York Planning Board Reviews State Housing Law Ordinance Changes

[0:00] Brendan Somerville: Because we have a couple members missing, I'll appoint Mark Cartier as a voting member for tonight's meeting. Okay, at the table we have Brendan Somerville, and we have our remote recording secretary, one way or another we hope Patience Horton, and there's no field changes. First public forum, is there anybody who would wish to speak the public forum for something that is not on tonight's agenda? Yes. [0:49] James Kansas: James Kansas, 280 York Street. It all starts with a tree. You know the tree I mean. Two weeks ago, the stacked orange traffic cones at the triangle signaled the improvement project was imminent. I located one of the managers as he stood in the road to ask what the immediate the idiot schedule would be. I soon learned from him the tree would remain unscathed until November 2nd. I wanted to make sure of this and made certain he was explicit. November 2nd, he told me, nothing will happen until November 2nd. As I walked away, I was struck by the sad irony of the tree being taken down so close to the holiday season when the bright Christmas lights would ordinarily be visible in the branches. In the weeks that I have thought of this, it has become more than just that tree, but in some ways representative of the hundreds of trees, the forests that have been sacrificed to progress, that word of ambiguous meaning defined entirely by the beneficiaries but never by the disadvantaged, who would hardly recognize the irreversible change to the landscape as being positive. This town, with the extraordinary natural bounty that was the basis of the land trust report at the recent meeting, the unique environment is encroached upon by developers who often seem dismissive of the precious resources they're intent to wreck for the pursuit of their profits. For the past six years, as I've sat listening at the Conservation Commission meetings month after month, I've grown quite accustomed to the litany of concerns expressed, of the transgressions of developers who seem to regularly ignore the rules of environmental ordinances, weekly enforced if enforced at all, and of town government, unresponsive when urgent communications are sent forward. And this is happening in a town of such remarkable natural bounty. It is only a tree, a single tree at the Monument but has become so much more in my imaginings. My words, however sincere, will not save it from destruction. It will be toppled without ceremony by an individual who won't even break a sweat, and that will be its end after many decades so conspicuous to the vehicles that make their way throughout the village. But it will not be destroyed without acknowledgement. It will not be destroyed as if its life did not matter. In deference to that tree and all that it embodies, I will not merely offer words. On Saturday, October 17th, planned as the National No Kings Day, I'll inaugurate a hunger strike subsisting upon only juice each day until November 2nd, and reducing the amount I consume until that day is reached. I'm fully aware I'll not save the life of the tree. Tree, the force of destruction far exceeds the force of wisdom and restraint. But I'll make it more difficult to forget the tree, or to regard any living thing with casual disregard. York's environment is as much an integral part of the heritage as any historical house or any historical resource. It is for that very reason I serve upon the Conservation Commission as well as being town historian. My hope, as futile as it might seem, is that those in town who care deeply about the environment and the role of stewardship would be granted a voice as valid and deserving of attention as any developer who inevitably will construct yet another consuming behemoth with a typical pretty name that cynically refers to the vestige of the natural world that because of them and their greed no longer exists. Tim? [4:30] Tim Takoto: Good evening. My name is Tim Takoto and I'm here on behalf of some people on Shore Road and they're concerned about the town's response to discussion item 4 on tonight's agenda. And basically their concern and I share it with them is that the ordinance or the statute talks about development in the growth area. The growth area in New York is basically Cape Nettick River to York River out to the Turnpike. It's a lot of area, and it covers a lot of sensitive areas. And my thought is the town should check with the town attorney to see if the comprehensive plan needs to be modified just to amend the growth map. Amending the growth map and excluding areas that are in the shoreland zone, which are sensitive environmental areas, also subject to storm surge, and flood zones, if they could be excluded from the growth area, you don't want to put four unit apartment buildings in a flood zone. You don't want four units where there's one unit currently in the shoreland zone. This would be a disaster for the town. And I think that amending the growth map to exclude those areas we just talked about, flood zones and shore land, would go a long way to easing the impact that the legislative actions would take on the town. Be happy to answer any questions. [6:02] Speaker D (unidentified): The board might have. We do have language that shore land supersedes it still. [6:10] Tim Takoto: Stays. That's good. Flood zones, they're very serious too. Just recently the maps were finally adopted after a long struggle, but the flood zones in the low-lying areas behind the beach went from 10 feet to 14 feet. That's a huge jump. The V zones, thank heaven, they're mostly on the opposite side of Route 1A. But the impact, you have to look at the storm that happened in New Jersey. We're generally fortunate here. We have a storm, and the storm goes maybe through one tide cycle. That storm was like the storm of 1978, the blizzard. It was there for days. It went through six high tides. That's devastating. And again, it's not just the shoreland that's impacted. There's places behind the shoreline, those low-lying areas that are subject to flooding, they're also impacted. I've speculated before that if that storm happens, the 14-foot storm, which we haven't had yet, but if we have that storm, it will damage about a hundred cottages. Yikes. That's horrible. that alone you know the town should be encouraging people to raise their buildings but to encourage for families on a 5,000 square foot lot in a flood zone I think is just asking for trouble yeah it's been our understanding [7:51] Brendan Somerville: That this does not apply to the shoreline zones, does not apply to floodland, and it only applies areas within the growth areas have both sewer and water. So that part of it, I think, is protected. Brendan, any, did I state that? [8:12] Dylan: Correctly? Yes, you did. Sorry, just confirming with Dylan. It's. [8:18] Speaker F (unidentified): Now working. The stream is now working. Okay, good. Okay, well, thank you very much for listening. Okay. [8:32] Brendan Somerville: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak during the public forum? Seeing no hands, close the public forum without. Let's go on to then the discussions that we have here tonight. Review of the findings of, excuse me, the discussion of 1829. Brendan, do you have presentation or some additional? [9:02] Dylan: Information for us to discuss. I have the before me right now the list of proposed ordinance amendments that my director sent to both the chair and vice chair today. I'm willing to go through those as well as talk through anything else with the proposed ordinance amendments. But no presentation on my end today. Okay. [9:29] Brendan Somerville: Okay. Go ahead and. [9:40] Dylan: We have quite a bit in front of us. Not sure where exactly the board would like to start. We could begin with article 10f the workforce affordable housing overlay district. We worked through this actually earlier this year however we tabled it from a from a public vote or ended up tabling it to continue working on it. The changes really that are going through all of this are just what we need to comply with LD 1829. A lot of these go through the density requirements that would be changed and within the at least the workforce affordable housing overlay ordinance article 10f for the most part it's also a name change. It's going from workforce affordable to affordable housing and the word development is being added into it so it is the affordable housing development overlay districts. There are quite a few changes, most of them being just the name change. Going through on the minimum land area per site, it's going from three quarters of an acre to 5,000 square feet. Minimum street frontage being 50 feet to make that 5,000 square feet work. Smaller changes such as that would allow for the ordinance or for the state law to take effect. [11:05] Speaker D (unidentified): Do we want to go through comments that we have as we go through the section? Please. Or just give us a summary? Yeah,. [11:13] Brendan Somerville: Where is that located? [11:15] Speaker D (unidentified): That was the e-mail that Dylan or Brendan sent in. [11:20] Dylan: Dylan sent in earlier. [11:22] Speaker D (unidentified): Oh. We should, can we, [11:24] Dylan: If you could please forward that to them, I do not happen to have my laptop today. No problem. [11:31] Speaker D (unidentified): There's the master, latest master copy draft. Mm-hmm. [11:38] Speaker F (unidentified): Today yes don't when was it sent it was sent sometime today 10 30 or 10 20 this morning [11:59] Speaker D (unidentified): I just sent email or I can send that I'll send it to you too I don't have it in I don't have it [12:06] Brendan Somerville: in my email you're doing your town one you're in the town one yeah, okay, I got yours, David. Yeah, I might wanna check that again, because I got his, but I. [12:37] Speaker D (unidentified): I saw you were in it, but I'm not sure if, yeah. [12:45] Dylan: Let me check on my end. [12:49] Wayne: Okay, now I got it. [12:50] Speaker D (unidentified): You got it, Mark? [12:53] Brendan Somerville: Yeah, I don't have it on my. Personal? Personal side either. Anyway we've got it now so [13:12] Speaker D (unidentified): One quick comment was just to make sure the map name is changed. I think the overlay district might still have one quick catch, so it's not confusing. [13:23] Dylan: Right, so the map change is also reflected in article 3, 316, which changes the name overall. That's where all of our, all of our zones begin is article 3. That's the establishment of those districts. So the name, once again, the name would be changing from workforce affordable housing overlay district to affordable housing development overlay district. So helps clarify a couple of things, namely with defining what is workforce affordable versus normal affordable versus elderly affordable. It clarifies as to where it is really aiming for eight fifty to eighty percent AMI, area median income. It just focuses on those primarily. There's room to go for extremely low income, which is 30 percent AMI. Those are typically your HUD subsidized funding [14:21] Speaker D (unidentified): houses. Another thought I had with having the word development in the past, we've had subdivisions or I guess like a larger building constructed, and some of the requirements are one unit per however many needs to be built to affordable standard. I don't know if the word development in there causes issue with those circumstances. [14:52] Dylan: It should not, and I'm trying to find where exactly the point is within this copy, but we clarify that for it to be considered a workforce, or sorry, an affordable housing development, it has to be at least 51% of the units must be affordable. Okay. And that feeds into the LD1829 height allowance increase. [15:15] Speaker D (unidentified): So this is purposely for development. Right. [15:18] Dylan: So the hypothetical in this case being if somebody came forward with an affordable housing development and they wanted that extra 14 feet, they would not be allowed that if they had four units and only one unit was affordable. They would need to actually make sure that half of those units are affordable. There's also some additional work through here for water and sewer supply. Again, changing the names here and there on that one. Architectural appearances has some of the more significant changes for its 10f.4.2 architectural appearance. There's a name change, but followed by that is the planning board may grant a separate waiver to each architectural appearance standard as listed below if the board finds the building design will be compatible to all buildings that are visually related. And the board finds the proposed affordable housing development provides landscaping and buffer features that are in addition to the minimum requirements of this ordinance. Structures considered to be visually related to newly proposed affordable housing developments shall be separately determined for each new unit and shall include only principal structures within 200 feet of all property lines. So this adds a little bit more meat to the bone with the design requirements for the affordable housing developments. Before it was a little bit more reduced than this. Item two on here dives into more of the roof shape kind of established. I'm going to have to [16:58] Brendan Somerville: ask you to stop for a bit. Sure. You know, I can't read it on the email. I'm trying to download it and open it. I think you have to back up a little bit and tell us what page you're on. [17:12] Dylan: It's page five of the draft ordinance that was sent out earlier. This would be article 10F.4.2. [17:34] Brendan Somerville: Trouble with opening the file. I don't know why, but just... Hey, Brendan. Hmm? Well, Wayne is looking at that. I'm looking at 10F.4.1. Yes. The site needs public water and sewer. Yes. Which is conjunctive, but the wording in here is or. [18:19] Dylan: I see what you mean. Or both. So I think in this instance, this would apply to development if they had just a water line nearby or just sewer nearby. By if they happen to be within 750 feet of the utility that they're lacking, then they would be [18:53] Speaker D (unidentified): required to connect to that. The enforcement of connection, not needing it for density, correct? [19:00] Dylan: But they need both in order to make good on their density. If they wanted to do 20,000 square feet [19:06] Speaker D (unidentified): or whatever their number is, then they don't necessarily need to be on town water, town sewer. Yes. But this line, this, the only purpose of F4.1 is if they are within 750 feet, you must connect to either or. Okay. That's an expensive proposition. Yes. Yeah. [19:30] Dylan: It's it's fairly consistent with other language throughout the ordinance which would require the connection to public utilities. But when they do that, their [19:38] Speaker D (unidentified): density number goes up. Yes, I [19:43] Dylan: understand. Yeah, if you were, if you were doing a, an affordable housing development, then yes, that would be a pretty expensive proposition. But then you would be eligible for, especially if you did affordable, two and a half times the base density, so you could get quite a few units out of it. But it's again a process and depends on the developer, what they're willing to go through and what they're willing to do. So [20:11] Wayne: They only have to connect to one if it's within 750 feet of the property line. Yes, if both of them are within 750 feet of the proper line. [20:20] Dylan: Then we would probably encourage them to connect to both. Why do you say probably that one? That's because the water and sewer district I would defer to them as their exact judgment, because they would need to be able to service, be able to service them for one, but also then they would need to oversee whether or not the lines that are being connected are up to their standards and anything, so anything beyond just needing to connect is a little bit of a gray area that we would have to work with them. And possibly the DPW on to make sure that it is there maybe. [20:56] Brendan Somerville: I'm confused. So there's a site it has public water but not public sewer. Public sewer is within 700 feet. The developer is then required to make the connection for the public sewer. That is my understanding. Okay, so the developer has to pay for public sewer, but I'm assuming it has to meet the standards of the sewer Authority. Yes sir. Okay, so that doesn't, that to me doesn't sound like a probably, it sounds. [21:27] Wayne: Like you gotta do it, and the sewer and water have to have the capabilities to handle the development. That's exactly right. That's the only. [21:35] Dylan: Thing I think that would really let lean on a probably on my side is whether or not they could actually serve in that case. So I apologize for any. All right, so. [21:43] Brendan Somerville: That means the developers got to exercise diligence and talking to. [21:46] Speaker I (unidentified): Whatever's who are ahead of time. That's fine. Exactly. So is that worth clarifying. [21:53] Wayne: In there, or is it as clear as it can be? I would defer to the board whether or. [21:59] Dylan: Not it's, it's clear to clear to y'all. I. [22:05] Speaker D (unidentified): Like Steve's point of, and if I were Pete, I would say I'm confused, yeah, because it would seem crazy not to connect both if they're within 750 feet, or it says or both at the bottom, at the last sentence or last word, but then I'm not sure. [22:23] Brendan Somerville: What the comma or both modifies, so I, my inclination would be to say and, yeah, and which would stop the discussion, I think, but I'll yield to better speakers of the language than me. [22:38] Wayne: Yeah, or everywhere that you see sewer, just put a forward slash and put water. [22:45] Dylan: That could also work, I think, simplify it. Either way. [22:48] Wayne: And then you can get rid of that last whatever it