00:02:12,400 S1: And I'm calling the Hamilton Planning Board meeting to order. This meeting is being recorded, uh, to aid the transcriptionist. I'm going to take roll. So when I call your name, would you please indicate that you're present? Pat Norton. Present. Jonathan. 00:02:33,800 S2: Poor Jonathan, poor present. 00:02:35,699 S1: Amel. Dahlquist. 00:02:36,900 S3: Amel. Dahlquist. Present. 00:02:38,500 S1: Darcy. Dale. 00:02:39,469 S4: Darcy. Dale. 00:02:40,099 S1: Present and Monty Crouch present. And I note for the record that Beth Herr is absent. Um, her father passed away, and we're very sorry to hear that. And, uh, perhaps Bill will appear. I know Matt Hamill. He was on the Cape, right? It's unlikely he'll be here. And I don't believe we've heard from Jeff Austin. The first item on our agenda is to review the minutes from October 21st. Um, do I have a motion to approve those minutes? 00:03:14,569 S4: So? So moved. 00:03:16,000 S1: Do I have a second? Any discussion about the minutes? 00:03:22,030 S1: Uh, Darcy, I think you found a few typos. 00:03:24,330 S4: Yeah, just a couple. 00:03:27,030 S1: Um. Do you. Did you mark them on your minutes? 00:03:32,169 S4: I sent you an email. Um. Do you mean, did I correct them on the computer? 00:03:37,629 S1: Oh, I know, on the hard copy here. If you made a hard copy. Um, did you send that email to Mark? 00:03:45,370 S4: Yes. 00:03:46,169 S1: Oh, okay. So I had just two minor edits. So, um, they were they were just, um, typos. Really, uh, in yours were as well. Nothing substantive. 00:03:59,770 S4: Um, there were just a couple of words that didn't belong there. Right? They were just. I don't even know what the context was. Right. 00:04:06,729 S1: So, uh, subject to those very minor edits. Uh, when I call your name, would you indicate whether you approve the minutes? Uh, Pat Norton. 00:04:18,600 S4: Uh. 00:04:20,269 S1: Jonathan. 00:04:20,870 S2: Poor Jonathan, poor Dahlquist. 00:04:24,930 S1: Bill Wheaton. 00:04:25,800 S5: Bill. Wheaton ii. 00:04:26,930 S1: Darcy. Dale. 00:04:27,769 S4: Darcy. Dale I. 00:04:28,970 S1: And Marney. Crouch. I and I note for the record that Bill Wheaton is now with us. 00:04:35,730 S1: Okay, so the next item on our agenda is the Brownsville overlay District. And I want to, um, discuss the text of the overlay district, uh, very briefly. Um. 00:04:54,370 S1: And I apologize. I don't think I changed the header on the draft, but this is a draft that was prepared this morning. So the the differences between this draft and prior drafts. The first one is in section 9.9.1.2.1. 00:05:17,129 S1: And I apologize for this numbering, but what we, uh well, what we did was we added a section called Understanding the Tables so that when you're reading the overlay district, the tables are introduced by topic and, and have a just a very brief discussion. But we thought it would be helpful to have that in there. So it's really descriptive. It's it's not substantive. Obviously the substance is in the tables. Um, so that's one thing. And then the other matter that, um, has perplexed me all day, uh, is the new section on page 15, the applicability of the Groundwater Protection Overlay District. And, uh, I'm going to pass around another copy of this section because upon reflection, 00:06:21,800 S1: uh, subsection three, uh, may be a little problematic because we excluded. 00:06:34,170 S1: Um, the upper campus and the lower campus. So I will pass this around. And did you take it? 00:06:42,699 S4: Yes. It's yours. Oh, thanks. Yeah. 00:06:45,470 S1: So now, uh, just for everyone's benefit. The Groundwater Protection Overlay District is superseded by the Browns Hill Overlay District. But with that being said, certain provisions of the Groundwater Protection Overlay District continue to apply. And so for purposes of the Browns Hill Overlay district, section 9.1.1 of the jeopardy will continue to apply. And that sets forth the purpose of the Groundwater Protection Overlay District. And similarly, the criteria for the evaluation of a special permit under the. 00:07:36,100 S1: Groundwater Protection Overlay District will apply in the Browns Hill Overlay District, and indeed, some of the findings pertinent to a special permit under the GPL or incorporated in the Browns Hill Overlay District. And finally, two other sections of the Groundwater Protection Overlay District will apply, and they're set forth in this addendum here. And those sections are 9.1.8 which are prohibited uses. And I don't envision this as creating a problem in a district that will be used primarily for residential purposes. So the prohibited uses for the edification of everyone here, and particularly those who don't have their, um, zoning bylaw in front of them are landfills, automobile graveyards and junkyards, landfills receiving only wastewater and or septic. Septic. These are all covered by state law. I'm not reading verbatim. Facilities that generate, treat, store, dispose of hazardous waste subject to various state laws with exceptions. Storage of liquid hazardous materials. And there are exceptions, but then also storage of sludge and septic, unless such storage is in compliance with state law. Storage of de-icing chemicals. Storage of animal manure. Earth removal consisting of soil, loam and gravel for our business and then non sanitary treatment of disposal boards. Again something that's governed by state law. Stockpiling and disposal of snow and ice containing de-icing chemicals. If brought in from outside the pod and storage of commercial fertilizers as defined in and under state law. And so in the other section that is applicable at least two parts of it, you would need a special permit for enlargement or alteration of existing uses that do not conform to the GPO, or activities that involve the handling of toxic or hazardous materials. So the intent was to. Well, we cannot just incorporate the DPD into the brownfield overlay district. We tried to get the the heart of it into the Browns Hill overlay district. The reason why the whole groundwater protection overlay district cannot be included is because of the provision in that by law that says that it's a two acre minimum per dwelling unit. And so if you were to include that provision, And then the work that we've been doing these past year or so, or longer, would be for naught, because it would be completely antithetical to what we're proposing here, which is not single family housing. So with that said, is there any discussion about that? And, um, is the planning board on board with those two changes? And bear in mind that we're looking at this slightly amended version of 9.9.8.3. 00:11:16,830 S3: Before anybody has a comment. Let me just say point a minor thing. It's you have a number 3GOPD. So just a little typo. 00:11:27,669 S4: But. 00:11:31,600 S3: I think this I think this really covers the covers it in looking at this any number of ways I don't see that. As was pointed out, especially since the purpose and the criteria for the special permit are both referenced in the GPL, and that's not been eliminated at all. So, um, and I think as was brought out a previous meeting, that the pod was a um, intended, I believe, to, uh, kind of be a to be sort of a stopgap measure to eventually the pod could get rewritten to accommodate some more current technology that would be available for wastewater treatment. And I think that could happen in the future. But again, I think the the basic idea, I believe and Jonathan can correct me, but started with changing one acre zoning, a two acre zoning. So for 40,000ft² to 80,000ft² for the purpose of cutting the density in half, assuming that all wastewater treatment was done on a lot in the back yard for each particular lot. I think that was the intention in terms of setting a density standard. So, um, because this is quite a different animal, I think that, you know, it should be looked at from that vantage point. I don't know, Jonathan, do you want to? 00:12:59,870 S2: The only clarification I would add to that would be that it's important to remember the difference between how a single family residence septic system is engineered and not monitored, other than in in a sales proposition versus a package system or a group system, which is heavily engineered and heavily monitored by the by state regulations and local regulations. So there's a very, very much a there are two different animals really. And the a lot of the pod again was focused on single family houses. And that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about package systems. So. 00:13:45,700 S1: Did any other, uh, members have any comments? 00:13:51,700 S4: Fine. 00:13:52,899 S1: Uh, Bill, do you have any comments? Pat? 00:13:57,000 S6: I'm just trying to cross-reference this to wondering whether or not we satisfy the neighbors and Jacobs points he's brought up related to the GPO, and I think this probably checks the box. It's not totally dismissing it. It's part of the overlay district, but it's referencing the, like you said, the correct elements to make sure they're incorporated in any of the requirements moving forward. So I'm hoping that that would satisfy the concerns. 00:14:26,600 S1: Right. And the the whole focus here, to your point is we're focused on environmentally sensitive site design. So obviously this bylaw is not designed to create a free for all on that site. With developers having free reign to do whatever. I mean, we've really tried to encourage looking at the environmentally sensitive site design, the stormwater management, and really the whole nine yards to keep this site as environmentally pristine as possible. And so I think personally, we've we've satisfied that to the best, to the best of our ability without pretty much undermining what we're intending to do here. Now interestingly, in in in crafting this section of the bylaw, uh, I tried to ascertain what town Entity was responsible for enforcement of any problems in the GPO. And if you go to the DPW website, nothing. Conservation Commission, not of health. 00:15:48,470 S4: Board of health. 00:15:49,470 S1: Board of health. I talked to David Smith. No. So it's sort of out there, but unlike unlike, you know, the stormwater management which is vested in the Planning Board and in the Wetlands Protection Act, which is vested in the kind. Com, the GPD Peapod appears to be a baby without parents. So, Mark, do you have anything to add to that in your research? 00:16:17,700 S7: And yeah, just that it's unfortunately it's not very uncommon in in towns like Hamilton where there is the special permits to go through the zoning board. So that is a mechanism where that board oversees Overseas special permits. And like any other zoning, it's complaint based. So if someone files a complaint, the building inspector has to follow up on it and has to, um, if it requires going enforcement, then it has to follow that process. But, um, I would say it's it's primarily a complaint based system. It's not something where there's an active body monitoring compliance. 00:16:53,629 S4: Right. 00:16:54,169 S1: And unlike the stormwater management bylaw that has all sorts of provisions as to whether you can do a brief, uh, application or a full application, there's nothing about applications per se, other than for the special permit. And that's really, I think, designed for more industrial uses than what we're considered here. 00:17:15,700 S7: Yeah. I don't believe there's anything in there about inspections or annual monitoring either. 00:17:20,099 S6: So the only other thing I was trying to think of a creative way that we might weave in if in the future there is some kind of town based initiative to because not all wastewater treatment plants are created equal, some use a huge amount of energy to treat waste. Some use a huge amount of chemicals. Some are more efficient about getting the water back into the ground. Uh, so I was trying to think if we ever came up with a town based environmental set of regs for a wastewater. 00:17:53,430 S8: For the quantity question that Mr. Fujimura was talking about. 