Zoning and Planning Committee - June 22, 2026

So welcome everyone. This is a meeting of the Zoning and Planning Committee on June 22nd. Do you mind closing the door? Thank you. And we're joined at the beginning of the meeting by Vice Chair, Councilor Wright, online, by the Vice President, Councilor Kalis, online, by Councilor Albright, also online, Ward 2, the Planning Director, Ms. Freewell, from Ward 5 in the room, Councilor Gordon from Ward 6 in the room, and Loyal Baker, Councilor from Ward 7. and we're also joined in the room by Ms. Coelho and other representatives. I'm going to ask you to introduce yourselves properly for me to sort of record so that everybody can hear. Where does she want to start off?

Yeah, so also joined by Curtis Buecher, the committee clerk for this meeting.

Our honored guest.

Joseph, deputy city clerk.

And my understanding is that he is here to observe our state's Now, you're not responsible for any kind of business around the meeting. Okay. And Councilor Roach, not a member of the committee, has also joined us. Anybody else we have not recognized? Thank you. You both want to come to the table because there's room for you. And the only suggestion is I will go on either side so that when you face the camera So we have two items before us. But before we begin, however, I just want to mention that I've reserved the 20th of July as a potential next meeting date for our committee.

we don't anticipate taking any specific action at that meeting so that the meeting after the city council meets I think is going to be okay but I'm trying to put together When people can be here, this seemed to be the best option. I'll actually come back from vacation for that night, but I want to make sure that we have a night to take up an item we can't take up tonight and maybe anything else that's time sensitive. But let me read the first item into the record, which is 6526. This is a request, discussion and amendment to chapter 1.53, chapter zoning. As honor the mayor requesting discussion and possible zoning amendments to section 1.53 setback to allow for transformers to project into the setback. We held this earlier in May and we were hoping to have a representative from Eversource

joined the committee, but I'm informed that Ms. Wewell has indicated, and you can elaborate on this, Ms. Wewell, that he could not attend tonight, but should be able to attend on the 20th. Yes, Chair.

Thank you. This is Katie Wewell, Acting Director of Planning. I did speak to the Eversource representative last week. He's, you know, he's open to coming to a zoning and planning committee meeting. He just indicated he needed a little bit more time to prepare for the meeting. So I gave him the July date that the next meeting is likely going to occur and he indicated he would be able to attend that date.

Okay. So thank you. With that, any discussion on the item? If not, I would entertain a motion to hold. Councilor Getz, move to hold. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstention? The ayes have it. So if you would just record that for us. So the next item, and I expect it will be the extended conversation, is Item 5726, request for discussion in ordinance amendments to dimensional controls aligning use of zoning. Specifically, Councilors Oliver, Wright, Getz, Roche, Malakie, and Kalis requesting discussion to determine alignment of dimensional controls Setbacks, Height, FAR, et cetera, for residential developments within business use lots with focused consideration for lots in and adjacent to residential neighborhood. So this is an item we've discussed before, but Ms. Colillo has prepared an extensive memorandum, which has been part of the packet. But I would ask if you were comfortable presenting to the committee tonight. And there are some, I'm sure, going to be a number of questions that come your way.

If you'd like to initiate the call, I'm going to initiate the conversation.

Lovely.

Here we go. Does everyone see the slides? Yes. So as the chair mentioned, tonight is a continuation of the discussion on docket item 5726 regarding Residential uses located within business districts. The item was documented to address concerns raised by residential redevelopment that can currently utilize business district dimension standards which may produce outcomes that differ from surrounding residential development patterns. Here's an overview of what we'll talk through, the current regulatory process, existing conditions of the area that we've focused on, which is along Adams Street and Ward 1.

given the large cluster of properties that fall under this context in that area and then a few different options as well as next steps. So currently the way that residential uses in business zones occur is through the special permit process. by receiving a use special permit for the residential use on the ground floor. Here's a flow chart. I know we reviewed this in February, but it's been a few months since then. So to briefly review under the current ordinance, A residential property located in a business district would seek a special permit. That special permit can be granted, could be granted with conditions. or could be denied.

And in the case that it's granted or granted with conditions, it may be redeveloped with BU controls. You see the special permit granted with conditions is kind of dotted because that depends on the conditions. And so depending on the conditions, it may not be the BU dimensional standards. If it's conditioned to say you have to be smaller based off that specific project. Here you can see the location of residential uses and business zones. and this I know it's a very small map and I have it blown up into kind of the north side and the south side if you want to take a look later but This just really shows that the largest cluster of residential uses in commercial zones is in Nonantum up in Ward 1.

and then there's a few kind of dotted parcels outside of that primary cluster.

And let me, excuse me, just to then, we've been joined by Councilor Block online and Councilor Farrell and I want to be especially conscious, Councilor Farrell mentioned that it's difficult to hear everyone in the room so the microphone that we're speaking to is near the screen, correct, Curtis? I think so. Yeah, so...

So here you can see the existing zoning along Adams Street and Watertown Street in Nonantum. and that kind of salmon pink is that BU2 zone that extends into the very much predominantly residential streets that Intersect with Adam Street. And just to kind of give more of a visual, I'm sure many of you are very familiar, but I recently went out and just took a walk to kind of give the committee a look. immediate sense of the area. Here's the sort of commercial corridor. And then here is the area just off of those side streets.

You've got Clinton, Murphy Court, Court, Court. and Cottage Court and I believe that bottom one is Adams Terrace. So that just really shows the kind of different contextual urban pattern on Adams versus off of Adams despite having the same underlying business zoning. In February, the committee discussed this item and the three primary topics discussed were neighborhood compatibility really the root of the issue and why the item was docketed that there can be massing mismatch between fully residential projects and business zones and their surrounding residential neighbors. There was discussion about the residential side streets versus the commercial corridors and then obviously you know we're all here to find a solution so

what the appropriate zoning tool may be looking at potential rezoning or citywide text amendment. So here we'll get into a few options. So again, here's the current zoning. You see that strip of salmon colored BU2 along all of Adams. And then here's a potential rezoning. So the areas in that kind of dark pink could be changed to the residential zone. and the areas that are sort of orangey could remain commercial. And the way that this boundary was created is

residential parcels located more than one or two lots away from Adams Street and Watertown Street and then that dotted line is just showing kind of the commercial boundary so the The funky shapes coming out, that's because those are manufacturing parcels, so they're considered commercial as well. This targeted approach would rezone select residential areas where existing land use is predominantly residential. The current business zoning designation may not reflect prevailing neighborhood conditions. You know, it was zoned business Many, many years ago when they couldn't have anticipated how the city would develop and that commercial development hasn't occurred. And so where it's really primarily a residential street development. The underlying zone could be changed.

Potential outcomes include that the residential parcels would be regulated under those residential dimensions matching their neighbors. while the business zoning would remain along the primary commercial corridor. So this is trying to kind of think about walking the line between addressing the issue of contextual development while not taking away commercial development opportunities or kind of the primary corridor feel that we want to foster. The benefits of this include addressing current concerns with limited unintended impacts because it's a very targeted kind of surgical approach. and we could really get down to the parcel level to make sure that we were considering each based off of its specific context.

