good evening i'm charles clarke chair the planes were welcome to the tuesday march sixth twenty eighteen meeting of the playing forward our agenda this evening will include discussions of joining minutes because here we will continue on that that will be followed those will be followed by a public hearing on the retail of use marijuana and then lot followed by a review of of documents for the bradford formerly known as pushing village that will update potential cases and projects and have committee reports and that will wrap it up for the evening before i begin i should introduce jeffrey willett thank you all for being here this evening do we need to call the we're going to begin now with the public hearing for the general residence zoning amendments  we're continuing open to do we need to open it again it's already been oh we've already republican you know ok let me let me clarify what we're doing in terms of this  in terms of the general residence zoning as many of you may know there was a citizen's petition in twenty thirteen to control the unrestricted development in the general residen district this led to a series of zoning amendments in two thousand and fourteen that were approved by the town there were enough there were one that just talked about definitions abbreviations another one that dealt with non conforming single into family structures there were changes in the schedule of use regulations and changes in the schedule of dimensional regulations in addition a new zoning category was created sixty which had to do with new single into family dwelling constructions in the general residence district we're going to be discussing that this evening that's the first thing which has to do with with the general residence district single and to family new construction there was also a further amendment in two thousand and fifteen which allowed for single family dwellings as an alternative to family week well we won't be discussing that this evening so this evening we will be discussing primarily the the single the new single into family construction part of the general residence zoning change the reason that we're discussing it is because it has a sunset clause and it expires in  first amendment which is the sunset of the general residence zoning is the primary issue that we will be discussing there is the secondary amendment which we will alter slightly which provided that of the special permits would be granted by the planning board for the playing board in the general residence district was the special permit granting authority in a slight  tweak of that we're going to discuss pushing some of those smaller projects primarily decks and dollars and patios to the zoning board of appeals it would still be a special permit process they would still have a public hearing it's just that some of the smaller ones will go to the selling board of a field not the place so that's the introduction everybody you have a into the first amendment yes yes ok right so just remind people this is just the general residents own district it is everything that is highlighted in yellow on this map and we're not discussing any other  district in terms of how the planning board has got to this point there have been at least there's been five public hearings there's including the public five public meetings including the public airing this public hearing the beginning very fifteenth and there's been various comments that have been received regarding the existing bylaws then out of that that information has been used to help me help inform the board's approach so this is the first article article  the twenty fourteen amendments those some and several of those properties were what caused citizens to come forward and say listen we're done we want some changes in the generals and district out of that came section sixteen  as i said as has been noted at the time in twenty fourteen there were actually six different other pieces there were also amended as well in those were the five of those are imbedded within  was drafted to expire june thirtieth and twenty eighteen the idea being let's see how this works if it's something we like we can keep if it's not we can easily go back to the way things were  so the question really for the board in certain the public has spoken that have these changes been effective or not on the left hand side are examples of projects that were built as a result permanent so that's it for the first article so let me just just in terms of the first article so it's simply that we're deleting a sentence which says that for the section sixty which is for new single into family construction in the general residence district it is the same as it is now except it will not be sunset it which means that any new single or two family house that is being developed in the general residence district will go for design inside plan review through the planning board as it is now and we have a very specific criteria which is in the zoning that we talk about for how the building has been built what the setbacks are how it has to be set in the street all the design factors of that and i think what's what's as important as the does sign factors and the elements that we're asking for when it comes to approval of a new single or two family house and the general residence district we have we have the conditions of approval which are basically that the  that the that the development will not only be in conforming conformance with the zoning as it is in the general residence zoning but also will be in conformity with the neighborhood that will reflect the neighborhood and it will reflect the opinions of the citizens of the town what's an appropriate development within that neighborhood and i think that was one of the main druss of the change in the general residen zoning and i think in general although it has been a process that we've gone through four