Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So welcome, everyone. This is a meeting of the Zoning and Planning Committee on June 22. Do you mind closing the door? Thank you. And we're joined at the beginning of the meeting by Vice Chair, Councilor Wright, online, by the Vice President, Councilor Kalis, online, by Councilor Albright, also online, Ward 2, the Planning Director, Ms. Lewell. We've just been joined. Uh, that's from ward five in the room. That's counselor Gordon from ward six in the room. I'm Lyle Baker counselor from ward seven. And we're also joined in the room by Ms. Coelho and another, uh, representatives. I'm going to ask you to introduce yourselves properly for me, just throw the record so that everybody can be heard. Curtis, you want to start off?

Yeah. So also joined by Curtis Buecher, uh, the committee clerk for this meeting.

Our honored guest.

Joseph, uh, deputy city clerk.

And my understanding is that he is here to say that you're not responsible for any kind of visit around the meeting. OK. And Councilor Roach, not a member of the community, has also joined us. Anybody else we have not recognized?

We also have James Demiswasa, the .

Thank you. Thank you. You both want to come to the table because there's room for you. And the only suggestion is I will go on either side so that when you face the camera, you can see. So we have two items before us, but before we begin, however, I just want to mention that I've reserved the 20th of July as a potential next meeting date for our committee. Um, we don't anticipate taking any specific action, uh, at that meeting. So that the, uh, meeting after the city council meets, I think is going to be okay. But, um, trying to put together when people can be here, this seemed to be the best option. Um, I'll actually come back from vacation for that night, but I want to make sure that we have a night to take up, uh, an item we can't take up tonight and maybe anything else it's time sensitive. But let me read the first item into the record, which is 6526. This is a request, discussion and amendment to chapter 1.53, chapter zoning. As honor the mayor requesting discussion and possible zoning amendments to section 1.53 setback to allow for transformers to project into the setback. We held this earlier in May, and we were hoping to have a representative from Eversource join the committee, but I'm informed that Ms. Whewell has indicated And you can elaborate on this with we will and he could not attend tonight, but should be able to attend on the 20th.

Is that yes, chair? Thank you. This is Katie. We will acting director of planning. I did speak to the ever source representative last week. He's. You know, he's open to coming to a zoning and planning committee meeting. He just indicated he needed a little bit more time to prepare for the meeting. So I gave him the July date that the next meeting is likely going to occur, and he indicated he would be able to attend that date.

Okay. So thank you. With that, any discussion on the item? If not, I would entertain a motion to hold. Councilor Gatz, move to hold. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? The ayes have it. So if you would just record that, Curtis. So the next item, and I expect it will be the extended conversation, is item 5726, request for discussion and ordinance amendments to dimensional controls aligning use of zoning. Specifically, Councilors Oliver, Wright, Goetz, Roach, Malachy, and Kalis requesting discussion to determine alignment of dimensional controls, setbacks, height, FAR, et cetera, for residential developments within business use loss with focused consideration for lots in and adjacent to residential neighborhood. So this is an item we've discussed before, but Ms. Colillo has prepared an extensive memorandum, which has been part of the packet, but I would ask if you were comfortable presenting to the committee tonight, and there are some, I'm sure going to be a number of questions that come your way. So would you like to initiate the call? I'm gonna initiate the conversation.

Lovely.

There we go. Does everyone see the slides?

Yes.

Yes.

As the chair mentioned, tonight is a continuation of the discussion on docket item 5726 regarding residential uses located within business districts. The item was docketed to address concerns raised by residential redevelopment that can currently utilize business district dimension standards, which may produce outcomes that differ from surrounding residential development patterns. Here's an overview of what we'll talk through, the current regulatory process, existing conditions of the area that we've focused on, which is along Adams Street and Ward 1, given the large cluster of properties that fall under this context in that area, and then a few different options as well as next steps. So currently the way that residential uses in business zones occur is through the special permit process by receiving a new special permit for the residential use on the ground floor. Here's a flow chart. I know we reviewed this in February, but it's been a few months since then. So to briefly review under the current ordinance, a residential property located in a business district would seek a special permit. That special permit can be granted, could be granted with conditions, or could be denied. And in the case that it's granted or granted with conditions, it may be redeveloped with BU controls. You see the special permit granted with conditions is kind of dotted because that depends on the conditions. And so, depending on the conditions, it may not be the BU dimensional standards. You know, if it's conditioned to say you have to be smaller based off that specific project. Here you can see the location of residential uses and business zones. And this, I know it's a very small map, and I have it blown up into kind of the north side and the south side, if you want to take a look later. But this just really shows that the largest cluster of residential uses in commercial zones is in Nonantum up in Ward 1. And then there's a few kind of dotted parcels outside of that primary cluster.

And let me just, excuse me, just to then, we've been joined by Councilor Black online and Councilor Farrell. And I want to be especially conscious, Councilor Farrell mentioned that it's difficult to hear everyone in the room. So the microphone that we're speaking to is near the screen, correct, Curtis? I think so. Yeah. So regardless of where you speak, what you say, try and say a little bit of it in that direction. Okay.

