 meet our own board. On Monday, October 16th, my name is Ken Lau. Rachel is not in today, so I'll be acting chair. Can I introduce the rest of the board members? Starting with Steve. Steve, we have a lot of good evening. Eugene Benson. And Claire Richter here is from Planning Board. And Marissa Lau. So let's start with agenda number one, Public Hearing Citizens Warrant for a Fall Town Meeting. And this is article 13, Zoning Bylaw Amendment MBT Communities Act. And we're going to take 10 minutes to an opponent to make a statement. And then we'll discuss amongst ourselves. And then we'll open up for whoever's here. Can you please come up to the mic? Do you have any show? I do not know. And this is not going to take anywhere near 10 minutes. Winnell Evans Orchard Place. I submitted this article and I have to apologize because it was my own ignorance that led me to submit an article when in fact I should have been submitting an amendment. So right there I started off on the wrong foot. But in the process of this, especially in gathering the signatures in order to get this article on the warrant, I think it was a really worthwhile exercise because I gathered about two and a half times the required number, talked to an awful lot of people, got to hear their concerns. And I am so grateful to the board for listening to those concerns. I know you guys have had a lot of letters as well. And I think that the decision to reconsider the height in the neighborhood multifamily district has gone a long way to making people feel heard and to feel that this is going to be a change in town that will be more acceptable, easier for them to kind of get their minds around. So I'm very, very happy about that. I do intend to submit an amendment to further pursue the boundary of the neighborhood multifamily districts. And if all goes well, I should be submitting that tomorrow. It has been an arduous evolutionary process. But I will not be pursuing this article unless there were so many amendments and somebody came back and tried to reverse the decision on the heights. But I hope that that will not happen. So I do not plan to pursue this. So are you going to withdraw this? According to town council, one cannot withdraw an article. So it will simply, to my understanding, it will simply be up to the board to vote no action. Okay. Which I'm assuming is what will happen. Well, I'm going to see what the rest of the board members feel like doing. Are you finished? Yes, that's that's all I've got. Jean, do you have any questions? Yes, I do have a couple questions. Thanks for now for coming in and doing this. And I agree that our course of action is to vote no action on this because there's no main motion to go along with it. So there's really no opportunity unless we want to sit here and write something ourselves, which I don't think we want to do. I guess my main, well, I have a couple of questions. In your amendment, will you be including a revised parcel list and a revised map? I will be. And this is what has been so incredibly stressful and time consuming. So yes, I definitely will be. I am trying to parallel what the Redevelopment Board has presented as closely as I possibly can in terms of the presentation and what I'm providing. I guess the other question is you probably know that for the districts to meet the requirements, they must be contiguous and at least five acres having figured out how to reduce the boundaries and keep them at contiguous and five acres. I believe that I have that has been yet another element that's been incredibly stressful and time consuming. But I believe that I have solved that. I think for town meeting it would be helpful for you to indicate the acreage. Yes, I plan to. Yes. Okay. That was it. Thank you. Thank you. Steve. I have one question. Will you be able to provide capacity calculations? I am doing my best on that as well. Yes. Yes. That is all, Mr. Chairman. I have one question. You're going to show a map of the boundaries of what is that going to mimic what's already been shown? Yes. I am actually using the version 3A map as the underlying map so that all parcels are indicated. The proposed mass have Broadway multifamily district is indicated the proposed neighborhood. Multifamily districts are indicated and then mine is simply showing what I am changing. So yes, I'm using your base map. The footprint is still the same. It's just the heights and some of the setbacks are a little different. No, it's actually the reach of the boundary. So I am reducing the boundary of this neighborhood multifamily district. Not in East Starlington because it can't be reduced any further and retain required contiguity to my understanding. Okay. I just want to make clear that if you add any areas, I'm not sure we can do that because you have given the owners proper notice. I have added five parcels and according to Claire, they are within apparently you send out notices to parcels within 300 feet of the affected parcels. So this is well within that boundary. So they should have been noticed. Okay. That's a requirement of any map change is that we notice