00:17:57,970 S6: Yeah. 00:17:58,369 S8: Like, yeah, but that that transcends this product. That's I mean, this this zoning. Right. 00:18:04,630 S6: But the only reference we make is to ensure that it's in conformance with state law. 00:18:10,369 S1: Right, right. 00:18:11,630 S8: Well, furthermore, towns don't actually have the power, I think, to deny development because they haven't provided adequate water. There's some court decisions on this, aren't they? You can't turn down development because the town has difficulty or is not able to provide adequate services. Services. The state presumes that the town is under an obligation to find more water. Right? Well, and you can't actually say, well, we're we're going to shut down the town to new development because we don't have enough water. I don't think that's going to fly. 00:18:52,099 S1: So I think you could deny a building permit if you turn the taps on and no water came out, or if you had a no. 00:19:01,400 S8: But, but but I maybe mark and chime in on this a little bit. I'm not sure that towns can, you know, they could have a moratorium if they declared some emergency. But to say, you know, we just don't have any more water. That's it. Goodbye. I don't think they can do that because. 00:19:22,400 S1: You can always truck in water. Yeah, you can always try. 00:19:26,769 S8: The reason I mentioned this is there was some instance not in Massachusetts, another state where towns were required to truck in water until they, you know, either got the requisite, you know, wells going or whatever their other source of water was. Yeah. 00:19:40,799 S1: I mean, but you could actually regulate development if you had insufficient water to put a fire out. I mean, if it was, if it. 00:19:50,029 S8: Was you, I think we should ask town council about that. 00:19:53,970 S1: Well, no, I think you could on a case by case basis. I don't think you could blanket. Do what? 00:19:59,430 S8: Yeah, but you can always add pipes. This is a question of whether there's enough water out out there, not whether we have enough pipes in the ground to get it to every part of town where there might be a fire. Right. That's the town's responsibility. Okay, to do that. But if we just don't have enough gallons per minute to, you know, satisfy, you know, a large new proposed development, I'm not sure we can just say. 00:20:24,269 S2: I think a quick internet search shows that if you show good reason, if you justify your reason for denying the permit and there's something valid about it that it's supportable. That's just a cursory look on the internet. 00:20:38,269 S3: You're saying what triggers that is a permit application. 00:20:40,930 S2: A permit application. 00:20:42,700 S3: In advance, say a town planning board. 00:20:45,470 S2: You couldn't say in advance. I agree with Bill. You could have a moratorium, but it'd be a it'd be a case by case basis. And but the town would have to show good cause, good reason findings why it was supportable. It can't be arbitrary and capricious. So I, I'm just tempering what you're saying a little bit here. 00:21:07,130 S4: Okay. 00:21:07,470 S1: It's a little bit academic because it's not part of our right. 00:21:12,200 S4: Right. 00:21:12,799 S8: No, but I'm just saying the neighbors groups letter says, well, we should be considering quantity, you know. Right. Yeah. And that's not really something we can do. 00:21:22,670 S1: Actually, you know, it's the GPO is addressing quality. And I think that word quantity just snuck in there at a time when we didn't have so many droughts over, you know, when that that bylaw was drafted, we probably had a lot more rain than we have in recent years. 00:21:43,569 S2: And as I've mentioned in previous meetings, the stormwater regulations are the regulations which actually govern quantity of recharge. It's it's actually calculations of gallons. So not the body. So that's the bylaw that governs quantity of recharge. 00:22:02,500 S8: I mean towns can do other things. You can lots of cities and towns around the country are require people to have um, water collection from rain, rain, rainwater cisterns. And that's a perfectly legitimate thing. 00:22:16,000 S2: But I think we're a little off the subject here. 00:22:17,970 S5: Yeah. 00:22:20,430 S1: Anyhow, we're having a nice conversation, but we don't have. 00:22:22,730 S8: Those mostly desert towns. 00:22:24,230 S1: Yeah. So at this point, I think that the planning board is in a position to vote to recommend that this, uh, Brownsville overlay district be included on the warrant. But before we take that vote, I would like to open the the floor to public comment. However, I would ask that people, um, when they do come to the podium, identify themselves and where they live and limit their remarks, uh, to, to, um, three minutes. 00:22:59,569 S2: Excuse me, Madam Chair, before we open up to public comment. Um, could I just ask a question about content of the bylaw? Um, I just want to understand better, uh, what maps will be included and what will not be included in the legal document? I know we have a lot of reference maps. There's a lot of maps that have gotten us through the process, but what maps will be included in the bylaw? Because I think that's partly what we're going to be voting on. 00:23:27,529 S1: Right. And I'm glad you brought that up, because in my eagerness to expedite this process, I wanted to make sure that everyone understood the tables as well. So, um, Amy, you are our map guru, so if you could, um, answered Jonathan's astute question, I would appreciate it. 00:23:53,769 S3: Well, this this is a map submitted. We asked Gordon Conwell to use their surveyors because we did not have a legitimate, I'll say, legitimate map, one that was stamped by a professional or done by a professional surveyor of the entire site. And they gave us a couple of things. Um, and we asked them also to determine where the slopes greater than 15% are located on that property, which they did. They also gave us this map because we wanted a single sheet to reference the the sub districts. And those are the five that are that are shown up there. Um, I don't see 1 or 2 being counted as one. So the, the, um, this map, uh, is the most accurate we have at the scale that really delineates where the the districts are specifically, and they are very accurately drawn on, on the overall site plan. And then they attach the subdistrict areas, which are critical in terms of interpretation of the various tables. So this is where that this drawing becomes important to, uh, uh, it's important that Gordon Conwell agree to these numbers produced by their surveyors. And uh, and all of that data has been submitted to us. We've reviewed it all and agree with all of that, that data on that sheet. So this begins to solidify the the the standards for the for the various tables in determining if AR and so forth. So these are really critical. So this is one drawing that we have that uh it needs to if you can scroll down a little bit Mark on this, we can see the bottom. Uh, so there is a North arrow. You can see it in the left. There is a scale graphic scale in there, a title Brown seal overlay district identified as figure one to be referred to in the, in the bylaws. Uh, and then it the, uh, the surveying firm BHB. I would like to have that firm just identified by name. I don't think we need a seal. I don't think that sort of thing. They don't, because this is not that accurate. But I think we need the the name of the surveyor on that drawing, just to be complete in December 2025 would be probably the proper date for that. So that's one one map I think should be considered, and I'd be. I'd like to hear if anybody have any comments for additional information. Perhaps that should be on that. If anything. 00:26:33,170 S2: I would like to see street names and it would be very helpful for the buildings to be somehow highlighted so you can find them. And it's not a treasure hunt. Um, it also wouldn't hurt for the interior roads to be highlighted so you can again find them, because there's a lot of there's a lot of good information in there, but it's a little bit hard to read. Um, unless you're really adept at reading these types of maps. But absolutely, the street names should be on there. 00:27:01,599 S3: Yeah. And they could probably lighten some of the colors so they're not quite so dark. So if you do say shade the buildings and shade the streets or something, uh, they'll stand out a little bit better on this on this drawing, but I agree. Just for orientation. Essex Street, uh, Woodbury and um, bridge. Yeah. 00:27:24,630 S2: So what's the item of maps? So this is one. So how many maps are there at. At this point going to be in. 00:27:31,200 S3: The other one. Mark, do you have in your set the, the five that were submitted with the steep slopes, the slopes. 00:27:40,930 S3: Now the importance of this again we wanted then to there were two reasons we wanted to identify where the steep slopes are, anything over 15%, and what was the area of each one of those slopes that varied between, say, 15 and 20 and 20 and 25% slopes? So again, the surveyor from Gordon Conwell prepared these five maps. The area they analyzed is shown in color Are here. So they identified the parts of the. Unfortunately, everything that happens is in the middle of this property. And all of these all of these diagrams around the edges. So you have to piece them all together. But they are all covered here. I went through this and tried to lay out. I laid out the the entire perimeter of this on a computer, and I did the internal subdistricts on the computer, and it does work out. But this is the heritage landscape, for example. And you have a colored differentiation between the slopes from 15, which is the lightest color, to 2020, 25%, which is the darkest color on there. So you have three different color ranges. And as I say, the reason was to identify where they occur on the site and then what the total area is, because in order to determine what what is developable on each of the subdistricts, we wanted to subtract either wetlands or steep slopes on it as being on developable land, and that became a criteria that became the reason we needed to get the overall numbers for each of the subdistricts as a reference point that everyone agrees with. So I again, have been over all of this. And, you know, I think it was it was well done. And. 00:29:35,170 S3: The summary is on that larger map, this is the upper campus. You can see the, the, the sort of the amber line delineating the edge of the colored area is the area they decided to examine in most detail. They felt other areas were sort of the upper campus. In the left hand corner of that drawing is clearly way over, but that was not identified as as not being buildable as steep slopes. But the area that was critical was that central part. On the upper campus, the middle campus in the lower campus. So those were identified in most detail. So this this became a valuable drawing, I think the importance of including this somehow how it gets included in the overall code. I'm not quite sure. 00:30:23,730 S2: That's essentially my question. 