2026-09-09 - Zoning Board of Adjustment

00:08Everybody's all set. All right. All

00:11right. Good evening, everybody. I'd like

00:13to bring to order the September 9th

00:15meeting of the zoning board of

00:16adjustment. Uh, one quick note, uh,

00:18minutes and the audio visual recordings

00:20will be available on nasha new

00:22hampshire.gov uh, within 3 days, usually

00:25a little quicker than that. I'm Josh

00:27Neely. I'm the vice uh, chair of the

00:28board. Unfortunately, the chair could

00:30not be with us tonight. Uh, joining me

00:31on stage tonight is Mr. JP Buché, Mr.

00:34Steve Lionel, Mr.

00:37Joe Petri. Yes,

00:38>> I just had a senior moment there.

00:39[laughter]

00:40And, uh, joining me to my left uh,

00:42representing the city is Mr. Sam Dery.

00:44Uh, I'm sure that you all have worked

00:46with Sam or his uh, staff going through

00:48the process. Um, tonight we are going to

00:51be uh, hearing two cases it looks like.

00:53U, both of which are variances. And uh

00:56if you remember from your applications,

00:58there are uh five criteria that must be

01:01met for the variances to pass the

01:03board's vote here tonight. The criteria

01:06are that the variance will not be

01:08contrary to public interest, the spirit

01:10of the ordinance is observed,

01:13substantial justice is done, the value

01:15of surrounding property is not

01:17diminished, and literal enforcement of

01:19the provisions of the ordinance would

01:21result in unnecessary hardship. So,

01:24tonight what we're going to do is when I

01:25call uh the the um each one of these

01:28into order, uh the applicant has up to

01:3115 minutes to come up to the microphone

01:33here. Uh that microphone is adjustable

01:35and you also can take it off. The reason

01:37we ask you to use the microphone is that

01:39this is recorded and put on YouTube. We

01:41want to make sure that they capture all

01:42of your statements. You have up to 15

01:44minutes to present. uh please keep in

01:46mind or or know that we have thoroughly

01:49read your applications and if there's

01:50any letters in support or uh in

01:52opposition, we have read those as well.

01:54So, you don't need to come up and read

01:55your whole application. It's certainly

01:56your right to do so if you'd like to. Uh

01:58but that being said, please know that we

02:00are um very aware of what your

02:02application says. After the applicant

02:05has uh finished their testimony, uh I

02:08will ask if there's anybody in favor who

02:09wants to come up and and make a

02:11statement. Uh each one of those folks

02:12who comes up uh has up to five minutes

02:15to state why they are in favor. I will

02:17then ask if there's anybody opposed or

02:19has any questions about the application.

02:22Those folks then also have five minutes

02:24each to respond. Uh if we do have any

02:26folks that are in opposition or we have

02:28any letters in opposition, the applicant

02:31uh can come back up and has five minutes

02:33to respond to uh the questions or the

02:36opposition. In the event we get to that

02:39point, anybody who is in uh opposition,

02:42one and only one person of the folks who

02:44are in opposition can come up again for

02:46five minutes and respond to what the

02:48applicant said the second time when they

02:50came up. We do have a pretty small group

02:52tonight, so I don't think we're going to

02:53get to that, but that is the order of

02:55how this will flow. Uh once we are done

02:57with the testimony, uh we will close the

03:00public hearing and we'll open the public

03:02meeting. What that means is myself and

03:04the board will deliberate on uh the

03:06merits of the case. Uh any of the board

03:09members may speak, they may not uh offer

03:12an opinion. Um tonight we do have four

03:16members on the board here. Normally it's

03:18five. Um so in a case uh any case needs

03:22to have a majority. So a 2 to2 vote will

03:25not be seen as a positive vote for the

03:28applicant. You need to get three

03:29positive votes unless one of the members

03:31of the board has to recuse themselves.

03:35Is there any questions from the audience

03:36on how that's going to flow? Okay. So,

03:39the way we have the agenda set up

03:40tonight is uh the first case that we're

03:42going to call up is going to be at 22

03:44Skyline Drive and the second case we're

03:47going to call up is three Suffach Park.

03:49If you are here for three Air Road or 30

03:53Edward Street, uh both of those cases

03:55have been pushed back to looks like

03:58September 22nd, which is our next

03:59meeting. So, uh that would be our next

04:01meeting for those two. Um if there are

04:04no questions, I'm going to call an

04:06official attendance of the folks here on

04:08the stage. I, Josh Neely, vice chair and

04:10present. Mr. Bucher,

04:12>> present.

04:12>> Mr. Lionel,

04:13>> present.

04:13>> Mr. Petri,

04:14>> present.

04:15>> And Mr. Dery, are there any other

04:16changes to the agenda?

04:18>> Uh none. All right, if that's the case,

04:20we are going to get started. We're going

04:22to call into

04:24uh call up the applicant, Ryan Dylan,

04:27the owner. Paul Gaffne, applicant, 22

04:30Skyline Drive, sheet D, lot 305,

04:34requesting a variance from land use code

04:36section 190-16,

04:38table 16-3 for a 5- foot front setback

04:42encroachment. 15 ft is proposed, 20 ft

04:45is required to construct an 8tx 42 ft

04:49covered farmer's porch. This is in the

04:51R9 zone in Ward 5. Uh, one thing I

04:54forgot to mention is just please mention

04:55your name and address for anybody's up

04:57here. Once again, that's just for the

04:58record. So, the floor is your

05:00>> address or the the property.

05:02>> I would like your address, please.

05:03>> Uh, Paul Gaffne, uh, Bullies GC LLC, uh,

05:0711 Syracuse Road, Nashville, New

05:09Hampshire. Thank you.

05:12>> Ryan Dylan, 22 Skyline Drive in Nshawa.

05:20>> Yeah, you can.

05:21>> Um, we decided to build a farmer's

05:24porch. Um, it's exactly how it says. Um,

05:29looks great so far. Uh, [laughter]

05:32uh, but we, uh, did encounter the

05:34variance issue. Um, so that's why we're

05:37before you today. Um, it's a minimal.

05:42It's a very minimal variance. Um, I

05:45don't think is it even

05:46>> I think it's six inches.

05:47>> I It's It's It's actually six. I think

05:49he just put five um to get the full, but

05:52it's it's 6 in over. Um it's not I mean,

05:56I have I have some pictures available. I

05:58mean, it's uh it's not really

06:00encroaching. Uh I spoke to all my

06:03neighbors. They all seem um positive

06:06about it. Um, I've heard no negative

06:09feedback. Um, and yeah, we just like to

06:13get the variance approved so we could

06:15finish building the porch.

06:19>> Thank you. Is that Is that all,

06:20gentlemen, or Mr. Gaffne, did you want

06:21to?

06:22>> Yeah.

06:22>> Okay, great. Uh, if that's it, you can

06:24have a seat. Thank you. Appreciate it.

06:26>> Is there anybody in the audience who

06:28would like to speak uh in

06:32favor of this application?

06:34Okay,

06:36we [laughter]

06:37we did receive two letters uh in favor

06:40and I'd like to read those into the

06:41record.

06:43The first letter is from Linda McKill's

06:47name. Piche. I'm contacting you today

06:50regarding the requested variance at 22

06:52Skyland Drive. My husband Steven and I

06:54live at 20 Skyline Drive next door to

06:56Ryan and Alyssa Dylan. We have no

06:58problem with the porch they are building

07:00and are happy to give our permission and

07:02approval for the requested variance. If

07:04you need any more information, please do

07:05not hesitate to contact me at this email

07:07address or a phone number listed. Uh

07:10this is Linda Piche from 20 Skyland

07:12Drive. And we also received a letter

07:15from Robin and Joe Mulvy of 24 Skyland

07:19Drive. Dear members of the planning

07:22department, I am writing regarding the

07:23public hearing scheduled for Wednesday,

07:25September 9th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m.

07:28concerning the requested zoning variance

07:30for 22 Skyline Drive. We strongly

07:33support this variance and respectfully

07:34urge the city to approve it as promptly

07:36as possible so that the proposed work

07:38may proceed without unnecessary delay.

07:41From our perspective perspective, the

07:44requested variance is reasonable,

07:46appropriate, and deserving of the city's

07:48approval. We s see no meaningful benefit

07:51to the neighborhood or the city in

07:53delaying the work further. And we

07:55believe granting the variance is the

07:56practical and sensible course of action.

07:59At the same time, I would be remiss if I

08:02did not express some frustration that a

08:04formal variance is considered necessary

08:06in this instance. There are multiple

08:08businesses currently operating on

08:09Skyline Drive in circum circumstances

08:12that to our understanding are not

08:14consistent with the zoning requirements

08:16requirements applicable to the street.

08:19Against that backdrop, requiring this

08:22particular property owner to proceed

08:23through the variance process seems

08:26inconsistent and unnecessarily

08:28burdensome. If the city intends to

08:30enforce its zoning requirements, we

08:32believe those requirements should be

08:34applied fairly and consistently to all

08:37properties and businesses on Skyline

08:39Drive. Selective or inconsistent

08:41enforcement creates understandable

08:43frustration for property owners who are

08:46making the effort to follow the city's

08:47procedures.

08:49That concern notwithstanding, our

08:51position regarding 22 Skyline Drive is

08:53unequivocal. We strongly support

08:55approval of the requested variance. We

08:58encourage the planning department and

08:59the city to permit the variance without

09:02unnecessary delay so that the work can

09:03move forward and be completed. Thank you

09:06for considering our comments and for

09:07including them as part of the public

09:09hearing process. Once again, Robin and

09:11Joe Malvi.

09:14Is there anybody in the audience who

09:15would like to speak in opposition to the

09:17plan?

09:19Excellent. So, that being said, uh we're

09:22going to close the public hearing and

09:24open the public meeting. Gentlemen, do

09:25you have any thoughts? Mr. Bucher?

09:28>> I'm in full support of the uh the

09:30application. Um in the neighborhood, I

09:33know there's two other homes that have a

09:36farmer's porch on them. Um so, it's not

09:38inconsistent with what could be down

09:40there. Uh I know it's a few more houses

09:42but and then um again we see a lot lot

09:46of lot we see enough requests for

09:48farmers which is becoming more of a

09:49regular type of thing. Um and so we know

09:52that uh from in this case here I I think

09:58uh from the street perspective uh you

10:01know people don't understand that uh we

10:03can see that there's a property line is

10:05not really at the street. So, uh, this

10:08property really in this property itself,

10:10I don't think you would even notice the

10:11difference. So, again, I I believe that,

10:14um, that that it will be in character

10:18with the neighborhood, uh, what's

10:20already what I already see there, and I

10:23don't think it's a detriment at all to

10:25the character of the neighborhood. So,

10:26I'm going to support the application as

10:27it is.

10:28>> Thank you. Any additional comments?

10:31So, I'm also in support for all the

10:33reasons uh stated by Mr. Boucher.

10:35quite frankly covered every one of my

10:37points. So, I appreciate that. Um, are

10:40we ready for a vote? Okay.

10:44I'd like to hear a motion, please.

10:47[laughter]

10:48>> Raise your hand.

10:48>> All yours.

10:49>> All right.