everybody within the who's impacted exactly by the map change and then any of butters within 300 feet of the closest parcel that she wants to do. All the butters have been notified. Correct. Okay. So all right. That's all I have to say. Thank you. I guess any questions from the public? Well, question or comment. I mean, the same thing. Yeah. Do you might comment? So to you, but I can ask, I mean, I just Can you come up and set your name and and so everybody else can hear it too. So yeah, Grant Cook, Walliston, so I am precinct 16. So I know this isn't going to be an amendment. We debate here, but I do if it was, I would encourage you to vote no action on it. I mean, the changes you made, I was in a precinct meeting last night and someone said, I want a bit more compromise in arguing for us going down to the do nothing basic bare minimum. That's to me feels like compromise, like where someone doesn't order dessert and ask for half of yours and then ask for a few more bites later. We keep cutting this down. So last week, you guys did some big changes and the expressed explanation of your changes was that you're going to make these neighborhood units consistent with the neighborhood shorter setbacks consistent. If they're consistent with the neighborhood, then let's not treat them like outcast in the neighborhood. 250 to me if this was to go forward is their own direction. I think it should go to 450. I mean, if they are neighborhood consistent, they should be welcome to the neighborhood. My block on Park Ave, which is someplace I think you should, because we all agree, because I hope we all agree, we'll do more of this. That's what I've heard from a lot of people. After we take the tenor of the results, my block, my house, Walliston off Park is 350 feet. To me that would cover my house in my street. I think that's an appropriate dimension. So I hope you stick in that range and we stick with the plan we have that is I think a good start. Thank you. Thank you. Please come up and state your name. Yes, thank you, Mr. Steve Moore Piedmont Street. I would like to actually argue the opposite of the comment you just heard, which is 250 I think is a good compromise between those who want zero change and those who support the general approach that the ARP in the town has taken to date prior to the actual folks that will happen in the special town meeting. I don't believe 250 into the neighborhood feet into the neighborhood is unwelcoming. I don't I can't say 450 into the neighborhood is welcoming or unwelcoming. It's just a distance and I don't I don't feel that this particular scaling back is such a massive impact. I would like to ask a question and I apologize I was late to the meeting. This may have been stated during the presentation, so I apologize if this already has been answered, but this change has the analysis been done at all by Ms. 1L about how much this would decrease the current 30 what is it 3200 is the current analysis of the capacity that's generated by the changes you made about a week or two ago. Could could could somebody could you answer that? Let me just check that number. This is sort of in some way completely out of scope of what we're doing. All we're doing is going to say no action on Ms. Evans's warrant article because she doesn't want to go ahead with the warrant article. She hasn't presented a main motion so we're not here to even do what you're saying Mr. Moore or Mr. Cook was saying we're not we're not here to do that that's okay that's we're not here to give a pro or con about what Ms. Evans is going to propose as an amendment tonight. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Batson. I apologize. Sure no problem. Does anybody else want to make a comment? I'm going to close a comment and discuss some of themselves. Is there a motion or do you want to discuss further or? I have nothing to no further questions Mr. Chair. I would make a motion that we recommend no action on this article. Hold second. Okay Steve. Yes. Yes. And also yes. There was no action on this. Now moving on to document number two is Jim here. Hey Jim we're running a little early today. Thank you for being here. Yes please can you come sit down here and I do want to say that there's only three of us here today and we cannot vote on this today. Okay. For instance there's only three of us here. So what I suggest is can we reschedule you to come back again? Sure. Or do you feel like you wanted to say something since you're here already? No I think at the introduction that you gave me a month or so ago when we were over in the Selectman's hearing room. Okay. I kind of gave an overview and then the comments that I submitted I think really outlined it. That's it. All right so can we make a time? Can we reschedule this? Sure. Unfortunately we we got Talmini coming up and that's going to occupy 20. Most of our time. We're meeting on the 20th of November? Yes. That works mostly. That's cutting it pretty close to the three-year deadline. Is there an earlier November meeting? There's November 6th but we haven't noticed it. Although I guess we did notice this. We