So here you can see the existing zoning along Adams Street and Watertown Street in Nonantum. And that kind of salmon pink is that BU2 zone that extends into the very much predominantly residential streets that are adjacent to or intersect with Adams Street. And just to kind of give more of a visual, I'm sure many of you are very familiar, but I recently went out and just took a walk to kind of give the committee an immediate sense of the area. Here's the sort of commercial corridor. And then here is the area just off of those side streets. You've got Clinton, Murphy Court, Court Court, and Cottage Court and I believe that bottom one is Adams Terrace. So that just really shows the kind of different contextual urban pattern on Adams versus off of Adams despite having the same underlying business zoning. In February, the committee discussed this item and the three primary topics discussed were neighborhood compatibility really the root of the issue and why the item was docketed that there can be massing mismatch between fully residential projects and business zones and their surrounding residential neighbors. There was discussion about the residential side streets versus the commercial corridors. And then obviously, we're all here to find a solution. So what the appropriate zoning tool may be looking at potential rezoning or citywide text amendment. So here we'll get into a few options. So again, here's the current zoning. You see that strip of salmon colored BU2 along all of Adams. And then here's a potential rezoning. So the areas in that kind of dark pink could be changed to the residential zone and the areas that are sort of orangey could remain commercial. And the way that this boundary was created is residential parcels located more than one or two lots away from Adams Street and Watertown Street. And then that dotted line is just showing kind of the commercial boundary. So the funky shapes coming out, that's because those are manufacturing parcels. So they're considered commercial as well. This targeted approach would rezone select residential areas where existing land use is predominantly residential. The current business zoning designation may not reflect prevailing neighborhood conditions. It was zoned business many, many years ago when they couldn't have anticipated how the city would develop and that commercial development hasn't occurred. And so where it's really primarily a residential street, the zone underlying zone could be changed. Potential outcomes include that the residential parcels would be regulated under those residential dimensions matching their neighbors while the business zoning would remain along the primary commercial corridor. So this is trying to kind of think about walking the line between addressing the issue of contextual development while not taking away commercial development opportunities or kind of the primary corridor feel that we want to foster. The benefits of this include addressing current concerns with limited unintended impacts because it's a very targeted kind of surgical approach and we could really get down to the parcel level to make sure that we were considering each based off of its specific context. And so here's just a couple kind of examples of the residential streets that could be rezoned to the residential base zoning. Here you have Court Court. Currently you see it's in BU2, despite sort of the end of that street being MR2, which is the residential zoning. And so in this map, the parcels that are a couple past Adams could be rezoned residential. And here you have Murphy Court, same kind of idea, currently BU2, and could be rezoned to that residential district. Option number two would be a citywide text amendment. This would modify the dimensional standards that are applicable to all residential development within business districts. It's important to kind of take a step back and look at the current ordinance framework, which is why I'm so glad we have Jane here tonight because she is the expert I defer to on how this is implemented. But dimensional standards are generally applied based on zoning district rather than use in the business and manufacturing zones. And so a text amendment would represent a broader structural change by introducing dimensional standards that vary based on use in our commercial districts. potential benefits or that this would address any potential concerns citywide. So it would be kind of a one stop shop for the issue at hand. And it's a uniform approach. But it does, you know, that's a bit of a double-edged sword where by extending beyond Ward 1, which is where we've been focusing and discussing, we would need to analyze the potential impacts in the other areas. and it would require the same dimensions for residential uses regardless of their context. So whether they're in a commercial village center or a fully residential side street. So Jane and I were talking, we were like, what would a single or a two-family home look like next to Antoine's Bakery on Watertown Street or the village bank at the intersection of Watertown and Adams? This also could create potential non-conformities affecting commercial use. And if you have questions on that, I will send you over to Jane during the discussion. And this is just how it's currently phrased in the ordinance. So here's the section that talks about the dimensional requirements for each commercial business zone. And it's just all building types are regulated the same way. And then in brainstorming with our current planning team and thinking about the fact that this is currently a special permit process, we came up with another potential solution, which could be used in combination with either of the other two. But that would be to add in a special permit finding for all projects seeking approval for ground floor residential use so basically saying giving the land use committee some extra teeth to say okay if this doesn't fit in with its neighborhood context we have to deny the permit or the project has to be altered to fit with the surrounding context and that both lets the land use committee really dictate the direction of that project based off of the context of that specific parcel, while also allowing some case by case flexibility where, you know, if the project comes in and it seems like it already fits there, there doesn't have to be additional changes made. So, yeah, this is just pretty much bullets of what I was just saying, but if the required finding could not be made, the project would need to be modified or the special permit would be denied, which would hopefully result in compliance with business districts not being the only kind of means of approval. And it looks A little overwhelming, but it's actually not as complicated as this slide makes it look. Basically, this is just walking through that same exact special permit process with a new required finding. And if the finding isn't made, either the project is changed, or the massing is reduced, or the special permit is denied. um so you know we want to hear your discussion based off of what's been proposed before we provide any formal recommendation but a possible sequencing could be considering a targeted map amendment And that neighborhood compatibility finding in the special permit process, see if that solves the, the issue at hand and then explore a broader text amendment. If we're continuing to see any issues. TAB, And here's just some some questions for the committee based off of me a couple times rewatching the February. TAB, Meeting and just digging into this more. TAB, Just if. The identified parcels warrant further consideration for rezoning. Hopefully you all received that map in the packet, but I'm happy to pull it up for discussion. Should residential side streets within business districts be treated differently than commercial corridor properties? Would neighborhood compatibility finding improve review? especially looking at the counselors present who do sit on land use, wondering if that would be helpful to you, and does a phased approach look interesting?

So with that, I look forward to it.

Before I entertain questions, I'm just going to clarify something from the outset. If there is a parcel that is zoned B, the business zone, but is now residential as opposed to commercial putting residential on the first floor. Is that somehow treated any differently? Is that also...

So that's a legal question. There is... Yes. Jonah, I don't know if you want to take it, but basically there's two pathways where one could be extending the nonconformity and that has a I'll let Jonah speak to the legal parameters of that. The other is the special permit for the ground floor use.

Even though it's already residential?

Yes, because extending a nonconformity, there's the use component, but then there's also the structural component, right? So if you're tearing down and then redeveloping and you're putting residential on the ground floor, then you're looking at the ordinance.

Mr. Temple, we normally do not have the opportunity to hear from you, but I'm glad to see you. Do you want to add any clarification at the outset about the context here, just a little bit?

No. you know, nailed that, you know, there's always going to be nonconforming protections and you're always be able to expand those nonconformities in certain ways. But the rules get pretty complicated pretty quickly. So it's it's hard to talk about them broadly. Maybe as we get into specific examples, we can we can dove deeper into it. But I just think that the nonconforming component is is something that we're all going to have to keep in mind that's going to maybe limit the immediate impacts of some of these actions to a degree.

So let me just be clear, as I understand it, if you have a property that doesn't conform to the current zoning in an area and you wish to make a change to it that would further increase the nonconformity, John Gerstle, You this this city council through the land use committee has to make a section six finding I think it's referred to, which is that if the change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood right that's the context of which the extension of a nonconformity normally occurs there, I hear. I just mentioned that because it echoes a little bit. Correct. You're breaking up a bit. Maybe you turn your video off for a minute, Mr. Temple. We've not seen you, but maybe single isn't powerful enough. Well, we'll come back to that. All right. Okay. Just want to understand the basics, and then we can talk about policy. Any questions on just the basics yet? I have two hands on the screen. And I have Councillor Getz in the room. So let me start with Councillor Getz, and then I'll go with the hands up.

Maybe we should, because I have a question for him.

Oh, you have a question for him. All right. So Councillor Kalis, I think your hand was up first, and I'll go to Councillor Wright.

Yeah, but is he still visiting?

Okay. So just hearing the presentation, Ms. Colello, it seemed pretty clear to me. like a combination of one and three if if you can do that um i don't like the idea of looking at the whole city at once i think if you go village by village that's going to be really important there's so many different situations um so i like one in three and i like giving the land use committee more teeth um related to what uh counselor baker asked So I just want to understand, so if there is a residence or a business that is currently non-conforming and they go back for something, any type of change, if this is implemented, would they have to go back to, would they go to land use or how would that work? They're currently non-conforming.

I would say that's more of a Jonah question. Oh, Jane, please.

If the use or the building is nonconforming, it would need a special permit to extend or alter that nonconformity. You can be both, you can be nonconforming due to the, you know, dimensionally nonconforming, you can be nonconforming due to the use. So if you have an existing single family dwelling that is 36 feet tall and two and a half stories, you have a nonconforming use in a nonconforming building. Any extensions to those that increase those nonconformity. So, a 2 and a half story addition to the rear. Would require a special permit that would need relief for both dimension and use.

Would any change that they're making require special a special permit?

You can make, they could make internal changes. You know, you could. alter the bathroom or you could change your windows or anything that doesn't further the nonconformity.

So let's say that you're nonconforming because you're in the setback. If you're somehow renovating the house and getting less in the setback, you wouldn't need a special permit for that.

If you're going farther in the setback, you would. But if you were altering, if you were, say you made an addition, even if it wasn't dimensionally nonconforming because your use is not conforming because you're a first floor your first floor residential use, it would need a special permit to extend the non-conforming use because you're making it even more of a single family dwelling, I guess. You're adding square footage onto it that's not allowed.

Yeah, that makes sense. Okay, thank you.

But the finding there is a special finding. It's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood as opposed to the conventional special permit findings which are the usual, is the use appropriate to the site, access, safe, those kinds of things.

I mean, they would be looking at them all.

They would look at them all. Okay. I just need to be clear.