00:30:25,630 S3: Uh, because it would be in town Hall to have a copy of this or. 00:30:29,269 S2: Right. But it seems as though there should be some reference umbrella reference. Just like with a contract, you have a, you know, you have a an umbrella contract and it references all the pieces and the addendum and the exhibits and whatnot. It seems like if these are going to going to be used and binding, we need to somehow incorporate a reference to them. And the question is how to do that. 00:30:51,900 S1: Right. And then I have another follow up question in terms of the map that would be incorporated into the zoning bylaw. Mark, What map would that be? Or is it one that doesn't exist yet? 00:31:09,670 S7: So there's a there's a section of the bylaw that says the reference is zoning map. And so that language we're proposing to change to say last updated based on town meeting or special town meeting. And so the official town zoning map would have to be amended to show the new boundaries of these subdistricts. So this is a pretty small area of town. So I'm envisioning that would be like an inset of our official zoning map. Um, so we would need Gordon Conwell to send us the map layers. So the towns map maker can incorporate that. Um, we don't typically do that until after town meeting because it costs the town money to to do that. And we don't know if it's going to pass. Um, but the, uh, essentially this would become part of the official zoning map for the town. 00:31:54,569 S1: Okay. So just because I think that that the text now is going to have to be adjusted a little bit here. And so the only reference to a map is is on page 1 in 9.9.1.2. It says the Brownsville Overlay District is comprised of text that incorporates five tables in the Brownsville Overlay District map. Now. 00:32:24,000 S1: We do not necessarily have to reference the town's official zoning map. So we could actually say the Brownsville Overlay District maps are including the colored map that we had up that has the sub districts that will eventually have the names, as well as the series of maps that have that showed this, the steep slopes and other areas. So we could refer to those. 00:32:55,869 S5: But would those live. 00:32:56,799 S2: In the town website as something navigable, or would they have to be hunted down in town hall? 00:33:03,400 S1: Well, that could be incorporated into the overlay district. And, uh, you know, good point. Because obviously, you know, in printing out the zoning bylaw, we wouldn't be printing out maps to go with it. So how would you propose handling that? 00:33:24,369 S2: And then the other thing, before you answer that question, there's also the buffers, the buffer maps that we haven't referred to yet either. So there's a lot of maps and they're all important. Um, and so yes, how do we how do we incorporate them is the question. 00:33:38,970 S6: I wonder. 00:33:39,470 S5: If. 00:33:40,400 S2: I'd like to hear from Mark. 00:33:42,470 S7: So just showing you that we are proposing to update that section of the bylaw that references the zoning map to say we just updated this back in July when we did the the three A zoning. So this would, you know, be another update this year based on if this passes and then to list this as an overlay district in the section of the bylaw where we list overlay districts. Um, so my how I envision this is at least for the zoning map to show those boundaries of the district. Typically, the zoning map doesn't get into a granular level where you're showing buffers and things like that. Although certainly if there was a development proposal that the applicant would be required to show that in their plans. So. 00:34:26,929 S6: Um, I don't think the bylaw should show those things. It's it's a living site plan. It's going to change as soon as they do the right apartment building design. And it's up to the the requirements of what's developable are already written in there. Right. As soon as you give a drawing, it's going to be wrong. Yeah. And if you leave it just as the zoning maps, that's all the. Would that show the sub districts. That's a that's really all we should do. 00:34:51,000 S5: So I guess. 00:34:51,670 S6: The developer that's. 00:34:52,469 S5: Required. 00:34:52,929 S2: So that's a that's my question. So basically what you could say is you could say okay with the steep slopes, it's up to every developer to re delineate them. 00:35:01,030 S3: In the area they're doing. 00:35:02,630 S5: In the area they're doing it. 00:35:03,599 S1: Well, actually we have a pre-application conference requirement and at that time we refer to the maps here. They exist. 00:35:13,800 S2: So and I guess the question would be then I think the answer now is that they are they are not part of the bylaw, their reference. But should they live somewhere on the town website as a useful reference is my next question. 00:35:30,170 S7: I think it's helpful to have them because if we get a development application and it conflicts with what we have, then, you know, we can obviously raise it as an issue and right, ask our peer reviewer to look at it. But I kind of agree with Pat that I don't know that the map itself has to be so detailed. 00:35:46,530 S2: Okay, thanks. 00:35:53,599 S1: So I have to be clear as a drafter. How should we refer to the map in 9.9.1.2? Should that be a reference to the zoning map that sets forth the Browns Hill overlay district? Should it be a reference to the town's overall zoning map, or to this colored map that's identified as figure one that's going to be modified? 00:36:29,269 S7: I think it's up to you, but I would recommend referencing the zoning map because it gets a little confusing when you have multiple maps. And. Right. Ten years from now, you know, just having one map is a little bit easier. 00:36:41,000 S1: So then I will reference the town zoning map that includes the Browns Hill overlay district, no separate Browns Hill overlay district map, but those maps will be available. at any pre-application conference. That's the understanding. Am I right? 00:37:00,869 S4: That makes sense. Yes. 00:37:11,900 S1: Is there any further discussion about any of the tables? 00:37:24,329 S3: I can review the changes in the tables if you like, but. 00:37:37,699 S3: The major change was table five density standards. 00:37:52,429 S3: What was added to the bottom of that sheet was the description how to read the density standards table. There was sufficient questioning the last meeting we had about. Have you read this? What does it mean? And you know, why shouldn't we be making it easier, especially for those who have to administer this down the road? So, uh, what was added was everything in the bottom of that sheet. How to read the density standard table, and then a series of notes that reference back to the table itself. Uh, so I think that whole section is new information for the planning board that was not there. I believe some of the notes were there at the previous meeting we had, but not that. And the other change was to some of the numbers in the table itself. Um, we were just very recently updated from Gordon Conwell on, uh, building sizes, actually, that differed from what we're on, the Abramson Gamble report on the apartment buildings. It was a change that could be significant, but I wanted to get all the information exactly the best I could. So the three categories of subdistricts listed on the left hand column are still applicable the subdistrict developable area. Those are still accurate, and I think you've seen those numbers before. Middle campus was confirmed. That was one of the things that I was concerned about. And they did confirm that number. That's the developable area. And then we got to the subdistrict gross building floor area. The third column from the left. And these numbers change slightly so that the the fixed number at of the lower campus is 102,680. And then there's a note there. Building gross square footage may be increased 10% by the planning board through a special permit. Now that. So that number represents all of the existing building area on maximum gross square footage in LC one. Maximum gross square footage LC two. That's a fixed number. And as the note points out, that can be increased up to 10%. Uh, should it be requested? And now it's by a special permit. The planning board could approve at least that much. Uh, and then that, given those two numbers, if you look at the fixed number 102, 680, you divide that, um, by the total developable area, 286,922. You get an FA of 0.36. And so that's how that number, um, uh, is again, that's a fixed number for that area. And the way this is all set up at this point is that each subdistrict has an AR number and that is the standard for that subdistrict. Um, you know, there is a there is a question about whether that, uh, that area and this is, this is a question for the board actually for discussion whether if that 10% is not used, that could be transferred to another area. I don't think that's a good idea actually. Now I look at it because it starts to break down the FA, which is kind of the the controlling factor throughout, because what we don't know is how each of these subdistricts are going to be subdivided. Will they be divided into large parcels or smaller lots or how is it? So what we've set up is a methodology to have the FAA be the controlling factor in whatever increment of subdivision is chosen for Gordon Conwell. So it's really up to them to decide on that. So as it stands right now, the existing LC one, LC two are the numbers with the f a r on the right, but I just offer up there. Does anybody think we should reconsider if 10%, which is not included here, but will be included to get to the to the middle campus range and the upper campus if it does get built out more firmly. Um, this actually might be a good time. Just to Mark, can you refer to the brownfield overlay development options drawing? Because this is this is the one that we really need to look at to see what happens here. Um. 00:42:27,170 S3: Yeah. That's it. 00:42:38,570 S3: Uh, so the existing conditions, if you look at the, uh, the top row is the header. That is, of course, the disposition of each of the subdistrict uses. And then you get the subdistrict areas that's developable area under LC one. Those areas listed there are developable areas over on the right. That's the total on the entire property to 2,197,000 and so forth. So the top row existing conditions is what is there right now. It's going across the board. Right now if you look in the right, there's 408,455 square gross square feet. That includes the change changes in LC one and LC two to the buildings there. It was primarily LC one that changed. That went up significant number based on a surveyor's information. And it's in the order of magnitude. So so if you look on under LC one on the left hand side of that drawing on LC two, those are those 102,000 Represent what is there now if you go down option one. Directly below that, the gross area for LC one and LC two goes up that 10%. So now instead of 102,000 it's 112,000. And instead of 102,000 plus for LC two it's 113,000. So those areas represent the 10% special permit that are allowed for LC one and LC two. And you can see that just at the bottom of option number one. And that blue row that's an increase in 10,000ft² from the existing. So it's a lot of area for uh for those buildings. Those are the six dormitories. And um the the idea was uh, if you go down now to uh well on option one, continue across there. So that represents the 10% increase requested. If you look under the middle campus, that 42,009 59 represents special permit for all editions requested by Gordon Conwell. It was 10% on the retreat house, 35% on Pilgrim Hall. If that were done, that's 43,000ft². And that is all of that's been attributed to the middle campus, including the portion that's actually in the heritage landscape, but that's being attributed just to account for that square footage to the area in the middle campus that has a 0.05 so far. You can see there. And then you have the upper campus. Uh, the 2226 is the gatehouse that's going to be used as either residence or professional office. Uh, and then the larger numbers of 53,000, 75,000. Those are numbers that are available to reach the overall cap, which we've put on at 400,000ft² in the right hand column. In other words, the decision was made to cap all construction square footage at 400,000. That's 9000 less than what's there right now. But this is how. This is how it's been set up. Run right, right to this point. And that gives you an overall a.18 far. So that's really the kind of the controlling factor in all of this. So you can see that if the three left hand columns are fixed, basically the 10% on the apartment buildings and then the legacy buildings in the in the middle campus, those are fixed. So the only movable pieces left are the middle campus and upper campus. So the two options are and these are the extremes extreme if you do nothing in the middle campus, option one except the legacy buildings, that gives you a 0.0 5FAR, and that means all, then all the remaining construction new work is on the top of the at the upper campus, which is again the sum of 53,075 and roughly 3000ft², or 128. 