00:00:03,000	S1:
Hello, everyone. It's 7:02 p.m., and I'm calling the Hamilton Planning Board meeting to order the October 21st, 2025, uh, Hamilton Planning Board meeting. Uh, the meeting is being recorded by H.W. Camm. I do believe we may have a member present by zoom. Yeah. Um, so I'm going to call roll. So when I call your name, would you please indicate that you're present? Pat Norton present. Jonathan.

00:00:35,000	S2:
Poor Jonathan, poor present.

00:00:36,701	S1:
Emil Dahlquist was present. Arthur. Present. Darcy. Dale.

00:00:43,667	S3:
Darcy. Dale. Present.

00:00:45,567	S1:
Uh. Jeff. Austin.

00:00:46,701	S4:
Jeff. Austin. Present.

00:00:47,868	S1:
Matt.

00:00:48,100	S5:
Hamill, Matt. Hamill. Present.

00:00:50,000	S1:
Marty Crouch. Present. And I note for the record that Bill Wheaton is not present. He advised me that he had a conflict this evening. Uh, so we're having a public hearing. As you all know this evening and Mark, at this juncture. Would you be so kind as to read the notice of public hearing?

00:01:10,000	S5:
Sure.

00:01:12,200	S2:
Notice is hereby provided that the Hamilton Planning Board will conduct a public hearing pursuant to Mass General Laws. Chapter 40 A, section five a proposal concerning the.

00:01:27,367	S2:
Site plan regulations. That public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 21st, 2025 at 7 p.m. at the Hamilton Public Library, 14 Union Street in Hamilton. The matters under consideration by the Planning Board include the proposed implementation of the Brown Hill Overlay District for the parcel of land containing the Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, located at 130 Essex Street. Assessor's map 64, lot five. The proposed overlay zoning district would replace the underlying zoning zoned R1 be on the parcel and would permit certain residential and institutional uses by right or special permit, and limited commercial uses by a special permit. Proposed rezoning includes dimensional use and building type regulations governing development on the parcel. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to guide the future redevelopment of the property, including the potential reuse of campus buildings to encourage contextual forms of development under a new regulatory framework to enhance the town's tax base and to preserve the character of the property and surroundings, including valuable open spaces and landscapes. Second, proposed revisions to the Planning Board schedule of fees containing the application fees for all Planning Board applications. And third, the proposed enactment of Site Plan regulations governing the ministerial requirements for all site planning applications. Remote electronic login access is provided via zoom as a courtesy. However, the meeting will not be terminated in the event that technological issues disrupt the zoom broadcast. Log information.

00:02:56,601	S6:
Very well. I'm sorry we're having a hard time here. Sure. Thank you.

00:03:01,667	S2:
Uh, logging information is included on the October 21st, 2025 Planning Board meeting agenda. The full text of the proposed zoning Bylaw amendments, schedule of fees and Site Plan regulations may have reviewed that the Town clerk's office, located at the Town patent homestead. During regular business hours or at the Planning Board. Planning board web page at the address below.

00:03:26,467	S1:
Okay, so as everyone is aware, the Planning Board is working very hard to finalize this volume.

00:03:37,067	S6:
I'm sorry. Working on it.

00:03:42,267	S1:
If you want to move forward, that's fine too, if it helps. Um, so we've been working very hard to finalize, um, this brownfield Hill overlay district. There are a lot of moving parts and a lot of interested parties. We are hampered by the fact that one of our meetings was not cancelled, but we couldn't hold it because of an administrative error of the library, which we thought was available, unfortunately, was not because of the book sale. So we lost one meeting date. But the most current documents have all been posted on the planning board's web page, and that was done this afternoon. So the text of the overlay district itself has not been modified extensively from the draft that was on the web page for over a week. I can just indicate to you that we did add.

00:04:46,567	S1:
Noting that use is permitted by right are subject to site plan review. That is something that is common in in all our zoning bylaws. It's something that is triggered by.

00:05:05,167	S1:
An applicant seeking a building permit. The other addition that we made was a table five which sets forth floor area ratios. And we did add a provision relative to table four, which contains metrics with respect to maximum building footprints and maximum building floor areas. And in this provision, we enabled the Planning Board to modify those metrics. If the modification does not compromise the purpose and intent of any other applicable provisions of the bylaw, and the purpose of that change Was to enable the Planning Board to consider a good project that might not expressly meet the metrics in the tables. So those are the only two changes to the actual text of the Brownsville Overlay District. And our focus this evening will be on finalizing the tables. But, uh, I think that that it would be most helpful to begin this process by hearing from the people here, um, the public, uh, and I would ask that if anyone has any comments with respect to the Brownsville Overlay District, that they limit their remarks to three minutes and then identify themselves and their address for the record. So, uh, if anyone has any, um, remarks at this time. You're welcome to come forward. And once you have made your remarks and everyone is satisfied that that that they've made their points, the planning board will turn to, um, to its work and try and incorporate your comments, but also finalize our tables. And if time permits, we will allow further discussion. But I will say that this public hearing is going to be continued to November 4th. And so on November 4th, we hope to have the the absolute final version of this document. Uh, we do have to, as a planning board, uh, vote favorably or unfavorably as the case may be on, I believe, November 18th. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mike. I believe it's November 18th. Yes. Uh, for purposes of the warrant and the special town meeting. So at this juncture, if anyone would like to comment, I will note. I will note that this draft overlay district has many provisions that that are consistent with our other bylaws, but they are also there. Um, because we we did listen to the butters. So we have 50 foot buffers, we have open space requirements. We have, uh, separated a heritage landscape with identified, um, natural zones that are predominantly wetland. And we also have a now, um, a maps that have been signed by licensed surveyors that delineate the steep slopes on the site that are on buildable. So this, um, the planning board will be discussing the overall density of the site, but in no event will this density be increased from what it is now by by any metric that is, is truly substantial. So I think that overall, um, as the site evolves, it's not going to be a drastic change from what it is now.

00:09:09,667	S1:
Did any other board members want to just make any introductory comments other than the ones that I made? Okay, so I'm happy to hear from any of you.

00:09:23,767	S1:
And before you begin, I'll just make one other one other comment. I will note for the record that the select board last night, um, discussed at length with uh, with the public and also the seminary, both uh, funding a traffic study and also, there were slides presented about the wastewater treatment plant. And as I've stated before, those two topics, while they are critical to the buttars, they're not part of zoning. So there's nothing that would be appropriate to add to this zoning bylaw with respect to those two topics. Now, the density will affect the traffic, so we are aware of that. But we could not, for example, include a provision that in no event can traffic exceed so many cars per day. I mean, that would not be zoning. Um, and similarly, because the Commonwealth is is charged with overseeing the wastewater treatment plant, it would not be appropriate for us to try and interfere with that in a zoning bylaw. There are other mechanisms for addressing that. So. Please.

00:10:43,100	S7:
Thank you. My name is Nancy. I live at 215 Woodbury Street, and I was at the Select Board's meeting last night. I've been at most of the other meetings as well, and I want to emphasize that I recognize that the progress that has been made has been incredible, particularly in the last three weeks. So my comments tonight and my my requests are based on that knowledge. Okay. So having read all the documents late this afternoon, um, and recognizing what also was mentioned last night at the Select Board meeting, that there has been a concession that there will be no commercial development except in two buildings on the seminary. I think that's a really important and wonderful concession. So with that in mind, I looked at the tables and tables one through four will need to be revised to be consistent with that. No commercial development now in place based on what I heard last night. So. Moreover, I think it would be helpful to add some sort of restrictions or explanations on the pilgrim hall use and the gatehouse use. Also, I think it's great that you're going to put some sort of square footage maximum on. I think that's that's really important. That was going to be one of my suggestions with respect to the wastewater treatment plant. There is something in the overlay district content, and I just want to emphasize that that plant cannot be expanded on its present site. And I understand that we are going to be paying for a transportation assessment. And I think that's wonderful. And I think it has to be done, and I'm really happy with that. Also, it seems from what I can read, that the jeopardy! Groundwater Protection Overlay is a major document, and there's a 2019 letter that we have from an a butter that expressed concerns about that requirement. And I'm wondering whether all of those issues with respect to ground groundwater have been addressed with the body. And I was just hoping somebody could speak to that. Um, and, um, finally, the area around the lower campus, those apartments, it's it's not so much. It's not big enough for them. There isn't enough space for the people who are going to live in those apartments to get around, to have places to walk around. And I'm really concerned about that. And I know other people on the planning board have brought this up. So I'm just wondering, is there a way to designate more land area to the lower campus so that there's adequate space for the apartments and the residents who live there. And one of the things that occurred to me was the use of Pilgrim Hall. Could there be space in Pilgrim Hall for something associated with the apartments in the lower campus, like a space that they could rent a room if they needed, you know, to have an event or something like that? A lot of apartment complexes have that, and that would seem to be a really good space to maybe be able to do that. So I just wanted to bring that up along with maybe dealing with, and I hesitate to say it, the borders of the middle campus to allow for more space. And I again, I appreciate what you're doing. I want this to be done right, because I think it'll work if it is done right. Thank you.

00:14:30,000	S1:
I will just add that the tables have been Revised to address commercial use only in Pilgrim Hall and the gatehouse. Okay. Um, Amal and I, you know, in, in our discussions and it's something that the planning board is going to have to consider. Thought that adding the retreat house to that mix might, might be worthwhile. Because in the event that the seminary left the campus and the retreat house was available, there were any number of uses that might be appropriate there. I mean, there could be residential uses, condominiums, they could be lovely, but it also could be an event center for weddings or whatnot, because you can imagine that on that patio, if it was landscaped, it could be a beautiful venue, um, for parties and that type of thing. So we were thinking of doing that. We have added that to the table, subject to planning board review. And so if anybody has any comments about that, that's that's another potential source of revenue for the town down the road. And of course, uh, we, we said reuse by right with any expansion by special permit. But again, the planning board has not put its imprimatur on that. And in fact, the whole notion of limiting a development to residential development and only having commercial development in the in Pilgrim Hall and the retreat House just happened this last week. We're always playing catch up.

00:16:11,868	S7:
I understand that.

00:16:12,868	S1:
But.

00:16:13,701	S7:
It's just thinking about the additional space is really what led me to that.

00:16:18,267	S1:
And those are excellent ideas because I personally, and I think I said this last week, have a fondness for stables because I'm an equestrian. So I see Pilgrim Hall as a building that has just so many opportunities for different uses that would be really beneficial to the people who live in the apartment, so they didn't have to get in their car and drive.

00:16:39,968	S7:
Well, yeah. And I think just looking at what we talked about at the last planning board, there's very little space allocated in that lower campus for the apartments. They're kind of just wedged in there, and I've been there many times. I live right across the street. And when you think about more cars and more people, I just don't think there's enough. So I just bring that up now. Thank you. You're welcome.

00:17:08,801	S6:
To ask questions.

00:17:10,267	S1:
I, I give me the license to answer them or not. Okay. If I can, I might. But you know, some of the some of the answers might be subject to our discussions following this public comment.

00:17:24,968	S8:
John does pick 195 Woodbury. Um, Last night of the select board, I asked the question how much does it cost to educate a school child and how many school children are anticipated in the apartments? I didn't get an answer I didn't get. We'll get back to you. Where does the responsibility for the financial analysis behind this whole project lie is with the planning Board or with the select board.

00:17:50,167	S1:
It's with an income.

00:17:51,968	S8:
Fin com.

00:17:52,567	S1:
Okay, so so the way it will work is the planning board will make a recommendation with respect to this overlay district. The select board makes a recommendation. And the fin com does a financial analysis. And they also make a recommendation.

00:18:09,901	S8:
And will that be made public before.

00:18:11,767	S1:
Absolutely. It will be in the warrant. So you know they they will look at that very point.

00:18:16,868	S8:
Thank you. Second question and maybe I'm missing something so I apologize. Um, as I recall, not that long ago, the planning board wanted to have either a whole plan for the campus in total or nothing. That was my understanding. Obviously something has changed or I misunderstood.

00:18:38,100	S1:
Well, at one point the planning board had what we called illustrative plans as to how the campus could be developed and the way that version of the overlay district was formulated. The, uh, a developer could elect to follow the illustrative plans and have a smoother flight path to a special permit, or they could propose their own development scheme and then would have a special permit. But due to any number of circumstances, when this process was initiated again, we simplified it and removed any reference to those illustrative plans. So they're still on file at the planning board. Any developer who who would like to look at them and get ideas about what great planning looks like could could study them, but they are not part of this overlay district at this time. So at this point, any development on the campus would be following a proposal from a developer, and we would just go through the process and so forth in the overlay.

00:19:51,167	S8:
Thank you so much.

00:19:58,801	S1:
And I urge all planning board members, if I say something that you don't agree with, pipe in, or if you have a better answer than I do, please just jump in.

00:20:12,167	S9:
Chairwoman of the Board and board members. My name is Keith Doyle. 22 Lee Park. Thank you for your hard work on the zoning and planning work you've done. As a resident, I would like to say that I really think there's great benefit to the town in the zoning of the lower campus, for the sale of the apartments to a buyer of that. I think the financial benefit to the town could be great. Um, also to regarding the traffic study and the capacity, I was thinking that between 2000 and 2015, I believe, and I'm not sure of this, but I believe the seminary was close to full capacity. Um, so we know it. It did work traffic wise. And, um, as far as occupancy, I just wanted to bring that point up. But again, I wanted to thank you for your work and as a resident, very much in favor of this. Thank you. Thank you.

00:21:21,501	S10:
On Valerie Peck at 37 Miles River road. I just have a really quick clarifying question as to the change in allowable uses and wanted to understand that, um, I know 55 and plus has been kind of a focus is, is that I don't see that under your allowable uses anymore. Is that fall under a different category or am I looking at it incorrectly?

00:21:46,000	S1:
I think you can answer.

00:21:47,868	S11:
It is in there as senior.

00:21:49,868	S10:
Housing.

00:21:50,667	S11:
One of the changes we made, excuse me, at the advice of, um, town planner, is to have our, um, language tie in with the existing codes. Okay, so one of the reasons some of these, uh, building types, for example, 55 plus is changed is that we wanted it to coordinate with what's already in the bylaws. So that use has not changed. It just has a different title to it. But it is called senior senior housing. So it has to comply with the senior housing bylaw. Okay. In our code.

00:22:26,367	S10:
All right. That was it. Thank you very much.

00:22:38,868	S12:
My name is Lily Shah on Highland Street. I have a question about the retreat house. I was there today. I just missed you when I came over. Um. I'm concerned how the heritage landscape affects that zone where the retreat house is.

00:22:58,467	S1:
There is no building on the heritage landscape.

00:23:01,367	S12:
It's just.

00:23:02,100	S1:
Just off of house remains. Um. It's expansion. Up to 10% is subject to special permit. Um, but, uh, we are proposing, and it's again subject to Planning Board approval, that if the seminary were to leave that site, that there could be a commercial use of the retreat house. But the heritage landscape itself is not subject to any development at all. It's that one building that can be repurposed.

00:23:33,667	S12:
So what district is it? The middle campus that includes the retreat house.

00:23:39,067	S1:
The heritage landscape includes the retreat house.

00:23:42,667	S12:
I thought you just told me. It did not.

00:23:44,467	S1:
It does.

00:23:45,667	S12:
Okay, I heard you wrong.

00:23:47,467	S1:
I apologize. There's one building in the heritage landscape, and that's the retreat house.

00:23:54,567	S12:
Okay.

00:23:54,868	S1:
Pilgrim Hall is in the middle campus.

00:23:58,367	S12:
Okay.

00:23:58,968	S1:
And Pilgrim hall. And then I believe the wastewater treatment.

00:24:02,868	S11:
That's middle campus.

00:24:04,067	S1:
The only buildings in the middle campus.

00:24:06,100	S12:
I understand that. Um, now, retreat House is not going to be zoned separately. You're using that as your main building for the seminary. And that's the plan to continue that. Um, this probably isn't planning board business, but I'm hoping that that building and property around it could be put on the National Register of Historic Places, given its connection to the town of Hamilton, and that the Mandell family built that house, and they also built the community house for the community of Hamilton. Wenham.

00:24:41,100	S1:
Yes, I used to work in historic preservation, so did I. Did you really go? Hey, maybe you could, uh, start the ball rolling.

00:24:49,667	S12:
Well, we have to talk to Sundquist about that, but.

00:24:53,000	S1:
Yeah.

00:24:53,467	S12:
You know, it'd be a good thing to do.

00:24:55,267	S1:
If a building is on the historic register. Then there are provisions with respect to how it's it's expanded and whatnot. But, yes.

00:25:04,601	S11:
You know, there there are different levels of protection or historic designation, and I'm sure it could be at least a local designation. Yeah.

00:25:16,167	S13:
Yeah, a local designation.

00:25:25,968	S1:
I'm Linda Preston, 28 Highland Street. Didn't plan to talk tonight, but I'm impressed with everybody working so hard.

00:25:34,400	S12:
In the.

00:25:35,067	S1:
Effort to bring.

00:25:36,400	S12:
Two.

00:25:36,868	S1:
Sides together for the common good of the.

00:25:39,567	S14:
Seminary and our whole town community. And so I believe we can come to an agreement. And Lord willing, it will happen at town meeting as well, where there is a good conclusion to this. And our hearts desires for many of us is to recognize all that the Seminary has given to us since 1969, and the people it has trained up to go and spread the gospel all around the world, and to contribute to the Hamilton Wenham communities. And so I thank you all. You're an inspiration and I believe this is going to work as it should. Thank you. You're welcome.

00:26:29,968	S15:
Hello, Bob at 233 Woodbury Street. I just wanted to make a comment as an about a. We've been to a lot of meetings over the years, and I feel like recently we had some good progress where it seemed like we were going to more of a, a transformed the dorms into apartments and then minimized the commercialization. And now what I'm hearing recently, I just feel like we're getting pushed commercialization over and over and opening this up to conversation again. And it's not where I thought we were headed as neighbors recently. So it's a little disconcerting to me on that front. Very residential area. I feel it's a slippery slope, and even like the town that I grew up in, the South Shore, now it's skyscrapers.

00:27:06,667	S1:
Well, I what the the commercial uses are limited to the three smallest buildings on that campus.

00:27:14,567	S15:
So the the green will never be developed, or any additional structures.

00:27:20,100	S1:
In the heritage landscape. No additional structures.

00:27:23,868	S15:
To the open green space.

00:27:26,100	S1:
The middle campus.

00:27:27,100	S15:
Middle campus.

00:27:27,801	S1:
Yeah, there's potential development there, but it would be residential.

00:27:31,868	S15:
So more development.

00:27:33,100	S1:
Well, it's potential development. We are limiting the density on the entire site to what it is now. So there could be development, but at no point is it going to exceed an FA of 0.11818.

00:27:49,400	S11:
Right.

00:27:50,400	S15:
Well, that's not really what I've been feeling recently. So.

00:27:53,467	S1:
Right. But I mean the the commercial development is, is small scale. I mean, the gatehouse is 2500ft² plus or minus. Um, and Pilgrim Hall, I have that um, 15,351. So the idea, at least with respect to Pilgrim Hall, if there were to be some commercial uses that they would really be most attractive to the, the to the occupants of the apartments. And, and you know, the thinking, at least my thinking, and it's not a given. But if there are some amenities there for them, they won't get in their car. They'll walk to Pilgrim Hall, and in that way there'll be a reduced traffic that rather than more traffic.

00:28:41,767	S15:
I apologize, I don't know the whole process, but that's just one potential, right? The other potential is 15 different small businesses moving into different offices.

00:28:52,567	S1:
The commercial development is limited to to those three buildings, and all the remainder of the site will be residential development.

00:29:03,267	S5:
All right. Thank you.

00:29:18,100	S1:
Maybe I shouldn't have.

00:29:19,968	S9:
My name is David Horne.

00:29:21,567	S14:
I'm sorry I didn't catch your name.

00:29:23,501	S11:
David Horne.

00:29:24,567	S16:
One Howard Street. And I've been a resident here for 40, 42 years, and I've never. I haven't been to a planning board, so I don't I'm not privy to all the details here, but. So I can speak just broadly for, uh, residents at Hamilton. I think for many of them, this just, just seems like a no brainer to me. Uh, the increasing the tax base extends the formula for our need for low income housing. Uh, it doesn't change the the character of a piece of property. It continues to be used as it's been used for years. Uh, walking dogs, uh, extending all that, uh, formula. So I just think it's a wonderful thing that we could possibly, uh, agree on on these things. Thanks.

00:30:31,100	S17:
Hi. Chris Payne, I live at 205 Woodbury Street. I just wanted to say, uh, I'm very glad to hear that there's going to be a traffic study done. Um, that's one of our biggest concerns. And I'll have to catch up on last night's meeting, uh, discussing the wastewater treatment plant. That's probably my biggest concern. Um, I do have a question. About what? You were just talking about. The footprint of the space that's there. So it sounds to me. Let me see if I can explain this in my own words, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. The buildings that are there, the footprint of them won't be able to change. Or if they do change, they'll have to be the same size. But the commercial use for them could change. Is that right?

00:31:18,567	S1:
Not quite.

00:31:19,801	S17:
Okay. I don't know what FA means. And like some of these terms you're throwing around. I don't know.

00:31:26,467	S1:
Do you want to tackle.

00:31:29,100	S11:
Yeah. The, uh, the as of right. For the dormitories, for example, we put a range there minimum, minimum and maximum footprint and maximum gross floor area on the entire building. We put those because they are they match the existing, uh, apartment buildings so that if they were, for whatever reason, they were redesigned, that would be the same goal to have the same virtually the same square footage and number of units on the site. Okay, now what's happened on the top of the hill? Um, well, because that was initially as of right, because we are not having any commercial up there that it has really there are really two choices now in the top commercial being senior serviced housing, assisted living for seniors. That's one option or residential. Those are the only two options on the on the upper campus, so one would be considered commercial, although it is a senior service, right? It's essentially residential. It's predominant. That is the purpose of it. So there again we we look at the major building care hall, for example, that has a footprint of 50,000ft², 49,000 plus. It has an overall gross square footage of 75,553ft².

00:32:55,601	S5:
Okay.

00:32:56,467	S11:
And so those are parameters that will stick to Kerr Kerr Hall. We can get into more description of this later, but we we kind of pegged on some of the existing buildings and all the legacy buildings where there would be. Those are known building footprints and known building sizes from a square footage. So we have a good idea that if we say you can expand it by 10%, we know what that means. The dormitories, which we're allowed to expand, that 10%.