I'm sorry, Chair. Can I jump in? And I apologize for having some technical difficulties earlier. I did switch laptops, so it shouldn't be an issue. I do want to clarify for that Section 6 finding that you mentioned, that really is the only criteria. It is by special permit, but we generally do not add all of the traditional special permit criteria on top of the Section 6 criteria, and we're really not allowed to.

Okay, I'm sorry. Thank you for the clarification. This is tricky. Thank you. All right, so the basic model here is that we are hearing that projects that wish to come through the process already have a special permit. If they're non-conforming, they can ask for that special permit based on a Section 6 finding. If they're conforming, in other words, they go through the regular special permit process without any additional criteria, is that correct? Just want to be clear.

Without any additional?

No. Mr. Temple indicated that if the project is nonconforming, either the use or the dimensions, and you wish to go through the process of doing something to make a bigger residential building. So you take the building you have, you're going to tear it down and make a bigger one that has dimensions that are larger. You would need a special permit, but you would have to demonstrate, as I hear it under current rules, that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use, right? Is that correct?

Yes, I think, Jonah, there is some nuance there, right? Where it depends on what the nonconformity is. So you would need to dig into what exactly the structural nonconformity is and what exactly is the use nonconformity, depending on what they were proposing to change about the property.

yes although i i would say for the most part that the chair's comment is correct if we're talking about single and two families if you go beyond that in terms of uses then it gets a little more complicated so um all right so the question is you've got a project that is in a residential excuse me in a commercial zone can take advantage of commercial setbacks all it needs is a decision when they come because the gatekeeping for function is that there's residential on the first floor that triggers the special permit right and then the question is if it's a non-conforming project is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use if it if that finding is made they can go ahead so is that that's what i understand the big brown rule right am i clear everybody clear on that mr temple yes that's correct okay So what we're trying to figure out is, um, uh, is there something more that we can add to the special permit process, which you've articulated as part of this, that would give more grounds than that standard loan would in order to make sure that this project fits into the neighborhood.

That's option three.

That's option three. Right. And then the other option is, is to somehow say we're going to move that particular parcel out of a business use into a residential use then they could develop it as of right as a residential use without coming through a special permit because it's residential right or you could make a text change that says and this would be unusual is to say that if you are in a business zone and you're trying to become a residence a residential use then you have different dimensional standards because it is a residential use. It is a standard that's built around the use triggers a narrower or more restrictive dimensional standard. That would be the global change.

Amy Nunez, That would be the city wide text change and then the rezoning you couldn't build by right residential, but only based off of that residential zoning dimension so it's Mr to say you can just build single into family.

Amy Nunez, So I just want to be clear on sort of the ground rules and now, let me go to counselor right. Amy Nunez, about.

Thank you, Chair Baker. I have a question for planning. On the number three option, you mentioned in the memo a review authority. Who is that review authority?

Oh, special land use.

Okay, land use. And the way it was written there, a lot of it, it seems like a lot of work, plus it seems very subjective, which is harder for people coming in for the special permit and for the people who are giving the special permit, being subjective is difficult. One thing that wasn't here, which I think would have been helpful to see and why it is a problem is the FAR, which is the volume of the house in most MU, I mean, in single family and two family zoning is 0.5 or less. And in BU, it's generally two or three times more. So that kind of, this is why it's a problem is that allowing the BU to stand in a residential neighborhood is that you can have a volume of a house two or three times more than what's allowed now. And I think that is really the big thing that stands out.

Can I ask, is that a concern on the residential side streets and places like Adams and Watertown or just the like fully residential areas?

The residential area, because you want again, you want to kind of blend in to what's there and what's there generally does not have an FAR of 1.0 or 1.5. And in the Adams Street area, you know, there's small lots that's been built up way before zoning came, and their FAR may be a little bit above what is called for now, but it's not two to three times more generally. There's probably a couple of houses there that's like that. I feel, you know, number one is is the best way to go about it um one of the things um counselor right just for the public's interest just say which number one you're talking about Number one, I'm taking a look on here. Targeted map amendment. So basically it's going by the map and not do a blanket text change or something like that. It's doing kind of go through a map and do some specifics. I also, quick question. If we change a business use lot to a residential lot, Do we use the old lot standards or new lot standards?

If we'd rezone, it would be based on when the lot was created still. So that would still be based on the year.

Okay, great. Okay, so then I also talked to President Oliver and he had a couple of questions and he kind of alluded to it, but you just looked at just Adams Street and Watertown Street. You didn't look at other parts of Nonantum like on Craft Street. There's a whole block on the residential side of Craft Street that's zoned BU or even manufacturing zone and it's all residential. I mean, so that's an issue right there. But did you just do one area and not all of Nonantum?

Yeah, I can pull up a map. Um. Definitely happy to broaden the, the geographic area of focus if, um. That's the, the will of the committee here. You can see a little bit more clearly. Um. So, this, this is the area we looked at just because. you know, it is the biggest cluster. If we did pursue a rezoning, I would definitely include this parcel here, those two down. Sorry, there's a lag. Those 2 there, and then looking at, I think, California street and Watertown street, there weren't many parcels that were more than 1 parcel away from. The, like, main street, but I'd be happy to to kind of do this mapping again for kind of zooming into those other areas.

Okay, I mean, the 1 thing on craft street on the East side of craft street, pretty much everything else is. Zone residential, except for that 1 block. It was like 6 lots or so that's that's not, which is kind of strange and again, maybe on a separate discussion we would have on that. The other thing, which, um. JoAnne Hanrahan, counselor. JoAnne Hanrahan, Oliver had a concern about is you know we're talking about the residential streets and rezoning those. JoAnne Hanrahan, residential instead of business use, but i'm in the core areas of the village centers that are not part of the vc od. JoAnne Hanrahan, In vc od we have priority streets, where we don't allow first floor residential we require. retail on the first floor. So he was concerned that going with a special permit or whatever that we would grant you know, all residential building, let's say the McDonald's, or not McDonald's, the Dunkin Donuts on Adams and Watertown Street, if that got, someone else bought it and put up a residential building there. Is there some way also as part of this to require first floor business use on some of these streets? And more of the core of the village centers, like Longtown Street. Not on Adams Street. Adams is a mix and stuff, but some of the other areas.

So, right, that's by right. Right now it is required. That's what the special permit avenue is to kind of get out of that requirement. we could kind of look at what parcels and say, okay, does this make sense to eliminate an only residential option? I would just want to really be thoughtful about that given the current, you know, the amount of commercial that the area can support. And I think there are certain instances where a mix of uses, right? We talk about mixed use a lot in terms of in the same building, but a mix of uses along a corridor can also be helpful. So I think the short answer is yes, but with more discussion and analysis.

Well, again, we already did it to the major village centers like West Newton and Newtonville and Newton Center, and it's not saying you know, it's the main corridor of the other village centers. So then they would keep the commercial on the first floor.

Yeah, I'll just note that those do still have the underlying zoning. So often those are BU, which means they have the special permit option that the other properties have. It's just whether they opt in to VCOD. So they could right now do the same thing that any of the parcels on Adams Street can do.

Okay.

Okay, that's it for right now. Thank you.

Okay. Other questions? Councillor Cash.

Yeah. Specifically, thank you, Chair. I actually was in the, and this question is for Mr. Temple. When we require a finding, you know, at the Land Use Committee, and I'm a little concerned about, you know, this requirement of this additional finding being waived. Can they, is there any sort of ability to sort of say that this finding cannot be waived?

Are you talking about in terms of this proposed new special permit criteria? Well, I think it would only be triggered if you're seeking a special permit, not if you're simply seeking an extension of a non-conforming use or structure. That would be solely a Section 6 finding.

