consider amending section six a of the belmont zoning bylaw by making the following changes to the mclean district zoning district in the senior living subdistrict zones three allow senior directed housing increase the percentage requirement for affordable housing alter the dimensional requirements increase the setbacks for fences or walls and change the parking requirements number and location of spaces and in the research and development the subdistrict zone for allow mclane institutional educational and residential uses these amendments are proposed to encourage development of zones three and four in the mclean district zoning district the complete text of the you can bring them the microphone up if you want or you can come here if you want to get you reference sure sure you don't migrate you need a microphone you can take the microphone off that it's fine it does if you speak close enough it does amplified by the purposes for the people who are are watching us thank you in please introduce yoursel so good evening my name to show and i'm the executive vice president chief operating officer over at mclean hospital nice to see you all tonight i've been involved with this project since one thousand nine hundred and ninety six when it all got started so i'm going to spend a few moments just sort of giving a little bit of a context because i know many of you i recognize and you're very familiar with the whole concept behind land use and the districts at mclean others for whom this may be new it's probably worth spending just a moment or two on it so back when the original development was pulled together and the parcels were rezoned to go along with the new district for mclean a number of benefits also were involved in this process there was attention to an expanded taxpayer certainly the newtown cemetery that's already in process over one hundred acres of open space you see all of the green that was outlined in terms of all of this area here that has been made accessible transfer of land for the fordable housing that was built here and also construction of the road that went up that was to be to the zones in order to access that to really optimize the availability for units so the historic preservation has been recognized and also we have done some contributions to some of the traffic mitigation that's happened along pleasant street as well as m street over the years so it's within this context originally the northland development that you see here for zone one a one b and two has been fully built out unfortunately zone three the senior living subdistrict and zone for the r and d despite having some very intense interest in the beginning we were not able to successfully be go forward with the developments for those sites so at this point in time we're now coming back to look at being able to bring those forward and be able to recognize the values not only to the hospital but to the town of having those resources here as well so  you so what i'm going to talk a little bit about is zone four because one of the things we thought was important in coming back to you with all of this would be to explain what would happen in zone four as well as what would happen in zone three so jack dollie will talk about zone three and he has a very fleshed out pose a what i'm going to outline for you is our vision for zone four and the simple reason that these things are going to be separated in time frame has to do with the fact that in order to do what we would like to do in zone four which is construct a child and adolescent academic and residential campus we need to raise the money to do that and that we expect will take about five years to do but i wanted to be able to share with you this vision so you'll get a good sense of what would go on in zone three what would go on and zone four and how that might all work so nicely together so what we're proposing here is to be able to pull together on this area here line this child and adolescent academic and residential campus this will allow us to move our two schools that we already operate together along with all of the support services that go with those and have a dedicated entrance coming off of pleasant street for those services this also allows us to continue with the original zoning here and be able in the long run to have an r and d smaller r and d facilities still be there and in between that have the parking that would be necessary to support these two uses so the reason we like these two to be able to coexist in that property we would still be within the one hundred and fifty thousand dollars square foot on the local which is the original a lot of amount for square footage but also it's going to allow us to preserve a lot of the green area here that we have and really construct what's going to be constructed largely an already disturbed area where we formally had other buildings in a parking lot so it will still maintain the very important value of having the green space the ability to have the campus still have the important feel that it had because part of the reason putting the campus on the historic register it's also the landscape features as well as the buildings that are important and we want to preserve the really open sense of the campus and that's one of the major values of the facility so this is what we're proposing to do and we're looking for the enlarging of the use for a zone for to be able to accommodate what we already do in zone five we're still nothing else will be changing one of the dimensional requirements none of the other  prescribe restrictions that are in the zone and so they would all remain the same thank you i'm sorry yes so i've been reminded to also mention as part of this there is an elaborate memorandum of understanding with the town and a number of parts that go with that and one of the essential parts of that there is a tax agreement so certainly the intice a patient was the r and d building would be paying taxes so if in the future when that becomes developed that will incur be additional to the tax base and the other element for what we would be doing we are not for profit so we would be arranging a payment lieu of taxes kind of thing with the town so it's an important point to raise that this would still be a revenue generating use for zone for my understanding is the mclean is and was on the parcel of this point at this point we do not because part of also what was in the agreement here was once the actual tax revenue eclipsed what mclean had paid which it has several many many years ago with the northland development that that ceased we were the only institution paying taxes   of taxes but would you anticipate paying taxes based on the unimproved value of the site so i think that will all be a discussion put together when we actually have a much crisper vision of what we building on the site because at this point the hospital owns and there is no development on it so we're four or five years from now that's my expectation because of the fund raising if it works excess when it goes faster than we'd be delighted to move it faster are you marketing the r and d when not currently now have you been marketing it in the last three or four years we have had it was actually under agreement up until about four or five years ago and then when we started to rethink w spencer the draft languages that you have the draft language this is the language that's been proposed by playing extend whatever institutional uses that mclean have into the other portion of it yes ok yes i just want to keep clear on that and those can someone tell me what the institutional uses are they just traditional institutional uses like classrooms and so clinical services academic services and research we also have a major research enterprise that includes the residential service also for yes yes that's a part of the clinical service that part of the school yes on the schools which is the academic art school but yes no other no employee housing no no my other question is that i was thinking about this when i read the memorandum of understanding and i appreciate you know the benefits that have come to the town in mclean as a result of the agreement but i'm sure you've thought about this and perhaps this is reflected in your payment in lieu of taxes potential agreement that there was a payment partially kin those payments were based on the design of what the square footage is we're going to be as allocated in the major plan through across all of the zones so i don't think there is anything else one way or the other that has to be well i think we'll need councils to take a look at that i mean it was clear that when you read the memorandum of understanding there's a clear intent that there is consideration paid by the town to reduce the yes the build ability of the site and the town hasn't benefited from that so it's something that needs to be negotiated so i would think that's on the table at some point where it should be at least reflected in how you know in lieu of taxes go shit now i believe that the value of this site and the other side fairly much the same they're in the eight to nine one million dollar initially on this i think the payment move tax is that would be a good thing i think it needs to take that in mind and the fact that there was consideration done almost twenty years ago has been no financial  compensation for the town in terms of that and i think when we talk when you talk with the town council about a one million will have taxes that's a consideration and that's frankly a consideration for me as i look at this at this  also actually delighted that we're actually moving forward with us and i think that the academic