00:46:45,969 S3: Whatever thousand square feet. That's a 0.16. F a are on the top of the hill. Now, the extreme to that is option two, where Gordon Conwell will probably want to sell the middle campus. So the idea was to set up maybe 45,000. You can see an option two under Middle Campus doing a townhouse senior housing project there, 45,000ft² added to the 43,000 for the legacy buildings. That gives an FAR0.11, and that then leaves 83,000 on the upper campus available for new development. In order to meet the the cap of 400 zero zero zero square feet in the right hand column. So this is what? This is how going back to table five. If you look at this, how we created the, uh. 00:47:44,469 S3: The farmers in the middle campus and upper camp campus that had a range. And what we did was give the range of thousands, thousands of square feet. So if you go back to table five, uh. 00:48:00,570 S3: Looking at the middle campus on the left hand column, you look at the subdistrict. Gross. The far, which is, uh, well, the gross floor area 43,088. What that means is that 43,000 represents the legacy buildings. No new development in the middle campus. The 88,000 is the 43 for the legacy buildings, plus the 45 for new, new new development of senior housing for townhouses in the middle. In the middle campus. That's the range there you can see the range is 0.05 to.11 as the FA. Then you look at the upper campus. Now that varies inversely because there's a set number of square feet of 400,000 in total. The larger you make the the middle campus, the smaller the upper campus has to be. So this is a range then of 131,000, which is the maximum if you went with 43,000 on the middle campus to the minimum of 86,000ft², if Gordon Conwell choose, chooses to go 88,000 on the middle campus. So that is again the range of 0.16 to 0.1 FA. That's how that's set up. So that there is a cap 400,000. The the fixed ones really are lower campus. Everything in the left hand column is fixed. Pretty much all the areas are fixed at this stage. Uh, and then so what, What may vary are middle and upper campus only, and they will vary in that range shown with that far. And that was how this was set up. In order to control what happens if Gordon Conwell chooses to divide the upper campus into two pieces? Each one of those parcels then has the same FA. Whatever is decided that FA will be depending on the middle. On the middle campus it that will guide all of the parcel building ratios. So a floor area ratios. That's how this table is set up and how is intended to be interpreted or administered going forward. So my guess is that Gordon Conwell, if they want to sell the middle campus, they're not going to want to have zero more square footage unless they perhaps take down the buildings, the the Pilgrim Hall, and take down the retreat house After. They just put a lot of money in it. But the next developer might want that. He's got 43,000 available square footage there, with a maximum of 88,000. Again, middle campus building floor area in that third column. 00:50:48,070 S3: Is that clear now on how that is set up, isn't it? Yeah. Okay. Um. 00:50:59,369 S8: You said that the. 00:51:00,300 S6: Data comes as both existing buildings new development. Are we meaning that if the middle campus gets developed beyond the 43,000 that. 00:51:10,500 S6: I mean, I guess I wonder, you know, if you look at at any point in time, as long as Gordon, as long as long as the university, they keep the upper campus and it's it's going to go beyond 400,000 potentially at some point in time if they continue to occupy the upper campus. Right. 00:51:27,070 S3: It's going to be, what? 00:51:28,170 S6: Beyond 400,000ft², if the middle campus gets developed to its full capacity of 88,000ft², 00:51:36,130 S6: and if they're still on the upper campus with 160, whatever it is. 00:51:40,199 S3: 166,000. 00:51:41,969 S6: 6000ft², we're going to be over the 400,000. But it's because. 00:51:47,170 S3: Any new development, which would be the next owner of the property, would have to reduce what's on the top to meet the $400,000. I'm trying to do 400,000 square foot. 00:51:56,699 S6: I wonder if that's confusing the way we title the table and the data encompassing the existing and new development and aggregate totals. 00:52:08,400 S6: Because it could go beyond that 400. 00:52:13,670 S3: Yeah. If if Gordon Conwell, because they have the Dover amendment, as long as they stay there, they, they can do whatever they like because they didn't. They're not observing even The Brownsville Overlay District because of the Dover Amendment. So if they decide to sell off the middle campus as a first strategy and they sell off, say, 45,000ft² 00:52:39,329 S3: in the in the middle campus for housing. Yeah. There then the and they keep the upper campus. They can because they own it. So yes. But when the when the ownership changes that upper campus then, then the body applies. That's when they have they can only build um, you know, whatever the balance is to get to 400,000 in the upper campus. 00:53:03,530 S2: Do you feel that warrants another footnote? 00:53:05,630 S6: Yes, I don't know. I do really, I. 00:53:08,730 S5: Just. 00:53:09,000 S2: I'm not promoting that. 00:53:09,730 S5: I'm. No, no I'm not. 00:53:12,000 S6: Um, you have to reformat the page to add more footnotes. Yeah, I don't think so. I was just asking. It was a point of curiosity, I guess, just in the way that it was intended. 00:53:22,170 S3: That was part of the problem. Was. Sorry. 00:53:25,269 S4: You've got it listed as a maximum as 400,000, but it's not. 00:53:30,869 S3: Well, the thing is, this is for when the the land is transferred to another party. Again, Gordon Connell, as long as they're there, they can build what they want, where they want, without interference, as I understand it, because of the Dover Amendment. So, uh, you know, if they stay there, they have to demonstrate it's for educational purposes. You know, whatever they build, I imagine, to get the Dover Amendment. 00:53:51,500 S2: Another way to look at it is that as long as Gordon Conwell does their own development, they don't have to abide by anything in here. 00:54:01,000 S5: Yeah. 00:54:01,530 S2: It has nothing to do with them. It's only upon sale. So that's sort of like a a large underlying assumption. 00:54:08,000 S5: Yeah. 00:54:08,429 S2: So that's why I was not promoting a footnote. 00:54:10,730 S6: Yeah, I. 00:54:11,000 S5: Wouldn't. 00:54:11,269 S6: Either. 00:54:11,869 S2: Um, but yes, it is. It's an important understanding. Yeah. 00:54:16,429 S6: Then I would just say in the footnote six, maybe eliminating the middle sentence. Were you give an example of the development that would represent the math that you're trying to explain, but it just gives a false like eliminate. You know what you say. For example, one area could contain a 75,000 square foot long term care facility and the other a 21 townhouse. 00:54:43,170 S3: This is talking about the upper campus. And let me just explain that, because there was some, I think, interest on because we saw a map where there's maybe divide the upper campus into two pieces. The thought was you could keep care Hall. And if you look at option two back on that development. 00:54:57,570 S6: I. 00:54:57,800 S5: Understood. 00:54:58,400 S2: You trying to get rid. 00:54:59,030 S5: Of the use just names. 00:55:00,099 S6: I think that's not an example that could it's going to be special permit. It's going to have to be I don't want to give the illusion that that's a possibility. What you're describing here. 00:55:10,429 S5: Do you want. 00:55:10,869 S6: To copy. 00:55:11,429 S2: Do you want to get rid of the the suggested uses or the square footage? 00:55:14,969 S5: I think we're both. 00:55:15,630 S6: The whole sentence can go away because you do a good job explaining in the in the first and third sentence. The math. Yeah, I think it's clear. 00:55:23,429 S3: Maybe a better, maybe a better thing to point out on this case, because I figured it out. Carol, now is 40, 75,000ft². I figured out how big an area would it take to meet the FA. Required that we had for the upper campus, because what would take over if they divided the upper campus into two pieces? Both pieces would operate under the same FA. So what area would they have to then create around Carol? For example, if they wanted to keep that as their building and get and trade off the other half of the top of the hill, uh, it would take something like I think it was seven and a half acres or something like that on the top of the hill to, to to meet the FA for the 70 500 zero square foot unit so that, that that's how it could get. So maybe, maybe the note ought to be sort of to any, any subdivision of the upper campus or any part of the campus will retain the characteristics of that particular FA. That requirement of the FA. Maybe something along that line. 00:56:32,670 S5: But. 00:56:32,829 S6: That's all clear. It's just the the middle sentence is just a it's it's auctioneering something that is you could put a million different options there that none of which may be possible. But the math is correct in the first and third sentence. So and that describes, I think, what you're trying to represent in the footnote. Yeah. Which is. 00:56:51,769 S5: About the other. 00:56:52,369 S6: I understand what you're trying to do there, but I don't think it's helpful for. 00:56:56,630 S5: The. 00:56:57,030 S3: The only the other reason it's there is that there was some interest in long term care, and the understanding was a 75,000 square foot would be a small ish, but a viable kind of long term care facility. Anything less than that, it's not viable. So the thought was, since that's of interest. It is on one of the uses list for the upper campus only that if that were to be the eventuality, they would want that 75,000 in 1 building that would require a certain lot size. Still still have sufficient a lot. 00:57:30,869 S9: Suppose, suppose. Suppose. 00:57:33,570 S8: Suppose the middle campus buildings are torn down. Then that square footage can be transferred up to the upper campus. 00:57:43,269 S3: Not to build. No, not the square. Well, yes, to the upper campus. You could. Yes. Yeah. 00:57:48,630 S5: Okay. Fortunately. 00:57:49,469 S2: But, yeah, there's still a maximum for each zone. 00:57:51,630 S5: Yeah. 00:57:52,469 S8: Yeah, there's still a maximum for each zone. 00:57:54,429 S2: You can't put. 00:57:54,929 S5: All. 00:57:55,530 S8: Yeah. You can't put. 00:57:56,269 S5: Everything. 00:57:56,599 S2: Everything on the. 00:57:57,199 S5: Top. 00:57:57,969 S8: Okay. Okay. That was my question. 00:58:04,230 S1: Have we resolved footnote six? 00:58:08,429 S2: So what was the outcome? No suggestion. 00:58:11,730 S6: I was just saying. 00:58:12,800 S5: It. 00:58:13,469 S6: For me. Anyways, it's clear if you if you just remove the middle sentence and you leave the first and third. 00:58:18,099 S3: So where it says for example, okay. So for example one area could contain. 00:58:23,469 S5: Yeah. 00:58:24,300 S6: I just think it's I don't. 00:58:25,670 S5: Know. 00:58:25,929 S2: I agree it's a little bit arbitrary which, which examples given. 00:58:30,130 S6: It's nice to have examples I get it. 00:58:32,000 S5: Yeah. 00:58:32,269 S6: It is a nice example you made. But yeah it's giving it it's giving a false illusion of what might be possible because that may not be possible. It may be that's required a special permit that would have to come with the development they would have to come with. And then this board may choose. It's not appropriate. You know what I mean? A 70,000 square foot long term care facility may not be approved on the upper campus because it's a special. 00:58:56,969 S5: Yeah, yeah. 00:58:58,000 S1: Okay. So we just take out that one footnote. 