is. [22:52] Speaker D (unidentified): So the intent of what we're saying is if you're within 750 of either, connect them. Yeah. Which is what the intent kind of is now, but it's wishy-washy. Yeah, I think going through the document some of the stuff was highlighted I think was take a peek at it and see if it needs tweaking. [23:14] Dylan: That is my understanding of that, so sewer and water supply being one of those items to definitely take a look at. I think also part of that was whether or not we want to lower that distance at all from 750 feet to 500 or 600, or should we keep it as is, whether or not that would be an issue. [23:38] Brendan Somerville: Do you have a sense generally on what the cost to connect on a per foot basis is? [23:44] Dylan: I did whenever I was in graduate school. That has been since- [23:48] Brendan Somerville: And there's been a little inflation since then, maybe. [23:51] Speaker D (unidentified): A little bit, yeah. I think when the water department was here, they used to say a million a mile. And then I think it went to like, it definitely went up, I don't know if it's 1.2 or straight to, but that was an old number. But even a million of miles a lot. Yeah, that's what I, that's what I was taught, that a road would cost 750 but [24:16] Brendan Somerville: it's always, it's always been 750 feet. Yes, that is not a new, not [24:23] Dylan: a new figure that pops up elsewhere in the ordinance, so it's like 400 a foot. [24:28] Brendan Somerville: Well, more would, yeah, that would make sense. I mean, Morehouse had to, had to connect to town sewer. It wasn't too far, but it wasn't, it wasn't right up to the property either. So 750 feet can run north of 275,000. That is not an inexpensive investment. [24:53] Speaker D (unidentified): More developer, but a similar thing would be a commercial building having to put in that eight inch water main to sprinkle their building. I can make a [25:04] Brendan Somerville: good argument, and it's financially more viable for a commercial building, right, resident, right, but again, this is, it is it only to gain the additional intensity? [25:23] Speaker F (unidentified): I believe that is, this is for all, for all, this is shall be connected, so it's [25:29] Brendan Somerville: not related to the density. Yeah, right, this is if it's going to be an [25:35] Dylan: affordable housing development, then it shall be connected to water and sewer as to the best of the developments ability. I don't know if that's strictly for [25:46] Speaker D (unidentified): affordable housing. I think in the Greenway there's even language [25:49] Dylan: development in general should be screen way. Greenway doesn't particularly enjoy [25:55] Speaker D (unidentified): Septic systems, right, say the least, so there's encouragement to expand the sewer system and if there's large enough projects that help that along, so much about right, yeah, getting rid of the septics and high density because that's the other alternative is you have a hundred units on, I did have a note on the density on page four. [26:28] Wayne: Page four, all right. [26:30] Speaker D (unidentified): I know we had looked at this and had forwarded it to the select board and then got it back and then it kind of tabled. So I just wanted to go over those numbers one more time because I don't think they were the numbers that we ended up forwarding them to begin with, but I could be mistaken. Okay. Where were you referring? Refer 10-f 3.1 on page 3.1 or 3.4, I'm sorry, 3.1, which [Brendan Somerville: particular] numbers are you? It was just the frontage, so some of the stuff is changing, so 35 foot side and rear setbacks going to 20 feet, yeah, I thought I remember talking about that a little bit where it was matching the buffering, yes, I believe you are correct on that, okay, and then this was a while ago when we talked about this, but the, I don't know if the maximum coverage was a change from previous or if this is a change from what was submitted before, I just wanted to make sure we talk about it this go around as well, 50 is the existing, how [27:47] Dylan: but the 70% increase kind of goes along with the theme that we've been discussing for a little bit of low impact development, if it has, you know, those features, then they would be allowed to or could be permitted to go up to 70% lot coverage and [28:07] Brendan Somerville: it has to be as determined by the Planning Board, so that is correct, and planning board stormwater room specialist, so it has to be a real substantial improvement using low impact development standards [28:24] Dylan: that is correct, okay [28:34] Speaker D (unidentified): then on to the density portion, the bottom of page four, this is one that I feel like changed quite a bit before, what is it, 2173, is that the fix-it act, yes, that is it, had language that x amount of dwellings thereafter, so not to rehash that, but now that language isn't there, as I read this, is pretty much just stating one unit per 500 square feet period, right, so there's not a cap to that, so the fix-it act language doesn't look like it's in there, the so the fix-it [29:14] Dylan: Bill took out that five thousand additional per one unit, right, with 500 square feet. So the two and a half times base density multiplier that LD 2003 introduced a couple of years ago, that does not go away with these two bills, right? That is, it's, these two bills are just extensions of 2003, so that still exists. With LD 1829, your base density with water and sewer in the growth area is one unit per 1,250 square feet. So 1250 divided by two and a half gets you 500 square feet. So that's where the number comes from in that case. So 500 square feet per of suitable land per unit is your base density for that. I feel like that is our base [30:06] Speaker D (unidentified): density for the lots, but then the individual lots are calculated with four being the max. All right, yes, so that's where the additional density beyond that, we'll call it ten units for affordable housing, mm-hmm, to me you should have, that's what you get per LD 1829, LD 2003, and then I feel like we need to look at beyond those first 10 units, how many units per X amount of square footage. Okay. Or did I miss that? [30:39] Dylan: No,, that's perfectly fine. [30:44] Speaker D (unidentified): Does, that's a lot of density. [30:46] Dylan: It is a lot of density. And I understand that the, why that original 5,000, you know, per additional unit was taken out was because of the calculations that would arise from this. It's unclear. So I believe removing that just means that this is our base density and that's what we focus on, but I can check with the town attorney to see if we can institute anything supplemental to that, just because again that is, that is significant density. So if there are concerns that should be addressed with that, we can [31:17] Speaker D (unidentified): certainly address those and i think there was a page in the mocha document that talked about this exact thing when it came to affordable housing i couldn't find it again when i went to look for it but i think our first draft stated the 500 square feet up to 10 units and then 1250 thereafter okay but that was with out the 2173 out there so i guess my proposal if the board agrees with it even it would be to kind of go back to that 5000 number So you're getting kind of an initial surge increase, but it's also not giving you a 5,000 down to 500 square foot modifier, I guess. [32:16] Brendan Somerville: How would you do that? I mean, if it says two and a half times the base density. [32:25] Speaker D (unidentified): Right. So then it would be, so if that's the case, and we follow the residential base density ball, right, the max amount of units you can have per lot is four units. And then depending on the density section, there's currently language that if you want an additional building on that lot, you need X amount of the base density square footage. So three-acre lot, you want to build three dwellings, you need nine acres total. So there's some of that language. But pulling it back to the affordable portion, if you're 2.5x base density, by that interpretation, you could only have 10 affordable units because there is not an extension on the single residential lots to have more than four units per 5,000. So if you had an 8,000-square-foot lot, you're not getting more than four. If you have a 10,000-square-foot lot, you could divide it and do four additional, but unless you divide it, you're not getting eight. Do you see what I mean by that? [33:46] Brendan Somerville: No, because I thought if you had a 10,000-square-foot lot, it would just be twice what a 5,000-square-foot. [33:56] Speaker D (unidentified): If you divided the lot, if you created a new lot. That I'm not clear about that was so with a 2173 act it used to be you get your four lots for each 5,000 and then one additional lot per additional 5,000 square feet they removed that language so it left us with you can get four lots inclusive of an ADU 5,000 square foot lot is the maximum minimum but they didn't put a cap or additional units so they're incentivizing dividing subdividing of lots by doing that all [34:43] Brendan Somerville: Right I guess I didn't I didn't realize that had to be subdivided in order to get that full four units okay it's at [34:56] Speaker D (unidentified): Some point depending on which zone you're in that might not have been the case under our current zoning so say [35:08] Brendan Somerville: A non affordable housing multi-family structure four units four dwelling units on five thousand square feet if you had ten thousand square feet how many in a multi-family in a multi-family since it is a its own per lot [35:30] Dylan: It would be four units per lot okay allowable density they would be you know if they subdivide and they could go up again but it's my understanding that it is a lot limited in that case okay so [35:47] Brendan Somerville: It's not like in the residential zone in the non-growth zone where you've got three acres [35:57] Dylan: Yeah you need to be you need to meet the minimum land requirement for each unit right yeah it's [36:03] Speaker D (unidentified): It's not, you don't have to subdivide then, right? So that's where, if it's the base, I think Mocha referenced, whatever the base density is, would be what you would base the additional, the additional housing calculation on. Yeah, 2.5 x, right? So what it might, I guess my thought would be whatever the base zoning is now, or you stick to the original language, which was what, five? What was it, $5,000 for a dwelling? [36:37] Dylan: Yeah, for each subsequent dwelling. I think I can definitely check with, I should have a meeting with the town attorney next week. Okay. Again, because that language restriction, I'm not sure if we can actually include it. But I'd be happy to look into it and see if that's something that could be done, if the board is interested in that. Yeah. Okay. [36:57] Speaker D (unidentified): Excellent. I will make a note of that. Because this is even more dense than the fix-it bill. Like removing that actually made this in this scenario quite dense, very dense, very dense, 500 square feet per, that's a lot of density. Don't flush the toilet. I think so, one of the calculations with some lots of like 600 units on, yeah, there were a couple of hypothetical [37:23] Dylan: properties where given the size a maximum of around 600 units, but that does not take into account parking or any kind of access standards or anything like that, but when that calculation [37:36] Speaker D (unidentified): was done, that was using 500 square feet for the first 10 and then 1250 for the additional ones [37:42] Dylan: right no i think that was actually 500 across the board and again [37:49] Brendan Somerville: you've got right away right -of-ways, it's one thing to have four houses. [Speaker F (unidentified): You could, you] know, the driveway is going to take up a fair amount of that. When you're talking about dozens of houses, you've not only got driveways, but you've got rights-of-way, private roads, basically, or private driveways anyway. Way because you can't just all clump them in one spot unless you have one of those vertical garages that you could so [38:27] Speaker D (unidentified): yeah curious on that one yeah [38:31] Dylan: i will i will review and check back with the town attorney on that one get back to y'all as quickly as i can okay [38:43] Brendan Somerville: what about the rest of that [38:45] Speaker D (unidentified): i clicked on a note and it took me off that page sorry [38:50] Brendan Somerville: sorry the 20 000 square foot of suitable land yeah so that's anything without with or that's the one with the or that doesn't make any sense right it does it does because it is in there are some places in town that have that right they have water instead of sewer yeah yes it's quite a [Speaker F (unidentified): few places for] the new number two then it was 30,000 square feet of suitable [39:31] Dylan: Land right, that means we match the state in terms of septic law for minimum lot size, okay. So one going unit per 20,000 square feet, and that's whether it's in the growth area or not, correct. That if especially if it is in growth area, outside of the growth area our current standards apply, but inside the growth area if there is no sewer you have to hit that 20,000 mark, so [40:04] Speaker D (unidentified): I think as far as complying with the state changes, well, you'll talk to town attorney, but I feel like we are, well, I won't speak for her, so we'll just move on. I don't have a law degree, I have an interpretation though. We talked about sewer and water, do you want to go through all the changes or what do you, and I'll just do this if I [40:36] Brendan Somerville: had a comment on it, well yeah, no, I'd like an explanation of the changes in case somebody [40:43] Speaker D (unidentified): somebody asked that question down the road, so we were on the architectural portion I believe when [40:48] Dylan: we, yes, that is correct. So this encourages the, encourage the board to, or sorry, encourages as the developer for an affordable housing development to largely match or all buildings that are visually related have some kind of consistent design language, and this also includes through some clarification through part a there buildings which front on an existing or a newly constructed street, that just clarifies that if you do build a new street that these standards still do apply. Rhythm and building spacing, those are, that's unchanged. Relationship of materials, textures, and colors, again that goes to the visually related portion. A roof shape, this discourages long continuous roofs that are uniform in height, as well as just any kind of flat or linear roof. There was a previous application the board reviewed where we looked at the edge of the top of a flat roof and encourage more rhythm to it, actually having breaking it up, so making sure that it's not just one long line, you have hooplas or something that actually gives it [42:02] Brendan Somerville: some kind of definition. Now one thing that comes up occasionally with buildings with large square footage, very large square footage, is they put the mansard, fake mansard with some flat hidden, that's still, that's still allowable and practical, you know, if you've got a, you don't want to, you know, a peaked roof with a 200-foot span, that's, that's not too practical, but and you can, places like Kearsarge, I mean, and they put a bunch of different angled roof lines in it, but you look at a place like some Of the drug stores that have the mansard, it looks sort of like a peaked roof, but it's not all flat. It's not all flat. Or the boat marine facility on Route 1 that we did, it was the same way. [43:22] Dylan: A lot of this just means that every 30 linear feet, there should be some kind of thoughtful variation to it. So you can add in a window or any kind of, really just any kind of feature that makes a visual break in that. Dormer. Dormers, yes. Change of change of height or break up the shape somehow some way break up the shape in that case [43:46] Speaker D (unidentified): And this language was pulled from the York Beach design standards or yes that is correct and as [43:52] Dylan: Well as the next the next portion size massing size and massing of buildings the building mass rhythm and scale I'm sure y'all are very familiar with that sentence of the York Beach design standards shall be included in this ordinance as a guideline for house size and [44:10] Speaker D (unidentified): Massing of buildings shall be applied I think it's important to add that where we're going up or the state is allowing another 14 foot height bonus for agree if the roof will be more if the [44:22] Dylan: Roof will be more prominent because of its height than some kind of language to break it up so you're you're just not seeing a bunch of shingles every day. [44:32] Brendan Somerville: Will that, you know, possibly preclude what we talked about previously where using the, you know, going up with just a slab end of a building so that it's right up to the set bag without any step backs either by roof line or. [44:59] Dylan: Yeah I don't know if this would apply in the same manner just with the way that it's written it seems like it's more just sticking to the roof as opposed to adding an additional an additional height setback but if that's something that the board would like to include for the affordable housing portion that's a reasonable request I would say just wordsmithing it out and figuring out how really that would come across I think would be important I would think [45:28] Brendan Somerville: Especially and this may apply more to the village centers where the houses are built up to the curb and the sense of being in a canyon as opposed to having sunlight we should we've already got setbacks in you know about affordable housing developments that are less than those