10:52I'd like to make a motion to approve the

10:54variance for Ryan Dylan, owner Paul

10:57Gaffne, applicant, 22 Skyline Drive,

10:59sheet D, lot 305, requesting variance

11:01from land use code, section 190-16,

11:04table 16-3 for a 5- foot front setback

11:08encroachment, 15 ft proposed, 20 ft

11:11required to construct an 8x 42 foot

11:15covered farmer's porch in CR9 zone and

11:18ward 5. Um we find that the uh variance

11:23uh would uh would not be contrary to

11:25public interest uh because again um as

11:29as we discussed that this would not uh

11:32ultimately change the character of of

11:33the of the neighborhood. We find that

11:35the spirit of the audience would be

11:37observed observed again. Um the the

11:41position of the uh front porch uh even

11:44though it may come over a little bit

11:46into the the front sent back uh again it

11:48would not uh change the total character

11:51of the neighborhood. Um granting the

11:53variance would do substantial justice

11:55because again it would allow the

11:57homeowner to uh build the porch uh as as

12:01requested. Um we find that the uh we we

12:06find that the values of the strong

12:07parcels would not be uh diminished. Um

12:11and as far as uh owing to special

12:14conditions of the property that disc

12:16distinguish it from other properties um

12:19we find that the proposed use is a

12:21reasonable one. Again it allows the

12:23homeowner to build a farmer's porch. it

12:25is a customary type of um addition to a

12:29home and that uh we find that this

12:32farmers borch does not encroach or

12:35encroach really into the public right

12:37away or uh would ultimately again change

12:40the character neighborhood. So with that

12:42I make a motion to approve the area

12:44[clears throat] variance.

12:45>> Thank you and seconded by Mr. Lionel. Do

12:47we have any additional discussion on

12:49this? All right, all those in favor of

12:51the motion. Okay, this motion does pass

12:53four to nothing. Congratulations, folks.

12:55This variance is approved. Uh there is a

12:5730-day window of appeal. I don't expect

12:59that's going to happen, but Mr. Dery's

13:01uh office will let you know if that

13:03happens. In the meantime, don't let that

13:04stop the project. Get the project

13:05started and uh have a great night.

13:08>> You're welcome.

13:13All right. The next case is for

13:20Oleg Oleg Pedro owner Black Phoenix

13:25Builds applicant 3 Suffach Park U361

13:29sheet G lot 455 requesting a variance

13:33from land use code section 190-26

13:36to allow a proposed 8Tx 20 foot deck to

13:40encroach 8 ft into the required 30foot

13:43setback from internal traffic routes.

13:46This is located in the R9/PRD

13:48zone in W 2. Is the applicant here? Yes.

13:53>> Why don't you step up and uh tell us

13:54your name and address and please uh

13:56proceed to let us know in your words

13:58what you'd like to do.

13:59>> Hi, how are you? My name is Eric Herb.

14:01Uh my address is 246 Windham Road in

14:04Palum, New Hampshire. Uh I'm here with

14:07Oleg uh 3 SUFFK. [snorts] Uh we are

14:11looking to put an addition

14:16for a porch uh a covered porch on the

14:19front of his house. It's in uniform with

14:22all the other condos in the association.

14:24It's just doesn't meet the setback. So

14:26he just has a couple stairs in the

14:28front. He just they're an elderly

14:30couple. They're just looking to have a

14:31covered entryway uh into the house. So

14:34that's where we're here tonight. looking

14:36for that 8t uh variance.

14:44>> I just wanted to make sure that we

14:48talking about rice that uh we are going

14:51to add the

14:54covered front porch not back as it says

14:58in agenda and size is 8 by 22.

15:02>> Yes, the size is 8 by 22. It's in the uh

15:05approval from the uh condo as well. I

15:10think originally I had wrote it as 8 by

15:1224 and they changed it but they they

15:14must have just got the length wrong.

15:16It's 22 ft.

15:17>> Okay.

15:18>> And one more thing uh the current access

15:22to this building is not suitable for

15:25wheelchair. So this is one of the goals

15:28of this project to make it accessible by

15:31such you know kind of equipment.

15:36>> Thank you. Um any questions from the

15:39board? I do have a couple questions. So

15:42So the front door, we're talking about

15:43the front door here.

15:45>> Is this the primary way that you access

15:47the house?

15:48>> Yes,

15:48>> it is. And uh you just mentioned at the

15:51end that you are looking for it to be

15:53wheelchair accessible. Um, so this is

15:56being built with ramps.

15:57>> Uh, no, there's no ramps on this. It's

15:59just a 4 foot wide stairway.

16:01>> Okay. So, the um

16:05when when I took a look at the property,

16:07uh looks like you got a kind of a narrow

16:09uh walkway that goes to down the front

16:12of the of the house. You take a left

16:14into the building. Doesn't look like

16:16there's a lot of way that the water gets

16:17caught. So, I'm going to guess you get a

16:19lot of snow and ice there in the winter

16:20in the front. Right. Right. Right by the

16:23door. No, not period. Oh,

16:25>> okay.

16:27So, so the point of the porch, um it

16:30sounded like originally you guys were

16:31looking for a porch to

16:33um

16:35not have inclement weather affecting you

16:37coming out in and out of the front door.

16:39Uh is that so that that's correct?

16:41>> Okay. All right. That that's all my

16:44questions. Um thank you. You guys can

16:46have a seat. Appreciate it.

16:49Is there anybody in the audience who

16:50would like to speak uh in favor of this

16:52application? Anybody who would like to

16:54speak who is opposed to the application?

16:58All right. If that's the case, we also

17:00did not receive any correspondence that

17:01that I see in the packet. Uh

17:03[clears throat] so I'll close the public

17:04hearing and open the public meeting. Any

17:06thoughts on this application, Mr. Lo? It

17:10seems very straightforward and and we do

17:12get lots of applications for uh porches

17:17like this and given that the condo

17:19association

17:21uh approved the their application, I see

17:24no reason to deny it.

17:26>> Thank you, Mr. Bush.

17:29>> I I also uh

17:32support the application. Um there's two

17:34homes right next to this home that has a

17:36farmer's porch. There's another one up

17:39the street and if you went further

17:40[clears throat] up the street now we're

17:42talking about the setback, right? Um the

17:45you start looking up the street and you

17:47go up up um the street and where it

17:49starts to bend, you notice that the

17:51condos that the homes get closer to the

17:53street. So, it's almost like um I again

17:56I don't believe that this would be out

17:58of character with the neighborhood

17:59because um as you go up the street um to

18:02the bend there's a different style of a

18:05home which with garage and it seems like

18:07the garages are really I don't know if

18:10they're within the setback or or they're

18:12right over. So again, I don't think

18:14visually uh again for the character of

18:16the neighborhood that that it would be

18:18any different than what currently exists

18:20in that in that uh in that uh

18:23neighborhood. So, I I'm going to support

18:25the application.

18:25>> Thank you. Uh, so I'm also in favor for

18:28the reasons that you both spoke of. I

18:30mean, the first thing that jumped out at

18:31me as you go around the corner there is

18:32the first two houses there have have

18:33farmers porches and so it'd be pretty

18:35consistent with the architecture there.

18:36So, uh, does anybody want to make a

18:38motion?

18:41>> I'll do it.

18:41>> All right, Mr. Lionel. Thank you.

18:46like to make a motion on behalf of owner

18:51I'm going Oleg Prai

18:54I'm sorry if I mangled that close enough

18:58and uh owner Black Phoenix builds

19:00applicants three Suffach Park unit 361

19:04sheet G lot 455

19:07requesting variance from land use code

19:09section 190-26 to allow a proposed 8

19:12foot by uh 22 foot deck uh to encroach 8

19:18ft into the required 30-foot setback

19:20from internal traffic roots. This is in

19:22the R9/PRD

19:24zone in Ward 2.

19:27The board finds that granting the

19:29variance would not be contrary to public

19:31interest uh because it is similar to

19:34other uh porches [snorts] in in the

19:37neighborhood [clears throat]

19:37and would not uh cause any interference.

19:40The spirit of the ordinance would be

19:42observed. um because the uh the setback

19:46requirements are to avoid crowding of

19:49the street but uh this is uh not only

19:53similar to existing houses but has been

19:56approved by the condo association.

19:59Granting the variance would do

20:00substantial justice to the homeowner uh

20:03to make it easier for him to access the

20:05house. Um

20:08and uh we have no evidence that values

20:10of surrounding properties would be

20:12diminished.

20:14Uh as far as unnecessary hardship, um

20:17the proposed use is a reasonable one uh

20:20because it is similar to what other

20:22houses in the neighborhood have. Um and

20:25uh there is not a fair as substantial

20:28relationship between the general public

20:30purpose of the ordinance and this this

20:32specific application. So for all these

20:34reasons, I propose to uh

20:38that we approve this variance.

20:39>> Thank you. Do we have a second? Mr.

20:41Petri for a second. Thank you. Any

20:43additional discussion? All those in

20:45favor?

20:47All right. Your variance application did

20:48pass four to nothing. Congratulations.

20:50Uh as you probably heard from the last

20:51applicant, there is a 30-day window of

20:53appeal. I would not let that stop the

20:55project. If there's any concerns, Mr.

20:57Dury's office will let you know. Other

20:58than that, have a great night.

21:00>> So, we'll just wait for the permit to be

21:01issued then. Mr. Derfy, you want to take

21:04that?

21:04>> Yeah, we'll be in touch.

21:05>> Perfect. Thank you.

21:06>> Have a great night. Thank you. Thank

21:08you.

21:10>> All right. Uh, next item up on the

21:12agenda is next session's agenda. If you

21:16take a look at it, uh, looks like we

21:17have seven cases, three of which pushed

21:19back from earlier. Uh, and looks like

21:22two of them are pretty good size

21:25developments. air road and I just

21:28noticed the one for uh on East Hollis is

21:31a 48 unit. Um

21:36so that being said, does anybody see

21:38anything of regional impact?

21:41>> I do not.

21:42>> No, I agree. No regional effect. Okay,

21:44thank you. And uh let's take a look at

21:47the minutes from the previous meeting. I

21:49know they came electronic. Uh we also

21:51had hard copies inside of your uh

21:54folders here. Uh, [clears throat] is

21:55there anything of note that we should be

21:56taking a look at, Minister Petri?

21:59>> Uh, page two, um, the

22:03the the uh the summary of the testimony

22:05in that was in favor of um of Three Buck

22:08Meadow. Um,

22:10the the sentence about reducing the

22:12proposal from six to four, wasn't it

22:14originally seven? I thought they went

22:16from seven to four.

22:19>> I I thought it was always six.

22:20>> Oh, maybe I misread something. Okay. Um,

22:24>> I will go back into the record.

22:26>> I thought for some because I thought

22:27they had three buildings and then the

22:28four, but maybe I maybe I misread or

22:30misremembered something. Um,

22:33the um the next thing uh also on three

22:36buck meadow um we should reference uh

22:38Alderwoman Johnson's opposition

22:41because this has the some of the

22:43neighbors but I don't think we've got uh

22:46>> Alderman Johnson's opposition. It's on

22:48the first page. It was, but if we're I

22:51forget.

22:52>> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, never mind. I I I

22:54missed that at the top. Yes. Um

22:57>> we took things out of order.

22:58>> Strike that. Um

23:02see um

23:07uh then the next thing just to format on

23:09page um

23:12which page is this? Uh

23:15there's no page numbers just to keep you

23:16on your toes here. F page five. Yeah,

23:19>> that's that's an important note.