00:59:00,130 S6: Even though it works with the FDR and it works on the. Yeah, mathematically. 00:59:03,599 S1: One. 00:59:03,800 S6: Sentence, it may not work. 00:59:05,400 S3: All right. That's that's that's fine. 00:59:08,070 S5: That's fine. 00:59:10,469 S3: I'll delete that. 00:59:14,769 S3: Um, let me just go to the table for. Um. 00:59:20,969 S8: Would you put that back up? 00:59:27,730 S8: Uh, that footnote six again. I have a little bit of trouble, so. 00:59:38,530 S8: The footnote 631 represents the maximum area if the upper campus contains. If the middle campus contains 43. If the middle campus is expanded, then that 131 drops to some lower number. 00:59:56,070 S5: Correct. 00:59:57,300 S8: There's nothing there that says I can't tear down the middle campus and put the 43 together with the 131 on the upper. 01:00:12,829 S2: It doesn't say that in the footnote. 01:00:14,369 S8: It doesn't say you can't. It doesn't say you can. But if I'm a developer, I will always think what you can. 01:00:19,429 S2: In the construction of the of the table. 01:00:22,829 S3: There's a maximum on the upper campus there of 131,000. So if you choose to do nothing in the if you tear everything down the middle campus. 01:00:31,769 S8: You still can only build 131. 01:00:33,670 S3: Only build 131. 01:00:35,000 S2: It's embedded in the chart, not the footnote. 01:00:36,730 S5: Okay. Yeah. 01:00:38,429 S3: Yeah. 01:00:40,429 S2: They work together. 01:00:48,000 S3: The only other table for Mark. 01:00:51,769 S6: This is a good job. 01:00:52,530 S5: Of. 01:00:53,530 S6: Tying the knot around the open ended things that we discussed last meeting, because I think that was the request that was made. Yeah. When we ended, the last one was to add some clarity and footnotes and. 01:01:03,500 S5: Yeah. 01:01:03,699 S3: That's that was the intention. 01:01:05,269 S6: So I. 01:01:05,469 S5: Think that. 01:01:05,769 S3: Was answer a question. 01:01:07,030 S2: He also he also added some key words in the titles that that emphasize that they're maximums. 01:01:14,030 S5: Yeah. 01:01:15,130 S2: And aggregates. 01:01:16,000 S5: So. Yeah. That's helpful too. 01:01:18,530 S3: Yeah. Yeah. Those are all good comments. So, um, I think the only, the only change in this I think was the multi-family dwelling units, the top row there, LC one, LC two, and actually just LC one. I think the buildings that were increased in size by the survey are 9500 was uh, the footprint and the 28,600 was the overall building area maximum for those multi-family dwellings, um, in LC one. 01:01:54,500 S3: Uh that came from the surveyor uh surveys. Notes. 01:01:58,429 S1: Just to be clear, those are apartments A and B and C and D. 01:02:02,230 S5: Yeah. 01:02:06,030 S6: A survey to the exterior of the building? 01:02:09,400 S5: Probably. 01:02:11,230 S3: Yeah. I'm not going to vouch for the, uh, the area. The inference. I'm not going to. I'm not going to get a safe insurance. 01:02:19,099 S2: Well, it's gross square footage. It's not net. It's gross. Its exterior. 01:02:26,800 S6: Includes the. 01:02:27,869 S5: Basic exterior. 01:02:34,070 S3: I mean, that's the only one that was changed, so I'm. 01:02:36,400 S5: Yeah. 01:02:37,469 S3: I'm not sure why it was done, but it had an impact on then. Especially when you add the 10% optional add ons to those that are going to put a lot of area on the, uh, I know we have a lot of concern about the A and lot sizes with those buildings on them. Uh, I mean, they're when you really look and analyze it, there's very little open space that is available for the occupants there. It's the benefit on the whole campus, I think that. will allay that situation a little bit better. 01:03:11,829 S4: Okay. 01:03:12,699 S3: That's it. 01:03:13,599 S4: Um. 01:03:14,269 S1: So at this point in in, if no one else on the board has any comments, I will permit um, members of the public to speak again, please, if possible, keep your remarks to three minutes. 01:03:37,369 S10: Dave 215 Woodbury Street. Um, basic question. I mean, you know, you went on about this. There's no restriction as far as I just heard on the cemetery to continue developing the remaining property. The only thing that limits them is the is the wastewater treatment facility or or correctly how much they can discharge into the property. And so I want to know. Ask the seminary. Have they have any plans to discharge more than the design limit of the current wastewater treatment facility of 58,000 gallons per day? Straightforward question, because I hear allusions to the fact that they are planning to put another septic system, maybe another wastewater treatment plant on the on the property. Answer the question, please. 01:04:34,400 S5: I don't know if. 01:04:34,829 S3: You know about it. 01:04:37,469 S1: Are you prepared to answer that question? I mean, if you may. 01:04:43,429 S11: Yes, Mr. Speaker. 01:04:45,599 S5: Okay. 01:04:47,969 S12: Your question is, does the seminary plans to expand the the use? It's it's capped by DP. So our system can only handle. 01:04:56,630 S5: It. 01:04:56,929 S10: On the property anyplace on the property. Any. Are you planning to put. 01:05:00,800 S12: Not aware of any any Intentions to do that. So it and it's all capped by DP. You couldn't build anything more than what the regulations would permit. 01:05:09,829 S10: So it's that's I asked that question again. I asked, are you planning to put any discharge more than the design capacity of that current plant into the property? 01:05:25,329 S10: It includes the all property, all 102 acres or whatever it is. 01:05:30,670 S12: No, there are no intentions of doing that, but anything that would be expanded is subject to DEP approval. So we can't expand the use of the current system beyond what's allowed. And any future use would have to be according to the regulations of the state. 01:05:44,929 S5: So so so. 01:05:46,570 S12: I think I've answered your question. 01:05:47,530 S10: No, you have not. 01:05:48,369 S12: Okay. What's the question again? 01:05:50,099 S10: So would you agree to to explicitly state that in the agreement that that you will not increase your discharge groundwater discharge beyond design Design capacity of 58,000. 01:06:05,599 S12: No. You asked if we have plans of doing it. There's no plans. And we're not going to. We're not going to limit more than what's already been limited by the bylaw and the development agreement. So. 01:06:15,070 S1: Right. And may I just add that this is I mean, what you're asking. I appreciate why you're asking it, but it's not actually something that we could put in a zoning amendment. 01:06:29,530 S10: Um. Why not? 01:06:31,730 S1: Well, because it's it's really, in a sense, not zoning. I mean, it's it's something that's controlled by the Commonwealth. And so I don't think that the that the seminary could exceed the capacity, because if it did so, it would be violating state law. 01:06:50,369 S10: They cannot exceed the capacity of the existing system or as, as currently built and where it's currently disposing of the affluent. That doesn't say there is other places on the property where they can dispose of other effluent. Just the other meeting, they talked about a possible septic system underneath the tennis court, the old tennis courts on the property. That was somebody mentioned it. I'll go back and. 01:07:19,269 S5: See. 01:07:19,400 S10: If I could. 01:07:20,199 S2: Interpret what the question is. 01:07:21,699 S5: Yes. 01:07:22,130 S2: Please do. I think you're asking, would there ever be a larger capacity septic system on that property? Not that septic system, but another septic system with greater capacity. Is that what you're asking? 01:07:36,900 S10: I'm asking. I think I asked this question. Are they have any plans to dispose of more than the design? 58,000 gallons per day, that is currently. 01:07:48,469 S2: If if. 01:07:49,300 S10: People from the wastewater treatment. 01:07:50,869 S5: Plant. 01:07:51,199 S2: If they develop the property and the development under this zoning bylaw law required a new. 01:08:00,900 S8: Second. 01:08:02,130 S5: A. 01:08:02,670 S2: New second, third, fifth, whatever septic system it would have to comply with all of the state laws which are not part of this. That's separate, separate sanitary codes. So if you're asking will, if the current capacity of that system right now would ever be increased in a newly designed system, it might be. So I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but the the issue is they can't do anything with that system without rebuilding it. They can't increase the capacity without rebuilding it. And if they do rebuild it, it has to again, it has to meet all of the state bylaws and the the septic is limited by the number of dwelling units that that are in this bylaw. So and understand. 01:08:53,770 S10: It's limited by the number of bathrooms on the property or and or the number. 01:08:59,329 S5: It's actually. 01:09:00,170 S10: Occupying. 01:09:00,899 S2: But go ahead it's number of bedrooms, but not bedroom. 01:09:03,130 S10: Excuse me. Thank you. Correct. Um, and I still don't have an accurate number as to the number of current bedrooms on the property. 01:09:12,029 S2: Okay. So is your question number. What's what's the number of maximum number of bedrooms on the property? Is that the question? 01:09:17,699 S10: Um, as a starting point. How about the how about the maximum number of bedrooms that are currently on the property, including the stables, including the. So those are different. 01:09:27,569 S2: Those are different questions than the capacity of the septic system. 01:09:30,930 S10: I understand that. 01:09:32,069 S6: So thank you. Remind you that the the maximum flow isn't you're not just because you have a maximum flow. You have a permit that says you can discharge 58,000 gallons per day or whatever it is. It doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want with that, as long as you stay within that boundary, every time that you modify a system upstream of that treatment plant. It has to be engineered in a way where you had a requirement to go back to the state, and the state has to approve the modification to that system. The modification to the upstream discharge, even if you're within the limits. So it doesn't matter what you do on the property. It can they can develop whatever they want, but each single development that modifies that system upstream of the treatment has to go back to the state with an engineered set of drawings and then a permit application, and then. 01:10:22,699 S5: They have there and to read the. 01:10:24,470 S6: Treatment hasn't been. 01:10:25,569 S5: Impacted. 01:10:26,170 S2: To reiterate that all of that is out of the purview of this board, completely out of the purview of this board, and is and is carefully governed by the state of Massachusetts and the town of Hamilton outside of this board. 01:10:39,600 S10: The goal, or at least as pitched as far as I can see, was all this effort by the Pine board is to limit or to control or guide development on the property and the 400,000 zero zero zero square foot is to limit if the property were ever sold in its entirety. If the property is ever sold, am I correct? I've been listening for quite a few meetings. That's what I understand is to control or limit development on the property to what it is currently is. 01:11:11,300 S1: Right. And I think maybe, you know, what you're alluding to is the rights that the seminary has under the Dover Amendment. And the Dover Amendment is obviously, as you know, a state law, and it enables religious and educational institutions to bypass some of normal zoning. 01:11:32,199 S10: So the only thing that limits them, in truth is what they can discharge into the ground groundwater discharges. But whether through the existing combination of existing septic systems, another wastewater treatment plant, an additional one, that's what limits them is, is is development. And that's what I'm addressing here. The other stuff is is almost meaningless. 