types of dimensions, I take it. [46:09] Speaker D (unidentified): In the York Beach design ordinance, facade offsets, variations along the length of a building such as front facade recesses may be used to break up long facades to add visual interest. Not too impactful even if it was just a little bump out or a yeah it's typical for [46:37] Brendan Somerville: Four townhouses to be like that anyway to break up the townhouses. [46:45] Speaker D (unidentified): Reviewing a previous application, I remember blank facades was part of it as well there. It was just a solid wall, just a sided wall, no windows, no decor. Is that, for this circumstance, not practical? [47:04] Brendan Somerville: It seems like it should be. [47:08] Dylan: In my own professional opinion, it's a fairly simple standard to include. Okay. One that does have visual benefits when looking at a building. Like facade is not exactly the most welcoming or friendly of things to look at, you know, it's [47:29] Speaker D (unidentified): pointing to a neighbor, right, so I would be in favor in adding language that would, yeah, speak to that. Yep, again, it depends on how large the building is. I don't know, I guess it's up to the board to decide with whatever's in front of us if it's applicable, right, in the situation. Most situations like this, it would be at the board's discretion. Yeah, I think in a smaller scale, if it was a blank wall, but it's a smaller, it's 10 by 20. Yeah, right, like it's, it's different than a 500 by whatever, 50 tall, 50 foot tall. Yeah, just sighting nothing but sighting. Yeah, okay. [48:25] Speaker F (unidentified): Brendan. [48:31] Brendan Somerville: Just a question, why is visually related in quotes that? [48:40] Dylan: Is a good question that I would have to defer to my developer, my developer, my director as to why he made that decision. It's certainly a choice, I'll just say, not necessarily grammatically correct, but yeah, that's because I think we would, we should probably clarify what visually related is, a little ambiguous, just kind [49:10] Brendan Somerville: of by itself. Well, then we use it, or the draft uses it several times, right, it's [49:16] Dylan: it's a very important element of it, but to have it in quotes, I do agree with you, it should have some more meat on the bone for what is visually related. How far are we talking, is it three [49:26] Brendan Somerville: streets over, or is it only on this streets? Yeah, the quotes in the following sentence have to do with referring to a section, so that's, that's one thing where that just might have a little, a little quote seepage get out of that sentence, I guess. [49:51] Speaker D (unidentified): Was that existing language, actually? Because there was size and massing of buildings prior. [49:59] Dylan: The visually related portion is new. We get to move on to buffers and landscaping, or are there elements still in here that we need to digest? [50:32] Wayne: Just, do you think you put quotes in instead of underlining it, or was that, do you think he meant something separate there? [50:44] Speaker D (unidentified): So on the current ordinance, it's underlined visually related. So I think it wanted attention brought to it because I guess that's the metric the board needs to hit or make sure it's hit. [51:00] Dylan: Similarly with number two roof shape at the very end of you'll see paste on also in quotation marks. Based on what? What? Paste on. All right, so my interpretation of that is it needs to be a thoughtful design. It can't be an afterthought that you tossed a dormer on there. It needs to be intentional. [51:23] Speaker D (unidentified): I see the intent of those phrases being in quotes because it's almost like emphasizing artful thought. Right, because it's not a black and white, did they meet this? So there's visually related a little bit of subjectivity to it. Yeah, I still [51:44] Brendan Somerville: don't think it does. I think it's much. Yeah, I don't think it adds anything. We [51:48] Dylan: can I can work on removing all the quotes. One [52:02] Speaker D (unidentified): thing that was removed it was what's struck out before B10F.4.2.A. [52:32] Brendan Somerville: Oh, it had to do with the, you know, visually related to something that is within a certain distance. [52:42] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay. Yeah, visible in winter, I just. [52:47] Dylan: Minimum foliage from a point directly in front of the center of the proposed new building at the road center line and at a height of five feet above the road surface so [53:00] Speaker D (unidentified): that translate into hide it please do [53:04] Dylan: not allow this to be seen if it can be seen by someone who's five feet tall in [53:07] Speaker D (unidentified): the middle of the road right and taking consideration winter so I just wanted to bring attention to it if it's worth keeping in there in some capacity or I [53:22] Dylan: think yeah I think the visually related part just spreads out more through the ordinance is more of a consistent theme as opposed to just one particular... [53:30] Brendan Somerville: Well, wouldn't the section that struck be inconsistent with the 200 foot reference that's in F.4.2? Oh, yeah. Oh, I see. The end of the architectural appearance? Yes. I think that's more objective and looking whether the trees the leaves are off the trees or not. I'm not saying better or worse, I'm just saying it's a change in metric and this one seems more defined. I don't know, I like it but [54:19] Dylan: it's more defined. Yeah, this is clarifying more that what you're assuming that it should be visually related to is within 200 feet of the property line so it's you can't you can't debate whether or not it's visually related if it's a quarter mile down the road but if it's 200 feet away from the property line then it's good for review when [54:43] Brendan Somerville: you have something on each side within 200 feet that's completely different from each other then what I [54:54] Dylan: Guess it's up to the board really which, design do you prefer, which one do you want it to be more close? [55:00] Speaker F (unidentified): Which way you want to look, it's the west is [55:21] Speaker D (unidentified): 200 was 200 feet, the number before. [55:25] Dylan: No, that's a new number, 200 feet is a new one, I believe that came up during discussions earlier this year whenever we were first discussing this as to what would be a good reference distance to be related before a building to be related visually to another. Oh yeah, but that doesn't [55:45] Speaker D (unidentified): exclude it from the architectural design portions, the massing and everything. Okay, just the relations [55:53] Dylan: should be similarly related but also tasteful in its own right. I'm [56:00] Speaker D (unidentified): comfy with that. I was reading it as if it was 200 feet away from setbacks, it didn't have to apply to the rhythm massing. [56:08] Dylan: Gotcha, all that. So right now it's if it's 200 feet within the property lines, then it shall be under consideration for what it should be related to next. [Brendan Somerville: Buffers and] landscaping have some minor changes. Okay, 10f 432, really this is kind of the only one in this section that's changing in any significant way aside from 10f 434, but in this case any affordable housing development with more than five dwelling units that abuts a lot in a residential district or a residential use shall comply with the standards of 10F433 through 10F435. So if reducing the threshold for the number of dwellings where the landscaping requirement applies, it's going from 15 to five. So if somebody puts four or five affordable dwelling units on 5,000 square feet, then and they would need to meet all of the buffering standards in this case. But, and that's more than just 5,000 square feet. If you had 10,000, 15,000, you would still need to meet those buffering standards. So if you have more than five affordable dwelling, five or more affordable dwelling units, then you need to have vegetated buffering. [57:48] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, I mean, that aligns with the residential. If you do four units on the 5,000 square foot, right? We don't have buffer language for multifamily. Correct. [58:01] Dylan: We need to double-check on the multifamily at least, but... Oh, right. [58:05] Speaker D (unidentified): But like a duplex, for instance. Right. You have two duplexes on a lot and... [58:09] Dylan: Yeah, you would be underneath that five. Yeah. So that fifth unit is the threshold. [58:15] Speaker D (unidentified): With or without the affordable trigger? Right. [58:19] Dylan: Oh, okay. It's in F433. Then it's going from 30 to 20 feet of the side or rear yard measured from the property line shall be retained in its natural vegetated state to the maximum extent possible to provide a visual screen between the abutting lot and the development site should [58:47] Brendan Somerville: be retained as natural so [58:58] Dylan: no matter the lot size no matter the setbacks the first 20 feet of the side and rear will have to be screened by a vegetated buffer in its natural state or as keep it to keep it is looking as natural as possible and [59:16] Speaker D (unidentified): then if it does not exist then you shall meet the standards yeah so [59:23] Dylan: preferably it's the natural environment but if they need to plant it then we have rules [59:28] Speaker D (unidentified): and guidelines for that as well if it's been clear cut or something like that prior right we can request it or the ordinance is stating you have to yes you 've got standards that [59:38] Speaker F (unidentified): you need a buffer back that is correct yep reasonable [59:44] Speaker D (unidentified): I think one thing I didn't see [59:46] Dylan: was like front yard landscaping yes that was not included on this I [59:56] Speaker D (unidentified): think it would depend on what area like the route one standards if that would trigger right because route one has its own front [1:00:04] Dylan: buffer yard standards elsewhere it's a little less clear as to whether or not that [1:00:12] Brendan Somerville: that would be necessary. Open space conservation, some divisions do have. [1:00:16] Dylan: Right, 50 foot, no cut buffers, things of that nature. [1:00:21] Speaker D (unidentified): I'm thinking more like route one. [1:00:23] Dylan: Route one, you would still need to meet the route one buffer yard standards for the front yard, so. [1:00:29] Speaker D (unidentified): Like the plant count? [1:00:30] Dylan: Yes, so number of plant units per X number of feet. [1:00:33] Speaker D (unidentified): So that affordable housing isn't exempt from that? [1:00:36] Dylan: Correct, anything on route one that's going through there that needs to meet those performance standards okay yeah [1:00:46] Wayne: there's nothing in the prior standards about front yards right and [1:00:55] Dylan: front yards can be tricky just because typically that's your frontage and your access point so if it gets in the way of access traditional it's a little bit of a of a conflict so keep it a little bit clear so that way you have some wiggle room to encourage more landscaping in the front yard but you don't want it to be entirely landscaped just that way it's reasonable that the developer can't access the site [Speaker D (unidentified): yeah village] Green design, there's no changes really in here, but I know that Wayne, you brought up some questions about cottage court developments. Village green, at least within the affordable housing portion, is the closest approximation that we have, and if we could encourage a village green design, that's for, you know, 10 or more units, detached, duplex, but not counting multi-family [1:01:48] Brendan Somerville: units, we would encourage that type of development. Yeah, and in order to, apparently in order to maximize the number of units, that's routinely not applied. Again, Morehouse could have been an example like that of doing that, but they, I don't know why it would have been, maybe more expensive, in other words, to have the green in the middle surrounded by the houses with parking on the outside of each unit, or like a central lot. It could be either one. I've seen it where it's [1:02:31] Dylan: usually five or six, let's say cottages with a shared green space in the middle, and then all the parking is hidden behind all of the houses, so that way you walk out your front door, the only thing you see is green, and then your neighbor's front door across. So that's nice. So it courtyard. Yeah, right. So that's the name cottage court comes from. That normally you would want to see that in a smaller scale development. Too large means that you have, you know, half a mile of [1:03:01] Brendan Somerville: of driveway around it, and but I've seen in other places, I mean three, four-story multi-family housing in a in a u-shape with a with a court in the middle, or maybe just two units, but again, it must, it must be a less profitable or less dense way of doing it, because this has been in the language and nobody's ever taken advantage of it. I know that a lot of it comes from the way [1:03:34] Dylan: that a lot of Potter's Courts work is by encouraging flag lots, the flag being what sticks out to the roadway, so that way each unit technically has frontage on a main roadway, but since our subdivision language discourages or actually outright eliminates flag lots, I think [1:03:51] Speaker D (unidentified): that's probably part of the cause for that, but if it was a condo type situation, condo situation [1:03:56] Dylan: would be different. I [1:04:00] Speaker D (unidentified): just think in a way I appreciate that design. It was, it [1:04:12] Brendan Somerville: was presented by the by the consultants as a possible thing. Maybe it's something [1:04:19] Speaker D (unidentified): we can try to incentivize more. Actually would probably go well with tiny homes. [1:04:26] Dylan: Yeah, or with the redevelopment of an existing typically square or grid like lot, you can normally put three or four units on there where they have a shared space and the driveways on one side as well, so it's good for greenfield and brownfield development. [1:04:48] Brendan Somerville: Depending on the execution, at least anyway, nothing in that paragraph has changed, right, it's just it's [1:04:54] Dylan: just the names, and the same goes for the for the parking standards, adequate condition space, affordable apartments ditches change to dwelling unit income and occupancy requirements, going from there that's what following that starts on page seven goes to page eight, what's 10 f for eight [1:05:16] Speaker D (unidentified): Just a pause back to the village green design as it is now, possibly more incentivized if the density stays at 500 square feet per unit with a minimum dwelling size of 190, you can be very creative with tiny homes, individual, yeah, so is there anything if someone chooses to do that design, parking or like sidewalk standards or anything like that should, I'm just looking at the max, those are those are very good, you know those are absolutely [1:05:58] Dylan: With great questions actually asked, in this case parking we already managed that one and that's already been changed to meet the state requirements, that was changed earlier this year. [1:06:08] Speaker D (unidentified): I guess if there's like off, let's say it's a long skinny lot and the parking's at the back of it, like that first unit needs to block however far, right, should there be something to some kind [1:06:24] Dylan: of ease or act about that, proven pedestrian access to the front, right, yeah, I think a developer would probably tell you that they would just walk on the driveway, right, but I think if we're trying to encourage a specific type of design then we should make that design as good as we can possibly make it, so if we could encourage sidewalks or even just designated pathways that would be that [1:06:48] Brendan Somerville: would be wise, yeah, it's it's kind of like a lot of city blocks where you have an alley in the back in the back, it's not meant as a through way, cement way of people getting their [1:07:00] Speaker D (unidentified): vehicle vehicles parked or, I think this is a great transition, if it was for ownership this type of style, you have your single family, depending on the size of the units it can be like you rent it first, you buy this, save up and [1:07:19] Brendan Somerville: then move out and, yeah, and like you say a 5 000 foot, I mean even a duplex on a 5 000 foot would be comfortably dense, was still leaving room in the in the middle for a common area, place for kids to play, that kind of stuff. [1:07:44] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, that's the only thing I was thinking of is if it's done on a large scale, what are things we should think about, right? I [1:07:55] Dylan: will see if we can, I'll play around with that and see if we can encourage some kind of different language on there because I think that's a very good idea and should be should be spelled out clearly so we don't have parcels you can't exactly walk to right in the dwellings. Okay. [Speaker D (unidentified): All right, moving] from there, 10f48 affordable dwelling unit income and occupancy requirements. This just goes through to match and clarify, one, what constitutes an affordable housing development. It's 51% of the dwelling units shall be affordable in order to be considered affordable housing development. [1:08:39] Speaker D (unidentified): And that's changing from 30? [1:08:41] Dylan: Correct. And then up to 49% of the total number of dwellings permitted and constructed may be affordable to moderate income households of York's HUD FMR area. Moderate income is your 100 to 120% AMI range. What's the FMR? FMR is fair market rate, or sorry, fair market rent. Okay. Fair market rent. [1:09:06] Brendan Somerville: Better have that listed somewhere. [1:09:11] Dylan: Yes, HUD