years to get to get to this point i think we're doing what we were supposed to do i think you'll see the house is the singles and the two families that have been developed in the past several years are in conformity and meet the goals of what the change in the general residence zoning was this will be a separate article sarno one of the co sponsors i'm a town meeting members well in precinct three and i just want to say i enthusiastically support this amendment and i also thank you the board for making this a priority and for your efforts in seeing that it remains geoffrey i appreciated the words you use that you in the board have found this to be an  we agree those of us that are in general so thank you very much is there anybody else who'd like to make a comment haven't you one of the sponsors or you could come with that you'd like to make us tell us if we've got it right or if we have it right kevin cunningham pressing for the the comment i'll make an addition to what you said which i agree with is i haven't noticed any mention ization like it hasn't the problem hasn't arisen again so i believe that it's a fact that i haven't looked at the details of how each case has been handled and that kind of stuff but the outcome looks what we were looking good so thank you thank you are there any other comments on this part of the general residence on the first article in the general residence which has to do with a new single into family housing ok we'll move now to this to the second amendment which is which which basically has to do with with us  going through jeff who will go through the information and some of the information on the cases in terms of dec stormers in patios that we've been through and we think that it would probably be more reasonable for the smaller dexter merchant to continue to i mean they're all special permit process but the special permit granting authority might be more appropriate appropriately be the zoning board of appeal that's what this is about if we can move a few of those things over there it gives us a little more time to do sort of the planning aspects of things small projects to the zoning board of appeals in order to do so you would have to amend the existing general resins non conforming section of the by law and state that the zoning repeals will be the special public input these are the four components that we looked at when actually putting together both articles not just this article but more specifically relating to this article if you look at this special  even a greater breakdown on the number of cases what was just because a special permit granting thirty what was the average size approved of whatever size grade five or so forth and i encourage you to take it all home look at it this the last two pages relate to what is this idea of what is big and therefore should be reviewed by the playing board the first page relates to if you use a percentage threshold saying that anything greater than a certain size percent of what the existing building is with all the playing board the second page actually says if it's a square foot number for example the first example is if you have two hundred fifty square feet as an addition what are the implications are in terms of a single family home or two family home there's a lot of information here and encourage you all to review it and try to make and try to insult it we basically went into the weeds on th more information than you're ever going to need in the future in terms of in terms of things that have come before the playing board it's in terms of this small aspect of things for the general residents zoning district for  and patios so basically we went we did our due diligence on this and we said what's all this stuff that's come from us and then we tried to figure this out in terms of a percentage kind of basis and that tends to swing a lot because you have some small houses were twenty percent of a fifteen hundred would have to be three hundred as with the if you had a three thousand square foot house it would be six hundred square feet we didn't think that worked too well so we began to take a look just in terms of the numbers what works is a reasonable number for where things go to the planning board the larger project more complex parts of things that go to the plane for him which would be the smaller ones that would go to the zoning board of directors and through these the research that jeffrey and spencer did playing with the percentages we began also to look at the is greater than aids for certain square footage your number of square feet would then go to the planning board and it would also make sure that anything that is voluntary only demolished nothing that would now go that would require a special permit would not require a special permit so the question before the borders so i mean this is the purpose they want to take what is that  we had some we had some issues about if we could use this quickly number or if we could use a percentage number we went to town council told us that it would it would it would be appropriate if we used a square foot number so where's the break off point it looks like we're proving things that the number that we're just going back to if you look at three nine hundred sort of seems to be the number that comment on that was that that that percentage just favor the expansion of larger structures and penalize the owners of small ones and that's that's a problem with percentages if you say thirty percent or thirty five percent you're going to end did you since since we're in a public hearing do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on for could you explain so the number thirty percent or three hundred fifty square foot is not a cut off anyway it's just a question of  right yes so it's not it's not a goal or something they walk so they want to be in the door and they they they go to the