00:00:00,070 S1: And found that they were sufficient. So the in my view, the form based code has to be prescriptive, but it also has to have sufficient flexibility because in my review of some of the law and I found some law review articles. One of the things that is possibly most susceptible to being challenged are aesthetic requirements, because that's where subjectivity really comes into play. And in my view, the aesthetics are the byproduct of a good form based code. And part of it is because the form based code doesn't just focus on building type, but it also includes streetscapes in public, uh, public places to gather so that there is much more. Or, um, just a different feeling because of the landscaping. That's what, you know, makes people feel good when they're trees. And we saw that picture of Bay road with the the trees at one time. And that's, that's the byproduct of the form based code. And that's beauty in a sense. 00:01:21,670 S2: But but to just. 00:01:22,769 S1: Add the. 00:01:23,200 S2: Aim to add to that though, what that, that if we call it beauty or aesthetic appeal, it comes more out of the position or the spatial relationships of things. Not not the style. 00:01:39,269 S1: Oh, right. 00:01:39,900 S2: Yeah. Not the style, not the aesthetics, the architectural aesthetics or the materials or the colors. It's position, it's numbers. It's it's it's got metrics to it. And the the best thing I can just keep pointing to is the anathema of, well, with this here is the streetscape and where the parking is if you put the park, if you if you have buildings floating in seas of asphalt all up and down the street, you're back to, um, suburban strip mall, U.S.A. and that's what form based code really does well at containing. And you can see we didn't do it well when the when the Cumberland Farms was, was put in. And Cumberland Farms could be right there for everybody's convenience and be just as as easy to use and pump your gas and do all of those things, but not be a sea of asphalt defining that street edge. 00:02:38,900 S3: That's what I worry about. 00:02:39,800 S2: So it has nothing. And it doesn't add cost, it doesn't add complexity. It doesn't add, it doesn't dissuade folks from putting in a Cumberland Farms. It just puts it in in a way that achieves a better public realm, a better street face, a better a better experience for people moving around the space. So but it's position, not style. 00:03:01,199 S3: So will there be teeth so that that doesn't happen? 00:03:04,669 S2: Yes. That's what form based code is. Yes. 00:03:07,370 S3: Yes okay okay. 00:03:10,169 S2: And then you control then you control the the height and the density. Like for example, you mentioned Littleton. Littleton has a different model. It's a it's a building form model. It's not a street frontage model. In other words they they talked about little house big house back house barn if anybody knows about that. It's it's sort of like clusters of buildings. But they didn't really manage this the scale of those buildings the way it would be appropriate for Hamilton. So that would be really inappropriate for Hamilton. And they're not proposing it for Hamilton. They're talking about street frontages that respond to our building scales and our street frontages, not Littleton's. It's really unfortunate that they kept showing that as an example, because it's not what they're doing, it's not what they're doing. So it's very specific. Um, and what we have yet to see though is we've looked. We've seen the specifics of lot by lot frontages and building types, but we have not seen how the whole thing comes together as a plan, a map, and that's what we're anxiously awaiting. But then we can comment on that. 00:04:16,500 S1: Um, I'm aware of the time. 00:04:18,970 S4: So I'm sure my confusion quickly because I think it was a little bit also confusing for other people that didn't understand that this analysis was originally part of utils first workshop. They did look at downtown residential beyond Willow Street. Show examples, show the model, ask questions about what other features of this pattern are developed. They were asking questions related to form based code in these areas. Walnut residential was another one. Um, they were analyzing residential areas in the first workshop, which was, I think, a point of confusion for a lot of us. Um, when we were when we were looking at something that we thought were focused on downtown. Now, this is not a three way conversation either. This is form based code applied to residential areas. 00:05:08,100 S2: And three A has been been enmeshed in this. And that's been the problem. It's the problem in communication. It's the problem in outreach. 00:05:17,069 S3: The town manager's report came out just last week talking about it. He conflated it again. So when we can talk to until we're blue in the face to the people, but they're going to that town manager's report and they're saying they must be lying. 