23:22No, I I hadn't noticed that either. uh

23:24the the on page five um the I uh a space

23:30between um I think a couple lines

23:33between the end of the

23:36um discussion on

23:40I think case

23:42uh was yeah case one and then um the 230

23:46Pine Street discussion is because

23:48there's no that probably could use a

23:50space just to make it a little bit

23:51easier to read

23:52>> a horizontal line Is that not

23:54sufficient?

23:57>> That is not on my copy.

24:00>> Oh, interesting.

24:02>> I This was I printed off what um Nicole

24:05had sent us. Did maybe the some

24:07formatting was changed on the file.

24:09>> Yeah. If you want to take a look at the

24:10one this one inside your your um packet.

24:12I think that's the one we're all looking

24:13at now. So, I do think there's some

24:16minor differences.

24:18>> Yep. Oh, yep. That that's there. which

24:21is which

24:24>> I Yeah, I understand how that would be

24:25difficult to look at with no real

24:27separation since it was all in in bold.

24:29>> Yeah.

24:31>> Oh. Um the next change that I had is

24:34case five um 22 Conant Road um the

24:41uh the paragraph that starts with

24:43attorney Bob Perod um

24:46where he requesting the variance. Um,

24:50this says to construct a portion of a

24:52wall, but I think we just want to say

24:53for an existing portion of a wall.

25:00Um, and

25:04I think that was the only other thing I

25:06noticed that we didn't have the um the

25:08time that we adjourned at the end.

25:10>> Very good.

25:11>> That is all.

25:16>> All right. Uh, so thank you for that.

25:18Um, so I actually I'll make the motion

25:20to approve the minutes uh with the

25:22changes requested by Mr. Petri uh which

25:26included especially for format uh

25:28purposes the page numbers and the time

25:30of adjourment. I think those are pretty

25:31important stuff. So do I have a second

25:34Mr. Lionel? Thank you.

25:37All right. And yeah, let's vote on the

25:39minutes. All in favor? Thank you. All

25:42right. The next item on the agenda is a

25:45presentation by Mr. Bury on the recode.

25:49Um, I know we've been talking about this

25:50for a while.

25:51>> Yes.

25:52>> Here we go.

25:52>> I'm going to uh take the podium.

25:55>> All right.

26:27Okay. Well, good evening. Um, I do

26:29apologize. I tried to get this on this

26:32TV. I was having technical difficulties.

26:35Um, but hopefully this will be

26:39sufficient.

26:41So uh the purpose of the presentation

26:42tonight is to uh give you all a general

26:45overview with primary focus on the

26:49fundamentals of the new code with a an

26:51initial highlight of of the big

26:53overarching changes. Uh the reason for

26:56specificity on the base fundamentals of

26:59the code is these are the foundational

27:01underpinning concepts

27:04from which we may see variance requests.

27:07uh as this is very uh foundational uh to

27:10the code as a whole. Um but very high

27:13level we've been working on this for uh

27:15coming up on three years now. Um we are

27:18hoping to submit legislation uh this

27:20year and go for either adoption or be

27:23effective in early 27th. So with that

27:26said uh major changes um one big thing

27:30is is the introduction of form standards

27:32in this code. So form standards really

27:34govern um the the look and feel of a

27:38building. Um we have those now to a very

27:41very slight degree focused in the

27:43downtown area. Um it actually acts as a

27:46vehicle to bypass uh planning board. You

27:49can do uh you know if you look at high

27:50street flats uh there was no planning

27:52board review. That was strictly uh staff

27:55level review because they met the

27:56downtown form standards. uh we are

27:59deviating from that but the spirit of uh

28:02form standards currently exists in the

28:03current code but we're being we're

28:05building on that in in some degree and

28:07we'll we'll get into that a bit more. Um

28:10we have mass nonconformity across the

28:12city as you have seen through many of

28:15the cases. Uh we have a table actually

28:16in this slideshow that details some of

28:18that. We are making a a very strong

28:21attempt to good idea better fit the

28:24regulations uh from what they are uh to

28:27have them better reflect conditions on

28:29the ground today. Um we are very

28:32specific about where we want to see

28:35significant redevelopment. There may be

28:38little bit of opportunity here and there

28:40throughout the city, broadly speaking,

28:41for for incremental growth, but there

28:43are areas that were identified in the

28:45master plan where we want to see

28:46significant growth and redevelopment.

28:49Uh, and we are acting on that guidance

28:51from the master plan and deploying um

28:52some pretty strategic uh regulatory

28:54schemes to accomplish that. Um, improve

28:58public realm standards. Uh, we don't

29:00really have those right now in the code

29:02aside from general landscaping. Um we

29:04have some very um unique approaches

29:06especially in areas where we want to see

29:08redevelopment of how we would deploy and

29:10achieve uh that vision. Um use

29:13categories which we're going to be

29:14talking about in this slideshow in

29:16particular. We have a whole bunch of

29:17uses in the current table. Um some of

29:20which are incredibly specific. So

29:23specific that we have never used them.

29:26and the ability to simplify, you know,

29:28consumer retail as a general category to

29:31assume quite a few uses that don't

29:34necessarily need to be regulated

29:36differently from each other.

29:37Simplification of the use table. Um,

29:40parking. Um, parking has been dealt with

29:42in in different ways in the city for

29:44quite some time. You used to have to get

29:46variances from parking. Now, with the

29:48current code that we're under, that

29:49actually captures the authority with the

29:51planning board. Um and when applicants

29:54ask for parking relief before the

29:56planning board, they can simply wave it.

29:57They can provide some justification,

29:58say, you know, we don't need as many

30:00spaces. Could you please grant us a

30:02waiver? Um that can result in issues

30:05where we do not have enough provision of

30:07parking for site plans. Now, what we

30:09have done and worked with our consultant

30:11is we are crafting a mobility management

30:14manual. Basically, here is a list of

30:17options and things that you can do to

30:19actually earn relief. um specific

30:22actions are calibrated with specific

30:24percent reductions in parking backed up

30:27by research that shows that if you do,

30:30you know, if you buy bus passes for your

30:32employees, that results in an x%

30:34reduction in actual parking need. Uh so

30:37we're really calibrating relief with

30:39specific actions uh rather than just

30:41granting blanket relief. um that still

30:44exists but that request needs to be

30:46backed up with uh very specific data

30:49like a parking study prepared by a uh a

30:51traffic engineer uh and in green score

30:54it is a more robust way of calculating

30:56landscaping uh and we can talk about

30:58that a little bit later so those are

31:00high level major changes um from a

31:04regulatory structure I find this graphic

31:06to be helpful we're introducing building

31:08types as a fundamental uh building block

31:11this is where form base really comes And

31:12we'll actually show you a cut sheet from

31:14the code so you get a sense of what this

31:15looks like. But building types, it

31:17contemplates a type of building and that

31:21is defined by massing. So how wide is

31:23it? How deep is it? How tall is it? And

31:26then it contemplates attachments. So you

31:28could have you know rear wings, side

31:30wings, ways of building and massing a

31:32structure. Uh and then also componentry.

31:35So different you know bay windows,

31:37balconies, all these standards. So

31:38[clears throat] that when if someone

31:40wants to come in and build something

31:41that is familiar and you can piece these

31:44things together, we have standards for

31:46all these attachments, components and

31:48massing standards so that what is

31:50constructed looks familiar while still

31:53allowing quite a bit of flexibility in

31:55design for you know architecture

31:57expression and all that if you have

31:59that. Um but the idea is that

32:02building types in the in the form

32:04standards around those those are the the

32:06underpinnings of character right and

32:09certain building types when grouped

32:11together in neighborhoods that also

32:14creates character and the districts they

32:16organize that character and a lot of

32:19these patterns they're very clear they

32:20already exist on the ground and it's a

32:22matter of simply surveying and looking

32:24at them and understanding like with like

32:27put the districts put the the buildings

32:29types that look similar the character

32:31and put them in the same district and we

32:34have a a draft map that I'll be able to

32:36show you. The districts set the

32:39governing controls around lot standards

32:41as they currently do under our current

32:43code. Uh and so with those lot

32:45dimensions, those place physical

32:47limitations on the massing of a building

32:49that you can place on it. So they all

32:51kind of feed into each other. Uh and so

32:55that's why I have this circular graphic.

32:58Um but hopefully that explanation kind

33:00of helped uh back up the graphic. So to

33:03break it down the district standards

33:06this is setting you know the lot right?

33:08So that green area is the is the

33:10theoretical buildable area. The white

33:12area is consumed by setbacks. So again

33:15district standards set the lot

33:17parameters or the parameters. Primary

33:20building standards this is your massing

33:22height depth width uh roof types that

33:26also matters.

33:28uh massing components. Again, I was

33:29talking about that side wing. What can

33:31you add on uh from a massing standpoint

33:34to the primary structure to

33:37increase your square footage, make the

33:39building a little bit more interesting?

33:41All buildings have these things. When

33:43you look at a building and you you apply

33:45this this lens, you will be able to

33:47break apart a building mentally and say,

33:49"Oh yeah, here are all of the components

33:51as reflected in this code." Uh, and then

33:53architectural component standards, front

33:55stoops and windows, glazing, window

33:57sizes, all of these things, they already

33:59exist. We had our consultants actually

34:01out in neighborhoods measuring windows

34:03to see, you know, what is the rhythm and

34:05and how do these things actually the way

34:08I like to say it is formbbased codes. uh

34:11quantify the qualitative look and feel

34:14of neighborhoods so that they can be

34:16recreated or added onto in a way where

34:20character is continued and perpetuated

34:23rather than the allowance for something

34:25that comes in and really blows

34:27everything up because everyone can say

34:28that is clearly out of character. As you

34:31know, NSHA is very developed and when

34:34something comes in, something is new and

34:36there's change, there's a lot of

34:38sensitivity to it. So this is an attempt

34:41at u when there is infill in sensitive

34:44neighborhoods, these form standards help

34:46to guarantee some predictability for

34:48that neighborhood. Um they also provide

34:51really solid direction to developers. We

34:54often see and hear developers come in.

34:57I've got this piece of property. I'd

34:58like to do something. City, what would

35:00you like to see here? We can say, well,

35:03here's the book. Here's your list of

35:05building types that you can build.

35:06Here's what they should generally look

35:08like. Uh [clears throat] so that

35:09actually helps to answer that question

35:11uh that we hear quite often. Um so

35:14moving on from architectural we look at

35:16accessory placement standards. This

35:17board has seen a lot of accessory

35:19structures. We have standards for that

35:21as well just as we do today. Um we we

35:23just kind of take that a bit further.

35:25You know we have the standard stuff of

35:26size and placement proximity to uh lot

35:30lines. Uh and then we have accessory

35:32building types as well and sometimes

35:34they're treated a little bit differently

35:36than others. Um, [clears throat] this is

35:39the general, you know, kind of Russian

35:42nesting doll of, uh, how all of this

35:44stacks together and you begin to build a

35:47lot with buildings and you build it out

35:49to see, you know, what is already there

35:51existing in the neighborhood. We just

35:52kind of break it down in this way. Um,

35:55so jumping into districts, we're going

35:57to kind of follow that nesting doll

35:59pattern through this presentation just

36:00to kind of orient you. This is our

36:02current [clears throat] zoning map. uh

36:03you look at it big blocks of color,

36:06really big blocks of color. That means

36:08very general lines. Uh it's a very

36:13leading statement because I'm just going

36:14to flip right to the new proposed zoning

36:16map. You will see the difference. Oops,

36:19I lied. Uh this is actually a

36:21representation of a analysis that we did

36:24showing mask nonconformity throughout

36:27the city. So this is the tree streets.