building commissioner and they say we want to do three hundred two hundred fifty foot down or something like that you go right over to the zoning board of he'll want to do three hundred because that's all and it's the whole process becomes the same right so i'm unclear what  the what the reasoning is to move it to the zoning board of appeals it's all this currently it's all planning board is it a workload question is it a process question now if so if it was moved from the what would be different in the nature of the review or would it be identical because the criteria the same decreed theory would be the same and the review depending on how the design would look good it would be the same i mean they say they have the same criteria to grant a special permit perf the zoning they have to go through the same steps that we would have to go through in terms of that from the brink board's point of view it's both a work issue and a focus issue one of the things that the that the planning board has been criticised for and with some justification is that the blame good has spent more time on smaller and smaller decks and things and less time on planning in general and we have major planning issues that that have to be taken care of in the town including what's going to happen to waverly square what's going to happen so pleasant street as well as the carters i mean pushing village is coming or the bradford is coming into place the center of the town has been taken care of in a pretty good shape but all the trip hello road carter so much free card of those need to be looked at at some point in time to we have a number of players on the board now we think we should take advantage of their expertise because i'm really not clear about the distinction between a planning  based on nothing that the planning board at least has more concerns with aesthetics and overall design an approach to the to the town and this is so what appeals is more about the rigor of the bylaws and measure i could be totally wrong but so i would be concerned that some of the considerations that a void mcmansion ing and glynnis would be less present in that group i'm not saying they don't have it but is that i don't there or there really aren't these large sort of a static big picture issues going on with them it's straight up zoning issue that is is that at the heart of it the design considerations come in we start getting really big and every we're not trying to impugn the same area so just so i'm basically agreeing with your sense that the planning board is looking at sort of bigger picture does it fit with the neighborhood kinds of issues and does this work as a building for this area but we're finding that putting a porch alongside the house or putting a patio along side doesn't really come to rise to the level of that kind of concern and the  still it would be natural or is there actually are you coming to some conclusion there is a natural trade off there's a natural tree to be a as opposed to well we just we need we need the bandwidth and we can't get it when we were dealing with all these make sure the things you know larger projects fit into the neighborhood it's just just recognizing that you just don't need that much consideration there's not that much to think about when you're just dealing with a small deck that's been on the back side if it if it if it fits only repetitive question that last tonight just to put our minds of these week we had some discussions in earlier versions in earlier  where it appeared there might have been some by right and some of the construction would be by right it looks like that's removed i don't see it here and it's safe to say thank you ok thank you very much are there any other questions the higher and we pick on the lower end we pick on the lower end at three hundred that means more will come to us rather less come to us so we'll take responsibility so what do we say three  now we have continued public hearings the first one is seventy nine lineage street which is is the is the applicant here i thought he thought they said that this was that we move to hearing and till the twentieth and find out from here that he wants to go forward with this story we want to continue it at some place where if he wants to withdraw his application just just from a you know bookkeeping point he will now move to the public hearing for we will do one seventy two lexington street once every four from the board tonight to ask for photo to subdivide current eighteen thousand square foot lot and two to one thousand square foot lots to create two single family homes in the g i district the homes will be three bedrooms two full bouts two half baths finished basement proximately twenty six hundred fifty square feet each two car detached garage absolutely sure you want the commission to subdivide the property do you know i think there's not know enough not why they're here they're here no i know that but they haven't subdivided the property so that that has to be a condition of anything on this property this is a eighteen thousand square foot lot in the district currently the zoning provides a five thousand square foot lots in this yesterday we chose to go with two nine thousand square feet l verse three five thousand square foot lots without it would blend into the neighborhood a little bit better the style houses that we picked out blend into the surrounding area if you check some of the photos that we gave  and one seventy two is top one is it yes so you've got you've got frontage you knows as i looked at the you've got front injury now of the whole thing of one hundred and one hundred two feet or something hundred two feet hundred two feet and you get fifty one for each of these and they share a common driveway right no no no so the driveway is on  so originally the first plan that we didn't put in we had the two driveways in the center between