No, I think, let me, let me try another way. Um, what I'm trying to say is the, the project is already going through the special permit process and this requirement, you know, in terms of the finding being, um, required. It, it, it sort of seems as if like with any finding, please educate me. Can they not in, in being in this discretionary role, can they potentially say we don't need to do this?

You know, I, I think I could take a stab at it based on my experience in land use and Jonah feel free to jump in. Findings can't be waived. They are attached to the zoning relief for which a project is pursuing. So we have. We have specific findings for nonconforming uses as we heard. we have specific findings for FAR. We have specific findings for single family attached dwellings when pursuing that relief and whether the council waives some of the standards associated with those. There's sections of the ordinance that says to obtain this relief, the city council must make this finding. So when preparing, planning, materials the land use planners put forth the criteria and the findings the council need to consider when weighing their decision and then as the process goes on that results in a council order inclusive of those findings whether for approval or denial does that answer your question but it sort of feels as if you just qualified it then in your statement

a little bit rephrase that to someone who's less familiar as someone who's less familiar with language they when she says include that finding for a approval or denial it just is saying um in the denial we'd say we found that it does not meet this finding and so that's why we're denying it so they're just typing it out whether or not the finding was met and if it's not met they deny it

Okay, but you're suggesting to me that in ordinance, it would require that in fact, this finding needs to be addressed.

Yeah, the suggestion was that there is a new finding for this type of relief being sought that kind of gives a higher standard of review for the land use committee to specifically consider the aforementioned, you know, compatibility with the neighborhood when making this finding, you know, I think the FAR finding is not in derogation of the size, scale, and design. So it would be a similar finding to that, but you can't waive findings.

Or the requirement to put forth this finding.

Yeah, just to clarify, if you are creating a new special permit criteria and some use triggers the need for that special permit, then that criteria must be met. There must be a finding for it. It's not discretionary. It can't be waived. Right now, we have five special permit criteria. The city council has to make a finding of all five of them in order to issue a special permit. If any one isn't there, then a special permit by law cannot be granted.

Okay, all right, thank you, the other question that I had was specifically I actually like the you know all three and I and I say this because they sort of when you were showing the pictures I remember that those. pre-existing, pre-zoning buildings were actually pretty much maxed out on those lots, you know, that they were beyond what would be allowed today. So I sort of feel as if we need to sort of think about the potential, you know, and you're only one or two parcels from this main corridor. So I'm a little, I like the idea of going citywide, you know, just because I sort of, and it will require more study, but I also feel as if it's a little bit more solid. And I also have very concerns that the Um, test case, you know, proposal that is all dependent on whether or not a property flips, you know, whether or not it comes to market and it actually is presented as a potential case study. And that may or may not happen, you know, over a period of time, you know, it's, it's, it's dependent on the law. You know, even if you rezone it now, it needs to come to market and it needs to transact. So you're dealing with a very finite pool. of potential lots that will meet this or be in this cycle so that's a little concerning to me you know it's just sort of you will apply it simply to this one zone if you do the targeted but it's going to I think have implications there are more lots that potentially could benefit from this I also feel that you know um trigger for me is when someone wants 100 residential in on a bu designated lot and that to me is the trigger and i sort of feel as if that then that should require if you're in the special permit process that you then need residential standards for you know whatever you know whatever you know budding residential zone is that that to me sort of feels as if the most natural thing to do you know just this If you want 100% residential on that new designated lot, then you trigger residential students.

Sorry, just quick clarification. If it's adjacent to a residential district or regardless, no matter what?

Well, no, I think it's more the issue is what Councilor Wright was speaking to is that you've got a property that's being redeveloped Amy Wisehart, A budding a residential zone that you know is inappropriate, you know for that in all of those criteria, the dimensional controls, so I just sort of feel as if, to me, you are 100% residential you trigger. Amy Wisehart, The residential the proximal residential dimensional controls um and I and I sort of didn't know whether or not. You know, have we ever done anything like this where we just said, well, I mean, so.

Let me rephrase what I think you're asking about.

I'm facing the microphone.

Thank you for facing the microphone. And I hope that, again, Councilor Farrell, if you're still on, that any of you speak up. So what I understand, again, from the basics that either through Section six on the process or through a conventional special permit, someone who wants to put a residential use on the first floor of this zone has to get a special permit. Right now, the special permit criteria are the limited ones we have for all special permits. What is being asked as of the committee is if we wanted to add a criterion that speaks like a Section 6 finding, but more specifically, as Ms. Colello has outlined in her memo, does this fit into the context, right? And not is it not substantially more detrimental, but it's more of an affirmative finding that it fits. And that is a higher standard than a Section 6 finding. What you're asking is, can I have more than that? Can I say that in addition you should meet the dimensional controls that would otherwise apply to a residential structure if it were in a residential zone. Now, which residential zone, we haven't decided yet, but you're asking, can I ask for not just a qualitative, but a quantitative criteria that goes to what you could do if this was a residential zone parcel? Am I correct in what you're asking?

Yeah. I'm saying if you're designated BU and you want to build 100% residential, then you would then be required to implement the proximal residential standard.

Well, that's different from as of right now, they go through special permit.

Well, I think that that's a little sort of disconcerting because if you're in the special permit process, I think that all the doors are open. But if, in fact, you are a BU-designated lot and you want to build 100% residential, then you are required to follow through with.

Well, but you have to go through the special permit gate now, as I understand it. Right? So the question I'm trying to understand is, is your suggestion to add to a neighborhood compatibility standard, which is option three, some version of option two which says that not we're going to change the zoning citywide but when you come through the special permit gate you must conform to the residential dimensions in addition to the finding that it doesn't impact the adverse thing yeah yeah but that would be citywide correct that would that would well it would be you're the option three is citywide too because it applies anyway right so that would be citywide as well you're saying But I just want to understand your suggestion. But you're coming through it not by changing the zone for each of these parcels, and you're not saying that there's a different dimensional requirement available if you want to do it, but no special permit, which could be a citywide change. You're saying you're only doing it when you come through the special permit process.

Well, I yeah that's what my concern is mostly that they come through the special permit process and then use the new standards, so I want them to to you know, and I think that would tell us all happening is that they're you know. In you know it's it's like the Clinton was it more than one residential unit there I can yeah so it was it was young that to you know, in terms of both family he felt on that in that structure.

My question for you is then, because yeah, I think Quentin was part of the reason for docketing this item. On Adams Street, should it still only be single and two family with the residential?

Well, this is where I was triggered by seeing the images, because I think they're about what would be, I mean they could build to existing.

So you're trying to say hello to the microphone, but I can't quite understand.

Now we're getting into the specifics of. You know, in terms of the images that we saw and those homes were pre existing zoning so that they're well beyond what would be allowed by right now i'm pretty sure. And I can't remember that. I just sort of remember you had almost a long line in terms of the existing building. But what is concerning to me is that if you're building 100% residential, then I think the residential standards should apply.

Well, that's a judgment call that we have as a committee to make. But I just want to be clear that what you're proposing is taking option three right and adding to it the criteria that you have to meet the residential standards now which the question of which residential standards are this was any of you this was this was mr2 right yes door well I'm just trying to understand because there are different residential standards whatever the zone is you know so option two and option three are your reference yeah well I'm sort of

I actually sort of feel as if it's important to do this and why. But I don't know that we're ready to do that yet because I sort of feel like this seems like it's ripe, you know, in the sense of just being a... Let me back up for a second.