updates that every year. [1:09:14] Brendan Somerville: Oh, you mean the, no, the definition should be out one. We're using an acronym. Now, 49 % of the moderate income, and more than 24% of the total number of units may be market rate. Oh, right, we discussed that so that we have a mix of low, moderate, low moderate, and full market rate. Which by the very fact that they're grouped with all these others is not going to be million dollar, you know, [1:10:07] Speaker D (unidentified): dwellings most likely. That was in correspondence with York housing, they were [1:10:16] Dylan: right, they, yeah, we had talked through with them on that and it was, it's a, it's a bit of a new approach. We've never really spelled out how much you can have as a, you know, at that is market rate, but they agreed that 24 to 30 percent was a reasonable number, so we figured it would be a good carrot for a developer. Yep, further [1:10:40] Speaker D (unidentified): down there's highlighted 51 to 75 question mark on b, sorry for [1:10:50] Brendan Somerville: ownership purpose shall be affordable to very low So in A1, can we just, instead of at least 51, can we say more than 50? I don't think it's ever going to apply, but on the odd chance somebody does 102 units. Same thing with up to 49%. [1:11:21] Dylan: I think with 51, you imply that there's a majority of the units. [1:11:24] Brendan Somerville: More than 50 is a majority. [1:11:26] Dylan: Already, so I think that's the 51 is why it just occurred. I it's a bit of a it's a bit of a weird one. I'll give you, I'll grant you on that one. It's a it's an odd approach, but I think with 51 you say that it's more than more than 50, a majority of the units. So if you have three, then you can lean on to maybe two of the three being affordable, so on, so forth. All right, I'll be [1:11:49] Brendan Somerville: been nitpicky once more in a three. Do we need anything? Do we need that last, this the last portion of the sentence after units which do not need to be affordable to very low or moderate? We're just saying their market rate. Market rate by definition means, you know, they don't need to be affordable to low or very low. Explain [1:12:21] Wayne: that again, sorry. So the last part of that sentence [1:12:24] Brendan Somerville: just replace it with market rate, market rate. I put a period after unit, period. You're being very Pete Smith here, you know. I've adopted the mantle for a night, and I want to [1:12:35] Wayne: remind you just how persnickety it can be. Yeah, no, I agree completely. I mean, I do not think [1:12:42] Brendan Somerville: at last, yeah, the which, yeah, it's a little redundant at the end of the end of at the [1:12:48] Speaker F (unidentified): end of all of this, department of redundancy department. Yeah, I see we're just a [1:12:56] Brendan Somerville: simple period. So the 51 versus 75 in B, yeah, where did the debate come from? Is that Is that your housing sort of putting out a range? Is that somebody internally looking for a number? Oh, because right now, for ownership purposes, they only have to not exceed 120%. The very median income. Of the AMI. So, shall be available. So, they're saying, I'm not sure that would be much help because if even 120% these days is going to find it hard to buy a home, right? [1:13:57] Speaker D (unidentified): It's true. Although I was saying 51 or 75%, whatever. [1:14:03] Brendan Somerville: That's the number of dedicated units. [1:14:05] Speaker D (unidentified): Shall be affordable to very low or low. Right. [1:14:10] Dylan: I think there's just a I think the question mark on there is so outside of those, how many, what percentage do we need that is like, what percentage of the total units must be rated for affordable, be it low or very, right? So I guarantee [1:14:31] Brendan Somerville: which ownership, right, yes, period. I think 51 percent should be affordable based on the state law, which is 120 percent, and the rest could be market rate. I don't, I don't think you, I don't think it makes sense for someone in below, you know, 80 to be purchasing a home. It's just not. In New York's market, there's a reason why the state defines affordable housing for rent versus for sale differently. One is 80%, the other is 120%. And I think that's wise. And I think you would have developers who would not take a risk that they can't find somebody that's making 80% of the AMI, you know, may or may not get subsidized by somebody else for it. See what I'm saying? In order to afford to maintain and just do the normal things you do as a homeowner. It [1:16:13] Speaker D (unidentified): might be in there. So if you do, it kind of removes the for-profit affordable housing developments from coming. [1:16:26] Brendan Somerville: That would. [1:16:28] Wayne: Right. What, the 75? [1:16:31] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, no, just the fact that it's affordable to very low to low moderate. [1:16:35] Brendan Somerville: It versus the 120. I don't think you'll get any developers to do this. I think that somebody who is a hundred and up to 120 percent is on the verge of, you know, of not being able to afford board to buy and maintain a house, and to ask, to require the developer, a for-profit developer. We've got to assume that York Housing can't build everything. They can do this voluntarily, and they do voluntarily, but they don't have many for sale. Right. And there's a reason, probably, why they don't have many for sale, because there's not many [1:17:28] Dylan: takers. Yeah, I think this one needs to go back a little bit just for some extra wordsmithing [1:17:33] Brendan Somerville: because I'm so, I think in my mind Ween is right. People at a very low income level aren't going to be buyers, so it's, it would need to be affordable housing and the imposition on the developer goes to the percentage of the overall profit from the sale of the developer. So if you tell me, if I, you know, hypothetically I'm a developer, if you tell me half my units have to be at a price where somebody at 120 percent of AMI can buy, I don't know that I can build. If you tell me 25% of those units need to be at AMI, I now have some greater wiggle room because I can make 75% targeted to a market rate buyer and the profit from those market rate units can subsidize the AMI buyers. Am I making sense? [1:18:39] Dylan: You are. I think then they would not be able to call it an affordable housing development. But if I make it 25% I could, right, if 51% of the units are not affordable up to the even to that 120% then it would not be considered an affordable housing development, it would just be a housing development or subdivision. Yeah, so [1:19:02] Brendan Somerville: 51% have to be if you want to, if you want to get a 120% or less, don't ask for [1:19:10] Dylan: anymore. That's, yeah, that's, and if you don't get, if you don't consider, if it's not considered an affordable housing development, then they don't get the additional 14 feet of height and allowance [1:19:21] Speaker D (unidentified): as well i almost think that 's sentence never got finished because i kind of remember discussions where like x amount was at 120 or the other similar to the rental language it was like a more of a hybrid approach than just saying this is your number go get it [1:19:40] Brendan Somerville: Yeah, I 'm with you. I think because if any, I'm sorry, go ahead. No, I, this, I,, I think this is an incomplete thought because I, think as [1:19:53] Speaker D (unidentified): far as not to go into people's finances, but if, someone was to purchase a house, they're at least salting away some equity. And if there could be incentives in getting people to own a house, an affordable house, it's at least a stop on the on the way up, whereas renting you're kind of, you can get stuck in that cycle. So if it's affordable to a point where it's equal or slightly above rental fees, I would be more prone to encourage that type of platform. [1:20:35] Brendan Somerville: Yes, or. Well, an affordable rental unit is basically they pay affordable rates forever. Yes. Affordable purchase, you only get the affordable part in the purchase part, not in the rest of that. That's correct. Granted, you'll have a smaller mortgage, but... [1:21:02] Speaker D (unidentified): Or you're at least banking equity when you go to sell. [1:21:06] Brendan Somerville: What bank is going to give a mortgage to somebody who's less than 100% of area median income even if somebody gives them the house? I mean, you don't have the bank then, but what I'm saying is... [1:21:29] Speaker D (unidentified): As far as qualifying for a mortgage? [1:21:31] Brendan Somerville: Yeah, as far as qualifying for a mortgage. They're not going to qualify for a mortgage even at a much reduced rate. And again, the rate would have to be reduced by the builder so much that they couldn't afford to build a house. I mean, you build a house just materials alone. They don't charge labor. You're going to have a hard time selling it at 50% of the area so that 50% of the area could afford it. 50 doesn't work. [1:22:01] Dylan: This would be a very rare instance for it to actually take place, but I think it's good that we do actually try and spell it out. If this ever happens, then we have a path or at least some guidelines for it. [1:22:15] Brendan Somerville: But you're saying at least? [1:22:16] Dylan: At least 51%. [1:22:18] Wayne: Yeah, I mean, it's just not going to happen. [1:22:21] Dylan: I mean, it's not going to happen, but if somebody proposed it, then it would be good to have something on the books. [1:22:26] Brendan Somerville: This doesn't give them the choice to do 51% at 120% of area median income. They can't do it, according to this. [1:22:38] Dylan: For ownership, because ownership is 100% to 120% AMI. The AMI for 50% to 80%, that's only for rental. [1:22:48] Speaker D (unidentified): Right, but this is calling out, but this is calling out very low or moderate, right, which I think [1:22:53] Dylan: I think that should probably be stricken out. Okay, but that really, this is just for if you were developing, if you're building an affordable housing development for ownership, you're looking at specifically at 100 to 120 percent AMI. Then if you want to call it affordable housing and get that extra 14 feet, then 51 of those sales, okay, then instead of, instead of saying very low [1:23:18] Brendan Somerville: or moderate, just say at less than, at least 51 of the units have to be affordable to people to moderate, you know, to moderate income or whatever the 120 percent is. Where did this provision, I remember [1:23:43] Speaker D (unidentified): in one of the York housing, the first take of this that we submitted, there was a variation of this. I don't think it was this exact thing, so my recollection, which admittedly [1:23:57] Brendan Somerville: could be faulty, is that at least for sale, I seem to recall the first number was 30 and I'm, I'm agreeing with the collective wisdom of the group here that. You know, more than 51%, this is a non starter. It's not going to get done. Because there's not enough money in the pie for the developer to do this. At the lesser percentage. Maybe it has a fighting chance. I'd rather give somebody a fighting chance than say this provision will never get anything. I remember reading about a particular city where they had, say, 30% condo building had to be affordable housing and years went by and there were no takers. They dropped it to 15 or 20, whatever, I don't remember the number, in order to even get a developer to bite on it, because again, you're not going to get, you know, section 8 or any other housing support that you would with rental on an ownership. You're basically just saying take it off the list price. I [1:25:41] Speaker D (unidentified): think find out what's, what's up with that. Yeah, and I don't know, touch base with work housing if they had a [1:25:48] Speaker I (unidentified): if they have a recommendation or clarification. So not to pile on, but Wayne's point is a really [1:25:54] Brendan Somerville: good one. So the hypothetical buyer who's going to get this affordable housing unit and otherwise meets the income level requirements for a mortgage, all the mortgage lenders today look at utilities and insurance as part of the monthly cost and those are the brains, exactly right, those are the ones that are going to disqualify people [1:26:18] Speaker D (unidentified): Over time, I think depending on the type of house that's built for sale, so going back to the green, what is it, green idea, cottage village green or cottage court, if there was a 500 square foot efficiency single bedroom or, you know, like 800 square foot two bedroom. [1:26:39] Brendan Somerville: So you're looking at the single teacher or the policeman who doesn't want to get married, right, or who knows, okay, or, you know, yeah, or a starter home to get him at least in the game. [1:26:49] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, we're retiree downsizing, yeah, 100, with a fixed income, all that, absolutely. [1:26:56] Speaker F (unidentified): Absolutely, who doesn't need a mortgage? [1:26:58] Brendan Somerville: And if you could build 20 units, and 10 of them were affordable based on 120% or less, and the builder would be able to subsidize that with a market rate of the other 10, yeah, it still wouldn't be, you know, multi-million dollar, because when you. Look at the blend, yeah, the blend, yeah, you're looking at the overall potential profit of the developer from the blend, not the single units, and that's what you'd have to do every, it would be fabulous if we could get this to work, I. [1:27:43] Speaker D (unidentified): Really do, I would love this to work, I also don't know if this, we might be saying the same thing in a different way, it doesn't mean the whole development needs to be for sale, and this could be a way to get your cost out of it up front, so you're building rentals, sell 10 of the units, and it doesn't hurt as much until you start. [1:28:06] Dylan: Recouping, that's a more complicated pro forma, but yes, right, so it's sales take out a chunk of. [1:28:12] Wayne: That actual initial development cost, yeah, when you say units, do they all have to be. [1:28:19] Brendan Somerville: Similar size, no, so they can be different size, different structure, different shapes, different appliances, you could do lots of stuff here, although I thought that was, there was. Something when you're talking about affordable, when we were talking about open space conservation subdivision, affordable houses included in there for a density bonus, they couldn't look substantially different, you might be separated from. They have to be, no, they have to be in it, they have to be integrated, from my recollection, have to be integrated into the community and have similar design. [1:29:00] Speaker D (unidentified): And you were absolutely right, but that's a subdivision on affordable housing. [1:29:06] Brendan Somerville: Correct, okay, right, but it was affordable units in a subdivision, right, and that was what that initially brought it up as well. So okay, but I in a in a multi-family housing, nobody can tell who has the big units, who has the small units. You can have those studio apartments that can go to somebody in the 80 range. Yeah, I just I just think we'd be doing well just to get it this. [1:29:45] Speaker D (unidentified): Was the stuff we were working on before 1829. I almost wish we had the amount of time we put into LD 1829 to fine-tune this, because I feel like we really honed something beneficial this. My [1:30:01] Brendan Somerville: it might selfish view is this has legs for the town of York. This is a way to help solve some of the problem. Yeah, and I think the key is that 51 thing with rental units, I mean that's that's the key to I hope get things moving, but again ownership is a little different, okay. [1:30:31] Dylan: Pedestrian access talking about or villatrian earlier, this is new language. Safe pedestrian trafficways, sidewalks, crosswalks, shared use paths with safe separation from vehicular traffic shall be provided within and adjacent to the site slash lot for safe pedestrian access. Safe [1:30:52] Wayne: separation is that a little bit up to [1:30:56] Dylan: interpretation, right, some kind of vegetated or physical buffer between the [1:31:03] Speaker D (unidentified): driveway and the pedestrian way, just so it's not driveway curb sidewalk, right, like a pig [1:31:11] Brendan Somerville: like York Street, most parts of it, well front of the village elementary school, there's the sidewalk and a tree and grass and then the road. Can I can I ask a sort of unrelated question So sidewalks do it this way. I've always been a proponent of sidewalks for pedestrian safety, and we have large swaths of the town, where we all walk on the opposing side of traffic and pray like hell, somebody moves out of the way. [1:31:50] Speaker D (unidentified): To get to the sidewalk. [1:31:52] Brendan Somerville: Just so I don't get hit. So I 'm a big proponent of sidewalks, I think for pedestrian safety and even vehicular safety [1:32:04] Speaker D (unidentified): they're a huge plus, but these are also internal sidewalks, yes they are, these are, but part of what [1:32:12] Brendan Somerville: we've decided at least on route one is you know bit by kit foot by foot we're going to get [1:32:19] Dylan: Sidewalk at some point, at some point to Steve's point, that would go into, so the comprehensive plan does call for us to have a complete streets policy, at the very least complete streets, meaning that you make sure that the street is open to more than just, or streetways are open to more than just vehicle traffic, so sidewalks, bike lanes, anything like that. I know that the bike and pedestrian committee have looked at similar stuff before, but it's just a matter of we don't have a policy in place, but the comprehensive plan does call for us to actually draft one and make one, so