building is quite exciting and so i'm glad that this is all happening for belmont because we do need the revenue so my comment actually is relative to the issue the proposal what that percentage is on a on a land basis or how that would be carved up in this and so that we could get a sense what are we setting aside that we know is strict for profit aren't r and d versus  the child an adolescent program which i think is terrific thank you thank you i i suspect i suspect some point it'll have to be worded this is the payment and tax agreement that it will it'll have language to the effect of the uses so so for example if it's if it becomes all mclean a so then the question is does the r and d sit there for a while again and then are we sitting there for another ten years until until that's developed not receiving any taxes again until it's developed as a school again  right so it's that sort of which way is the mission creep and one of those things executed and how do we protect belmont you know expanding some tax base bank i mean i mean the the the actual you know proposal to to expand the services of the of the hospital is noteworthy i mean you know no none of us disagree with that it's a good thing we represent the town of belmont and the people of belmont in the interest of the belmont you represent the interests of but plain so are our long term goal is to find commonality in that so that's why we're asking  of the each of the sites and so the at the assessor's the redline brain train you know it's going right up to you know al wife look at watertown what's happening and so i think that we're not so far off from from from our life so it's probably facility otherwise we're packing a lot more into the district than has been there but it was potentially there under the current zoning well i actually think tell me if i'm wrong in terms of this so you maximum builder for zone four was going to be one hundred and fifty thousand square feet what they're proposing is they're going to do approximately seventy thousand square feet for the school and ancillary uses and that so the remainder would be about seventy five thousand dollars which would be the potential r and d so that would equal the build out that was proposed ok thank you additional questions step for the town and for mclean i think the question i have is that in addition to the obvious one that the amount of real estate tax would be lower because we're cutting down on the size of the r and d development  and the other question is that the original plans also called for the preservation of certain trees and certain open space and maybe you've already answered that but is that going to all remain the same down the pleasant street that would service the schools and the r and d the road is already built that we're talking about almost a drive which circuit is the affordable housing units that are there right off propeller road so that's already built and that will just be continued up to access on three and four and connect to pleasant street correct and there was a whole effort to study the traffic numbers and to achieve safe and doable traffic on the site and off the site and are you looking at that question in terms of clues what i can tell you is that we haven't looked at those numbers and fortunately i believe for what we were proposing for a zone for there's not a whole lot of difference the distribution of the numbers are specific to am time frames pm time frames and then there's a trip total for the day so we've been looking at that and think that we're pretty close to those numbers that doesn't mean that we might not need to look more carefully at maybe the evening ones or so forth but relatively close and with some fairly minor adjustments i think one of the other positive things since you raised the traffic would be that since the two schools already exist and the traffic comes off mill street which is already challenged that traffic would be coming off pleasant and those are tend to be off hours kinds of things so not only that will the traffic not necessarily increase greatly but will also be moving the less peak hour traffic to another side of the campus and what is your timing for when you want to have  changed we'd like to have the zoning changed as soon as possible so we can start the fund raising to really bring this vision forward her thanks for actually for that clarification the actual entrance to the zone for where the building for the john the adolescent center would be would be right off that exact same road there's no separate road roger rub l precinct five the town has certain climate change goals and carbon goals and with new development in town and with the potential for development of the mclean it'll sort of potentially be moving us in the wrong direction in terms of meeting our climate goals so i'd like to suggest that in the zoning it say that whatever is built on that site those services are currently given so i imagine those aren't being marked bald so i would think that there would be traffic or uses that would be going into those existing areas so i'd be interested to know when we look at overall traffic usage that what is going into the existing space because it's not i don't think it negates you know i don't think they cross each other out michele have you you seem like you guys have a thought about many of these issues been talking about this for a long time so it's a fair point i think what we're trying to really figure out i mean one of the challenges we have is there a lovely one hundred and ninety s buildings which are lovely eight hundred and ninety s buildings so one of the real opportunities here in addition to building a new structure would be to be able to really look at some of those older structures in a much more thoughtful way so i think you raise an important point about that what might they be retooled to do but i think what we're mostly finding is that we'll probably have a repurposed scene of them to really have things work a lot better of what we already have so in some ways it actually will be less of a traffic generator because we have very much constrained square footage for everything we do now and it will certainly make for a much more comfortable and productive environment for our patients and staff if we can spread things out a little bit without increasing the cars the other comments from the audience had a very constructive positive effective working relationship with mclean hospital and with northland rehabilitation of historic buildings in the campus and design of new buildings we are very very interested in the zoning changes for both zone three and four and so we'd like to have an opportunity to just kind of get into the weeds with you a little bit about just to fine you know look over the the zoning remember i don't think we have to do this in a public setting but our in the historic district commissions interest of course is that the historic landscape and buildings of mclean hospital is you know retained to the greatest system possible it is listed on the national register of historic places and is really an important resource and  which is the most recent recent emissions inventory for the town of belmont and as you look at this chart you'll notice that the q biggest sources of emissions in belmont are what's marked in yellow vehicles or transportation and then what's marked in orange which is natural gas now assuming that no new development in mclean the energy committee and others in and belmont have spent thousands of hours over the last ten years working on reducing emissions with transportation and in buildings ten years and it bothers me that this has been pursued without conversations occurring with the the town entities that are charged with having an oversight and having activities on this type of this area and i'm not going to stand up and say that these shouldn't be pursued at this time but i think it is appropriate to suggest that were way way way ahead of where we should be that this whole process should be slowed down the board of selectmen should be brought into the process each the town committees that has an institutional interest in some aspect whether it's the historic district commissioner the energy committee or the housing trust should be brought into the conversation in it can't be and the town planning board sought to impose unanimously sought to impose certain conditions and the town got sued in the town lost and the piece of paper that i've handed you is the relevant page out of that court decision and i just want to read two paragraphs out of it the st paragraph saying because i keep hearing oh well we'll deal with that insight plan review and that that doesn't work i we been down that road before and we know that it doesn't work because the court said the limited discretion under site plan review should not have been extended to allow the planning board to make its own interpretation of what was best for the town wow that's a pretty amazing  sentence but that's what the court said that function is left to the legislative process which was exercised when the town enact in section six day which was the zoning by law so if it's not in the  that the planning board in that says it right here should not have been extended to allow the planning board to make its own interpretation of what was best for the town and the court went on to say again the planning board had only limited to discretion to determine if the by law was followed so if it's not in the by law it's it's not on the table the condition that it was being challenged of time is an attempt to add terms to the by a law that the legislative body of the town chose not