And so here's just a couple kind of examples of the residential streets that could be rezoned to the residential base zoning. Here you have Court Court. currently you see it's in BU2 despite sort of the end of that street being MR2 which is the residential zoning and so in this map The parcels that are a couple past Adams could be rezoned residential. And here you have Murphy Court, same kind of idea. currently BU2 and could be rezoned to that residential district. Option number two would be a citywide text amendment.

This would modify the dimensional standards that are applicable to all residential development within business districts. It's important to kind of take a step back and look at the current ordinance framework, which is why I'm so glad we have Jane here tonight because she is The expert I defer to on how this is implemented. But dimensional standards are generally applied based on zoning district rather than use in the business and manufacturing zones. And so a text amendment would represent a broader structural change by introducing dimensional standards that vary based on use in our commercial districts. and so on. It would be kind of a one-stop shop for the issue at hand. And it's a uniform approach.

But it does, you know, that's a bit of a double edged sword where by extending beyond Ward 1, which is where we've been focusing and discussing. We would need to analyze the potential impacts in the other areas and it would require the same dimensions for residential uses regardless of their context. So whether they're in a commercial village center or a fully residential side street. So Jane and I were talking, we're like, what would a single or a two family home look like next to Antoine's Bakery on Watertown Street or the Village Bank? at the intersection of Watertown and Adams. This also could create potential non-conformities affecting commercial use. And if you have questions on that, I will send you over to Jane during the discussion.

And this is just how it's currently phrased in the ordinance. So here's the section that talks about the Dimensional requirements for each commercial business zone and it's just all building types are regulated the same way. And then in brainstorming with our current planning team and thinking about the fact that this is currently a special permit process, we came up with another potential solution, which could be used in combination with either of the other two. But that would be to add in a special permit finding for all projects seeking approval for ground floor residential use. So basically saying, giving the land use committee some extra teeth to say, okay, if this doesn't fit in with its neighborhood context,

we have to deny the permit or the project has to be altered to fit with the surrounding context and that both lets the land use committee really dictate the direction of that project based off of the context of that specific parcel. while also allowing some case-by-case flexibility where if the project comes in and it seems like it already fits, there doesn't have to be additional changes made. um so yeah this is just pretty much uh bullets of what I was just saying but if the required finding could not be made

The project would need to be modified or the special permit would be denied which would hopefully result in compliance with business districts not being The only kind of means of approval. And it looks... A little overwhelming, but it's actually not as complicated as this slide makes it look. Basically, this is just walking through that same exact special permit. process with a new required finding. And if the finding isn't made, either the project is changed or the massing is reduced or the special permit is denied.

so you know we want to hear your discussion based off of what's been proposed before we provide any formal recommendation but a possible sequencing could be considering a targeted map amendment, and that neighborhood compatibility finding in the special permit process, see if that solves the issue at hand, and then explore a broader text amendment if necessary. We're continuing to see any issues. And here's just some some questions for the committee based off of me a couple times rewatching the February meeting and just digging into this more. Just if The identified parcels warrant further consideration for rezoning. Hopefully you all received that map in the packet, but I'm happy to pull it up for discussion.

Should residential side streets within business districts be treated differently than commercial corridor properties? Would neighborhood compatibility finding improve review? especially looking at the councillors present who do sit on land use wondering if that would be helpful to you and does a phased approach look interesting. So with that, we look forward to.

Before I entertain questions, I'm just going to clarify something from the outset. If there is a parcel that is zoned to be a business zone but is now residential as opposed to commercial putting residential on the first floor, is that somehow treated any differently? Is that also...

So that's a legal question. There is... Yes. Jonah, I don't know if you want to take it, but basically there's two pathways where one could be extending the nonconformity. And that is, I'll let Jonah speak to the legal parameters of that. The other is the special permit for the ground floor use.

even though it's already residential.

Yes, because extending a nonconformity, there's the use component, but then there's also the structural component, right? So if you're tearing down and then redeveloping, and you're putting residential on the ground floor, then you're looking at the ordinance.

Mr. Temple, we normally do not have the opportunity to hear from you, but I'm glad to see you. And any clarification that the bail said about the context here, just a little bit?

No, I nailed that. You know, there's always going to be non-conforming protections and you're always be able to. Expand those nonconformities in certain ways, but the rules get pretty complicated pretty quickly. So it's hard to talk about them broadly. Maybe as we get into specific examples, we can dive deeper into it. But I just think that the non-conforming component is something that we're all going to have to keep in mind that's going to maybe limit the immediate impacts of some of these actions to a degree.

So let me just be clear as I understand it. If you have a property that doesn't conform to the current zoning in an area and you wish to make a change to it that would further increase the nonconformity, The City Council through the Land Use Committee has to make a Section 6 finding, I think it's referred to, which is that the change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Right? That's the context in which the extension of a nonconformity normally occurs. Fair? Thank you. I just mentioned that because it echoes a little bit of neighborhood compatibility.

You're breaking up a bit.

Maybe you turn your video off for a minute. We don't see you, but maybe it's single and powerful enough. Well, we'll come back to that. All right. Okay, just want to understand the basics and then we can talk about policy. Any questions on just the basics yet? I have two hands on the screen. and I have Councilor Getz in the room. So let me start with Councilor Getz and then I'll go over the answer.

Maybe we should, because I have a question for him. Oh, you have a question for him.

All right. Kalis. So, Councilor Kalis, I think your hand was up first, and I'll go to Councilor Wright.

Yeah, but is he still, was it me?

No.

Okay, so just hearing the presentation, Ms. Colello, it seemed pretty clear to me. I like a combination of one and three, if you can do that. I don't like the idea of looking at the whole city at once. I think if you go village by village, that's going to be really important. There's so many different situations. So I like one in three, and I like giving the Land Use Committee more teeth. Related to what Councilor Baker asked, So I just want to understand, so if there is a residence or a business that is currently non-conforming and they go back for something, any type of change, if this is implemented, would they have to go back to, would they go to land use or how would that work? They're currently non-conforming.

I would say that's more of a Jonah question. Oh, Jane, please.

If the use or the building is non-conforming, It would need a special permit to extend or alter that nonconformity. You can be both. You can be dimensionally nonconforming. You can be nonconforming due to the use. So if you have an existing Single family dwelling that is 36 feet tall and two and a half stories. You have a nonconforming use in a nonconforming building. Any extensions to those that increase those non-conformities, so a two and a half story addition to the rear would require a special permit that would need relief for both dimension and use.

Would any change that they're making require a special permit?

They could make internal changes. You know, you could alter the bathroom or you could

Change your windows or anything that doesn't further the nonconformity. So let's say that you're nonconforming because you're in the setback. If you're somehow renovating the house and getting less. in the setback, you wouldn't need a special permit for that. If you're going farther in the setback, you would.

But if you were altering, if you were, say you made an addition, even if it wasn't dimensionally non-conforming... because your use is not conforming because you're a first floor Your first floor residential use, it would need a special permit to extend the non-conforming use because you're making it even more of a single family dwelling, I guess.

You're adding square footage onto it. It's not allowed.

Yep, that makes sense. Okay, thank you.

but the finding there is a special finding. It's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood as opposed to the conventional special permit findings which are the usual, is the use appropriate to the site, access, safe, those kinds of things.