00:33:25,367	S13:
Apartment.

00:33:26,267	S11:
Apartments. I'm sorry. Uh, because the convenience of installing an elevator tower and stair tower adjacent to two, uh, so it'd be three of those stair towers would take that many square feet to, to build three floors on each of the buildings. Uh, and one, uh, one tower to cover two, two of each. Uh, so those were known things in Pilgrim Hall. Uh, this has come up a couple of times. People worried about that going to commercial. The only reason we did that really is because it is limited in size. We have a good understanding of how that those buildings can be used and by minimizing the expansion on those. That is not something that could get out of hand. And in fact, it could be a huge amenity on that site. Many places that are predominantly residential offer amenities like that, a community center or some other convenience that really makes that site more viable as the as a as a nice neighborhood. Yeah. Yeah. So that was the idea to introduce some small element that would that would be part of the natural living experience there on the campus. And that was the purpose. We felt that to be as far as the retreat, as the retreat house is concerned, that although not on a register, is one that we felt was historically significant because of the previous the the original owners and their contribution to the community. But that it's it is a trace of Hamilton's history that should be preserved, which is the reason we wanted to preserve the landscape right behind it, all around it. It was recognized by the Essex publication to be a heritage landscape. So because you can't fill up the entire site with buildings, we felt that we could designate what areas on the campus should be built on and what areas should not be built on. So that was really kind of the overall strategy on that. But buildings can be taken down and if they rebuild it, it's all by special permit. And the and the amount of square footage is, um, is designated on the tables.

00:35:41,601	S5:
Okay.

00:35:42,367	S17:
Okay. So if they were to go down Pilgrim Hall and.

00:35:45,567	S11:
There'll be a maximum footprint, that's important. There's a building height that's very important okay. And a maximum square footage per building. That's very important. And the f a r is the thing that measures all of that development.

00:35:59,567	S17:
And that would all come back here essentially.

00:36:02,467	S5:
Okay. Okay.

00:36:03,667	S11:
That's a special permit. Yeah.

00:36:05,267	S17:
Because I'm born and raised in Massachusetts, but I don't really need a Dunkin Donuts there.

00:36:08,868	S5:
No, no.

00:36:11,767	S5:
Thank you.

00:36:20,100	S18:
Hi, I'm Chelsea Erickson, I'm a Hamilton homeowner. My husband and I have been here for. He bought our home 15 years ago. We're raising two small boys. Um, and I think this is a wonderful plan. Uh, really just want to say I think it's a win win for our town, for the seminary, for our neighbors. Um, I you know, this is a this is a challenging time in our town in many ways. There are a lot of heated issues that we're being that are being talked about. And this is the first time I've really felt like, wow, there's a there's some good news. This could be a way to generate really needed tax revenue without a significant change to the footprint, as you all have been describing. Really encouraged by what you just shared about retreat House and all of that and the historic impact of it. But we you know, my husband and I feel concerned every time we hear reports about the needed we need an influx of cash of tax revenue in this town to sustain what we have already. And there don't seem to be very many easy solutions for that. But this is one that that feels like it would be a win for all involved. Um, I also just want to speak to, you know, as a mom of young sons, I really appreciate the diversity that the seminary brings to our community, and I'd like to see that preserved. I'm really thankful for that as my kids approach school age. And yeah, I just I think this would be a win for all involved. So really, really appreciate all the hard work that's been done on both sides to pursue it and just want to commend you all for that, and for attempting to link arms and to work on something that would be beneficial for all. So thank you for your good work and, um, definitely has my my support as a homeowner and a resident. So thank you.

00:38:00,701	S13:
Did you want to make some comments now?

00:38:04,868	S1:
Do we have we have one more. You got. You got bumped.

00:38:08,567	S5:
Hi.

00:38:09,167	S19:
Amy Kabila, 233 Woodbury Street. Mani. As I was not here last night, I did have a quick question about the traffic study. Is it going to include the what ifs? So beyond just the Pilgrim Hall, the retreat house, the gatehouse?

00:38:26,467	S1:
I think that I'm going to defer to Merwin on that because I, I attended the Selectboard meeting via zoom, and I obviously am not a member of the Selectboard. So, uh, following the discussion of the development agreement, I elected to have dinner at about 815 with my husband, so I didn't I.

00:38:47,300	S19:
Didn't catch.

00:38:47,767	S1:
The discussion of the traffic study, but I didn't hear the ultimate outcome. I believe there was going to be some significant expenditure of money to expand the traffic study from what exists, but I will defer to Merwin to really clarify that. Obviously, if there were to be any substantial redevelopment of the site requiring the.

00:39:11,667	S19:
Expansion, including the middle campus, the entire green space that's there right.

00:39:15,567	S8:
Now.

00:39:15,868	S14:
If you.

00:39:16,167	S19:
Recall, and the upper campus.

00:39:17,767	S1:
From the special permit process at 133 Essex, um, there was a very detailed traffic study with respect to that project. So at that time, you really dig deep. But, um, I think that that the that the traffic is, as I said, not something that we can actually regulate in.

00:39:39,367	S14:
For.

00:39:39,767	S19:
For sure. But if you're creating dense housing in the area then that will lead to more traffic. Correct. So if you're saying, you know, in addition to the commercial space, the apartments, we're also allowing for senior housing, additional apartments possibly being built where the disc golf is, all of that. So all of that will be included.

00:40:02,167	S1:
Well, they're well, what's included in the traffic study that that the seminary in the town are contemplating? I can't speak to, but we won't know what the development is until we have a proposal. And if there is new construction, that, in a sense, presupposes that some of the existing buildings will be demolished. So it's not as if it's additive. Um, so.

00:40:26,667	S19:
Even if you're adding more people to this space.

00:40:29,300	S14:
Well.

00:40:30,467	S1:
But say, for example, I can I'm pretty.

00:40:33,601	S19:
Even though the footprint. I see what you're saying.

00:40:35,701	S1:
Five plus housing generates less traffic than many other uses, for sure.

00:40:41,167	S19:
But if there are apartments, single family or homes in which you're also zoning for, right?

00:40:49,400	S1:
No single family homes?

00:40:50,767	S19:
No, no. But like townhouses in that green space? Correct.

00:40:55,801	S5:
Yeah.

00:40:56,167	S19:
So that would add more people. Yes.

00:40:58,567	S11:
Well, one important thing is the use of the building. For example, if business had stayed on the summit at the summit at the upper campus. If that would be commercial, so to speak, and which would be business office, professional, whatever that is, is typically calculated a much higher rate than residential. So by eliminating commercial on the upper campus, for example, that's 166,000ft², which now, if you were to put a traffic number on, it's probably 600 cars per peak hour, morning and evening. That's commuting time. That that would drastically change by just saying we're doing all residential, so that will disappear. Now what we We can't say. Or what are the trips per day? Somebody coming and going from their house, for example. That's kind of an unknown, but I think they're probably numbers on that. And that will come out in the study. But just taking that step. There's an enormous change in the potential for traffic around that area.

00:42:01,467	S19:
Okay. Appreciate that.

00:42:02,868	S5:
Yeah.

00:42:03,367	S19:
Thank you.

00:42:03,701	S5:
Ma'am.

00:42:04,567	S20:
Madam chair, before the seminary speaks, if there's no other public to speak, I just have two quick clarifications. Well, after the public is finished.

00:42:12,767	S21:
I fill down 185 Woodbury Street. I just have two questions. Can you guys clarify on the upper campus on the use table? Um, what uses are permitted?

00:42:30,167	S5:
Me to do that?

00:42:31,767	S1:
We are going to be discussing this use table extensively, but it will be residential uses. But there will be a permissible Accessory commercial uses. And for example, if there were to be some type of assisted living or a congregate care home, it's not uncommon in those facilities to have a little, you know, grocery store where residents can buy toothpaste or milk small, maybe, you know, just something so that the residents can, you know, especially if they're elderly, they don't have to drive. They can access some of those types of amenities that that will be permissible by special permit.

00:43:19,501	S21:
So on the upper campus, uh, from a use table standpoint. Are you a are you allowing commercial under a residential.

00:43:28,267	S14:
Community.

00:43:28,868	S1:
In the context of a residential building? So it would be a residential building, but it might have amenities so that people, especially if it were elderly, Could access maybe a beautician once or twice a week. I know this from experience because my mother lived in a retirement community and it had a restaurant where the that that was for the residents only they could get their meals one meal a day. They had a menu plan, and they did have, uh, you know, areas where people could exercise, they could pick up milk or, you know, just something that they forgot at the grocery store. Small and I mean closet size.

00:44:16,868	S21:
Uh, but no, I understand, but but are you permitting under the. I'll tell you.

00:44:21,567	S11:
I'll tell you what's the.

00:44:22,200	S21:
Last four square footage of the existing buildings to be converted under an FA basis to a commercial use, such as?

00:44:30,868	S11:
No, you can't do that. The only things permitted on top of the hill on the upper campus are townhouses or senior housing. Those are the two options. The third one is a commercial, but it's assisted living for seniors only, something like a riverbend over on in Ipswich on route one, a something like that on the upper campus. Now the other things that on the upper campus would be um.

00:44:59,267	S11:
Uh, and as Marty was saying, it could be an accessory there. You could have a small cafe or something as part of the residential development, as an amenity for just the people who live in that particular area. Uh, there could be a public assembly, which is library, museum, art gallery, art dance or music studio up there. Special permit trails are permitted by. Right. Uh, possibly. Well, the accessory use is up. There could be a daycare center as an accessory. Uses would have to be within a primary use on the on the upper campus. So these are not freestanding buildings. These are sort of built in amenities. Daycare center, for example, or fitness. Health facility, an amenity for housing up there, a neighborhood community center or parks or playgrounds would be permitted up there. So those are the those are the only things that can occur on the upper campus.

00:45:51,467	S21:
I may be using the term commercial. Yeah, in the wrong context. I don't mean commercial like an office building commercial, whether it's a for rental senior housing. Are you permitting the FDR that's intact there today to be converted to a assisted living facility?

00:46:07,901	S11:
Correct.

00:46:08,667	S21:
Okay, correct.

00:46:09,367	S11:
That's one option, but it could be it's not up to us to decide who what goes on on the upper campus, but that is an option in the allowable uses.

00:46:19,200	S21:
That's an additional density for the upper campus. That's not permissible under current zoning.

00:46:25,367	S11:
No.

00:46:27,667	S21:
If I buy the upper campus and knock it down and build 350 assisted living facility, that's what you're saying would be permitted.

00:46:35,000	S11:
A 350.

00:46:36,167	S21:
Existing square footage in the FA.

00:46:38,467	S11:
Now they know we've stipulated the size. It's the maximum for the building is 75,000ft² for an assisted living facility. Again, that would be typical with the one on Ipswich, the Riverbend residents at Riverbend. So and the footprint would be 50,000 on the first floor, 25 on the second. That, for example, could fit into Care Hall. If a developer would have were to find that to be, you know, something that is doable, that would be a reuse of that building. So a potential developer could purchase that building. It could it is allowed to be there as of. Right. But how you use it is special permit. So what we're asking is that if you're going to use it for something other than.

00:47:25,367	S11:
You have to use it for something other than it's currently used because it is a business educational business assembly. But if you need to repurpose it to one of the ones that we do allow, which is either residential or assisted living for seniors. So you could theoretically get that that 75,000ft² on the upper campus. You could, if you were to take down the buildings, the wings that come out to the south of that or the hillside. You'd be left with 50,000ft² there. You could actually put a 25,000 addition on the southern side of that reach your 75,000 mark. So you're not exceeding the size of that current building, and that is a maximum. Then you could theoretically do that, create, you know, more desirable spaces in that 25,000 square foot addition. And there could still be other development of a residential nature on the top of the campus. So the buildings are not going to expand in size. That's one key here. No building is going to get bigger than it is right now. We're not allowing multifamily housing on the upper campus, which is like the current Apartments.

00:48:31,667	S21:
Well, but it is multifamily, just age restricted on the upper campus. I'm a developer, so I'm asking these questions specifically, so.

00:48:40,267	S11:
Well, it's yeah a commercial. Yeah. Yeah.

00:48:44,767	S21:
There's understood. Yeah. I understand my question.

00:48:48,701	S11:
You can only get 80 beds I think in something like.

00:48:51,400	S21:
I just want to point out that it's an additional density use which is an age restriction.

00:48:55,801	S11:
Yeah.

00:48:56,400	S21:
But typically outside some of our conversations around limiting the multifamily to the lower campus that is now permitted use on the upper campus, that would likely be the only logical thing to build up there. So I just want to point it out to the group. Yes. My my second quick question, because I know I probably not taken three minutes, but but listening is has any of this dialogue been discussed with Nepa.

00:49:21,000	S14:
With.

00:49:22,200	S21:
The EPA agency, due to the size of the potential development here?

00:49:27,467	S11:
To what agency?

00:49:28,300	S21:
Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act. The EPA.

00:49:30,968	S11:
Oh, no.

00:49:31,467	S5:
No.

00:49:31,767	S21:
Okay.

00:49:32,767	S5:
Thank you.

00:49:36,467	S20:
So, just a couple quick clarifications. First of all, the board received a letter from an a resident on Martel Road, and it mentioned my name in the letter. Um, and the only reason my name was mentioned in the letter is it came into my personal email, and I just redirected it to Mark. So she mentioned my name. So I neither elicited that letter nor supported it. So it just came through my email. So that's just a clarification. And then the second clarification is regarding National Register listings for the retreat House. A National Register listing is is a very nice thing to have. It's just important to remember that a National Register listing by itself protects a building from state or federally funded alterations. It does not protect it from privately funded alterations, so it's not really a very broad protection for a building. There are other protections out there, but but to lean on a National Register listing is not a smart way to protect a building. Those are the only two clarifications.

00:50:42,200	S14:
Thank you.

00:50:42,868	S1:
The other clarification that's really important to keep this in mind is that, um, this overlay district, um, specifically does not affect the seminary's Dover Amendment rights. So under the Dover Amendment and section 10.7 of our bylaw, uh, the seminary, because it has religious and educational purposes, has more license to do development than any other entity, um, of similar size or, or business purpose. So they retain those rights. So a worst case scenario would be that they decided that in the heritage landscape that they needed an apartment. How that would go through the planning board is up in the air, but they could potentially do that. Would they do that? I would hope not. And I believe that the Select board and the seminary are contemplating some type of a use restriction for the heritage landscape, but I think that the seminary is operating in good faith and would not start constructing buildings at random or attempting to do so. I don't think it would be in. I don't think it would facilitate monetizing the property in the event they were to ever leave. But I want to make that clear that in no event is this document an attempt to in any way circumscribe their Dover Amendment rights. Those are that derived from state law, and we would not be in a position to alter them in any way. Even if we wanted to.

00:52:38,601	S22:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members planning board. As I always do, I express appreciation on behalf of the seminary for the remarkable work, especially over the last few weeks. But. But actually, this is the end of a really long road. We've been meeting together for three years, I think. So this is a we express our deep appreciation for it. Um, I'm just going to say a few things. I've appreciated some of the comments from the from the Butters particularly respect to the the commercial. Uh, as you can imagine, that's a substantial concession on the part of the seminary and for the planning board to consider that, uh, it reduces the commercial footprint by about 90% or more. Um, that obviously won't give us the opportunity to use the buildings in that way, but we and as one person remarked, there has been a lot of sort of discussion and disagreement in town, and we want this as a seminar. We'd love this to be one. An exception to that. That is, as a town, we can rally around. And we think that removing the commercial really removes one of the biggest impediments for this. So we're glad to see us moving forward on that as as the chair, as you mentioned, that the wastewater treatment isn't really something that you do. So I would refer anybody who's listening. The first time we have posted the Planning Board and the Select Board has posted a deck, basically of of slides having to do with the power having to do with the wastewater treatment plant, the keys there. It's not your backyard leaching facility in title five. It's this is a highly regulated. It's inspected every day. There's a an independent engineering firm that's up there every day for several hours every weekday taking tests and reviewing it. There are six visits each day by onsite personnel to inspect it. There are. There are monthly reports submitted to the Town Board of Health and then also to the the state DEP. So this is a very well managed, well-run wastewater treatment plant as well. The cemeteries put in close to $1 million of improvements and you'll see some slides, and it's in the deck as to what those have been and try to mitigate any of the impacts that that the treatment plant has. Um, the transportation analysis that we did that's posted as well, if you haven't had an opportunity to read it, it's worth reading. Uh, we brought in an engineering firm that's well-regarded in the state, Howard Stein Hudson. And last night, the Select board did ask us to enhance that further and look at things like safety and access and that sort of thing. The bottom line of the report, as you'll read it now, is that the analysis of the use that the seminary has made of the property over the years, particularly the high water marks, will never be reached again with the Planning Board's current zoning proposal. So it just will never get that kind of traffic again. That's the that's the end of the story. In fact, I think you'd have to build something like six times as many things as you are as can be built there. So what people sometimes forget is a graduate school is a highly intensive use. There are a lot of cars that go up there. There are a lot of people that have lived there. The apartments have been there now for 40 or 50 years. So it's not that it's an unused place. It's heavy use. That use is now being reduced. And then but the the apartments don't change anything. They'll still be there. The amount that will spend is up to $20,000 on that traffic analysis. So we'll be providing that to the select board. And of course the planning board will have access to that as well. A couple of clarifications and I apologize if these were addressed. But as I was looking at the tables. Uh, we I know we had talked about last time with the heritage landscape and the, uh, the, the natural zone putting in a sort of carve out for utilities and roadways and sidewalks and that sort of thing. And I'm not sure if that's still in there, but I think it would be helpful to make sure that the bylaw is clear that those kinds of things are are exceptions in both of those areas because they currently exist, they're roadways in the natural zone and there are utilities, etcetera, lighting, etc.. So if we could just add that back in to those two, um, and then uh, the I think you had in there that there could be a guard booth in the natural zone, which would, we'd like to make sure that that's allowed. That really would be down on, on 133 at the, uh, 136 rather. So if we could put that in just that would be allowed under special permit? We'd appreciate that. Um, and I didn't get a chance to see. So I'm asking a question a little bit. Whether is the steps, are they now the 20% and above, or are the steps also include 15.

00:57:31,901	S5:
15.

00:57:32,367	S11:
15.

00:57:32,901	S1:
And I believe in table two, which Amy revised uh, late this afternoon. We did add back, um, special permit, uh, road, sidewalks, sanitary facilities, electrical services, lighting and a small security station at off site road entrances. So that was added okay.

00:57:55,767	S22:
So existing would be grandfathered and then these would be with special permit.

00:58:00,467	S5:
Right.

00:58:01,067	S22:
I see okay. Well then I would ask whether the 15 takes a lot of a lot more space out of that. So whether the planning board can reconsider and just have it 2,020% and above would be, uh, would be used. But I'll leave that to you.

00:58:17,067	S1:
Let me just clarify that, if I may. In the in the identification, uh, let me.

00:58:24,267	S13:
Just.

00:58:25,000	S1:
Rather than guess, I'm going to give you the precise, uh, terminology. It's the special design process in in submitting an application, an applicant would have to identify 15% slopes.

00:58:41,467	S5:
Okay.

00:58:42,000	S1:
That's where that comes from. So most of the 15% slopes are, you know, kind of buried in 20% slopes and 25% it's all part of steep. Okay.

00:58:52,467	S5:
Steve. Yeah.

00:58:53,968	S20:
The other thing I would add is that the analysis that the board went through a year or so ago with the illustrative plans, those illustrative plans automatically steered clear of the steep slopes, and we were able to get the density that that was desired without disturbing those steep slopes. So in other words, all of this was was considered as a package originally. And so this is not taking away from what you see in the charts. It's just making sure that it goes in the right place and it will actually save you money if you steer clear of those things.

00:59:25,300	S1:
So and you could explain why it will save you money, because if you try and build on steep slopes, you're going to going to have to do terracing and your stormwater runoff has to be controlled. And that means you've got all sorts of engineering issues or potential engineers.

00:59:44,000	S20:
Parking requires gymnastics access. Roads require gymnastics here into expensive retaining walls. So it's always cheaper to stay away from the steep slopes and easier.

00:59:54,100	S1:
We have the best interest at heart.

00:59:57,901	S22:
Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, I know that. Oh, I apologize. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. My name is Myron Walters. I'm a longtime resident of the town, but I'm also representing the seminary.

01:00:13,868	S22:
I make one comment about open space. I'm not raising it again. We've we've we've been through this now considerably, but I think it's helpful for others to know the Butters and others that it's 100 acre parcel. And now, with the heritage landscape in the natural zone, that's about 40 acres. So the requirement of the zone is that 40% be open space, that 40 acres is accepted from the other 60, and those 60 now are also subject to the 40%. So there's there's a pretty generous amount of open space here by the time any development got through. So I think people when you add in the steep slopes, there's a limited, very limited area that can be developed on this. Um, in terms of the retreat house. This given that it's a concern that's been raised tonight, uh, President Sundquist went out and, uh, raised special funds, a significant amount of special funding for the purpose of renovating and really restoring the interior of the retreat house and the exterior. They relocated all of the administrative functions there. The president's office is there, and it's just a remarkable job. So there's, uh, they're putting their money where their mouth is in terms of wanting to retain that space and maintain it as as a beautiful place and bringing it back, really, to some of the historic beauty. Um, one other thing that we had put in there, and I don't know that we've had the conversation as, as with the board with you, is that I'd put in one of the plans, has a buffer, shows the buffer, but it shows that there are areas where there isn't a buffer. And I would ask the planning board to give that a little more serious consideration. It was it was deleted from a draft. But we we between the language and all we talked about between the language and the bylaw, talking about what's allowed in the buffer and not, we thought, just a belt and suspenders to eliminate any concerns. There would be areas that are not part of the buffer, so the buffer would be where the buffer plan shows it. And so it's it's in the deck that we sent recently. So that's just something again. So areas for example that wouldn't be in the buffer would be the entrance. Uh and so it just it allows us to not worry about if there needed to be expansion of the entrance for safety or what have you, that we wouldn't run into a zoning problem for that. So again, just ask if you could give that a some more thought. Um, I won't go through. If you if you listen to the the select board last night the chair went through a number of really other reasons. While he was why he was supportive of the development agreement and of this of the overlay district. There's so many reasons that are beneficial to the town, but I don't I won't recite them again here tonight, but that's it's worth a listen to hear him as he goes through them. Uh, and you know, the two big ones. Obviously, the development agreement gives the town quite a bit of control and some benefits. And as well this, this, this zoning district provides the town with a tremendous amount of control. It resides with the planning board for anything that happens in the future. Um, a couple comments on the road. Our suggestion. Uh, we were being assisted by Brent McDonald from Nutter. And in talking through that issue with him, he's suggesting that it's just it's reasonable, given that the pod the point of that is to keep septic systems from leaching into the groundwater. Uh, because this the uniqueness of the site having its own wastewater treatment plant, all the wastewater in the future is going to have to be through the wastewater treatment plant that that simply accept it from, exempt it from the pod. It's a totally new district. It's not looking at any particular owner. It's saying, here's a new district. So the suggestion would be to just exempt it from, from, uh, from the pod for purposes of making sure that this bylaw is not immediately in conflict with with another overlay district. Um, we appreciate the concern about open space for the apartments. We've been talking to the the buyers about that recently as well. And we understand there are some open space requirements that the Planning Board has put into the zoning district. We would just like to see it specified that we can use appropriate portions of the natural zone, not all of which is wetlands and the the heritage landscape to fulfill some of those requirements. And also that an easement, recordable easements would be sufficient as well. So it wouldn't necessarily have to be a fee interest owned by the sellers, but rather that we could achieve that because we're already talking about that. Anyway, uh, keeping in mind that probably half of those apartments are going to be, uh, lived in by our own students. So there's a playground up there, and the goal is to continue that, obviously. And then the new people coming in would have that. Uh, so if we could make sure the bylaw provides for those kinds of flexibilities and then, you know, if it gets developed, if any of that area gets developed, that we can just reallocate area for that use.

