Planning Board - Regular Meeting

call the meeting to order august 20th 2026 planning board meeting frank and logan we need you to both sit in for uh paul and mr coviella who may or may not be showing up he's coming in from chicago so got a flight delay earlier we'll see what happens We have a presentation on the capital improvement plan process.

Good evening, planning board members. I'm taking off my planning board member hat and putting on my city manager hat and presenting on behalf of the finance team and my colleagues the kickoff presentation that was shared with the city council this past Monday night. We're excited, believe it or not, to start again. It's August, and yet it reminds us all that the budget process is truly a 12-month process. So not a whole lot has changed. So for those of you who are familiar with this presentation and with the process, you won't learn a whole lot of new things, but we'd like to reinforce some of the highlights. So next slide, please. So what is the CIP and why do we have one? It is the opportunity to identify capital needs across the organization. And it's a way to communicate those needs to the residents. It allows staff to prioritize what is important. It allows to plan for funding. And as you've watched the CIP grow and change over the years, we change our priorities year to year. So it's always an opportunity to adjust and to adapt to different conditions and different needs of the organization. And lastly, it's important to maintain city infrastructure across all divisions. And again, these pictures are examples of what we do with CIP money. Next slide. These are items that help determine what qualifies as a CIP project. It has to relate to construction or expansion of a public facility or rehabilitation of a public facility over the amount of $50,000. It allows for design and planning work. It allows for nonvehicular equipment in excess of $50,000. And it allows for replacement and purchase of vehicles with the life expectancy shown there of at least 10 years. And lastly, for land acquisition. Next slide. won't read the whole slide but this shows you how projects are evaluated and prioritized at least internally at the staff level and then we articulate that when we bring it back for public conversation we look at how it relates to core function how it provides a financial benefit and how it augments or supports a community plan or improvement of an existing plan next slide So as a reminder, the fiscal year we're in has seen the capital outlay or the pay-as-you-go portion of the capital budget at 0.96%, and the city's goal or policy for using capital outlay or cash for projects is no more than 2% of the prior year's budget. So this year, you'll see a pattern here. We're trying to keep that number as lean as possible, and it's 0.96%, and we are mindful that every year the budget does grow. So that's why we are trying to be mindful of keeping that budget, at least the cash portion, as efficient and as modest as possible. Next slide. Next up will be the other funding option, which is using debt. And the city's goal for net debt service is to remain below 10% of the prior year budget. And we have kept that for this year at 7.64%. It's worth noting that the bars always show historically in the out years that it approaches that 10% line. And as you have seen being involved in other CIP processes, we always manage that number to well within the no more than eight and a half usually between seven and eight and a half percent and this year is no different coming in at 7.64 percent next slide This slide shows the 10-year outlook we've taken to not only using the six-year look ahead, but things we used to call beyond the planning horizon, which really are no longer beyond the planning horizon. At any point in time, we need to be ready for those as well. So you'll see that some debt comes off our planning in the years 9 and 10, as you see there. It is important to note that as of now, no new projects have been added, and that's typical of the beginning of the cycle. We have included a mix of bond timelines utilized. We use different length of bonds depending on the project. And it's important to note that this projection includes the initial debt amount for the municipal complex project, which is 42.2. So that has not changed. That remains included in this look ahead. Next slide. Global CIP thoughts. This chart really has not changed, but the important thing to note on this slide is that projects that involve capital funding really come before the public and before the council and the planning board in the case of the CIP three times. It first gets introduced in the CIP, it then gets incorporated in the budget when the CIP is included in the adoption of the budget, and then we come back a third time when we're ready to ask for bond authorization when bonding is included. So it's important to note that these projects are discussed multiple times in public really to affirm support and to be able to articulate why it's needed. Next slide. We are at the beginning of this slide. We're in August at the work session and that should also say planning board kickoff as well The every note with a little human next to it means that's a chance for public opportunity public input We look forward to receiving citizen requests I know we have a handful already the deadline for citizen requests and requests of boards commissions and committees is September 18th and and then we will hold a public meeting on October 8th to discuss what we've received. Council Monroe has always been kind enough to sit in that capacity, and we hope to have the planning board chair as well. And then we have a series of hearings in November that are joint in nature with the council and the planning board. And as we did last year, we look to adopt the CIP much earlier in the budget process so that it becomes more of a conversation as we go. this is our last slide this is a reminder to all citizens and boards committees commissions we look forward to any information that you'd like to share with us and oftentimes it's something we might be already working on or something that may or may not be eligible but we also get plenty of Good community-driven ideas the most recent ones I can think of would be sidewalk requests from neighborhoods and we look forward to vetting those and Sharing where they rank in the priority of other projects so happy to stop there happy to answer any questions

A general question that may ramble a little bit in a conversation. What's the relationship between the master plan and the capital budget in that there are really two major outflows from the master plan. One is zoning and the other is the CIP. And we're at a point where we, I don't know what's happening with the master plan really. I haven't seen anything since April. But it looks as if maybe we'll miss this cycle. So can you help me understand the relation between the two and what will flow, what you expect in the master plan and what will flow into the CIP?

sure and i'll look for uh comments from the chair and other folks on the dais as well the master plan is a plan that starts out aspirational and and works through an implementation set of items if you will So we expect the final version of the master plan by the end of the calendar year. So in terms of timing, what has been discussed and what will be shared in the fall as final findings within the plan would be things we talk about as a community and then at some point in the future assign a priority or a rank or an importance. Some of the things will be within the city's control. Some will not. Some may be incumbent upon private property owners and residents. So what I think the council and the planning board need to do when a master plan is completed is to decide what within that plan then needs to be addressed in the CIP that might not already be. So that's my gut reaction to your question, but I would look to have anyone else color in that thought. Yes, ma'am.

um let's keep in mind the cip is a planning document and it's sort of a planning document for spending money and every single item that goes into the cip actually connects back to another document whether it be the bike bed bike ped plan the master plan or other documents like that so we pull all of our you know items that go into that as part of those many plans that we have out there the market square plan all of those plans get rolled in and it's when those items are mentioned that's the back support shall we say for each of those planning documents as to why it's now going into the cip and getting money allotted to it in a either next year or a future date

So those hoping that the master plan can lead to things in the next calendar cycle really probably are going to be disappointed, I guess.

Let me stop you to say it could be that the master plan affirms some of the things we're doing from a capital planning perspective, too.

Okay. The last version we had had... five development areas of the city that may involve some infrastructure they may involve road changes two or three of them might involve traffic circles and if we decide to put vision-wise at least housing into the southwest quadrant of the city you may need sewer and water and road developments and Last month we talked about some things, Banfield Road, that might involve capital if we did believe in that direction. So to the extent that we look to the capital plan for a vision as to how those things are going to develop and if that's not going to be available until the end of the year and if this sales in the fourth quarter, we've really missed this cycle, haven't we?