to include as a result i find that the portion of the condition specifying the rental of affordable units was not reasonable and was beyond the scope of the authority of the planning board so if it's not in the by law if the court has said we can't raise it we really need to slow this this process down we really need to bring in the stakeholders and i stand here as one of those stakeholders that believes representing the energy committee or the folks interested in climate change suggesting that we're not ready to do that the process we need to let the process catch up so thank you for in everything i've just said also apply it so i won't stand analysis thank you my response to that is it's been my opinion and we haven't been in this direction and we probably should and we've had  use attorney because they deal with these issues all the time and they work on the other side and they know how to get a round them so i have that in my mind thank you bring  and i left out one thing i'm sorry i agree with what roger rubel suggested i actually came tonight expecting to talk about zero net energy building in both sides but it's really not just simply the buildings remember when you look at the emissions it's both transportation and the building and so the energy issues extend to issues such as such as parking and that has very severe implicate were very substantial severe isn't the right word very substantial implications for our ability to our cheever our climate action goal so it's more it includes buildings but not limited to buildings right as i recall when you when you came and spoke to us was it early it was after the last time you think it was early this year and to spoke about the committee in the goals that you're the head of at this point or part of this point are you coming to town meeting to talk about this because i believe that one of the outcomes that you're talking about was for me a committee to look into this and you us as if we want to be part of that at that time and i  we've we said that we did that it was important and we want to be so is that coming up a town meeting that won't come up in town meeting we went to the board of selectmen and asked the board of selectmen not whether they thought that was a good idea and they said that was a great idea that committee if all else is set aside as we go through we i'm changing weeds here but as the town develops its budget but as soon as we get by town meeting as soon as we adopt a town budget that multi the committee effort is going to be convened yes we will we'll be happy to be part of that and we will be happy to be leadership on that that's great if that's appropriate this is an ideal example of why that's needed because it's got climate change both on the transportation area and on the i don't want to dominate thank you very much thank you or any other comments on this part of it on  four at this point on this so this is a public hearing for both parts so so if i don't hear i'm let me ask the board does the board have comments on what we've heard what we've discussed you can carry your microphone just make sure you introduce yourself we know who you are but not everybody and hold on a nd you're an attorney right here i think but i don't think you can retire and you can last but you can't retire events already on there maybe around three o'clock today so i believe spencer everything that shows up here firm for those that aren't familiar with northland northland like michelle has been involved with the mclean hospital campus for quite some time i believe and that michelle and in ninety eight dollars or ninety nine dollars i signed a purchase and sale agreement with mclean and partners at the end of ninety nine dollars for the acquisition to permit ing acquisition and development of what is known as zones one a one b and two otherwise known as the residential subdistrict zones on we commenced construction and we acquired the property in march of two thousand and five and started construction shortly thereafter and proceeded to build out one hundred and eleven dollars townhouses on the three respective parcels and we created an additional ten units in three rehabilitated retained in real ability to buildings on each of those parcels and namely the carriage house building which is located just up on the left of mill adult or an empty nester it is not an age restricted community if you will in my parlance it's an age targeted community what does that mean we design the floor plans in the live in the living space of the homes to be attractive those properties sold on an ad for an average of about a one million to over the course of the project we did experience a rather unique recession during our build out that slow down o build out in the two thousand and eight to two thousand and ten period but we came back rather robustly in the nd half of two thousand and ten and completed the project on or about the two thousand and fifteen the project generates about two million dollars presently in reoccurring tax revenue it was about another one million plus worth of one time fee income building permit fees occupancy permit fees contributions toward sewer i and i removed all and the like last time i did a survey which i've done a couple times we determine that there was something less than five school age kids living within the one hundred and twenty one units i can't entrance there is no for hickey where exeter eeg ras permitted down the existing homestead drive to pleasant street that was something that was strictly prohibited in the zoning that was enacted in the developer i am the one developer that is actually developed one of the parcels created by town meeting in one thousand nine hundred and nine and maclean and partners and i have remained in close contact with each other  relates to zone three and we've had on and off conversations michelle and i for probably since two thousand and ten about that parcel and about perpetuating a similar use to that which i created and accessed by an existing row that mclean hospital built off of pleasant street this is the star market building and parking lot this is the back pleasant street curb cut to the star market parking lot and olmsted drive comes in here round the corner there is a curb cut here to access waverly oaks town's waverly oaks community it climbs up the hill across the property and terminate presently about here this is zone four out and here this is the old one with the name of that building was it's no longer there higgins higginson building it's no longer there that's known for this is on three as outlined by blue the map is oriented with south to the bottom in north to the top so the so and topography rises from top to bottom and a little bit from west to east this is  of the woodlands at belmont hill waverly oaks is here open space junction brook out here in mclean institutional campus here and then of course the historic upham bowl right here there are two existing structures on the property one is the former superintendent's residence and or office building as it's referred to in various documents and the nd which is the chapel building the memorandum of agreement and historic preservation a must keep must save must do something with the superintendent's house office building is would like to keep it nice to keep there's some deep bone density bonus incentives if you will for keeping it when i get into my plan you'll see that i am not proposing to keep it but i obviously am proposing to keep the chapel building there is an existing sewer line that that runs across the property from this north west and north east corner scuse me to the south and then along the bottom and then it runs down almost a drive out to pleasant street the property is completely utility n noun but sewer water gas and electric has been run up into the property to service both zone for a zone three and it provides some continuity of connection disturbed here that sewer line is sort of partially grown in at present there's some cluster of trees here and there is only by law does require that close pay as close attention is paid to natural features and that is not something that we have looked to change in the byline when we get there trees are are good that's the parcel tenser if i could ask you to go on  and the time what they got a permit for was a seven building six story a seven building six story six hundred thousand square foot c c r c are continuing care retirement community consisting of four hundred and eighty two units which would consist of a mix of independent living units assisted living units nursing bed units and i believe some alzheimer's memory memory care or memory impairment units the property is the sort of tran if you if you if you had young kids they like to play with these things called transformers so this is sort of the transformer man building and you can see that it pretty much consumes most of the site and it had for it called for four hundred and fifty parking spaces to be located on site much of it under this building and it had a maximum height at its highest point and someone will ask me what that was i don't know where that was i don't know but it was approximately sixty seven feet it was closely scrutinized to the permanent process but ultimately did have a permit the bylaw as it is written requires that thirty of the non nursing beds which were captive believe three hundred and thirty dollars units would be required as affordable units at one hundred and twenty percent am i that is what was litigated that was what was written into the zoning and the and that and the playing board put a condition in the permit for something different than that namely