the two homes right we switched that and put the driveway to the right of each house now  one of the reasons i chose for the driveway is where they are is on the house on the left on on one seventy two when there are parts of the school church there's some large trees that are right there if you look on the landscape plan you're going to see some very large trees and if we put the driveway on that side of the property we felt as though we were going to be on the lower left so those trees we didn't want to compromise the root system here and remove all those trees so we decided to put the driveway in the right side of the house and leave the trees the only two trees that are coming down and the two that are about fifteen feet off of the fence siding the roofs are going to be standing same roofs try to give it a little bit more peel words on lexington street and we also made the roof line on habitable on the third floor it's only five feet of space up top there not to finish off the attic so trying to keep the houses as low as we could possibly keep them and still have a nice design in mind you have  is composite decking on there on the front front stairs ten inch columns supporting dust the small roof we see a lot of a lot of growth around the size of the houses all the way down the side thanks ron the patio you can see some more landscaping there and then we added in the rear of the property you'll see some bushes in and a tree right in the sun of there a couple of trees three quarters away down the lot before the garage in between the back yard tree in each side and we also added  what you're going to call street trees in the front of the property we actually put those on the property instead of the the grass strip and the release of you know we just thought it would be more appropriate to get a better tree on the property than that two foot strip and the main reason for that is the telephone wires are directly above the grass strip and the trees are all splitting those right now and i noticed in front of the us through from the basement of so what you have in the basin is just one big recreational room you have a mechanical room a half bath and utility room so you have a closet in between to pick up the space between the bathroom and the utility room we also have a bucket in the back eager to get out and just basically one one large rec room going to the first floor you'll see  family room fireplace which is inside the room doesn't project outside the house you have the kitchen in a dining area to the to the right of the kitchen stairs go up l shaped to the upstairs so you see two two bedrooms in the rear the bedroom on the right has a good sized walk in closet you have the laundry right off the hallway  the main bath off the hallway then you have the master bedroom a nice walk in closet and master bath you have up a pole downstairs to go up stairs to the the properties that have been highlighted are those which the board determined make up this neighborhood there's a mixture of stuff going on here there are single family homes there are two family homes and there are some institutional major money you you know back in the old day you would you want people to see that you made money so you built a big house so much as a street in this is left over from that time period this running house is a many specters reflect that as well and those were also some rooms that are in history being used as dining rooms but uses bedrooms otherwise was going to get in any way you can see that the proposed bedrooms it's sort of in line with what's going on in the neighborhood in terms of a three bedroom  regulations ok let's open it up to two comments from the public and then the plane will will have their comments if anybody wishes to speak about this please come forward to the microphone introduce yourself making a motion to subdivide eighteen thousand square foot lot of two to nine thousand square foot lots erecting two zero one seventy four single family home twenty six hundred fifty square feet three walk through from the front is exactly the same as what we saw except for the if the front is a little bit different then one seventy two if you noticed the on the right side of the house it's a it's a little bit different ok the other one didn't have the edge at all like that one had a window with a small roof over it so we want to change it up a little  bit this one has a gable roof one seventy two had the roof again would shout as loud what siding so the drivers on the right side of the home where it exists today with a detached garage which is there on the property right now approximately the same spot so we've left the buffer area on the right side of the driveway as existing trees if you can look on the right hand side you'll see some trees there so that's why the garage has moved off the property line a little bit more if try to avoid those trees we have a patio in the backyard landscaping around the patio two trees in the back yard and some bushes to screen the for the neighbor in the rear we've moved so basement is similar to the other home you have half hour one big recreational room mechanical room to the left and a closet in between the mechanical room and the half bath set of stairs  egress up to the first floor walk up the stairs you have a big family room with the fireplace kitchen in the back right hand corner with a dining area to the left what the egress door going out into the rear yard walk up the stairs you'll have a laundry in the yard in the foyer you'll have two bedrooms left and right one has a walk in closet one has a little bit smaller closet downstairs no no use in the attic one seventy two is three feet shy of conforming it will be interesting it's nothing wrong with it just saying it's not that it is just under nine thousand feet i think in the play which is not a problem i just point it interesting some of