Well, what I think you need to appreciate and recognize is things that come on the capital plan This fall may not come in the capital plan for the next fiscal year. They may come out They may be proposed for an out year year two or year three or year four of the CIP there's going to be some foundational enabling work with lots of projects that would need to take place and before we can articulate a hard and fast cip element sheet for a particular construction project if you will like the development of a traffic circle to support something that was in the master plan we also have to be mindful of following with the zoning and some work would only take place if there were zoning created to allow for the things that would then need the construction work related so The DPW folks, I'll speak for them, are always planning ahead and trying to understand what the workload is, not for the next two or three months, but for the next five or six years. So if there were priorities that came out of the master plan that don't exist now, those would rise in priority as the CIP is built, and I would be surprised to see that things come on that would impact next year's planning for next fiscal year because if you held to what was supported in the current CIP for next fiscal year at one point in time you thought that was the priority so if the priorities change we'll need to know that but we have a road map and as council morose had a plan again it's only a plan until some money is attached to it and every june by a budget so there are certainly abilities to impact the cip that gets adopted in december before it gets incorporated into the budget in june i think i said a lot of things there but um there's so much work that goes into a plan the planning of the of the elements that make up a cip

It's also not fixed, and that's one of the differences. The master plan gets adopted on a periodic basis, and it sets pretty large goals. The manager's example of a sidewalk, that's not something you'll ever find in a master plan. You might find a goal to enhance pedestrian mobility in a master plan, but then the CIP would take something like that and actually start to make it happen on the ground. But from my experience with capital improvement plans, and the manager certainly knows this better than I do, uh they do evolve so what what gets talked about this year what gets adopted may change next year may change the following year depending on other things that are happening in the city and it's it's a real it's the next step before implementation i think is one way to look at it the way i look at it

There are many items in the CIP that essentially involve recurring lines for things like roadway improvements sidewalk improvements and in any given year the DPW folks can prioritize what rises to the top in that given year. So if there were zoning in place and political sentiment to make a change that would Dictate how that year's allocation of pavement or sidewalk work were to be done.

That's a conversation that could be had the big picture that the planning board is supposed to be keeping in mind because Development comes through this board. We're supposed to know where things are happening as they happen around the city and how the big picture really big infrastructure issues like sewer water electricity you know the city doesn't roll control electricity but if we know that there's part of the city doesn't have adequate electric electoral service that's something to consider as development projects come in and if we find that based on reports we get from dpw that this part of the city does not have adequate water supply for fire protection that's that's something to rise to the top and get into a cip and possibly even uh impact fees and other things that we've touched on so it's it's they're interrelated and they they should feed each other as things go forward I had to, I should know the answer to this question, but I don't care if you don't, I don't know if I do.

Let's go. No, these are easy for you.

2% and the 8%, uh, or the 10% limits. Those are just goals right there. Are they, were they adopted as council goals? So they manage your goals or they just.

They are city financial policies. I don't know if there was a council that acknowledged a city financial policy. In my lifetime, we have not sought to violate or waive the policy.

That's what I thought. They seem to have just, they're just a thing that the city's stuck with.

It's a city policy for as long as I've been on the planning board.

It's a city policy that we benefit from every time we get a bond rating because those two policies by name are called out by Moody's or Standard & Poor's, the group that rates us. They are happy to see that we have the policies in place and that we follow them. Follow them, right, okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes, Bill.

That seems like a healthy policy.

One that's been a priority for this group, and I'm not, I just don't understand the specific mechanism. I understand how to put a gross push against something, but I don't understand the mechanism to how to really make the slots fit, is the garage. Kind of in the spirit of Monday's discussion with the council, there's obviously lots of energy around parking and the recognition of the need for the garage, and there was money in the CIP this year to do a study on where the garage might be, I think. So how do we... that into place so that it'll move forward in the context of the CIP and the budget.

By recognizing the pace at which we move with the current CIP money with honoring that it stays in the flow of projects for the next fiscal year, that we report how progress is moving. So it's been included. It's now an item in our work plan, so to speak. So I'm not sure what your question is getting at because it at some point it goes from a plan to having dollars Associated with it to being on the desk It's work product for staff at this point to come back and report and make progress on so the CIP project that resulted in it being on there at the end the

Interaction among the different groups.

That's why it got on there last year So we can probably assume that for the CIP that will be finalized in December that there'll be some implementation component of a garage project

There'll be an understanding of where the project is at the point in time and then staff will recommend placement in a particular year of the CIP for different elements. I'll use the municipal complex as a good example. We, um, we had 1.8 and then 2.4 million for different phases of design. we just moved forward with the the 2.4 it remains that the third phase of the the work to be done the 38 million for construction still in there but but now the 1.8 and the 2.4 have been approved and authorized so now we can access the money so it will it will i would imagine the garage project flowing in a in a manner like that thank you thank you

We sort of jumped ahead for that, but, uh, minutes from the July 16th minute meeting, if folks had a chance to look those over.

I'd like to approve the minutes from the July 16th meeting. Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor.

Any opposed? I'll abstain. I was not here.

Uh, we have council referrals and I think, uh, I'm going to ask Peter to help lead with those.

The first one is related to the zoning text amendment to remove the bulk of the parking from the zoning ordinance. The draft that's in the packet was from last month's meeting. Um, just on review, I know there's a couple like, um, with the work staff has done with the site plan regs. Uh, I need to make a couple of corrections to references. Um, but that, that can be done in advance of sending it to the council. Um, and I know council row had, had a, um, comment, I think 10.1, 1, 2, 4.1 0.

It reads as loading areas shall not be located between the front property line in any building or structure, nor in a required or.

So I think in the rest of the Senate says side yard or rear yard. Which got crossed out. Which got struck. And so I think that just needs to be unstruck.

I wasn't sure if everything needed to be struck or if we needed to take stuff away. I wasn't quite sure.

Right. There's a lot of striking in this.

I'm like, it's not even a sentence anymore. That can get fixed. I'm happy. That was the only problem I found.

so the the recommendation is to forward this to council knowing that the site plan regulation amendments will kind of parallel we do need to have a public hearing on the on those changes but if the zoning amendment was forward to council they still need to have three readings so that would probably take two months six weeks or two months easily

Our next meeting is not until September 14th, so we wouldn't even be able to have first reading until then.

And the planning board could consider the site plan changes at their meeting on the 17th. But the advice is to vote on the site plan regs to have them basically be in effect the night that the council votes to amend the zoning ordinance. So you don't have...

duplicate regulations or a gap in regulations duplicates better than a gap right yeah because if we hear it on the 17th there's another week in a couple of days before the following city council meeting which would be a public hearing for second reading for this um so yeah that could probably work out and then we could do third reading at the same time we do have the approval of that to come forward so

In other words, Peter, at the point at which the City Council adopts and votes, it's effective immediately at that point?