you've done some work on one for like, yes, there is a, there is a rough draft one available, it's just we're waiting on standards to be analyzed by DPW and talk it through also with the town manager and other staff as well, so [1:33:11] Speaker D (unidentified): in the meantime we'll just do bit by bit, it's bit by bit right now, and we're reflective clothing, yeah, get ready to jump, you know, only wear, only wear black [1:33:20] Dylan: walk on the side of the road, traffic calming with your direct with the [1:33:24] Wayne: direction of traffic, live dangerously, yeah, it's amazing how many people walk one with their backs to traffic and headphones in, maybe the spouse just made [1:33:37] Dylan: the insurance payment, okay, changes after this, really just go down to clarifying either where the metric for AMI or FMR comes from, which is the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Name change of the ordinance, so again going from workforce affordable housing to affordable housing developments. There is under 10F6C governance highlighted portion there. I'll read that aloud in one moment. In the event the qualified non-profit housing corporation declines its option to purchase the dwelling units, the owner may sell it to a household that meets the income as established for that particular dwelling unit and fits one of the selection priorities set forth in this ordinance as determined by the qualified nonprofit housing corporation, all sales of dwelling units were very low and moderate income households for York HUD Metro air FMR area shall be subject to the resale price calculation, so if you do sell and you're in one of those categories, then there's a limit to how much equity you can build up in that, and if the, if let's say York Housing declines the option to purchase a home, then it, the developer can sell that to somebody who meets those requirements as we do spell out some selection requirements [1:35:03] Brendan Somerville: In the ordinance as well, it's 10F7 I think, Brendan, in 10F6, in the just under governance. What is a residence preference? It's the third line. [1:35:16] Dylan: Third line, residence preference to [1:35:21] Brendan Somerville: the income, employment, and resident preferences. Oh, there used to be, it is there still somewhere, I assume, that you had to be either a resident or neighboring town or work in the town. Okay, that would make sense. Yeah, and [1:35:40] Dylan: that goes into selection priorities after that. So did we, do we, are we dumping all that? No, 10F7, selection priorities. So number one right there is at least one member of a qualifying household is living and working as defined by the person's employer in York. So I believe that is residents [1:36:00] Brendan Somerville: preference. So I thought taking workforce off of the title meant we're not requiring those workforce [1:36:07] Dylan: force connections anymore, right? Because workforce I think specifically is a very specific affordability range of AMI. So just again going to straight up affordable across the board, and then so that way if somebody wants to purchase or move into a place here in York, then if they work here already, then they get first preference. It's more of a priority scale than a, yeah, right. [1:36:33] Brendan Somerville: Right, but for some reason I thought that was the only reason for the title workforce affordable housing, is that it was for people who worked here or lived here and worked elsewhere. [1:36:48] Dylan: Right, I believe that was probably the intent originally, but now it's just consider it all [1:36:54] Brendan Somerville: blanket affordable. Okay, so even we're talking about, well, affordable senior housing, still affordable housing at that point, but they don't have to work here, they don't get any priority from it for working here. I assume so. This is something that this priority is something that's used by the, you know, York Housing Authority, yeah, to sort people in terms of where they are. It's, it's not just first come, first serve. [1:37:34] Speaker D (unidentified): And it's to set a fair playing field if another housing authority came in or was selected to be the manager. [1:37:41] Dylan: Then they would have to play by these rules as well. [1:37:45] Speaker D (unidentified): Going back to the same, like defining the FMR or at least spelling it out, same with HUD. It's defined at the end of the, so maybe just do a lookup and whichever the first mention of it, yeah, [1:38:05] Brendan Somerville: in any given section or chapter, the first time [1:38:10] Speaker F (unidentified): it's mentioned it has to be spoken about, the abbreviation is used, definitions and acronyms. [1:38:15] Brendan Somerville: There still should be a definition somewhere, but you don't want to have to flip back to the front of the book every time. Yeah, if you can just do it on the first time it's mentioned in the section, yes, that's [1:38:31] Dylan: a very good. So is there anything else in article 10f to [1:38:38] Speaker D (unidentified): touch on? There's a quite a bit more to go through. I know, right, not as much as [1:38:46] Dylan: we've covered I think now, and for the end, I know there's, save it for the end, but discussion on dimensionals, I know there's some ideas and some direction that we asked the select board for, so we can talk about those at the end. Yeah, I definitely [1:39:01] Brendan Somerville: have to do that. What under c, the highlighted one, did we talked about that yet? I don't [1:39:06] Dylan: believe that we did. Oh, it just, yeah, it's additional and fits one of the selection priorities set forth in this ordinance as determined by the qualified non-profit housing [1:39:22] Speaker F (unidentified): corporation. Why was it highlighted? That is a great question. I think it's like the working document [1:39:28] Speaker D (unidentified): highlight first fix as you go fix later or it's like questionable does this section need it just felt like the theme going through the okay working document i brought it up earlier but should there be a section here when an affordable house is located with in the subdivision or non-affordable development i guess was my or should it just live in the subdivision [1:39:54] Dylan: subdivision? What do you mean? This isn't like if it was built as affordable but now there's no [1:40:01] Speaker D (unidentified): taker or no, it's more when an affordable aspect is required in a subdivision. Okay, like 10 percent, like we've done in some other, there was an amendment recently about that, right? But there's been some where they are, they committed to actually building out to that standard, and I've always, I'm not on the side of implementing it. So I didn't know if there was language that could be added with York Housing's input maybe of how are those handled? Because when they build it, 's theirs, they control it. But if a developer comes in and promises 10% is going to affordable or affordable elderly or whatnot, [1:40:48] Speaker F (unidentified): what mechanism? What mechanism? [1:40:50] Brendan Somerville: What's your check on compliance? No, that makes perfect sense. [1:40:53] Dylan: That's a very good question. In that case, they would be out of compliance with their comprehensive plan. Sorry, not with their comprehensive plan, with their approved subdivision or site plan. [1:41:04] Speaker D (unidentified): I guess are any of these regulations, should any of these be triggered with that? [1:41:09] Dylan: Right, then they would be out of compliance with that. And with, I know with previous, so were that to be brand new development, if you are not in compliance with your plan, then the code office will not issue occupancy to you to that development until that plan is in place. They cannot sell and to a developer that is, that is much more damaging because at that point you've already built the units, and you're trying to pay off all of your construction costs. So it's, it's imperative that you do as you promised to do on your plan. At one point we [1:41:44] Brendan Somerville: discussed, I don't know if it ever got implemented, saying that before you build some, you know, if you've promised 10% affordable, you have to, you can't save those to the very end, right, they have to, they have to [1:42:01] Dylan: be built in time. It's, we fed that into similar language with the like including the units themselves. It's you can't just save them for the end, you have to build [1:42:09] Brendan Somerville: them in time in line with everything. That's good in language somewhere, I [1:42:13] Dylan: I believe it did whenever we made some adjustments to the affordable elderly housing standards and affordable housing standards. I think we did that in November of 2025, if I'm not mistaken. [1:42:26] Brendan Somerville: I think we discussed it. I know we discussed it. I just can't remember where it ended up. Okay. Okay. [1:42:41] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, I just took a peek real quick at 7-6 for the open space subdivision, and there is the, it says workforce affordable housing. I don't know if we want to edit that [1:42:53] Dylan: language as well. Sorry, that's up there as well. Oh, is it? Oh no, is it 7.6.3c? [1:43:01] Speaker F (unidentified): Okay and [1:43:04] Speaker D (unidentified): this is where I was talking like should this point to the affordable housing section, should there be some standards from this section that 763 references in 10f? We've always kind of given it like a, like, oh, they'll do it well, and any type of affordable housing in the subdivision that felt like a bonus gift from the developer, but so [1:43:34] Dylan: including some language like that in 763 just intentionally to, yeah, oh I guess [1:43:41] Speaker D (unidentified): it does say a government standard specified in ten at dot six shall be followed, so I guess just changing it, the language, okay, and then saying [1:43:53] Brendan Somerville: development, the carrot was also always though increased density, right, now we [1:44:03] Speaker D (unidentified): don't have any more increase, that's true, yeah, density bonus of 20% above the yield plan if at least 25%, yeah, and I know that I mean we've worked with the [1:44:20] Dylan: the Conservation Commission before on revising 763. I think with the number of changes that we'd be proposing, I don't know if we're gonna be bringing changes to that ordinance for this round, but we will continue to work on that one in the near future. [1:44:37] Speaker D (unidentified): So, at a minimum, just changing that? [1:44:39] Dylan: Yeah, just to do some language changes on that, 's a very easy, straightforward one to do. [1:44:55] Brendan Somerville: So, that's it for 10F then? [1:44:58] Dylan: All right, 713, the change to 713 and purpose just references article 10f, except as may be permitted in article 10f affordable housing development overlay district. These standards are enacted to help the town comply with statutory requirements to encourage the creation of new affordable housing units, but in a manner consistent with the public sentiment and expressed in the town's comprehensive plan. Units are for rent only, and changes are limited in scale to prevent excessive neighborhood impact. So this is, let's say you have a three-story house and you want to convert that to affordable housing, then you can in fact do that, but you have to comply with the standards in listed out in 10f for it to be an affordable housing unit. So just it's a clean reference back to that. Did we not do this already? Nope, that is new as new. [1:45:57] Speaker D (unidentified): Language this got brought up for the courthouse right originally the. [1:46:03] Dylan: Conversion yes that was I believe it's a little bit before my time in the. [1:46:08] Speaker F (unidentified): Initial question on it is but I thought we are already work. [1:46:13] Brendan Somerville: On this except as may be I've in my time there and there's never been I don't believe a conversion of a building to affordable housing. It's been there, it's always been there. [1:46:34] Speaker D (unidentified): Well it would really only be a town parcel or someone with a philanthropic mindset because. [1:46:42] Brendan Somerville: You're correct, you're spending a lot of money, it's a lot of work to rehab a building for that, right? [1:46:51] Dylan: But it does have some benefits, so if mostly the use, if let's say there's an additional use requirement that came after the building was initially built, then if you convert it, then that may not apply. So a good example of that would be an existing building here in the Village Center. If it fronts on York Street, Woodbridge, or Long Sands, then it would have to be a mixed use building in order to have any kind of residence. But if you converted an existing building, then as long as you stay within that footprint you're not making it more non-conforming in that manner, so you're keeping what's there similar to how it is now, it just has a different use. So after that governance again, it's just really it, this one number one adds in very low or low income, very low is 50% ami. Reading that I'm kind of. [1:47:56] Speaker D (unidentified): of pulling back old conversations that we had with York Housing. Okay. Just before we change any of that, the language and the numbers, I think they wanted possibly lower numbers. I might be butchering this memory I'm having, but it had to do with qualifying. Because it was set at the 120, they were possibly having issues qualifying 50% or 80%. I would just be cautious I guess is what I'm saying because I think these are coming from York housing possibly not just out of thin air Changing stuff to very low and low [1:48:46] Brendan Somerville: Instead of the numbers using the numbers you mean yeah because that is that's representative of [1:48:51] Speaker D (unidentified): What the actual EMI is are we getting definitions for those we? [1:48:57] Dylan: Should be getting some definitions if no definition then go with 50 numbers okay yeah i [1:49:08] Speaker D (unidentified): would think it would be better to have the definition of and then because if those percentage numbers ever change is there anything else in this duration the transient occupancy language right under duration of lease the lease [1:49:38] Dylan: for an affordable apartment dwelling unit shall be for greater than 30 days in a calendar year [Speaker F (unidentified): year. So it's] drawing a pretty hard line in the sand between transient occupancy and non-transient. [1:49:54] Speaker D (unidentified): So we want residences. [1:50:07] Dylan: J is or item J subject section J. Thank you. Town or York owned buildings or lots adds a little bit of language though it's not just a town or buildings town or parcels as well it's for the purpose of creating affordable housing for a very low or moderate income [1:50:28] Speaker D (unidentified): households i think having a reason behind very low and moderate why that language is in there [1:50:38] Dylan: yeah that's your let's see exactly that would be your extremely low is 30 so if it's very low then that is 50 to 100% AMI. [1:50:49] Speaker D (unidentified): 50 to 100, okay. So it removes the 120, or above 100. [1:51:03] Dylan: Actually, no, I think moderate income may be the 120. Again, it's probably best to go with the numbers as opposed to the names, just to clear up any confusion. [1:51:17] Brendan Somerville: Yeah, unfortunately, it's in the definitions in section two, but you have to jump to each one. one. Under V for very low, under L for low, under M for moderate. Which I guess is one way of doing it. But there's been times when you have definitions in a section in addition to being in the front of the book. Like for the lighting, for instance. So to have them all in one spot would be nice rather than having to jump from very m to v to l to [1:51:59] Dylan: Maybe just have affordable housing, and then in the definition it's reference, yeah, article 10f for definitions and groupings, small little chart, yeah. Keep it simple, yeah. I like it, let's do it. [1:52:13] Speaker D (unidentified): And I think just a answer as to why, okay, why that. I'm not against it, I just, where did it come from, why not the 120, why not Lolo. I know with the Lolo it's what you [1:52:40] Dylan: run up against is that is normally your subsidized housing, so you need to have your second line of financing already lined up in order to make that work, so having guidelines for just the 50% up is a little bit easier to manage for most developers, and then again last NJ again just adds in the language of meets all applicable standards within article 10f affordable housing development overlay district, so just references again offering all that buffering all that's contained in 10f. So if there weren't sidewalks they could [1:53:28] Speaker D (unidentified): they might have to add sidewalks? Right. Okay. [1:53:32] Brendan Somerville: What about two? [1:53:36] Dylan: Two is entirely stricken out. If two or more dwelling units are created within a town-owned building or on a town-owned lot that at least 50% of the total number of dwelling units created within the building or on the lot be workforce affordable housing whose income is not more than 80% of the HUD FMA, so I think that just it's a little bit redundant at this point if we're already referencing 10f on the affordability makeup of a building or a specific development, then should stay consistent with just 10f, so I think it's this is saying that if [1:54:15] Brendan Somerville: it's a town-owned building it has to be at least 50 percent affordable housing, that's not mentioned [1:54:25] Dylan: anywhere else is it, but if it's if that's all stricken out and it's referencing 10f then it would still need to meet the 51 requirements of to in order to become affordable or to be considered an affordable housing development, but it doesn't, but this says [1:54:44] Brendan Somerville: is a town-owned building has to be