They would be looking at them all.

They would look at them all. Okay. I just need to be clear.

I'm sorry, Chair. Can I jump in? And I apologize for... Thanks for having some technical difficulties earlier. I did switch laptops, so it shouldn't be an issue. I do want to clarify for that section six finding that you mentioned, that really is the only criteria. It is by special permit. But we generally do not add all of the traditional special permit criteria on top of the Section 6 criteria, and we're really not allowed to.

Okay, I'm sorry. Thank you for the clarification. This is tricky. Thank you. All right, so the basic model here is that we are hearing that projects that wish to come through the process already have a special permit. If they're non-conforming, they can ask for that special permit based on a section six finding. If they're conforming, In other words, do they go through the regular special permit process without any additional criteria? Is that correct? Just want to be clear.

Without any additional criteria?

No.

Mr. Temple indicated that if the project is nonconforming, either the use or the dimensions, and you wish to go through the process of doing something to make a bigger residential building. So you take the building you have, you're going to tear it down and make a bigger one that has dimensions that are larger. You would need a special permit, but you would have to demonstrate, as I hear it under current rules, that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use. Right? Is that correct?

Yes, I think, Jonah, there is some nuance there, right, where it depends on what the nonconformity is. So you would need to dig into what exactly the structural nonconformity is and what exactly is the use nonconformity, depending on what they were proposing to change about the property.

Yes, although I would say for the most part that the chair's comment is correct. If we're talking about single and two families, if you go beyond that in terms of uses, then it gets a little more complicated.

All right, so the question is, you've got a project that is in a residential, excuse me, in a commercial zone, can take advantage of commercial setbacks. All it needs is a decision when they come, because the gatekeeping force is that there's residential on the first floor. That triggers the special permit, right? And then the question is, if it's a nonconforming project, is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use? If that finding is made, they can go ahead. So that's what I understand the big brown rule, right? Am I clear? Everybody clear on that? Mr. Temple?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. So what we're trying to figure out is Is there something more that we can add to the special permit process, which you've articulated as part of this, that would give more grounds than that standard loan would in order to make sure that this project fits into the neighborhood? that's option three yeah that's option three right and then the other option is is to somehow say we're going to move that particular parcel out of a business use into a residential use, then they could develop it as of right as a residential use without coming through a special permit because it's residential, right? Or you could make a text change that says, and this would be unusual,

is to say that if you are in a business zone and you're trying to become a residential use, then you have different dimensional standards because it is a residential use. it is a standard that's built around the use triggers a narrower or more restrictive dimensional standard. That would be the global change.

that would be the city-wide text change and then the rezoning you could build by right residential but only based off of that residential zoning dimension so It's MR2, so you can just build single and two family.

Okay. So I just want to be clear on sort of the ground rules. Now, let me go to Councilor Wright. Do you have comments about that?

Thank you, Chair Baker. I have a question for planning on the number three option. You mentioned in the memo a review authority. Who is that review authority? Oh, special use. Okay, land use. And the way it was written there, a lot of it seems like a lot of work, plus it seems very subjective, which is harder for people coming in for the special permit and for the people who are you know giving the special permit being subjective is difficult. One thing that wasn't here which I think would have been helpful to see and why it is a problem is the FAR, which is the volume of a house, in most MU, I mean, in single family and two family zoning,

is 0.5 or less. And in BU, It's generally two or three times more. So this is why it's a problem, is that allowing the BU to stand in a residential neighborhood is that you can have a volume of a house two or three times more than what's allowed now. and I think that is really the big thing that stands out.

Can I ask, is that a concern on the residential Side streets and places like Adams and Watertown or just the like fully residential areas?

The residential area because you want again you want to kind of blend in to what's there and what's there generally does not have an FAR of 1.0 or 1.5. And in the Adams Street area, there's small lots that's been built up. before zoning came and their FAR may be a little bit above what is called for now, but it's not two to three times more generally. There's probably a couple of houses there that's like that. I feel, you know, number one is the best way to go about it.

One of the things... Councilor Wright, just for the public's interest, just say which number one you're talking about.

Number one, I'm taking a look on here. Targeted map amendment. So basically it's going by the map and not do a blanket Text Change, or something like that. It's doing, kind of go through a map and do some specifics. I also, quick question, if we change A business use lot to a residential lot, do we use the old lot standards or new lot standards?

If we rezone, it would be based on when the lot was created still. So that would still be based on the year.

Okay, great. Okay, so then I also talked to President Oliver and he had a couple of questions and he kind of alluded to it, but you just looked at just Adams Street and Watertown Street. You didn't look at other parts of Nonantum, like on Craft Street. There's a whole block on the residential side of Craft Street that's zoned BU or even manufacturing zone and it's all residential. I mean, so that's an issue right there. But did you just do one area and not all of Donantum?

Yeah, I can pull up a map Definitely happy to broaden the geographic area of focus if that's the will of the committee. Here you can see a little bit more clearly. so this is the area we looked at just because You know, it is the biggest cluster. If we did pursue a rezoning, I would definitely include this parcel here, those two down. Sorry, there's a lag. those two there and then looking at I think California Street and Watertown Street there weren't many parcels that were more than one parcel away from

They're like Main Street, but I'd be happy to kind of do this mapping again for kind of zooming into those other areas.

Okay, I mean the one thing on Craft Street on the east side of Craft Street, pretty much everything else is Zone Residential, except for that one block. It was like six lots or so that's not, which is kind of strange. And again, maybe on a separate discussion we would have on that. The other thing which Oliver had a concern about is, you know, we're talking about the residential streets and rezoning those residential instead of business use. But in the core areas of the village centers that are not part of the VCOD, in VCOD we have priority streets where we don't allow first floor residential. We require retail on the first floor.

So he was concerned that, you know, going with a special permit or whatever that we would grant all residential buildings. Let's say the McDonald's, or not McDonald's, the Dunkin' Donuts on Adams and Watertown Street. If someone else bought it and put up a residential building there, Is there some way also as part of this to require first floor business use on some of these streets? and more of the core of the village centers. Not on Adams Street. Adams is a mix and stuff, but some of the other areas.

So right, that's by right. Right now it is required. That's what the special permit avenue is to kind of get out of that requirement. We could kind of look at what parcels and say, okay, does this make sense to eliminate an only residential option? I would just want to really be thoughtful about that given The current, you know, the amount of commercial that the area can support. And I think there are certain instances where a mix of uses, right? We talk about mixed use a lot in terms of in the same building. But a mix of uses along a corridor can also be helpful. So I think the short answer is yes, but with more discussion and analysis.

Well, again, we already did it to the major village centers like West Newton and Newtonville and Newton Center, and it's not saying It's the main corridor of the other village centers so that they would keep the commercial on the first floor.

Yeah, I'll just note that those do still have the underlying zoning. So often those are BU, which means They have the special permit option that the other properties have. It's just whether they opt into VCOD. So they could right now do the same thing that any of the parcels on Adams Street can do.

Okay.

Okay, that's it for right now. Thank you.

Okay. Other questions? Councilor Cash.