01:11:59,270 S8: So the Dover amendment allows them would allow them to build more housing, more classrooms or whatever they wish to do, but that would still create added effluent, and that added effluent would have to be treated. And that whole process of treating it and making sure it was up to snuff is all governed by state law. 01:12:23,399 S10: I know it's governed by state law. I'm asking, I asked, I'm asking the seminary where they have made an assessment of whether they could add additional. 01:12:31,869 S8: They could if they wish. I don't think they're there. They've been trying to downsize recently, not upsize. 01:12:39,199 S10: But, um, if they leave the property, they would try to maximize the development beyond, you know, I'm trying to maintain the character of the property, you know, putting all that you've described on the property doesn't maintain the character at all. So that doesn't seem to be that restrictive, actually. 01:12:59,229 S5: Actually. 01:12:59,630 S8: Actually it does. We're we're we're, you know, sort of encouraging them to reuse the existing buildings. They can't when they're all said and done, any developer can't put more, you know, gross square footage approximately than is already there. So they're not we're not, you know, turning the, you know, the gods of development loose on that site. 01:13:26,270 S1: No, in fact, I mean, we've, we've really listened and and the focus of this overlay district is, is primarily residential development. Now we have considered senior housing that has a, you know, obviously a commercial component, but it is still residential. And we've have. We have established the heritage landscape and we've got buffer zones. I mean, we've in natural zones, so we are as sensitive. Maybe not as much as you because we're not a butters, but we're all driven around that campus and want to see that it's character is maintained. And that's why we identified the legacy buildings and and and tried through this document to promote their retention. So I, I think we've, uh, you know, gone a long way to maintain the character of the site and to promote its orderly development. Now, because of the Dover Amendment, we cannot stop the seminary. If it were to say we need another dormitory. Now, I don't think that's likely because they've found out that a lot of their students prefer to study online, and they can service a much broader array of people, even from overseas, using online education. So I don't think they're going to do that. But again, we cannot dictate what they do with their state created. Right. 01:15:09,899 S10: That's why I asked the seminary directly as whether they had at least plant plans, let alone do they know whether or not they can add discharge capacity on the property, not to the plant, on the property? 01:15:23,729 S1: Well, I think he answered your question, but I'm not sure you liked the answer. 01:15:28,199 S10: Yeah, essentially you said I believe at best, he said, I don't know. 01:15:34,199 S4: But he did. 01:15:35,500 S10: And then I asked the question whether they would be willing to agree to limit themselves to the current discharge capacity of the existing. I don't know if I had an answer to that question. 01:15:47,170 S1: But, sir, I don't want to, you know, be rude. But I mean, we're trying to finalize this document and vote on it tonight. And what you're discussing is, is outside the purview of this document. Although I, I understand your concerns. I'm not trying to diminish them. 01:16:04,470 S5: Or. 01:16:04,699 S1: We can't. 01:16:05,500 S10: Can you inform me as to who in this town I can speak to this matter about? 01:16:10,670 S1: Well, the Select Board has has entered into a development agreement with the seminary, and perhaps that could have been addressed in the development agreement. I know there was a reference to the number of bedrooms for the apartments. 01:16:28,869 S10: A reference to the only. I decided a number when I asked the question. 01:16:44,569 S13: Nancy, 215 Woodbury Street. I have a question. I'm just a little bit confused. Um, when I read the 9.9.8.3 01:16:57,600 S13: section late this afternoon, you hadn't added this change that you handed out tonight. Yes. And I'm just confused about number one, because what had been said was a specific reference to an on site wastewater treatment facility, and that specific content is no longer in number one. 01:17:20,569 S1: It just we made it broader. It just said all effluent I understand has to be treated in. 01:17:26,869 S13: You did make it broader. I just don't understand why it would be broader. Because what my concern is, is that the the language that you added, which I believe helps and it's much more specific than what was there before, just that the property was exempt. Leaves me to wonder why you would have to exempt it at all, if what you're actually saying is essentially that the only difference is the two acre zoning issue. So that's what I just want a little bit of clarification. You said the whole reason that you specify this was because the issue in the groundwater protection current bylaw has that 80,000 square foot requirement. 01:18:13,029 S1: If we included that. I understand that. 01:18:16,100 S13: But in this particular thing, you're saying the entire campus is exempt from the groundwater protection because the Bod. 01:18:27,600 S1: Supersedes. 01:18:28,369 S13: Supersedes it. And yet I don't understand why it would have to supersede it. Why wouldn't it still? 01:18:37,970 S1: Because, Because what I did was take the pertinent provisions from the groundwater protection overlay district. I don't think you need. Well, number one, the two acre zoning doesn't work. You don't need the application process. You don't need, you know, some of the if you read the GP code. There are parts of it that are not pertinent to this document, but the purpose, the criteria, the prohibited uses. 01:19:08,600 S13: Yes, I. 01:19:08,970 S1: Understand the requirement for the special permit are pertinent. And those specific provisions were incorporated here, not the ones that really had no bearing on the substance of groundwater. 01:19:23,670 S13: I understand what you're saying. So in number one, by making it more general, what does it say? All effluent produced within the body must be treated within the body in conformance with state law. So that would mean whatever the state law said at a given time would apply to any future development. 01:19:42,930 S1: Well, this document is for today, but it's also for 50 years for. 01:19:48,199 S13: Me to understand. And that's exactly what I'm worried about. 01:19:50,770 S4: Well. 01:19:54,430 S1: So this provision here with respect to the treatment of wastewater is very similar to what's in the senior housing Bible, because the alternative to that is it can be treated somewhere else. And how does that help anyone? 01:20:09,329 S13: Well, I'm just concerned that there isn't enough protection and it leaves wide open possibilities that we can't anticipate. So, for example, if the state were to require more, um, treatment for PFAS and stuff like that, like how would that how would that number one continue? And because before it said it had to be an on site wastewater treatment facility. Now it doesn't say that. So could it be a septic system? I mean, is it leaving this open to any possible? It just seems too general and I was hoping for something more specific. So I just think it has. 01:20:52,069 S1: To comply with state. 01:20:53,199 S13: Law. I see that. Yeah. 01:20:54,399 S1: And whatever state law says, that's what's going to govern this. I mean, we can't start adding to this zoning bylaw. 01:21:03,569 S13: I understand, so but why what what's the why does it have to. Is it just because of the 80 zero zero zero square foot? 01:21:11,800 S1: Well, that's a large. 01:21:13,300 S13: I understand because that why you had to sort of write all around this. Why doesn't the groundwater protection apply with the exception of I just. 01:21:22,670 S5: You. 01:21:23,069 S2: Can't have. 01:21:23,470 S5: Two conflicting. 01:21:24,699 S8: That's what this. 01:21:25,329 S5: Does. Yes. You can't. 01:21:26,199 S2: Have two conflicting overlay. 01:21:27,369 S5: Districts. 01:21:27,800 S8: Water protection. 01:21:29,130 S5: With. 01:21:29,529 S8: The exception of the features of the groundwater protection law that are in some sense conflict with the Browns Hill overlay district, which is the which is basically the zoning of 1 or 2 acres. 01:21:43,729 S13: Yeah. I hear what you're saying. I just don't think it's clear. So that's why I was asking. It seems more confusing now than it was before. 01:21:51,670 S1: Well, I regret that because what I said is that the the the specific provisions mentioned apply. So the important ones, the purpose and the criteria for a special permit continue to apply. The prohibited uses apply. That's the biggest thing of all. 01:22:12,369 S13: I understand that and I agree with you. I just again I'm it's the density of development that. 01:22:19,069 S1: Well the density of development is governed in the tables not here. 01:22:23,300 S5: But. 01:22:23,470 S2: It's floor area. None bedroom count. That's the key difference here. It's not bedroom count. It's floor area. And you can kind of do some vague math and figure out how many bedrooms are likely in that floor area, but it's not limited by bedrooms, right? Because that's just not a good way to create zoning. 01:22:41,300 S13: But it concerns me because of the density. And if that's if that's the way it that you believe is the best you can do. I was just surprised to see it become more general as opposed to more specific, which is why I asked to clarify. 01:22:53,000 S1: Well, for example, if the existing wastewater treatment plant becomes obsolete for one reason or another, I know that there's been an investment in it. But again, this is a long term, uh, yeah project here. So there will be new technologies and whatnot. So you don't want to just limit it to what exists there now, because there could be something better than 30 years. 01:23:17,329 S13: That's that I understand. I just I don't I don't read that in that. 01:23:21,670 S2: And so your concern should be with the state. If the state starts relaxing, um, standards, then you should be concerned. But the state that's not historically what the state does. They increase standards and that's going to protect you more and more and more. But it's again outside the purview of this. 01:23:37,430 S5: Board. 01:23:37,930 S2: And outside the purview of zoning. 01:23:39,500 S13: I just really just saw the difference. And I wanted some clarification. And that helps. 01:23:44,569 S2: And we can't be less stringent than the state. We can be more stringent, but we can't be less. 01:23:49,300 S13: More would be nice. 01:23:50,770 S5: Thank you. 01:23:51,630 S2: But that's the Board of Health, not the the planning board. 01:23:59,470 S11: Which is basically anyone else. 01:24:05,869 S3: I don't see anybody online. Nobody there. 01:24:14,869 S12: Well, Myron Walters again for the seminary, I guess just two sort of clarifications on the the surveys. The six page one, of course, is much more precise. And I didn't quite catch what the final result was. Will those then be incorporated into the overall town board zoning bylaw, or is it. 01:24:36,229 S3: Those are the only ones that really that carry the dimensions, the bearings and distances on the perimeter and all the interior. So they ought to exist, because if you want to replicate that, if a developer comes in, wants to do a project, he has to identify what are the boundaries that comes from your drawings, okay. 01:24:54,829 S12: So they'll they'll. 01:24:55,600 S5: Be honored to be. 01:24:56,270 S12: They'll be part of the record. 01:24:57,770 S3: But you have to make that available to the town hall. 01:25:01,630 S2: Um, so the answer is that it was not part of the bylaw, but it will be reference material, not legally part of the bylaw. 01:25:09,569 S12: What if there's a dispute in the future as to what the boundaries are for one land court. 01:25:15,029 S3: We're approving. 