We've really got... You could go through, as Ms. Gallello has indicated, a process whereby you say, let's make some of these business use parcels all MR or whatever the surrounding district is. And in that case, they don't come through any special permit process at all. They're just available for redevelopment as, um, and if they are not conforming, they can go through a section six special permit process, but that's not, that's applicable citywide. It's just that anybody in a residential zone can do that. So that's a rezoning process by map. What you're asking is and say, um, and I want to be clear about whether all of these things go. For those parcels that still remain, that are not rezoned, for those parcels that still remain, you like a suggestion of the planning department about neighborhood compatibility, but you would also like to have the defenders as well as the belt. You would like to have the adjacent residential dimensional controls applied, recognizing that in a number of situations, those will already have been exceeded. Now, if they have already been exceeded and somebody wants to redevelop that, are you going to let them redevelop the existing footprint or require them to go to the smaller footprint that would be if they kept it?

I think if it's pre-existing, we can't change it to section six.

No, no, I just need to understand. So if they happen to be non-conforming to this loop, the problem is not a dimensional control. I'm sorry. Let me try to be clear. The dimensional control you're talking about is being added through the special permit process.

Yeah.

It is not available already, so it doesn't make that parcel nonconforming, right? Because you're applying it through the special permit gate. So you're saying you want to redevelop this, and you want to make it all residential in a commercial building on Adams Street. Let's say it's on Adams Street, and the building is already bigger.

Right. Then where is the game over? Because they would be allowed to build. I didn't want to, if they build to existing, they're probably non-performing.

Well, that's a different question. That's what I'm trying to understand.

But I don't think they can. I think that they are allowed to do this.

No, I'm not sure they are. But let's just, Councillor Roach.

I think this is kind of a key point. And I think if I reframe it, maybe we can of break my log jam and if not well i tried my best okay so i've got i've got something and i'm going to make up the dimensional controls for a second bear with me i've got a building that's five foot from the side setback and it's supposed to be 10. it would be 10 under mr2 because it's bu and pre-existing it's five now i want to redevelop i'm going to raise the building raze and build something new i understand counselor gets to be saying is yes it would be through the special permit process but the special permit process would require compliance with the neighboring mr2 10-foot side setback in which case they'd either have to abide by that or get an additional

waiver of that requirement is that what you're saying counselor gets yeah i'm trying to sort of but i don't know that they can do that actually don't say what they can do what if any i think that what we're getting to is what

If any mechanism, do we want to have to allow pre existing non compliance. To govern a new building right, and so what i'm understanding counselor gets to say is, if you want to if you want to redevelop. You don't get to, you don't get to, you don't get to have the benefit of your pre-existing non-compliance. We're now going back to, um, you gotta go to, you gotta, you gotta go to some sort of residential dimensional controls, even though it's a BU because you're a hundred percent residential. I see counselor just for the record, for those who can't see on counselor gets his ends is not in his

The Chair can recognize nods, but never mind.

Through the Chair, let's recognize the nod. But it gets to a very important question, which is, to what extent should the landowner, and then through the landowner to the developer, benefit from pre-existing noncompliance with either Well, not with abuse stations and abuse standards, and so I think what comes to get you're trying to get to is. If you're going to redevelop and we're not going to rezone we've got to put in some sort of dimensional controls that recognize this is not a commercial building, that is a residential building. And so I think that problem stated that way, then there are multiple options, but I think counseling gets again that is if you're going to build on some residential in your to be user be district. You don't get to build the way you do as commercial building these commercial building, we have. laxer dimensional controls, because that is appropriate for commercial development, but not for residential. Thank you. To which I would just add one thing, which is I am Councillor Goetz's residential redevelopment translator, but I'm not necessarily in agreement with this. And I'll come back to it. But I think the question is a good one. I'm going to repeat it one more time just so we're all on the same page. If I'm building, if I'm redeveloping, and my redevelopment is residential only in a BU district, and we haven't remapped, so it's still a BU district, Councilor Goetz is advocating for different dimensional standards that are reflective of that wholly residential redevelopment.

Regardless of an existing nonconformity?

Exactly. A good point. And regardless of the underlying BU dimensional standards.

Then it's impossible.

Anything's possible.

I mean, I think that raises real questions for me, right? The state law presents a floor.

Hang on a minute. I just want to be clear about what we're talking about. The idea that I'm hearing is that if there is a parcel which is an existing commercial building or even a residential building, That's in a BU district. That's going to be wholly residential. Counselor Jeffs would like to have in that context as part of the special permit that is to be granted because it's going to have residential on the first floor. We already have that gate. She would like to have the dimensional controls that would otherwise apply if it were a residential building in a residential zone.

So there's an important thing, Councilor Rager, if I can jump in. You're suggesting a very specific solution to this, but I think we're going to take a step back to Councilor Goetz's. The problem she's, or the goal that she would like to have is some sort of residential dimensional standards.

I understand, but for purposes of clarity, I'd like to state it as simply as I can. Okay. And then I'll go now to Mr. Temple, since I want to get a comment from the law department about if, And what amounts to a specialized special permit criterion which says you meet a specific dimensional standard, in addition to the neighborhood compatibility standard that is being added.

Um, by the planning department and auction 3. yeah, as I said before, I think it's very difficult to answer. These questions in a vacuum, because the devil is going to be in the details in the example we're talking about is the existing structure conforming dimensionally. Is it non conforming dimensionally when it's being rebuilt? Is it. Increasing any of the nonconformities is adding new nonconformities. Um, we can't, we can't take away all of the nonconforming protections. You can't just say, anytime you're reconstructing, you now need to meet the new standards. There is some room that in nonconformities can be increased solely through a section 6 finding. So I think there's a room to do a lot of what you guys are talking about, but, um, there are some guard rails here.

So let me try and be specific about the guardrails, then I'm going to come back to Councilor Wright. The idea is that you're talking about a business use zone. And in a business use, there are dimensional controls that apply to a business use, right? And their dimensional controls are relatively modest because it's a business setback. I don't know what they are. Jane, do you have a call?

In the business districts, the size setback is either half the building height or equal to the abutting. So in some cases, the business districts will have greater setbacks than would be required for a residential use. So if you have a 24-foot building, which is the max height that would be allowed in a business district by right, then you would be required to have a 12 foot set setback. Whereas if you had to meet the residential setback, it would likely be seven and a half feet, which is typical in the single and MR districts. So you're actually potentially in the height for residential district is 36 feet by right. Whereas in business, it's only 24. So in a lot of cases, other than the potential for FAR, the business plus unit list, business districts have greater setback requirements depending on certain conditions than would a business district.

Okay. Let's pause and hear from counselor Wright.

Thank you. I actually disagree with Councilor Goetz. So if we do number one and we rezone anyway, so you get rid of the BUs in the residential lots, you're going to keep the BU on the business streets, like Adams Street. And at Adams Street, I think that's a place where you could have small apartment buildings, which has a higher... you know, FAR, because if you just come from the FAR, if you use the residential, you won't have that density whatsoever on Adams Street. But Adams is a, you know, more of a main thorough way. And I think it could have small apartment buildings. So I think We should keep it in the BU zoning, but take care of the side streets where you don't want those setbacks in FAR or BU and rezone those to residential. Thank you.