Yeah. Specifically, thank you, Chair. I actually was, and this question is for Mr. Temple, When we require a finding at the Land Use Committee, and I'm a little concerned about this requirement of this additional funding being waived. Is there any sort of ability to sort of say that this finding cannot be waived?

Are you talking about in terms of this proposed new special permit criteria?

No.

Well, I think it would only be triggered if you're seeking a special permit, not if you're simply seeking an extension of a non-conforming use or structure. That would be solely a Section 6 finding.

No, I think, let me try another way. What I'm trying to say is the project is already going through the special permit process. And this requirement, you know, in terms of the finding being required, It sort of seems as if like with any finding, please educate me. Can they not in being in this discretionary role, can they potentially say we don't need to do this?

I think I could take a stab at it based on my experience in land use and Jonah, feel free to jump in. Findings can't be waived. They are attached to the zoning relief for which a project is pursuing. So we have specific findings for nonconforming uses, as we heard. We have specific findings for FAR. We have specific findings for single family attached dwellings when pursuing that relief. and whether the council waives some of the standards associated with those. There's sections of the ordinance that says to obtain this relief, the city council must make this finding. So when preparing, planning, materials, the land use planners put forth the criteria and the findings the council need to consider when weighing their decision.

and then as the process goes on that results in a council order inclusive of those findings whether for approval or denial. Does that answer your question?

But it sort of feels as if you just qualify

Thank you for joining us. When she says include that finding for approval or denial, it just is saying, in the denial, we'd say we found that it does not meet this finding. Just typing it out whether or not the finding was met, and if it's not met, they deny it.

Okay, but you're suggesting to me that in ordinance it would require that in fact this finding needs to be addressed.

The suggestion was that there is a new finding for this type of relief being sought that kind of gives a higher standard of review for the land use committee to specifically consider the aforementioned you know compatibility with the neighborhood when making this finding you know I think The FAR finding is not in derogation of the size, scale, and design of us. So it would be a similar finding to that, but you can't waive findings.

Or the requirement to put forth this finding.

Yeah, just to clarify, if you are creating a new special permit criteria and some use triggers... The need for that special permit, then that criteria must be met. There must be a finding for it. It's not discretionary. It can't be waived. Right now we have five special permit criteria The City Council has to make a finding of all five of them in order to issue a special permit. If any one isn't there, then a special permit by law cannot be granted.

Okay. All right. Thank you. The other question that I had was specifically, I actually like the, you know, all three. And I say this because I sort of, when you were showing the pictures, I remember that those pre-existing, pre-zoning buildings were actually pretty much maxed out on those lots, that they were beyond what would be allowed today. So I sort of feel as if we need to sort of think about the potential, you know, and you're only one or two parcels from this main corridor. So I'm a little, I like the idea of going citywide. you know just because they sort of and it will require more study but I also feel as if it's a little bit more solid and I also have very concerns that the test case you know proposal That is all dependent on whether or not a property flips, whether or not it comes to market and it actually is presented as a potential case study. And that may or may not happen over a period of time.

It's dependent on the lot. you know even if you rezone it now it needs to come to market and it needs to transact so you're dealing with a very finite pool of potential lots that will meet this or be in this Cycle. So that's a little concerning to me. You know, it's just sort of you will apply it simply to this one zone if you do the targeted, but it's going to, I think, have implications. There are more laws that potentially could benefit from this. I also feel that you know The trigger for me is when someone wants 100% residential on a BU designated lot. That to me is the trigger. And I sort of feel as if then that should require, if you're in the special permit process, that you then need residential standards for whatever budding residential zone is.

That to me sort of feels as if it's the most natural thing to do. If you are 100% residential on that BU-designated lot, then you trigger residential students.

Sorry, just quick clarification. If it's adjacent to a residential district or if Regardless, no matter what.

Well, no, I think it's more the, you know, the issue is what Councilor Wright was speaking to is that you've got a property that's being redeveloped, abutting a residential zone. that, you know, is inappropriate, you know, for that, in all of those criteria, the dimensional controls. So I just sort of feel as if, to me, if you are 100% residential, you trigger the proximal residential dimensional controls. And I sort of didn't know whether or not You know, have we ever done anything like this where we just use that one?

Let me rephrase what I think you're asking about.

I'm facing the microphone.

Thank you for facing the microphone. Farrell, if you're still on. So what I understand, again, from the basics, that either through Section 6 funding process or through a conventional special permit. Someone who wants to put a residential use on the first floor of a business zone has to get a special permit. Right now the special permit criteria are the limited ones we have for all special permits. What is being asked of the committee is if we wanted to add a criterion that speaks like a Section 6 finding, but more specifically, as Ms. Colello has outlined in her memo, Does this fit into the context, right? And not is it not substantially more detrimental, but it's more of an affirmative finding that it fits.

And that is a higher standard than a Section 6 finding. What you're asking is, can I have more than that? Can I say that in addition, you should meet the dimensional controls that would otherwise apply to a residential structure if it were in a residential zone? Now, which residential zone? We haven't decided yet, but you're asking, can I ask for not just a qualitative, but a quantitative criteria that goes to what you could do if this was a residential zone? Zoned Parcel. Am I correct in what you're asking?

Yeah. I'm saying if you're designated BU and you want to build 100% residential.

Right.

then you would then be required to implement the proximal residential standard.

Well, that's different from as of right, I mean, right now they go through special permits.

well I think that that's a little sort of disconcerting because I sort of if you're in the special permit process I think that all the doors are open you know But if, in fact, you are a BU-designated lot and you want to build 100% residential, then you are required to follow through with... Well, but you have to go through the special permit gate now, as I understand it.

Right? So the question I'm trying to understand is, is your suggestion to add to a neighborhood compatibility standard, which is option three, some version of option two, which says that not we're going to change the zoning citywide, but when you come through the special permit gate, you must conform to the residential dimensions in addition to the finding that it doesn't impact the adverse thing.

Yeah, yeah. But that would be citywide, correct?

That would, well, it would be, option three is citywide too because it, Right? So that would be citywide as well. You're saying, but I just want to understand your suggestion. Okay. But you're coming through it through not by changing the zone for each of these parcels. And you're not saying that there's a different dimensional requirement available if you want to do it, but no special permit, which could be a citywide change. You're saying you're only doing it when you come through the special permit process.

Well, yeah, that's what my concern is mostly that they come through the special permit process and they use the new standards. So I want them to, you know, and I think that what's also happening is that they're, you know, um, You know, it's like the Clinton. Was it more than one residential unit there? I can't remember. So it was beyond that, too, you know, in terms of most family being built on that, in that structure.

Yeah.

My question for you is then, because, yeah, I think Quintin was part of the reason for docketing this item. On Adams Street, should it still only be single and two family with the residential?

Well, this is where I was triggered by seeing the images because I think they're above what would be, I mean, they could build to existing.

I'm sorry, you're trying to weld to the microphone, but I can't quite understand.

Now we're getting into the specifics of Adam Street. you know in terms of the images that we saw and those booms were pre-existing zoning so that they're well beyond what would be allowed by right now I'm pretty sure I can't remember. I just sort of remember you had almost a long line in terms of the existing building. But what is concerning to me is that if you're building 100% residential, then I think the residential standards should apply.