our homes recently which really blends into the house we can't see what it is  you separate things let's let's do the first one that we should actually we should actually do the one two thre temporary establishment temporary moratorium to extend the moratorium to december thirty first twenty eighteen this will extend the moratorium to allow the town adequate time to consider the impacts of the state's kind of us regulations and  where where to allow marijuana establishment and if so under what conditions the complete text of the proposed zoning amendment is available for you at the office of community development and of course office anyone wishing to be heard on this issue should appear at the  is the state will finalize its regulations and begin issuing licenses for retail but don't use marijuana on april first  contain by going forward with more tory m that would allow the playing board more time to figure out what the regulations say how other communities are dealing with the regulations and till don't use marijuana and allow for attorneys to look at them and see what they say in and so forth so by extending to december thirty first and what the exact regulations will be a number of towns have proposed moratoriums and been received by the accepted by the attorney general i believe arlington conformity with what the commonwealth puts in place and the six month moratorium means that we would have to have something in place within his six months or till the end of the year it's like six months which is effectively the end of the year which is not to say that we wouldn't have something in place before that that would be and having said that let me open up the public hearing for comments from the audience in regard to this regard to the  two before you guys decide that option one and the other question as why don't we wait until we see what the state comes up with and make a rational decision on if we want to move forward or not kno this doesn't have anything to do with going forward with adult use marijuana not only not what i mean basically says it with a leg it's difficult to make a rational decision on it and to write the zoning which is the next part that w about to to write the zoning without knowing exactly what the regulations are going to be so if we wait until the regulations come out in in april and then somebody put could potentially have all applied it could potentially apply and we don't have any actually we would be able to understand what exactly is going on and come back to special town meeting in november with the you know a fully formed and viable  them the regulations so at least we have something in place it just doesn't go through something in place and this will be our template for changing things that being the case and not hearing any more comments from the thursday march sixth two thousand and eighteen at seven pm on the board of selectmen meeting of town hall four fifty five concord f to consider amending the belmont zoning by law by making the following change all of which specifically apply to the regulation of adult use marijuana establishment section one point four definitions and abbreviations at definition for marijuana cultivator marijuana retailer marijuana product manufacturer and marijuana independent testing laboratory section three point three schedule of use regulations had new clauses of use for marijuana cultivator marijuana retailer marijuana product manufacturer and marijuana independent testing laboratory and finally add a new section six f adult use marijuana  are proposed in order to provide for the placement of adult use marijuana establishments in accordance with the act to ensure safe access to marijuana adopted as chapter fifty five of the acts of twenty seventeen in location suitable for such facilities the complete text of the photos  board had indicated that retail uses why not just allow them in the local business one districts which are waving square cushions square one center this way it's front center testing would be allowed within the general business districts and local to business to district which is south pleasant street so it's hard to see in this amount but that's what this shows and also shows the other lp one of going to belmont us center and going to a store that's beside the craft beer so ok so that's for like the dispenser the retail store right there the and then and then over here you'll note that this is the high school so obviously that sort of gets crossed off but the area in question really becomes this sort of triangle right here and that's the  step that ok then we can establish a buffer between they don't use marijuana use and those for described the medical use marijuana is three hundred feet and we actually got an indeed there is peace for that use you can't just be by a long paper and we had to show that there was space for that whether or not the property owner then works with the medical dispensary people to do their thing we can't control that but at least we verified indeed that there was space for that so that i suspect will become the same thing with respect to adult that we're going to have to prove that indeed if you allow it there was space in t so so the next two maps really show if you had a hundred fifty square foot buffer it's really hard to see at the scale what area you would have left with and then the other map is if you had a three hundred square three hundred foot buffer obviously it becomes even greater i mean that the distance becomes even though as the bay area becomes smaller the use italy or becomes smaller right right because the buffer from just the edge of the district or is it from use is where children's congre because if you was because as we know every single one district is surrounded by resin or residential property so that would significantly limit the amount of space available for retail use  finally have