affordable. What you're saying is if it's affordable, then it has to meet these guidelines. [1:54:54] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, yeah. So 713 is conversion of buildings to affordable apartments. So that's happening. And then 10F states 51% or more. [1:55:07] Brendan Somerville: Okay, so that's right, so. We get there. right 713 the whole chapter is about that okay all right and [1:55:22] Speaker D (unidentified): we're moving on to it yeah [1:55:24] Brendan Somerville: should we talk about what wig room the select board seems to have given with regard to setbacks [1:55:40] Dylan: certainly can I'd like to hear y'all's thoughts I've got some of my own but I want to hear y'all first I would say just on approach and what we have before us have you been brought up to speed [1:55:56] Speaker D (unidentified): With setbacks or how was it? Did we go into depth? No, we just talked about, okay, so during the subcommittee meetings we were talking, well, Brendan had his presentations of showing that there's only 500 square feet buildable area on some of the zones. As we were getting into looking at lots or putting it into practice with what's existing around us, getting four units even on the 1250 square feet with these updated setbacks didn't seem attainable. So Wayne had brought up a good point that if the state wanted us to do this, they probably should have included it, or there's a reason why they didn't include it. So the thought was do the, not the bare minimum, because we're doing more than that, obviously, but we were going above and beyond trying to accommodate the density change or the minimum lot size change by also opening up our densities to incentivize it even further than the state's requirement. So we kind of have two paths. Path A is just update the minimum lot size and keep everything else the same. And then path B is modifying the dimensional standards to go even further. Within those discussions, it was also, like that's a good stepping stone and it would also give us time to develop not form-based items but similar to the what the greenway has, you know, parking here. You were concerned about cars backing into the roadway, so having those standards if there's a ton of curb cuts in these 5,000 square foot segments now it's different than other cars, right? And the point was made one of the select board members [1:57:57] Brendan Somerville: said we could always hope, you know, decrease the setbacks at a later point if that was right [1:58:05] Speaker D (unidentified): you know, made sense and as it is now the dwelling unit numbers even with the lots existing as is it's still increasing. It would be difficult if you just gave somebody a bare [1:58:20] Dylan: 5 000 square feet it would still be a challenge to fit four units on there. By the way there's an [1:58:26] Brendan Somerville: ordinance I mean there's a statewide referendum in Massachusetts coming up on the state wants to make it mandatory for all towns to allow single-family dwellings on 5,000 square feet. I saw a single-family one, a single family this and this has been going on, the work they go on for a year, people working on that [1:58:55] Dylan: and that's what they came up with. Interestingly it was Idaho that went down to 1300 square feet for a single family home and Texas I think is now offering, I believe it's around two thousand or three thousand if you're within a city, so other states are growing even more aggressive [1:59:15] Brendan Somerville: And we're at 1250. Right, because you don't know what all the, what are they asking for density? [1:59:21] Dylan: At least minimum lot size is still five thousand. Those would be the minimum size. Yeah, lot sizes on [1:59:26] Speaker D (unidentified): those cases. Well, but if you're doing four units on 5,000, right, so it depends if they're allowing multi. Yeah, in those cases they're, they're single-family, but [1:59:38] Dylan: it's single-family on the homer math though, right? The whole lot itself will be 1,300 square feet as opposed to 5,000, your density being the 1,300, so it's a [1:59:48] Brendan Somerville: bit of a different approach. Yeah, and there's still all these asterisks for those, you know, is there wetlands, is it, is there road frontage 50 feet is what they listed in the Massachusetts referendum apparently, and then up, you know, they won't vote on it until November 3rd, so it'd be interesting to see. They decided to go to the whole state to do it as a referendum rather than pass it as legislation. Check that out. So it'd be interesting if I may, [2:00:21] Dylan: may mr chair there may be a third option yes working with some staff today we've been playing around with some ideas because we understand that backing into this may be more effective as trying to prescribe setbacks right now it 's very clear that we need more time to really work on those as well as other standards that need to be put in place but we would also So by not changing our setbacks, we would end up with a lot of lots that are unbuildable. So that 5,000 would just not be simply done. [2:00:53] Brendan Somerville: Again, new lots. New lots. See, nobody has to make a new lot. [2:01:00] Dylan: So how about this as a potential footnote? For newly created lots with an area of 9,999 square feet or less, a setback reduction and lot coverage increase of up to 30% may be granted intended if all of the following conditions are met. The lot is served by public water and sewer within the town's designated growth area. The permitted principal usage is a single-, two-, or multi-family dwelling. Stormwater runoff is kept to pre-development levels utilizing low-impact development, LID, as referenced in Chapter 10 of the MDP Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual and certified by a state-licensed design professional or engineer. And lastly, the proposed density complies with section 5.4, so you would be allowed a setback reduction and a lot coverage increase of up to 30%. I can get into those numbers in a little bit. Yeah, so long as basically you can prove with an engineer stamp that you're not going to be contributing any excess of stormwater runoff into your neighbors or wetlands or anything damaging of that sort. So with a 30% reduction, I need to, I need to grab my notes on this. Say your 30-20-20 setbacks would go to 20-12-12, which would give you a buildable area not of 500 square feet, but of 1,700, so. [2:02:35] Speaker D (unidentified): It seems more than the, this is nine lots under 10,000. [2:02:42] Dylan: Under 10,000. If you're at 10,000, you do not need an increase in your setbacks or your lot coverage. You have 3,000 square feet of [2:02:49] Speaker D (unidentified): So, if you have 5,000 square feet, is that the number you just gave us, the 1,750? Yes. Which is more than? [2:02:59] Dylan: More than, it's three times the 500 square feet that you would look in the south half of town, for sure. [2:03:05] Speaker D (unidentified): But option B, what was that square footage, roughly? [2:03:08] Dylan: It was like 1,250. 12, for? [2:03:13] Speaker D (unidentified): So, like, what was it, Group 1, Group 2? Mm-hmm. With those setbacks, Do you remember the outcome of the area so for group one it would be [2:03:26] Dylan: 1768 for group two That would be North of twenty five hundred twenty six hundred in that case and this one was what? 1250 so yeah 1700 in group two and then it would be allowed up to about 2,500. There would be a caveat that I would like to include in there of setbacks may not be less than 10 feet. Group two is a little bit of a challenge because of the 30% reduction, it would be an eight foot setback, which one, is a little weird. Two, there seemed to be a little bit of concern about going less than 10 feet, especially on the sides. So preserving a little bit of separation there and then making sure that our existing standards and setbacks are already there they're consistent and if you have a 7,000 square foot lot you're not required to go through this portion it's still an option you can still try and make those setbacks work but if you really want to try and squeeze three four dwelling units on there even just one single family home on a 5,000 square foot plot there's an avenue to actually get there but you have to do your due diligence and make sure that's actually a good quality development i [2:04:47] Brendan Somerville: would say given more time that sounds that would be something that would be an improvement over the first options we looked at because the staff concern [2:05:08] Dylan: Is if we have that 500 square foot window on those small lots any time, then after that, if somebody wanted to try it, that would be an appeal for a general [2:05:20] Brendan Somerville: variance, yeah, every single time, until the zoning, if the problem is caused by your own decision making, as in making a 5,000 square foot lot that can't be built on, given the present zoning ordinance. That's a self-inflicted wound that Florida Appeals is not supposed to have sympathy with. [2:05:52] Dylan: But we do say that our minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet. [2:05:56] Speaker D (unidentified): I think it removed. Moved, the LD1829 didn't ask us to rezone the town to accommodate X, Y, Z. It was saying, this is now the minimum lot size you can have. And that's a lever that they chose to pull. They didn't say, depending on your growth area, you need to have X amount of dwellings possible to be developed. And I would rather ease into this. I feel like just the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size is a drastic change. And I would rather see us just redo the zoning period and create not necessarily character districts throughout the whole town, but. [2:06:46] Brendan Somerville: In the growth area perhaps. Within the growth area, [2:06:49] Speaker D (unidentified): at least design new zones with form than. Than so you've got standards at the same time. And that's gonna be quicker than. [2:06:59] Brendan Somerville: Yeah, I think there's definitely some advantage to that. [2:07:04] Dylan: But do you think that this could be a possible stop gap between now and then? Or is that really a concern? [2:07:11] Brendan Somerville: There's another advantage of backing in. We don't even have to get into the complication of group one and group two now. Right. Right and it's that's just another thing that we have to explain and then somebody's gonna say well why is the line here and not here and what's the reason why well there a lot of them are smaller in the north in the north of in group one a lot of lots are smaller but not all of them and not all of them in the group two is are larger so it's arbitrary it made some sense being if we were pushed into a corner to do that but it's one less thing that we'd have to worry about at this time it's Complicated enough I think people could say well I've got a 10 000 square foot lot and Given the setbacks, I can't subdivide it right now, but maybe, you know, at some point down the road it may happen. But, yeah, I don't think the pain is worth the gain in this case to give someone a chance to be really close. And again, if you ask people in general, if you like the idea of allowing smaller setbacks, 70% might say, in general, yes. Ask them about their neighbor. Yeah, not my house. In fact, here's an example. Somebody I know in a small, in York Beach on a small lot, she's in a small duplex. Somebody owned a little tiny substandard lot behind them and put in some kind of housing there. I don't know if it's single family or multi. And because it was substandard, they built it within five feet of her line. Perfectly legal. She was really upset about it. I mean, it really felt, compared to what she had before, that was five feet from my, the house itself is five feet from my little property. So I can see, I'm only bringing that up because of how emotion enters into this when we get into the specifics. I think by going to 5,000 square foot lots that you know some of them could work with it with a tiny home or two not four people will get used to the idea and then maybe it won't be so bad and then we could at some point decide you know it makes sense to decrease for smaller lots to decrease the setbacks under certain conditions but as you say it might get done the same way simply by [2:10:29] Speaker D (unidentified): working through form-based code or if it's states coming with around to you don't know they could yeah I could be there next you know I also we don't have people knocking down the podium trying to reduce setbacks like it's not coming [2:10:46] Brendan Somerville: from our town no there's there's people who with 30 foot setbacks that would love to have 10 foot setbacks you know they would love to have 20 foot setbacks but to have four units and those minimum setbacks next door I think people might have a problem with that and again I don't think it's going to gain a heck of a lot of actual houses to the mix so here's my as of tonight sense based on Monday night and the discussions we've had if we if the ballot on the next go-round goes full bore implementation like we had been talking I think that's a very hard sell to the voters for a couple reasons one is the explanation of the changes are gonna make people's eyes go on the back of their head because it's complicated the knee jerk when I don't understand something is to start from no and have you convince me to yes so I think we're creating a path to failure if we go for full bore And remember how many pages this is going to be. That's on top of 80 budget items, 90 budget items. So I don't mind the seven, you know, the seventy valid questions when it's, we're deciding where money goes. This is more ethereal, and to have 70 pages on top of the 72 budget items, I think we're just asking for go away and [2:12:56] Speaker I (unidentified): leave us alone, come back. What do you think, Mark? I think if the select board [2:13:01] Wayne: Board votes yes, I think the town will follow. Big if. 5-0. Only 5-0. [2:13:12] Brendan Somerville: Not 4-1. Well, not necessarily, but it depends on if there was some hot butter item somewhere in there that people really jump on. I mean, you can't predict, you know, that suddenly a tree is going to be the hot button item, but it happens, and your, you know, your home has got a stronger emotional attachment. I think go slow approach with the message that we're doing what we need to do as mandated by state law, but we're being thoughtful about it, is a much better line, and will, and saying we will make changes as we think they benefit the town overall is a much more thoughtful approach, and at least in my head, in keeping with our obligation to be on the [2:14:18] Speaker I (unidentified): board. It's just my sense. Yeah, you got to lay it out that this is the state [2:14:24] Wayne: pushing us in this direction, and we don't have a choice. Easier argument to make. Yeah, and if like you said, if we need to make changes down the road, we'll [2:14:35] Brendan Somerville: make changes. My sort of a corollary is at first I did not pay attention to 1829 as it was making its way through the process. Shame on me. But as I started to pay attention after Brandon and Dylan sort of gave us the heads up this was coming, my sense is this was not a thoughtful exercise in the legislative process. This was we're going to get this done come hell or high water, and we'll fix it later. Oh, they did with the fixer, and I'm not sure the fix it is a fixer. So I again, I don't think they're done. I don't think the state legislature is done, and I again, I think the prudent approach is let's go slow kind [2:15:35] Speaker D (unidentified): of the consensus is option A. [2:15:37] Dylan: So do absolutely nothing other than just change the minimum lot sizes again. That [2:15:44] Brendan Somerville: also means that group one and group two doesn't need to be, and option three, [2:15:50] Dylan: group one and group two wasn't even on the table. It was just within the [2:15:53] Speaker D (unidentified): existing format. I think it was a really good exercise for future adjustments. Yes, absolutely. Yes, not to implement now. Okay, so stick with, stick with option A then. Clean and simple. Okay, I feel like we're better than some of the towns that are not even implementing the 5000. I mean, options if [2:16:14] Brendan Somerville: We were forced into something else then, option C, the approach you laid out I think would be a good compromise, I really do. I just, I have visions of unintended consequences that are not positive and that are not foreseeable necessarily, okay. [Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, that] will at least simplify and hopefully just make the whole process easier, it also buys us time again in my head to get a better sense of where the select board wants to end up, because we're not fighting against a deadline that is growing louder by the day. [2:17:13] Speaker D (unidentified): I think it's simple too to digest, that is that word, yeah. Do they know, do they know where [2:17:22] Brendan Somerville: they want to end up? I don't think necessarily they do. I think like most people that are aware of what's going on, housing is too expensive and too hard to get, and right, they're like the rest of us, they're in favor of improving that situation, but, I, again, I, think without making those setback changes, there's still going to be a lot more opportunity for, more housing and more density. [2:18:02] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, even if the house is connected to water and sewer, they could do two more units and an ADU or three more units. Yeah. Right. Yeah. It depends. Depending on which. Well as long as they're within their setbacks if you had a normal and there's some lots that [2:18:25] Dylan: are already built to the setbacks and if it's a non-conforming lot then currently they can go down to five feet from the setbacks as well from the property lines as