an eighty percent am i threshold that thirty of the of the four hundred and eighty  or the three hundred and thirty dollars units translates in in percentage terms to about a nine percent of the non nursing beds and there were allowed to be phased into the development as it was built out meaning it was not a requirement to build thirty bet mark thirty affordable units st and then a market rate unit but there was some proportionality throughout the build up so this is what was permitted again a seven building six story six hundred thousand four hundred and eighty two unit project it didn't come to pass we know that's why i'm here so if we can move on i am not in this system living memory care nursing business career has been toward been focused on seeking out opportunities to create what we call active adult empty nester age directed senior housing units for folks that look like me and maybe some of you that is otherwise known as age restricted we do not choose to do age restricted as a as a practice in fact i have d h restricted a number of projects because the financing associated with large scale interest directed projects is a very very difficult thing to obtain  banks have been burned by it and therefore it is not an asset class that is that is that for seniors that banks are favorable so what we did was we came up with this a plan that was the notion behind it always was is how do we integrate air perpetuate and a use similar to what we believed was well received in the market well received by the town and by every standard and that i have heard was successful the woodlands so what we've done is we've plotted a series of either duplex foot printed sized structures or tri plex or four unit buildings we have literally taken the footprints that we built on the adjacent parcels as building blocks as lego blocks to work from a land planning perspective and begun to lay them out we have also then gone to the north east corner of the property and tried to introduce some density to the zoning allows up to four hundred and eighty dollars units and then some density bonuses so the parcel can hold or handle a fair amount of density so the notion was that it's to transition the massing from zone two to similar massing a got further away from both zone two and most notably historic upham bowl and closer to the institutional character of the mclean hospital campus to introduce a larger building what we call in our building a garden style or of multi story flats building and we are and so that's what these two buildings are we have to call in single families connected at a garage in this little corner right here overlooking up and bowl sort of mirroring what we have here you have the chapel building here that would be retained as is required and converted to some form of residential use two hundred and thirty four units similar to what i did in the kitchen at the carriage house or in the carriage house which is four units and in the upper house which is nine units you know this is a diagram this isn't a final site planned brought it in opposite this curb cut or emergency access gate of zone two however there is a cluster of trees in here that are worthy of saving so we moved it down the hill to align it with where the sewer line pops out  same thing up here this is an existing very large oak tree so this road comes up above it again trying to utilize the same approach to looking at the natural resources that are there and respecting where impossible running a road in to the site and double loading it with townhouses of the same scale here thirty six feet high and down along this bottom t junction books is way way over here where we're not in any resource area to junction brook or outside of one hundred dollars foot setback requirement and then to larger buildings these are flats buildings they would be four storey flats buildings and they would have each have their own parking underneath it one would be accessed here and the nd access would be coming here coming here we've played with connecting these two buildings in between both above ground and underground we've also played with bending the top of this building to the left but at this juncture this is the plan that you know that we're working with this plan represents one hundred and twenty five non age restricted units that are designed marketed and tailored to a senior audience they would be retain and reuse the chapel building the overall density of this plan is about a little less a little little more than five less than the plan i showed you before at forty townhouses would meet the same architectural design standards and metrics as that which exists in the residential zones and it would require they be no taller the two and a half stories at thirty six feet flats building would be four stories above an underground garage  overall parking would be like like you see here about a half of the a r c plan the townhouses have a two car garage so the parking is called for to be two units per townhouse unit and approximately one and a half units one and a half spaces per flat unit the present zoning calls for one space per unit but obviously it's a much different population there is a need for some guests last service spaces that would be scattered out throughout the community for use the same math that we that we have over here and sort of translated over here over to zone three we believe that occur nonrecurring revenue in the way of building permit fees and sewer i and i feel and things of that nature in earlier discussions with the planning board and planning staff we were  encouraged to consider a different approach to affordable housing than that which is called for in the present zoning bylaw and we came came to the planning board in mid february i believe it was  proposed a a a ratio of sixteen percent affordable units against the unit count and if you apply sixteen percent against one hundred and twenty create it would create twenty affordable units and we also lowered or changed our proposing to lower change the income eligibility threshold  from one hundred and twenty percent am i to eighty percent am i if i can go to the next slide please this is a compare and contrast i don't think it  requires much many words other than to look at it four hundred and eighty two on the left proximately one hundred and twenty five on the right district to permit non assisted living and or a c c r type of use six a point one point to point a needs to be amended the language needs to be expanded effectively to permit independent living dwelling units including side by side attached single family dwellings multifamily flats for seniors and active adults there's a lot of words in that particular clause so i didn't type  dense to delete the age qualified occupancy requirement and reinforce that it's a senior directed community to amending inclusionary housing requirement to comport with that which we have represented were willing to do that being sixty percent sixteen percent scuse me sixteen percent of the unit count at an eighty percent am i there are some minor amendments st size composition parking retaining wall i know that will strike many in the audience is way too broad a statement it truly is minor adjustments there namely parking one per unit we need to adjust that the parking requirement is also a it's own  they it may well self serving way i will say they are minor adjustments there are important adjustments for you the planning board the audience and town meeting to consider but i think when i'm not a new guy i'm an old guy i've developed on the site i'm well known both on the hill and throughout the town the product is is a it's a proven product i've been doing it for thirty four years i'm doing it on extension four sorry but that it's a significantly scaled back project it's not six hundred thousand square feet it's not sixty seven feet tall it's not four hundred and eighty two dollars units there's a mix of housing and here it's not all townhouses there's some one bedrooms and two bedrooms and some three bedrooms there it's easily i'll say accessible meaning that in the flats building there it's an elevated building it's underground secure a parking units can be designed to allow for aging in place quite easily and that kind of model this this plan this vision would generate twenty new  recurring permit fees the traffic is well established we know what the traffic is all we have to do is live look next door and there we would continue our historic preservation of significant buildings on this campus which i think i have done so i'll raise traffic and then i'll sit down and memorandum agreement has the traffic traffic counts coming and going from the site around mid thirty am coming and going coming and going around ninety pm coming in goings in this plan comports well with all of those metrics using real data derived from measuring the counts that common go on a daily  you can see the extensive your arse very there are some specific items that that are changed in here but when we look at this we see this is a substantial change in  what was proposed and what was agreed on by the town the developer is if if you want to build this project i would hire him he's a good developer he's got  he's got good ideas he's got a good history on things he's been responsive to us on affordable housing the question is what does the town feel and basically the changes that are being proposed here in the other one i'll talk more about this later are relatively small points they're less than five percent but they're significant changes they change what was agreed on in the memorandum of understanding and they change with the goal of the zones are