that but we won't be able to vote on that this evening unless we have the th member of the board come so while we wait for him to come we will be looking at a couple of things  delay on this and hopefully car will come and the case will have the public hearing he will be able to watch that on t v before the next meeting and we will be able to continue the public hearing until the next meeting at the soonest in the meeting of the planning board and be able to have a vote on that i should i should introduce the members of the board this is a step on my right steve pinkerton vice chair on my left and the staff player spencer go over on my far left spencer do you have a couple things that you want to begin with i do yes st real quickly there were two additional hearings that were originally planned for this evening unfortunately the a better notifications for both of those hearings did not go out in time to meet the legal requirements so they those notices were remailed w two ordered road was one that went through both of them both white road and ordered road went to a working group meetings and i was disappointed to see that twenty two other road submitted  plans that didn't respond to the recommendations and the agreements that we came to in the working group there in fact in a couple of instances are now encroaching on a side setback that they weren't before they have the depth of the building is bigger than it was the height is slightly lower by seven inches but still it is well above the thirty feet that we have been looking at for that neighborhood and indeed improved on approved on twenty two bacon road  hearing be prepared for that i would think we'd want to see another set of plans before them before they come to us i don't see any point in going over that if they're not going to respond to either community developments recommendations earlier and and the working the if there have been comments from kim in the development and it looks like there are issues with the process we've formed working groups to be able to move things along and help the op look and get their project approved and hopefully they will listen to the feedback from the representatives of the board if that is not the case that presents problems in the public hearing and makes it difficult to move the project forward so we suggest that that applicants bear that in mind and pay attention ok the next thing i want to bring to the amendment was for the inclusionary zoning by law is the final section subsection within that by law and essentially it defines a clarity on what the value is the current by law doesn't say what the value is based on whether it's market value whether it's construction value structure and cost so there's a mimic provides that clarity  the of the playing board and it's helped us in the past before and i i appreciate his attention to the issues that are happening that are happening with the playing board ny appreciate his attention to detail and clarity on this in this case it's my opinion at least that the part that struck that what would need to be understood in terms of this is that st of all to be very few cases that come in this and that this is a negotiation between the planning board with input from the housing trust in the developer and the no less than five percent clause i think is important the other thing is in terms of the negotiation i think we can establish the market value of of the property of the units when they will be completed that's done all the time and what that would do that would enable us to negotiate with the developer upfront a payment that would be in lieu of providing the units and it  would not be something for example that we have some of the larger developments in time would probably take two to would probably take maybe a year or two or more in the construction phase to get the st part done and the other units might not be done i think in mclean we were talking about a five to six year construction period in takedown of all the units so that the income that would come in would come in over a five to six year period probably more than that you know depending on what the market is the the argument is that potentially you'd catch the upside on this if you haven't go forward in time the counter argument on that is if the market turns you're kind of caught in the developer in my opinion could work this into his pro forma and we i don't believe there's a problem in establishing what the market value of the units would be as completed do you have thoughts on that no i think it's it's it's a lot of work to be paying out a separate making a separate payment for each unit as it sounds to the to the housing trust so it would probably if we could do it up front that based upon an agreed upon number overall number for the entire development to be fine and i don't think we need to put how we would formulate that into the zoning per se the other thing is to one of the big problems i mean there are two things actually we would prefer units and not money in terms of this the other problem is  you have the money coming in over time then hopefully the the present value of it gets offset by the the discount on the cash gets upset by the market but what you don't have i'm one of the big issues that we have in terms of affordable housing is capital accumulation it's much better to have a larger sum of capital to be able to work with and have smaller something come in over time so that's my opinion on that and i'll talk about that this evening but i really appreciate the fact that he took the time to think about this and we can learn from that ok next one spencer so just to be clear and staff direction on this is to continue with the limit yet a funny word is already put forward as a quick yes and we will talk to my god this evening and if he wants to go go forward jennifer i the question with regards to the end of section b one which if you recall are the two clauses that basically say if if your project meets one of these clauses you can do the project by right he's suggesting that the end of that section where it currently reads if the building commissioner determines that the proposed alteration or structural change carol bec is proposing either one of these amendments here he's suggesting that it either needs to read if the building commissioner determines that the proposed alteration or for whole change meets none of the clauses a or b but neither of the  staff discussed this today and the only hesitation that we have is that at the time the current draft mirrors the single resident ceiling which exactly and since both of these sections will be next to one another in the by law you would essentially have two sections that were saying the same thing in two different ways right and that's a problem i think i think that we're trying to mimic this or see language as as best we can with the changes  from that being only the ones that are appropriate and necessary for enforcing the standard in the us or be right you know i see what he's talking about and i appreciate what he's saying but i don't think it and i appreciate that again as always has