01:05:25,968	S1:
Could I just interrupt? I think the bylaw actually accommodates that as it's written now because, uh, there is a provision for waiving that requirement or modifying it. So when that issue arises there's flexibility there already. So if you were to say, well, we don't have the space here, but we have it here and we're providing it through an easement. I would surmise that that would not be looked on unfavorably.

01:05:56,000	S22:
And the the uses for the heritage landscape in the and the national.

01:06:01,367	S1:
Parks and playgrounds.

01:06:02,567	S22:
Parks and playgrounds. Okay.

01:06:04,501	S1:
So that's that's provided for already.

01:06:09,100	S5:
Yeah. Yeah.

01:06:11,167	S22:
Then we we did note that there's we were a little confused about it. And we just want to know if it's the case that, uh, that the site plan review would be required in this instance where the apartments are going to be going from apartments owned by the cemetery, apartments owned by another owner. We just we don't want hiccups in the whole process, given that that's sort of the the trigger for this thing. So whether that can be an abbreviated site plan or that we have understanding that this isn't going to be an issue going forward, that the site plan review or whether it could be accepted from that?

01:06:47,667	S1:
I don't feel comfortable answering that question. I mean, in some respects, we have to this whole bylaw has to be run by our town council, but I, you know, I don't believe there would ever be a circumstance where we said there's an exception to site plan review, because the purpose of a site plan review is to make sure that any potential development is, is safe, that the the there's access for fire trucks and and and and that type of thing. So uh, let's just defer that and and if you have any authority for, for, for a eliminating that, you can let us know. But I suspect that that, uh, that that's not going to be the case, but under site plan review, as you know, is not provided for under state law. It's a creature of it's just a creature that exists in Massachusetts. But there is no mechanism. In fact, it's it's impossible to deny a site plan review application, unless the application itself is deficient and doesn't have all the information that's required. So, for example, the planning board frequently has site plan review applications, and it's just an opportunity for the planning board to make very constructive suggestions that improve the safety of of a proposed project. And that happens not infrequently. I mean, even the trustees came in to put a parking lot at Appleton Farm, and I know Jonathan had some suggestions that improved that parking lot. So it's an opportunity really, to make sure that it's going to be a safe, accessible site. And it should be looked more. As you know, can we get some help from the planning board as opposed to they're going to hold us up and it's going to cost us a ton of money. It might save you money in the long run.

01:08:54,701	S22:
That's always great. If that can happen.

01:08:56,901	S14:
By.

01:08:57,167	S22:
Me. That would be great if that can happen. I appreciate that. Um, one other thing, so that we we talked about it last time and I talked back. I talked with Brent about it again, that language. It was his suggested language about access over different zones to access other zones. Uh, and this may be something that the planning board may want to run by town council, but his concern was that there's some case law that actually creates a problem for that, that you can't it's not simply something that can be achieved by the landowner through easement. So I'm happy to get more information on that to you. And if you want to share with town council, but that, that that's a very technical thing. But because there's going to be a heritage landscape, a natural zone that you're going through. Uh, that there needs to be recognition that traffic and roads can be used to go through those. So that was that was his concern.

01:09:52,801	S1:
And I asked him because my, my sense of that was that it should be in the development agreement.

01:09:59,667	S22:
Yeah. It's why don't I get that to the board? But it's it looks like it may be a zoning problem rather than a contractual or a land right problem.

01:10:11,000	S20:
So related to that, may I just clarify the buffer zone question?

01:10:15,467	S5:
That is.

01:10:16,367	S13:
Absolutely.

01:10:17,067	S20:
Okay. So if you read the current wording in the bylaw in the buffer, the buffer zones as proposed, the 50 foot buffer zones, it talks about being able to cross through those as required with streets and sidewalks, um, and repairing and maintaining the existing streets and sidewalks, and also crossing through those as required with utilities. So I think that your concerns, to my mind, have been addressed already in the wording. So I'm looking at page. I'm looking at section 9.9.6.2. Page four and five. So part C and D of that section.

01:11:01,767	S9:
Yeah.

01:11:02,367	S22:
And the concern there is the first the the dependent clause are subject to planning Board approval. And that you know, that's just we'd rather not have that concern in terms of the entranceway etcetera. So that there would be are you talking about the plan and saying let's exempt certain portions of the, the perimeter from the buffer.

01:11:23,868	S20:
Under the, under the special permit process? Um, it talks about the buffers and it talks about what's, what's permitted to happen in those. So it acknowledges that, that you'll need to penetrate those buffers. But rather than delete the buffers in those areas, it's much more prudent to leave the buffer and have these clauses that say you may pass through them with different types of very specific needs roads infrastructure.

01:11:48,667	S11:
May be referring to a drawing that you submitted, not at the last meeting, but the previous one. Mark, I don't know if you still have that.

01:11:56,667	S20:
I was looking for it. I can't find it.

01:11:58,267	S11:
Yeah, I don't have a copy of it. Um, a submittal to two meetings ago from Myron on the, um, when he first we asked him to identify the areas of the individual, uh, districts on the campus.

01:12:15,467	S20:
A series of five maps, I believe.

01:12:17,300	S11:
Yeah, there were five packet.

01:12:19,100	S20:
Five colored maps.

01:12:20,267	S11:
So I think that's the one I and I, I think it's the properties above Bridge Street where we had a buffer. And I think you had taken the color out of the buffer zone.

01:12:31,467	S22:
Now because it's a 50 foot buffer.

01:12:33,367	S11:
50 foot.

01:12:33,868	S22:
Bus on it now. Right. So there's, there's an existing the seminary has the benefit of a 50 foot buffer that extends on to the.

01:12:40,767	S5:
On the private.

01:12:41,667	S11:
On private property. Yes they do.

01:12:43,868	S5:
Yeah.

01:12:44,167	S22:
And then the road just comes right out I.

01:12:45,667	S5:
Believe it's met.

01:12:46,367	S20:
About four. Is that right, Myron?

01:12:49,267	S22:
Yeah. If you keep going down, I think. Yeah. There you go.

01:12:52,267	S11:
Keep going.

01:12:53,100	S22:
That's it right there. So the white areas are buffer. And where there isn't white on the perimeter, that would be where we'd say let's exempt it from buffer.

01:13:02,667	S20:
So for example, if we take the heritage landscape the tennis court deletes the buffer there. And I think that's antithetical to what we're trying to do here. Um, again, if you needed to have a septic in that area, you could put it in that area. But rather than delete the buffer, the buffer still holds as a need. But you can you can have utilities pass through these areas.

01:13:25,367	S22:
Yeah. I think, you know, the ones that seem to me to be most, most reasonable for not having the buffer is the entranceway and the roadway up because it's all, you know, that's it in the ends anyway. But it's also, you know, it doesn't make sense really to have a buffer there. It would it would encompass the entire road and then the entrances and exits that we had, and then we carved out a portion of the along the wastewater treatment plant. We've planted about 20 new trees there now between us and the and Woodbury. But it seems like that those if you can bring that down a little mark, can you just to show. Um, yeah. So the entrance off of Woodbury.

01:14:10,367	S11:
Scroll down.

01:14:11,000	S20:
Scroll down. Yeah.

01:14:12,000	S5:
Yeah. Other way, way.

01:14:13,667	S22:
The other way. There we go. Yeah. So on the right side there, you see the MC, you see down there's the, the square, which is the wastewater treatment plant. And then the entrance in from Woodbury, a little bit lower. So it just seemed to us to make sense that that would not be in the buffer area just because of, uh, you know, components for the wastewater treatment plant, etc.. So those it was the entrances in that area that we thought particularly, it would help clarify things to not put those subject to the buffer regulations.

01:14:46,267	S20:
So again.

01:14:48,000	S5:
See?

01:14:48,601	S20:
See says existing. Um

01:14:54,000	S20:
let's see.

01:14:55,601	S1:
It's actually de.

01:14:56,968	S20:
De.

01:14:57,367	S5:
Yes.

01:14:57,767	S20:
So it talks about existing infrastructure can stay there.

01:15:00,767	S1:
It says installation maintenance repair and replacement of lighting wastewater treatment components and other utilities. Electric data is permitted in and across buffer areas, except as otherwise specifically limited in this bylaw. And as far as I can recall, it's not limited in any way. So you have the relief you're seeking right in here already.

01:15:24,467	S22:
Again, it it puts those areas subject to any buffer restrictions. And so while we might agree now as to whether something is meant to be excluded or not, you know, future developers and future, uh, future planning boards might take different position because it's clearly intended to be a section that regulates the buffer. And given that those the areas that are designated on the plan are going to service, you know, multiple owners, at least two to start with and perhaps three or more, that you can't prejudice one owner by requiring other things from another owner. So we thought, let's eliminate that concern. I'm not sure what the the real problem with it is just eliminate those entrances from the buffer area and the rest can stay. If that's if that's what.

01:16:13,167	S20:
The intention of the buffer creates a clarity that you're trying to, as much as possible, maintain a green buffer so that you're, you're you're separating yourself from the butters and the butters from yourself. And, um, it's really antithetical to remove that interest instead of leaving it there to show that you need to marry the interests you need to. If you if you upgrade the septic system. If you if you change a sidewalk, if you change a road, the need is still there to buffer. We don't want to eliminate that need. There needs to be a dialogue between the need for a buffer and the need for the utility. So I would say that the buffer should stay. And this wording, this wording holds and it serves the need.

01:17:00,267	S8:
And I'll add that a 50 foot buffer is actually pretty generous.

01:17:03,100	S5:
The buffer.

01:17:03,567	S20:
Very.

01:17:03,801	S5:
Generous. The bylaw.

01:17:05,200	S8:
Number 100. And it's much more restrictive. So I think you're lucky to get 50.

01:17:09,567	S23:
And it's really where you want a buffer right there.

01:17:11,868	S5:
That's right.

01:17:14,100	S22:
Yeah I mean you understand that the entire entrance roadway is in the buffer, right.

01:17:20,000	S20:
No, the the the first 50ft is in the buffer.

01:17:25,267	S22:
I think it's closer than that. I mean, it's just a there's just a bit of green space and then the, the stone wall see it there. If you extend that down you can see how it encompasses most of the roadway.

01:17:38,767	S20:
Yeah. Again, that to my point. The idea would be that means that the intent here, the original intent, the original agreement is, for example, everything to the left of that roadway is sensitive. And if you make an improvement, if you make a sidewalk, what that says to both parties, all parties, all future parties, all parties in this room is that if you want to make a sidewalk, a guard booth, a water line, a new utility that doesn't exist yet hasn't been conceived, it would go on the other side of the road, away from the Buttars. So it creates a clarity of intention here. So rather than eliminate it, I think that the wording is very clear what the mutual intents are here. We want to allow you to to make your improvements, but it prioritizes, in this particular case, the improvement on the right side of the road instead of on the left side of the road.

01:18:29,667	S22:
And then we'd be in front of the Conservation Commission because.

01:18:31,968	S5:
Yes, indeed.

01:18:32,467	S22:
Water on.

01:18:32,901	S5:
That side of the road.

01:18:33,601	S20:
That'd be the process. That would be the process.

01:18:36,100	S22:
We're trying to avoid that. Well, and it seems.

01:18:38,167	S5:
Like.

01:18:38,367	S20:
That's that's how bylaws, bylaws work. A lot of times they're in conflict. And you. And you balance them. They're constantly pushing against each other, and you find a creative solution that that marries the interests. That's just how bylaws work.

01:18:50,767	S22:
Well, I appreciate I think I've been heard, so I appreciate that. So I would close. We're going to we of course need to look really closely at the most recent revisions just to make sure we understand them all. But we very much appreciate the work. And if there are any questions, answer them otherwise. I, I yield my time, I appreciate it.

01:19:09,567	S14:
Okay.

01:19:10,868	S1:
At this point, I think recognizing that we're going to have further public hearings on November 4th. Um, I would really like to turn this meeting over to the planning board to to finish its discussion. So at this point, I would entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to November 4th.

01:19:32,367	S5:
We're going.

01:19:32,667	S8:
To continue.

01:19:33,300	S24:
Talking about it, though.

01:19:34,467	S5:
I think.

01:19:35,167	S14:
We're going to continue.

01:19:36,200	S1:
Talking about it more like.

01:19:37,667	S5:
It's a workshop. It's working.

01:19:38,968	S1:
Actually. And then.

01:19:40,567	S5:
Talking about.

01:19:41,567	S1:
What I will have to do is reopen the public hearing for the limited purpose of considering increasing the fees that are payable to the Planning Board and our regulations. But is anyone here to speak to either the fees or the regulations?

01:19:57,601	S1:
Speak now or forever hold you, please. Okay, so we can continue the hearing till November 4th at 7 p.m..

01:20:06,267	S23:
I need a second.

01:20:07,567	S8:
By the way, continuing.

01:20:08,767	S24:
The hearing under the discussion of it means we can't discuss it further. No, we can't discuss this project further.

01:20:16,467	S1:
We can, because we are going to respond to some of these comments. And and we have to finalize our work product. So as soon as we can finalize our work product and put it up on the that.

01:20:32,601	S11:
When you close the meeting that you can't talk.

01:20:34,467	S14:
You can't talk about.

01:20:35,868	S5:
Close.

01:20:36,601	S11:
To the next meeting because we have to do work before the next.

01:20:39,567	S14:
We have to. We have.

01:20:40,267	S3:
To talk. It has ended, and now it's time for us to do our job.

01:20:44,000	S24:
I just think.

01:20:44,667	S5:
It's.

01:20:45,567	S14:
No. It's okay.

01:20:47,567	S20:
You can ask Mark about the procedure.

01:20:49,300	S3:
That's the way it works.

01:20:50,667	S24:
I mean, Mark, my my experience has been the project gets discussed amongst the planning board as part of the public hearing. The public speaking aloud. Being allowed to speak during the public hearing is a clarification. But the public hearing itself. Once you close it, we can't discuss it.

01:21:10,801	S14:
We're not closing it.

01:21:13,367	S24:
You're just motion to close the public hearing.

01:21:15,701	S14:
No, we're continuing continuing it.

01:21:17,267	S24:
We're continuing to continue. But to continue it means we can no longer discuss it at this meeting.

01:21:22,801	S14:
No, I think we can.

01:21:24,300	S24:
I don't think we can.

01:21:25,567	S5:
Yeah, we.

01:21:26,100	S14:
Can. Because obviously, what if what if somebody may maybe.

01:21:29,801	S24:
Continuing in meeting. meaning. We're closing the discussion for this.

01:21:33,167	S3:
Just closing the.

01:21:34,267	S14:
Public discussion.

01:21:35,267	S5:
Continued.

01:21:35,901	S24:
I think it's I think.

01:21:36,968	S5:
It's.

01:21:37,667	S24:
It's a matter of whether or not you're letting the public speak for the purpose.

01:21:40,300	S14:
We want to hear what you think about these tables. So just. Shh. We we got work to do.

01:21:45,467	S24:
Okay, fine. That's fine.

01:21:46,767	S20:
So you might.

01:21:47,300	S5:
Ask.

01:21:47,901	S20:
Well, you might ask them to clear the room.

01:21:50,767	S5:
Well, I would.

01:21:51,667	S24:
It's not a private. It's not going to have an executive session or anything like that.

01:21:55,300	S5:
Yeah. No, it's all public.

01:21:56,567	S24:
It's. You can't close the public. You can't continue the hearing and still talk about it.

01:22:01,868	S3:
Do you want me to. You can't even continue this. Of course.

01:22:05,367	S5:
We keep talking about it.

01:22:06,567	S2:
And then.

01:22:06,868	S5:
Continue the public hearing.

01:22:07,968	S3:
And they can listen if they want.

01:22:09,701	S24:
I don't think you can continue it.

01:22:42,968	S14:
Now this is the important part.

01:22:45,767	S3:
I don't think we.

01:22:46,467	S23:
Ever got a second. On continuing.

01:22:48,767	S14:
Right.

01:22:49,000	S1:
We need a second.

01:22:52,267	S11:
I'll second.

01:22:53,667	S1:
Okay. Roll call. Vote. Um. So when I call your name, please indicate your assent to the continuance of the, um, uh, public hearing. So, Patton Wootton.

01:23:07,667	S24:
I agree we should consider discussing it, but I still think if we continue, we can no longer discuss it at this meeting.

01:23:12,467	S1:
I can get clarity on that. Right. Um. Uh, Jonathan.

01:23:16,567	S20:
Poor Jonathan, poor.

01:23:17,667	S5:
I.

01:23:18,100	S1:
Amel Dahlquist.

01:23:19,200	S11:
Amel Dahlquist, I.

01:23:20,267	S14:
Beth her.

01:23:22,767	S25:
Uh, I am trying to look it up right now to see what Pat's talking about, but. Yes.

01:23:28,367	S14:
Good morning. Good night.

01:23:29,501	S1:
I.

01:23:30,400	S14:
Yes. As a practical matter.

01:23:33,267	S1:
Pat.

01:23:33,767	S14:
We.

01:23:34,701	S1:
We never finalized our tables. I mean, we we.

01:23:38,767	S24:
I totally get it. I know we have to discuss more about the project, I just.

01:23:42,367	S5:
Yeah.

01:23:43,367	S13:
So.

01:23:43,801	S1:
So, uh.

01:23:45,167	S25:
I think what Pat is saying is he felt that we should continue the meeting at the end of the meeting, instead of in the middle of the meeting. Is that correct? Pat.

01:23:56,000	S24:
I think you have to continue the hearing after you're done discussing it.

01:24:01,701	S25:
Right. So that would have been at the end of the meeting. Not that we're not going to continue it. It was just an order, a process.

01:24:11,567	S2:
So yeah, I think what you're essentially doing is closing the public comment portion.

01:24:16,567	S5:
Of.

01:24:16,801	S14:
A.

01:24:17,000	S13:
Closed.

01:24:17,400	S14:
Comment.

01:24:17,868	S1:
Public comment portion of it, not the hearing per se. We've now continued it.

01:24:23,300	S11:
It's still a public meeting and.

01:24:24,767	S5:
It's still.

01:24:25,100	S11:
Up. They picking. Come back at the next meeting.

01:24:26,767	S14:
And they can.

01:24:27,501	S1:
And they can come back. I wanted to get it finalized so that we can have further discussion with the public at the next meeting, because I think some of the people that were here didn't have the benefit of final tables. So I may have made a procedural error by not continuing at the close, but nonetheless, no one was asked to leave. So, um,

01:24:55,167	S1:
we'll have another public hearing. So I don't think there's any prejudice. Would you agree with that, Darcy? No prejudice.

01:25:01,267	S23:
I would say there was no prejudice.

01:25:02,501	S14:
Because really.

01:25:03,467	S1:
We want to finish this up so that people can talk about what we've decided in these tables. So just a quick, uh, quick question. Does anyone have any issues with the text? Because if not, um, we will proceed to look at the tables, tables one, two, three, four and five.

01:25:26,467	S24:
The bylaw language.

01:25:27,868	S14:
Pardon me?

01:25:28,567	S24:
The language in the bylaw.

01:25:30,300	S5:
You're right. Yep.

01:25:32,901	S1:
The actual text of the bylaw as opposed to the contents.

01:25:35,601	S13:
Of the table.

01:25:51,667	S24:
I thought we'd close it out. Last meeting. I thought we closed that out. Last meeting.

01:25:57,267	S14:
Table one.

01:25:58,067	S5:
No, there were changes. Language.

01:26:00,167	S14:
Oh, yeah.

01:26:00,601	S5:
They were changes.

01:26:01,300	S14:
Just.

01:26:02,000	S1:
Just minimal changes. If you.

01:26:04,067	S13:
Look.

01:26:04,467	S1:
At pages two and three. That's where the changes are.

01:26:15,300	S1:
So I summarize them at the commencement, but they're really quite, um, Straightforward.

01:26:23,701	S5:
Yeah.

01:26:28,100	S13:
Okay. We're good. All right.

01:26:35,767	S1:
So I would ask if anybody had any issues with table one.

01:26:54,000	S24:
I think last time where we ended the discussion, if not wrong, was nuance of the words.

01:27:02,467	S1:
Reeves, we use we we've now tried to use repurposing in some instances. Okay. So it's reuse of the existing apartments.

01:27:13,000	S5:
They're just it's.

01:27:14,167	S11:
Not a use change.

01:27:15,100	S1:
It's not a use change. So we tried to use the word repurposing. If there was the potential for a change of use. So if you recall from the last meeting. Any repurposing of the buildings required a special permit.

01:27:32,667	S5:
Yep.

01:27:33,167	S1:
And that's in there now. And the seminary. And you please correct me if I'm wrong acceded to that. But they requested in exchange for that concession or the recognition that that process would be time consuming, that we permit commercial use in Pilgrim Hall and the gatehouse. And then if you all agree to that, that's great. And then the other thing that Amal and I talked about, the retreat house, and we thought there was no reason why we couldn't add a commercial use for the retreat house. In the event the seminary were to leave the campus and have no longer have any use for that building. There was no real provision for what would happen to it under those circumstances. So we thought that a commercial use of that building by Wright might be worthwhile, because it would have the potential for a commercial use.