Your vote on the site plan regs would say effective immediately upon adoption of the Council voting on the zoning amendment.

In the event of applications that maybe were previously approved... have to come back there's some cleanup that might have to happen if someone is if someone is straddling the two sets of language no i think when it's advertised when it's advertised for removal that's when there's um you have to conform right let me just ask a question because this happens a lot with products and other boards a project has been approved they have to come back for something else are they required to meet, and they may have to come back for something else that touches upon parking. Do they, they've had a previously approved plan but they're making a minor alteration. How do we address that?

If they're vested, they're protected. Okay. Or if they had design review, they're protected. Okay. But also by bringing most of them into site plan, the planning board has more flexibility to grant waivers or exceptions too. So if there's something minor that's easily dealt with, much more easily than with zoning.

Thank you.

the council vote will be it's not on the entirety it's just about it's just about article 11. it's just removing it we remove it from the ordinance you guys actually put it into site plan you're one of those guys i said we So folks understand the parking.

I just have a question. Yes.

Because we're removing all of this language and it's going to site plan review, will there be new language in the site plan review or is it merely the translation?

Initially it was just copied and pasted and at the last meeting in July, um, our staff is instructed to kind of simplify it so the draft that's before you tonight has been pared down and simplified um to an extent i i think it looks much better so it is different so on that note um

the some of the struck text here section ten point one one one two one four three says the Planning Board may grant a conditional use permit only if it binds the number of off street parking spaces required or allowed by the permit will be adequate and appropriate for the proposed use of the property it also says at its discretion the Planning Board may require more off street parking spaces than the minimum Requested by the applicant or may allow for fewer spaces than the maximum number of requests by the applicant Is it assumed that we are then moving with discretion?

Moving forward So that the said there will no longer be a conditional use permit for parking in the site plan regs there'll be but the Availability for the planning board to modify make modifications There's a whole section on flexibility

Did you read the new ones?

Yeah, I'm just making sure that my understanding was correct in that we will operate using our discretion. So when we are reviewing proposals, I know how to think about it. It's that we are, in fact, just using our discretion with relative sense to whatever the use is.

To a point, yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

And if somebody does a new study, as they happen all the time in the world of parking, everybody's an expert, but there are real experts out there. You don't have to change the zoning ordinance to incorporate it. We could just say that's a good source.

We like that study.

Let's look at that data, and it works here.

So small thing, but it helps.

I'm ready to with the Corrections as amended I'll make a motion we vote to recommend the City Council the whole first reading on the proposed zoning ordinance amendment as amended second discussion I'm ready to move forward. I think it will be appreciated. We've been talking about doing this, at least I've been talking about it for years. I don't remember how many, but years. So I think it will be exciting to move it forward to first reading. if the council discussion comes around wanting to know what's going to be in our site plan regulations, we can provide that to them as an informational item so that they can see what's in there. But yeah, I think the timing, Peter's right, we need to sort of move on it because it does take us so long in order to get these put in, although we are in the process of at least changing notice to make it so we don't have to wait quite so long sometimes for the public hearing notice. So I'm ready to move it forward. I think we're ready to go.

And you're right, Beth. Thank you for reminding me. Agreed.

And we will be able to have the site plan regulations in place the moment that the prior is removed. Yes. We won't have a gap.

Right, because we, on the 17th of September, will have a public hearing, at which point we can then act on them. And once we act on them, they're there subject to the City Council's final vote to remove it from the ordinance. So it'll be ready to go, right in place.

Good. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

All right, the Housing Action Plan was developed by staff and the Housing Committee, and it was then forwarded to City Council. City Council has referred it to the Planning Board for comment. They've also scheduled two public meetings, one on September 23rd and one on September 28th. When I wrote the recommendation, I was thinking that the planning board might want to wait until after the public meetings to see what additional input is provided by the public. I don't know if the council is intending to adopt it on the 28th. If that was the intent, then maybe the planning board could go ahead and forward any comments they have tonight with an expectation that if there are drastic changes that you might want to see it again.

We meet before the 28th, though, right?

We meet on the 17th. We meet before both of the meetings.

Could you be prepared to present any changes that may have been made to that document to us at that meeting?

Well, the public meetings are after our meeting, so it would have to be in October.

i i don't know if our intention is to take action that night but i can tell you that from the housing committee perspective it was our idea that we would like planning board feedback public feedback and all that feedback to come back to council before they make that final decision so from that perspective ideally you'd like to see planning board give some sort of feedback hopefully before the 28th yeah and then it'll depend on how much feedback we have and how many changes need to be happened as to whether or not we make a decision or if we have to postpone it till october i was thinking we weren't making formal recommendation tonight

So I'd like the 17th.

Yeah. It takes a long time to absorb all this information. I mean, Andrew and I have been looking at it for how long now?

Yeah.

Months?

A handful of months, certainly. This is something that I'm certainly very engaged with and passionate about i feel as though we really took great time and care to find the priorities um and that they are not finite either so there is some uh greater interpretation or greater applicability to a lot of these as well so you know i'd be happy to chat with anybody on this board at least to talk about where some of these could go to rather than just you know these two or three line statements as the action item but i think there's a lot more to each one of them that that we've discussed on the housing action plan committee that are definitely great triggers to bigger change

I am as supportive as anybody in terms of having this scope and rational organization and listing of items and timelines and action steps and whatever. I truly am. I think there are a couple items missing, which I'd like to know what mechanism to be able to get those into the thinking. But beyond that, I'm I don't know what it means to approve this document. For example, it says change single family districts to allow multifamily housing. If we approve this document, are we recommending that the city council do away with single-family zoning? And is that kind of what I'll call in some cases feel-good component of the proposals? And so I'd like more rigor around understanding the economics and do we really mean it? component of these items and And there's also kind of as another overlay There's a maybe 25 or 30 state laws that have changed in the last six months relative to housing some of them in this area of 79 e and some of them in the rehab, the redoing of what we call gateway districts. And I'm not sure that this document digests all of the current state of the state law. So somewhere along the way before the City Council says, yes, we mean it and this is what we're going to do, there needs to be some parsing of pieces of this to say, what's the economic benefit? What's the impact on the housing that people currently live in? kind of one more level of reality, I would call it, to the document before people would want to act on it. If acting on it means that something's really going to happen.

to back to your first point of something's missing if you could bring that to our attention that's how we talk about something like that so if you could make that you know that whether you have it tonight or be by the 17th our next meeting just be prepared to bring it up so we can talk about it And these other points, state law?