as the difference between the the genetic composition of a human being and a chimpanzee is less than one percent but makes all the difference in the world these make all the difference in the world and so we need to hear now from what the town thinks about these about these changes so we open up the public hearing now we open up for people to come and talk and make comments on the presentations hi i'm rachel heller co chair of the housing trust and resident of precinct three i do want to acknowledge  that the proposal has changed over the last few weeks and it is nice to see that there are more affordable homes being included in the development and greater density that being said we all know that housing is very expensive here and home prices far exceed incomes we have a great need for affordability here in belmont almost a quarter of our residents qualify for affordable housing the good news is we are making progress we have in the last year proposal that would strengthen our inclusionary zoning policies those are all great housing production plan was a really big accomplishment for our town it was a community process we learned about the needs of our community we're able to identify strategies create a plan for development and one of the most important things about the housing production plan is that we need to make progress for it's really work for us and to do to really benefit the town right now we have an approved housing production plan that means that the state has signed off on it  says this follows what has improved production plan should do to actually give belmont more control over the kind of development that happens here we need to actually make progress and show the state that we're developing housing and that would lead to a certified production plan right now belmont needs three hundred and thirty seven dollars more homes to get to the states ten percent benchmark of affordability this is a requirement we all know for every community it doesn't mean that we're done when we have that ten percent but it's a standard that every  community should hit we have and once he gets that ten percent then we have full control we decide how we build housing going forward rather than having development happen to us this property in mclean is really one of the few opportunities we have to make significant progress if not actually get to the full ten percent and so i think it's important that we really look at this opportunity and we make sure that mclean is getting what mclean needs out of it and it's getting what we need out of it  and furthermore we need more rentals this whole develop this whole proposal is homeownership rental renters in belmont earn half the income of homeowners and forty four percent of our renters are considered cost burdened the state needs more rentals and that's why the state will count one hundred percent of a rental development as affordable towards our ten percent if a quarter of that development is affordable at eighty percent of the median income that means by doing a much denser development with twenty five percent affordability that's a rental we could really move forward if not hit that ten percent benchmark the housing trust is proposed that we do a local initiative program a lip also called a friendly forty b and this is a way that the developed developer in the town can work together to get twenty five percent affordability and again move forward in me in a big drastic way in our needs in the town and also hitting the ten percent so in closing i think we can do a lot better again i'm glad to see that there's been an increase in affordable units that's wonderful it's great to come down from one hundred and twenty percent to eighty percent we need better we need more i think we need to slow this down i think we really need to work together with mclean and figure out how to make sure that we're getting to mutually beneficial were each going what we need out of this so i hope that the planning board will slow us down a little bit and let's really work together thanks anybody else of charles hyman again looking at this project and comparing it to freedom commons the the failed project this is a huge improvement i think that looking retrospectively at freedom commons it would have been a disaster for the town in terms of the amount of traffic that it would have generated and that was standing in also maybe to a lesser extent because some people don't care about it but it had a very negative to community has definite interest in this project and so far it has been frozen out of it we have not been disc none of our concerns have been addressed or discussed we're hopeful that that will change in the future  but at least from north point of view it appears that there are somewhat resistant to that that idea we have we still haven't talked to mclean and i'm sure that the will find a room where receptive ears there but i think it's very important that our concerns be heard before the zoning is adopted particularly given what roger cult said about this decision that design and site plan review you're limited in what you can do so if there's something that we want that's not specifically mentioned in the bylaw then maybe we don't have the ability to get it done so it would be much better to work things out with the developer and get things spelled out pretty pretty well in advance another thing i just thank you for sharing the proposal with me i looked at paragraph three which is not on the screen but i'm alarmed paragraph three suggest and this isn't anything on north paragraph three says there's still a maximum density of four hundred and eighty units on this property and i mean i realize that's not what's proposed but something this fails four hundred and eighty too much shouldn't happen shouldn't happen shouldn't happen it should be a much lower number so that needs to be dealt with too it should not be four hundred and eighty dollars units under twenty five years would be ideal but whatever it is it should be changed yes i am which which which is substantial change in terms of the density and what's proposed yeah the debt which proposes one hundred and twenty five as i said it's a vast improvement over what was previously proposed and we have no problem with that density but you can't time down that i think that just saying that four hundred and eighty still a potential assuming this goes down somehow i think that's just that should be unacceptable the town not not not only to the you hello i'm gloria leipzig i mean live in precinct five and i'm a member of the board of the belmont housing authority i want to thank maclean's for coming forward on developing this parcel and i think many of us have been waiting a very long time for the opportunity to create more housing in belmont i want to note that ten years ago waverley woods opened on one of the parcels designate in the one million nine hundred and one thousand nine hundred dollars between the town and is michelle was talking about forty apartments for low and moderate income households were developed one dollar acres of land in those town houses and flats range from one bedroom to four bedroom apartments we now have the opportunity to do more personal three consists of twelve acres and the original zoning as jack said allowed for over four hundred and fifty units in a continuum of care a community and buildings up to five or six storeys high certainly more than thirty four large townhouses and eighty five or ninety one in two bedroom condo is can be built on this property so forty townhouses and garden style apartments can be built on one thirty four acres i encourage mclean and the developer and the town to think about how many more condos or units that we can develop on what is effectively eight times the space used for waverly woods i would also to urge mclean the developer to consider a mix of rental housing and condos the housing production plans as rachel noted had forty four percent of renters in belmont and are cost burdened and certainly judging by the waiting list for public housing in belmont housing and family housing there is a real need for more affordable rental housing in town one other comment i think that everyone's been referring to is the sort of confusion around the zoning we are talking about building town houses and flats where somehow we've talked jack has talked about raising the percent of affordability to sixteen percent however that does not mirror the current inclusionary zoning by law which requires fifteen percent affordable but also that all all types of housing would be included in that affordability including the townhouses if we want to at least mirror the intent of i think more than sixteen percent of the units should be affordable to compensate for the fact that not all the all the units at mclean's are all of the fifteen percent to sixteen percent of the units that he's talking about making affordable would not be representative the entire development would only be included in the two fort worth story buildings this is us i agree this is one of the best opportunities that we have here in belmont to address the housing needs of seniors and young families and i hope we make the most of it thank you thank you just a quick clarification on this as you know the include mclean district stands on its own as the sewing district so it's inaccurate too to impute that they're not reflective of it when we change the inclusionary zoning in we change the zoning on this that may happen but it hasn't happened at this point the developer was response of in terms of that the developer was also responses to the suggestions that we made to increase the number of affordable