01:28:41,000	S1:
And we might have to be a little more specific about that when we go to the table.

01:28:45,901	S26:
Of used.

01:28:47,300	S1:
Regulations. But that's the theory.

01:28:56,100	S1:
Any issues? No. Okay. Let's go to table two. Table two. Um.

01:29:06,801	S1:
This is the hard one.

01:29:11,067	S6:
Okay.

01:29:12,167	S11:
Here's an.

01:29:12,601	S5:
Echo.

01:29:13,801	S11:
Where's that echo?

01:29:14,400	S5:
Coming.

01:29:15,801	S2:
Someone on my zoom could mute folks.

01:29:20,367	S3:
Oh, yes. Oh, well.

01:29:24,701	S3:
There you go.

01:29:27,868	S3:
Yep.

01:29:28,300	S11:
Thank you.

01:29:30,267	S14:
Okay.

01:29:31,601	S1:
So, what we made clear here is that the existing buildings, uh, could repurpose to allow use to uses allowable in this table. And and those uses allowable in the table are residential uses. And we use the term residential a little bit loosely because the congregate care, the assisted living type facility, although maybe technically commercial or institutional, is is in substance of residential use.

01:30:09,167	S2:
So just to clarify, on the lower campus, if a developer found that the code issues were too much to renovate it and wanted to demo and rebuild. Would that be permitted by special permit or not permitted the multifamily?

01:30:24,501	S5:
Yeah.

01:30:26,100	S11:
My understanding is they could rebuild it, provided it's the same square footage.

01:30:30,701	S1:
The same footprint.

01:30:32,000	S11:
Same footprint.

01:30:33,300	S1:
My understanding, and this is from John Whitton, is that in an overlay district such as this one, which is eliminating the underlying zoning, which is by right, we have to have one by right use in this overlay district. And we always determined that that would be, um, the apartments. But because they're, uh, they're going to be deemed conforming. But I don't think that one could tear them down and put something up, put something else up. And if they tried to put something else up, I mean, there would be an uproar and we would have to amend the bylaw. But I mean, for example, if they tried to put some type of commercial development there.

01:31:21,167	S5:
Mhm.

01:31:22,701	S11:
Well we, you know.

01:31:24,067	S1:
And that wouldn't be the seminary that would be, you know, a purchaser from the owners of the apartments.

01:31:37,501	S24:
So the.

01:31:41,167	S24:
The repurposing of Pilgrim Hall in the gatehouse is allowed by. Right. But if you were to expand them beyond their footprint, up to the limits that were set forth 10% and 35%, that would be special permit requirement. Got it.

01:32:00,567	S1:
And we did add the retreat house to that. Uh, do you have a problem with that adding a permissible commercial use for the retreat house?

01:32:10,567	S5:
Oh that's Great.

01:32:13,367	S3:
Question.

01:32:15,000	S6:
Retreat is right now. Detox is residential.

01:32:18,767	S5:
Yeah. Go away.

01:32:20,567	S11:
I thought that's what you wanted. It could stay. Probably.

01:32:23,767	S27:
We wanted to stay as a residential home. That we can because our president will move there.

01:32:28,367	S1:
Okay, let's let's think.

01:32:29,767	S25:
How can you restate what Myron said? Because I can't. I couldn't quite hear him.

01:32:35,400	S24:
Yeah, we close the public hearing.

01:32:39,167	S5:
Oh, no, I said.

01:32:41,267	S25:
No, we didn't close it. We continued it.

01:32:43,400	S24:
He might as well let him talk.

01:32:44,467	S20:
But it also needs to be. It also needs to be heard in the recording. So I would suggest going to the mic, please.

01:32:50,167	S25:
Yes. Thank you.

01:32:52,400	S22:
Yeah. Marilyn Walters again for the cemetery. Just noting that the gatehouse is currently used as a residence, and we'd like that to be able to be continued. And and we had talked about retreat House. I think you indicated that might be residential as well. Right. So.

01:33:06,067	S14:
Right.

01:33:06,801	S22:
I don't know if that's in the table right now.

01:33:08,467	S5:
It's not okay. Yeah.

01:33:10,167	S22:
Pilgrim Hall, do you have a problem with residential pilgrim Hall?

01:33:13,267	S5:
No, no.

01:33:14,267	S22:
It's okay. But those would be permitted.

01:33:17,868	S5:
Okay. Yeah.

01:33:23,300	S3:
There's a way of.

01:33:25,100	S1:
Resolving.

01:33:25,667	S3:
That.

01:33:27,267	S11:
No, I got to.

01:33:27,767	S5:
Work on that to get.

01:33:30,100	S11:
The language in.

01:33:30,767	S5:
There.

01:33:41,968	S5:
I can work out more notes on that.

01:33:53,501	S20:
Is this an appropriate time to talk about some of the mechanisms that might allow the apartments to have some additional open space?

01:34:06,767	S20:
Myron, you were talking about maybe some easements or something like that, you know how you would structure that.

01:34:13,200	S1:
I think that that perhaps that should await.

01:34:16,367	S5:
Okay.

01:34:16,667	S1:
Next meeting.

01:34:18,868	S5:
Next.

01:34:19,267	S1:
I will I.

01:34:20,300	S14:
Will.

01:34:21,000	S1:
Try and paraphrase what he said. And that was that. If if there is to be additional open space for the apartments, that it could be provided either in the middle campus or the heritage landscape through some type of easement agreement, um, with the owners of the apartments.

01:34:43,300	S20:
Okay. Just a related.

01:34:45,767	S1:
Question. The natural zone.

01:34:47,100	S20:
A related question is if ran out of parking in any of those campus areas. I mean, in any of the apartment areas, what would be the solution for addressing.

01:34:59,567	S5:
Parking.

01:35:00,067	S20:
Lacking parking or dumpster space?

01:35:02,601	S1:
Site plan review.

01:35:05,567	S5:
Okay.

01:35:07,567	S20:
I'm just trying to understand it.

01:35:09,968	S1:
Well, I think that I think that's that's really, uh.

01:35:14,200	S11:
Well, that's why then rebuilding it completely as opposed to staying with the with the building as a as of. Right. Rebuilding it would have to be as a special permit then.

01:35:26,267	S5:
Right.

01:35:26,767	S1:
We should add that to.

01:35:28,000	S11:
That should be made clear.

01:35:29,868	S5:
Okay. Yeah.

01:35:31,667	S1:
Yes. Um.

01:35:33,767	S24:
I think it's also that's another reason to maintain the 40% open space requirement in that district, because it's too hard to tie it to something else.

01:35:45,567	S11:
Yeah.

01:35:45,868	S5:
No, it's.

01:35:46,267	S24:
Too hard to identify a location that would be impactful for that.

01:35:50,667	S5:
Yeah.

01:35:51,267	S11:
District and also the.

01:35:53,400	S5:
District.

01:35:53,767	S11:
Also part of that 40% could is the.

01:35:59,200	S11:
Common open space requirement of 500ft² per unit. So if you look at C and D that's got 40 units, that would require 20,000ft² quarter acre as common open space to be used by the tenants in that particular combination of apartments. So each apartment unit then would have to have a comparable common open space. Again, that could be part of the 40%. That's not in addition to but it's essentially a non paved yeah upland area.

01:36:36,167	S24:
Upland can include wetlands. It can include any existing restrictions can include.

01:36:41,100	S1:
Yeah these apartments have always been. And maybe this is a fundamental error on our part that's just bled through this whole process is they've always been kind of considered separate and apart. And they've been prioritized because the thought here is if 25% of the units are affordable, then all 209 units are eligible for inclusion in the subsidized housing index. And that is such an enormous benefit to the town that we haven't, um, we haven't really criticized the use of these A&R lots to accomplish that purpose.

01:37:26,567	S11:
Yeah, in a sense, we sort of went backwards because we we did the A and R is just drawing a circle around the, around the, the apartment buildings without considering actually the build out in terms of all the other requirements that are on top of that. And now we're trying to make it work. Where could that happen and how could we do it? So, you know, the idea would be to move the boundary of, of the A&R lots a little bit to accommodate this kind of 40% open space, and then that would lower the FA to make it more comfortable. I know that A couple of us are really concerned about just simply movement around the site. I know that you've been using it as dormitories, but this is going to be a, you know, permanent dwelling for people, not not students.

01:38:12,367	S1:
And the problem now is that that making those kinds of changes at this point in time. Yeah, jeopardizes the whole process.

01:38:23,000	S5:
Yeah.

01:38:23,167	S11:
I know.

01:38:23,601	S1:
We can't do.

01:38:24,200	S5:
It. Yeah.

01:38:25,100	S1:
We were to try and do it. We would never be able to make it.

01:38:29,601	S20:
That's why I wanted to just discuss it creatively, so that it doesn't jeopardize the speed at which we move forward or that, you know, details. But just to make sure that we have some together, some creative ideas around it. I, for myself, went over to look at A and B this evening and determined that it looks as though you could get some sidewalks in there, into the building and around the buildings without losing parking, and you'd only lose a little bit of open space and you wouldn't be in the wetlands, but it'd be tough. It's tight. It's so, so, so tight. But it looks like it can be done. I was concerned about safety, but it looks like the safety piece. You can eek by the dumpsters in a really odd place. Um, you know, it's right at the gateway to the to the apartments. So it's just so tight. And we're trying to help you manage to success here. We're not trying to obstruct.

01:39:21,100	S5:
Yeah.

01:39:23,000	S24:
Not to mention the inner lot, but the, the districts are drawn differently between what we're calling the different. Are we using whose maps are we're using their map.

01:39:34,968	S20:
They're in our maps.

01:39:35,968	S24:
We're using their map. So when you say in our maps, that's the district that those are the district maps. Okay.

01:39:40,567	S5:
Got it, got it, got it.

01:39:41,300	S11:
Well, we now have full maps. Um, what they provided us now are bearings and distances to define all of the district, uh, perimeters or boundaries. Yeah, yeah. So that's all that's new information.

01:39:54,367	S24:
We're adopting that.

01:39:55,467	S11:
We're adopting that because it's stamped. Yeah. And how we get that in the in the bylaw. I'm not sure it's up to Mark to figure that out. You know, what is the district map going to be? We made reference to our district map. But I think that was that was really for working purposes. Yeah. We need something official now. So if we take the maybe the drawing that you had up there that just identified the districts. Uh, and as long as that information was available and. Yeah, that one whether that would that doesn't define now the districts. But we have the data that does define it on a, on a bigger map. So I'm not sure how that's going to work out.

01:40:37,901	S1:
But all I can say is the bylaw has provisions that permit the planning board to waive the the amount of open space and to also waive the public space provisions. So we could do that for these apartments, but it would be much better to to go to your creative solutions of providing these apartment dwellers with more.

01:41:08,267	S20:
Some sort of safety valve, you know, and it could actually act in the the seminary's best interest. You know, if a developer starts doing due diligence and they realize there's no place to put the dumpster or they can't get the extra parking spaces they need, you know, you don't want to be jeopardizing your your process here. And I'm just trying to think creatively here. What can be done to create a little bit of a relief valve.

01:41:35,000	S11:
Right. Because if those buildings were to come down and be rebuilt, you could not build them back that way because it's a code violation.

01:41:42,567	S1:
Yeah, right. Well, see, I just made a note. You know, we have dwelling multifamily permitted by right in the lower campus. We have to change that Multi-family. Existing structures. Existing structures permitted by right. Multi-family. New construction. Special permit. You might not get a special permit.

01:42:04,968	S5:
Right, or.

01:42:05,467	S20:
A fraction of the number of units.

01:42:07,100	S5:
See a fraction. It would be a fraction.

01:42:08,801	S1:
Of the number of.

01:42:09,467	S20:
Units. You've also got. You know, you've got fresher bylaws in the, you know, Wetlands Protection Act and all sorts of things. That and not to mention the god. Um, so, uh, uh.

01:42:23,100	S5:
Yes.

01:42:23,467	S1:
With respect to the pod, my recollection is that Pat report said something about the wellhead being capped.

01:42:33,100	S11:
Yeah, he did say.

01:42:33,801	S1:
That somewhere.

01:42:35,000	S5:
And.

01:42:35,367	S1:
Yes, but look into that.

01:42:36,901	S20:
Yeah, we should check that. But it doesn't it doesn't erase that.

01:42:39,868	S5:
Doesn't erase the GPS.

01:42:41,100	S20:
But but it but it could.

01:42:42,567	S11:
That's in addition.

01:42:43,267	S5:
To.

01:42:43,467	S20:
Mitigate somehow.

01:42:44,601	S5:
Yeah. Yeah.

01:42:46,467	S1:
I thought he was intimating that it would take it out.

01:42:49,367	S5:
Of the.

01:42:49,968	S1:
Pod.

01:42:50,701	S5:
No no.

01:42:52,067	S11:
No, that's the soil condition I believe in and you know it. It's the well head that was. They overlapped completely in this whole area. In fact, even a apartment's, uh.

01:43:06,968	S5:
Enough.

01:43:07,968	S11:
That's in the pod. So the pod pretty much goes down the road, you know, just to the left of E and F comes down and goes across all of the buildings on the lower campus. Those buildings in the middle campus and E and F are all within the G pod area. So it's.

01:43:24,300	S5:
A surprise.

01:43:24,767	S1:
This is not a new issue. I mean, I remember raising this in January.

01:43:30,467	S1:
I mean, it's been here all along.

01:43:32,501	S5:
Yeah.

01:43:33,767	S1:
Um, okay. So we we have sorry.

01:43:36,067	S24:
This the planning board's right to the option for the planning board to not require the 40% open space. If it's a if it's a site plan review under a permitted use. No special permit required. Is the Planning Board able to release that requirement as part of the site plan review, or would that trigger a special permit.

01:43:59,367	S1:
Actually under site plan review? We would not be able to impose that.

01:44:05,167	S24:
Well, it's already a requirement in the bylaw.

01:44:07,100	S1:
But it is a requirement of the bylaw. Let me check.

01:44:09,767	S26:
Something.

01:44:11,467	S1:
Some of the requirements of this bylaw just pertained to new construction.

01:44:19,801	S1:
Yes. So the special requirements for new development or expansion of existing buildings requiring a special permit. So for site plan review we would not require, um, either of those two things. Actually, that's all new construction.

01:44:39,267	S1:
That whole provision 9.6. So maybe this is a tempest in a teapot, but nonetheless, it's still something that should be considered. I mean, if you have kids playing and people walking, it's a safety issue. So for safety purposes, it would be extremely useful to have.

01:45:03,567	S11:
Do you think town council can weigh in on that?

01:45:07,501	S1:
We could ask. Absolutely. But that's the way it's worded right now that we were focused. Those provisions were focused for new construction. So if the if the if the dormitories were ever torn down, then all those provisions that we just talked.

01:45:24,367	S5:
About, the.

01:45:24,901	S1:
Permit would apply. So anyhow, any um, I think that, uh, we want to add residential uses by right for Pilgrim Hall, the gatehouse and the retreat house. And so, uh, with respect to commercial, we have business professional office. And that's for Pilgrim Hall, the gatehouse and the retreat house only. And so then the question becomes, in my mind whether we want any other commercial uses available.

01:46:03,901	S1:
In those three buildings. That's question one. And then I just note that in the middle campus, in the upper campus, there, there are there is a row that says small scale retail cafe, restaurant or similar use serving occupants, employees or guests so that that's those are the kinds of amenities I was talking about that often exist in assisted living facilities, senior senior housing facilities, even. I mean, you could even see that in a 55 plus housing, um, Uh, development. Because I don't know if you all are familiar with the the condominiums. I think that might actually be a co-op. Great Hill in Topsfield. You're familiar with that? They have a big building that's available to residents for their parties and whatnot, and they have a swimming pool.

01:47:04,868	S24:
But that's not commercial, right? That's not considered commercial.

01:47:08,267	S1:
Uh, no, that wouldn't be considered commercial. But maybe they you know.

01:47:12,667	S24:
That's why I'm kind of confused about so like an assisted living or whatever type of facility goes on up there. Um.

01:47:24,567	S20:
That's considered a business use.

01:47:26,367	S24:
It's a business. It's not commercial, though.

01:47:29,767	S11:
I think it's in our I think in our bylaws.

01:47:32,200	S5:
Are.

01:47:32,367	S24:
Easy to provide as part of it, as part of that development is.

01:47:36,567	S1:
Yeah. But it's still you know, they're still selling stuff.

01:47:40,267	S24:
It just there's a little bit of ambiguity in the or the the language without having, you know. Of course, you can't define whatever type of retail small scale retail use might be, but there might be a little ambiguity in that one line.

01:47:58,000	S11:
Yeah. Mark, do you know if the current bylaw is put assisted living for seniors in commercial? I think it does. I think that what we're trying to match up with the language in the bylaws, if we can, and this has been changed so many.

01:48:12,567	S5:
Times, but it's.

01:48:17,400	S2:
There's long term care facilities under residential.

01:48:23,167	S11:
Now that would be different. I think it's.

01:48:24,667	S5:
A.

01:48:26,100	S11:
There's a separate assisted living.

01:48:30,267	S28:
Term care.

01:48:31,901	S11:
For seniors.

01:48:35,567	S11:
Might say for real.

01:48:36,367	S24:
I don't think what you're talking about as an example in Ipswich is commercial. That's in a residential zone.

01:48:43,868	S20:
You're talking about the residents at Riverbend?

01:48:45,901	S5:
That's right.

01:48:46,901	S24:
That's the example you've been given to people. And that's not commercial.

01:48:50,267	S5:
Right.

01:48:50,567	S20:
But it's.

01:48:51,000	S5:
But it is when the family pays.

01:48:53,100	S1:
The bill for the residents and residents of Willow Bend. It's pretty commercial.

01:48:59,300	S24:
Yeah, but I'm but I. But I guess what I'm telling you is that it resides in a residential.

01:49:04,100	S5:
Right? Yes, yes. Oh, yeah. It does.

01:49:05,901	S24:
Just why it's not part of a commercial.

01:49:07,567	S20:
Right. Which is why this is compatible with. Yeah. You know, this idea is compatible with the reuse of these buildings.

01:49:15,767	S24:
I totally agree, but I don't know if it's commercial.

01:49:19,000	S1:
Well, here's what our bylaw says. It's this is the definition of nursing home or assisted living for seniors or the infirm. A commercial use for the residential care of those who are infirm or elderly.

01:49:34,067	S5:
Mhm.

01:49:36,167	S11:
You know, that's the reason it was in there. But it's also considered it a business, I believe.

01:49:41,100	S1:
But, I mean, it's safer to put it in commercial than residential, in a sense. Yeah. And, you know, actually, I wonder what the actual nomenclature is for these types of facilities where they have independent living, assisted living in a nursing home.

01:49:58,000	S5:
There.

01:49:58,400	S1:
There they have different.

01:49:59,501	S11:
Levels. Well, the building code has them. They would be called institutional in a building code. Then they had the different degrees of infirmity. So they have ratings right down to prison, which is incarceration of the people in there. But uh, so there's a mobility issue with senior living or assisted living. So they have different levels. But I believe they're they're all I mean, that's the building code that calls it institutional. But so there is no consistency across.

01:50:25,601	S5:
The board.

01:50:26,000	S1:
Consistency. And then there is a dichotomy between a nursing home and then those residential care facilities because of that dreadful fire in New Bedford. Yeah. And there's a, there was a different code applicable to that facility and in part that that resulted in some in the deaths there.

01:50:47,767	S20:
And then memory care is a whole different thing where the doors are locked.

01:50:51,367	S5:
So those are locked.

01:50:52,367	S20:
Which is on the verge of incarceration.

01:50:54,267	S5:
Yeah.

01:50:56,567	S3:
Don't laugh.

01:50:57,300	S24:
I think I would eliminate the small scale retail cafe restaurant because if it's an amenity as part of, let's say, for Middle Campus, it's senior housing development and the senior housing development happens to have a little kiosk that people can buy Snickers bars from. Um, you know, that's part of that. I don't think we need to separately allowing now a Dunkin Donuts.

01:51:23,367	S11:
As an accessory use then put it in there as a.

01:51:27,801	S24:
I don't know if you have to call it that.

01:51:31,367	S5:
Would you.

01:51:38,868	S11:
Um, well, our accessory use is said that if you the note on the bottom in general not assume to be freestanding facilities, but secondary areas within a primary residential commercial establishment providing services as noted. So we could put it there. So if you wanted a Starbucks in a senior service, you could put one in there, I guess, right?

01:52:03,567	S20:
You know, the issue is if your worst fear is, is chains like a Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts, those can be like a little vest pocket service, like in, you know, shores. You know, it's still an accessory use. So you.

01:52:18,467	S5:
Can't outlaw.

01:52:19,367	S20:
You can't outlaw chains.

01:52:21,267	S5:
Yeah.

01:52:21,968	S20:
You can control what how big they are and where they are, but you can't outlaw them.

01:52:28,100	S11:
And how you use your square feet because they're really precious. It's not going to be for that kind of use.

01:52:34,601	S24:
Maybe not allowed. Instead of assumed.

01:52:39,901	S20:
What's not allowed.

01:52:41,501	S24:
In your notes? Accessory use in general are not assumed to be freestanding facilities, but secondary areas within the primary residential.

01:52:54,667	S5:
Nature center say.

01:52:55,901	S1:
Accessory uses must not be freestanding.

01:52:59,501	S5:
Right? Right.

01:53:00,367	S24:
Part of.

01:53:02,701	S20:
Yeah. And that's mirrored under commercial with small scale retail as part as serving occupants employees or guests. So it's subsidiary. It's accessory.

01:53:12,200	S5:
Use. Yeah.

01:53:13,000	S1:
What what we.

01:53:14,200	S5:
Might.

01:53:14,467	S20:
Again it doesn't it doesn't prevent that from being a Dunkin Donuts.

01:53:19,267	S11:
So yeah there was a structured parking component of accessory uses that.

01:53:24,667	S5:
Was.

01:53:25,467	S11:
Meant to serve in adjacent building. That's when we had we were looking at professional business office buildings.

01:53:34,667	S11:
On the upper campus primarily. But that's gone now. So that's that's not an accessory use. So that would have been a freestanding building. It could have been a freestanding.

01:53:47,000	S20:
And what.

01:53:47,467	S5:
What.

01:53:47,968	S20:
What's the problem with accessory. I mean, with the structured parking at this point.

01:53:51,801	S5:
Why why.