36:28Um, a way I like to to phrase this is um

36:33whether it's the Tree Streets, French

36:35Hill, Crown Hill, these are old

36:37established neighborhoods. Uh, a lot of

36:39people live there. There's a lot of

36:40neighborhood pride uh for these areas.

36:42Now, if you look at this map, anything

36:44with a a hash on it, that is

36:47non-conforming uh from a density

36:48standpoint. Uh almost every single lot

36:53in the districts that actually have

36:54density standards. Now, the the right

36:56side of that map is the the D1. No

36:59density standards, though. You may see

37:02those are actually some of the densest

37:04buildings. That's okay. No density

37:06standards. But the rest of the tree

37:07streets from West Hollis in between West

37:09Hollis and Kinsley, they're

37:11non-conforming. Now, is the neighborhood

37:15wrong or is the is the code wrong?

37:19Right? So, that's this question that we

37:21come back to time and time again. uh and

37:23well the answer is kind of self-evident.

37:26This neighborhood and its density

37:28predates the code. So the code was

37:31inaccurate in the way it was writing

37:33density standards for existing

37:35neighborhoods. So if anyone ever wants

37:36to do anything here, they have to come

37:39to this board.

37:41Here's another example. Uh exact same

37:43footprint area. Uh front setbacks

37:45[clears throat]

37:46red is non-conforming. It speaks for

37:48itself. Um the character already exists.

37:51we need to code for what is there uh and

37:54then perhaps a very slight incremental

37:58increase uh to provide flexibility. Say

38:00someone wants a deck, do they really

38:01need to come here when there are decks

38:03already in the neighborhood? They

38:04already exist. You understand the the

38:06line of questioning.

38:08So, new zoning map, [clears throat] far

38:11more granular um because we have

38:13discovered through survey where the

38:17lines of character, if you will, uh

38:20really truly fall uh in these

38:22neighborhoods. Um so, district lines are

38:26character lines in a way, right? So,

38:28going out into the neighborhood and

38:29truly understanding where the look and

38:32feel of a neighborhood changes, that's

38:34where we need to draw the line. And so

38:36we had to get very comfortable with uh

38:38breaking down those big blocks of color

38:41in our current map into something far

38:43more granular so that it was actually

38:45truly representative of the neighborhood

38:47fabric and the patterns that already

38:49exist on the ground. Oh, and please do

38:52stop me at any time if you have any

38:54questions uh because we are covering a

38:57lot.

38:59So, uh, still on districts, these are

39:03cut sheets from, uh, the code. And so,

39:05you can see how I know you're not going

39:07to be able to read that, uh, but

39:09basically the code talks about, you

39:11know, here's a description of the

39:12district. Uh, here's the intent and the

39:15purpose. Then it prescribes lot

39:17dimensions, standard stuff, uh width,

39:20depth, frontage, um and and building

39:23placement standards, setbacks, like no

39:27no new concepts there. Very very similar

39:29to what we have. Slightly different

39:30organization from our uh dimensional

39:32table. Uh that table is now um basically

39:36split up and provided in all of the

39:38districts because they're they're all

39:40unique. Um but what we also now add into

39:43these district uh sheets is our building

39:45type table. So that is uh this

39:48collection of building types here. Uh

39:51the district I chose to represent here

39:53is uh what we call the urban residential

39:56district. Think of like RC uh urban RC.

39:59Uh this is a very interesting district

40:01because it really represents a

40:03transition from the

40:06maybe not rural residential but like R75

40:09meaning residential 700 or 7,500 foot

40:13lots pretty dense lots but now you're

40:15seeing the introduction of of more

40:17intense building types. You might be

40:19seeing small apartment buildings. There

40:20might be some commercial activity in in

40:23shops. You might have some commercial

40:25first floor um couple apartments above.

40:28This is a very dynamic district. So,

40:30this is actually the only district that

40:32has this many building types uh

40:34permitted. Uh but I did just want to

40:36highlight this district because it is uh

40:38the most interesting not only from a uh

40:41regulatory standpoint, but from just the

40:43the dynamics of being in one of these

40:45neighborhoods. There's a lot going on.

40:47Um and it was a very interesting

40:49district to code for.

40:52Um so going down the next level of uh

40:56our nesting doll going from districts we

40:59are now entering the realm of building

41:00types. Um so again the districts inform

41:04lot standards those place constraints on

41:06how you can place massing of building

41:08types on those lots. Uh so two images

41:12main b massing is really what's the

41:15rectangle what's the box how big of a

41:17structure are we talking and then

41:19additional components that can be

41:20additional massing or that can be uh

41:23architectural. So those can be dormers

41:25and stoops and bay windows things that

41:27don't necessarily add livable square

41:29footage to a building but make it more

41:33interesting uh add character.

41:37So we have whole bunch of building types

41:40uh in the uh small detached residential

41:43uh sphere. Um these are uh building

41:47types that we've observed in the city

41:49that we wanted to capture uh and code

41:52for so that they can be replicated.

41:53Cottage, Cape Cod, house, large house.

41:56Some of these may seem like very general

41:58terms. Um but you know through

42:00investigation and a deep dive into the

42:02standards you can see how they apply.

42:04And we have tested these. We would

42:06randomly select lots throughout the city

42:08and see okay uh this address what is the

42:11structure what the building type is and

42:13does it match the standards or are we

42:15breaking the standards with character

42:17that's already there and then we need to

42:19change the standards. Uh and then we

42:21begin to get into some smaller

42:23multi-unit residential duplexes. Uh

42:25those [clears throat] can be side by

42:26side or stacked uh triplexes, you know,

42:29triple deckers through the tree. That's

42:30a pretty standard uh building type that

42:33you see. um being able to code for those

42:36and make sure that they have a presence

42:37in the code and so that they're not

42:39illegal building types or non-conforming

42:40building types. Uh and multiplex, you

42:42know, four plus units. Um usually not

42:45going over eight units because you get

42:47into something else. Um but that's

42:48that's generally our small multi-unit

42:50residential package. Uh and then getting

42:53into apartment scale residential uh

42:55apartment house still very much a house

42:58probably has that pitched roof or maybe

43:00even a mansard roof. uh but you're

43:02pushing eight or more units. Uh small

43:05apartment building, uh full-blown

43:07apartment building where you can get

43:09quite quite a large uh footprint. Some

43:11of the redevelopment we've been seeing

43:12in the inner city in the the East Hall

43:15Street corridor, those sorts of

43:17buildings. Uh Milhouse was an

43:19interesting one. Uh that is a a very

43:21unique building type that uh actually

43:23was created specific to NHSA because

43:26this is a building type that our

43:28consultant even having done quite a bit

43:30of work in the northeast said there's

43:32nothing else that I've seen like this

43:34and Nashville has quite a few of these

43:36and with that you know recognizing a

43:39pattern being able to quantify it and

43:42and put it into code it now can be

43:44replicated.

43:47Uh and then when we get into the

43:48mixeduse building types, um

43:52town houses, uh very interesting

43:54building type and having some standards

43:55for that. That is a building type that

43:57we have seen actually quite a bit of uh

43:59in terms of applications that have come

44:01to the planning board. Um having good

44:03standards around that very important as

44:05that seems to be uh quite popular. Live

44:07work flex where you have attached

44:09buildings. You might have uh you know

44:11the full up and down vertical might be

44:13commercial. You might have commercial on

44:15the first floor, residential on the

44:16second floor, you know, standards around

44:18that. Uh shop house detached but similar

44:21mixed use nature uh and and shop

44:24straight commercial, maybe it's flat

44:25roof, maybe it is pitch roof, you know,

44:27and the standards associated with those.

44:30And then you get into the bigger uh

44:32commercial and employment scale

44:34buildings. Uh general buildings, uh very

44:37flexible buildings in terms of what they

44:39can do and support. They're relatively

44:42uh use agnostic. Um but most of the

44:45buildings to give you a concept would be

44:47uh on main street primarily these are

44:50all general buildings uh in terms of

44:52their mass and their scale uh mix of

44:54uses uh really defined by floor plate

44:57geometry uh that's one of the primary

44:59driving uh dimensional factors in these

45:02building types uh where you begin to

45:03differentiate between these building

45:04types. Um fabrication building getting

45:07into that more industrial nature. uh

45:10mill building can also be residential

45:12but we do have a number of mills that

45:14are commercial in nature as well but

45:17again quantifying that character so it

45:19can be replicated.

45:21>> What type of geometry?

45:23Oh, sorry. Uh, the geometry relative to

45:25the

45:26>> You said something. You used a term in

45:28front of geometry. I just wasn't floor

45:29plate or something. What was that?

45:31>> Yes. Floor plate. Uh, so, uh, square

45:33footage of a story, right? So, so the

45:35floor plate, the footprint, if you will,

45:37which is then stacked, right, as you go

45:39vertical, right? How how many square

45:41feet is a story? Because that does that

45:44drives intensity, right? You know, how

45:46much stuff can you fit on a floor driven

45:48by square footage.

45:52Uh and then we we've even contemplated

45:54larger format buildings uh lab building.

45:56There's a lot of talk around uh biotech

45:58uh in you know regen valley and as

46:01things come out of the Boston area and

46:02come into Manchester and we're caught in

46:04the middle of that. There's there's

46:05economic development conversations

46:07around that we're planning ahead to be

46:09able to welcome these buildings. Uh but

46:11again applying good standards to them uh

46:13block buildings buildings that take up

46:15entire city blocks. you know, how how

46:18that building needs to treat itself in

46:21its [snorts] relationship to the street.

46:23So, it does a good neighbor, you know,

46:25360 degrees around. That's very

46:27important. Uh box building, large box

46:30store, strip development out on Amherst

46:34DW, there are ways to do that. Well, um,

46:38tower buildings, while we do not have

46:41the rents that can support, um,

46:44high-rise construction, um, those are,

46:47you know, two numbers we can't change,

46:48right? Cost of construction and the

46:50rents. And they don't they don't pencil

46:51right now for high-rise. Um, that does

46:53not mean that they won't in the future.

46:56Hopefully, it's not the rents that rise,

46:57but rather cost of construction comes

46:58down and makes it viable. Um, we want to

47:01be prepared for that. Uh and so rather

47:04than you know the market changes and now

47:06we are receiving applications for this

47:09we just we want to have it ready so that

47:11when it comes uh we're ready to uh

47:14evaluate it. [clears throat] Uh and then

47:16we've also considered specialty

47:17buildings. So civic buildings um you

47:19know should the city continue to need to

47:21expand operations and provide uh

47:23additional buildings for operations we

47:25have standards for those. Uh strip

47:27commerce. So very uh recognizable

47:30pattern especially on our commercial

47:32corridors. Uh having important standards

47:34for that. Uh and then informal

47:36buildings. There's a lot of conversation

47:38around tiny homes and and what that all

47:40means. Um and having some standards for

47:42that is important. Uh and then again a

47:44point tower something that we probably

47:46won't see anytime soon. Uh but high-rise

47:48construction and and where that primary

47:51tower sits within a block building. You

47:54know are conversations that we've had.

47:56anything on on these building types? So,

47:59I know I'm going quickly

48:01>> on the uh on the point tower. What does

48:04step back required mean?