a so we have a sense that the state will do will do something in terms of distance yes yes they will indeed that's because it was will will set just they won't set the distance but they'll say you can allow buffer for you know they can set the distance because you know community don't mind is very different than commuting like like you know oxford available it should be public and it should be in a place where everybody that they are there is actually several communities that are taking that approach because one of the pieces that adds to this doesn't i started zoning please but we can indeed tax them and that can be additional tax revenue so for communities that are looking for more taxes you'd want to make it you know with the revenue go to marijuana dispensary should be special permit in the lp one you know that is black so that's that whether that's actually the medical marijuana when you go down to marry their marijuana cultivator begins the new oh ok this is medical marijuana right that's going to marijuana ok so cultivator independent so the retailer ok so we have that as a special permit in the l b one district which is manufacturer in l b two as well oh that was that was a big that's big here that was a big year yes and as i recall as i recall the town meeting was in favor and they voted pretty well for them at that of the warrant is due march twenty first so you can continue to the twentieth if you want to think about it some more and i can certainly work on providing i can work on  revise the draft you can also if necessary call for a another meeting just to deal with this topic prior to that thirtieth date so i'm what's going to happen is that that many communities instead of having to separate by laws they are going to merge i'm going to guess all day long because in essence my sense is going to they're going to be the same why have to separate by law saying this it will be that it will be the same their free what's happening with the bradford i mean we have we have a couple of items now all of this is my moving along this is all part of the building permitting operation of the parking plan and then basically the affordable housing aspects of the marketing plan for at the qualifications of the agent the monitoring agreement and the definite plans that's all part of the living the course of the special permit and we've compiled the list of the required items including the operational part of goals for the housing information to visit the plans that we've been through the checklist b on the completion of the application so that we the building permit can be assured is thank you jeffrey are these items the only remaining items or are there other items that have to be brought forward and approved by us never reported back to us so we can't make a judgment in terms of that and i also think because we have some very technical members of the board here that i think a set of plans should be made available and we have two players that deal with these things all the time who should they should have a set of plans available to them in some way i don't know if they need individual copies or they can come to community development but i think you and there i think you and cindy and ed if you want to two or steve if you want to two should be able to look at the plans on a piece of paper rather than on line i  agree i took it on myself to look at least as were the regard to the dems and studies issue at room layouts and the most recent set of plans i could find were the ones that are posted online dated still i think questionable i'd like to talk to on that point to somebody because i have gone through those plans so if those are the ones online that are current there are there are a number of things that i would you know just in their labeling rooms one bedroom when they should be two and so i think just to speak a little bit to that or because there there is you know there's a number of bedrooms that was allowable  special permit there were a number of dens which didn't destroy meet the definition of a den by code over we under the advisement of the board we looked at those we had working sessions really make revisions to those in some instances you know if there was you know no window in a room but there was a wall that somebody could use a door something light that we remove the wall or significantly widened to open that space to make the room not be conducive to being bedroom which is the primary concern except for the double closets that got thrown into some of them but they're going to understand well again i think you have to review them but in looking at the the overall bedroom count and where what the special permit was approved for taking that all into consideration i think we're still below the below that threshold based on the working session may very well be i just can't tell from the plans because when i tried to count up the number of single one and two bedrooms you know i get one count but if i take the labels and i don't know how you're counting how you're keeping your counting so it was just you know there are some some be available all of the members of the board who wish to look at them should be able to look at them and make comments because otherwise i don't think we're we're fulfilling our obligation control i believe it is going to take a look at that i don't think i don't think we're going to go through that great now i think it is going to spend some time on that and will report back to us on the next twenty board meeting in terms that it appears in my review to be compliant but i'd like to look more closely at that and have somebody look more closely at that is anybody else have a space yeah right right ok now the rest of this that's here is the basically addressing the affordable housing issue i found when i looked through this cat the information seemed very stale in terms of the people that it