01:53:53,000	S11:
Is it taken.

01:53:53,567	S5:
Out. Yeah.

01:53:54,467	S11:
Um, there's nothing to warrant it right now.

01:53:58,067	S5:
Yeah, okay.

01:53:58,801	S11:
I.

01:53:59,200	S5:
Guess so.

01:53:59,801	S20:
Just trying to get clear on it.

01:54:02,000	S1:
Can we return to retail, cafe, restaurant or similar? Use serving occupants, employees or guests? I will vote for taking out small scale. And if the board agrees, moving it to accessory uses if warranted. Same keeping the special permit. But I would say retail, cafe, restaurant or similar use serving occupants, employees or guests of uh and then put less than 250ft². Pick a number. You know that that caps the size and prevents a Starbucks. Well, well, some Starbucks are tiny.

01:54:43,667	S11:
The only problem is what happens to Pilgrim Hall then. And the retreat if that.

01:54:50,100	S5:
Mhm.

01:54:51,968	S1:
Well, you know, I think what's going to have to happen because we need separate uses for Pilgrim Hall, the retreat house and the gatehouse. I mean they almost have to be listed separately.

01:55:06,167	S5:
Mhm.

01:55:09,467	S24:
So Marty you're talking about dropping that line, that row.

01:55:14,000	S11:
Moving that road down.

01:55:14,968	S5:
To.

01:55:15,567	S1:
Accessory.

01:55:16,267	S5:
Uses.

01:55:16,767	S24:
Makes sense.

01:55:17,767	S1:
That makes sense.

01:55:19,167	S5:
Is it?

01:55:20,467	S20:
Is it weird to have a special zone or use regulation for individual buildings or individual buildings rather than a zone. Is that.

01:55:30,667	S5:
Yeah.

01:55:31,367	S20:
That's that. Is that supportable? Is that.

01:55:33,667	S5:
Legal?

01:55:35,868	S11:
Um.

01:55:37,000	S20:
Are we tiptoeing into an odd area here?

01:55:40,100	S11:
It's a it's a matter of how do you limit it? You know.

01:55:42,767	S5:
It's a thing.

01:55:43,400	S2:
To talk to council about.

01:55:44,667	S5:
Yes.

01:55:45,300	S20:
Particularly anyway.

01:55:46,267	S5:
Particularly to question.

01:55:47,667	S11:
As opposed.

01:55:48,300	S5:
To.

01:55:48,467	S11:
All buildings.

01:55:49,400	S5:
Yeah.

01:55:50,801	S20:
It's I mean talk about spot zoning. It's like building zoning.

01:55:54,501	S5:
Yeah.

01:55:55,567	S11:
That's right.

01:55:56,267	S20:
It doesn't feel right.

01:55:59,100	S1:
It doesn't really feel wrong to me though.

01:56:01,567	S20:
But I think it's a it's a good question for town council.

01:56:04,667	S1:
Because the difference is one is an existing building. All new construction is residential but existing buildings.

01:56:11,467	S5:
Yeah.

01:56:11,667	S20:
But what you're talking about really narrowing in on on uses here for building.

01:56:20,100	S24:
It's a good point because it's the same. It's the same, you know, to the common earlier about the retreat house to have a permitted use in the heritage landscape on a residential. Now you're talking about the heritage landscape allowing a residential P but restricting it to the building that's there, I guess. Right. Is that how you. I, I was trying to figure out how we would do that in the chart.

01:56:46,667	S5:
And we were.

01:56:47,100	S11:
Wondering at one time whether that should be put on a lot, the retreat house and actually assigned to the middle campus.

01:56:54,267	S20:
You know, and all of these maybe we need to craft like an array of questions for town council so we don't trip into these things.

01:57:02,601	S11:
Yeah, we got a pretty short time, but one of the reasons we didn't do it was just the time element.

01:57:07,868	S5:
Yeah.

01:57:08,801	S1:
Okay.

01:57:09,367	S11:
So and who would define a lot and.

01:57:12,200	S1:
Well let's just the questions are one. Can you craft different uses for building.

01:57:18,400	S20:
Building by building without lighting.

01:57:23,367	S20:
Um.

01:57:26,267	S20:
And it might be that we want to show town council some examples of specifically what we're looking at doing. So it's not hypothetical. It's specific to this context.

01:57:38,467	S1:
Right. So just let me. So for for the retreat house, the gatehouse and pilgrim Hall. We're good with residential uses, right. We're good with business.

01:57:58,767	S1:
Professional office.

01:58:01,901	S3:
Right.

01:58:02,501	S5:
Mhm.

01:58:07,100	S20:
Another question is with Pilgrim. Do you want to allow accessory commercial retail cafe. Something like that.

01:58:15,567	S5:
Yeah.

01:58:16,100	S1:
With Pilgrim I would advocate for a cafe. Um.

01:58:21,868	S20:
I think it's a good idea. It's just whether it's legally. Is there a legal tripping point in there anywhere?

01:58:28,100	S5:
That's all.

01:58:28,801	S1:
Right.

01:58:29,367	S20:
Um, I don't think there's anybody in the room here that thinks it's a bad idea.

01:58:36,501	S1:
There's another category of, uh.

01:58:46,901	S29:
To check on the note.

01:58:47,767	S5:
Should we.

01:58:48,501	S11:
Add business professional office.

01:58:51,200	S5:
To. Yes.

01:58:52,100	S11:
Slash residential.

01:58:53,300	S5:
Then for. Yeah, because.

01:58:55,467	S11:
They.

01:58:55,901	S5:
Wanted that request.

01:58:57,267	S11:
Pilgrim Hall, gatehouse and retreat house only could accommodate business, professional, office.

01:59:02,267	S5:
Or.

01:59:02,901	S11:
Residential. It's under commercial, but.

01:59:11,467	S11:
Whether that would take care of that request.

01:59:15,801	S1:
There's another use. I think it's personal service.

01:59:19,200	S5:
No.

01:59:19,868	S20:
So maybe so we don't have to recycle through this again. Maybe we could get consensus on what the desired outcome is and then run it by town council.

01:59:30,267	S1:
Right. That's what I'm trying to get our uses. Um, yeah. It says personal service establishment, a facility providing personal services such as hair salon, barbershop, tanning beds, dry cleaning print shop, photography studio, personal fitness center, and the like, which I could see some of those uses in Pilgrim Hall.

01:59:55,567	S5:
Um.

01:59:56,801	S1:
So, you know cafe. Um, I don't think there's, uh. Well, retail would be, um, I guess you could say grocery. Small grocery.

02:00:12,367	S1:
Personal service. We can just. What do you think of these?

02:00:17,567	S25:
How about, like, a convenience store? Is at, like, a small grocery store.

02:00:20,767	S3:
Yeah.

02:00:25,601	S1:
We'll get you. I hate to use the word convenience, but.

02:00:28,367	S5:
You.

02:00:28,501	S20:
Could say in convenience.

02:00:29,567	S5:
Store nothing.

02:00:33,367	S1:
I was thinking like Meadowbrook.

02:00:35,000	S20:
When you stand behind somebody who's buying lottery tickets, that's an inconvenient store.

02:00:39,000	S30:
Yeah, right.

02:00:40,367	S20:
So, um, I mean, you might you might limit it to a size. And it also has to be it's not a freestanding structure. It's always within another structure.

02:00:55,267	S11:
Well, we do say or similar use, you know, and in other words, there'll be presumably a pre-application meeting kind of sought out what, you know, if there is a particular I'm wondering whether because we start listing all of them.

02:01:13,100	S1:
Um, it gets crazy.

02:01:14,467	S11:
It's crazy. And some you may not want there. Especially one that drives traffic. I would think that would.

02:01:21,267	S5:
Be a.

02:01:23,868	S1:
But we would need something in addition to business, professional office, residential right in Pilgrim Hall especially.

02:01:31,667	S5:
Right.

02:01:31,901	S24:
But if you. So what if you allowed a permitted you know by right use site plan or whatever it is. If the if it's residential as soon as you add an accessory that is special permit. So do you know do the repurposing and use it for whatever it is. But then.

02:01:52,100	S5:
All accessories.

02:01:53,000	S24:
And.

02:01:53,467	S5:
They're all it's.

02:01:54,300	S20:
All special permit.

02:01:55,167	S5:
Anyway. Yeah, yeah.

02:01:57,267	S24:
Well then that's.

02:01:58,000	S5:
Fine. Yeah. We're covered.

02:02:00,467	S24:
If you want to put it you know that that's a.

02:02:02,601	S5:
Yeah. But you need to be clear.

02:02:03,801	S20:
Clear that it's not freestanding, that it's subsidiary to the it's within the structure. That's right. And it's subsidiary to that use.

02:02:09,868	S5:
That's right.

02:02:10,601	S30:
So in other words, if they.

02:02:12,100	S1:
Wanted any type of commercial I mean more like, um, retail cafe restaurant in Pilgrim Hall. You'd have to either put some dorm rooms in there residential and have the accessory uses, or put some offices in there and have accessories.

02:02:31,167	S20:
And then the question is, you know, not only is it accessory, but do you want to limit its size?

02:02:36,467	S30:
Yes.

02:02:37,200	S1:
Its small scale is too ambiguous.

02:02:39,000	S20:
Yes. So it needs to be a square footage.

02:02:40,601	S24:
But it is limited.

02:02:41,667	S5:
But it is limited because.

02:02:43,000	S11:
Of the nature.

02:02:43,667	S5:
Of the.

02:02:43,868	S24:
Building. The expansion of the building is too.

02:02:45,801	S5:
It is.

02:02:46,167	S24:
I mean.

02:02:46,868	S20:
Yeah, but to your I mean.

02:02:47,968	S5:
You're.

02:02:49,367	S20:
You're using an example of like somebody wants the excuse of having a large retail and they put two token dorms in or two token art studios or something like that, you know, then then you, you're, you're going the wrong direction. I think having a square footage limit might make sense.

02:03:06,667	S30:
500ft².

02:03:08,100	S20:
That's a two car garage. Is that good enough?

02:03:10,767	S24:
So you're allowing a.

02:03:13,067	S30:
You can say two to car garage, that's so visual.

02:03:15,901	S5:
But what it is.

02:03:17,501	S24:
Is 35, 35% allowed expansion, which is fine.

02:03:21,000	S30:
Well, that's my special.

02:03:21,801	S1:
Permit, so that doesn't mean it has to happen.

02:03:24,200	S24:
Yeah that's right.

02:03:24,868	S30:
But because parking.

02:03:26,200	S1:
Is an issue.

02:03:26,767	S30:
With Pilgrim Hall.

02:03:28,367	S24:
Right?

02:03:29,000	S1:
So, you know, if you put 500ft², I mean, think of parking. I mean, it gets too big. There's no parking without.

02:03:37,000	S20:
But that's a basic visual. It's a two car garage, 500ft².

02:03:42,601	S28:
Mhm.

02:03:44,100	S20:
And that would limit like it can't be much of a food service business because, you know, half of a food service business is back of the house. So that means you'd have 250ft² to serve the people.

02:03:56,767	S30:
So what do you suggest?

02:03:58,467	S11:
I, I don't think.

02:03:59,567	S5:
You.

02:04:00,167	S11:
I mean, what limits it is a building size, frankly.

02:04:02,901	S5:
Yeah.

02:04:04,100	S11:
Um, even adding a 30.

02:04:05,667	S20:
I'm just playing devil's advocate.

02:04:06,767	S5:
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

02:04:09,968	S11:
So I.

02:04:10,300	S5:
Don't.

02:04:10,868	S11:
See a problem with that. again with with you know, if they get one occupant in there, that's fine. If they get four, that's fine.

02:04:18,267	S3:
Minimums for business sizes, you know, are there. No, no.

02:04:22,767	S5:
No.

02:04:23,667	S11:
That really.

02:04:24,167	S5:
Varies. But you know but.

02:04:27,067	S11:
But all the all.

02:04:28,000	S5:
About the Starbucks and Shaw's, you know.

02:04:31,000	S20:
Not much bigger than this table.

02:04:32,200	S5:
Yeah.

02:04:34,400	S11:
You know, a takeout coffee shop is pretty small, you know, kind of place.

02:04:38,801	S1:
A cafe.

02:04:40,267	S30:
You know.

02:04:40,567	S5:
Sit down place.

02:04:41,300	S30:
Yeah. Sitting under seating.

02:04:43,567	S31:
Right. This area here is 336ft².

02:04:49,067	S20:
To count tiles.

02:04:50,100	S5:
Yeah.

02:04:56,801	S24:
So 500 is pretty big.

02:04:58,067	S3:
That's pretty big for a small.

02:05:00,868	S5:
Yeah.

02:05:01,567	S30:
Well, if you want a little restaurant, you don't want to be so.

02:05:05,767	S20:
And I'm not saying it has to be limited in square footage, but it's just.

02:05:09,667	S5:
I'm.

02:05:09,801	S20:
Just trying to think of all the end arounds that a.

02:05:11,667	S5:
Developer might. I think we got to move on to.

02:05:14,000	S1:
But it just is better.

02:05:15,601	S20:
What would you say? What do you say?

02:05:17,200	S5:
I think.

02:05:17,467	S11:
We got to move.

02:05:18,000	S5:
On to.

02:05:18,601	S1:
Yes, but small scale is is. What does that mean?

02:05:23,400	S20:
I agree, it's a question.

02:05:25,067	S31:
Plus, as soon as you had a restaurant.

02:05:27,200	S24:
You're now you're dropping off and taking away food every day.

02:05:32,400	S31:
You got a grease trap. You got it. There's all this.

02:05:34,767	S3:
Liveries.

02:05:35,868	S31:
Elements of a.

02:05:38,000	S1:
Yeah. So you're right.

02:05:39,868	S3:
Yeah.

02:05:40,167	S31:
But all that stuff serving the world.

02:05:41,767	S5:
No, it could, but.

02:05:42,367	S11:
It could be just reconstituting food. They're warming it up.

02:05:46,400	S31:
Could be.

02:05:46,968	S11:
But ending up, you know.

02:05:48,267	S20:
But yeah that's why if you limit the square footage, you limit that process.

02:05:52,167	S5:
Yeah.

02:05:52,567	S20:
Because of a full back of the house is not.

02:05:55,200	S5:
It's not closet.

02:05:56,067	S20:
Size.

02:05:56,567	S5:
Yeah.

02:05:57,067	S20:
You can't put a hotline in a tiny space.

02:05:59,267	S5:
You know.

02:05:59,467	S31:
What? Yeah.

02:06:00,767	S11:
I don't know what those bays are in terms of size in Pilgrim, you know, between the columns. But, you know, they seem like reasonable small.

02:06:10,000	S5:
Scale.

02:06:11,000	S11:
Sizes. I've been in there only once.

02:06:15,167	S20:
So where do we want to land on this?

02:06:19,100	S11:
Why don't we mull it over and then redraft it?

02:06:22,100	S1:
I'm thinking maybe let's just leave it small scale and.

02:06:25,868	S5:
Let the special permit permit.

02:06:28,167	S20:
Process.

02:06:28,667	S5:
Take a.

02:06:29,100	S1:
Special permit. And at some point, 1000ft² is not small.

02:06:33,667	S5:
Right? Yeah.

02:06:34,567	S20:
And and there would be an outcry probably from.

02:06:37,601	S5:
Right.

02:06:38,501	S11:
We can't pinpoint it to.

02:06:39,901	S5:
Too carefully.

02:06:40,601	S11:
Here.

02:06:41,000	S5:
And it.

02:06:42,601	S11:
Without being having a specific thing in mind.

02:06:46,100	S5:
But we want to keep it sort of moving. Okay.

02:06:47,667	S1:
Okay. So so we have a general direction here. Let me just suggest that we get in touch with Robin Stein and put together as soon as possible a revised table two depending on what she has to say.

02:07:09,300	S1:
So the fundamental changes are are rebuilding the apartments. Well multi-family dwelling multi-family um new construction that special permit.

02:07:21,968	S5:
Mhm.

02:07:22,667	S1:
Um so that's, that's, that's big. And the other is to add the residential uses by right for Pilgrim Hall, the gatehouse and the retreat house. So those are the two big things. And then the legal question is whether you can actually I don't if you just leave accessory. If you just have accessory uses for those three buildings.

02:07:52,267	S20:
It may not be an.

02:07:53,000	S5:
Issue.

02:07:53,467	S1:
We don't we don't have the problem.

02:07:55,367	S5:
Right. It was just.

02:07:56,968	S20:
If you zone a building for a particular use, that's just.

02:08:00,267	S5:
Odd.

02:08:00,567	S1:
Right? So actually you said that's that solves the problem. We will move the small scale whatever.

02:08:08,601	S5:
Accessory.

02:08:09,367	S1:
Accessory, and that means they can go into those three buildings. And so maybe we don't have to contact town council.

02:08:19,767	S11:
And.

02:08:20,667	S5:
Have an opinion about that commercial.

02:08:22,667	S11:
Business professional.

02:08:25,367	S32:
Could you repeat the.

02:08:26,767	S2:
Solution, Mani?

02:08:28,667	S1:
Uh, instead of, uh, of trying to. Um, well, actually, no, that's wrong. I'm wrong because we are saying business professional office for those three buildings. That is zoning.

02:08:41,000	S5:
Yes. So we still have a question. We still have the questions.

02:08:43,200	S1:
Do we still have the question?

02:08:50,100	S11:
We could put on table one where it has expansion of existing apartment buildings. We could say expansion or rebuilding existing.

02:09:00,067	S5:
Or.

02:09:00,767	S11:
Rebuilding existing apartment buildings permitted by special permit?

02:09:07,200	S33:
Yeah, if you want to do that.

02:09:09,000	S5:
Yeah.

02:09:17,000	S5:
Okay.

02:09:18,767	S3:
All right.

02:09:23,167	S1:
Let's get building types. You know, if anybody has a problem with building types. Email me.

02:09:29,767	S5:
Yeah. Because we're making.

02:09:31,601	S11:
Slight changes here so we can make these on our own. Make the changes to coordinate that.

02:09:35,767	S5:
Yeah.

02:09:36,868	S3:
Table four.

02:09:37,701	S1:
Table four.

02:09:39,701	S11:
Four and five.

02:09:41,400	S1:
Should we do five first?

02:09:42,801	S5:
Yeah.

02:09:43,200	S1:
Let's do five.

02:09:43,968	S24:
First I have a quick question on the building.

02:09:46,801	S5:
Types real quick.

02:09:47,601	S4:
And I'm not sure it's applicable. Maybe let's talk about it earlier on. Is there any was there any consideration or discussion around architectural compatibility. Not necessarily form based code but something like that that on the commercial side can keep things.

02:10:00,767	S1:
Not on the commercial side. I mean, it would be fabulous if we could do design guidelines for any residential development, but this planning board doesn't have the. I hate to use this word. Jim and Marjorie hate this word. Um, bandwidth to do.

02:10:16,968	S3:
Design.

02:10:17,567	S1:
Guidelines at this point in time. I mean, it would be wonderful if we could outlaw.

02:10:23,667	S4:
Adopt one of the ones we already.

02:10:24,767	S5:
Have. What's that?

02:10:25,701	S4:
We could just adopt one of the ones we already have.

02:10:28,100	S11:
Um, I don't think they would cover these.

02:10:30,067	S5:
Okay. Yeah.

02:10:30,901	S24:
Let's do it afterwards.

02:10:32,567	S5:
Yeah.

02:10:33,667	S1:
You know, it's something we talked about. Yeah. For the town center. And it would be nice to have them applicable here, because one thing I know I'm really opposed to is that snow. What is.

02:10:47,267	S5:
It? Snow. Knowing where the garage needs. The garage is furthest forward.

02:10:51,968	S11:
That that could be in the code. The garage has to be behind the front facade.

02:10:55,467	S3:
Yeah, it can be.

02:10:56,367	S11:
Yeah, that should be in a code.

02:10:57,667	S5:
Yeah. And that. Yeah.

02:11:01,901	S1:
So wherever that.

02:11:03,801	S3:
Goes.

02:11:04,267	S5:
Wherever that goes.

02:11:05,100	S1:
So what is the. You can give me the lamp.

02:11:07,000	S5:
I'll give it to you.

02:11:07,801	S1:
But it's just for anybody's edification. It's where the. The garage is the most prominent feature.

02:11:17,667	S20:
Uh, it's the most forward mass in the house.

02:11:20,467	S5:
Yeah. And it's.

02:11:21,400	S20:
And it's facing. Facing the street.

02:11:23,200	S1:
It's often enormous and dwarfs the, um. Uh.

02:11:29,200	S3:
Front door.

02:11:30,200	S1:
Okay.

02:11:30,501	S5:
So, Jeff.

02:11:31,000	S11:
You were probably talking about pitched roofs versus flat.

02:11:33,667	S5:
Roofs.

02:11:34,367	S11:
Primarily, you know, as the basic form. Any kind of distinction here? We're not getting into that, but.

02:11:40,667	S1:
But we have we have a pre-application conference and all that kind of stuff. And that's where.

02:11:47,000	S5:
That's.

02:11:47,200	S11:
Where the discussion will get.

02:11:48,200	S5:
Heavier. Okay.

02:11:49,667	S4:
Thank you.

02:11:51,067	S3:
All right.

02:11:52,767	S11:
Do you want to start five?

02:11:54,000	S1:
Yeah.

02:11:54,200	S3:
Let's do five.

02:11:55,200	S5:
Okay.

02:11:55,501	S1:
This is if we have five.

02:11:57,000	S5:
This was added.

02:11:58,367	S1:
Flows from five.

02:12:00,367	S11:
This was added as primarily as a in an. Overall, where do we want to land in as all of this because the table four has got a lot of detail, I can explain each building footprint and area, how it arrived there, but this is the one that to me was a way to summarize. I had to do this in order to be clear on what where we were going. At some point when I started doing the charts. So this one, um, uh, start with the lower campus, uh, district developable area. Again, this is kind of rewriting here, because the chart that I put together is not going to appear in the code. This.

02:12:43,968	S5:
Uh, proposed.

02:12:45,367	S11:
Body development options. That's not a code thing. That's a working document for us. So I just wanted to stipulate what the developable.

02:12:55,267	S5:
Developable.

02:12:56,000	S11:
Area is now this takes these were revised to now include the data that Marwin gave us that of 15% or more pitch on the slope on the property within each one of these districts. So that data came from them. So in fact, you know, we get 6.8 acres, eight eight acres in Elk one and that comes out to have given the buildings on their now an FA 0.34. That's a given. Now gross billing area is a given an open space requirement. So we're saying well okay this particular zone has those requirements. So are we saying now that we would want to continue that.