48:05>> Oh, sure. Yeah. Uh so, up say five

48:08stories, you see um rather than just a

48:11straight plane and building face, the

48:14the upper stories step back from that

48:17lower story plane. It kind of opens it

48:19up. the buildings feel less imposing,

48:22you know, because as as the height goes

48:23up, you know, shadow and it starts to

48:26feel very, you know, you you've been in

48:28cities and I'm sure you've experienced

48:30that. Um, so that it is a way to kind of

48:33open things up, let make buildings feel

48:35less imposing, especially in an instance

48:37where we we don't really have that yet.

48:39Uh, that can make a big difference.

48:43All right. Uh and so then getting into

48:46the massive components, we have

48:47standards for all of these. You know,

48:50sidewing, uh we don't want it to be too

48:54long or else it then dwarfs the primary

48:56massing of the main building and it

48:58looks odd. You may not be able to

49:00articulate why it looks odd, but you

49:03know it when you see it. Uh and so

49:04that's something that we're trying to

49:05avoid. Uh architecture was done really

49:07well in the old days and it has created

49:09character that we all recognize. Again,

49:12these are the standards that uh would

49:14perpetuate that rear edition extended

49:16storefronts. Uh mill towers, you look at

49:19um clock tower, you can see those

49:21vertical elements every you know few

49:23hundred feet that help to break up an

49:25absolutely massively long building but

49:29add so much character to it. and we are

49:31in conversations with uh developers and

49:34and we see opportunities where this is a

49:36some a type of character that could be

49:38perpetuated and and we want to make sure

49:40that we are replicating it you know with

49:43a the proper historical nod uh to

49:45Nasha's character. Um but basically

49:49every you know building element that you

49:51can think of we've tried to capture and

49:53and standardize so that it is done well.

49:56Uh and you know we can go on and on but

49:59these are all examples. Porch gallery

50:01stoop cross gable shed dormer dormer

50:03window bay window balconies. Um we want

50:07to make sure that development is done

50:09well looks good recognizable and

50:12perpetuating good character uh and uh

50:16providing architects with good guidance

50:19uh from the onset. Uh so here is cut

50:22sheet on the left from a small apartment

50:24building. uh what I've highlighted

50:26[clears throat] uh building form

50:27standards. So these are the basic

50:28building width, length, uh those those

50:30masking criteria, stories driven by

50:34district. So in the urban residential,

50:37uh you know, up to three stories, you

50:39get into the mid-rise four district,

50:41four stories, mid-rise construction,

50:43number number of stories. Uh mid-rise

50:46five up to five stories. Um first floor

50:49heights, upper floor heights. Uh again,

50:52this also gets into how the building is

50:54interacting with the street, right? So

50:57this is a building type that's probably

50:58a lot closer. So having that higher

51:00first floor is indicative of character

51:03that already exists in the neighborhood,

51:05especially when you have potentially um

51:08mixed use component here.

51:11And then we do have some fenistration

51:13requirements. Uh to be to be a building

51:16that is so close to the street, to have

51:18a blank wall for an extended amount of

51:21feet is jarring. Uh from a pedestrian

51:24experience, you know, you know, when you

51:26see it, it's very odd. Um these are the

51:28things we're trying to protect against

51:29and just provide guidance for good

51:31architecture. Um and then we have

51:35permitted massing components uh which

51:36which matters because there are certain

51:38building types and certain uh components

51:42that do not work together uh based off

51:44of existing patterns we've observed. So

51:46we wanted to make sure that we're

51:47providing good guidance on um you know

51:49what uh what components are appropriate

51:53based off of a given uh building type.

51:56um and then a whole slew of permitted

51:57architectural components which really

51:59gives the opportunity for um I don't

52:01really want to say customization but

52:03more like freedom of architectural

52:04expression uh through development. Uh

52:06and then on the right side is a

52:08crossable is an example of a cut sheet

52:10from the code that contemplates a u

52:13architectural component. So just you can

52:16see these as more of a here's what the

52:18format of the code will look like.

52:23uh accessory building standards. Uh I

52:24included this simply because this board

52:26deals with this fairly often and I know

52:29right now uh in the current code

52:32uh 40% I believe is our standard of uh

52:36of the primary structure. Uh so this is

52:38actually something that if you feel like

52:40reflecting on this I would very much

52:41welcome your your thoughts on this. So

52:43in the R40, R30, R18, our more rural

52:47districts, um we're proposing uh 50% of

52:51the primary building footprint or 600

52:54square ft uh whichever is greater

52:58in the R9, R75, NR, and UR districts. So

53:02getting more into the uh rural but still

53:05primarily residential districts. Uh 50%

53:08of the primary building footprint or 400

53:10square f feet uh whichever is greater.

53:12these buildings are inherently going to

53:13be smaller uh than the buildings in the

53:15more rural districts simply because of

53:17the constraints that the lots impose on

53:20these buildings. Uh but then in all

53:22other districts uh these are the more

53:24mixed use or dynamic districts. Um the

53:27square foot additional structures is

53:29limited by the maximum lot coverage

53:32standards. In these more dynamic

53:35districts, you are most likely seeing

53:36the maxing out of the ability to build.

53:40Um so whatever is left over really could

53:43be accessory uh building structure. Um

53:47unenclosed

53:48uh structures you know like carports,

53:51pergolas, trelluses, similar open

53:53structures, they are exempt from the

53:56gross floor area limits um but remain

53:59subject to setback and lot coverage

54:02standards. So this would be for example

54:03we deal a lot with swimming pools

54:07>> still subject to lot coverage and

54:11certainly as uh a is is contemplated in

54:15that accessory structure uh calculation.

54:20Now when you say lot coverage

54:22>> yeah impervious basically

54:25>> oh okay impervious surfaces all right

54:28>> y

54:31>> any thoughts on going from 40 to 50

54:34setting um square footage alternatives

54:39>> seems reasonable to

54:50You're putting us out of work.

54:52>> Say again.

54:53>> You're putting us out of work.

54:56>> Uh

54:57it's funny you say that. We

54:59>> we are totally okay with that. By the

55:00way, [laughter]

55:02>> you don't like uh 12 cases on an agenda.

55:05You know, I think that this uh this

55:07slide specifically is something that

55:10kind of um the fact that that there'll

55:12be some flexibility. You know, when we

55:14have a small house on a very large lot,

55:18honestly, I feel bad these people had to

55:20pay $325 to get to that point. So, to

55:22have this as a resident, I you know, I

55:25certainly appreciate.

55:26>> Yeah. Um [clears throat]

55:28one of the things I had asked Carter to

55:30do uh before he left was do an analysis

55:32of variance history. um where they were

55:36being requested, were there any patterns

55:38there, what was being requested, um you

55:40know, level of relief and this served as

55:43guidance for drafting some of these

55:45standards. Um because patterns emerge

55:50and when they're all being granted, do

55:53they really need to be sought in the

55:55first place?

55:57So, uh getting a little bit more into um

56:01density. Yes, density. Right. Um so

56:05right now units per acre that's our

56:08density metric. Right. So uh if someone

56:10doesn't have adequate uh lot area they

56:14come in say they need relief from

56:16minimum lot area requirements.

56:19We are this is a significant change in

56:22how we are regulating density. It's no

56:24longer um

56:26units per acre. It's units per a given

56:30number of square feet.

56:33in a building and I'll explain that

56:35better. So, uh let's assume this house

56:40is uh 3600 square feet for easy math.

56:44Now, with a density factor of 1,800

56:48square ft, you could have two units 3600

56:52/ two, right? Density factor is the new

56:57uh regulation tool in how we are

57:00regulating density. a building type will

57:04be [clears throat] prescribed a density

57:06factor. Uh and then that's how you would

57:09calculate. Um so what this actually

57:11means from a um

57:13functional standpoint

57:15when someone says I have a piece of

57:18property it's empty it's vacant land

57:20right now. How many uh how many units

57:23can I get? It's no longer a simple

57:25calculation of uh your acre or you half

57:27an acre, you know, divide by density in

57:31given district and you get your answer.

57:33There is a little bit of more work that

57:35has to be done. Uh it's not a lot

57:37though, right? So you have to map out

57:39your setbacks. How much buildable area

57:42do I have? How much building can I put

57:45put on that area based off of available

57:47building types and their massing

57:49components? And then what attachments

57:52and components can I add to increase

57:54that? So ways of maximizing permitted

57:58building square footage all stories

58:01included. So gross square footage of a

58:04building and then divide that by the

58:06density factor and that's how many units

58:08you can get. Um it it forces the

58:10inclusion of architects earlier on. So

58:15while that that kind of inadvertently

58:17brings in design earlier on into the

58:21conversation uh with the hope that the

58:23end product is actually of a higher

58:24level of design and quality uh because

58:27an architect has been engaged earlier on

58:30in in the sighting of buildings

58:32orientation being able to maximize um

58:35building placement for for square

58:37footage relative to density factor

58:39becomes more apparent. Um, so we can

58:43keep, you know, playing this game. You

58:45you bump the density factor down to

58:471,200 square feet. Well, now this

58:48becomes a 3unit. Uh, if the density

58:51factor is 600 ft, it becomes a six unit.

58:55And, uh, there are ways to modify that

58:58density factor. Uh, I can't recall if I

59:02included a slide on that. Uh, but

59:05basically you have a base density

59:07factor. There is there's three three

59:10density factors. A base a sustainable

59:14development density factor that is

59:16primarily driven by uh site performance.

59:20We have a menu of options ways you have

59:23to hit 12 points. These options are all

59:26worth their respective uh point amounts

59:29and we are trying to incentivize uh

59:32creative uses of storm water and runoff.

59:35Um capturing runoff and using it as

59:38irrigation. Uh being able to store more

59:41than the 100red-year uh storm event. Um

59:44improve landscaping, you know, all of

59:46these sorts of things that not only

59:48address drainage concerns that we've

59:51heard about. um lack of adequate um

59:55landscaping concerns.

59:57This is this is a a way of rewarding

1:00:01more intentional site design and higher

1:00:03site performance uh with a density

1:00:06incentive. Uh so we have base, we have

1:00:08sustainable development and then we have

1:00:10inclusionary zoning. inclusionary zoning

1:00:12where uh the market rate units in a

1:00:16building are internally subsidizing. Uh

1:00:19the affordable which we have different

1:00:21tiers at 180 and 60% of area median

1:00:24income um can those market rate units

1:00:28can support those. We have worked very

1:00:32hard to calibrate

1:00:34density factors the uh

1:00:39density bonus. So that reduced density

1:00:41factor uh all under current market

1:00:44conditions

1:00:45and also have created a tool where the

1:00:49inputs

1:00:50interest rates changes in cost of

1:00:52construction can be modified so that we

1:00:55can use it as a way to quickly change

1:00:58some of these standards to be responsive

1:01:00to market conditions. Um to put that

1:01:02into context, we have a inclusionary

1:01:04zoning ordinance on the books right now.

1:01:08it has been used twice.