Well, to your first point, if it is missing, call me or email me. I'm happy to talk through it. And maybe it's intentionally missing and we omitted it because it was either a duplicate or it just didn't achieve a certain goal. Secondarily, the third column on this key implementation steps speaks to where, how and who is involved in making some of those changes. And then the last column is really a timeframe at which we expect that to be able to be achieved. So your point about converting single family home into more units. Obviously, that doesn't get done overnight, and so it would probably come back to the housing committee and we would review those types of details to make sure we're covering the bases and then pushing it forward into the hands of city council, the planning board, so on so forth. So. Ultimately, the priorities being numbered 1 through 7, and then the. uh ancillary ones down below it just shows a the city council the city and i guess the planning board um where we are encouraged or putting most of our effort into and uh We spent a long time identifying those priorities and numbering them was just one way for us to say, this is really what we want to start with. And maybe again, there's some additional or residual benefit from those one through seven priorities that helps some of the other ones below it. Does that answer your question? Kind of. What can I elaborate on?

I don't know if... Maybe I underestimate the amount of work that people intend to do in the key implementation steps column. That may be the thing where the chaff gets taken away from the wheat.

well yeah most of which is required by law so we can't just skip those steps by saying okay we want to conduct a comprehensive zoning review to identify barriers to housing development prioritize necessary regulatory reforms like that takes several months to do so all of that comes with a procedure much like we just did with this you know site plan regulations That would be the same process, in my opinion. And so the housing committee would be held accountable. The city council would be held accountable. The planning board the same. And by that nature, we would see progress with those priorities. And that's, again, why we numbered in is so that we know, hey, where are we on step number one or priority number five? And and how are we making progress with these?

would be fair to say this would be a goal policy goal list of policy goals and prioritizations you know skip because there's there's almost an endless number of things that come before staff and just put this board to think about and uh... this this helps provide some direction where the focus should be probably items one through seven i think bill to answer your question maybe more literal

like priority number seven rezone office research and general business districts to allow mixed use and residential development that's a pretty finite process in my opinion where we know the steps to achieve that so if we want to say how do we get there we go one two three four five and then we're done and it's achieved versus um Priority number four, expand zoning provisions to allow and encourage cottage housing and clustered small lot residential development. That's a little bit more holistic. We would need to cultivate some research and visioning as to what that will look like and where that will be. So maybe that's, to your point, more ambiguous or obscure in this moment, but there is a path to that as well because the housing committee will be working on that simultaneous to some of these other goals. I promise.

Just to add to that, I mean, our priorities came up because each and every member of the housing committee had to list their top three priorities, and it was who got the most votes, and 79E rose to the top. Almost everyone in the room thought that was a really major priority. When each of us are doing that, we did a true ranking in order to come up with this top seven list. We didn't just do it by consensus. We each gave our priorities and we gave them almost a tally of what we all considered. And the ones at the top are the ones that are, in our mind, the highest priority and will be the biggest bang. And we did give... ideas about the three areas that we wanted to work on 79E so we could actually because I don't know if you remember but it was probably a year ago when City Council actually asked staff to look at implementing 79E and they came back to us and said it's too long there's too much volume to it you need to give us a more narrow focus and then we had a work session and then we sent it as part of this housing action plan and now we're really getting to a point where the housing committee has talked about it enough that we actually do have a focus around where we want to concentrate So now that can start to become part of implementation, which is why it's one of our highest priorities in the shortest period of time.

Great document. Clearly a lot of work went into it, and I applaud those who were involved with it. I think that I wish there was a tool. I don't know if AI can do this for us. I wish there was a tool to pick any one of these priorities that would show us physically what could potentially happen. if you were to implement one of these to its fullest extent in any given use or neighborhood. I think people, I think Bill might be getting at like what, What could this do and what would the unintended consequences be?

Yeah. Without actually drawing it out or rendering it out, we have definitely discussed that for the last nine months on this committee. For example, if you go down to reviewing dimensional zoning standards or allowing conversion of existing single-family homes into multi-dwelling units like that's one of mine that I was fairly strongly behind because we can go down the street you know proverbially or literally walk down the street and say there's a very large house you could see three or four units in it because islington street is very similar to that and then we draw similarities from some existing neighborhoods elsewhere and so that's sort of how we conducted those conversations and housing committee as your dad is a little bit of a different environment where we're literally in a round table and just firing ideas and so that has certainly helped push this some of these ideas further along in the maturity scale than others. But some of these are also much quicker and lower hanging fruit, like amending zoning regulations to allow conversion of commercial and office building into residential units. We know how to do that. We've done it before. And so those are definitely intentional. We know what the results are or what they could be because we have literal output from that in our zoning ordinance.

Great.

Thank you.

Good work. Educational component is important to just quickly on your point of AI. It's being used in Massachusetts right now to oppose ad use I won't show you the graphic but But it is helpful.

Yeah, that's what I do.

There are ways to do it Frank did you ever

I did. I just have a quick question just for clarification on the timeframe column, just to make sure I understand it correctly. Is the timeframe given from the adoption or endorsement of this document or from when work starts on that?

Right, when work starts on that task. Okay. Just for both myself and anyone else who might be confused about that for the public. would say that that you know we're looking after the master plan we're looking to do a comprehensive zoning review and many consultants can do like a build-out analysis or right show what would happen if we change the densities in certain districts so I'm sure that that will be part of that that review excellent and then it has to be for the public to understand it and for us to understand it right

and i think it'd be important for this board especially to be able to spend this next month really digging in and thinking about these and is is there anything that we've missed so can we dedicate so we plan to do that for our september meeting let's let's really have have a conversation about this year um has the housing committee or the planning um staff

figured out a way to present this for the general public. Because I look at this as someone who studied planning. I'm like, oh, this sounds really interesting. But then I think about it as someone who, you know, is working with a lot of families who are, you know, trying to do 50 million things and maybe aren't up to date on planning lingo or rezoning and they hear things like workforce housing and suddenly their mind is going to the worst place that they see on TV shows. So is there a way or someone who is presenting this in a way that makes it user friendly? Because I know like when some of the other projects have come up that are centered around workforce housing you see some of the worst kind of public comments come out and not out of you know anything other than a lack of knowledge or a lack of understanding or not realizing that you know the teacher who takes care of their children lives in workforce housing so are you guys looking at a way to present many of these topics in a way that is

shiny happy smiley face the shiny happy smiley face is going to happen at this board the the housing committee's come up with a policy and the recommendations and i think working with staff the planning board that's that's our job in interacting with the public and making it here's the goal the housing committee's saying here's the goal make it happen so now we have to look at and that's a very good point because people have to understand it yeah

i do think that's uh we'll end up having some visual correlations with these so images of what cottage housing looks like or images of um what happens when you shift office research and business into mixed-use neighborhoods so we'll i think some of the physical images is great but also think about the social

so the people and how they're going to see the people and how they're going to see those people moving into their neighborhoods around their children and because the building can look great but if they're thinking about the people in the building so i think you know yes seeing the images of the buildings is great but understanding how you can also present the residents the human level yes got it because a lot of what you if you really truly listen to the comments they might say something about the way the building looks but there's always something about the people if there are no other comments okay so we have a plan for the housing action plan yep you want a motion