his input on this but in this case i think that we might best keep the language of the other i think dark i think if i could interpret our thoughts on this is that both from the point of view of applicants and the point of view of the application of the of zoning which is the s r c and the s r b which are virtually i mean they're all heading in the same direction they look the same they sound the same and we've we've made some changes in in the s r b that relate to the particular geographical considerations of that in that case it's probably better to keep it the same because then potentially somebody might point out there's a conflict between the two of them or it might be subject to different interpretations and we want to make it clear that that's not the case right now i agree and i thank you for the clarification that's  the town has a housing choice application pending before the state in the state indicated that we're missing one best practice to qualify for housing choice in the way that we achieve that would be to submit community back to the state  including a housing bust practice she wanted to reach out to the planning board st before taking that step to make sure that it was something that the board was also interested in doing the housing best practice that seems to be most in line with point back to works that have been done we're committing to doing this effort or going forward that's right so we can we can talk our redevelopment of our our rezoning of waverly square with that in mind that's absolutely right that's all right so so that will work and and and and i think the vice chair going fo that is all that i have let's walk through the the so the last meeting the board wanted to add language on here that really they called attention to the fact that one of the primary reason for the amendment is the fact that the single residents the residents came to the board and asked for this this indicates that it only affects large additions to homes on the non conforming lawns could just to make it clear that we're not talking about the entire district only on conforming loans that we can that's that's just pulling out a statement that you already got the actual elevation absolutely and that then just would be a real quick slide and to show people contour lines and that's easy enough to point out that those are contour lines and the closer together they are the steeper the slope and that's and we did at that and i think that  right and the one below and you're right walking through the neighborhood i think when we get there on ground level we're going to be able to find some other good example so you know that we're doing ok for the next slide  don't worry about the next one you can show so just remove this one yeah ok i think that's going to be unnecessarily detail but when you when you present this steve make sure you show clearly what pleasant non conforming launce what happens is that people think that this may apply to their property on their twelve thousand square foot lot and they need to understand that it's only large houses on non conforming  alterations exceeding three hundred square feet to a non conforming structure of the zone by law in order to construct a nd floor addition totaling approximately five hundred square feet at thirty three dollars trowbridge street street located in the general residence zoning district  with the applicant like to make their presentation at this point if you could bring the microphone up and just as as you speak just introduce yourselves so that we're recorded house is on a non conforming lot and the right side side setback is also non conforming we're proposing to the nd story over the single storey half of the building  and which is approximately just over five hundred square feet and it will house two bedrooms and a single about the room the family is currently a growing family a young child who years of age and  another one and they're really looking to stay within the neighborhood they've been part of the neighborhood for quite a while now and the reason why we're proposing to keep a full footprint of the existing non conforming is because if we do set back by another additional two feet on the right side it doesn't give way for proper size bedroom on the nd floor  also the structural stability of the chimney if we were to have a dormer like nd floor offset by two feet it would just be standing up by itself so we're proposing to  statically stay within the code for the chimney to extend it by approximately nine feet and painting it color which would make that chimney look cohesive it wouldn't  keep the house or the chimney from feeling like it is in addition we are proposing using same siding on the house as the existing house and painting the front facade brick same color as the chimney i believe we are under the max height restriction and zoning g r as well and  garage is where the bedrooms are and the right side of the house is where the living dining in kitchen exist right now and that's a single story and the bedrooms in the garage are considered two stories the left side a very poor design where if you look at the neighboring building it looks like a bowling alley effect in essence so we were trying to avoid that completely and keep the house from looking like it belongs in that neighborhood of gable from what level but most of the rest of the houses in the neighborhood are two family two story correct order to four single family two story but they're mostly two story and some of them are then the house next to you i believe true story colonial historical correct and it's a very eclectic neighborhood there is a mix of different styles of homes in that area  for us but in this neighborhood with all of the two story buildings there are quite a few of those going on so that's not going to be inconsistent with that and it's also not you're not actually presenting it seems to be a full story you know because is the slopes that it's quite a bit of slope going exactly when you're starting from the main road slopes down so the house to the right actually is much higher yes and it just tears down all the way to dad of this organization will bring you we find in i think one of the issues that that's come up before in terms of the side says it's setbacks you know with all the special permit process it depends on how it fits in with the neighborhood and we found in some cases it to be intrusive in terms of the neighborhood this neighborhood is a dense neighborhood with pretty high buildings and there's a lot of the regularity here this doesn't seem to do anything in a negative sense from my point of view on my person on on the you only have one window presenting actually to the to the into that side step back correct and so it's not as if you're being invasive of out development that fits in with the neighborhood it presents a benefit in the not a detriment to the neighborhood so i'm i'm with if there are any other comments  i think we could close the public hearing and take a vote on this move to close the public hearing nd on favor would somebody like to move to approve the special permit fo