was going to like people people there within that and i also know that i asked the housing trust to take a look at that and i'd like to call lori a leap sic up who has looked at this to review those documents and put together this memo i'd like to go through some of the major comments that we had those three documents the first i think in the most monitoring team that's been hired apparently by the toll brothers s c b s c b did the monitoring for the royal belmont the chapter forty development of two and it appears and i agree with you that these documents some of them appear to be cut and paste from that chapter forty development monitoring agreement and the twelve units that are part of the affordable you know sir part of the bradford are in fact part of the inclusionary zoning by a law that requires a horrible units not to exceed eighty percent of area median income and some of the comments throughout the monitoring greenman imply that for example residents can continue to live in these in these apartments these affordable apartments even if they're earning one hundred forty percent very the competence of permit and whether in am the inclusionary zoning bylaw and see if they're if these two things overlap and i don't think they do so i think that a lot of the premises within the monitoring services agreement are probably incorrect another comment that we had was about the there was one studio apartment that was part of it is one of the twelve horrible apartments the size of that studio apartment is two hundred fifty square feet that larger but also have a lot of common space amenities to make up for the fact that they're so small and i don't think the bradford is being built with with that kind of a you that kind of a little space in mine or common space in mind there's also discussion in here about fixed versus floating affordable units floating of portable units would mean that as a vacancy came up the next person the next person to a portable became vacant the next household needing a portable you could go anywhere in the development of fixed units would mean that twelve units are fixed as the affordable  units and the reasoning behind that appears to be that they could the management company could more easily keep track of those of affordable units and make sure that those you know in terms of monitoring them in ensuring their eligibility i think there occur that are just now not that just could be problematic and i think that should be noted again there was discussion in two different places about one hundred forty percent a very meaning come the section states that a unit will be considered a low and moderate income unit as long as the household incomes of not exceed one hundred forty percent to bury me in income again they could qualify at eighty percent but if their income went up to up to one hundred forty percent they could continue to live and you know would still be considered an affordable unit again i'm not sure that our inclusionary zoning by law would allow for that and i think again we are looking at trying to we part of the housing production plan we say to that almost twenty five percent of belmont's households need qualify for affordable units to say then all of a sudden that people can be earning far above eighty percent of every  the other part of it was that again i think this has to do with a comprehensive permanence really doesn't reflect inclusionary zoning bylaw that if a unit if a household came in at eighty percent their income in fact one hundred forty percent they could continue to stay in that unit and pay the market rent and the unit would no longer be counted as affordable so we just you know if that's location it may be rare but we would th have lost an affordable housing unit in again these affordable housing units that qualify and increase the number of units on our subsidized housing inventory and we start losing units because some tenant who right and i think that that's a concern we also feel like there were a number of resources belmore resources were admitted for example our local meco coordinator council on the ageing the belmont media center the housing trust human rights can commission legal  over a number of months one of the questions we also have had to do with the fact that there's a common answer the units coming on line under general information the plan says that the first affordable unit will be available july first twenty eighteen which seems unlikely and then the others will be i'm available immediately after and so the question was again how could if again we're assuming that the units need to among all three buildings how could the first unit be available july first when the eighteen in the others field immediately thereafter again unless they're all going to be placed in the assumption was it all replaced in one building which would be contrary to again  affordable units for the royal belmont was a twenty six page application it was discouraging to say the least to many people who don't who would have qualified for those apartments i personally know people that got an application three or four days before the deadline there was no way possible that they for the completed that application in time and they just threw up their hands and gave up so i think that what whoever the  affordability agent is going to be they need to have a very serious look at the application many organizations use a preamp again we're talking about a lottery that's going to be held her streams of units for the two veteran units there could be two hundred  families that apply for six apartments a pre application would vary up to a fairly detailed preamp three or four pages long very quickly qualify the ten or fifteen households the first ten or fifteen or twenty households you want to look at them to get to fill those first six units so i think that that twenty six page unit was again a