02:13:40,467	S5:
Um.

02:13:41,701	S11:
Otherwise we're writing a code that's not conforming, you know, to what's there already, which could be problematic to me. But but this is one now, would you build it the same way? I think the answer would be no, you wouldn't build it given those lots. So, um, so this essentially is accepting that as.

02:14:01,267	S5:
A, as.

02:14:01,667	S11:
A. What we're going to do going forward. And is that clear. We're accepting the lot that was defined for that for the LC. Wanted to we're saying you can reuse the buildings. We have the square footage. We have the lot size. And those are the far's 0.34 and 0.54 for those two districts. Those are all given. And the gross square footage is determined already based on those existing buildings. Uh, the only thing that is not determined where it's going is the 40% open space. Now, I did a quick analysis on each one of those lots, especially LC one, which has the four, uh, apartment.

02:14:41,100	S5:
Buildings.

02:14:42,501	S11:
Um, I, I analyzed all the square footages for the footprints, put them together as, and then essentially did a block that that is the defined land within that is the 6.88 acres. Drew that box, put in the existing square footage as footprints calculated. Then that how much now do we need for 40% open space of the 6.88 acres? Put that down and there was plenty of area left there to theoretically get the required.

02:15:17,367	S5:
Um.

02:15:18,200	S11:
So I, I've accounted for the buildings, the open space. The only thing missing was a common space, but the common could be shared in the open space. So it appears that it could work. But these were building footages. So the.

02:15:32,200	S5:
Rest.

02:15:32,767	S11:
The remaining part would be circulation and parking.

02:15:35,901	S5:
In that.

02:15:36,601	S1:
So we we just looked at the bylaw and um, because this is not new construction, that 40% open space doesn't apply.

02:15:48,667	S11:
I'm saying it probably does there.

02:15:50,767	S5:
But.

02:15:51,667	S11:
That was a quick calculation. Yeah, but it's not. It's not useful space. In other words, it would be residual space somewhere. It's not consolidated in one area. What we have to come up with is the the 500 times, you know, in the LC, one times the 100 units.

02:16:09,868	S5:
Yeah.

02:16:10,067	S1:
But that that's what I just said. Since it's not new construction, does it apply because.

02:16:17,567	S11:
Well, the thing is.

02:16:23,167	S11:
We have not gone through again. If we.

02:16:25,567	S5:
Go, if.

02:16:26,000	S11:
We just go through the graphic not trying to design the buildings, but just look at, well, what's being used on those properties for buildings, what's being used as.

02:16:35,868	S3:
This.

02:16:36,100	S11:
Is as open space.

02:16:37,567	S5:
Okay.

02:16:37,868	S3:
Go ahead.

02:16:39,167	S11:
And what's left over is traffic. It's parking. And it was a significant amount that was equal to the 40%. But it's not all in one area. It's not. In other words, it's crossed by roads. It has parking spaces in it. You know, it's kind of utility areas.

02:16:55,167	S5:
For.

02:16:56,667	S11:
Trash. Um, it is a good question. It has not been determined completely at that.

02:17:05,567	S5:
Uh.

02:17:06,300	S11:
I'm saying you can't get that 40% as open space in there that non paved but didn't run through the calculation exactly on parking square footage.

02:17:18,367	S5:
I can't I can't do that much again. What.

02:17:21,100	S24:
How many units are in that lower campus.

02:17:22,601	S5:
One again. 100 total. So that's about 45 40,000ft².

02:17:31,000	S11:
About an acre.

02:17:31,868	S5:
Yeah, yeah.

02:17:32,801	S11:
And that's a 12 acre for that.

02:17:35,100	S24:
For that many parking spaces.

02:17:37,000	S5:
Yeah.

02:17:38,701	S24:
Then you got roads and.

02:17:39,901	S5:
Then.

02:17:40,100	S11:
You have roads.

02:17:40,667	S24:
And I don't know if you get. That's pretty.

02:17:42,367	S5:
Dumpsters.

02:17:42,801	S20:
And.

02:17:43,000	S5:
Sidewalks. Dumpsters, sidewalks.

02:17:44,701	S11:
That's it's not.

02:17:46,667	S5:
Going.

02:17:46,868	S24:
To be creative to get.

02:17:47,667	S5:
There. Yes. Yeah.

02:17:50,767	S11:
The open space is there. But is it meaningful? I guess because of.

02:17:53,667	S5:
That, that's.

02:17:54,100	S4:
A.

02:17:54,167	S24:
Very intimate.

02:17:55,267	S5:
Is.

02:17:56,167	S24:
Able to be.

02:17:57,267	S5:
So that's the that's the.

02:17:58,767	S11:
Problem we have.

02:17:59,567	S5:
Now that.

02:18:00,567	S11:
The.

02:18:02,367	S5:
Do we.

02:18:02,667	S11:
Want to write it in as uh. Um, because I would say if you have to rebuild those and.

02:18:08,601	S5:
You.

02:18:08,767	S11:
Would build these in then, then the numbers.

02:18:10,868	S5:
Would.

02:18:11,467	S11:
Could be evaluated down the line. You'd get the drawings of the new the new project that would have all the information you're looking for on it. I mean, I don't know how I couldn't get the area for all the paving on that LC one now. I don't think that would be available.

02:18:27,100	S5:
But.

02:18:28,167	S11:
Um, but.

02:18:31,067	S5:
Um.

02:18:34,367	S11:
Theoretically could fit, but it would not be meaningful open space.

02:18:39,968	S20:
But I think that's just a fact for A and B because it's on an island. It's on an island of upland.

02:18:46,567	S5:
The marsh.

02:18:52,901	S20:
Unless what you did. I mean, you.

02:18:54,367	S5:
Could.

02:18:55,467	S20:
You.

02:18:55,667	S5:
Could.

02:18:56,467	S20:
Design a building around the open space. In other words, you let the tail wag the dog. You let the open space design the building, and you could create something interesting that way. But no developer is going to do that.

02:19:07,567	S5:
Yeah.

02:19:09,567	S11:
Whereas I thought you could actually put a, you know, open space above the parking. It would be an elevated building.

02:19:14,901	S20:
Again, no.

02:19:15,367	S5:
Developers with all that grass top. That is expensive. Yeah. Let's just skip that for a minute.

02:19:22,868	S20:
A and B is a puzzle.

02:19:24,067	S11:
A and B is a.

02:19:24,901	S5:
That's a puzzle.

02:19:25,868	S11:
LC one and.

02:19:26,667	S5:
Two.

02:19:27,167	S24:
Not to mention the fact the way that the parking is laid out for.

02:19:31,100	S5:
Yeah.

02:19:32,667	S4:
I don't know if anyone's going to walk.

02:19:35,367	S24:
In the winter that long to get to developer would reconfigure the parking to get it all closer to the building, but that doesn't.

02:19:42,367	S4:
Help.

02:19:42,501	S5:
Your open.

02:19:42,868	S20:
You're talking about E and F for A and B.

02:19:44,801	S5:
Um.

02:19:47,801	S20:
You know, if it's a hike along the. Yeah, there's a hike along the way.

02:19:53,200	S11:
Too.

02:19:53,701	S5:
Yeah.

02:19:54,200	S20:
A and B is crammed into the buildings.

02:19:56,100	S5:
Yeah. Yeah.

02:19:57,667	S11:
It's locked in with wetlands and.

02:19:59,267	S5:
Yep.

02:19:59,601	S20:
It's basically an island.

02:20:01,000	S5:
Yeah.

02:20:02,767	S24:
Well, you can't avoid that with the way the district is written.

02:20:05,901	S4:
Right.

02:20:07,267	S5:
Well, let's.

02:20:08,567	S11:
Try the middle camp to see if we get any. Make any.

02:20:10,567	S5:
Progress.

02:20:11,767	S11:
Again, the the first column is a given. Uh, so I want to talk about the f a r.

02:20:19,501	S5:
Um.

02:20:21,100	S11:
And we're going to get into this in more detail here because this, this was an FA range of 0.05 to 0.012, and.

02:20:30,501	S5:
The.

02:20:30,767	S11:
Two gross floor areas 43,090 3000, um, is the range for the middle campus. And that came about by looking at the, uh, the worst scenario, the middle. And the goal for each one of these is to wind up with 400,000ft², which is pretty much what it is now. Right now it's 397 plus thousand. So let's say 400,000ft² on the site. So, uh, that has that far total far of I think it's 0.17 or 0.18, whatever it is. But the 0.18 on the existing. So I said, well, okay, I'll just give you the logic behind this. We looked at we looked at Ipswich. I was looking for a precedent. What is a way to calculate this in Ipswich, as we talked about before, as three ways to do it. In every case they came up with the most. You could build on that because it didn't have really it doesn't have the extensive.

02:21:35,567	S5:
Uh.

02:21:36,367	S11:
Significant architecture that was at the bio labs, for example. But the three calculations all came up to just slightly below 200,000ft². Could be the maximum built on the entire site. Right now we're we're double that at the 400,000. So the question then was that given all the conversations we've had, given all of what we've heard from the Butters and whatever, and the town's still needing needing to get this by, get this approved, we said, well, let's start.

02:22:07,067	S5:
With.

02:22:07,868	S11:
Keeping keeping the 400,000 as a as a goal for each one of these conditions as a total. Then it becomes a matter of how are you going to distribute the square footage between the middle campus and then the upper campus? Uh, so this is where I went through the gymnastics and what I found at the two scenarios where if you were to have equal fares on the middle campus and the upper campus, that would then have. allow you then.

02:22:40,868	S5:
Um.

02:22:44,467	S11:
90, 93,000ft in the middle campus as a maximum. But that would be a point one too far. And the 43,000 would be the minimum, because the 43,000 is a 0.0 5FAR. And the only thing things happening in the middle campus is what's there now, the Pilgrim Hall, um, wastewater treatment. And I put the retreat house in there because it's that is the only way to put we don't have anything.

02:23:13,000	S5:
Else.

02:23:13,167	S11:
In the heritage. It would have been another column, but come out to the same thing. So, um, so those are really the extremes. And then the rest of the development would be on the top of the hill. So one is do we want to level it out with an FA to split the difference between equally same FA top of the hill and bottom of the hill or go to the extreme. Zero building more in the middle of campus and everything on top. And where in between do we want to lie on this? So this was not an attempt to kind of give you every possible scenario. But these were kind of the extremes and how, you know, how how does.

02:23:51,567	S5:
This.

02:23:52,467	S11:
Sort of feel in that. So the idea with this far, what I came up with was that actually the middle campus and the upper campus have to work together. So if you have a 0.05, you actually on the top of the campus are going to have a 0.16, 143,000 on top. And so they work against each other. When you raise the far on the middle that goes in, you know, then you got to lose something off the top. So it's really a sliding scale of how much square footage, how are you going to place it. You place it equally or or concentrate everything in one area. And what is that right. Distribution?

02:24:29,868	S24:
I think the way.

02:24:30,868	S4:
You've.

02:24:31,767	S24:
Outlined it is fantastic because it gives context and.

02:24:35,167	S4:
The algebra.

02:24:35,767	S24:
Is correct. The middle campus on this sheet that you give into it matches the square footage. If you're allowing the maximum of 10% expansion of the retreat house and 35% expansion of the program, you get to the 43,000ft². You get to the.05. My suggestion or preference would be not to have the ranges, but to only reflect the maximums and prioritize the development to the upper side of the campus. This is just my opinion and have the middle campus flourish ratio of 0.05, which matches the maximum allowable expansion of the current buildings, allowing for the open space required to support.

02:25:22,968	S5:
And.

02:25:23,100	S11:
Keeping the middle campus 0.05.

02:25:25,300	S5:
Keeping.

02:25:25,567	S24:
The middle campus. Point zero.

02:25:26,701	S5:
Guidelines on the upper.

02:25:28,300	S24:
Of 0.16. And that gives you the 400,000ft².

02:25:33,567	S20:
Can I offer a, um. Yeah, just a contrasting.

02:25:37,300	S5:
Yeah.

02:25:37,667	S20:
Yeah. Vantage point.

02:25:38,667	S5:
Okay.

02:25:39,167	S20:
So that'd be one way to do it. And it would keep everything up top. Um, what's kind of helpful to remember is back to steep slopes. When you put the full concentration on the top of the hill, you start to run into the steep slopes. It starts to spill off the sides of the hill. Um, so your, your parking, your um, roadways, your all those sort of things start to sort of spill down the hill. And even though you think you've concentrated it as far away from everything as possible, you've actually made it a little harder to do and more, um, space intensive because you're spilling onto the steep slopes. So if you let a little bit more come down to the middle campus, especially the flat areas, you actually can preserve the quality of the space a little better. So that's just a contrasting view. I'm not saying that's what the answer is. I'm just saying that's a contrasting view, because I think your your goal is to try to get it away from everything. The top of the hills is far away from everything that you're concerned about as possible.

02:26:46,100	S24:
I'll give you just we make reference to all that. But the the flat elements of the campus are left open and available for use. The one hilly element of it's not steep slopes, but it's the it's the one area with an elevation change. The building has been built into that.

02:27:05,601	S5:
Into the. Yeah.

02:27:06,367	S24:
And integrating it into the landscape. Yeah. And I think that's the opportunity you have on the upper campus to provide density but not making it. So like I know I'm not.

02:27:17,000	S5:
If you look at the upper.

02:27:17,801	S24:
I don't know if a developer would do that.

02:27:19,167	S5:
But it's.

02:27:20,000	S24:
Now my preference for that to happen.

02:27:21,567	S20:
Now I'll argue against against my point of view. I'm going to do my own point counterpoint here. Um, what's nice is that Mani added in the retaining wall piece of the um, by law. And so if you start to spill down the slope, you won't have fortresses of retaining walls because the bylaw discourages it. So it will be more sensitive. And yes, buildings are excellent retaining, they're better retaining than parking lots or roadways they retain. Great.

02:27:51,267	S5:
I just I.

02:27:51,701	S11:
Don't think we're going to build on.

02:27:53,267	S5:
Slopes.

02:27:54,100	S11:
What we have are two flat areas, the middle campus and the upper. The problem with concentrating the another reason on the upper is that they're maxed out in parking. Now, when they go through a parking count for their 167,000ft², with the exception of that one and a half acre piece, which I guess the town owns where the reservoirs are, it's parking lot, that entire top not landscaped.

02:28:18,501	S5:
But.

02:28:18,901	S20:
That will spill toward the edges.

02:28:20,501	S5:
Yeah. And that's.

02:28:21,801	S24:
The awesome opportunity you have in that landscape is to put the parking under the building and.

02:28:29,067	S5:
Structured.

02:28:29,400	S20:
Parking though, right?

02:28:30,501	S24:
But I don't know if that is the.

02:28:32,000	S5:
Intent.

02:28:32,267	S24:
Of.

02:28:32,467	S5:
The above. We have a.

02:28:33,467	S11:
Limitation of 35ft, so you're not going to start putting parking under it if that's going to push.

02:28:38,267	S5:
You.

02:28:38,501	S24:
If you're into the hill, you would absolutely.

02:28:40,367	S11:
Well into the hill. But that's only one part of the. Yeah, it's mostly on the top.

02:28:44,567	S5:
If it's.

02:28:44,868	S24:
Just. I guess my if you're looking I guess the feedback I'm giving is my preference would be to prioritize the development on top of the hill where it already is, where it already is.

02:28:55,367	S5:
By the way.

02:28:55,767	S11:
I agree that there should.

02:28:56,868	S5:
Be.

02:28:57,000	S11:
A higher.

02:28:57,467	S5:
460,000.

02:28:58,067	S4:
Square.

02:28:58,667	S24:
Foot of building up there already, and we're saying now we're wanting 100 and it's even less than what's up.

02:29:03,667	S4:
There.

02:29:04,067	S11:
Yeah, it's a different type of building.

02:29:06,267	S24:
It's a different type, but it's already less than what's already up there. And it's maintaining open what is already open. Yeah, I think that's my preference.

02:29:14,367	S11:
What would it also allows.

02:29:16,200	S24:
For.

02:29:16,701	S5:
A sort of.

02:29:18,467	S11:
You know, to your point. Um, there it was indicated.

02:29:21,868	S5:
That.

02:29:22,467	S11:
Gordon Conwell might want to split that top into two.

02:29:24,868	S5:
Pieces.

02:29:25,868	S11:
As, let's just say it's roughly equal. That means Care Hall is going to be on one piece. And that would say that would then say that when they would sell it, the library, the academic building, the chapel would go away for residential use because that's not one of the purposes allowed. So what they the idea was that somebody could actually work with the care hall. I don't know whether you can make money doing it, but say that could even be repurposed, perhaps to a, uh, an assisted living building if you were to take. There were a couple of wings that project out toward the south, toward the retreat house. You knock those off, that's where the slope is. You could actually you're now down from 75,000ft² to 50,000 in that building. You could then put at least a 25,000 square foot addition that is more usable on that building. So now you have a 75,000 square.

02:30:21,100	S5:
Foot.

02:30:21,767	S11:
Senior service housing Structure. There you have the other half of that campus on the top that's available for for building. So you've hit the 75,000, so you've got another 80.

02:30:36,400	S11:
What is it, 90, 90,000ft² left. Because you got to. You're already taken up on the lower campus with, you know, 200,000 plus square feet on the lower campus. So you could actually build out another 90,000 if you wanted to put it up on top. Now, that's a lot for half of that, that size up there. That would be the equivalent of all those buildings that are already now that the library, the roughly that equivalent, but spread out onto smaller buildings, distributed around the thought was to get a little bit a little bit more on the lower campus of that excess of building area. That's why it's not the 167 on 1000 on the top of the hill. It's down 143. So the last 20 or 30,000, whatever it is. Went to the middle campus. As to even out the the scenario there. Anyway, that was the idea not to. That was the scenario where, um.

02:31:41,100	S11:
That that was the plan one.

02:31:42,968	S5:
Where by.

02:31:44,701	S11:
Right would be the gatehouse. That's part of the upper campus. And then, uh.

02:31:51,767	S11:
So that.

02:31:52,667	S5:
That, that upper.

02:31:53,667	S24:
And the lower campus, one and two is fine. I think the middle campus and the upper campus is the only thing we whether or not to keep the range the way it is or to give the maximum was like I described or.

02:32:05,100	S3:
See.

02:32:05,300	S1:
I and I in my view, having the range that flexibility is actually a good thing because we don't know who's going to be first to the party. We just have no idea. And that places the risk on the seminary when it goes to sell.

02:32:26,367	S5:
Yeah.

02:32:26,567	S11:
They would have to make a decision.

02:32:27,801	S1:
They would have.

02:32:28,267	S5:
To make a decision.

02:32:29,267	S1:
Whether they wanted to use up all their FFR on the top of the hill, or whether they would say to a developer, well, you can do X, because we want to reserve some of that square footage for some future development on the middle campus. And that's their call. You know, it depends on their financial circumstances and any number of factors that we can't even think about now. We just don't know what the future holds. So it's it put it this way, whatever we do, probably in 4 or 5 years, someone will second guess us because that's just the nature of.

02:33:10,467	S5:
It.

02:33:10,868	S1:
How these things work. So I understand exactly what you're saying. But having the range permits the result you want, but doesn't preclude potentially really good projects. And it also permits

02:33:32,467	S1:
most of the development on the top of the campus and maybe some in the middle campus.

02:33:37,267	S3:
So.

02:33:38,367	S1:
You know, it's two sites. It's.

02:33:41,367	S20:
Would it be valuable to hear from the seminary on this question?

02:33:44,501	S3:
No, not.

02:33:45,167	S1:
At.

02:33:45,267	S3:
This point.

02:33:45,868	S5:
Okay.

02:33:46,701	S1:
Well, actually, I don't know.

02:33:48,801	S24:
I mean, if we.

02:33:49,367	S5:
Only question if.

02:33:50,300	S24:
We have another we have another meeting.

02:33:52,267	S3:
We have another.

02:33:52,801	S24:
Meeting. I think we've kind of moved in on.

02:33:55,400	S3:
Yeah, but.

02:33:56,100	S1:
We should make.

02:33:56,767	S3:
A decision.

02:33:58,167	S1:
We should make a decision tonight. And then the seminary and the public hearing can ask for reconsideration. That's how I look at it. We should pick a lane and then whatever lane we pick. I'm sure you'll have no trouble telling us we're wrong. Um.

02:34:16,267	S24:
She suggests.

02:34:19,267	S1:
But but that's. I think that we need to sort of finalize this so that after our next public hearing, we are just responding to public comment. So I think we should now try and decide as much as possible as soon as possible. So, you know.

02:34:40,100	S20:
Should we go around the room and then sort of take a straw poll.

02:34:42,567	S5:
Vote?

02:34:42,901	S3:
And I'm not.

02:34:43,567	S1:
I you know, I fully appreciate what Pat says. So if he prevails, I'm not going to tear my hair out. So let's go around the room. What do you think, Darcy?

02:34:55,300	S3:
Um, I, I, I like the, um, the flexibility that you were talking about, and, um, I think there's something to be said about, uh, using the middle campus so that we don't over build on the top.

02:35:17,868	S3:
I'm trying to think. What else?

02:35:21,400	S3:
Well, that's how I feel. I think that makes perfect sense.

02:35:27,267	S20:
Do you want me to go next?

02:35:28,701	S3:
Yeah.

02:35:28,901	S5:
Go ahead.

02:35:29,267	S20:
Okay, so I would promote flexibility, but favouring density, more density on the top of the hill. So create the flexibility. But wait. The top of the upper campus. Great. More greatly. So it's not that you can get 50 over 50, but it doesn't preclude doing things on the lower campus. But it keeps the middle campus, but it keeps the middle campus less dense. Do you want to.

02:35:53,501	S5:
Know a number?

02:35:54,400	S1:
The range for the middle campus is 0.05 to 0.12.

02:35:58,200	S5:
Right.

02:35:58,467	S20:
So you'd raise the 0.05.

02:36:03,667	S4:
And it's already weighted to the upper campus as it is right now. Zero 512 or 10.

02:36:10,400	S5:
Right.

02:36:10,667	S20:
But the 0.05 is pretty low.

02:36:12,367	S3:
Yes it.

02:36:12,767	S5:
Is.

02:36:13,300	S11:
20.05 takes the 10% in yes in account.

02:36:17,000	S5:
It's basically existing.

02:36:18,100	S11:
They're going to do that. You have to do the dormitory. So that 10% which is a lot is added to the middle campus.