01:25:15,800 S5: What. 01:25:16,670 S3: We're approving. 01:25:17,270 S5: What can we avoid that? That will help. There are surveyors. 01:25:22,630 S2: Surveyors do dispute each other. And that that is settled in land court. You know, with going back to registered land. That's a separate question. 01:25:32,270 S12: Well, if you know, if the dispute is here as to where the boundaries lie between you, C and MC, for example. 01:25:40,170 S5: We're not disputing. 01:25:41,270 S1: On what you gave. 01:25:42,300 S5: Us. 01:25:42,699 S7: We're going to send us that mapping. 01:25:45,029 S2: Yes, we're going to use. 01:25:45,829 S7: That incorporate that because we. 01:25:47,500 S12: That's what I'm asking. So it will be incorporated. Okay. 01:25:50,699 S3: All right. No, it's exactly what we gave you a drawing, knowing really how close the we had identified all of the districts and had done a rough analysis of what those areas are. Your surveyor really confirmed that with much more exact numbers to seven decimal places. So, you know, that was great. And so we are consistent in our analysis. You're not doing any. You've not done anything that we found surprising. Right. The only surprise was one of the buildings is slightly larger. Right. Um, you know, one of the dormitories, but, um. 01:26:27,229 S5: And. 01:26:27,729 S12: Then the one pager we'll try to do. We'll have VPI do what you've asked in terms of delineating the roads, etcetera. The concern that they had is just that it's at that level of general level. It's hard to do without it kind of getting muddied. So we'll do it and we'll send it to you. And then if you have concerns or you need to back out anything, let us know. Does that make sense? 01:26:49,569 S3: Yeah. If you can lighten the colors. 01:26:51,430 S5: Okay. 01:26:51,930 S3: Keep them the same, but lighten it. So then the background reads a little bit better. 01:26:56,399 S12: So the the second thing it's more, more substantive. If I could ask you so that when we, we've been sort of pushing for that 10% for the additional potential expansion for the apartment buildings, that is happens not to be something that the buyers that we have right now are necessarily interested in. So it hasn't been. It's not part of that, but we just thought it might be helpful in the future. But we had anticipated that there'd be fungibility in terms of the square footage, so that if they don't use it, or for example, if they're able to achieve it in 3%, let's say, and do what they want with the elevators, that that those square feet could be allocated. Otherwise that up to 20,000ft² just gets eliminated. And instead of 400,000 cap, you're at 380. So we just ask if there's a way to allow us. I know that the the 11 four plans had the earlier numbers on you see one I mean you see and and MC so just would the plane would be open to that. So we don't lose that if they don't use it that would be available to MC or UC. So it's really going back just a week's worth of of table five. 01:28:09,399 S2: I have concerns about that. 01:28:11,470 S8: I think that the 400 total cap includes all the ten percents. 01:28:16,430 S5: Yeah. But so you wouldn't lose it. 01:28:20,000 S8: You wouldn't lose it, right? 01:28:21,470 S3: No, they don't build it. He said, can they transfer it? 01:28:23,800 S1: So if they didn't use it in the for the apartments, could they transfer it somewhere else? What it would mean is all the tables. Well the tables five would have to be done over. The problem is we have to vote tonight. We can. We're past the stage where we can do that kind of substantive edit. 01:28:43,470 S12: I think it's really just using the numbers from last week's table five. It because it's just. 01:28:50,130 S1: I'm going to let Amel do this because I mean if if he's done 20 iterations of this table he's done 100. 01:28:58,699 S12: Yeah he has. That's true. 01:29:00,069 S1: Point. It stops. And it's only because we're under the time pressure now for the. 01:29:08,470 S5: PFA. 01:29:09,000 S1: To the to get this on the warrant for the special. 01:29:12,869 S12: Yeah. No not necessarily for me. I just think a seventh footnote just delineating that saying if it's not used the 10% isn't used. Then it can be applied to MC. And you see in the ratios that are shown on the table. Something that's simple so you don't have to recalculate all the tables. 01:29:30,329 S1: It would change the phase right. 01:29:32,270 S3: It would change it slightly. But I will say that the the only area, if you decide you can take down all the buildings on top on the upper campus, and you're only going to be allowed so many square foot, you can't replicate it, you get same on the middle campus. You can take down all the legacy, not you, but the next owner, all the legacy buildings. And you get credit for those in the middle campus because there we have a minimum gross square footage and a maximum gross square footage. If if you now start changing the lower campus and say, well, we might build 5% more or we might build 8% more, you know, forward. 01:30:11,529 S8: Then we could take 2% more and then put it somewhere else. Yeah, the table is going to get really complex. 01:30:16,899 S3: It's going to get even more complicated than that. 01:30:18,569 S5: Yeah, well. 01:30:19,729 S12: The cap, though. The town is protected in that the cap is 400,000. So that that wouldn't change its recognition. 01:30:27,329 S1: Let me just say this. I mean, we're speculating now because the the the buyers of the apartments, they may not want to use the 10%. But when I did some research about their business plans and by no means am I an expert on their business plans, but it seemed to me that they buy these apartments and then hold them for a certain period of time, and then they sell them. So upon sale, my I would surmise that a new buyer may actually want to use that 10%. So you wouldn't necessarily want to lose that because those apartment buildings are, you know, they have some age on them. So so it's it's conceivable that someone could see the market went there as requiring, you know, using the 10% to create amenities. And, you know, I would want to keep that available. And more importantly, I want to close out the documents tonight if I'll if at all possible. Because these are these are it's more substantive. You are correct. We had a public hearing. This wasn't brought up at the public hearing. We're only now hearing it and we don't really have the bandwidth. I hate the term. We don't have the the the real opportunity to make the change, to let other people become aware of it because it's substantive and get feedback on that. 01:32:00,729 S3: And the other the other thing I'll add to that is, um, the next developer can always submit something. It's going to be a special permit anyway, and the planning board would have the option to approve it or not approve it. You know, this gives guidance, this document. And that's really was the intent. And to make that I don't think the I mean a plain boy can't go start taking everything apart again. But you know that that that option is always there in all zoning, you know, to submit something that, uh, you know, that could be approved as a special, as a special permit. 01:32:38,229 S12: And you feel a footnote wouldn't suffice here to make that clarification. 01:32:45,300 S3: Well, because everything's fixed in the FA, the numbers, the square footage on all the lots, and if they. 01:32:51,000 S5: Are. 01:32:51,470 S1: The FAS would all change. 01:32:54,170 S6: Keep in mind what we're trying to do here by limiting the development in some of the areas and not transfer them. 01:32:59,399 S5: Yeah, exactly. 01:33:00,100 S6: Because we're trying to encourage development in those areas. 01:33:02,300 S3: We're trying to locate exactly. 01:33:03,800 S6: Trying to encourage the densities and the zones in which we're allowing higher FAS. 01:33:08,069 S5: In. 01:33:08,229 S3: Particular places. 01:33:09,199 S6: Horse trading between them. We lose that. You lose that effort. 01:33:14,199 S3: It's going to be impossible to track. You know, once you start building on it. 01:33:17,500 S2: I'd also like to add to what Amel said about a future developer. It sounds like the person buying it might just be sort of flipping it, but a future developer would. Also, as soon as they make any changes, they're going to have to be code compliant. And it might be that the mechanicals and the amenities don't really meet code as as they are right now, and that 10% will be essential to make that building viable. So I think it's Pennywise and pound foolish to try to mess with this at this late date for all those, for all those reasons. 01:33:48,300 S12: So may I close in? Uh, we don't want to stop you from moving forward tonight. I want to bring the seminary's deep Thanksgiving to you guys in the Thanksgiving season for a remarkable amount of work. And, uh, we're fully behind what you've put together and look forward to a successful time in December 9th. So thank you very much. 01:34:12,130 S1: Does anyone else care to comment? 01:34:16,229 S5: Good morning. 01:34:16,670 S14: This is John Kissel from. I'm a trustee at Gordon Conwell. I just wanted to echo Scott Sundquist. Thanks. He's teaching tonight and was unable to join. And he asked me to officially just give the planning board. Um, a gracious thank you for the many years of effort, and we're appreciative of the Butters and the select board also. It's been an arduous process. We acknowledge that, and we just are deeply grateful for the town and their efforts to help make this opportunity for the vote for December 9th happen. So thank you. 01:34:53,029 S1: Thank you. 01:34:56,869 S1: So I guess we're at that critical period of time where we entertain a vote to recommend to the town to include the Brownsville Overlay District. The map in the five tables on the Warren. 01:35:15,630 S4: So moved. 01:35:16,869 S5: Second. 01:35:17,430 S8: Seconded. 01:35:18,329 S5: Just. 01:35:18,770 S3: Just with a couple of days. 01:35:20,970 S1: Subject to. Subject to the minor stylistic changes. The correction of the typo in in the. 01:35:29,970 S3: Yeah. The elimination of a sentence and elimination. 01:35:32,329 S1: And then the reference to the map, which is going to be to the Hamilton zoning map, which includes the Brownhills overlay. 01:35:39,770 S4: So moved. Yes. 01:35:40,970 S1: Okay. Second. Do I have a second? So when I call your name, please indicate whether you agree with this motion. Pat Norton. Jonathan. 01:35:52,430 S2: Poor Jonathan, poor I. 01:35:54,170 S1: Am old Dahlquist. 01:35:55,199 S5: And. 01:35:55,329 S3: Will Dahlquist die. 01:35:56,329 S1: Bill Wheaton. 01:35:57,199 S8: Bill weed and I. 01:35:58,229 S1: Darcy. Dale. 01:35:59,170 S4: Darcy. 01:35:59,529 S1: Dale I and Marney Crouch I. So the next. The next, um, effort will be at town meeting, but we've passed one hurdle. 01:36:11,369 S6: So I forwarded Amos 30 slide. 01:36:17,199 S5: Go over to the our. 01:36:19,569 S4: Just. 01:36:21,170 S5: The 60 story. 01:36:22,329 S4: Don't don't. 01:36:23,500 S1: Mention it. We want to get a quorum. 01:36:29,270 S1: So obviously we should talk about how to, uh, uh, let people know about this document, uh, how it relates to the development agreement and why. Um, it's it's a good thing for the town. Uh, I know it's tried to say it, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. We tried our best to accommodate various interests. I mean, we've heard from a lot of different parties. I mean, there are people who look at at the potential development as a source of revenue. I've heard, and Mark can confirm, that the Affordable Housing Trust is in support of this document, because there will be a likelihood that that 25% of the apartments will be affordable at 80% of Ami. But all the apartments, all 209 will be included on the site, which will give the town some additional leverage in evaluating future 40 B project and projects. And in the development agreement, the seminary did agree to refrain from ever marketing the property for a 40 B, so that's an enormous benefit for the town to not have a really that type of extensive development on this campus. And it's an also an enormous development that we don't have. Um, you know, just more million dollar houses in Hamilton. We have plenty of those already. And the type of housing that can potentially be built here, uh, will open doors, hopefully for children of long term residents and other people interested in coming to Hamilton that, uh, don't want, um, the burdens. I know there are many benefits, but there are some burdens with single family housing. Uh, painting, repairing the roof. I could go on from my personal experiment experience, yard work, etcetera, etcetera. So we're, you know, there's the potential for some new types of housing and senior housing on this site. So, you know, at some point at our when is our next meeting? 