Well, I think the plan is to work on it the next meeting but yeah vote to continue review of the housing action plan until September 17th Any further discussion all those in favor aye any opposed This is

i think this one has changed a little bit it has changed um did it go away so city council at the in july they they voted to recommend the planning board review the potential establishment of a heritage commission and report back they did put a deadline of september 28th so we have tonight and the 17th to discuss this Um, so I did some research and the chair has done some research. We looked at what we do now for demolition, um, and historic preservation. You know, we have the historic district commission that has, uh, distinct boundaries of their historic district. Um, and then we have a demolition review ordinance that, um, if you are proposing to demolish a structure and you're, you're not going to a land use board, you have to, um, post the property and then notice in the paper if someone objects to it then that would trigger the convening of the demolition review committee but really it's just a delay process they could delay it for up to 90 days and then the person could then could still demolish the building if you have a application before land use board you're exempt from the demolition ordinance because the advertising of that application serves as the notice so you don't have to comply with the demolition ordinance and I noted in here since I've been here that that committee has only met three times and really that was in I think two in 2018 and one in 2019 councilman Rowe sits on that committee but but a Heritage Commission uh... really would be advisory similar to that of the conservation commission uh... if it was established they could advise uh... land use boards on on applications or uh... they could seek funding they could conduct surveys and uh... education to the public and grants and do grants so since the memo we've had further discussions about creating a commission through the innovative land use control statute. The chair has done some research on that, and we've spoken to legal about it, and it seems like a potential path forward. They'd still be advisory, but we could create it so that they advise us on demolition, massing. I think we could lay out... It depends on what we want to have them do, but... That would be one option. Do you want to talk about that further?

As I understand the question from council dealt with, could there be a way to actually prevent demolition of some buildings that are outside existing historic districts? And the answer until recently has been no, there really isn't a way to do that. I talked to the Municipal Association, we've talked to city legal, talked to staff. There is a way under the innovative land use controls to probably do it. Nobody's done it yet, but the Municipal Association and the legal department here in the city think it can work if we want to do it. And by we, I mean the city, not just the planning board and obviously the council. It could be a much more limited Historic district if you will which could deal with just demolition of certain structures which would have to meet And this is the part where it gets tricky and Trevor and I had a conversation about this the other day because in order to prevent the demolition of the building you'd have to establish some criteria that would be pretty good it can't just be arbitrary but there are buildings in the city that are not currently in the historic district that probably would conform now the other thing that maybe would more often and almost certainly would more often conform via mass and control so that if a building was coming down it wouldn't be nice it wouldn't you wouldn't be allowed to be replaced with a gigantic philly building on structure if that neighborhood was not the context and that that neighborhood in order for that to work under the new land use control it would come to this board not the htc the heritage commission to finish commission were established a heritage commission could do a lot of legwork to make a recommendation to this board this board could do it by itself the heritage commission component would be sort of optional and depending on where the you know that needs people it needs staff to run it to help run it rather planning board obviously we're already here so that's a factor and considering how to do it heritage commission by itself it can only be advisory that's pretty clear So it's not much different to what we have now in terms of requiring review of demolition. But it could be extended. They can make a recommendation for, say, amassing limitation. But in order to make that a requirement, it would have to become a regulatory matter adopted by the council and put to the planning board.

if i put everybody to sleep and confused everybody but go ahead and enter what are the time constraints on the demolition permits now if you go before demolition review committee we cannot delay it more than 90 days that would be after an initial 30 day because you first advertise it post it for 30 days yeah and if there's no objection i think then you can demolish it yeah so three times in the last nine years just doesn't strike me as something that's statistical a statistical significance uh where i would be like yeah we should have more regulation on that because We talk a lot about housing affordability, and one of the components of affordability is time. And if we're talking about demoing a building and starting, and the difference is a three-month span, I feel as though that's not helpful. Number two of my points is under section 14.205, section 2C, page four, At the conclusion of the hearing, the committee shall determine if the building is significant or not significant based on whether the building is of such historic architectural or cultural value that its removal would be detrimental to the public interest. That's extremely subjective, in my opinion, and has no literal definition applied to it, at least in that statement, where I'd feel confident enough putting somebody out there and letting a board review that.

That's the Demolition Review Committee ordinance you're looking at.

That would not pass muster with what I was talking about. It's too subjective. And the reason it can be subjective is it's advisory. It's not mandatory. Once you cross that threshold of making it mandatory, you cannot do it. Now you have to have much more specific criteria. To your point about affordability, there is an argument that some larger buildings that could be demoed and turned into large single-family home a very costly large single-family home could otherwise be converted into apartments that is an argument and it depends obviously on the building the site and all those details I guess just maybe not affordability but just overall cost like if it's not labeled affordability and it's just cost applied to the applicant it's not this isn't just affordability and my my goal was to find out if it's possible and i found out it's possible now is it advisable and how can how can it work those are different questions and i think that's what we're talking about and joe has an opinion about this well i just want to offer that when i was on the historic district commission for all those years for nearly a decade we've had this conversation multiple times about expanding historic districts and we've even heritage commission

Back then and even now, my immediate concern is just workload on staff and boards. It gets very intense. It also will add a significant amount of workload potentially to the legal department because we're really getting into the topic of property rights Obviously we start implementing this neighborhoods. Well, they don't like it They don't like the idea of regulation coming being overlaid into their neighborhoods. So we need to be prepared for that obviously as someone who I Have a great love and respect for historic architecture in the city. I really do but I also I also understand the challenges of broadening this this regulation and other parts of the city and The reason this is coming up for discussion, I wish the reason were more noble than the fear of demolition and slowing demolition down, rather than if we have very real cultural, very real and significant cultural assets in the city that are inspiring people for this change, rather than

know let's just simply stop demolition i wish it were more than it is it is more than than just demolition it is it is it is more of a cultural issue and as part you know there are neighborhoods in the city that aren't in the historic district perhaps shouldn't be in historic history but maybe will in some you know number of years as the city ages but there are neighborhoods that people like and this is a question we won't know until the public is engaged do the people with the neighborhoods like this because you were talking about the change i've seen changes in cities where uh... demolition happens in to use the expression make mansions get built and people hate it and you know that's the that's the sort is is that the sort of thing that people are interested in here i don't know you know that's