units by moving them to the into the flats building so we talked about that we haven't agreed on anything but but that was the proposal that came back to us so he was responsive to us on that we have not agreed on anything  in place so i just wanted to say that he responded to that with the best of intentions and he was listening to and i agree i mean he did go from the ten percent which initially proposed at the st meeting and we said to go beyond what was in the zoning to have additional units that didn't have to be same same same which i know is in the inclusionary zoning but this is different and when the zoning gets written on this it doesn't make please introduce yourself i'm somewhere around i was hoping to hear more about traffic mitigation traffic is a sore point with with u and and i just want to say i really appreciate the fact that we're trying to go up in formal housing when i was shoveling that one of the many snow outs that we're facing nowadays from a grandfather who's eighty lovely guy i was thinking about how fortunate i am to have him in in our in our neighborhood so i can see my grandfather and sort of engage with him but i was very concerned because i know a lot of people a lot of older seniors are really struggling they're really stressed when it comes to the the cost that they on the taxes they pay they went along with the high school they well on i'm sure the d p w in the police department i'm sure they all feel these are important things but we need do more to cover them and there i understand that a lot of older people also are going to sell their homes and maybe you know downsize are going to go to a lower level and less big house so i feel like it's concerned that they won't be able to come back here this does no housing for them so if they have to go you know ten miles twenty miles to find something that's more affordable it's going to really is heartening for them to commute to see their kids or grandkids that's a little disappointing so i would hope that we could have a bigger discussion about making more formal housing i see on this list right here it needs to be added but says ten percent so i would hope that would be a lot different than just ten percent we can do more they can use around us are doing more we should really be leading by much be leading the communities nearby and i feel it's really disappointing because also i heard about how much would each of those town cost the townhouses say that as a younger person there's no way i could ever afford that in ten lifetimes i'm sorry just not going to happen maybe ten no i don't think then and i think all the young families all the older folks there's no way they're going to the floor and all that so i think it's very harsh to say that well we can maybe do like fifteen or sixteen percent for plows and i think we need to better i really do i mean if if we're selling them for that much money that a lot of people in town are stressed be can do better than this we really need to have responsibilit folks as younger folk when i get older i want to be able to have a place to live so i really feel like this is an important thing thank you and i would just say finally i really hope that the older folks who are watching this and listening or reading in the  would pay attention to this one comes election season and remember that we need to vote for people who are understanding of their needs and my needs and everyone's needs we look together as a community to make sure that we're all covered together in two thousand and fifteen now two thousand and thirteen sorry and so kind of still learning a bit i have i'm one of those people with two kids and several guppies i think that undeveloped land is so valuable such a tremendous resource and this was laid aside for a community need that was a  compare the community care facility to this project is comparing apples to oranges because that was allowed to be that big and allowed to be what it was because it was meeting a fundamental community need which is keeping our seniors in my and to be thinking about affordability but we can't take this is owning back one so you build out on this land there's no you know we need to make sure that we get this right that there's really a golden opportunity here to make progress on our affordable housing plan to to not go backwards on our climate gold maybe even go forward by having energy efficient buildings so i'm here to just simply speak to the fact that this is a great opportunity i'm really excited about i think the tone for the vision for that is excellent i think the idea of developing a significant portion of this property of preserving that chapel mclean chaplain invited me to the facility and did its spiritual history of mclean it was great to preserve those buildings is a great i'm really excited about the potential here and i think actually think it's you know no offense to north wind and this project here which is actually if this was owned in already residential land this would be a this would be a great project  this was a parcel those laid across for specific community need and with all respect to north and i think of the squandering some of that potential of this land i think there's a way to continue to work with mcl and the town and the stakeholders of the energy committee the affordable housing trust in order to really meet the needs of belmont and mclean so that we can both realize our visions because i really believe in mclean does i've visited do that being said you know the devil is in the details and i was actually going to get back to what charlie in both michael brought up earlier not only were the you know four hundred and eighty units there but bedrooms i'd really like to see what is the essential price point for each of those and what's the you know approximate square footage that has to have must have an idea of what that is because right now the entry point to getting back to not not of affordability in the sense of right now entrance point into northwind units are one point three or four more if you look at the real estate transaction right and so the question is  where where the where is the entrance point for some of these units and just how large are we which gets back to could we you know be having more units in terms of the density question was brought up earlier could we be having you know more units and at a price point which would enable more people to enter and so i would very much like to see the breakdown on their graphic with the associated square footage and price area and then the last thing getting back to the climate is whether or not we can request or have you know electric charging getting back to the climate if that is something that you know is a requirement i presume they would want to do that it's something further down and i think for the price points but the market is with the market is that it should be respected so the question then is whether or not do we have more units that are so you know that are that are smaller or if it's for allowing still allowing six hundred thousand square feet and  to this specific proposal i'm just really sensitive to what i feel like is basically dog whistle comments by the developer around developing housing for people that look like him people like him people and you know as we look around this room right now i think one of the objectives of many of us who show up at these meetings is to diversify our town by income and very often in our country that means also by race and so when we are allowing somebody to step up in a meeting and say something like that and not get called out i find it upsetting and so that of precinct one i had two points that i wanted to look for one is sort of on the merits and secondly what we would perhaps recommend to the planning board as to how to go forward  friendly belmont report none of these reports a plan to identify a housing date for additional large luxury townhouses a condominiums the housing needs for the aging that have been identified include smaller housing units and more affordable housing units and i think it's been indicated before rental units instead we're talking about only sixteen percent or twenty affordable units under this current proposal we're going to continue with a number of town houses thirty town houses a number of two and two bedroom houses senior houses but none of them really m the pressing need for affordable housing and the type of housing that is amenable to people of lower income so the question is how do we proceed and it seems to me there are two parts to it one is that the planning board was starting with the premise that the developer could move ahead with sort of small modifications to the existing zoning and  but remember twenty years have passed since the adoption of the stoning provision certainly we know more about affordable housing and the need for affordable housing today there is a provision in the memorandum of understanding that calls for all to allow changes to the zoning and to the provisions of the memo of understanding as long as we have town meeting approval so it seems to me that if we're going to move forward on this there's a need for the planning board to change the promise and ask the developer to see what is the best proposal that he can come up with to meet the goals of the housing trust and i think that would be an important step and to involve the housing trust in those discussions secondly the leaving the question of affordable housing there are other aspects to this proposal it seems to me that the review by the planning board should include the impact of the development on historic values minimum open space natural resources