Well, that's a judgment call that we have as a committee to make. But I just want to be clear that what you're proposing is taking option three, right, and adding to it criteria that you have to meet the residential standards. Now, the question of which residential standard?

Well, this was MR2 right next door.

Well, I'm just trying to understand because there are different ones.

Whatever the zone is, you know.

So option two and option three are your...

Yeah, well, I'm sort of, I actually sort of feel as if it's important to do the same Y. But I don't know that we're ready to do that yet, because I sort of feel like this seems like it's ripe.

You know, in the sense of just being able to... Let me back up for a second. We really got... You could go through, as Ms. Colella was indicated, a process whereby you say, let's make some of these business use parcels all MR or whatever the surrounding district is. And in that case, they don't come through any special permit process at all. They're just available for redevelopment And if they are non-conforming, they can go through a Section 6 special permit process, but that's not applicable citywide. It's just that anybody in a residential zone can do that. So that's a rezoning process by map. What you're asking is, and say, and I want to be clear about whether all of these things go,

For those parcels that still remain, that are not rezoned, for those parcels that still remain, you like a suggestion of the planning department about neighborhood compatibility, but you would also like to have The defenders as well as the belt. You would like to have the adjacent residential dimensional controls applied, recognizing that in a number of situations, Those will already have been exceeded. Now, if they have already been exceeded and somebody wants to redevelop that, are you going to let them redevelop the existing footprint or require them to go to the Smaller footprint that would be if they kept it.

I think if it's pre-existing, we can't change it to Section 6.

No, no, I just need to understand. So if they happen to be non-conforming to this loop, the problem is not a dimensional control. I'm sorry. Let me try to be clear. The dimensional control you're talking about is being added through the special permit process. It is not available already, so it doesn't make that parcel non-conforming, right? Because you're applying it through the special permit date. So you're saying you want to redevelop this and you want to make it all residential in a commercial building on Adams Street. Let's say it's on Adams Street. And the building is already bigger.

Right. If they build to existence, They're probably non-performing.

Well, that's a different question. That's what I'm trying to understand.

I don't think they can. I think that they're allowed to do this.

I'm not sure they are, but let's just...

I think this is kind of a key point. And I think if I reframe it, maybe we can kind of break the log jam and not. Well, I tried my best. So I've got something and I'm going to make up the dimensional controls for a second. Bear with me. I've got a building that's five foot from the side setback and it's supposed to be 10. It would be I want to redevelop. I'm going to raise the building, R-A-Z-E, and build something new. What I understand, Council, Thank you for joining us.

The neighboring MR2 10-foot side setback, in which case they'd either have to abide by that or get an additional Weaver of that requirement. Is that what you're saying, Councilor Getz?

Yeah, I'm trying to sort of But I don't know that they can do that, actually.

Don't say what they can do.

We're going to show them what they can do. The law of protection is what, if any, I think that we're getting to is What, if any, mechanism do we want to have to allow pre-existing noncompliance to govern a new building, right? And so what I'm understanding Councilor Getz to say is, if you wanna redevelop, You don't get to have the benefit of your pre-existing non-compliance. We're now going back to... You got to go to some sort of residential... I see Councilor, just for the record, for those who can't see on, Councilor Getz is now

The Chair can recognize nods, but never mind.

Through the Chair, let's recognize the nods. But it gets to a very important question, which is Landowner, and then through the landowner to the developer, benefit from pre-existing non-compliance with either Well, not with the BU standards because there are no BU standards. And so I think what Councilor Getz you're trying to get to is If you're going to redevelop and we're not going to rezone, we've got to put in some sort of dimensional controls that recognize this is not a commercial building that is a residential building. And so I think the problem stated that way, then there are multiple options. But I think what Councilor Getz is getting at is if you're going to build 100% residential in your BU zone, BU district,

You don't get to build the way you do as a commercial building because commercial building we have laxer dimensional controls because that is appropriate for commercial development but not for residential.

Thank you.

To which I would just add one thing, which is I am Councilor Getz's Residential Redevelopment Translator, but I'm not necessarily in agreement with this. And I'll come back to it. But I think the question is a good one. I'm going to repeat it one more time just so we're all on the same page. if I'm building, if I'm redeveloping and my redevelopment is residential only in a BU district and we haven't remapped so it's still a BU district, Councilor Getz is advocating for different dimensional standards that are reflective of that wholly residential redevelopment.

Regardless of an existing nonconformity?

Exactly. Good. Another good point. And regardless of the underlying BU dimensional standards.

I mean, I think that raises real questions for me, right? The state law presents a floor.

Hang on a minute. I just want to be clear about what we're talking about. The idea that I'm hearing is that if there is a parcel which is an existing commercial or even a residential building that's in a BU district that's going to be wholly residential. Councilor Goetz would like to have in that context as part of the special permit that is to be granted because it's going to have residential on the first floor. We already have that gate. She would like to have the dimensional controls that would otherwise apply if it were a residential building in a residential zone.

So there's an important thing, because if I can jump in. The goal that she would like to have is some sort of residential dimensional standards.

I understand. But for purposes of clarity, I'd like to state it as simply as I can. Okay. And then go down to Mr. Temple. since I want to get a comment from the law department about as what amounts to a specialized special permit criterion which says you meet a specific dimensional standard in addition to The neighborhood compatibility standard that is being added by the planning department at Auction 3.

Yeah, as I said before, I think it's very difficult to answer these questions in a vacuum because The devil is going to be in the details. In the example we're talking about, is the existing structure conforming dimensionally? Is it non-conforming dimensionally? When it's being rebuilt, is it Increasing any of the non-conformities? Is it adding new non-conformities? We can't take away All of the non-conforming protections. You can't just say anytime you're reconstructing, you now need to meet the new standards. There is some room. that non-conformities can be increased solely through a section six binding. So I think there's a room to do a lot of what you guys are talking about, but there are some guardrails here.

So let me try to be specific about the guardrails, then I'm going to come back to Councilor Wright. The idea is that you're talking about a business use zone. And in a business use, there are dimensional controls that apply to a business use, right? And their dimensional controls are relatively modest because it's a business I don't know what they are offhand. Jane, do you remember Cole?

In the business districts, the size setback is either half the building height or equal to the abutting. So in some cases, The business districts will have greater setbacks than would be required for a residential use. So if you have a 24-foot building, which is the max height that would be allowed in a business district by right, and you would be required to have a 12 foot set setback. Whereas if you had to meet the residential setback, it would likely be seven and a half feet, MR districts. So you're actually potentially in the height for a

So in a lot of cases, other than the potential for FAR, the business districts have greater setback requirements depending on certain conditions than would a business district.

Let's pause and hear from Councilor Wright.

Thank you. I actually disagree with Getz. So if we do number one and we rezone anyway, so you get rid of the BU's in the residential lots, you're going to keep the BU on the business streets like Adams Street. and at Adams Street, I think that's a place where you could have small apartment buildings, which has a higher You know, FAR. Because if you just come from the FAR, if you use the residential, you won't have that density whatsoever on Adams Street. But Adams is a, you know, more of a main thoroughfare, thoroughway. and I think it could have small apartment buildings.