well so there's some so [2:18:35] Speaker D (unidentified): there might be some creative things that come up, there will be, there will be some very interesting [2:18:41] Dylan: Not necessarily, I would say, good in my own congressional opinion. [2:18:46] Speaker D (unidentified): So is there a cautionary tale to not modifying the dimensional standards based on non-conforming situations? [2:18:53] Dylan: Not that I can think of, no. [2:18:56] Brendan Somerville: We're stuck with that no matter what. [2:18:58] Dylan: We're going to be bringing a lot of properties into conformity by raising that. All of them, if let's say it's 5,000, 6,000 square feet, if they suddenly become conforming, by way of the lot size, then the setbacks we have now apply right now, which a lot of them would immediately become in violation of, so they'd become non-conforming again. How so? When a new lot's created, if they were already five feet, if they're already existing, let's say it's already existing, the house is right there, house is five feet, ten feet, yeah, but they were not conforming before, yes they were not conforming before based on lot size alone, now lot size they conform [2:19:45] Brendan Somerville: but they still fail because of setbacks, so they end up in a circuitous way in the same place. [2:19:52] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, but they're not worse off, they're not worse off. They would have to either then get a general [2:19:58] Dylan: variance to change their setbacks or go through the non-conforming situations part of the ordinance. [2:20:05] Brendan Somerville: And again, a lot of, there's a lot of lots that are more than 5,000. They're 10,000. I mean, I live on us, what I think is a pretty small lot, and mine is about half an acre, forty thousand, 20, I mean 20,000 something, and boy, I think 10,000, I mean obviously it was built a long time ago and not the most efficient thing at all, but just try to think of some of the places that you've seen. I think there'll be opportunities for fill in, I mean infill development, that make a lot of sense for something less than the current conforming size, so we talk infrequently with Newark Water District, and do you have a sense of how they view the changes that are coming because of 1829? [2:21:35] Dylan: They've had concerns about their capacity to serve, but also a lot of that has been stemmed from irrigation. [2:21:42] Brendan Somerville: All right, so I appreciate the irrigation issue and they will find a way. [2:21:50] Dylan: They already kind of have to. They're concerned. [2:21:59] Brendan Somerville: So one of the questions, at least in the back of my mind, is the mandatory connection to water and sewer, how they plan on meeting capacity. As those connections start getting further vetted, what the source is to pay for those connection fees, which again in my mind are meaningful, and if you have a non-conforming lot that becomes conforming and you happen to meet the setbacks, those connection costs become a meaningful barrier, so I, there's a lot of moving pieces here with lots of different constituencies, and I don't know that anybody is given coach and thought to getting everybody someplace to fix this. I'm not saying it has to be fixed now, but I, in my [2:22:55] Speaker D (unidentified): mind that's another reason not to rush. Yeah, and I think the water district at least is almost more prepared to say no to a development having capacity, like we might see one of those letters depending on the projects. I wouldn't be surprised because it's not just total capacity, but [2:23:18] Brendan Somerville: but it's down this long line that may require lots of upgraded. With their pressure concerns, there's gravity concerns, there's lots to go into this. Yeah. I mean, both. I mean, on the other hand, the York water can go, apparently the Socko River and eventually are from there. That's not gonna be cheap, but it could be done. Done, but the sewer can't just don't flip a switch they who's who's gonna let them build a sewer plant near sea level another one near sea level the History is not good so [2:24:09] Dylan: So put a nail in that minimum changes all right we will we will take care of that we'll get that before for y'all before probably the next future land use meeting. [2:24:20] Brendan Somerville: Do we owe some level of communication to the select board of where we're heading? Because this is different than where I think we were on Monday. [2:24:31] Speaker D (unidentified): They heard both sides. Okay. And we're still working on it. [2:24:36] Dylan: And we said that we would reach out to them for joining us in one of the meetings to go through. I just, yeah. [2:24:43] Speaker D (unidentified): And I think to some extent we've had eyes on it a lot. A lot a lot a lot of hours days weeks months a year yeah right and our role is to provide them with a document that they need to look at they can modify it a little bit but I [2:25:07] Brendan Somerville: I agree with that but how this gets implemented and I'm way above my pay grade has political considerations that they're probably much more attuned to certainly than I am if They get into let's play safe mode it would be let's make it so you know we're only doing it because the state tells us we have to they may be more adventurous than that and they can they can you know delegate us to take a look at making improvements to get even more density and we would gladly do that if they did I'm pretty sure but I think that a lot of the safeguards that we've been talking about the prevention of abuse we could get a get ahead of those first and not have something that hits The newspapers as a real problem that you know we're better off all right that what about what are we going to get to the daycare so that's [2:26:32] Dylan: That's next up on the list is article two definitions this adds the definition for small child care facility with a family child care provider child care center and child care facility and nursery school where [2:26:58] Brendan Somerville: Did these definitions come from that [2:27:04] Speaker D (unidentified): Was in the state language right that's the state language yeah and the requirement is to allow these in any zone where [2:27:11] Dylan: Residential exists yes and you can convert a dwelling to any one of these [2:27:16] Brendan Somerville: Facilities and somewhere in the underlying legislation there's state regulation of operators and all that stuff it's my assumption yes yeah [2:27:28] Wayne: There's, there's a regulation of operators, okay, but I mean this first one says not the residents of the operator, yes, so you can't be a more home daycare. [2:27:40] Brendan Somerville: Or just can't do it in your home? [2:27:42] Dylan: Do you call it a small childcare facility? Yeah. [2:27:49] Wayne: I mean, I would suspect that 40% of the childcare done in the state is done in a residence. [2:28:01] Dylan: Right. So that would be a family childcare provider, a person who provides daycare in that person's home. [2:28:08] Wayne: Or on a regular basis. Is it still allowed? [2:28:11] Dylan: This just kind of breaks up each one of the categories down to a little bit more of a granular, a little bit more granular detail. But the age is different. [2:28:19] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah. So infants aren't included, right? Right. Four to 12, up to 13. [2:28:26] Wayne: I know it's coming from the state, but, I mean, that's just not how it happens. Right. I mean, are they all a bunch of old guys and not realize what the hell's going on? I mean, that's just not how it happens. The [2:28:50] Brendan Somerville: water's caring for children living, and that's the water's crying. I was caring for no more than three other children, or four other children, if at least two of the children are siblings, and no more than three of the total number in the provider's care are under two, the provider is not required to be licensed as a family child care provider. [2:29:17] Wayne: Okay,, they chewed that piece out, that's good. [2:29:21] James Kansas: And [2:29:25] Dylan: then nursery school offers three or more children 33 months of age or older and under the age of eight. Very young kids, there's a nursery school option. From there, changes to Article 4 include mentions and listing all of those childcare uses where they are permitted. Additionally in article 4 multifamily dwellings are added across the board just because we have to in order to comply with state standards so multifamily housing is allowed however each one references article 5.4 which is the density standard so that way that's crystal clear and can be referred back to at any time and [2:30:28] Brendan Somerville: In our last go-round we kept the definitions of bed and breakfasts and boarding houses, right? Yes. [2:30:36] Dylan: I don't think we're really changing much else in Article 4 because we were toying with the use tables for a while. I'll pick that back up after. Okay. That's a lot of pages. It's mostly all just Article 4. Yeah. [2:30:57] Speaker D (unidentified): And now did the shoreland change as well? [2:31:00] Dylan: Shoreland, yes. These are the child care facilities are included in there. However, in order to permit something within the shoreland, the ceo has to sign off on it or code enforcement officer has to sign off on it because he is the shoreline officer. So that's pretty standard with any shoreline permit that we have. Code office has to sign off on it or if it's resource protection then the then the planning board reviews it. Yep. [2:31:32] Speaker D (unidentified): That's why it's highlighted because was that not a requirement. I think some of the highlights in [2:31:36] Dylan: here are reminder reminders or trying to do something that helps Italy stand out the lines of text. Any questions about the changes for permitted uses or the inclusion of the childcare facilities throughout page [2:32:06] Brendan Somerville: 16 permitted uses in res as for the highlighted portion. The dwelling will be the primary residence of the owner. The [2:32:32] Dylan: two-family dwelling, yes, so it would mean that it's an owner-occupied two-family [2:32:41] Brendan Somerville: dwelling, so. But the owner only has to occupy one of the two. [2:32:45] Dylan: That is my understanding of this, yes. OK. So you can have a two-family dwelling in there so long as the owner lives in it, at least one of the units. [2:32:56] Brendan Somerville: This that's the clarification gotcha okay and is [2:33:06] Wayne: family child care provider and small child care facility included in all zones [2:33:17] Dylan: yes but family child care provider and small child care facility fly through them all this [2:33:34] Speaker D (unidentified): This is in Section 4, but it's not child care related. It goes into, it's 4.3 on page 32. I don't know if that's jumping ahead. That's [2:33:52] Brendan Somerville: jumping ahead. Page 32. [2:33:54] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, still in the uses, right? [2:33:58] Dylan: A little bit. It is Article 7. That is? Article 7, special provisions, section 7.4, home occupations. [2:34:09] Speaker D (unidentified): No, this is page 32. Yeah, 4.3, additional requirements. No, I'm [2:34:18] Dylan: not. Are you looking at the zoning ordinance? I could be zoomed funny. Are you on the zoning ordinance or the what? Page 29. [2:34:26] Speaker D (unidentified): I might be zoomed in. [2:34:27] Brendan Somerville: I've got the same thing. I've got 4.3 additional requirements on page 32. [2:34:32] Dylan: Okay, now I got that as well. I got it on page 29. Okay. You have them on 32? [2:34:37] Wayne: you sent them to me at the same time [2:34:39] Speaker D (unidentified): so Microsoft Word if you zoom in it will change your page numbers [2:34:45] Wayne: somebody has more issues [2:34:47] Dylan: with their eyesight than I do [2:34:48] Wayne: okay alright [2:34:50] Speaker D (unidentified): so 4.3 additional requirements [2:34:53] Speaker F (unidentified): planning board [2:34:55] Dylan: subdivision site plan review all base zoning districts subdivision site planning approval is required from the planning board per zoning article [2:35:05] Speaker D (unidentified): 18 administration right so is it because it's already in there or yeah I'm [2:35:13] Dylan: Guessing that's in there because any, anytime the board reviews, yeah, site plan or subdivision, then our site sub is followed. So I think that just [2:35:26] Speaker D (unidentified): clarifies. Are we removing the 5,000? Are we removing those triggers, I guess? Yeah. [2:35:32] Dylan: Yeah, I think the triggers from Article 4.3, removing those triggers and just referring back to Article 18 instead. [2:35:39] Speaker D (unidentified): So does Article 18 have those triggers? [2:35:42] Dylan: Yes, so 5,000 square feet or more or 25 or more parking spaces are typically the first two items that trigger Planning Board review. I believe that's 18.5, I think. Or 18.15, I think, for delegation of site plan review. [2:36:22] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah. So it's in there. Is it just cleaning up? Is that the purpose? I believe so. [2:36:41] Dylan: Just making it very clear that when site plan or subdivision is being undertaken by the planning board that the site sub regs are to be followed. [2:36:51] Speaker D (unidentified): Oh, and because it's not three or more house lots anymore. Right. [2:36:56] Dylan: So would it be five or more dwellings or three or more lots? [2:37:02] Speaker D (unidentified): Right. So is that language further down added in? It should be, yes, unless this is just an awkward position and, right, I know he said it was 75 complete in the email. All right, I'll, I'll make, yep, to verify that 18.15, I [2:37:26] Dylan: will. Yeah, I'll move that around tomorrow first thing. That's [2:38:29] Speaker F (unidentified): page 32. To it's [2:38:33] Speaker D (unidentified): weird because it's like it was just in the middle. Wait a second, okay, yeah, it's in the middle of changing child care stuff, but it's in the section, so it just kind of stood up and then the short, moving on from that, the shoreland article 8 just includes the mentions of where [2:38:58] Dylan: these would be permitted within the shoreland zone and again adds the clarification that a shoreline permit from the code enforcement officer is required, keeps it consistent. So [2:39:19] Speaker D (unidentified): why was the daycare facilities crossed out as a, as our current definition is being struck from the book? Oh, okay, so then the current allowed uses are also struck to be replaced with a new [2:39:33] Brendan Somerville: Oh, okay. I missed that part. And so it's not going to, oh, I see below the underlined. Sorry, missed that. [2:39:46] Speaker D (unidentified): So it would, just to ask the question, if we kept the existing language, so that existing uses of child care, whatever the definition the town has, would they be not in compliance with the states? [2:40:03] Dylan: That's my understanding. Believe the state wanted to expand what could be defined as daycare centers and offer different options for that as it's been [2:40:11] Speaker D (unidentified): an issue. I'm curious how the state will enforce. I am an existing use, like are they out of business or they got kick out a certain age group or I don't know. [2:40:24] Dylan: I think they would still have to comply with state standards regardless for their operations because those are monitored by the state. If they wanted to still call themselves by the old name, then that would just kind of be a bit of a sunset clause on their, on their use. If it's no longer permitted use, then they would have to file for a new use to be permitted. [2:40:52] Wayne: A hundred percent that, I think it's depending on your size, regulated by the state. I think a, you know, I don't think everybody's regulated by the state. Whether they should be or not is a different story, but I don't think everybody is necessarily regulated by the state. If he has a child and decides to stay home and then has several friends ask her or him, sorry, to watch another child, I think that ends up happening. I don't think that ends up getting regulated, I think. [2:41:28] Speaker D (unidentified): You're right, out of our realm a little bit, but I'm just curious, yeah, how us removing stuff affects how it's treated in the ordinance, yeah, and then why is it regulated through ordinance versus just state law? If you're a registered facility doing x, y, and z, you either comply. [2:41:47] Dylan: With state regulations or you don't comply with state regulations, yes. Within the town, it's typically best to have some kind of backstop just because, let's say somebody's filing for a permit, this gives them very clear guide rails or guard rails to stay within and say I'm doing this, so I've got this, town knows to be watching out for all of this, and so they'll follow with this. Might. [2:42:10] Speaker D (unidentified): Be different too because our town has kind of already allowed those. Maybe there's towns that haven't, it's possible. Okay, are. [2:42:25] Wayne: There other things we need to get to in the next nine minutes? [2:42:28] Dylan: 742 daycare home is removed, is stricken out from home occupations. Those are just now uses as opposed to a dedicated home occupation page. Mark that would be page. [2:42:46] Speaker D (unidentified): Page 33, 36 for us, 36 for us, 7.4.3. [2:42:56] Dylan: Yeah, 743 items five and also in 742 classes of home occupation, so it's no longer a class one. No occupation seems. [2:43:15] Speaker D (unidentified): To make sense, all right, that's one of those things you have to hunt to make sure you get every single mention of it, yep, scrub it. So then we're into density, right? [2:43:30] Dylan: Back into Article 5, 5153, special exception for front setback, the following shall not apply to Biz 1, Biz 2, or Res 4 zones. So this would just be a special exception, I think