including specimen trees as well as the impact on joining properties and i think that can be accomplished if the plan to go it continues to work with the housing trust and to work with the historic district commission and the conservation commission and i planning to proppant as well as other town to proppants and talents people in this review so i think that if we can move in those two directions then we can do it right and spend the necessary time to make sure that the resulting development meets the interests of both the town and mclean make is that these only changes a specific language and what does it six say i don't know when those changes came out but i never got to say never got a chance to see a man and  i guess the thing that concerns me is that you know clearly i mean i'm sure somebody try to take some care in putting these things together but clearly there's some issues in the in the language itself as my end just ending is that  to actually you know comment on specific language rather than the developer's language ok well i'm i guess i'm concerned about the timing of all this thing we're hearing is now you're going to write up the language sometime take a little bit longer than some people that's why we would like but everybody can see everything we're not hiding it i didn't say you were now i guess my concern was not the language seemed to be very well it's not your language so y four hundred and eighty units of the development doesn't go through it seems to me that should be a done deal with him but ari let me make a couple more comments  tell you just from living there for the last seven years that we have a heck of a time locating our snow getting rid of it and and and the density that they're proposing on the zone next to us is double so do you feel that your density is is is too high or is it yes no i think the density is too high relative to not only the housing but we have to have a road we have to have parking and and driveway space and when you finish with all that stuff there's nowhere to put the snow and in fact northland as you know develop that parcels well and we really have a deficiency and and we really need help in that regard to get it that it is fixed that's often that's often i understand that here but i guess what i'm trying to do is give you the benefit of our experience yet there are times during parts of the day that you can't get you can't get out of maclean's you can't get out of it it's mill street is completely locked up in both directions and you can't get off of mclean drive almost stead circles around and ends up coming down at the top of our development as we exit on to mills mclean drive and they zip around and you know because they coming off the hill and you know we're lucky we don't get killed sometimes but i guess my point is there's a lot of traffic already zone three zone four get developed it's critical that  traffic mitigation is really considered now i know when the memorandum of agreement there's a attachment i think i have the talks about traffic studies and what stake it's developed is supposed to do continuous i guess that's about it and i guess my biggest concern is that throughout this process there's been a lot of talk about affordable housing but no talk about our issues and we're the neighbors and we sort of feel that  you know i know we have the site plan review but just listening to some testimony before i'm even more concerned that we don't have an opportunity to be to be heard in the in the by you know have our have our question maybe the previous planning board overstepped that was the site planner he still works for these concerns that you're talking about but but it's it's absolutely right there are there are parts of these issues that are as a whole what what we think is beneficial for the town as a whole and we also if you follow any of the meeting that we have in terms of things like dormers in new editions and all that we listen very closely to the  butters in their key concerns we have to weigh these things right and however we finally get done not everybody will be happy but hopefully we'll be able i understand i'm on the other side to back was just easier to be polite bonnie friedman precinct three i've been coming to as you know most of the sub committee meetings i've been listening glad to see that the bigger building has more affordable and smaller units than originally but i left the last meeting discouraged that the developer and i'm sorry i forgot his st name said he really didn't want to work with the town and you 're hearing lots of us say we need more fordable units more smaller units and we want units that are good for our seniors and i came to this committee a few weeks ago saying that i keep thinking of all the seniors that i know that can't find any place today when they want to downsize that we're losing resources in our town that aren't just financial in other ways we're losing talent in our town when they have to move to other surrounding towns and the league of women voters for instance i would say eighty percent of the people who leave their home have left belmont i don't think there is anyone who maybe gets even more than eighty percent but none of them can find what they're looking for when they're downsizing and we all know people like that and three thousand dollars square foot homes of one and a half one million or so is not what they're looking for they're looking for modest homes generally one floor so they don't have to worry about accessibility but they don't necessarily want to live in a building that has many floors and they hear lots of neighbors and there are ways to build this housing to really appeal to the seniors who live in this town now not to the seniors who don't live in our town and i really hope that you take that into consideration because this is our opportunity as we look at the zoning and we've had such a relationship that there are all these people in this room who worked on the original mclean plan who want four saw an option for their seniors to stay in belmont and i hope we really consider them when we decide on this thank you judy finds again precinct five i don't want to repeat all these really well made points but i do want to add one thing we came across a plan that north london maclean had put together about a year ago different sketch for zone three that had two hundred and ninety nine units it had more flats and fewer townhouses i think we said i'm pretty sure we sent that to the play where the playing board is not well then without speaking on that in particular what i would say is that a plan like that with more units more flats would definitely meet more of the housing needs for the seniors in town and that with the shuttle bus would deal a lot with potential traffic issues and the additional traffic and that would be an excellent starting place for different groups in town to begin to work together so i do hope that north and the mclean will be willing to do that six just a quick suggestion for simon perhaps on the web site on what website it would be much easier to find the information if under the planning board section you actually elevated that to a green so for instance you can go on that page now and find where really are cushing square but this information right now is hidden under just as zoning amendments so it's not intuitive for people to look their means we're working on it now that with that  i'm just a little of the little too short the need for more affordable senior housing in particular but what i've been hearing a lot is the equation of density with traffic issues and i would encourage all of us to have conversations around how you do density smartly and how you can get more density without causing the traffic concerns that we we all have in town so we have a lot of planning professionals people who have done a lot of this work you're a planners i recall i am a planner and i work a lot on smart growth issues around the country and so i've seen a lot of best practices and i think we have a lot of other professionals in town that have a lot of experience both with planning and design and development and we should work together again i'd like to really reiterate that point because i think there's a depth of knowledge that that is in this town that could really make a difference and in coming to a compromise between the developer and the town's meets  so that's my point on kind of density and planning but i also have spent the last two days in conferences around net zero energy building and passive house ideas and it was really encouraging there is a movement towards doing better more energy efficient buildings that meets our climate goals the price the incremental cost of doing so is coming down tremendously there we are fortunate to live in the boston area where we have a wealth of knowledge around how to do it and how to do it cost effectively not only in market rate buildings multifamily and single family but also in the affordable housing community and the state is certainly supporting a lot of this through incentives especially in the fordable housing community and so that's another point i'd like to kind of bring to the table and i think there's lots of opportunity to talk about integrating all these ideas bringing the town kind of brain trust to to the table and working with with a developer to come up with something that that we can all support and move forward with together thank you and where is i will you know it admit twenty years ago that you know you worry about numbers and traffic and all these things but i think my does have an opportunity to even talk to broader talking brain trust and speaking with our