We should keep it in the BU zoning, but take care of the side streets where you don't want those setbacks in FAR or BU and rezone those to residential.

I think that Councilor Wright is on to something here because I think it becomes complicated. There are two different use cases, as Councilor Wright is saying. It's 100% residential. Having residential type-dimensional controls is problematic. On the side streets... you're not mixing a... I mean, Adams Street is actually in many ways very successful in its mix of uses, even if it's not kind of typically a bunch of mixed use buildings. And so I think that Adams Street having A little commercial, partner in a little commercial is successful.

And if you limit it to residential dimensional standards, you end up with what happened on and Lincoln Street, what you'll get is a big two family condo right next to commercial So I agree on the Adams Street side. On the off Adams Street side, the side street problem, this is, I think, the conundrum of a residential neighborhood that has grown up under Be you dimensional controls and has buildings that are not, that don't conform to residential dimensional standards and kind of retrofitting

and I worry about that mostly because the existing character of the neighborhood visually is actually different and tighter and less dimensional controls. And two is we're just going to be taking away development potential and therefore property value, because if you say you've got an existing, and this may be addressed by what Mr. Temple was saying, if I have a parcel and my improvement, my building on the parcel would be nonconforming with the new zoning then I've lost significant amount of my redevelopment potential and that's a bit of a taking. So that's my concern. So I think Councilor Wright is 100% correct on Adams Street.

Imposing residential dimensional standards wouldn't make sense. I think on the side streets, it feels attractive to retrofit those residential dimensional standards

Well, anytime we change the rules, So there's a more restrictive opportunity. It's going to potentially change property values. We've done that.

Just raising it.

Yeah. But the question, I think, is to give guidance going forward to where where we think the time is going to be best spent. Let me ask a couple of questions of both our council and the planners here. So we've We've heard at least through Councilor Roche that if we did a rezoning, so that we made, for example, the side streets, which was one of your rezoning, into an MR zone, that the practical reality is that they may be non-conforming properties in a sense to the MR they may be bigger than the MR zone would allow I don't know the answer to that but the assumption is that by doing that we will limit the kind of

of oversized building that could occur on that site because people are building all the way through the setbacks. But if in fact they're already oversized, we're not restricting the development opportunity. We're just creating a nonconforming structure. So I just want to be clear about that. Is that the impact or not?

So it very much depends on the parcel. I think a lot of what Councilor Getz and Councilor Roche were mentioning were specifically court courts. You can see these are very tight parcels with pretty significant nonconformity currently. Currently they're non-conforming based off use and other dimensional regulations. Yeah, they're tiny lots so they don't conform no matter what. I think if we're looking at something like Clinton, you might... Be able to redevelop a conforming single or two family home in the MR zone. So that gets at the kind of rezoning.

We wouldn't be necessarily creating any non-conformities. These are inherently non-conforming parcels because they are residential uses in business zones. So if anything, we would be bringing the use into conformity and then the dimensions would depend on the lot and the proposed structure and the existing structure.

So I guess what I'm hearing is the challenge for me as a process matter going forward is the rezoning is a we all know is a it takes a significant amount of time and resources we've got to tell everybody that you're going to change your zone you're going to go through the MapChange, you've got to do all of that. And I'm thinking of the problem that we're really trying to solve is that there are buildings that are coming into place that are out of scale with their context. which goes back to your third standard. And what that leads me to, at least on a provisional basis myself, is more sympathy with an option three because that does give you a citywide response and says if you are in a BU district and you want to make something that's going to be a first floor residential, we want to make sure it fits into the context.

Now, maybe one of the issues is that you look at what would be the otherwise applicable dimensional standards for assessing that. That would be a way of getting at it, not decisive. but would be a way of getting at it. There may be other issues in your memo you articulated as several different, are qualitative standards. This I'm just adding as a quantitative one. But it seems to me that that might avoid The real challenge that we have just as a process matter going forward to do a major rezoning of a small parcel, and we're still not small parcel, a small section of the city. We've got small pieces scattered around. and it would be useful to understand if you took the option three avenue as opposed to the rezoning, just to say, all right, let's take a look at these other places and this place

Would that standard assist us and avoid a Clinton Street problem? Because Clinton Street seems to be the poster child here for what we don't want to have happen. Or could it have avoided it if we had it? And is there any potential mischief that we're not foreseeing in other parts of the city where you've got your magenta dots scattered around? There are not many of them, but there are a few. and what does that look like? At least for me, that seems to be a cleaner and faster way to get to a better outcome than... trying to do the rezoning where I'm not confident the rezoning is going to solve the problem. It's just going to take some parcels out of special permit in one way, but they're going to leave them in special permit through a Section 6 finding, and they're going to be back in the Land Use Committee anyway.

So I'm not sure I've solved, at least I'm not sure it's worth to go through that dance step when we've got a tool that you have suggested that might apply citywide and could apply whether it's commercial or residential. And if it's in a residential portion, which you're put in your, if I can put it this way, in your magenta area, the finding would require more stuff on the part of the property owner to make sure that it works. If it happened to be on Adams Street, which is the situation where you would leave it alone anyway, the finding might be relatively easy to make because you've got in exactly the context that Councilor Roche has talked about. That's sort of where I'm coming out, and I don't know whether the members of the committee feel the same way.

The only other thought that I'm having is, is it possible, you know, if in fact you've delineated the setbacks, and then I'm mostly concerned now about the FAR, you know, in terms of whether or not you can restrict the FAR.

Well, that's again, if you wanted to say we would like you in the finding process as an index of whether this fits into the context, is the FAR that would have otherwise applied You know, within range, or does it seem out of scale? I mean, there are a variety of ways you can frame the finding criteria.

Something that Councilor Wright said in the very beginning, that it seemed as if it was kind of subjective, you know, in terms of the finding being supported by the criteria that's in the memo. You know, there were like three. and I sort of feel as if can we then delineate or talk about a specific range or, you know, appropriate amount of farm.

If I can put a frame around what I think you're trying to do is you're saying I would like the land use committee in the process of making sure that this fits into the context, right, whatever that means, to examine a variety of aspects that it might not otherwise examine so that we understand Better, whether it fits in. The standard of not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood is kind of a negative finding and it's very broad. And that's used for Section 6 nonconformities. You're saying I would like I like the idea the planning department has come up with, but I'd like to make it more robust. I'd like to have more information for them to examine to make sure that the Situation on the ground that actually gets built really works. And we avoid a competitive streak.

Yeah.

Is that a fair summary?

Yeah. And, you know, the bullet point number two is the scale and massing of nearby development. Inclusive of FAR or, you know,

I think you could ask for that. I mean, I think as adept as our planning department may be in responding to suggestions, I think they need to click on this a little bit. But what I'm hearing is that you like a version of option three with more specific references that pick up the residential context. that you've raised, right? Okay, and just be clear about that. Councilor Wright, let me come back to you.

Thank you. I just want to understand this a little more. Would this in this option three, would this pertain to everything that goes any land or that goes to the special permit or is it just The lots that are BU but are going to go full residential. or is there a map that's saying these lots should have this additional review?