02:36:25,000	S20:
So what I would do is I would raise just my opinion. But again I agree with Marnie. I, I wouldn't get lost on this.

02:36:31,801	S5:
You know, give us.

02:36:32,601	S1:
Give us the exact numbers. So right now it's 0.05.12. So you give us the numbers for the middle campus and then you adjust the upper campus because.

02:36:44,200	S5:
That's like.

02:36:45,267	S20:
4.07.

02:36:48,767	S5:
Let me just.

02:36:49,367	S3:
Point eight.

02:36:50,100	S5:
Points.

02:36:50,567	S11:
Can I just ask can we just look at this chart first. Because you got to understand what can be built in a middle campus.

02:36:56,901	S5:
I mean.

02:36:57,968	S11:
Can you bring this proposed up.

02:37:00,367	S5:
Of.

02:37:00,968	S11:
The proposed development options? Sorry, Marnie, but this kind of gives a perspective how how much in the middle campus, this kind of answers that question. Do you have.

02:37:10,300	S5:
This?

02:37:10,701	S20:
Yeah. So you'd want you'd want a meaningful cluster of buildings.

02:37:13,901	S5:
It's got to be like a mini, like a mini boulders.

02:37:16,167	S20:
Or something like.

02:37:16,868	S5:
That.

02:37:17,167	S11:
It's going to be viable.

02:37:18,367	S5:
Yeah.

02:37:18,667	S11:
So this is what I want to point out and plan. No, not that one. But it's the proposed development options.

02:37:28,100	S20:
It's the colored one, right?

02:37:29,501	S5:
Yeah. Great.

02:37:30,767	S11:
Okay.

02:37:31,100	S5:
The top row.

02:37:32,267	S11:
Is existing conditions. We're not going to talk about that. But that's available to look at. Plan one I want to point out very quickly the reuse of the buildings includes the 10% for the elevators and so forth for both campuses LC one and two. Now the middle. If you look at plan one, that combination of 43,000ft² is actually takes into account the retreat house, Pilgrim Hall. So those are built into that, into that number, because their existing buildings plus the 10% and the 35%. So that leaves. And then what I did. The only other option we can have down there is townhouses and senior housing. It's too small an area to get a 75,000 square foot, because that's going to drive that number up and really lower the top. So the senior service has to go on the top because that's going to be the largest building at 75,000. But what you could get in there is actually the low density scenario we did in the illustrative plans, which is the boulders model. Boulders has 24 units in there of this size, 2600ft², roughly 24,500.

02:38:46,400	S11:
So we could actually we've demonstrated you can get 20 of those boulder type in there with the same spatial relationship. And that'll give you 50,000ft² that that would sit nicely in that flat part of the campus. I think if you can, if you can visualize the image of the boulders and then then you look at the top. So you're going to reduce the top essentially by 50,000ft². So you have if you go up to the upper campus, the the last three columns on the right. Other than the totals, you have the gatehouse, 2226. That will be a business occupancy. But then you have townhouses, senior housing. So you have 90,000ft to play with there to ultimately bring it to 400,000. On the right under total. Because again, that's the end game. 400,000ft². So you have 90,000ft² to work with up there. That gives you a 0.10, uh, build out. So what's swaying the scale a little bit is the reuse of the existing buildings. Now, Gordon Conwell can decide not to put on the 35%

02:39:54,400	S11:
addition to Pilgrim and convert it to townhouses if they wish. So they could raise that one instead of expanding Pilgrim. So that's another way to gain a little bit more for them. and that that part of the campus. So what you'd have then is, is a.10, uh, f a r on the top of the hill. So that, um, I'm just trying to look for the, the acreage. If you look at the, the top of the hill is actually 891,000ft².

02:40:25,567	S11:
If you look at the, the number under.

02:40:28,100	S5:
The.

02:40:29,100	S11:
Where it says.

02:40:29,567	S5:
Upper.

02:40:30,367	S11:
That's actually the square footage of the.

02:40:32,167	S5:
District.

02:40:32,968	S11:
The middle is smaller. It's 822,000 roughly square feet. So the upper is slightly larger, middle is slightly smaller in the in the final size of it. But given but.

02:40:47,267	S5:
What.

02:40:48,000	S11:
Kind of sways it is the the pilgrim hall and the the retreat house. That's something it doesn't happen up on the top. But so anyway that what would be required there is you'd have to take down all of the buildings on the top of the hill if you're going to develop that. And but this is where I'm saying you could actually put them down to plan two, which if you want to.

02:41:11,100	S5:
Go.

02:41:11,567	S11:
Scroll down a little bit, Mark go up. I'm sorry.

02:41:18,400	S11:
But before I finish the plan one that blue line right under that row, those rows there gives the net change. So if you look at LC one there's a net change of a positive 200ft² LC two there's a plus 10,000ft²

02:41:34,200	S11:
a plus 6800 under the the build outs for Pilgrim Hall and Retreat and 50,000 for the housing. Then you're going to get going to get 90, 90,000 on top of the hill. And you're actually losing 164 out of the total, 166, 164,000. You take that off. So it's a net of 1600 square feet, 1672 so it's roughly the same Aim across the board. It's redistributing where the square footage is located. Now just look in plan two.

02:42:11,000	S5:
Uh, the.

02:42:11,801	S11:
Three left hand columns are identical to what's right above it, but now there's nothing else built on the lower campus. That's zero. So that gives a 0.05 as the FA. Everything's on top now. So we're going to put in everything else. So the gatehouse 2226. And then the last two columns on the right 65,004. And what is that. How townhouses up there and then 75 for uh, senior residential care. Uh, and this is where that 75 could actually they could actually repurpose care there or build a new one. But 75,000ft² senior serviced housing would be up there. So you have that combination of 2000 plus 65 plus 75,000 To give you a 0.18 because again the goal is 400,000. And that's 0.16. So the upper campus has gone from 0.10 to 0.16. We're pretty much everything now except the givens are down on the lower and middle campus. The givens are really kind of substantial there in terms of square footage, so they kind of sway things.

02:43:26,501	S5:
But my.

02:43:29,701	S11:
My.

02:43:29,968	S5:
Particular.

02:43:30,667	S11:
Take is.

02:43:31,267	S5:
That if.

02:43:32,767	S11:
You're coming up with another use, instead of being zero on like plan two zero in the middle campus, you have to do a big enough project to make it viable. Otherwise, I mean, you can put a couple of houses down there.

02:43:43,767	S5:
But.

02:43:44,767	S11:
That's not a lot of square footage, and that's just who's going to take on that as a developer project. But if you do, if you're working with, um, you know, ten acres there, you could do a boulders kind of complex there. I think that's on seven and a half acres in Wynnum and has good open space around the units. So it would be.

02:44:05,400	S5:
I.

02:44:05,501	S11:
Think it would fit. That's just an example. Or you can maybe get a few more. So it has to be big enough to be worthwhile as a developer project to be purchased by a developer, and yet not so big that it's going to take something more out out of the top. So the benefit I've planned to is that you could actually reuse that building if you wanted to care Hall or build another one. You know, those two options on the top of the hill, and you still have 65,000 left to build for residential. So that was the argument there. The problem now is you get parking on the top substantial. So if.

02:44:40,467	S5:
You put.

02:44:41,267	S11:
You put some of if you still wanted to if you got an offer for a senior service housing, let's just say they wanted they found a buyer for.

02:44:47,467	S5:
That.

02:44:48,167	S11:
And they decided, yes, we.

02:44:49,267	S5:
Want to go.

02:44:49,701	S11:
Forward with that first. And then they decide, well, now we have to balance between a 65,000 for the other parcel on the It's up and zero on the bottom. Can we pull off? Can you break it in half? Say, put 30,000 down the bottom of 30,000 on the top in addition to the 75. That would be the way to break it. But it has to be a meaningful change. You know, when the the fa. So what I would probably do is, you know, you're going to need because you can.

02:45:19,167	S5:
Build.

02:45:20,601	S11:
Two boulder like projects and you know, at.

02:45:22,567	S5:
50.

02:45:24,367	S11:
Close to 50,000 and still be in the 400 range. Or do I would I think townhouses are better on the top of the hill, but because I think they're more, um, more suited for that environment, the boulders, more spread out, more rural looking would be better on the bottom.

02:45:41,267	S5:
But I.

02:45:42,767	S11:
Think the.

02:45:46,167	S5:
Uh.

02:45:49,868	S11:
It's a question of which is going to be more desirable, the 65,000 additional on the top of the hill or the 50,000 on the lower part of the hill. Those are sort of not far apart in terms of numbers. You can split the difference, but isn't going to change the FA very much. So that's kind of the decision. Um, and what Marnie was saying is really coming down to do you want to assign a particular FIR to the middle of somewhere like, uh, say.13 or something like that, and then in 0.09 on the top or something, something in between. But the idea is you always have to keep your eye on the 400,000. So if you agree to sell a parcel on that, you have to subtract that from what's left and figure out how is that? I'm not sure Gordon Connell was going to run through that kind of maybe they would analysis on it, but to come up with the right amount. Otherwise they may find if they put everything on top, they have nothing else to build that they can build in the middle campus. So we're trying to come up with something.

02:46:50,100	S5:
That.

02:46:51,300	S11:
It works for them, But also is right for the town in terms.

02:46:55,501	S5:
Of.

02:46:56,767	S11:
How much is too much, which has been our problem all along, you know, how do we do this in a way that you can quantify it and defend it? I guess from some standpoint, what I've heard is people would prefer certainly the Buttars were less on the lower campus and there was a reason for that. And but in terms of traffic count, it's because it's mostly residential. It's going to be the same. So traffic probably won't come into play off campus. So it's really I guess.

02:47:29,100	S5:
Which.

02:47:30,200	S11:
Which would be the best option maybe for Gordon Conwell and which would be the best for the town, you know, to have some development. I think my sense is you can build more in the, in the middle campus, and I would opt for that as opposed to in and do less on top. There's a little more flexibility on top to would do a different type of residential. Uh, kind of multi living, kind of, uh, townhouses. That would be, could be pretty neat on top of the hill. And you could consume the entire top of that with, with residential. But you're still limited to the 65 plus 75,000.

02:48:14,100	S11:
I don't know if that makes any sense. 140 144,000. Something like that. So. Um.

02:48:21,601	S24:
So who's next? Beth. That line or.

02:48:25,267	S11:
She's asleep.

02:48:26,467	S25:
I'm. I'm here. Stop it. Um, I think I vote for the most flexibility because we don't know if the seminary is planning on staying long term. If we try to push more of the development up the hill. I just think he gives the seminary more options, um, for development if we leave it and give them that flexibility, because if they end up wanting to stay where they are. Um, I just yeah, that's my sense. Give them the most flexibility.

02:49:02,701	S11:
Okay.

02:49:07,000	S4:
Yeah. I, I tend to lean towards advocating for what's there now although the range and let them sort of, for lack of a term, choose their own poison where they want to put their development heavy. Even with that being said, though, the middle campus at the greatest density is 0.10. I'm sorry, 0.12. So it's still less density than middle campus, right? Than it is upper campus. I wouldn't want to see the upper campus as Jonathan, you know, spilling over. So but at the same time, you know, it's the same amount of square footage so that you're allowing them to decide where they want to put it. Right. If I understand it correctly.

02:49:43,868	S11:
Yeah, the upper campus is larger, so it's going to have Yeah. So there'd be more square footage for the same fair number? Yeah.

02:49:53,667	S1:
Matt, did you have any thoughts on this?

02:49:57,067	S34:
Yeah, I think, uh, I'm. I'm for flexibility. To the extent we can weight it slightly towards the top, I would that would be my preference, but flexibility would be the, the main thing.

02:50:11,300	S4:
So I think most of us are saying it's flexibility. But do we want to change those ratios a little bit. Like Jonathan was saying the point I think.

02:50:18,567	S20:
I don't know the right number. Right question is what's the right number. But but to instead of having it like you can put it equal. Equal. Can we, can we favor the top but still maintain something meaningful at the bottom? You know, to Abel's point, it can't be, you know, a fragment of a, of a development that nobody's interested in and has no benefit to anybody and has no energy to it.

02:50:45,000	S11:
And you're saying.

02:50:45,601	S20:
You don't do cluster housing with three houses. You do it with eight.

02:50:50,067	S11:
And you're actually taking it off what you could build on top, right.

02:50:53,868	S20:
So what the question is. I don't know the number, you know, but the point is you'd figure out the the lowest meaningful number that would give you like, say eight units or something like that, ten units.

02:51:07,968	S24:
If you.

02:51:08,367	S20:
Use it down below.

02:51:09,267	S24:
If you use the math that Amel has in table four.

02:51:14,167	S34:
Yeah.

02:51:15,267	S24:
And you say 93,000ft² of development is allowed in the middle campus, that gives you 12. If you take a look at townhomes,

02:51:27,267	S24:
that's 40, 44.

02:51:28,767	S11:
43 is taken 43,000. That leaves you 50 last for the 93,000.

02:51:33,968	S24:
I'm saying you eliminate the buildings that are there. You have 93,000ft² available by special permit.

02:51:40,467	S11:
So this is the allowable build out in that whole district.

02:51:43,667	S4:
That's right.

02:51:44,567	S24:
So you could get 12 units at 7500ft² per unit of building footprint. And at 3 to 6 dwelling units per unit, you're allowing 37 to 74 dwelling units in the middle campus. If you were to remove Pilgrim Hall and.

02:52:07,567	S24:
Move it.

02:52:09,200	S11:
If you were to move it.

02:52:10,267	S24:
You remove it. If you remove the buildings under there and it comes in, I want to smash this place down. You want to build out the middle campus to the greatest extent possible, given the given. The pilgrim available.

02:52:21,767	S6:
On.

02:52:21,968	S11:
Pilgrim Hall takes up about half that number. The other half is the Retreat building. They're roughly the same 14,015 thousand plus.

02:52:28,767	S24:
But you don't have to keep those buildings.

02:52:30,801	S11:
Sorry.

02:52:31,367	S24:
You don't have to keep them.

02:52:33,167	S11:
That's true.

02:52:33,868	S24:
So you could move them and build 12.5 townhomes.

02:52:38,701	S20:
But you're trying to promote you're trying to promote the reuse of those buildings so you don't want to set up the numbers so that it promotes removing the buildings.

02:52:46,767	S24:
But this I think I think my argument is that by putting the far up where it is, you maybe and then you might end up having I guess what's going to end up happening is the possibly what could end up happening is the next logical thing to sell is the middle campus. It's the easiest to develop. It's the cheapest. It's you could jam however many townhomes you might want in there. Seminary stays at the top of hill. They make the money that they need. They've closed their doors. There's limited development available on top of the hill and all these buildings that no one can use. And so they're going to sit there and do nothing.

02:53:23,467	S11:
They can sell the other half up there, because they're going to divide it roughly in half right through the reservoir and build residential, build residential.

02:53:31,167	S24:
And one portion of it, though.

02:53:33,067	S11:
Half of it. So but they would use that all residential. And that's the, you know, the, the scenario they could build 65,000ft² of townhouses or or, you know, that's 26 units of, I guess, 2500ft² each or something like that.

02:53:51,767	S24:
You could build the same on the top. You would be able. So what you're doing then doing it, you could you could eliminate all the buildings on top of the hill. But I don't know if the math works that way. For a developer to eliminate 166,000ft² of building to create one.

02:54:06,601	S11:
I'm saying they divide it in half. Keep their whole because they have to. They have to operate out of it. But they could have the northern part while they're still occupying for the next 20 years, demolish the buildings and put up sell that as a residential development. So now they have their existing facility, care hall, and they have residential on the top because they divided it in half. They could do that, which makes sense. Then that would kind of set the scenario then. Then they could choose to either take down Kerr Hall or a new developer split what's remaining there between the 75,000 at Colonel and the lower and the middle campus? They could then divide that up evenly once the parcel line. That's an option they have. I think it makes sense. Frankly, to do that, I don't know how much the library is in.

02:55:00,767	S11:
They can't replicate it. You know, I don't know how much they use those buildings at this stage. I mean, the academic center, the chapel. I don't know how that plays into their operation right now, whether they really those are vital that they wouldn't want to.

02:55:13,400	S4:
Risk the overdevelopment of the middle campus, right?

02:55:15,701	S24:
This is the next it's the next parcel that's going to get sold. It's the next area that's going to get sold for development. So I think if you're very careful of what we apply for.

02:55:23,100	S11:
I'm saying roughly the first thing, if it's a mill campus, they have 50,000ft² available. If it's the upper campus, they have 65,000, because that leaves the only building left, the 75,000, which is Kerr Hall. So they have those two options to work with as a first sale, so it could be done on the middle campus at 50,060.

02:55:42,701	S24:
I mean, they keep the buildings out of their.

02:55:44,667	S11:
Big one.

02:55:45,267	S24:
Assuming that they keep the buildings that are there.

02:55:47,767	S11:
Yes. Correct. Yeah.

02:55:49,167	S24:
Which is an assumption.

02:55:52,367	S34:
Yeah.

02:55:53,267	S11:
Yeah. They're expensive to rehab. That's for sure.

02:55:55,968	S24:
Yeah. The developer is not going.

02:55:57,467	S11:
To use that. They're not going to want to. But you know they do have value.

02:56:02,267	S24:
We're not incentivizing. I think what we want in the end by allowing an FA that's up as high as it is for the middle campus is my concern. And maybe something we should.

02:56:14,767	S4:
So yeah, I think.

02:56:16,567	S11:
But even if you enlarge like one and like two to make the space available, even if you were to encroach on the middle campus with both of those to allow for more space to use those buildings, then you're going to lower the the middle campus square footage. So that far is going to go up, you know, when you shrink it.

02:56:37,167	S24:
Because you're being.

02:56:37,868	S29:
Shrunk.

02:56:38,167	S11:
Because you want 50,000.

02:56:40,767	S24:
Roughly shrunk. That's what I think the scenario describing is.

02:56:44,868	S11:
And they still have those options. They can take Pilgrim down. You know, we're not I don't know. We can't control that. Really. It's not a protected building. We're encouraging it. We certainly want to. Maybe I'm not arguing strongly for these buildings, but because I do think they have a hell of a lot of value, frankly, that.

02:57:02,601	S24:
You're advocating.

02:57:03,267	S4:
For ranges lowering the range. Is that what you'd like?

02:57:05,767	S24:
I don't know. I mean, I, I think I'm open to I guess I'm also. Yeah, I guess the concern I have is that the middle campus is told immediately after the lower campus and it gets developed with, you know, a bunch of townhomes.

02:57:21,968	S11:
For me, because.

02:57:23,467	S24:
Eliminate any open space altogether and limit the potential of something more interesting at the top of the hill. The middle campus is boring to me as a development.

02:57:33,367	S11:
Yeah, I think it could be more developing in there. You think it's not as interesting? I think.

02:57:39,100	S6:
It's.

02:57:39,367	S24:
The cheapest. And like, that's the one you stamp out for good for good value. And I think we're benefiting a developer in this case, but maybe not so much to the town even in the in the economic sense of what you get for value.

02:57:55,000	S11:
Well it sounds the same at the same square. Footage is going to happen somewhere a town. The benefits of the town is maybe the history. I mean, we decided the heritage landscape. I think for Treehouse has to stay. I don't think that's an option because it's in a heritage landscape, but it technically is not part of the mill campus. So that number can is sort of swaying that a little bit. But if talking about flexibility, I like the idea of having roughly equal to keep Kurrajong on the top. Divide that into two. Now you have two areas, middle and upper campus. Be on the top. That could be roughly developed the same amount and we could balance that. So that would then give Gordon Conwell the option the option to sell. Let's just say the top is 18 acres, 19 acres. So it's nine acres and nine acres on top. One nine acre would include Carroll Hall at 75,000ft².

02:58:52,167	S11:
Um, they could stay there. They could continue to use a retreat building because that's they're using that for offices now. So they could that could stay intact as an operational piece for them for the next 20 or 30 years, however long they want to stay.

02:59:06,300	S4:
But I think I'm not. I don't speak for Pat, but I think Pat's concern is we're assuming they're keeping the buildings right. So they could they could knock the buildings down and over develop that middle campus, which I which I kind of swayed me in that thought process now. So I'm wondering, you know, what would be your for the middle campus. What would be a the right number? I don't know if it's a, it's a range or maybe it's just a lower a lower range 0.05.

02:59:31,567	S24:
You are absolutely solidifying the fact that they will keep the buildings and develop them to the maximum extent they could.

02:59:38,868	S6:
Hmm.

02:59:40,267	S4:
And so what would you do? Leave the upper campus at 6.160.16.

02:59:46,868	S16:
Yeah.

02:59:47,267	S11:
Well, they well, again, they only have half of it. So it's only about 2020, maybe 30,000. If you're just talking about Pilgrim Hall, they unless you're talking you're talking about.

02:59:59,767	S24:
You're talking about I'm just talking about I'm not talking about any building specifically, but I'm just saying the limits of the FDR.

03:00:07,501	S11:
Yeah.

03:00:10,100	S24:
If you set it at 0.05, you're pretty much saying that the development is restricted to the expansion of the existing buildings.

03:00:16,567	S11:
And I know did remake.

03:00:17,467	S24:
I'm not.

03:00:17,701	S11:
Sure. Did we make Pilgrim by right to keep that building? Yeah. So that's by right already. But they can still knock it down. They just can't reuse it.

03:00:27,567	S24:
A developer would.

03:00:28,868	S11:
Yeah, yeah, I don't doubt that. But you know.

03:00:35,367	S11:
It might be a creative developer who does something.

03:00:39,100	S3:
Because it's.

03:00:39,801	S1:
A conundrum here. We have numbers here in this table five. And if we try and adjust them how are we going to adjust them. And who's going to do the math.

03:00:57,667	S24:
I think we can first agree that the logic, the overall, the total site development, whatever we do in the nuance between the upper and middle campus. I think we keep the total wised.

03:01:13,367	S1:
The max development point one.

03:01:15,167	S24:
That's great. That's a good story for the town and gives flexibility to the development. It's just a matter of middle and upper campus how you divide that. And I'm I'm not saying this has to I'm open. I do. I am sensitive that you say.

03:01:30,501	S11:
Keep it. 0.11.

03:01:31,901	S3:
No point.

03:01:32,267	S1:
0.18. What it is he's saying.

03:01:35,167	S20:
Point keep.

03:01:36,267	S11:
Keep.1.05. No.

03:01:38,100	S3:
Point one.