So when it was brought forward to Council, I had a lot of the same concerns that Mr. Almeida brought up. And I guess the part that I would say I got sold on it, but it made me think, OK, it's at least worth us all having a conversation over, which is why I suggested to come to this board. is the fact that it isn't an education it's ability for a group to go around and look at buildings like the carey cottage that's it well outside and we're not protected right and that was the only savior that we have from demolition review committee so i'll keep bringing it up over and over again successful it was a success story right in i don't think this is entirely about demolition but it's about taking a look at what are our historic resources documenting those resources as part of the city and educating the owners of those buildings or whoever happens to be in charge of those buildings as to the historic significance so that outreach the education and just having a really good idea about what we have and what truly has historic historic you know implications or doesn't i i found that piece helpful i agree i think it's probably going to be a lot of work you're talking about probably a member of the htc a member of a planning board you're talking about staff time so i think there's positives and negatives all wrapped up so i'm not quite sure what the right answer is but i think it's worth at least the city having a conversation about it

I do want to echo Andrew's comments as well. I agree with what he said. Which part? I remember as you were saying them, I was going to say I agree with it. I exactly agree. Now I can't remember what you said. Because I've spoken since. Remind us what you said, Andrew. Sorry. It's worth repeating.

The time?

It had a lot to do with the 90-day delay I've heard residents say that it's really viewed as harassment almost. It's a way to put a spoke in the wheels of someone's project. Some people view it that way. I think I'm remembering what your other comment was now. Oh, the subjectivity of this group. The neighborhoods that you brought up as examples, I know the neighborhoods you're referring to where they're not in the historic district, they're beautiful neighborhoods. New houses are being constructed that some people in the neighborhood don't like. It's very much, architecture is very much like, it's fashion. Some people love those, some people love the contemporary architecture, some people hate it. So it's so subjective, and I'm saying this, you know, as some of you.

But scale is less subjective. Scale is less. Scale, and scale I think is more important than style.

The other thing I wrestle with scale is that modern building codes, if you have a three-story building, historic building your floor to floor heights are seven and a half feet in new building by code they have to be you know three feet taller so yeah modern building codes have a massive effect on new construction truly but all valid points

to best point i think it's worth having the conversation that like we're trying to do now but we need more information i think uh... i mean since peter's memo we've got new information yeah before next month we'll have more information have a more informed conversation right and if we're not going to adopt anything i make a recommendation to counsel i don't think it does say refrains on here is also without

I don't have a three a city council referrals and heritage commission is beneath it. So, you know, what are we, what are we doing tonight?

So we have until they gave us a deadline until September 28th, September 20th. We have the September meeting to continue discussing this.

Great. Um, so everyone can think about it and do your own research and come back with thoughts.

And we'll try to get some additional information out for folks to look at and think about. Now, keep in mind what I, what I said is possible. Nobody else in New Hampshire has done yet. It seems to be a good one from the attorneys I've spoken with hours, which are the most important ones. So we can't say here's an example. Uh, most, most communities do adopt the delay ordinance, which is, you know, spoken the wheels thing. So probably a similar motion on this one.

Could we have a comment down here?

I'm sorry. So the focus of this is delaying the demolition. It's not about influencing the new. There's no architectural thought about what's put in its place. There could be.

There could be. But that may be a bridge too far. The question would be, and this is going to require, depending on how far this goes, innovative land use control gives the council the authority to give the planning board incredible attitude and what it can do regulatory wise that's why nobody else has done it yet and nobody else has thought of it frankly

One person's opinion, I think the risk to the visage of the city is more in what's done that's new than taking away what's there that's old. I think there's more risk of having no architectural standards. I think there's more risk of damage to the positioning of the city.

Well, I think that the historic district has its own, I mean, it exists for very good reasons and I'm a strong supporter of it. That's, that's different than what we're talking about. And the heritage commission component of what we're talking about right now is an option. What we're talking about could be heritage commission. It could be heritage commission and planning board, or it could just be planning board. So it could be just planning board without additional staff. So we need more.

more information for next month you know this particular one it was it it's almost necessary to hear from these neighborhoods that we would be oh yeah i'd want to hear from the property owners for sure this this and you know there's only so many we would hear from but

And our recommendation could be that the city council should have an open public forum for this with the public to discuss it. You know, that could be our recommendation that we're, our concerns are the, what the public really they're on board or not on board. And maybe that's the direction we recommend.

Yeah, that would be necessary. Absolutely. I fully agree. Sorry.

Um, do you think having another possible. advisory commission group would sway developers if it's one more thing they felt they had to go through to get a project built sway them in what way in to not do it because there are times when you know i've heard we've heard developers say oh i had to go to tac and then i had to go to the historic commission and now i'm seeing you guys and you guys are saying there's a problem with this and now I have to, so having one more possible, even if they don't actually have to go to it, the thought of more regulations and more boards that they feel might have some arbitrary,

okay it's that's a good question i think if you look at everything that we're doing in terms of streamlining some things and considering new new ideas this is a new idea it goes to the character in context of neighborhoods to beth's point to joe's point do the neighbors want this we don't know i don't know and i can assure you they don't know because it hasn't been proposed anywhere yet You know, we need to hear from them to see You know, they may think we don't need it and council say great. We don't need it Let's not mess. Let's not mess with it or there may be accolades. We we hate what happened in Wherever and we don't want that to happen to us and that there's a lot of that out there. Trust me But I don't know if it's in portsmouth so Um now can we have a motion to continue this conversation tonight? second discussion all those in favor aye any opposed wrong screen um we have a post approval waiver request for 409 and 411 lafayette road is there anybody presenting this or is this no just there's a written request this is a two lot subdivision uh just north of the high school um

minor work they have some utility work that will be covered and paid for through an excavation permit so they are requesting to waive the requirement to have a post a bond and do a subdivision review your agreement public works is okay with it and since this can't be done administratively the planning board has to approve the waiver it has to come back to you

because they already have the right-of-way right there which is where all the yeah it's just minor work and um yeah unless anyone has any more i'll vote to grant the requested waiver from section 1x.1 of the subdivision ordinance due to uh because strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant and waiver would not be contrary to the spirit intent of the regulation

We need a second?

Second. Discussion?

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The regulatory amendments, we started talking about these last month.

Getting there. Right, so the site plan amendments. last month they said earlier excuse me they were just copied over from article 11 with the guidance from the Planning Board they've been simplified we remove the guest parking requirement The table of uses we condensed instead of listing all the uses in the zoning ordinance table, um, condensed them into further and grouped them into categories. Um, the big change really is for, um, the parking section 4.3, the parking flexibility section, which allows, uh, the planning director to modify parking. Um, and I kind of have maybe an amendment from our discussion the other day chair about when site plan is required. Um, which is if you create more than five parking spaces, um, I think adding that to that flexibility section for the planning director would be appropriate, uh, so that the planning director could modify, um, parking like a change of use if they required five or less five or fewer parking spaces the planning director could approve that administratively if they show a good measure on why they don't need that additional parking but if it's five or more than that would have to come back to the Planning Board for modification So that would be in section 4.3.1 for administrative parking modifications. Number one, the planning director may approve a parking modification, and then you would just say up to five or no more than five.