1:01:11Not high level of adoption and

1:01:13utilization probably is an indicator of

1:01:16it uh not being properly calibrated to

1:01:19market forces. So we've worked very hard

1:01:22on uh crafting that and uh we could do a

1:01:25whole another presentation on and all

1:01:28the work that has gone into that. But

1:01:29suffice it to say we have three

1:01:31different density factors for each

1:01:33building type that has a density factor

1:01:36because there are some that are that do

1:01:37not. Um largely the uh single family

1:01:41home typology. So cottage house, large

1:01:45house, townhouse inherently a a single

1:01:49unit in its own but when attached it can

1:01:51be multiple. Uh duplex it's in the name

1:01:54two units, right? Applying a density

1:01:57factor there would not make sense. Uh

1:02:00triplex three units, right? So the

1:02:02concern there was um we have large

1:02:05houses all throughout NSHA. Think uh

1:02:08very generously southwest quadrant,

1:02:10right? If we then turn around and we

1:02:13said, "Oh, you know, it's we're not

1:02:14going to cap you at one unit, but we're

1:02:16going to apply a density factor." Even

1:02:17if it was fairly aggressive, say 2,000

1:02:19square feet, there may be instances

1:02:21where there are neighborhoods now that

1:02:23are inherently duplex zoning. Uh that

1:02:26would be a [clears throat]

1:02:28sneaky and uh perhaps not

1:02:32character-conforming change uh that we

1:02:34wanted to avoid. Um, and we are again

1:02:37focusing redevelopment in in other areas

1:02:40of the city, not a uh not a fight we

1:02:43wanted to have. And again, I I've said

1:02:45it before already tonight, you know, the

1:02:47perpetuation of existing character.

1:02:49That's not just form, it's also unit

1:02:52count in areas that are single family

1:02:55homes to inadvertently say ADUs aside,

1:02:59uh, that you know, you can inherently do

1:03:01two units if you have enough square

1:03:02footage. that was not something we

1:03:04wanted to spring on the public because

1:03:06that is not in keeping with the

1:03:07character that is existing in those

1:03:09areas. So that is why there are some

1:03:11building types that are not subject to

1:03:13density factor but they have their own

1:03:15individual caps

1:03:17because it exists currently.

1:03:21Um, so might be too small to read, but

1:03:24these are some of the building types

1:03:28that have density factors. And you will

1:03:30notice that the base changes. Um, that

1:03:34is a direct relationship to the cost of

1:03:37construction evaluated for these

1:03:39building types. We have done significant

1:03:42analysis

1:03:44around cost of construction and rents in

1:03:47the Nashville market to come up with

1:03:48these numbers. Um, so you can see you

1:03:51have base numbers that range from on the

1:03:54low end, uh, 1,50

1:03:57all the way up to, uh, 1350.

1:04:01Usually the larger buildings have the

1:04:04larger, sorry, the higher density

1:04:06factor. So a general building which is

1:04:08typically you know a 20,000 foot floor

1:04:10plate has a base density factor of 1350

1:04:14whereas a uh apartment building which

1:04:17may be on the lower end uh may have a

1:04:19smaller uh floor plate uh 1050. So that

1:04:24changes based on a number of factors. Uh

1:04:27and then of course uh the sustainable

1:04:29development and the inclusionary zoning

1:04:31uh also reflect that as well.

1:04:38Um so here's where that appears in a

1:04:41building type sheet. We have our use and

1:04:44occupancy section of a building type

1:04:46sheet. Um so we have our density factor

1:04:49that I should have also mentioned

1:04:50density factor can also be

1:04:51[clears throat] modified by lot area

1:04:52size. So, uh, in this instance, and this

1:04:56may be a little bit out of date, but the

1:04:57idea being is that on a lot a lot that

1:05:00has an area of less than 5,000 ft, the

1:05:03density factor is higher. Basically,

1:05:05what that means is

1:05:07there is less space. You need more

1:05:11square footage of building to allow more

1:05:14units. that helps to uh compete against

1:05:18um you know say say you have a small

1:05:20building where you know or a small lot

1:05:22in the building uh under one density

1:05:25factor could support four units but the

1:05:27more aggressive could support six uh but

1:05:30there's not adequate on-site parking. We

1:05:32kind of factor that in where smaller

1:05:35lots are going to be inherently more

1:05:38constrained. Therefore the density

1:05:40factor that number needs to be higher.

1:05:42So in this instance in a 5,000 square

1:05:45foot lot that or smaller than 5,000

1:05:47square foot lot the density factor is

1:05:491500 but on a lot that is larger than

1:05:525,000 square feet the density factor

1:05:54gets reduced to 1125.

1:05:57So in the same building size you could

1:06:00potentially get more units on a larger

1:06:02lot than on the smaller lot.

1:06:05Here

1:06:08is a uh an image uh that screenshot if

1:06:12you will uh taken from a tool that our

1:06:15consultant created um where this is

1:06:21how we are able to do testing.

1:06:24So we have this rather significant

1:06:27spreadsheet with a lot of inputs that

1:06:30kind of goes into the back end of this

1:06:32engine and we can modify all sorts of

1:06:36variables to understand uh return on

1:06:39cost and internal rate of return. We are

1:06:41looking at this through the lens of

1:06:43profitability. Obviously you know

1:06:45developers are out there to make money.

1:06:48So we want to understand you know if we

1:06:50are assuming that I think our standard

1:06:53was a uh 6.75 uh return on cost you know

1:06:57that that's the threshold right that

1:06:59basically equates to a 15% uh internal

1:07:02rate of return um project's not going to

1:07:04pencil no one's going to do it below

1:07:06that right so if that is our that is our

1:07:08basis um how can we modify

1:07:13our base density factor you know are we

1:07:16getting too many units units. Are we

1:07:18getting too few units? Uh when we when

1:07:21we look at that threshold, um and we've

1:07:24extended that out to inclusionary

1:07:26zoning, are we not asking for enough?

1:07:29Are we not asking for a deep enough

1:07:30level of affordability? Are we granting

1:07:33too high of a uh density bonus, if you

1:07:36will? Um so this has been a a very

1:07:40helpful tool in testing uh the density

1:07:44factor uh concept but also our ability

1:07:49to modify that through sustainable

1:07:51development and uh all all in the

1:07:54context of uh returns uh for the

1:07:58developer. So on uses, um this was one

1:08:02of the analyses that Carter did for me.

1:08:04Uh since January of 2020, uh 53 use

1:08:08variances.

1:08:10Um so you can kind of see this this

1:08:13breakdown here. Um I won't go too much

1:08:16into this, but you know, 53 use

1:08:18variances in,

1:08:20you know, five and a half years, that's

1:08:22that's quite a bit. Um what I think is

1:08:26um particularly interesting six uses for

1:08:31uh six variances for users that are not

1:08:33in the table. Uh I really struggle with

1:08:37this concept as a planner. um you know a

1:08:42a user developer can come in and say you

1:08:46know I'm I'm proposing this use that's

1:08:48you know in some way some sort of like

1:08:51consumer retail right um we have we have

1:08:55palistry in our use table I mean talk

1:08:57about specific right but but this

1:09:00proposed use make up something silly

1:09:02like you could you could say like okay

1:09:04it's not going to be anything crazy

1:09:06you're not going to have any noxious

1:09:07uses your parking generation is probably

1:09:09going to be in line with similar like

1:09:10uses. Uh but but the fact that you know

1:09:13my

1:09:15obscure new use isn't in the use table

1:09:18means that I have to get a variance. I

1:09:20really struggle with that. Um so I I

1:09:24lead with this um because one of the

1:09:27changes we're [clears throat] making, we

1:09:28we currently have 293 uses in our use

1:09:30table. Um in the scenario I just laid

1:09:33out, you know, what is that right

1:09:36number? Should it be thousands of uses

1:09:37to contemplate all possibilities?

1:09:40Probably not. That doesn't seem

1:09:41reasonable. Um, we're using categories.

1:09:45Um, we have 11 categories. Um, and then

1:09:50when we have explored and kind of pushed

1:09:53those categories in terms of exploring

1:09:57all possible uses, kind of doing a

1:09:59thought exercise that may fall into

1:10:00these categories. Are there some that

1:10:03actually do need to be regulated

1:10:05differently from their peers that may

1:10:06also fall into these categories? And in

1:10:08some cases, yes. Um, so we have then

1:10:11called out some of these uses uh because

1:10:13they need their own supplemental

1:10:14standards for for various reasons. Um

1:10:17but within this concept is um we have

1:10:22discretion to be able to say th this use

1:10:26because we aren't we are only explicitly

1:10:30calling out uses that we believe need to

1:10:32be regulated slightly differently than

1:10:34their peers when they category. We still

1:10:36have the ability to place uses into

1:10:39categories um that are not specifically

1:10:43identified in the use table. So that

1:10:44solves that uh issue of a use not being

1:10:48identified in the use table. Well, we

1:10:49can just place it in the category, the

1:10:51one that most fits it. Um, but we still

1:10:55have the ability to refer to the zoning

1:10:56board or the planning board if it's

1:10:58really strange or we have concerns that

1:11:01the nature of the use will

1:11:04uh be detrimental to the neighborhood in

1:11:06some way or or parking. You pick your

1:11:09reason, right? You know, we can always

1:11:11refer [clears throat] these things to

1:11:11our land use boards for guidance and

1:11:13review.

1:11:16So, this is kind of what it looks like.

1:11:18You know, uh, bicycle repair sales,

1:11:21books, magazines, music sales, camera,

1:11:24photography studios, uh, candy making,

1:11:27you know, a florist. These are all

1:11:30retail sales, right? Do we really need

1:11:33to be regulating a florist uh,

1:11:35differently than a bookstore?

1:11:38You know, these things are generally

1:11:40similar. You have customers coming, you

1:11:44know, you have inventory, you probably

1:11:46have a back of house. Like these, they

1:11:49all fit in a general building. They all

1:11:52fit in a shop. You know, the the

1:11:55building types

1:11:57regulate

1:11:58the the the

1:12:00building and its experience and

1:12:02interacting with the street and the

1:12:05pedestrians and the the traffic. Then

1:12:08the use table is able to say, you know,

1:12:10you're broadly speaking a retail

1:12:12category. It gets a little bit more

1:12:14complicated when you get into some um

1:12:16heavy commercial or industrial uses.

1:12:18Obviously, we've that is the area of the

1:12:20news table where we've called out the

1:12:22most um because they they do need to be

1:12:24there are unique characteristics to a

1:12:26lot of these things that need to be

1:12:29evaluated.

1:12:31So, so would this new rewrite address

1:12:35issues like the the paving plant that

1:12:38was going to be downtown on East Hollis

1:12:41that's you know they obviously got voted

1:12:42down so they said it was out of

1:12:43character.

1:12:44>> Yes. whereas we're we're trying to do a

1:12:47broad brush on a lot of this stuff. So

1:12:49that still would not be allowed or would

1:12:51have to come before the boards.

1:12:53>> You you call out a a very good example

1:12:56of a highly noxious use that needs to be

1:13:01regulated differently than other

1:13:03industrial or manufacturing uses. Um so

1:13:08yes, to answer it very directly, um

1:13:12that would not be permitted in the area

1:13:14that it was originally proposed under

1:13:16the new code.

1:13:21I could spool on that for quite some

1:13:23time for all of the reasons why it's an

1:13:25area in transition. We've seen a lot of

1:13:27multif family development, these sorts

1:13:29of things. Um but we have we have spent

1:13:32a lot of time thinking about that. Um

1:13:35and contemplating other uses. Um, you

1:13:38know, are there appropriate areas in the

1:13:41city where these things can come into

1:13:43fruition and and function with little

1:13:46impact?

1:13:47It was an extensive thought exercise.

1:13:50Uh, this is what the use table will look

1:13:51like. So, you have that use category for

1:13:54the uses in bold and then you know

1:13:56personal services except as follows. you

1:13:59know, this is where we call out the uses

1:14:01that are inherently different from some

1:14:03of their um peers and not only from a uh

1:14:09this use probably doesn't make sense in

1:14:11this district standpoint, but there

1:14:14could be operational differences that

1:14:16require supplemental standards. So,

1:14:18there's really two avenues through which

1:14:21a use could get pulled out of the

1:14:23category and regulated differently. uh

1:14:26district appropriateness and and

1:14:28functional uh differences.