he highlighted this one just for us to take a look at and see if we were actually going to change the dimensionals. But in this case, I don't really know if that would be applicable anymore, except for a couple of zones, but at that point, it's not particularly an issue. [2:44:12] Brendan Somerville: The following shall not apply to the average farm setbacks. That [2:44:29] Speaker D (unidentified): seems arbitrary. Just not modifying it, right? Right. But could it have been a thing we could adjust if we were adjusting? [2:44:42] Dylan: yeah if we were changing setbacks and we would probably stricken the whole portion out because there wouldn't really be a need at that point for an exception to it we wouldn't want to further [2:44:51] Speaker D (unidentified): grant a reduction right so this whole section pretty much unchanged yeah 5.2 changes need [2:45:07] Dylan: to be incorporated into the section so this again goes back to the dimensional charts really it's just trying to reference where we can the density standards from 5.4 that can be added in as a foot [2:45:19] Speaker D (unidentified): note i do like cleaning up the with year-round water just striking that right because we don't don't really it's the same as not with sewer period no utility is the same with water so it would just be cleaned up so it'd be without and then with public water and sewer and then and the addition of outside the growth area, or however you had it on one of the drafts. There was still three classifications without water and sewer, with water and sewer in the growth area, right? [2:46:00] Dylan: And then with water and sewer outside of the growth area, but the issue with doing that I found was that, I'd say probably a good 80 to 90% of our zones are inside of the growth area. [2:46:12] Speaker D (unidentified): right so it would just be blank for the most part just a missing slot right so it was the reason why [2:46:19] Brendan Somerville: that you just didn't get to this no just it wasn't reflected on here just because we [2:46:26] Speaker D (unidentified): weren't sure where to go i think this was dylan's working draft and you were doing tables on them [2:46:31] Dylan: and yeah i had i had my own files for that he had this was his draft this was it yeah [Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, but] I will, I can, yeah, I can play around with it and I will, I'll have a draft version for the future land use. [2:46:45] Speaker D (unidentified): The guidance we're giving is 5,000 minimum, but keep that, all that work handy because who knows, going forward. [2:47:00] Dylan: So after this, the big change to fight article five, page 40, it's going to be five, four, that's your density section. Provisions applicable, this is a whole mess of new language, but it really just lays out what LD 1829 spells out, so this [2:47:26] Speaker D (unidentified): This is where I had adding back the modified base density. I'll just read what I wrote: important for unit counts over four and also the affordable housing 2.5 times density. So this is where Mocha had given recommendations that over the initial 2.5 x it was to default back to the base zone density. In one of the documents, I don't know, it was like a larger packet from Mocha, I would need [2:48:08] Dylan: to re I would need to read that one I don't think I've seen that 's fine maybe [2:48:16] Speaker D (unidentified): for zones that have the language that each additional dwelling needs to meet based density size, or words that mention it in the zones with a set square footage. So adding back the current base density in some capacity. So the way it was reading, it was if developers choose to take advantage of the LD8 and 29. It was almost like you opt in, opt out, but our base density still existed. So I don't know if we need to still hold that base density to trigger the affordable housing dwelling count beyond the 10. [2:49:12] Dylan: That's just where I was. I had that thought of I think it would be handy to have just the base density in general, only because for let's say someone doesn't want to do an affordable housing development, but they'd still want to do a 50 unit subdivision, and this way we've got a very clear and consistent density of standard for them to follow. Right. [2:49:34] Speaker D (unidentified): And that was, I think all of five, not all of 5.4, a lot of 5.4 was struck. So single family dwelling in res 567 and biz three, which needs to change to YBCD was 12,000 square feet. so to me if someone wanted to build an affordable what are we calling it now affordable housing development thank you then it would default back to that 12 000 square foot number for the additional density time 2.5 i yeah i don't believe that would be the interpretation [2:50:18] Dylan: we'd go with. Okay, just because our minimum lot size would be 5,000 to say our density would be, and then be 12,000 square feet would be a little iffy. For the additional count? The additional count. I think even then it's still unclear, but I should have a meeting with Mary next week, so I will reference that with her. I don't have that. [2:50:39] Speaker D (unidentified): I have a document on the other computer. If I still have it up on my screen, I'll forward it. Okay, please do, yes. Because it was solving that problem of how do you calculate beyond your four units it's without subdividing a lot or creating a new lot gotcha. I had my head wrapped around it more at 3 30 and then that was another. I know this is a working document but it doesn't have any of the strikethrough language. Okay I think it's included at the end but it's just not in line with usual the rest of the changes. So it's I get that it's a big block but yeah for cohesiveness. [2:51:29] Brendan Somerville: Next we're gonna have to pull a string here at some point if we have to do these findings of fact. This was there well three of you at that meeting. I was not at the meeting on the 10th the 23rd 24th the one that these three findings was finding some facts were discussed the last meeting. Yep I don't think I was there. I can't vote on it because I couldn't watch the video other minutes. [2:52:10] Dylan: For the 24th what about the minutes for the 10th oh the findings the fact is. [2:52:16] Brendan Somerville: Different but still okay yeah. [2:52:25] Speaker D (unidentified): How do the findings work when you well I think. [2:52:28] Brendan Somerville: I think I could be authorized to sign it, but the minutes I would have to be there or review it myself in order to legally. [2:52:39] Dylan: You need to have a quorum of members who were present in order to approve the minutes. The findings of fact you can approve and sign with the Board's approval. [2:52:50] Speaker D (unidentified): Without the quorum of members present during the approval? Right. [2:52:54] Brendan Somerville: I think you're right, probably right. Not the minutes we don't have minutes anyway from last week's or last meeting so again two of you were here to review that to vote on those three items. Steve you were here for those I was not here for the 10th I was here for everything else okay. [2:53:28] Speaker D (unidentified): Mark, were you here for the last meeting, 24th? Yeah. So I'm fine for proceeding if we're all in good standing to do so for the findings, but there are relatively small applications that were there. [2:53:50] Dylan: I think it's just if there were, yeah, I'm a little unclear on that now, but I'm thinking about it as. [2:53:58] Brendan Somerville: Are these urgently needed this week by the? [2:54:07] Speaker D (unidentified): I was surprised they were back so quick. Developers? [2:54:11] Dylan: At least one is breaking down my door, but. [2:54:15] Brendan Somerville: I can imagine, I can guess. [2:54:19] Dylan: But if the board does not feel comfortable going through and approving them, that is at the board's discretion, so. [2:54:27] Speaker D (unidentified): I'm comfortable doing it, but I would prefer to default to the applicant on that because if we miss step then that's an appealable. Yeah, findings approval. So I don't, I'd rather wait two weeks and make sure everyone can be here. Or at least have the definitive answer on what we can and can't do with that situation. Yeah. [2:54:52] Brendan Somerville: It does seem a little iffy with only two people that were there, Chair, to review. I mean, the process of review is you're not signing off on it, but you're authorizing the Chair to sign it. It seems shaky. [2:55:12] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, I agree. You'd be trusting only two members that the information contained in that legal document is correct. [2:55:22] Brendan Somerville: Well said. And I would have, I really tried to review it. [2:55:27] Speaker D (unidentified): If you watched it, then you could. [2:55:29] Brendan Somerville: But I couldn't. Right, exactly. Okay, all right, one comment on the minutes from September 24, they say they're from September 10th. Yeah, oh yeah, we did, we have two minutes, two sets of minutes, the 10th and the [2:55:51] Speaker D (unidentified): 24th, and it says Wayne's there. Yeah, but are we doing minutes or I don't believe that there [2:55:59] Speaker F (unidentified): where we don't have, there's not a quorum. Yeah, so we'll skip it. Yeah, I'm just trying to fix one [2:56:05] Brendan Somerville: for the next time, for the next time. Then we don't have any other business. Oh, [2:56:20] Speaker F (unidentified): oh the schedule, the schedule, we wanted to talk about the schedule, so [2:56:39] Brendan Somerville: it's it's the 12th of November that I will physically not be able to be here. And it looks like the planning board meeting for the 26th was moved to the 19th, in the, at least on the calendar. Yes. And what I was wondering if we can move the one on the 12th to either the fifth or the 10th. 5th works for me. [2:57:28] Speaker D (unidentified): I'm good with that. [2:57:32] Wayne: You're talking November 5th? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's hunting season. I'll be around the month. Not missing that. [2:57:44] Dylan: November 5th and 10th? [2:57:46] Brendan Somerville: Just the 5th. Okay. Moving the workshop from the 12th to the 5th, and I checked this afternoon on the calendar and the library calendar and this room is available. [2:58:06] Speaker D (unidentified): So it'd be the 5th and the 19th in November for meetings. [2:58:09] Brendan Somerville: 5th and the 19th. Yep. I don't know if I can add that or you have to add that. [2:58:17] Dylan: I probably, I think you can, but I can go ahead and take care of that tomorrow. All right, so 19th for applications and the 5th for a workshop. Yes. Do we need to look at December as well, I think? [2:58:36] Brendan Somerville: Yeah, December's got something going on, I'm lying, so the 10th, and you want to do this on Christmas? [2:58:52] Speaker D (unidentified): It just does a recap. I actually have something going on the 19th, but I'm only in person, so [2:59:03] Dylan: yeah, December looks like the, so it would be the 10th and the 24th. We could look at the 10th and the 17th. [2:59:13] Wayne: It's very good of you because I [2:59:16] Speaker F (unidentified): think Nick wouldn't be happy 10th and 17th, 10th and 17th. [2:59:21] Speaker D (unidentified): Is okay with me, yes, better than the alternative 17. [2:59:30] Dylan: That looks okay, right? I can go through and [2:59:36] Brendan Somerville: reserve the community room for that yeah i 'm just trying to sneak in there before for a budget committee or somebody decides to. Yeah, there you go. I'll get it locked in. Okay. Move that. Okay,. [3:00:04] Wayne: What was the date in November? [3:00:07] Brendan Somerville: November will be the 5th and the 19th. [3:00:12] Wayne: 5th and the 19th. [3:00:17] Speaker D (unidentified): Just a heads up, I won't be here on the 19th, I don't think. No. Which is fine, I'm just kidding. [3:00:23] Brendan Somerville: You wouldn't be here on the 26th either, probably. I definitely would not. [3:00:28] Speaker D (unidentified): At that point, I should be in a turkey coma. Okay. [3:00:38] Brendan Somerville: Have we had enough tonight, or do we want to plow on? I don't have to ask Mark. [3:00:44] Speaker D (unidentified): I have four comments that I had on there. One of them was a huge showstopper for me, but we can pick it up later, too. They were quick little comments, but it would fly through the rest of it. So, I don't know if we want to continue the course later. [3:01:06] Brendan Somerville: That's up to the board. [3:01:13] Speaker D (unidentified): Some of them are quick questions. We [3:01:19] Brendan Somerville: want to try to hit those quick questions while we move on. [3:01:22] Speaker D (unidentified): There's actually a fair amount left, isn't there? [3:01:26] Dylan: Not a ton, but still a good amount of density to go through. [3:01:35] Speaker D (unidentified): I think one was bring the strikethrough language back. Yeah. And then on the 543 stuff it was kind of addressing the same concern about what do we do after that amount. Okay, I guess we're looking at density different because it was you can have more but it's based off of the base zone density count, so if you have six acres mountain road or wherever you can build a second unit but you have to make sure you at least have the base your count right, if it's 30,000 square foot minimum you don't have to subdivide right a lot, you could just build an additional dwelling on that if you have the land to value. Could you please run that what by [3:02:29] Speaker F (unidentified): me one more time? I got something else over here. Yeah, so let's say the base [3:02:34] Speaker D (unidentified): density is three acres, yep, you have a six acre lot with only one house on it, are you allowed to build a second house? Yes on it because you have it, right? So I'm saying that density language isn't in there when we strike it through, it's almost like the only option is divide you to divide your lot. Okay, so that's just a question mark on that, if that was the intent. [3:02:56] Dylan: Yeah, I think that's probably going to be another one of those clarifying items that I will, which, where's that, 5, 4, 2, B. [3:03:07] Speaker D (unidentified): 5, 4, 3, 1, I have. 5, 4, 3, 1, okay. Whether it's applicable there or not. All right. We'll probably have to talk about suitable land calculations, because I think I'm on a different side of the argument than some people. Whether the right-of-ways should be included or not in the actual calculations, wetlands, all that. [3:03:46] Speaker F (unidentified): That would be a good discussion. Yep. Yes. [3:03:49] Speaker D (unidentified): I'll skip to my big one was the 18 dot something the last item 18 dot 19 use permit required that's new you [3:04:03] Dylan: know there was mention of this on Monday night yeah I think this isn't this is entirely new I will say yeah we had [3:04:13] Speaker D (unidentified): brought up like childcare facilities like we strike that language that's not an existing use whether or not they had a permit or not like they'd have to come and reapply and if it was a non-conforming lot all of a sudden they can't reapply to get the use that they've had so I'm just I tried carefully with that 's a good point because I think having grandfathered uses is in [3:04:38] Dylan: a 400 year old town you're going to come across a couple of them and there's [3:04:41] Speaker D (unidentified): restaurants that I'm sure don't have used permits that wouldn't you know like how do you go back and undo it and then you get into short-term rentals and all that could we potentially be opening up Pandora's box without yeah 100 agree so other than that they're smaller questions [3:04:58] Brendan Somerville: so the idea is to going forward is that what you're saying well apply that going forward [3:05:06] Speaker D (unidentified): that it needs to be a use permit for every for every year there should be a use permit right so, but this is kind of saying. [3:05:17] Dylan: No person shall engage in any use per article four or article 10 I, or sorry, shall engage in any use of land or structure or expands change or replace an existing use or renew a discontinued non-conforming use without first obtaining a use permit from the code enforcement office. A use permit may be established at the time of the planning board site plan approval or building permit occupancy issuance from the CEO so with the creation of new [3:05:48] Speaker D (unidentified): uses or the modification of the name of a use you're out of compliance and risk to not being able to continue doing what you've been doing for years okay so like [3:06:00] Brendan Somerville: in the in the childcare thing for example is that what you're thinking [3:06:06] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, if someone has a permit, or what if someone doesn't have a permit? I mean, it's it's all clerical stuff. Is there a restaurant in town, like I'm not saying a certain name, but if there's a hot dog stand that's been around forever that never went through a process and got a permit, they don't have a permit, guarantee that building's not conforming, can they not exist? Huh, legal question, you gotta ask. So I just, my question is why do we need that? What was the reason for bringing it up, and how does it relate to LD 1829? [3:06:42] Dylan: Good question, that is a good question. It's a question I do not have an answer for, but you will deem to find out. I will indeed add it on your list. I've got quite the list already. [3:06:53] Speaker F (unidentified): You're gonna have a very long meeting. Yes you do. I'll be done. You're gonna have to [3:06:59] Brendan Somerville: you're gonna have to bring coffee and maybe donuts. I'll make kolaches. Did Dylan show up for work today? Yes he did. Okay, he's still on the clock until otherwise, correct? Okay then, if there's nothing else, that's adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.