03:01:38,868	S24:
Total one. Option would be one. Of course.

03:01:41,100	S20:
Everybody agrees 0.18. Everybody just knows. That's the.

03:01:43,701	S11:
That's the average across the whole.

03:01:45,467	S20:
Nobody. Nobody's debating that.

03:01:46,901	S24:
On one side, the extreme would be keep the middle campus at 0.05. Right. And keep the max on the upper campus, 0.16. That's like extreme pat.

03:01:58,267	S6:
Yeah.

03:02:00,067	S24:
And then there's the middle of the road, IMO. The 50 over 50, which is I don't know which is. No, we got it.

03:02:10,167	S11:
It's what.

03:02:10,868	S24:
It's just kind of what we got in the trade off between what's allowed to.

03:02:15,167	S11:
I decided to balance it roughly equally you know between.

03:02:18,968	S24:
And then there's the in-between. So there's the balance, the 5050 which is right down the middle. And then there's a balance of prioritizing one over the other.

03:02:26,167	S3:
So why can't we have a range that goes between, say, the middle campus maximum would be 68,000 and the upper campus Max would be about 117,000.

03:02:37,467	S20:
Well, Abel's point is that we just need to make sure that the increment, if we change the increment on the middle campus, that's a meaningful increment, so that you don't just get a sliver of a, of a development.

03:02:48,767	S24:
If you if you left it at, for an example, if you left it at 43,000ft², you get 5.7 townhomes at 7500ft², which is 17 to 34 dwelling units. And I don't know if that's meaningful or not.

03:03:08,400	S1:
We need to reach a conclusion here.

03:03:11,067	S11:
Yes.

03:03:11,300	S3:
Good morning. Very late.

03:03:12,501	S1:
It's good. And we need. I'm not letting us out of here until we do table four.

03:03:16,701	S11:
So if you look at the totals on.

03:03:20,367	S24:
I'll take whatever YAML says.

03:03:24,167	S11:
You look at if you add up. Okay. Say that you knock the buildings down, but they're entitled to 90,000 essentially in the middle campus and 92,000 on the upper campus. That's plan one. So essentially 90,000 on both levels. That's the halfway point. The benefit for them, I think, is more toward plan two, which is I think what you want is if you offset it on the top. What I like is that potentially they can they can keep control, you know, operations sell half of the top, make some more money. And they still have, uh, you know, they can build 75,000 or 65,000 additional square feet on top and 43,000 if they take the buildings down on the middle campus, which is again, probably 18 townhouses and, um, or senior housing. 18 units in the middle campus. If they tear down Pilgrim Hall. So that's still a substantial number. You know, I think it should be more and it's more.

03:04:33,300	S24:
But the next year, I don't think the next step is going to be staying clear. Hall and dividing the upper campus and giving the other half of the upper campus to that. They're using a lot of the things in the upper campus they're not going to. The first thing they're going to do is the first next step is developing the middle campus.

03:04:50,167	S11:
Is what.

03:04:50,567	S24:
Lower middle middle. Middle middle.

03:04:52,767	S11:
Middle. Saying give them zero. Or if they do, they're going to knock down the pilgrim hall and that's it.

03:04:58,167	S24:
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that whatever happens next will be happening on the middle campus. It won't be dividing the upper campus.

03:05:03,767	S11:
So we have to give them a substantial I have to give them a project that they could sell for development right in the middle campus. So what area would that be?

03:05:14,467	S28:
No.

03:05:19,467	S11:
Because if we give them.

03:05:23,467	S11:
Then you're kind of forcing them a knock down the pilgrim hall and retreat house and say, because they're going to want to build that out. They can't build on a heritage. So give them the 43,000ft² for the middle campus to be developed as they wish. And everything else is on the top of the hill. That's that's an option. But it's kind of encouraging them to demolish Pilgrim, which it's a building that has value. Uh, yeah. It's expensive to rehab, as I mentioned, but just the historical aspect would be kind of a shame. But then if they put 35% addition on it, where on earth are they going to put the addition? Because that's that'll destroy the front if they can't go up because of the height. But we'd have to go out the back. Otherwise they just destroy the whole thing.

03:06:11,100	S24:
The goal is to keep the building on that.

03:06:13,400	S1:
The problem I'm having is we're going around in circles. Yeah, we have a range here that works. It might not produce the exact result we want, but it works.

03:06:23,801	S20:
So maybe we just go with the range that's here.

03:06:26,167	S1:
Another set of ranges?

03:06:28,067	S3:
Yep.

03:06:28,767	S1:
ASAP.

03:06:29,601	S20:
Yep.

03:06:30,167	S1:
I vote we take what we've got because that's what we've got. It's a bird in hand. Yep. And and I agree to try. And you know.

03:06:38,200	S20:
I agree.

03:06:39,968	S1:
With this at this point.

03:06:41,267	S11:
The two viable strategies.

03:06:43,167	S24:
We do like what the greatest state bylaw does and allow a higher FA if the buildings are preserved.

03:06:50,200	S11:
They gave bonuses of five square feet for every building that's rehabbed. I know, so they're not the problem here. There's only 35,000ft² or 32,000 of historical buildings.

03:07:02,067	S20:
It's not much of a bonus.

03:07:03,567	S24:
I'm just saying. So.

03:07:05,767	S11:
Yeah. So but that's that's toward a total build on the site. But they're already twice the build out that they could be.

03:07:13,667	S1:
And I think the onus should be on the seminary to determine how they want to sort this out. They have Frisbee golf. I remember Merwin telling us that people came from all over the country to play Frisbee golf, right? How could you possibly sell off the middle campus first, just say I'm being facetious.

03:07:38,501	S3:
I'm facetious, but think

03:07:42,100	S3:
so.

03:07:43,000	S1:
But it does. You know, the the thing of it is, they could sell off a portion of the upper campus, stay in Kerr Hall, then they could sell, um, Kerr Hall. And instead of using all the square footage to replace Kerr Hall, they could divide that and then put some in the middle campus and a little more on the upper campus. It just we don't know who's going to be interested in this. It's very.

03:08:09,667	S20:
Hard. But I make a motion that we that we vote on the range that Amel has in front of us.

03:08:15,300	S3:
Second.

03:08:16,868	S1:
Okay.

03:08:17,667	S3:
Thank you.

03:08:20,767	S1:
When I call your name, please indicate your said Pat Norton.

03:08:24,667	S24:
Pat. Norton? No.

03:08:27,200	S1:
Jonathan. Poor.

03:08:28,367	S20:
Jonathan. Poor.

03:08:29,100	S1:
I am old Ahlquist. I am Beth her.

03:08:33,868	S25:
I.

03:08:34,901	S1:
Darcy. Dale.

03:08:35,701	S3:
Darcy. Dale. I.

03:08:37,467	S1:
And Marney. Crouch. I and Pat, I appreciate your sentiments. It's just. We've got to get a move on.

03:08:43,868	S24:
That's fine.

03:08:45,100	S1:
Okay.

03:08:45,667	S3:
Table four. I'm still talking.

03:08:50,167	S1:
About the density. I don't see any reason why we need the open space requirement here. I think we can take out that column. All right. I don't think it adds anything.

03:08:58,868	S26:
Suit.

03:09:00,667	S24:
Although we do, we want to revisit the.

03:09:03,267	S6:
Yeah.

03:09:03,801	S24:
Buy right. Get out of jail. Don't need 40% open space element that we're allowing.

03:09:13,200	S11:
For the lower campus.

03:09:14,267	S6:
Yeah.

03:09:15,567	S3:
Yeah.

03:09:16,000	S1:
No, the.

03:09:16,267	S3:
Problem.

03:09:16,968	S1:
Is the the requirement of the 40% open space is it applies to new construction or expansion. Let me just read this because this this is something that, you know, we kind of just glossed over without realizing it. It says 9.9.6.2 specific requirements for new development or expansion of the existing buildings requiring a special permit.

03:09:48,267	S1:
So if the buyers of the apartments do not request expansion to put in elevators or anything like that, and we don't have a foothold to enforce the open space requirement in 9.6.9.9.,

03:10:09,868	S1:
six.6.2.2 or um, the other um, requirement of uh, private and public space in multi housing developments. So in my view at this point then the onus is on the buyers if they want attract good tenants, they have to figure out where these tenants are going to walk and play and everything else. I mean because it will it will adversely affect the market rate, housing, if there's no public space of any kind that's remotely usable.

03:10:51,367	S24:
But we know that the proposed development intends on

03:10:56,767	S24:
hopefully using the 10% allowed additional square footage, which triggers a special permit which would trigger the 40%.

03:11:05,300	S3:
Right?

03:11:06,100	S8:
Yep.

03:11:06,868	S1:
So that's true. And so that is a real that's that's a good hook. But we we have to be we have to balance here because as I said, both of those the open space and the, the what do we call it. The public access, the private and public access, give the planning board discretion to modify that requirement. And so we have to think about, as I said before, the the benefits of having the 209 units on the SHC, that that is such an enormous benefit to the town that gives us such leverage with respect to other, uh, potential 40 B's that we don't want to cut our nose off.

03:11:57,667	S26:
Despite the face.

03:12:00,901	S1:
I mean, that's just a practical matter here. So the special permit process will trigger. but at this juncture we have those A and R lots and and a map that's stamped by a surveyor that delineate those A&R lots. And I can assure you we're going to get A&R requests based on that mapping. It is, in a sense, too late to redo.

03:12:28,567	S26:
That.

03:12:29,067	S1:
And still make.

03:12:30,767	S26:
December 9th.

03:12:35,567	S1:
It's not my happy place, but that's where we are. So yes, we will. We will be able to.

03:12:42,100	S26:
To.

03:12:43,567	S1:
Deal with that when we get that special permit. And we've made the comments to the seminary about providing maybe easements or some.

03:12:54,667	S26:
Other.

03:12:55,100	S1:
Way of using that space in the middle campus or even the heritage landscape for parks, playgrounds, and if Pilgrim Hogan Hall is to be used for commercial purposes, they might have to seek a special permit to have parking for Pilgrim Hall in the middle campus, and that parking will have to be landscaped so that it is not an eyesore to.

03:13:25,601	S3:
The residents in the apartments.

03:13:28,767	S1:
So anybody want to tell me I'm wrong in that thinking? Because if not, we'll go table four and maybe we'll get home by 11:00.

03:13:42,300	S11:
We gotta get it done.

03:13:43,467	S1:
We gotta get it done.

03:13:46,167	S11:
I think the only contentious things here are the questions is where did you get the building footprint and floor area on this? So I anticipating that's the problem because all of the heights are limited to 35ft. And the multi-family dwelling occur only in the LC one and two. Those are existing three stories, so they would be permitted. That's for that. And the building footprint for LC 1500ft². The largest of the four in that group one is 8450ft². And the building floor area, the the gross maximum. The largest of those four buildings, A through D, is 26,000ft². So that essentially replicates what's there LC two. Same thing 18,500 is the biggest footprint of F and the total of the two, the maximum one is 55,000ft². So those that's how those two numbers came about. Those are existing sizes that um, at least to comply with our code to be conforming, that would have to be in this category. Now that the townhouses, 3 to 6 dwelling units and actually the senior housing, semi-detached duplex are all based on kind of a median 25,600ft²

03:15:10,467	S11:
each. For each unit that's in the mid-range, you can go up to 3000. That's really elegant and expensive, but I have it at 2025 or 26,000. So what was indicated was in doing some research. You don't want to get too many of those. So I had 3 to 6 dwelling units long, which if you do the math, uh, if the facade on these buildings, if each unit is, say, 25 by 50, and I guess everybody knows what a townhouse is, they're sort of horizontally attached, not vertically. So you're stacking horizontally. That means an owner of one has two levels, the first floor and the upper level. So each one is two storeys. The footprint is 1200 and 150ft². 25ft by 50ft in size to the front facades 25. That's really sufficient to get great light coming in. I wouldn't go any less than that. You can go wider, but then you go shallower to come up with the same square footage. So if you had three of them, they'd be 75ft long. If you had six of them, the 150ft long of stacked units, that's kind of a maximum. So my thought was you can go in between three, 4 or 5 and come up with some different arrays. So they're not quite all the same. So that's where these townhouses, the 7500ft² in the MC middle campus, the 7500ft² is three together of a footprint of um, 350 uh.

03:16:52,100	S11:
1200 times three is. Yeah, 30, 3750. Right. Um.

03:17:06,901	S11:
Let's see. 75. 7500. That should be 37. 50. On that. That number. And then 15. 15,000. Uh, is the total on. That's the footprint on a six unit for a maximum. So 3750, which is three times 12. 50.

03:17:33,767	S1:
Is there an error in there?

03:17:36,167	S11:
Yeah. Seven.

03:17:43,167	S11:
47. 53. Zero. Three. Five. Five. Carry. One. Two. Three. Six. Seven and three. No. 37. 50 is a small. Yeah. That first 7500 was a mistake. The 7500 on the upper campus should be 35, 70, 30, 37, 50ft².

03:18:01,467	S35:
Both of them middle campus and uppercase.

03:18:03,400	S11:
They're both the same upper and middle for townhouses. Seven 5037 is the footprint for a three unit. 3750 and 15,000 is the footprint for a six unit.

03:18:34,000	S11:
312 or 4015 or the one seven. And I'm going to say seven.

03:18:43,767	S11:
750. Yeah.

03:18:48,067	S11:
And anyway, that's where I was. So it was the smallest footprint. Uh, it was a three and a larger maximum footprint is um, would be, but actually the building floor area is two. So it'd be two times that. So seven 750 on a on two floors. So for for that building. So the. Yeah that was maximum floor area.

03:19:16,367	S11:
18,000.

03:19:22,267	S11:
It's getting kind of late.

03:19:25,901	S11:
It's all fixed in the 30s ago three two and 612 3045. 02177. So 15,000 is the maximum because that's two floors. So 15,000 is correct. That's both floors. But the footprint is 3750 and 3750 on the upper campus. But 15,000 is correct. So the the 7500 should be changed at 3750 has the smallest footprint. Now the senior housing again, this is kind of modeled on the, uh, on the boulders. Again, each unit, they're in their duplex, uh, semi-detached duplex. Uh, each unit is 2000ft², but they has a partial second floor. So they're not doubling the area on the second floor. So it's the breakdown is 2000 plus 500 on the second floor or 600ft² on the second floor. So that's mostly one level living primary bedroom on the main level and then spare bedrooms on the second level. So the smallest footprint for two of those buildings, which we consider one building is 4000ft². Again, middle and upper campus would be the same and a total building area is roughly 6000. I added a little there. It's so it's, uh.

03:20:45,767	S11:
So if each unit is 2600 or 2500ft², that's 5000 plus a little bit more for garage space, you know, in that. Um, then the, um, the assisted living. Again, we were using the model from boulders. The footprint could be as large as 50,000. The total should be 75,000. Again, that came from Riverbend looking on their property card. That's what they have. They have a three level building, 25,000 each level. One is underground, I guess. It's part of a memory care and then two above. But the total build out there is 75,000ft². So that's why that's there as a model number. 50,000 is a max footprint. It could be smaller, but the 75 is fixed.

03:21:31,868	S11:
Uh, repurposing existing educational assembly. Uh, 40. Actually, that building is Carol Hall. It's a 40 zero zero zero square foot footprint that's existing in the total area is 75,000ft² on the upper campus only. So that's if you repurpose that for some other reason, that's in the allowable, that's what you could build there. And then the rest of it is by permit. So everything else other than the apartments is two stories. I didn't I mean, I could go to two and a half, but um, the problem with going with two and a half or so to getting taller is that you flatten out your roof. If you're going to limit it to 35ft, it's going to be a shallower roof pitch, which I think is less desirable. Uh, so, um, and for these kinds of uses, I don't think there's a need for that for two and a half stories anyway. So with that one correct or two corrections, 30, 37, 50 and the building footprint for the dwelling townhouse, that was the source of those numbers. And that became kind of the the model used in, in all of the build outs. That's how I got at the total square footage and the number of units that would make up in that table. So that's how it it all worked out. Um.

03:22:47,901	S1:
Well, and then I will just add to this that one of the provisions that we added, um, and I mentioned it at the outset, is that if there were to be a proposed development that altered these two numbers, the building footprint and the building floor area that. And please, if you don't like my language, just tell me. Um, the planning board may modify the maximum building footprint and maximum building floor area and table four upon a showing that the increase in either or both metrics will not compromise the purpose and intent of any other applicable provision of this bylaw.

03:23:30,767	S3:
That makes sense.

03:23:32,767	S1:
So that would give us discretion not to, you know, go wild, but to within reason,

03:23:43,767	S1:
allow a slightly bigger building.

03:23:50,067	S1:
Did you never know what you know? This is the problem with designing for the future, when you don't know what the future holds.

03:23:57,667	S11:
Yeah.

03:23:58,100	S1:
So.

03:24:02,200	S1:
Um, with that said, uh, we will, uh, make a correction to table one to address, um, the potential, uh, re, um, attempt to rebuild the apartments that would not, not probably be allowed within the same footprint because of all the other provisions that would apply, like Conservation Commission stuff. But we will add that the table of use regulations has the most changes and has, um, the legal question for Robin Stein. But just to recap, we're adding residential by right for Pilgrim Hall, the Gatehouse, and the Retreat House. We're also addressing the potential rebuilding the apartments by special permit. And we are moving, um, the row uh, providing for small scale retail cafe from commercial to accessory uses. Um.

03:25:10,000	S24:
Do we need table for the requirement to provide it if we are already addressing the density of table three? Table for my concern about table four is it's a special permit process that is governing the development of any of these things. And I think you're giving an illusion that by following these metrics, a developer will get approval. You know, I don't see a value in providing this table. I guess it's my point.

03:25:37,367	S11:
It's the only thing, the only thing you need something in conjunction with the FA because that doesn't limit anything except how many square feet you can build on a lot. That's so it could be. It could be very narrow and very tall. It could be one story covering the whole lot.

03:25:54,167	S24:
We got a height restriction.

03:25:55,467	S1:
We have a height restriction. And we also have a building size restriction because if you don't have a building size restriction.

03:26:01,701	S3:
Yeah.

03:26:02,767	S1:
That could be a real problem.

03:26:04,000	S11:
And then the other thing we're adding is a note. But what's the minimum space between buildings. You know the 20ft. I got to add.

03:26:10,100	S6:
That.

03:26:10,267	S24:
There was a question.

03:26:11,100	S1:
Oh yeah. To this column.

03:26:13,868	S11:
Somewhere in this table.

03:26:17,567	S24:
I didn't know if it was common to do it. It's what I didn't know if it was common to do it in this way.

03:26:23,968	S6:
Well, just looking at.

03:26:25,667	S16:
The.

03:26:25,968	S24:
Many other bylaws written this way.

03:26:27,567	S1:
Oh, even in the senior housing bylaw, I thought there were tables like.

03:26:31,300	S11:
Well, it sounds center code has a maximum footage. Square footage. You know, it's a maximum square footage. They don't have a, um. Well, actually, footprint, a maximum footprint and a building height. And the fur that really kind of locks it in. And the coverage is the other thing you need.

03:26:48,167	S6:
Okay.

03:26:48,601	S20:
And then it manages scale.

03:26:50,467	S4:
Yeah, yeah I.

03:26:51,167	S24:
Understand.

03:26:51,601	S11:
That's what captures the character. So you don't get too big a building in one part of the campus and a bunch of small buildings and another, or something like that, kind of spreading it out.

03:27:05,868	S11:
It's the best I could come up with. Anyway.

03:27:09,567	S24:
Bruins, the last motion to adjourn.

03:27:11,300	S3:
Oh, bummer. Oh, no.

03:27:13,501	S1:
We have, um. We need to have a motion to approve. Sorry not to disappoint. Uh, we should probably have a motion to approve, um, the revised, uh, Planning Board schedule of fees, to which there was no objection. Can we do that? Or is that noticed? Out for the fourth as well?

03:27:38,000	S32:
I think you can treat.

03:27:38,767	S2:
Them separately because it's not zoning. It's something that's been working to improve on its own.

03:27:45,167	S36:
Shall I make a motion?

03:27:47,067	S3:
Sure. Yes.

03:27:48,567	S24:
Whoever gets his home.

03:27:49,667	S3:
Okay. I, I move that we approve the revised schedule of planning board fees.

03:27:54,801	S1:
Do I have a second?

03:27:56,000	S20:
Second?

03:27:57,367	S1:
Uh, so when I call your name, please indicate your assent. Pat Norton.

03:28:01,868	S24:
Pat Norton, I.

03:28:02,767	S1:
Jonathan, poor.

03:28:03,667	S20:
Jonathan, poor I.

03:28:04,667	S1:
Am Dahlquist.

03:28:06,167	S11:
Emil Dahlquist I Beth her.

03:28:08,267	S1:
I Darcy Dale.

03:28:09,801	S3:
Darcy Dale I.

03:28:11,467	S1:
And uh Marney Crouch I. And now I'll also entertain a motion since there was no response. Uh, a motion to approve the site plan regulations governing the ministerial requirements for all site plan applications.

03:28:28,868	S3:
So moved.

03:28:30,067	S20:
Second.

03:28:31,200	S1:
Uh, please indicate your assent. Pat Norton. Edward I. Jonathan.

03:28:35,267	S20:
Poor Jonathan, poor, Poore I know Dahlquist.

03:28:38,000	S11:
Dahlquist I.

03:28:38,868	S1:
Beth her. I Darcy Dale.

03:28:41,567	S3:
Darcy. Dale.

03:28:42,100	S1:
I am Marney Crouch. I am now Darcy.

03:28:46,467	S3:
Yes. I'm going to make a motion that we adjourn for the evening.

03:28:48,868	S1:
Do I have multiple seconds?

03:28:51,300	S6:
Yeah.

03:28:52,667	S25:
I can't.

03:28:54,300	S1:
I. So when I call your name, you can say you were sent when you're walking out the door. Pat Norton.

03:29:01,167	S24:
Pat Norton.

03:29:01,667	S3:
I.

03:29:02,067	S1:
Jonathan, poor.

03:29:02,868	S20:
Jonathan, poor I.

03:29:03,968	S1:
Am a dahlquist.

03:29:04,767	S11:
ML Dahlquist I.

03:29:05,968	S1:
Bath her.

03:29:06,968	S25:
I.

03:29:07,667	S1:
Darcy Dale.

03:29:08,467	S3:
Darcy Dale I.

03:29:09,767	S1:
Am Marty Crouch.

03:29:10,701	S20:
I knew that wasn't so easy now was it?