legislators about this very issue on our buses and our trains to make these things work because that recent studies that he brought forth were on this on this very issue so so density can can work if if  one last comment roger colton town meeting member precinct six sam as i have sat here listening to people's comments one of my concerns is that you might walk away or listeners might walk away thinking that people are expressing only thing they're personal opinions about the need for smaller more affordable housing for our aging our aged but the fact is that there was a whole public process that the council on aging went through in order to have the town of belmont to achieve the aids friendly community designation which the town accepted this afternoon i believe in this in this very room but having had the council on aging engage in this public process with multiple  meetings and lots of folks provide input the conclusion was that the need of the town was for smaller more affordable housing and it wasn't when people talked about more affordable housing there is a need for affordable housing as defined which is a defined term of art but the what came out of the aids friendly community process was smaller more affordable housing then that then would be met by one million five hundred thousand dollars condominiums but there's just this whole public process that i hope you take into account and if you do do what i recommended which is to slow the process down bring in the various stakeholders one of the stakeholders that that hasn't been met and perhaps i'm sensitive to this because my wife sa on the council on aging for ten years but the council on aging very much would be a stakeholder that has taken positions under undergone public processes scorecard coming up from the caucus so it will be coming out to expect in about two or three months so it would be better than everybody would definitely be helpful i just want to highlight i absolutely agree that we need more homes for seniors without a doubt one of the other needs that was really highlighted in our housing production plan is the need for affordable homes for families with children  and so i know that this is no longer an age restricted proposal i do want to say like betsy had called out i get very concerned when we talk about housing that's attractive to a particular population and not to others and i just think it's important that we look at there's also needs for families with children so i will close with that for tonight and also when we think the families the children can't be here tonight because they're all home with their kids and it's really hard to get out and so i think that's one of the reasons why we're not hearing about that just introducing talking up into the microphone so i'll take it i'm jesse bennett i'm a town meeting member in precinct one i would say that as a town meeting member i'd be very concerned about voting on these changes as they stand right now just in terms of the fact that we actually have a great deal of power in town meeting to decide what happens with this parcel in that we have a very restricted zoning in place right now and so in order to go back and change that to get this one million six hundred thousand a year in taxes which is very tempting you know i would want to make sure that this p land was being used in a way that actually meets our needs in towns so we don't have this kind of power to i mean we're not dictating but to encourage zoning changes that will help us meet our needs you know on a parcel of land like this is a very limited opportunity for us and so as a town meeting member i'm very i'm very skeptical of this plan as one that really will meet belmont's needs and i think  that i agree with roger in the i would like to see this process slow down i don't i don't think that this is the right proposal right now to meet the needs of belmont in terms of the affordable housing and in terms of you know meeting the needs of the housing production plan so i really want to encourage the developer to be talking with stakeholders in town because they are going to need town meetings approval to to make these changes raised a number of issues with with the language that it doesn't seem to have been tailored to fit the specific the the proposed project if you will likely have stalled the four hundred and eighty units in there when i've done zoning changes before i know that the inclination is to change as little as possible in the text because it makes it easier for people to see what's new and what's being changed but in this case i think you almost might you might want to consider a total rewrite for for a zone three  another concern is just how do we how do we define these senior directed units if we're not going to divide for not going to find them as us with a specific age you know how do you  fine them by a certain decor or a certain certain amenities that appeal to seniors it just seems like it's very hard to define and it might why i'm sure i'm sure that the current developer would intend to do what he says he's doing and say in the future if the project passes on to another developer i think it leaves it open to interpretation and potential as written for potential changes as as written there so i i think in general i agree that is there's a lot of work to do here and i don't know that you know that i don't know that will make a world i think there's a real need to match up the discussion about density with transportation  the mclean parcel has defined entrance and exit points and if we're going to increase density on that parcel beyond what was  approved in the original or in the current one that we seen today we need to do something serious or it will continue to be a serious traffic problem morning and evening and i think i think the density has to recognize solving not just the housing part of it but also the transportation part yes i think what's a particular issue is that while the  is reducing the number of units and the density what the developers talk about the zoning changes themselves don't do that is only changes still could potentially if you know that if let's say we said this is a great project let's do this and five years from now you know the markets all collapse and somebody else comes in they could they could develop it to the full to the full thing i think that's a concern thank you are too many issues in the zoning that haven't been resolved one of which i noticed besides the density was here the underlying zoning has three hundred and fifty dollars surface parking spaces in each zone actually which is a lot of parking and i you know i just i think it's a big issue i'm not sure in this day and age weight allow or we want to promote that much and so the challenge here is to try to find something that meets maclean's economic needs and i see how the pieces of the puzzle fit together in that the townhouses fund  to some extent subsidize the affordable housing in the in the garden apartments and all of the revenue from that goes to support expansion of the school facility which is a revenue generator for the for the maclean's and it's important piece of things and ultimately gives the opportunity pretentiously to develop the research facility i get that and i do like the reduction in size but there are obviously a lot of moving parts to  this and one of them is the agreement that the town has with mclean writ large and without that that is going to require a renegotiation to respond to all the concerns that everybody in this room has has talked about and in the next two weeks number one we don't have time to write the zoning amendment that will respond to the larger issues going on here i mean what's been posed here is is is is is satisfactory toward meeting what you guys need for a change but there are a lot of issues here obviously in terms of density and interest in affordable housing and it said that need to be vetted among a half a dozen entities here in town and frankly right now we don't have time to do that before we get to the point where we've got to put forth as zoning amendment to town meeting that will pass by two thirds majority we can't craft that this won't pass by two thirds majority i mean just listening to this room we were not there i mean and it's and it's satisfactory from from your perspective but from our perspective i don't think it meets all of the zoning challenges that we have let alone all the sort of societal issues that we've been raising here and and the finer points of the agreement that the town has written large that the board of selectmen have to be and we have you mentioned them in this meeting and we've talked about housing trust we talked about council on aging we talk about all the other entities the board of selectmen has to weigh in on this i mean it's a real important challenge to them i think to to because it changes the nature of our agreement with mcclain's writ large so my sense is that we do not have time to litigate all this in time to put forth as an amendment for the springtown meeting i just don't see how that can happen we've got too many pieces too many people need to be heard  we need to have many more hearings on this and other entities need to have hearings as well so i would propose that we pause on this i think i grew the i think i think  i think mclean can do better on this and i think belmont can do better as well i would i would suggest that we close the public hearing at this point do i hear motion to close the public hearing acceptable proposal to town meeting hopefully in the fall all doing here is i think all in favor thank you we will continue thank you everybody the the meeting is over