You're talking about that if you're, as I hear it, it's a global chain. It's basically saying if you're in a business A BU2 zone, right? And you want to have first floor residential. Right now, you have to go through a special permit gate. That's nothing new. That's applicable citywide, as I hear it, right? and if that's the gate you have what I'm hearing is the planning department has said in order to go through that gate we want to add some criteria that are going to make it clear that you're fitting into the context but I'm hearing from At least Councilor Getz, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to this myself, is can you elaborate on what is relevant for discussion in making that judgment?

My worry is whoever makes that decision because it is subjective, it depends who makes up the city council and who makes up the land use. And that changes over time versus doing outright changing of their zoning Yeah, they may go still into a special permit, but those controls are, it's harder to give a special permit okay for something that's twice as much as the FAR. It's just so subjective.

It's certainly subjective in the sense that you've got a bunch of folks voting yes on a particular matter and they've got to get to agreement on at least 13 votes. But what I'm hearing from you is that you would still like to do the rezoning and then Would you be sympathetic to this?

Oh yeah, I'd be sympathetic. And I am sympathetic to it, but it puts a lot of pressure on people because it's so squishy. And it's hard for someone going in for a special permit Where is it going to land?

That's true right now. Anytime you go into a special permit right now, we haven't changed. It's even more squishy right now.

Yeah, but if your underlying zoning is a residential and you're going for a 1.0 FAR, which is twice of what it is, That's easier to say, yeah, I'm not going to accept that. But if your underlying zoning is BU and you can go up to 1.5 and I'm asking for a 1.0, you know, There's a little bit of wiggle room there. And yes, you need to consider your neighborhood in the context, but Yeah, it's not as strong of what we're trying to do. I'm just worried the makeup of the City Council and the land use and which way it can go.

Fair point. I guess the point is, though, if you leave some part of commercial, some part of some, let's say you do the rezoning, you're still going to have Adam Street subject to some Some control under special permit. The question is, what is the scope of the special permit requirements that you would like to have? And you're still going to have those. And the question is how robust they are.

And that scope on Adams Street for a BU lot would be different, at least for me, the standards versus on Cook Street or on another street, a residential street.

And residential, we've already made that. That's the problem, that the application of the standard would be different in each case because the neighborhood context would be different. The question is, do we want to... Do we want to go forward? I think committee has kind of a decision point here. Do we want to have what I would call a strong special permit requirement alone or do we want to have a strong special permit requirement plus a rezoning? Those are, you know, they can, Whatever strong means is going to be subject to elaboration. We're going to get there in a little bit, I hope. But I'm trying to get a sense of where we want to spend our time and energy. at least my personal concern is the rezoning process is itself a protracted exercise with I think more limited gains than we can ask for given what we know. But that's just where I am.

Councilor Kalis.

Yeah, so my... Thank you, Mr. Chair. My inclination at the beginning was a combination of one and three, and I'm still there, and I guess Councilor Wright has kind of more articulated this, but... There is some, I mean, you've made a good argument, I think, as usual. So I'm listening. I just don't, I'm not sure I'm ready for a final decision on this right at this point, but... I need to think about it more.

Right. So, Councilor Goetz, and then I'm going to send it, Councilor.

Hello. Thank you, Chair. Is Megan Perrin one, Perrin two? Disassociate the two, make the rezoning two. Well, we can, yeah, we can ultimately split the item, and I think that... Sure.

I think in terms of a voting process, I think it makes sense. And I don't quarrel with that. I'm just trying to figure out where we where we advised the planning department to go. Councilor Roche, thank you.

So just as a practical matter, All one member of land use frequently asks what the calculated FAR would be in cases already kind of a practice in land use is to take a look at the FAR even where it's not specified. So just to give you some comfort, Councilor Getz. I'm so I think my concern with the neighborhood compatibility is it's designed to address a very specific set of cases in Nonantum and may end up being too restrictive in other cases. So where it's a predominantly residential, it's already predominantly residential

Finding compatibility with the business district makes some sense. But where it's not, it might not. And I'm thinking of 1100 Beacon Street, the one-stop cleaners. where if it becomes 100% residential development, which is a different battle for a different time, it's not going to be consistent really with anything but intentionally so and would be for the benefit for larger benefits. So if you have to have a finding of compatibility, a positive finding as opposed to what you've described, Chair Baker, as a negative finding, then I think we're going to have Some real challenges because it doesn't look like it wouldn't look like a gas station. It wouldn't look like a one story commercial building.

It wouldn't look like a five story residential condos.

Yeah, and it's a very mixed zone. It's got huge residential across the street.

It wouldn't really look a whole lot like anything.

I'm so sorry. I just want to make everyone aware I believe this is still active before land use, so I don't... I just want to be careful about deliberation on this item.

and a block that's a BU district with predominantly in other areas of the city where somebody might be proposing a good 100% residential development in a BU district, Okay, thank you.

I guess we need to try and bring some order out of this conversation to give the planning department some guidance and figure out where we're going. And Councilor Oliver very much, President Oliver expressed his regrets for not being able to be here, but he would, and except for the commitment that I think is all of us are very assured to, that even trumps this, I can use that term. So I think the question that is before us is this. If we have the neighborhood compatibility standard, that assist in the areas that are BU right now that are close to a residential area. I guess the question to pick up on

are concerned that Councilor Roche, in a sense, looking at a commercial area, is there a way to frame the option three? so that it would pick up the context in a way that recognizes that there's a commercial area there, but that a larger residential presence might be appropriate. It's a little different from what Councilor Getz said earlier. And certainly in the neighborhood context, a robust finding of affirmative compatibility makes sense to me. What I'm hearing is, are there circumstances where the abutters are commercial, where a fully built-out residential use might be fine because it doesn't adversely affect an abutting residential use. It's only affecting an abutting commercial use. And therefore,

The compatibility standard might not be the same, but you're at least recognizing the context. And it seems to me that I'm still not persuaded to go the full rezoning route yet. because of the administrative challenges of figuring out where the lines are drawn again, all of that, as opposed to trying to make it a context standard that will give us something to look at that could apply both to Adams Street and the side streets and indeed in other parts of the city. And I know you haven't looked at these other small areas, but we're talking only about a handful of BU's that are beyond this board one, right? and we still have a few parts of board one that Councilor Wright indicated we really haven't had a chance to look at even for the rezoning part. So what I'm wondering is whether the committee is

Let me just get a sense of how many people on the committee want to carry forward with some version of a rezoning. Because if that doesn't gain enough votes then I think we're in option three and the question is what does option three look like doesn't mean that you're precluded from option three this is Councilor Kalis's point he wants some He wants some cake and ice cream or whatever the right metaphor is. But I wanted to see whether people feel that the rezoning is worth pursuing because then it involves, I think, in fairness, a look at the other parcels that have not been considered in the rezoning option to just take a look at them and see if they should be rezoned as well. But if you think that's more trouble than it's worth, then we just go to an enhanced standard. So let me just get a sense from the members of the committee. I'll just draw a poll. Councilor Wright, you wanna go there?

Yeah. Before we make a decision or throwing one thing out, which I still support the rezoning, we need to take a look at least at some of these other One's two and that'll help us even defining in number three because right now we're looking at a specific instance you know a specific problem is a specific area of the city but we don't know how that is in other parts of the city.