Okay, Councilor Rowe. I think that Councilor Wright is onto something here because I think it becomes complicated. There are two different use cases as as Councilor Wright is saying, there's the Adam Street use case where even if it's 100% residential, having residential type-dimensional controls is problematic. On the side streets, it's a different problem because you're not mixing a... I mean, Adam Street is actually in many ways very successful that Adams Street having a little commercial apartment and a little commercial is successful. And if you limit it to residential dimensional standards, you end up with what happened on Lincoln Street, what you'll get is a big two family condo right next to So I agree on the Adams Street side. On the off Adams Street side, the side street problem, this is, I think, the conundrum of a residential neighborhood that has grown up under BEU dimensional controls and has buildings that don't conform to residential dimensional standards and kind of retrofitting HAB-Jacques Juilland, or understand concert guts with what she's suggesting would retrofit to make residential dimensional standards and kind of bring that neighborhood into a more residential feel than it is currently. HAB-Jacques Juilland, And i'm worried about that, mostly because the existing kind of character of the neighborhood. visually is actually different and tighter and less dimensional controls. And two is we're just going to be taking away development potential and therefore property value. Because if you say you've got an existing, and this may be addressed by what Mr. Temple was saying, if I have a parcel and my building on the parcel would be nonconforming with the new zoning, then I've lost significant amount of my redevelopment potential, and that's a bit of a taking. So that's my concern. So I think Councilor Wright is 100% correct on Adams Street. Imposing residential dimensional standards wouldn't make sense. I think on the side streets, it feels attractive to retrofit those residential dimensional standards

Well, anytime we change the rules so there's a more restrictive opportunity, it's going to potentially change property values. We've done that. Just raising it. Yeah. But the question, I think, is to give guidance going forward to where we think the time is going to be best spent. Let me ask a couple of questions of both our council and the planners here. So we've heard, at least through Councillor Roach, that if we did a rezoning, so that we made, for example, the side streets, which was one of your rezoning, into an MR zone, that the practical reality is that they may be non-conforming properties in a sense to the MR zone. They may be bigger than the MR zone would allow. I don't know the answer to that. The assumption is that by doing that, we will limit the kind of oversized building that could occur on that site because people are building all the way to the setbacks. But if in fact they're already oversized, we're not restricting the development opportunity. We're just creating a non-conforming structure. So I just want to be clear about that. Is that the impact or not?

So it very much depends on the parcel. I think a lot of what Councillor Getz and Councillor Roach were mentioning were specifically court court. You can see these are very tight parcels with pretty significant nonconformity currently. Currently, they're non-conforming based off use and other dimensional regulations. They're tiny lots so they don't conform no matter what.

No matter what.

I think if we're looking at something like Clinton, you might be able to redevelop a conforming single or two-family home in the MR zone. So that gets at the kind of rezoning. We wouldn't be necessarily creating any nonconformities. These are inherently nonconforming parcels because they are residential uses in business zones. So if anything, we would be bringing the use into conformity and then the dimensions would depend on the lot and

I guess what I'm hearing is the challenge for me as a process matter going forward is the rezoning is a, we all know is a, it takes a significant amount of time and resources. We've got to tell everybody that you're going to change your zone. You're going to go through the map change. You've got to do all of that. And I'm thinking of the problem that we're really trying to solve is that there are buildings that are coming into place that are out of scale with their context, right? Which goes back to your third standard. And what that leads me to, at least on a provisional basis myself, is more sympathy with an option three than with the rezoning, because that does give you a citywide response and says, if you are in a BU district and you want to make something that's going to be a first floor residential, We want to make sure it fits into the context. Now, maybe one of the issues is that you look at what would be the otherwise applicable dimensional standards for assessing that. That would be a way of getting at it, not decisive, but would be a way of getting at it. There may be other issues. In your memo, you articulated several different qualitative standards. Uh, this I'm just adding as a quantitative one, but it seems to me that that might avoid the real challenge that we have just as a process matter going forward to do a major rezoning of a small parcel. And we still not small parcel, a small section of the city. We've got small pieces scattered around. Um, and it would be useful to understand, uh, if you took the option three, um, avenue as opposed to the rezoning. just to say, all right, let's take a look at these other places and this place. Would that standard assist us and avoid a Clinton Street problem? Because Clinton Street seems to be the poster child here for what we don't want to have happen. Or could it have avoided it if we had it? And is there any potential mischief that we're not foreseeing in other parts of the city where you've got your magenta dots scattered around? There are not many of them, but there are a few. Um, and, um, uh, what does that look like? You know, and the, at least for me, that seems to be a cleaner and faster way to get to a better outcome than trying to do the rezoning where I'm not talking to the rezoning is going to solve the problem. Um, it's just going to take some parcels out of special permit in one way, but they're going to leave them in special permits through a section six finding, and they're going to be back in the land use committee anyway. Um, so I'm not sure I'm solved. At least I'm not sure it's worth to go through that dance step when we've got a tool that you have suggested that might apply citywide and could apply whether it's commercial or residential. And if it's in a residential portion, which you're put in your red, if I can put it this way in your magenta area, they finding would require more stuff on the part of the property owner to make sure that it works. If it happened to be on Adams Street, which is the situation where you would leave it alone anyway, the finding might be relatively easy to make because you've got exactly the context that Councillor Roach was talking about. that we have if i could bear with me and i'll use it i got a new one to show you later i hope you'd appreciate that anyway so that's sort of where i'm coming out and i don't know whether the members of the committee feel the same way yeah the only other thought that i'm having is is it possible you know if in fact you you've delineated the setbacks and then um i'm mostly concerned now about the far

you know, in terms of whether or not you can restrict the FAR.

Well, that's again, if you wanted to say we would like you in the finding process as an index of whether this fits into the context, is the FAR that would have otherwise apply, you know, within range or does it seem out of scale? I mean, those are, I mean, there are a variety of ways you can frame the finding criteria.

Because I do agree with something that counselor Wright said in the very beginning that it seemed to say it was highly subjective you know in terms of the refining being supported by the criteria that's in the memo you know there were like three um and I sort of feel as if can we then delineate or talk about a specific range or you know uh well if I can put a frame around what I think you're trying to do is you're saying

would like the land use committee in the process of making sure that this fits into the context right whatever that means to examine a variety of aspects that it might not otherwise examine so that we understand better whether it fits in the standard of not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood is kind of a negative finding and it's very broad and that's used for section six non-conformities you're saying i would like Well, I like the idea of the planning department has come up with, but I'd like to make it more robust. I'd like to have more information for them to examine, to make sure that the situation on the ground that actually gets built really works and we avoid a competitive stream.

Yeah.

Is that a fair summary?

Yeah. And you know, the, the, the bullet point number two is the scale and massing of nearby development, um, inclusive of FAR or, you know,

i think you could ask for that i mean i mean i think that's typically related i think as adept as our planning department may be in responding to suggestions i think they need to click on this a little bit okay um but what i'm hearing is that you like a version of option three with more um specific uh references that pick up the residential uh context and serve that you've raised, right? Okay, and just be clear about that. Councilor Wright, let me come back to you.

Thank you. I just want to understand this a little more. Would this, in this option three, would this pertain to everything that goes any lot or that goes to the special permit or is it just the lots that are BU but are going to go full residential? Or is there a map that's saying these lots should have the, this additional. Um, review.