1:14:36Uh this is a fun one. [clears throat] In

1:14:39the spirit of consolidation and

1:14:41simplification of uses in our code, here

1:14:44is a table of all of our current

1:14:47residential use types.

1:14:50This board may remember we got in a

1:14:53little bit of trouble a little while

1:14:55ago. We had an interesting uh

1:14:58residential use come before us and there

1:15:01was questions around how do we classify

1:15:03this and how do we treat it. Um that was

1:15:07a really fantastic learning experience

1:15:09for myself uh our legal council and it

1:15:12greatly informed this process. Uh and uh

1:15:16I became very aware of the controls and

1:15:19the limitations that um the Fair Housing

1:15:22Act, the ADA, all of these things that

1:15:26come into play and regulate that sort of

1:15:28an issue. So we we took that uh to heart

1:15:30when crafting this and we came to the

1:15:32realization that we can drastically

1:15:35simplify our residential use table

1:15:37because when you look at it there's

1:15:39quite a few things in here that are

1:15:40actually more form representations

1:15:44rather than you know residential is a

1:15:46use you know single family well that can

1:15:49be cottage house large house duplex well

1:15:53we got that as a building type triplex

1:15:55that's a building type uh So

1:15:59we're proposing really, you know,

1:16:02different classifications of

1:16:04residential.

1:16:06Everything in yellow is just

1:16:09residential. These are units with their

1:16:13own

1:16:15uh facilities, sleeping, bathroom,

1:16:19cooking facilities. Those are the three

1:16:21components you need to to constitute a

1:16:23unit.

1:16:24the regulation of them is actually

1:16:27really captured in building types.

1:16:32Then there are co-living where you're

1:16:36sharing facilities. Uh you know good

1:16:38example is room renting or or

1:16:41dormitories, right? Um

1:16:46co-living with services. this actually

1:16:49um there are uses that are not in our

1:16:52use table that are residential uses

1:16:54[clears throat] that actually fill this

1:16:55as well. So this this really truly is um

1:16:58think of like a nursing home, right? You

1:17:00you are if you are in one, you are

1:17:03co-living with other individuals and you

1:17:06are receiving services, assisted living

1:17:08facilities, uh memory care facilities.

1:17:12It is residential. They are living there

1:17:14uh in a group setting and receiving

1:17:17care. So those three things constitute

1:17:21you know co-living or group living with

1:17:23services. It's different from

1:17:24residential. is different from simple

1:17:26co-l livingiving. Uh also halfway houses

1:17:29would fall into this category. Um and

1:17:32then uh commercial lodging right you

1:17:35know these this is this is hotels motel

1:17:38bed and breakfast uh not residential uh

1:17:42but these fall into our residential

1:17:44categories right now. These are these

1:17:45are commercial and temporary in nature.

1:17:49Um, so this is a a fairly significant

1:17:51simplification and one that we are still

1:17:53exploring with legal. Uh, as you know,

1:17:56we can really get into the weeds on some

1:17:58of this. Um, but we did find that the

1:18:01formbbased nature of the code really

1:18:05lends to the simplification of

1:18:06residential classification which ended

1:18:08up helping and is actually in line with

1:18:11that experience we had at this board

1:18:14with uh at that challenging instance.

1:18:22Um, oh yes. Um, state law constantly

1:18:26changing um, in recent years um, pretty

1:18:29significantly so, which has been um,

1:18:32professionally interesting to navigate,

1:18:34we will say. Um, HB uh, 457

1:18:39we can no longer regulate on the basis

1:18:42of familial, marital, employment or

1:18:44educational status. Uh, this was a

1:18:49college town bill, right? Off-campus

1:18:52student rentals can be a nuisance, those

1:18:55college kids. And I was one once and

1:18:57yeah, they are rowdy. They're annoying.

1:18:59And if you're in a neighborhood and you

1:19:00think you bought a single family home

1:19:02and you've got a off-campus student

1:19:04rental, that's yeah, that's a nuisance.

1:19:07Well, that's that does not matter

1:19:09anymore. Um, we we have been our hands

1:19:12have been tied. Um it helps us simplify

1:19:15things. Um but you know there may be

1:19:18some unintended consequences as there

1:19:21always are with any law. Um but this is

1:19:24just I wanted to highlight this is it is

1:19:26one of the ways in which um

1:19:29our ability to regulate in a more

1:19:32granular manner from a use perspective

1:19:34has been uh taken away from us for

1:19:36better or for worse. I'll leave it

1:19:38there.

1:19:41Um, I'm not really going to get into

1:19:44these in particular, but these are all

1:19:47various site standards that are

1:19:49contemplated in the code. A lot of

1:19:51these, in fact, probably all of these

1:19:53will look familiar to you in one way or

1:19:56another. Um, we have all these now. Um,

1:20:00we're expanding them in many instances.

1:20:02Um, we have learned from every single

1:20:04application that has come before the

1:20:06planning board, every single application

1:20:07that has come before the zoning board.

1:20:09uh and all of the waiverss and the

1:20:11various relief and and uh and then seen

1:20:14the built product and said you know what

1:20:16that could have been a little bit better

1:20:17if X was done right so we've taken all

1:20:21these learning experiences and helped

1:20:22shape our site standards which is an

1:20:24entire article uh in the new code but I

1:20:28did want to just highlight one of them

1:20:31uh signage this is um still undergoing

1:20:35some finalization in the drafting Um,

1:20:38this is a cut sheet. So, this is kind of

1:20:40what you'll get a sense of there. There

1:20:42are a lot of pictures in this code,

1:20:44which I find helpful because, um, I

1:20:46think land use codes are inherently, you

1:20:49know, a lawyer's best friend because

1:20:51it's all text and it can be very wordy,

1:20:54very difficult to understand unless you

1:20:56live it, as this board does. Um, having

1:21:00pictures is actually really helpful in

1:21:02clarifying what things are. Um, so you

1:21:06see what a band or a wall sign is and

1:21:09then it's very small but you can see

1:21:12dimensions and and then that corresponds

1:21:15to the table below. Um, so you know

1:21:18someone with a very rudimentary

1:21:19understanding of geometry can design a

1:21:22sign that is compliant. Um,

1:21:26here are some other examples of, you

1:21:28know, awning signs, canopy signs, blade

1:21:30signs. Um, [clears throat] we've got

1:21:32them all, you know, all the signs that

1:21:33we see. Um, we're we're still uh

1:21:36wrestling with electronic messaging

1:21:38signs. Curious if this board has any

1:21:40policy guidance for us on [laughter]

1:21:43Steve, any thoughts?

1:21:44>> I mean, you know, as as I think I've

1:21:46commented before, you know, we keep

1:21:48getting all these requests for EMC's and

1:21:52in my early years on the board, we

1:21:55tended to, I think, grant some of them.

1:21:59But after a while, we we we came to the

1:22:03realization that it's not our job to

1:22:05rewrite the ordinances

1:22:07and that the elder need just to make up

1:22:11their mind as to what they want.

1:22:14Personally, I would rather not see the

1:22:18city filled with EMC's, especially that

1:22:20we had this one proposal for a

1:22:22billboard, you know, an electronic

1:22:24billboard on Amherst Street, which you

1:22:27see all over the place. And I personally

1:22:29I don't like those and I'm glad we don't

1:22:31have them. Um, we have many businesses

1:22:35with EMC's already, most of which do not

1:22:39meet the regulations, but nobody seems

1:22:42to care very much. Um, we did have that

1:22:45big issue with the uh, Center for the

1:22:48Arts, and I know there is that spot

1:22:51zoning proposal for that building.

1:22:56Um,

1:22:58that would be an interesting solution

1:23:00for that, but I'm personally not in

1:23:02favor of it either. Um,

1:23:07you know, I I don't want to see Nasha

1:23:10turned into Las Vegas.

1:23:14Um,

1:23:17so, but I'm old and catchy, so

1:23:23>> your thoughts are appreciated. Um that

1:23:26is still something we are working on

1:23:28standards for um because we we permit

1:23:32them to a degree. Now obviously there's

1:23:35that legislation that's I believe being

1:23:37taken up tomorrow night uh for second

1:23:40reading. Um so more to come on that. I

1:23:45think you know opinions are very divided

1:23:47on that issue. Um, so yeah, we have to

1:23:52propose something. Uh, but this is

1:23:54definitely one of those things that I'll

1:23:55take to PEEDC for some further uh

1:23:58fine-tuning. Um, uh, very generally

1:24:00speaking, I've been appearing before the

1:24:02planning and economic development

1:24:03committee. Uh, with this code, um, I've

1:24:07lost count of presentations before them.

1:24:09I mean, I've been doing this for over

1:24:10two years, going monthly or or very

1:24:13nearly monthly to that committee to

1:24:16speak about uh very specific chapters or

1:24:20or pieces of chapters uh to get policy

1:24:24guidance. Uh and it's been it's been

1:24:26excellent. Um it's been a lot. I I

1:24:30suppose I I would make this general

1:24:31comment that

1:24:34having all of these

1:24:36codes and regulations

1:24:39is pointless if the city is not going to

1:24:41enforce them.

1:24:44And you know in let's say let's talk

1:24:46about EMC's in particular as I mentioned

1:24:49there are lots of these

1:24:51that don't that violate the ordinances

1:24:55and have not received variance for it

1:24:58and the city does not appear to care.

1:25:01What message does that send to

1:25:04prospective applicants that say, "Well,

1:25:06you know, this guy across the street, he

1:25:08has an EMC with animation and and

1:25:11graphics and all of that and mo and

1:25:13motion. Why can't I have one?"

1:25:18>> So,

1:25:20somebody you It's one thing to to create

1:25:23the rules. It's another thing to say,

1:25:25"Well, we have these rules, but nobody's

1:25:27going to enforce them.

1:25:31Yeah, I uh I can appreciate that. I've

1:25:33been spending quite a bit of time lately

1:25:35writing enforcement letters for for

1:25:37various things and and you are you're

1:25:39entirely right, Steve, that um there is

1:25:42there's a lot of um [clears throat] I

1:25:46don't want to use nonconformity because

1:25:47that is that's its own thing, but

1:25:50unpermitted

1:25:52development or unpermanented signs um

1:25:55those are very visual and uh visible uh

1:25:59violation and it's in a way it's like

1:26:03wow whack them all in a way. It is we

1:26:06need to hear about it because we are not

1:26:07everywhere in the city. I don't think

1:26:10that, you know, the average taxpayer

1:26:13would want to cough up x amount of more

1:26:16dollars to hire more code enforcement

1:26:17officers just to travel the city and

1:26:21call out violations here and there,

1:26:24>> you know. But even when we have people

1:26:27that report it to the city and say, you

1:26:29know, go take a look at this, nothing

1:26:31happens.

1:26:32We're working on it.

1:26:33>> Yeah. I mean, and you know, driveways is

1:26:35another thing. We get all these

1:26:37applications for wide driveways and they

1:26:39say, you know, but this my neighbor

1:26:42across the street, he's got a a 47 foot

1:26:44wide driveway, and he didn't need a he

1:26:47didn't get a variance for it. And I have

1:26:49I have neighbors uh just a few houses

1:26:51down that widen their driveway, and I

1:26:54know they didn't get a variance because

1:26:55they weren't here. Um, and

1:27:01you know what can be done

1:27:05what if anything can be done about it? I

1:27:07mean, partly it's it's in the case of

1:27:09the driveways, the paving contractors.