That's good. Voice from the ether. All right. Wright is arguing that we need to have a little more time and effort on the rezoning. All right, let me just see. How many people want to pursue the rezoning? Councilor Wright has made an argument. Councilor, just hold up your hands. One, two, three, four. Five, let's see, four. Four, okay. That's majority of the committee presence. So let's consider that, but let's talk about how to do it. How many people would like to see a consideration of enhanced Contact standard that would take account of either commercial or residential neighbors. That's sort of the version that I've talked about. That's a version of three.

Yeah.

Okay, so I've got five for that. So I think the direction then I would recommend based on what we've just seen is to the members to the planning department is to consider the rezoning option for the parcels that you have not yet examined. and also consider what would an enhanced compatibility standard look like that would take account of the residential abutters in a way that assures that something doesn't get built that really doesn't work for them. but also takes account of the commercial abutters where a residential, full residential use might be perfectly okay. Now that's a hard charge to give you but I think that's the sense of the committee at this point. Is that a fair summary? Is that a fair summary, colleagues? We have Councilor Block who's joined us. I'm sorry, welcome.

Block. You wish to add something? Yes.

Well, I have been listening to this conversation for a while. I just, from a From a land use, at least my land use perspective, this is just instinctual, that a rezoning would be clearer for our process. and if you're not rezoning and you're just leaving it up to land use and then eventually the full city council to make some relatively subjective judgments that that's likely to generate more disputes, more variation over time.

Whereas if you can settle on on the zoning for specific parcels. That gives us more structure to make these determinations. So that's, I just wanted to say that.

That's all. Thank you. I think you're in accord with the majority of the committee. Okay. In accord with you, depending on your point of view. Councilor Wright.

I just want to make one other point about I know some people don't want to rezone, but if they have a BU lot and they want to do all residential, they have to do a special permit anyways. If we rezone them to residential, they can build by right. Now, if they want to go beyond what's there and maybe what's in the context of the neighborhood, they can go for a special permit so rezoning it makes it easier for redevelopment because they they have a by right option to build all, you know, all residential. So in some ways we're helping them out that they don't have to go through the special permit process. That's it.

Okay. All right. Ms. Colillo. Are you clear on what we've asked you to do?

I'm not. I got one question. I'm not clear. If I might. So, Mr. Chair, so are you asking Ms. Colello to look at the entire city?

Well, no, I'm asking her to look at the entire city on two dimensions. The first is just look at the parcels that were not part of the rezoning. If we're talking about rezoning, we just need to know what's going on in these other parcels. as long as we weren't pursuing rezoning, I wouldn't ask that. But because there are other parcels in the city that are NBU character We just leave, at least as a matter of consistency, I don't want to say we're just going to rezone a street in Onantum and not take care of every place else, right? At least we need to know what it is. After an examination, Ms. Colello may come back and say, We leave them alone. They're like Adam Street, right? Based on our examination, and then we don't touch them. But at least examine them, right? So that's the piece on the rezoning.

Okay, that makes sense. I second your motion.

Well, I just want to be clear. Okay, Ms. Colello, you're clear you're going to look to see whether other parcels might be appropriately rezoned since the majority of the committee is in favor of rezoning along the lines you've indicated, but also how to craft for the parcels that are not rezoned a more robust version of a special permit criteria.

Yeah, we'll get creative with that.

No, I fully expect you can. I just want to be clear on what your mission is. Okay? All right. Any other comments on this item from anybody? I want to thank, oh, behind us, I'm sorry. Malakie, welcome.

I've been here for I don't know how long, 20 minutes? So I missed the discussion, the early discussion. I'm just wondering why there's been no discussion of option two.

Option two is essentially The concern is we don't know what is happening to other parts of the city. We may agree that the Hodgson City doesn't disappear, but because anytime you want to make a change, from a commercial use to having a whole residential. Right now, you've got to go through special programming. So the question is, that is a citywide change if you add something and don't even re-own them. That's what I was talking about, but I didn't get it. I didn't get any votes except mine for that process. So we're going to go back and look and see why the other party doesn't mean we might not end up someplace.

Because I mean, to me, option two seems Pretty straightforward in applying the same principle that if you're going to have build residential in a business zone, you should use residential

That's not where the committee came out.

Don't we already have a list of all the Yes, Ms. Colello went through them.

But it was a map. We didn't have a list. But she has that information.

So is it in list form?

Yeah, we have a GIS map of it. I've been working with a PDF just for presentation purposes, but We can go back into the GIS data.

If we could all get the list, we can look at the list. I'd be interested to look at the ones in Ward 3.

As part of the report, I know this is not your department first, but someone is going to do a report about this. And I think that, I don't think that Vince Colella, unless you have that, do you have that handy now? If you don't, then I don't want to ask you for the report.

Yeah, it would take a little bit of work, but I'll definitely have it if it's needed in the next meeting. Didn't it take a list to make the math?

If you find a way to generate that, I think

In anticipation of the next meeting, what I would do is try and generate the list as well as the map of those areas you're looking at. for possible rezoning. Even if you conclude you recommend otherwise, right? And that way we'll be prepared for it. Now the question is in terms of timing. We're going to meet on the 20th. Is this Something that you could work with in that period of time and returns while it's still relatively fresh. We're not going to public theory or anything yet, but just to get clarity on this item.

Yeah, I definitely can work on this. Just depends on other committee priorities.

So if this is... Well, we have the whole question. I just want to speak to committee priorities just so everyone understands. We're just working very hard on trying to figure out responses to the demolition of the houses that are small and replaced by bigger houses. There have been comments about doing it through some redevelopment. We're asking the planning department to look very carefully at what we can do to try and remedy that problem directly. but we haven't gotten a response yet and that's going to take some time and the department's spending time with that. So that has been a priority of the committee and for our process and I think is still the highest priority. It depends on if it turns out that working on that means this has to be pushed off a bit and let's push this off just to be clear but I think that the you've made substantial progress in the memo that you generated and the

I hope we can get to some resolution on this and the next time we come around and then the president will be here as well. So, okay. Any other comments? Questions? And if not, I would entertain a motion to hold. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstentions? The ayes have it. Thank you those who are not members of the committee to join us. Mr. Temple, thank you for joining us on behalf of the department. And our new vice city clerk or assistant or deputy or You want to reconsider? You don't have to. Again, thank you very much for coming. Okay, I think that's it, folks. We are adjourned, and stay tuned for the 20th, and the next meeting beyond that would be after the council meeting in August, which would be The 3rd. If we use it. Trying to do homework.

The 10th of August.

Yeah, that would be the 17th of August. That would be the next meeting. and members of the council and committee, I just want to mention the process. Ms. Filleleau indicated their time and resources are limited. If you have things you want them to work on, I would ask that they please check with me and the vice chair because we've tried to allocate the time that we have available from them. They do other things besides work for us. to these high priority items and try and figure out ways to get them on our agenda and deal with it. So just to answer to that, if you would, and certainly the department, if you have a question about where to spend time, check with me and check with the vice chair. We'll try and help sort that out so you don't get caught. All righty. Thank you all. Thank you for everyone's attendance and have a good rest of Independence Day, you know. 250th.