can open and continue to the 6th. Let's do that. The 6th? Yep. Thank you for that observation. Does 6th work for you? Yep. Excellent. Can I get a motion for the 6th? So I move that the hearing be continued to November 6th at 7 30 p.m. at 27 Maple Street or at some other location at which we may meet. I have a second on this. I would ask a friendly amendment not to give the time because it may not be the 7 30. All right to 7 30 or such time as we shall meet at 27 Maple Street or such place as we shall meet. Thank you. I will second that. Steve? Yes. Yes. I'm a yes. Thank you. So we'll continue this. Okay sorry for today. No worries. Thank you. The third thing on our agenda open forum. Does anybody here want to speak upon open forum? You got three minutes. Can you state your name and address and Yes. Hi. I'm Anne LaRoyer, 12 Pierce Street. I was here for the hotel discussion and he referenced a previous meeting that had some discussion. I'm not aware of that and I just want to know what that was and if there's any report on it. So Mr. Doherty attended the ARB meeting the night of August the 28th and an open forum made the request that the ARB reopened his hearing related to the hotel. It's in the minutes. August 28th? It was a verbal request. That's right. So that was all that was discussed was just. There was nothing else shown or a present. When he was going. Okay. Okay. He just asked for an extension. Yes. I Nothing new has been submitted at this time. That's why the documents from three years ago are related to this. That's what I'm trying to understand what you know. So he was basically just asking for an extension. That's correct. Of the whole project. Of the project. Yes. Okay. Well I have a question about some of the conditions that in the in the original permit or their decision. One was about trees being cut down and it said in the conditions that there was one tree to be cut down. But in fact they've already cut down three trees behind the DAV building. They were most I think they were all three norway maples which are not our favorite trees but still they were large trees. Part of them had fallen down on top of the roof and so I understand that there had to be some correction made probably but that I just wanted to clarify that there were actually three trees rather than just one that was cited in the in the conditions. And I also have a question about junk cars because on the site if anybody goes by there you'll see at least five trucks and cars that have been parked there for years. And I know there's a bylaw a town bylaw relating to that with including fees. And I just wonder whether that's ever been raised as a concern. I mean it's just part of the abuse of that property that's been going on for years. And I know that you know maybe eventually it'll be improved with a hotel or some other project that he proposes but for now it's it's it's still is a you know a terrible looking site. And if this is going to be continued for another year or you know I don't know how long I just would hope that somebody could look into to whatever bylaw town bylaws are related to the junk cars that have been there like I say for decade for not well probably decades. It's been over 10 decades 10 years that he's owned that property. Anyway it's just it's just a mess and it's too bad that this has been prolonged for so long. Thank you. Can I say something? Sure. We don't have any authority over the junk cars. You know you might find out who it is in town who enforces the bylaw and pursue that. My suggestion is calling the building department. Okay. Anybody else? Seeing nobody else I'm closing Article 3 open forum and turn to Article 4 new business. Claire do you have anything before today? I have no new business for today other than to remind folks that town meeting starts tomorrow night. We will be discussing several warrant articles related to business zones and zoning. It's not anticipated that MBTA communities or Article 12 will be taken up before next Monday. Thank you. Steve? Yes I have two questions. One I was wondering what the current state of affairs is with Calix the recreational dispensary. So okay let's speak has I've been in contact with them they will be on the agenda for the sixth. Okay and the other my other question what Mr. Chair was have we heard from town council regarding voting quant about voting quantum's for the various business district articles you know the half versus two-thirds because I know there was a question of the 50 threshold possibly applying to some questions well taken I have been pursuing the town council for an answer to that question for a few days now I can continue to look for an answer obviously before tomorrow evening. You know we got a new town council it's a transition right now so it's going to be a little Jean do you have me? No I have none so I'm going to close new business and is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Steve? Yes. Jean? Yes. And I'm a yes also. Thank you very much for coming and very short meeting but thank you. Thank you all. I'll see you guys tomorrow at town meeting right?