1:27:12>> Yeah.

1:27:12>> They lie to their uh to their clients

1:27:18or or or fail to inform their clients

1:27:21that a variance is needed for this

1:27:23because, you know, they'll get their

1:27:25money and then they're gone.

1:27:27Um

1:27:28>> yeah,

1:27:29>> but it it's frustrating sitting on this

1:27:32board when we have people we have people

1:27:35doing the right thing and they come and

1:27:36apply for a variance and it must frost

1:27:39them to see a whole bunch of other

1:27:42people that doing what they wanted to do

1:27:45and they didn't get a variance and maybe

1:27:47it's even more than what they wanted to

1:27:49do. So it it's

1:27:54I I think it's going to be something

1:27:56that's going to build resentment among

1:27:58the population and the you know the

1:28:01residents and the businesses

1:28:03if the city doesn't get its act together

1:28:06and say okay whatever the rules are,

1:28:09we're going to try to stick to them. And

1:28:12if you go ahead and do something that

1:28:15you know you needed an a variance for or

1:28:18whatever and you went ahead and did it,

1:28:20we're going to make you take it down.

1:28:23And we've done that I I once in my

1:28:26memory.

1:28:30You know, over the last what

1:28:33nine years I think I've been on this

1:28:34board. So

1:28:38anyway,

1:28:40I'm done. So, so thank you for asking

1:28:42for our opinion, but not to kick the

1:28:44can, the alderman made it quite clear

1:28:47the last time I got reuped that we are

1:28:49not here to set policy. We're here to

1:28:50enforce a policy. And so, whatever the

1:28:53code is is what we're going to enforce.

1:28:55So, thanks for asking. This is a great

1:28:57presentation.

1:28:59It goes back to them. You got to get

1:29:00them to prove whatever, you know, and

1:29:02EMC signs is obviously a hot topic. So,

1:29:05>> Sure. But and I think more of

1:29:09you make a really good point in that,

1:29:10you know, it may be inappropriate of me

1:29:13to solicit, you know, feedback um on

1:29:17this because right, you know, regulation

1:29:19is policy. Um that said, you all have a

1:29:23very unique perspective based off of,

1:29:25you know, what you have seen before in

1:29:26the board. And I think, you know, the

1:29:28comments around, oh, you're going to put

1:29:30us out of business is, you know, that's

1:29:33policy direction enough, right? And like

1:29:35you know not that the zoning board is

1:29:37tasked with solving problems. It's more

1:29:39it is in a way the gatekeeper of of

1:29:42enforcement you know that we this is the

1:29:44board through which relief is granted if

1:29:46it is deemed appropriate to be granted.

1:29:49Um and yeah we

1:29:53given variance and and belief history

1:29:57the relative high percentage of

1:29:58approvals

1:30:00the sense is that many of these requests

1:30:03are reasonable.

1:30:04>> Oh yeah I I agree with that. I mean we

1:30:06and the and the state has taken away uh

1:30:11a whole bunch of our uh case load on on

1:30:14ADUs for example. So we don't hear ADUs

1:30:17anymore. Um the thing about uh about

1:30:20accessory use struct uh percentages

1:30:23that's a large part of our cases and

1:30:26relaxing those and making them more

1:30:29flexible more reasonable that's fine. I

1:30:31don't think that hurts anybody. Um

1:30:35you know we get uh

1:30:38density uh you know number of units per

1:30:40lot. I don't know if that's if that's

1:30:43being changed. Um

1:30:47and and a lot of these cases that come

1:30:49before us seem to be largely

1:30:51performative

1:30:53that you know it's it's window dressing

1:30:58as you say you know we grant almost most

1:31:01of the of the applications

1:31:04um so you know maybe they shouldn't need

1:31:08to be brought.

1:31:12>> Well thank you. That's a

1:31:14Yeah, that's all I have.

1:31:16>> So, just uh not to kick the can down a

1:31:18little more.

1:31:19>> Um

1:31:20>> but you're going to

1:31:20>> I'm going to [laughter] Thanks.

1:31:22>> Um just back on electronic messaging

1:31:24science.

1:31:25>> So, since I've been on the board, which

1:31:27has been long enough, um I I saw there

1:31:31was very little of that when I first

1:31:32came on the board and then became more

1:31:34and more, right? So, I understand that,

1:31:36you know, technology changes. Um, so

1:31:41like like Steve, I don't want this to be

1:31:42a Las Vegas, but I think that there's

1:31:46there's

1:31:48there's something to be said about

1:31:49there's somewhere there's a compromise

1:31:50somewhere, right? Um so again I I I I

1:31:56was you know in front of the board of

1:31:58alderman you know a little while ago and

1:32:02um

1:32:03I was more question on the other case

1:32:06about about uh near my home you know in

1:32:09my neighborhood but but I hear what u m

1:32:12you know what Mr. Neil saying and I

1:32:14agree that that sometimes I think we're

1:32:17put in a position that we shouldn't be

1:32:19put in as a board, right? And I'm not

1:32:22saying that the rights of the of the

1:32:25citizens or the people coming in front

1:32:26of us should be taken away to come in

1:32:28front of us, but I think almost some of

1:32:30the stuff shouldn't even be coming in

1:32:32front of us because because you know

1:32:35you're making us make a decision. And

1:32:36then

1:32:38all of us, even though we know what we

1:32:41should be doing, I think that's the

1:32:42reason why we're here, right? Because we

1:32:43have a little bit different perspective,

1:32:44right? It's not about right or wrong.

1:32:46It's just we have a different

1:32:47perspective. So, I don't like

1:32:49necessarily always being put in that

1:32:51position. Um, and so more direction

1:32:53would be would be great. So, I'm just

1:32:56curious and I'm sure you have or I'm

1:32:58sure somebody has, but have you

1:33:01[clears throat] or your staff or

1:33:02somebody let's say have reached out to I

1:33:04think Manchester has it allows that,

1:33:06right? Have have you have you reached

1:33:08out to any of these other cities whether

1:33:10it's here or in in Northern

1:33:12Massachusetts to see how that's going

1:33:14and what's worked and what hasn't worked

1:33:16for them? Yes. Yes. So, actually I had

1:33:19been in conversation fairly regularly u

1:33:21with Jeff Bander who's the planning

1:33:23director in uh in Manchester, right? Um

1:33:26you know early on and then they have

1:33:28actually have just adopted a new code um

1:33:31which we've taken a look at. Um we have

1:33:34our our code consultant actually wrote

1:33:36the code for uh Somerville, Mass. Um

1:33:39which elements [clears throat] of

1:33:41Somerville that you know are pretty

1:33:43similar to Nasha. So there's some pretty

1:33:45good um kind of urban fabric parallels.

1:33:48>> Um so I would say that this code is

1:33:51reflective of like current best

1:33:52practices um current trends. Not not to

1:33:55say that you know our consultants they

1:33:56just went to the planning conference and

1:33:58here's some cool ideas that we want to

1:33:59try out in Nashville. You know it's it's

1:34:01very tempered because they also um

1:34:03they're also developers they are

1:34:04architects. They they have built in you

1:34:08know the the modern

1:34:10context. And you know it's not just that

1:34:13we we want a code to to be really good

1:34:15in regulations in terms of you know this

1:34:18is what we want and we want only this

1:34:19and this is how it's always going to be.

1:34:21It's creating that flexibility and

1:34:24understanding you know having real

1:34:26market context uh to make sure that we

1:34:28actually can uh you know manifest the

1:34:31vision of the master plan which does

1:34:32contemplate growth in specific areas and

1:34:36while maintaining character in specific

1:34:38areas. Yeah. So, so I think you know

1:34:41bottom line is to put it down at the

1:34:44level of you know of the um the

1:34:47applicants and all that you have those

1:34:49that are responsible those are not

1:34:51responsible right so so it it is

1:34:55sometimes it's not that it's difficult

1:34:57you say to yourself I know this

1:34:59applicant it would follow whatever

1:35:03guidelines we put in front of them or

1:35:06and it just hasn't be an electronic

1:35:07message it could be anything right it's

1:35:09going to follow to the tea, right? And

1:35:11then some won't. And like Steve says,

1:35:13you know, uh, you know, why aren't these

1:35:16being enforced? And I understand that

1:35:17you just have so much staff. There's so

1:35:18much budget to do that. And you're going

1:35:20after the the big fish, right? You're

1:35:22not you're going after the stuff that

1:35:24you can get your hand on or the

1:35:26lowhanging fruit, whatever is the

1:35:27easiest at the time. But I think again,

1:35:30I think it's very good. I think that

1:35:32some of this may

1:35:34um help us or you know not bring stuff

1:35:37in front of us that doesn't need to be

1:35:39in front of us or shouldn't be in front

1:35:41of us and and that's what I'm kind of

1:35:42more appreciative of as a whole.

1:35:46>> That is helpful guidance. Thank you,

1:35:51>> Sam. Thanks for doing this. Um I I think

1:35:53this I mean I really learned a ton. I

1:35:55think was really interesting and I mean

1:35:57like like others have said I mean the

1:36:00increasing the flexibility I mean

1:36:02there's so many things that come before

1:36:03us like the two porches tonight you sort

1:36:05of wonder like why are they in front of

1:36:07a zoning board you know when I mean you

1:36:10know someone's going to encroach six

1:36:11inches into a setback this this just

1:36:14seems to be a level of bureaucracy that

1:36:15we folks don't need to go through um but

1:36:18there are obviously plenty of things

1:36:20that come before us that I think do

1:36:21require someone looking at the

1:36:23ordinances and applying a standard of

1:36:24reasonleness this and um so I I

1:36:27definitely support things that make life

1:36:30easier and more flexible for for

1:36:31citizens.

1:36:32>> Yeah, I think when you look at next

1:36:34week's or next time's agenda, um some of

1:36:36those cases under the rewrite wouldn't

1:36:38be here, but I do think a couple of

1:36:40those should be here because there's

1:36:41some pretty big changes contemplated for

1:36:43those those neighborhoods specifically.

1:36:45So, I really think and appreciate all

1:36:47the work you've done. I know it's long.

1:36:49It's frustrating. I get it. Um, I think

1:36:52the the um citizens are going to

1:36:54appreciate um the ones that we're

1:36:56talking about that won't have to come

1:36:57here anymore. Saving $345. Totally get

1:36:59it. Love it. Save them time. Yeah,

1:37:01time's huge. Um and so so I appreciate

1:37:04it. I know it's thankless.

1:37:06>> Thank you very much for the presentation

1:37:07tonight. You're almost to the finish

1:37:09line. Get it across the finish line.

1:37:11>> Get that touchdown.

1:37:12>> We'll do.

1:37:13>> All right.

1:37:14>> Excellent segue.

1:37:15>> Thank you. [laughter] All right. So,

1:37:16that being said, um that is all I have

1:37:18on my agenda. Does anybody have anything

1:37:20else they want to discuss before we

1:37:22adjurnn? Mr. Dery, anything else on your

1:37:24agenda before we adjurnn?

1:37:26>> Nothing.

1:37:26>> All right. Motion to adjurnn at 8 8007.

1:37:33>> So moved.

1:37:34>> Second. There we go. All right. We are

1:37:35adjourned. Thank you.

1:37:40>> [laughter]

1:37:40>> That's right.

```*