01:38:59,529 S7: December 2nd. 01:39:00,670 S1: December 2nd December, the Select Board will be meeting on the first, and we can discuss how we will go about presenting this document and and whatnot to the public. So any other comments? 01:39:22,630 S2: Um, I just off the subject, I wondered if there had been any headway on FAQ thought of about FAQs. 01:39:29,270 S1: Right. Good point. 01:39:32,329 S2: How am I. 01:39:33,329 S5: Aiming. 01:39:33,569 S2: That question. 01:39:34,130 S5: At you? 01:39:35,869 S7: We did that for the town center, uh, district. And I think it was helpful to have as a handout at um, town meeting and something to post on the website. So, um, I can work on a draft of that. 01:39:47,729 S2: And we thought you did an excellent job. 01:39:51,130 S4: Right. 01:39:51,529 S1: I'm glad you brought that up because I mentioned it to Mark, but he he was away at a conference and it, it it actually fell through the cracks a little bit. So I'm glad you brought that up. But I think I gave Mark a bunch of topics about that that FAQ's could be centered around. But of course, if any of you have any ideas for FAQs, I'm sure Mark would love to have your questions. Um, and we can then attempt to provide answers. So, um. 01:40:30,300 S4: Hmm. 01:40:31,270 S1: It might be nice to meet sooner than, um, December 2nd. 01:40:35,770 S2: Then the other question is, how are we presenting at town meeting? 01:40:40,300 S1: Well, that's something that we have to coordinate with with the select board, because clearly, um, the overlay district, which will be the subject of a vote, is, uh, in John Whitman's words, belt and suspenders. Development agreement will be discussed as well. Because the. Because it does have some provisions that relate to the overlay district. But yeah, we'll have to work on on that because uh, as you know, John, there's a script. I hate to say that, but there is a script that's used at town meeting. And oftentimes Cape Law Town Council is involved in that process. So, um. 01:41:27,670 S7: Yeah, just kind of going by the last one, it was, I think 30 minutes between the speakers for the the town center zoning. I think that worked reasonably well. Um, if you want to get into real specifics, I think that's where the handouts come in handy, because you might not be able to cover everything in 30 minutes. 01:41:47,300 S5: It should be. 01:41:47,800 S6: Easier than that. 01:41:50,029 S7: This this should be easier. 01:41:52,470 S2: But but during the town center presentation, people did come forward and say they appreciated the clarity of like the handouts and the information that was disseminated, and it really helped them make a more informed decision. 01:42:05,829 S4: Right. 01:42:06,529 S1: So, so Mike and I can talk and work on work on that and maybe, you know, reach out to some members of the select board and get some ideas so that on December 2nd, we have some real concrete information. I really think it's important that that there be some type of, uh, notice placed in the Hamilton went on paper advising people of the special town meeting and how the Brownsville Overlay District is important for the town. 01:42:45,529 S1: So we'll have to, you know, think about that. 01:42:48,029 S15: Moderator is requiring slides by the. 01:42:52,000 S1: 1st of December. Yikes. 01:42:57,229 S15: You mentioned that last night. It's like the foyer slides to be presented. 01:43:02,729 S3: Do you know how long the presentation is supposed to be? 01:43:05,600 S15: No, I wouldn't. I would go either. 01:43:08,229 S3: 30 minutes, 30 minutes. 01:43:11,270 S1: Does he have something like the town moderator may waive that requirement under special circumstances to get us to December 2nd, where we have. 01:43:25,729 S1: So, you know, since we don't have another meeting until December 2nd, it's hard to get that accomplished. 01:43:37,970 S15: I'd say fire up your negotiation skills. 01:43:43,729 S11: I think that would be better. 01:43:46,029 S1: Right. Right. Okay, so, Mark, we we have our work cut out for us. 01:43:51,970 S7: I'm happy to reach out to him. I think he's been reasonable in the past so to work with us. 01:43:57,300 S1: But we need to get up to speed well before that as to to slides and that type of thing. And I think that, uh, we have to be, uh, Pat's right. I mean, we can't overwhelm, uh, people with numbers. I mean, clearly that's not going to resonate. I know from the fin com, you always have the budgets up there, and even with my glasses, I can't read them. 01:44:24,569 S4: Right. 01:44:26,199 S1: I know you have to do that, but. 01:44:30,500 S5: No, the. 01:44:31,329 S2: Code really needs to sort of be summed up in like an executive summary in a sense. Not not numbers. 01:44:36,569 S5: Right. 01:44:37,000 S1: Yeah. Exactly. 01:44:38,270 S5: Right. 01:44:38,569 S1: Exactly. 01:44:39,670 S15: So you'll have a chance to read our book recommendations probably this coming Monday. 01:44:44,300 S4: Okay. Great. 01:44:45,270 S15: Is that as material. 01:44:47,329 S4: Right. Great. 01:44:49,800 S1: And I did write a letter to the editor and my personal capacity, and it was returned to me quite promptly because it far exceeded the 400 word limit. 01:45:07,500 S1: And the editor called me and I said, it's hard to summarize a 16 page document, and the development agreement was ten pages that it's hard to do that in 400 words. So anyway. 01:45:24,130 S1: Anyhow, we'll get to work on that. So I think we can turn to the next item on our agenda unless we're good. Um, and that is a discussion of the attorneys General General's approval of the July 14th special town meeting. Zoning articles. 01:45:52,529 S7: So just to notice that the Attorney General has approved all of the language that was passed by the town at the July special town meeting. Um, the state Executive Office of Housing Livable Communities has approved the three a portions of the rezoning. So they've determined that the zoning the town passed complies with the state's three requirements. So good news, I would say. 01:46:24,699 S4: I did notice the HLC is talking about common driveways. Did you pick up on that? 01:46:29,699 S5: I did, yeah. 01:46:30,529 S4: I. 01:46:30,829 S5: Did. 01:46:31,670 S4: Just wondering. I know on Bridge Street they have there's a common driveway without a special permit. 01:46:40,670 S1: From the CBA. 01:46:42,569 S4: On a steep slope. 01:46:43,829 S5: On a steep slope. 01:46:47,869 S1: So the the attorney general didn't weigh in on the town center zoning yet, right? 01:46:55,430 S7: Uh, the attorney general has approved both articles. 01:46:58,029 S1: So they are both articles. Okay. But they did what I read. They just focused on the three A section. 01:47:06,670 S11: Okay. 01:47:10,229 S8: Has the CBA made a decision on the tobacco woods? 01:47:15,369 S7: No. They requested postponement to February to see what happens with the land acquisition. 01:47:22,470 S4: I heard they only need 400,000. Right. Yeah, they whittled that right down. 01:47:26,899 S1: That was a week ago. 01:47:27,729 S4: Was that after the myopia fundraiser? 01:47:30,430 S5: I probably. 01:47:31,329 S4: Was. 01:47:34,000 S11: There. You know. 01:47:39,930 S1: Yeah, I think that, uh, I think that, uh, they should be able to raise that sum of money. 01:47:48,569 S11: They will. 01:47:51,800 S1: So. 01:47:55,829 S1: Turning to the next item, our meeting schedule. Yes. 01:48:04,699 S1: So we have a meeting on December 2nd. And then the next meeting would be, um, December 16th. 01:48:16,229 S7: You're scheduled to meet December 16th, I think the last meeting. There's some talk about maybe canceling that meeting. I would just need to know tonight. 01:48:23,670 S5: Oh. 01:48:24,199 S1: You would need to know tonight. 01:48:26,069 S7: Yes. Because if we have an application, I'd have to notice it for that meeting if we don't cancel it. 01:48:32,899 S1: Okay. So should we have a little discussion about the December 16th meeting? 01:48:38,670 S5: Sure. 01:48:41,029 S1: Um, an informal poll since we've had multiple 01:48:47,569 S1: additional meetings throughout the course of the year, and I would surmise that there have been at least three. 01:48:55,069 S4: Oh. More than that. 01:48:56,670 S1: More than that? 01:48:57,600 S4: Yeah. Don't you think? I mean, sometimes we're meeting every week. 01:49:01,029 S1: Yes, it seemed that way, didn't it? 01:49:03,069 S2: So I think Pat Norton votes to keep it in the schedule. 01:49:07,000 S5: Oh. 01:49:11,069 S5: Yeah. Not true. I wasn't going to make that motion, so. 01:49:14,970 S3: I'll make a motion. 01:49:15,800 S5: We cancel. 01:49:17,199 S4: Second. 01:49:19,470 S1: So. So when I call your name, please indicate whether or not you assent to the, uh, the cancellation of the December 16th meeting. Pat Norton, Jonathan. 01:49:32,970 S2: Poor Jonathan, poor. 01:49:34,800 S1: Emil Dahlquist. 01:49:35,770 S3: Emerald Ahlquist. 01:49:37,000 S1: Bill Wheaton. 01:49:38,100 S8: Bill weed, nine. 01:49:39,100 S1: Darcy. Dale. 01:49:39,970 S4: Darcy. 01:49:40,369 S1: Dale I and Marney Marnie Crouch. I. 01:49:45,729 S4: Know, I know. 01:49:47,630 S1: So now we want to look at our, uh, our meeting schedule for 2026. 01:49:58,130 S7: Yep. And this is, um, I think the planning board said they didn't want to do the extra meeting in January. So this is the typical two meetings per month schedule. Um, it is a little weird just because we're very limited in meeting spaces. So, um, whenever there's a book sale or something happening in this room, we can't have this room. So that's why some of the January meeting dates are a little bit skewed. Um, one of the meeting dates, uh, it conflicted with the, uh, 01:50:31,729 S7: the election day. We can't have a meeting on election day, so we had to change that. But otherwise, um, pretty much the same schedule. You looked at your last meeting. 01:50:43,569 S15: Mark, this room is going to be under construction. Yes. You're aware of that? 01:50:47,729 S5: Yes. So, yeah. 01:50:53,600 S4: They're tearing the ceiling down. 01:51:00,529 S1: So as long as all state, federal and major religious holidays or and school vacations. Yep, I accounted for. 01:51:12,000 S5: Yep. 01:51:12,729 S7: And you can always change this, but it would just be helpful for me to have it so I can reserve this room officially. 01:51:18,970 S1: So it's fine to me. 01:51:25,270 S3: I made a motion to approve. 01:51:26,800 S1: Do we need a motion? Well, doesn't. 01:51:30,199 S4: Have a second. 01:51:31,170 S1: Okay. It doesn't hurt. Um, so. Pat Norton. Jonathan. 01:51:36,770 S2: Poor Jonathan, poor. 01:51:37,800 S1: I am a Dahlquist. Know. Wheaton. 01:51:41,329 S8: Bill. Wheaton I. 01:51:42,199 S1: Darcy. Dale. 01:51:43,069 S4: Darcy. 01:51:43,399 S1: Dale I and Marney Crouch I. Okay, so I think, and unless there's some new business that I'm unaware of, I think our work here is done tonight. 01:51:58,130 S4: Wow. 01:51:58,770 S1: So not quite done. 01:52:01,329 S4: Oh, yes. I make a motion that we adjourn for the evening. 01:52:04,500 S1: Do I have a second? 01:52:05,670 S8: Seconded. 01:52:06,699 S1: Oh, and since we don't have anyone online. All in favor? 01:52:11,369 S5: Oh. 01:52:12,130 S1: Sorry. Anonymous. 01:52:14,100 S4: Okay. 01:52:15,369 S16: Oh.