Less than five spaces.

I can have that wording fixed for the next meeting.

So basically just adding it to the A through E, right?

we did we did have a couple of changes or at the beginning also right it changes at the beginning related to when it's like those to be more performance with the state code of when site plan is required Down the road, the objective is to delete B, which is what our current regulations say. What we've been talking about amending the subdivision ordinance to capture condominium conversion as a subdivision. So we'll start working on that as well to come back to you. But in the meantime, we're going to leave B in here. A lot of the dimensional requirements for parking aisles, that all was just ported over because it's dimensional and didn't change any of that for stall sizes or aisle widths. And left the downtown overlay requirements in there. We did add inns. In the current regulations, for some reason, inns were not included.

in the downtown overlay so it just was where it was hotels and motels we added ends to that requirement in section 4.8 sorry to interrupt you just just a quick question of curiosity so that hasn't been in there previously however several there have been ends developed downtown how did you so we say they don't require any parking so it wasn't just simply an oversight they really were did not require parking right because it because it was an oversight yeah right oh shoot I'll get rid of mine remember that conversation

but the process would be that instead of a conditional use permit they could present a request a modification from the board I did have one other question it just it's a technicality the guest parking requirement

was removed because it's no longer allowed, right? By the state? Is that right? Okay.

I like the addition of the bicycle parking.

We still don't address scooters in parking?

No. Good.

Okay.

Personal mobility devices?

think we're ready for we have to have a public hearing we have to have a public hearing on this so change that one section and then you you have another chance to discuss it but it would be advertised for public hearing in September so if the council stays with its schedule we'd be adopting yeah we'd be adopting this in September You would be adopting this, but the motion would be that they would be in effect upon upon the adoption of discerning amendments. So that might not be until October, depending on how it goes, how it goes.

Peter is, is the bicycle, uh, section new.

It's it's not new, but it's, it's, um, it was changed. We currently have bicycle parking requirements in our ordinance.

But is this more extensive?

It's not more extensive. It's just clearer, kind of simplified.

It just reads so much easier.

Yeah, it reads better. For example, the number four in the... list of what's exempt i think it's shown in the table in the zoning ordinance and now it's just listed i think you did a nice job cleaning it up yeah it's just i give you reads less like a zone right it reads more like everyone can read it which is what we kind of wanted it to be it's good work yeah thanks

If there's no more discussion, I'll make a motion that we vote to schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the site plan review regulations as amended at the September 17, 2026 planning board meeting.

Second. Discussion on that? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Next one is related to the subdivision ordinance and this is just one change to be consistent with the zoning amendments that were referred to council last month about Noticing For the zoning board, you know within 300 feet we're just making that consistent with state statute for a butter notification in our subdivision ordinance the definition of an abutter is any person who owns land within 200 feet of the boundaries of the land under consideration and the proposed change would be that it would be a person or entity meeting the definition of a butter contained in rsa 672 3 as amended so it would be consistent with the state rsa And so we would notify accordingly accordingly, uh, for subdivision applications.

And I'll stop getting questions from people. Why they've got to notice when they're on the butter.

I'll make a motion. We vote to schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the subdivision ordinance at the September 17th, 2026 planning board meeting.

Second discussion. All those in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Article 10, there's not been any changes.

No, historic boundaries. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. You skipped a really big one. Yeah, I jumped over. Please skip it. Whoops, sorry about that. It's the hornet's nest that is beforehand.

so you all had a joint meeting with the hdc earlier in june and discussed advancing just the changes on middle street for the boundary of the historic district the hdc met again in july and didn't have any any changes to their original recommendation to the planning board I did note in the memo, and we did receive a letter back in January or February from a property owner at 670 Middle Street. This property is proposed to be included in its entirety. It's a condo, and the current delineation of the condo is the existing historic boundary. Their house fronts and has access on Chevrolet Avenue. it actually can't even really be seen from middle street right it's hard to be seen so they were requesting to be removed or not included in the historic district um there's another similar property but not i mean but that's further down middle street it's 873 middle um that has a house that fronts on middle street and then there's a house in the back that house does access middle street um It doesn't have a separate entrance on a different road, but it does. And the current boundary splits that parcel in half.

You're talking about the one on the right-hand side? This one?

Yes. That's what I thought. I should pull it up.

i mean we were trying not the whole point of doing this was to not have lines going through lots but when you're talking especially on 670 i'm actually somewhat familiar with the property because i looked at it for a client once the front building that's right up by the road is a three unit basically apartment building that's considered one condo unit and it's really the carriage house that's down in the back that actually has a driveway that goes to chevrolet ave that is on the backside so it's like two completely separate buildings but they are on one condominium condomized lot so right i am i i i'm torn and that lot does not have frontage on middle street no only through the front condominium right right yeah that that building does not have any frontage on it no

So to remind everybody, best practices with historic districts is to not sever properties with the historic district boundary. I think on this one, it's unusual since it's a condominium. And as explained to the owner's letter, they've got their limited commons set up. It's the front unit on Middle Street. Pretty much its limited common is the historic district. Now, I'm taking the owner's word on that because I didn't see that on the plan.

For the record, I can tell you that is indeed the case because I saw the condominium docks when they were first drawn. Perfect.

So that is truly a separate lot in the front.

It's not a separate lot.

It's condo-ized separately. But functionally, it's going to be very similar to us.

How do you address development on Chevrolet Ave side? Do they have to come before the HCC? Technically, they do because it's on the lot.

But it doesn't bisect the building.

if the boundary went through the structure then they would okay but since it doesn't if the boundary if the if the boundary stays where it is i think the backlog wouldn't have to come before the htc right right they would not so i think there's a rationale on that one i think i've been on this site i know this person

they act as completely separate lots there's almost no exchange or no relationship between them at this point with the trees that have matured and there's no driveway that passes through so i know that they are operated as entirely separate lots otherwise yeah i think i think it it fits the rationale for why you wouldn't need to include it so can you just summarize just repeat what that rest what the what we're looking to do here just so everyone's clear

general rule when you start to look at a zoning change is there certain guidelines like you generally want to have the same zone on either side of the street so buildings fronting on the street are the same on a historic district in particular it has its own things and one is that you do not want to the line generally to go through a property you want the entirety of the property that's considered best practice so here it's a very unusually shaped property It has furnished on two roads, which is unusual. It's a condominium that has been divided in terms of its usage by limited common areas, which is also unusual. And therefore it really is acting as if it is two lots. Okay. Yeah. Even though legally it's not a condominium is one parcel, but it fits. I think it fits very well with the discretion of this board to make a recommendation how you want. And I think keeping it the way it is does make sense.

i have to agree but i'm not sure i would agree on the other lot because the other one i was jumping ahead so with this one though um yeah just no change well if you look on this map where we're including the parcel to the north Currently it has a little sliver that's out of it.

