34>> 20 20th meeting.

1:52:35>> But unless something I'm just nervous

1:52:37that they're going to say they want it

1:52:39sooner rather than later. That's what

1:52:40I'm nervous about.

1:52:41>> Okay. Well, that So, if you have a

1:52:42meeting earlier, then this potentially

1:52:45could be on the agenda for that, too.

1:52:47So, all right. With that, um,

1:52:50>> what should we should I contact the

1:52:53solicitor to discuss anything?

1:52:54>> Uh, he may be reaching out to you. He

1:52:57probably won't. I mean, this isn't going

1:52:58to go well. He'll be putting it in

1:53:00proper form once it's once it's moved on

1:53:04Monday to do that. So, he may reach out

1:53:06to you anyway. Um,

1:53:09>> I've had discussions with in the past.

1:53:12>> Okay. So, is there a motion to

1:53:16>> councelor Fill

1:53:17>> move to adjurnn?

1:53:17>> It's been moved and seconded to adjourn.

1:53:20All those in favor? 1 2 3 4. So, we are

1:53:23adjourned at 9:25.

1:53:26Thank you very much for your time and

1:53:27consideration.