00:05:31,769 S2: So hopefully with time, this can be cleaned up. That's the hope. 00:05:37,430 S3: And I think. 00:05:38,699 S2: My and my highest hope is that if we as a group can be speaking the same language, we can assist in that process, you know, and get to a place where it's not Stu, it's it's clear separation of interests. 00:05:52,430 S3: Well, I think it has to do with, you know, communication from from town hall because that's what people are listening. 00:05:59,069 S2: Agreed. But but we can't we can't be town hall, but we can be this board and we can speak with a clear voice. And that's again the mission tonight to see if we can have a common language and speak with a clear voice and, um, be able to raise our hands clearly and cohesively if we say something's out of line or something's being mixed, that shouldn't be mixed. And if something is on track. But but that's again the goal of this evening. And I would encourage if there's if there's more discussion to be had around that, that, that we should have more of it so that we can we can be we can be speaking the same language. 00:06:36,500 S1: I think we should continue the discussion. I think we should um, but at given the hour, I just want to make just a few comments at our next meeting. Um, Robin Stein with Cape Law will be joining us. She has been working on the inclusionary housing bylaw and the the wording for the Warren article. Uh, she did have some comments and in particular about the calculation of the fee in lieu. And I think that through inadvertently, we included some language of reference to low income families that really confounded her. And we you know, I've been exchanging emails with her and and I think we've, um, settled on a way forward, but I thought it would be very instructive for her to come via zoom and, and also discuss some of the other suggestions that she had, which are, I don't think, controversial in the least, but very helpful. And then the other board business that I wanted to bring up is the status of our compilation of Scrivener errors. And, and whether or not we're going to be able to see that compilation in the context of the bylaws, so that the board can, um, see everything and, and sort of set a timetable for that. So we know what our schedule looks like to get that done, because that might be, I think as long as the Scrivener errors are just typos and whatnot, that's fine. But you know, we want to have our, um, uh, our lens on anything that might be substantive because that that would require another warrant article and whatnot. So, um. 00:08:33,929 S5: Yes, I have um, those edits. I also have, if you're interested, Mary Ellen and I think Rich, uh, the building commissioner have provided some suggestions. 00:08:46,200 S1: So, yes, I have a memo from Rich dated September 11th and that might have been supplemented. Did, uh, did um, Patrick provide you with that information? 00:08:59,269 S5: I met with Rich and he he mentioned he'd sent it, so he sent it to me. 00:09:04,429 S1: Oh, so you have everything he did. Good I do, yeah. Okay, so I have nothing else. I don't know of any board members have any business that they wanted our attention. 00:09:18,899 S1: So that leads. 00:09:19,899 S5: To one thing. We will have a meeting next week. It kind of sneaks up on us because of the holidays, so. 00:09:26,629 S3: Right. 00:09:27,230 S5: We don't have that traditional break in between meetings, but you will get a little bit of break towards the end of the month for the holidays. So. 00:09:33,429 S3: So it's next Tuesday. 00:09:34,899 S5: Next Tuesday. 00:09:35,769 S4: Should we skip. 00:09:36,269 S3: It. 00:09:38,629 S4: So you're going to go to the Monday meeting already. Uh is there anything on the agenda pressing that we've. 00:09:44,970 S1: Yes, the inclusionary housing bylaw, but, um, we can make it a short meeting. 00:09:50,769 S5: Yeah, well, we will have the fire department site plan for, um. They're looking to do a little museum on the right. 00:09:59,669 S1: Right. Yeah, right. That's going to be on the agenda next week. 00:10:04,830 S3: Yes. Chemical one? Yeah. 00:10:08,370 S1: Okay, so that just leaves, um, uh, one item remaining. 00:10:17,000 S6: Motion to adjourn. 00:10:17,970 S3: Oh, second. I thought you were going to say we had to approve. Minutes. No, no. 00:10:26,200 S1: So when I call your name, please indicate whether you want to stay for another half hour or so or whether you want to adjourn. Uh, Pat. Norton. 00:10:35,269 S4: Pat. Norton. Adjourned. 00:10:37,399 S1: Jonathan. Poor. 00:10:38,669 S2: Jonathan. Poor. Adjourned. 00:10:40,200 S1: Emil. Dahlquist. 00:10:41,470 S6: Adjourned. 00:10:42,429 S1: Darcy. Dale. 00:10:43,200 S3: Darcy. Dale. 00:10:43,769 S1: I am Johnny Crouch. 00:10:45,470 S3: I will everyone have a wonderful holiday. 00:10:49,500 S7: All right.