line and discouraging to to our local marketing in the lottery agent with questions and concerns because we again members of the housing trust did at times try and reach out to them and never have returned phone calls there were newton or resource resources offered to assist applicants again with a cumbersome application like that there should have been some much more effort made to assist residents with completing those applications and again because of delays in the construction of the royal belmont there were  repeated subsequent recertification is that had to be done because you obviously years util circumstances can change and you have to make sure that people are eligible so when the lease continued people had to come even though they had been selected already they had to come back time and time again to be recertified until they actually moved into the development so we se b is the preferred looks like the agent that toll brothers is considering for this work and again they may do a very good job maybe it was the direction of the developer that gave them some of these instructions but i would certainly take a very close look at these at these actions and how they c incidentally we can go through this if you want i'm going to make a suggestion though that we have a member of the board and a member of the housing trust meet with you and go through these floating or the designated units typically and there's a typically most of a lot of our experiences with the state of forty b program they want designated locations throughout the building for the affordability for the four units so that they don't all end up in one building or on one floor etc and that's that's my understanding the concern about flooding because you don't necessarily the idea of having the designated units are closed as new locations get approved and they're co mingled throughout the entirety of the project i don't have a person of strong preference but that would be helpful to understand the good and work for everybody because we all want this to go forward but we especially want to make sure that the inclusionary zoning component is taken care of and works and i'm sure you do as well  available the plans someplace for people on the board to go through the plans before we sign off on a yes yes no i don't want a big copy of this in my office at home along with all the other copies of things i this you know we can potentially help catch everybody up to speed quicker we can go through we can bring a set of the old plans with the other groups that we looked at you know six months ago working with respect to the parking and operation and park control plan do you suspect that you're going to want to reach out to  then there was a question beginning about the den study issue as i had understood steve would be the point person on that oh he's the lucky guy is that i just that's why i'm trying to get both of your chart and i don't want to hold up the works to repeat anything i just want to you know it's easy with cared to just miss you know play something ok so ok i just want to make sure and then with respect to definitive plans nobody wants a set or does somebody want to set for themselves  six if a request sure just as i observed a couple of weeks ago with respect to the general residence district it helps to keep blood pressure down i'm going to suggest that it would help to keep blood pressure down if the community knew what was going on when it was going on and we didn't think decisions were going to make be made on things that we are concerned about without any input i think it's fair to observe that we've as a community we've been through two developers numerous for if you we're not at the skeptical would be a kind way to describe the way we feel so anything that you guys can necessarily know what the process is ourselves we're trying to be as as transparent as we can i believe in the g r i mean i know some people were a little confused about that year but we've been very transparent about that w  there any other comments before we move on ok thank you very much we'll be in touch because thank you we're in the next part which is updates of potential cases i'm playing for projects and committee reports jeffrey do we have more cases coming our way i know i'm right and i had to find nothing yet no not not on the twentieth recognizing that excuse me the board still in session if you could carry your conversations outside would be greatly appreciated thank you so recognizing that there would be some continuations of it's how do you buy even if you go into a very i mean if you go off you go on the train and you go and you go to a wife you get off the first stop of a square ok which is a very vibrant urban thing one of the big issues there is parking and there are cars all over the place and if you go to red on some time you know and you're looking for parking you're driving around or you go to the bowling alley and pizza and he's driving around here looking for parking and that's an issue that  that's an issue and so there's a tradeoff on vibrancy and the mass of people in parking it's hard to get right it's great and then you have someone has another layer where you have a lot of residential districts have limited parking yes because that's the first tuesday in june right nor be a normal meeting to the brain i'm not sure where i had got a previous email where he listed some dates and the dates don't correlate with the first and third who say that i'm not sure where i don't know so i suppose to other know they pushed it right this is right they've pushed back time the dates to give their their team enough time to prepare the documents  go ahead on this break the first meeting is an introduction sort of this is what's going on in tickets a preliminary discussions and concerns that you have in the sex the second would be a more finalized plan yet it would take