Actually, that's changed too. It actually goes all the way down to Friend Street now. Right, so that one. Because we just changed that.

Right, that one, right.

This board actually, remember we readjusted the two back lots, so it actually comes down to about there now.

So that, we'll have to account, we'll have to make that change to include that entire property.

yeah i think that's appropriate it's only the one building right it'll come back up and then connect yeah okay yeah this was before that before that exactly i was like we recently changed that lot line so i know that that's going to have to change just a little bit on that i don't see that affecting 670. it doesn't no no it won't it was just a point of let's get it right if we're going to change it um right so the other one I mean, they use middle street as an address and access. So I feel like they have to be included. That's a little bit different setup than what we have in the other one.

So should we adopt the recommendations at HTC with the exception of the one change on six 70?

Yes, I agree.

Yep.

I make a motion to vote, to recommend a city council, to schedule first reading on the proposed historic district map amendments.

amended okay in the further discussion all those in favor aye any opposed now article 10 amendments this is the conditional use permits for wetlands impacts that we've talked about it every single meeting practically and I mentioned it last month these these changes have been in the works for some time and We need to have a meeting with the conservation commission to talk about it. It's it's, you know, this is very near and dear to their heart. They've also been talking about these, this section of the ordinance and how to make changes. So conservation commission wants to have a meeting with us to talk about this. And the HTC wants to meet with us to talk about the master plan board meeting, correct?

Yes.

That's by statute when it's, it becomes a planning board meeting.

Do we have a work session with them or an actual meeting with them?

Well, with the Conservation Commission, we'd have a work session.

I was going to say, that sounds more like it.

It would be a planning board work session, and the Conservation Commission would be invited.

Yeah.

And that could be September. That could be our second meeting in September.

Or if it's just a work session, can't we do an hour before our meeting?

If you want to do an hour before the meeting on the 17th. But, I mean, it's going to be.

Do you want to? sorry i don't want to jump ahead go ahead the hour before topic the six o'clock that's on my list okay that's on my list um okay i'm going to jump ahead yeah i want the board to think about how how the board feel about starting at six instead of seven for all this general start time hell yeah

Are we allowed to by ordinance? I thought there was something other in our charter or whatnot that if we were having public hearings, we couldn't start till seven. Other boards start earlier.

Then we need to check that.

Check with legal to make sure we can do that. I have no problem starting early.

Because other boards do start earlier. HTC starts at 6.30 sometimes.

So if we can start earlier. I mean, it seems like there's a dead space between the end of the workday and what the heck do you do? Do you get something to eat or not?

I went and had dinner.

Destroy your world.

Then I want to fall asleep.

You could also conduct other business, right?

We could actually do other business for the first hour if we could Give us a chance to not we haven't had any lately But we do have the late meeting sometimes and we get an hour earlier start that would help So, okay Back to article 10 so the conservation commission that might work for our

an hour in advance we can check with kate and peter and see if they think that would be enough time i did talk to them today about either doing that or the 24th and i said i would let them know tomorrow what the planning were to decide so you know so you're just are you taking a poll of well if it's the same night earlier that's i think that's preferred the 17th at six i don't know what to feel but i'm coming in on another night all right i can do the 24th if i have to but i prefer the 17th

So before we talk to the Conservation Commission, please read the proposed changes so you can be informed about those. And we'll have the Conservation Commission's changes as well. So we know what we've all been talking about and have an informed way to advance it.

The UTL is planning on joining the HDC for their second meeting in september the 9th so i think she's zoe's going to join on zoom they don't they don't have anything scheduled that night they were just going to have one meeting but um so that'll just be that meeting okay do you think that they wanted to have a the planning board involved as well or is it just topics but however that would is just master plan topics inside of the htc boundaries It's just to get feedback from the HCC input for the master plan.

To make sure that the master plan incorporates the importance of history and historic district.

Chairman, if we're there, doesn't it become your meeting, though?

It does. I'm thinking about that. I mean, that's no big deal. I mean, it is what it is. It's not going to be Gavel City.

So do you want to? Do you want to invite the planning board? Do you want to have it as a planning board meeting?

Well, I'm pretty sure by statute, if it's a joint meeting, it is always a planning board meeting. So even if it's on the HTC night, it's a planning board meeting.

Do you want to talk to the chair and see what you also do?

Yeah, why don't I do that? How far out is it again? It's September 9th. It's not that far. I know I know there I've spoken with the chair she's very interested in having the meeting so

I'm sure it will be well received. Very important. I have guests coming over.

So the master plan is in final stages of text compilation. The consultants have prepared their first draft of existing conditions that came to staff and to me Monday night very late.

I've read it once. I don't know if you had a chance to look at it yet. I've read part of it.

It's a first draft. It needs work. The really important part is coming next Monday, which will be recommendations and basically the substance of what they'll be recommending as consultants. that ties into their proposed schedule they have a minor revision schedule and a major revision schedule their first email draft last week was to get everything to the planning board and give us one week to review it which i didn't feel was adequate there and they didn't give a lot of time for staff either so they're still looking at Early as October 15th planning board meeting Adoption or a November 5th planning board meeting adoption It's gonna be dependent on what we see, you know, I can't say the existing conditions draft Is wordy But other than that, it's not too bad. I And it's the stuff that's coming next week that will determine whether this aggressive schedule can be met or not. So I don't know how the board feels and how much you want to be looped in, if at all, on these working drafts as they come along. I know UTL is concerned if they get too many cooks in the pot, they're going to go nuts because they feel they're out of budget. So there is that.

I will say just in terms of my being able to be prepared, you're talking about a very busy season for teachers. So if we can have drafts kind of earlier, then it'd be nice because I, I'm going to have a lot with the kids and with, you know, Halloween coming up and all that, it gets very busy. So if I can have extra time to kind of be able to read through and process, that would be helpful to me. Okay.

We should know a lot more after Monday night. Hopefully it'll be before 10.30 at night like this past one, but we'll see.

Do you know how they're dealing with infrastructure?

It's touched on in the existing conditions, but it also references some supplemental information that staff's been providing that wasn't a part of the document that was sent to me, so I don't know if you have that stuff. I don't. That's a question I'm going to ask them, because I had the same question. HCC conservation commission, that's it. I didn't laugh my last item was a different start time. We already talked about that. So If that's all I'm gonna adjourn the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you