You're talking about that. If you're, as I hear it, it's a global chain. It's basically saying if you're in a business, uh, a BU two zone, right. And you want to have first floor residential right now, there's, you have to go through a special permit gate. That's nothing new. That's that's applicable citywide as I hear it. Right. And if that's the gate you have, what I'm hearing is the planning department has said, in order to go through that gate, we want to add some criteria that are going to make it clear that you're fitting into the context. What I'm hearing from at least Councilor Getz, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to this myself, is can you elaborate on what is relevant for discussion in making that judgment?

My worry, my worry is whoever makes that decision because it is subjective. It depends who makes up the city council and who makes up the land use. And that changes over time versus doing outright changing of their zoning. Yeah, they may go still into a special permit, but those controls are, it's harder to give a special permit okay for something that's twice as much to the FAR versus going the opposite way. It's just so subjective.

It's certainly subjective in the sense that you've got a bunch of folks voting yes on a particular matter, and they've got to get to agreement on it, at least 13 votes. But what I'm hearing from you is that you would still like to do the rezoning, and then would you be sympathetic to this?

Oh, yeah, I'd be sympathetic, and I am sympathetic to it, but it puts a lot of pressure on people because it's so squishy, and it's hard for someone going in for a special permit. Where is it going to land?

That's true right now. I mean, anytime you go into a special permit right now, we haven't changed. It's even more squishy right now.

Yeah, but if your underlying zoning is a residential and you're going for a 1.0 FAR, which is twice of what it is, that's easier to say, yeah, I'm not going to accept that. But if your underlying zoning is BU and you can go up to 1.5 and I'm asking for a 1.0, there's a little bit of, I think, wiggle room there. And yes, you need to consider your neighborhood in the context, but

yeah i it's i it's not as strong of what we're trying to do i'm just worried you know the makeup of the city council and the land use and which way it can go well it's fair point i guess the point is though if you leave some part of commercial um uh some part of some let's let's say you do the rezoning you're still going to have adam street subject to some some control under special permit. The question is, what is the scope of the special permit requirements that you would like to have? And you're still going to have those, and the question is how robust they are.

And that scope on Adams Street for a BU lot would be different, at least for me, the standards versus on Cook Street or on another street, a residential street.

The residential, if we've already made that, that's the problem that the application of the standard would be different in each, each case because the neighborhood context would be different. The question is, do we want to, do we want to go forward? I think committee has kind of a decision point here. Do we want to have what I would call a strong special permit requirement alone, or do we want to have a strong special permit requirement plus a rezoning? Um, those are, those are, you know, they can, whatever strong means is going to be subject to elaboration. We're going to get there in a little bit, I hope, but I'm trying to get a sense of where we want to spend our time and energy. And at least my, my personal concern is the rezoning process is itself a protracted exercise with, I think more limited gains than we can ask for, given what we know, but that's just where I am now for Kalis.

Yeah, so my thank you, Mr. chair, my inclination at the beginning was a combination of 1 and 3, and I'm still there and I guess council right has kind of more articulated this, but. There is some, I mean, you've made a good argument, I think. As usual, so I'm. I'm listening, I just don't I'm not sure I'm ready for a final decision on this right at this point, but. I need to think about it more.

Thank you, chair. Disassociate the two, make the rezoning two to make the pursuit of the special permit criteria one.

We can ultimately split the item.

That may benefit in the sense of one special permit criteria going

maybe easier i think no i think in terms of a voting process i think it makes sense and uh i don't i don't quarrel with that i'm just trying to figure out where we where we advise the uh how the department could go counselor um so just as a practical matter um

what the calculated FAR would be in cases of special permits, even where the FAR doesn't apply. So that's already kind of a practice in land use is to take a look at the FAR, even where it's not specified. So just to give you some comfort, Counselor Goetz. So I think my concern with the neighborhood compatibility is it's designed to address a very specific set of cases in Nonantum and may end up being too restrictive in other cases. So where it's a predominantly residential, it's already predominantly residential, HAB-Jacques Juilland, Finding compatibility with the business district makes the business district makes some sense, but where it's not it might not and i'm thinking of 1100 beacon street the one stop cleaners where it's. HAB-Jacques Juilland, It if it becomes 100% residential development, which is a different battle for different time it's not going to be consistent really with anything but. intentionally so and would be for the benefit, you know, for larger benefits. So if you have to have a finding of compatibility, a positive finding, as opposed to what you've described, Chair Baker, as a negative finding, then I think we're going to have some real challenges because it doesn't look like, it wouldn't look like a gas station. It wouldn't look like a one-story commercial building. It wouldn't look like a, residential condos. And it's a very mixed zone. It's got huge residential across the street. it wouldn't it wouldn't really look a whole lot like anything so i'm just i'm i'm so sorry i just want to make everyone aware i believe this is still active before land use so i don't i just want to be careful about deliberation on this item yeah but so the general point is is that the use case we're addressing neighborhood compatibility makes a lot of sense on a block of the a block that's a bu district with predominantly residents in other areas of the city where somebody might be proposing a good 100% residential development in a BU district, there may not be residential development that it is compatible with in that sense. So just tossing that out there.

Okay. Thank you. So, um, uh, I guess we need to try and bring some order out of this conversation to give the planning department some guidance and figure out where we're going. And, and Councilor Oliver very much, President Oliver expressed his regrets for not being able to be here, but he would, and except for the commitment that I think is all of us would agree to share to, that even trumps this, I can use that term. So I think the, question that is before us is this, if we have the neighborhood compatibility standard that assists in the areas that are BU right now that are close to a residential area, I guess the question to pick up on the concern that Councilor Roach in a sense, looking at a commercial area Is there a way to frame the option three so that it would pick up the context in a way that recognizes that there is a commercial area there, but that a larger residential presence might be appropriate? It's a little different from what Councilor Gant said earlier. And certainly in the neighborhood context, A robust finding of affirmative compatibility makes sense to me. What I'm hearing is, are there circumstances where the abutters are commercial, where a fully built-out residential use might be fine because it doesn't adversely affect an abutting residential use. It's only affecting an abutting commercial use. And therefore, the compatibility standard might not be the same. but you're at least recognizing the context. And it seems to me that I'm still not persuaded to go the full rezoning route yet because of the administrative challenges of figuring out where the lines are drawn again, all of that, as opposed to trying to make it a context standard that will give us something to look at that could apply both to Adams Street and the side streets and indeed in other parts of the city and i i know you haven't looked at these other small areas but we're talking only about a handful of views that are beyond this this board one right um and we still have a few parts of board one that counter right indicated we really haven't had a chance to look at even for the rezoning part so um what i'm wondering is whether the committee is Uh, let me just get a sense of, of, of how many people on the committee want to carry forward with some version of a rezoning. Um, and then, um, because if that doesn't gain enough votes, then I think we're in option three. And the question is, what does option three look like? It doesn't mean that you're precluded from option three. This is councilor Kalis' point. He wants some, he wants some, uh, uh, cake and ice cream or whatever the right metaphor is. Um, But I wanted to see whether people feel that the rezoning is worth pursuing, because then it involves, I think, in fairness, a look at the other parcels that have not been considered in the rezoning option to just take a look at them and see if they should be rezoned as well. But if you think that's more trouble than it's worth, then we just go to an enhanced standard. So let me just get a sense from the members of the committee. I'll just draw a poll. Councilor Wright, you want to go there?

Yeah. before we make a decision or throwing one thing out, um, which I still support the rezoning, we need to take a look at least at some of these other ones too. And that'll help us even defining in number three, because right now we're looking at a specific instance, you know, a specific problem is a specific area of the city, but we don't know how that is in other parts of the city.

That's good. Who said that? Councilor Taylor. Voice from the ether. All right. Councilor Wright is arguing that we need to have a little more time and effort on the rezoning. All right. Let me just see. How many people want to pursue the rezoning? Councilor Wright has made an argument. Councilor, just hold up your hands. One, two, three, four, five. Let's see. Four. Four. Okay. Um, that's majority of the committee presence. So let's consider that, but let's talk about how to do it. How many people would like to see a consideration of enhanced, uh, context standard that would take account of, uh, either commercial or residential neighbors. That's sort of the version that I've talked about. That's a, that's a version of three.

Yeah.

Okay. So I've got five for that. So, um, so I think. The direction that I would recommend based on what we've just seen is to the members of the planning department is to consider the rezoning option for the parcels that you have not yet examined. And also consider what would an enhanced compatibility standard look like that would take account of the residential abutters in a way that assures that something doesn't get built that really doesn't work for them. but also takes account of the commercial abutters where a residential, full residential use might be perfectly okay. Now that's a hard charge to give you, but I think that's the sense of the committee at this point. Is that a fair summary? Is that a fair summary, colleagues? We have Councillor Block who's joined us. I'm sorry. Welcome. Councilor Black, you wish to add something?

Yes. Well, I have been listening to this conversation for a while. I just, from a land use, at least my land use perspective, this is just instinctual, that a rezoning would be clearer for our process. That's if and if you're not rezoning and you're just leaving it up. To land use, and then eventually the full city council. To make some relatively subjective judgments. That that's, um. That's likely to generate. More disputes more. Variation over time, whereas if you can settle. On on the zoning for specific parcels that just, um, that gives us more structure. To make these, um. Determinations, um, so that's I just wanted to say that that's all I do.

I think you're in accord with the majority of the committee. Okay, depending on your point of view.

Uh, I just want to make 1 other point about I know some people don't want to rezone. But if they have a lot. And they want to do all residential, they have to do a special permit. Anyways, if we zone them to residential, they can build by right now, if they want to go beyond what's there and maybe what's in the context of the neighborhood. they can go for a special permit so rezoning it makes it easier for redevelopment because they they have a by right option to um build all you know all residential so in some ways we're helping them out that they don't have to go through the special permit process that's it okay all right um ms colella are you clear on what we've asked you to do

I got one question. I'm not clear. If I might. So, Mr. Chair, so are you asking Ms. Colello to look at the entire city?

Well, no, I'm asking her to look at the entire city on two dimensions. The first is just look at the parcels that were not part of the rezoning. If we're talking about rezoning, we just need to know what's going on in these other parcels. If we weren't pursuing rezoning, I wouldn't ask that. But because there are other parcels in the city that are in BU character, at least as a matter of consistency, I don't want to say we're just going to rezone a street in Onantum and not take care of every place else, right? At least we need to know what it is. After an examination, Ms. Colello may come back and say, we leave them alone. They're like Adams Street, right? based on our examination, and then we don't touch them. But at least examine them, right? So that's the piece on the rezoning.

Okay, that makes sense. I second your motion.

Well, I just want to be clear. Okay, Ms. Colello, you're clear. You're going to look to see whether other parcels might be appropriately rezoned, since the majority of the committee is in favor of rezoning along the lines you've indicated, but also how to craft For the parcels that are not rezoned, a more robust version of a special permit criteria.

Yeah. We'll get creative with that.

No, I fully expect you can. I just want to be clear on what your mission is. Okay. All right. Um, any other comments on this item from anybody? Um, I want to think, uh, Oh, behind us. I'm sorry.

Maliki welcome. I've been here for, I don't know how long, 20 minutes. Um, so I missed the discussion, the early discussion. I'm just wondering why there's been no discussion of option two.

Option two is, is essentially, um, the concern is we don't know what is happening to other parts of the city. We may have, we, the option two doesn't, um, disappear, but because anytime you want to make a change from a commercial use to having a whole residential Right now, you've got to go through special. But the question is, that is a citywide change. If you add something and don't even agree on them. That's what I was talking about, but I didn't get it. I didn't get, uh, uh, any votes except mine for that process. So we're going to go back and look, see why the other parts doesn't mean we might not end up someplace.

Because I mean, to me, option two seems. be straightforward in applying the same principle that if you're going to have build residential in a business zone you should use residential standards that's not where the committee came out and it is um don't we already have a list of all the um The parcels that would be.

Yes. But it was a map. We didn't have a list, but she has that information.

So is it in list form?

Yeah, we have a GIS map of it. I've been working with a PDF just for presentation purposes, but We can go back into the GIS data. We can all get the list.

We can look at the list. I'd be interested to look at the ones and what to do.

As part of the report, I know this is not your department first, but someone is going to need to do a report about this. And I think that, I don't think that Ms. Colella, unless you have that, do you have that handy now? If you don't, then I don't want to ask you for the report.

Yeah, it would take a little bit of work, but I'll definitely have it.

if it's needed in the next meeting. Didn't it take a list to make the map?

Yeah, it's just working backwards. The map was created a few months ago, so we've got it. But yeah, I can work on that.

If you find a way to generate that, I think in anticipation of the next meeting, what I would do is try and generate the list as well as the map of those areas you're looking at. for possible rezoning. Even if you conclude you recommend otherwise, right? And that way we'll be prepared for it. Now, the question is in terms of timing. We're going to meet on the 20th. Is this something that you could work with in that period of time and returns while it's still relatively fresh? We're not likely to, we're not going to public hearing or anything yet, but just to get clarity on this item,

Yeah, I definitely can work on this. Just depends on other committee priorities. So this is.

Well, we have the whole question. I just want to speak to committee priorities just so everyone understands We're working very hard on trying to figure out responses to the demolition of the houses that are small and replaced by bigger houses. There have been comments about doing it through some redevelopment. We're asking the planning department to look very carefully at what we can do to try and remedy that problem directly. But we haven't got a response yet, and that's going to take some time, and the department's spending time on that. That has been a priority of the committee for our process, and I think is still the highest priority. It depends on if it turns out that working on that means this has to be pushed off a bit, then let's push this off, just to be clear. But I think that you've made substantial progress in the memo that you generated, and the conversation tonight, I think, I hope, aided that. And I hope we could get to some resolution on this and the next time we come come around and then the president will be here as well so um okay any other comments or questions um and uh if not i would entertain a motion to hold all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed extensions the eyes have it thank you those who are not members of committee join us mr temple thank you for joining us uh on behalf of the department um and uh Uh, our new, uh, uh, city clerk or assistant or deputy, or I'm sorry, you want to reconsider? Again, thank you very much for coming to. Okay. Um, I think that's it folks. Uh, we are adjourned and, um, stay tuned for the 20th and the next meeting beyond that would be. The, um, the, after the council meeting in August, which would be the third, if we use it, trying to do homework, the 10th of August, the 17th of August, that would be the next meeting. And, uh, if members of the council, the committee, I just want to mention the process, uh, Ms. Filleleau indicated their time and. resources are limited if you have things you want them to work on i would ask that they uh please check with me and the vice chair because we've tried to allocate the time that we have available from them they do other things besides work for us um to these high priority items and try and figure out ways to get them on our agenda and deal with um so just to get to that if you would and certainly the department if you have a question about whether to spend time, check with me and check with the vice chair. We'll try and help sort that out so you don't get caught in the middle in a squeeze of competing demands. Alrighty, thank you all. Thank you for everyone's attendance and have a good rest of Independence Day, you know, the 250th.