Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-07-PB-min Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 7, 2024 Page 1 of 10 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on Wednesday February 7, 2024, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Planning Board members present: Robert Peters, Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Vice-Chair; Melanie Thompson, Clerk; Robert Creech, Charles Hornig, and Michael Leon, associate member. Also present were: Abby McCabe, Planning Director; Meghan McNamara, Planner; Sheila Page, Assistant Planning Director; Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator; Lorraine Welch, Senior Economic Development Coordinator; Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, Planning Coordinator. Robert Peters, Chair of the Planning Board, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, February 7, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. Lex Media is filming this meeting and will record it for future viewing here. Detailed information for remote participation by the public may be found on the Planning Office web page. Mr. Peters conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Mr. Peters provided a summary of instructions for members of the public in attendance. It was further noted that materials for this meeting are available on the Town's Novus Packet dashboard. Development Administration 331 Concord Ave. Cabot, Cabot & Forbes – Public meeting on a Preliminary Subdivision application to subdivide the lot into three lots on a small cul-de-sac The Planning Board discussed the application of Cabot, Cabot, & Forbes, Inc. for approval of a preliminary subdivision plan under §175-5.0 of the Planning Board’s Subdivision Regulations. The property is located at 331 Concord Ave. - Map 10, Lots: 31B, 31C, 31A & Map 9 Lot 11B in the RO (one-family) and VO (Village Overlay) Zoning Districts. The project proposes subdividing property into 3 lots on a cul-de-sac. The applicant was represented by project engineer Nick Dellacava from Allen & Major associates, Inc. Also present were Quinlan Locke from Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, LLC, and Lauren Jezienicki from One Circle. Mr. Dellacava shared the plans for the preliminary subdivision of 331 Concord Avenue and provided the location and site details. Mr. Dellacava also shared the existing conditions plan, the proposed layout, the grading and drainage plan, and the utility plan and went over the details. Ms. McCabe explained to the Board that this was a preliminary subdivision plan which is intended to give applicants guidance on what they should incorporate into their next definitive submission. She added that no building permits can be issued from a preliminary plan’s approval. Ms. McCabe added that Planning staff recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision plans and informed that there were 19 conditions listed in a draft decision staff prepared in the Novus packet which staff would be looking for in the definitive subdivision application. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 7, 2024 Page 2 of 10 Mr. Creech said that he was expecting a multi- family housing in this location as it was part of the village overlay district for MBTA Communities. Mr. Locke said that at this time they have not submitted any plans for a housing development and were focusing on the preliminary subdivision plan. Public Comment Tom Shiple, 18 Phinney Road, wanted to bring to the attention of the applicant the two articles that were being proposed to Town Meeting that would bring minor changes to the zoning bylaw for MBTA Communities and asked the applicant if they were aware of the proposed amendments and if it would change their development plans. Ms. McCabe explained how the zoning freeze process works and the options available for land owners. Mr. Peters expressed his hope that the applicant would adhere to the proposed zoning changes, which would lead to a better outcome for the Town. Dawn McKenna, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, wanted the Board to be cognizant of the traffic in Concord Avenue due to the Goddard School and the Minuteman Village and asked the Board to address it when considering the definitive plans from the applicant. Rena Maliszewski, 310 Concord Avenue, wanted to know why there were no buildings depicted in the plans. Mr. Peters explained about the proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaw which were to be considered at the Spring Town Meeting and the applicant’s intent to freeze the zoning prior to the change. Ms. McKenna and Ms. Maliszewski wanted to know the notification process for abutters. Ms. McCabe explained that an application would require a public hearing which includes publication in the newspaper and notification to abutters within 300 feet. Mr. Creech asked the applicant to consider additional buffering by using some of their land, for the benefit of the abutters. Mr. Schanbacher moved to approve the preliminary site plan with the suggested conditions outlined in the attached draft approval decision prepared by staff. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Annual Town Meeting - Zoning Amendment Public Hearings Zoning Amendment Public Hearings Mr. Peters opened the public hearings on the zoning bylaw amendments on Article 48 - Short Term Rentals, Article 49 - Permitted Uses & Development Standards, Article 50 - Inclusionary Housing for Village & Multi-Family Overlay Districts, Article 51 - Maximum Height in Village Overlay District, Article 47 – Signs, and Article 52 - Technical Corrections. The Board started their discussion on Article 48 – Short Term Rentals. Ms. Krakauer Moore, the Zoning administrator, shared the presentation and explained the changes that were proposed in this Article. Ms. Krakauer Moore gave a brief overview of § 135-6.10 – Short Term Rentals, its intent, and the impact of Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 7, 2024 Page 3 of 10 the current bylaw on the neighbors. Ms. Krakauer Moore went over the requested changes and their anticipated impact on neighbors and reminded the Board about the discussion in the previous meeting to restrict short term rentals in multi-family housing. Ms. Krakauer Moore shared a table of what can be permitted and what cannot and asked the Board’s opinion on making changes to regulate short term rentals in general and in multi-family housing. Mr. Creech wanted to know if short term rentals will be allowed in rental apartment buildings in MBTA Communities projects. Ms. Krakauer Moore explained the provisions and Mr. Creech felt that it was a good idea to have restrictions to regulate short term rentals in MBTA Communities. Mr. Hornig said that the current provisions in the bylaw stating that short- term rentals have to be owner occupied or owner adjacent, will take care of short-term rentals in multi-family units. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Hornig and wanted to know how the provisions relating to short term rentals will deal with accessory apartments. Ms. Krakauer Moore clarified that accessory apartments are not permitted to be used for short term rentals. Mr. Creech expressed his concern about investors renting or buying properties under MBTA Zoning and asked Ms. Krakauer Moore’s suggestions to amend the bylaw to prevent that from happening. Ms. Kowalski urged the Board to come up with a way of prohibiting short term rentals in multi-family housing, because she felt that short term rentals is a major culprit in worsening the housing crisis. Mr. Peters agreed with Ms. Kowalski’s views. Mr. Hornig felt that reasonable limitations can be placed on operator adjacent units and said he would like to work with staff to make the necessary changes. Public Comments Mr. Shiple suggested alternate language for restriction on occupancy per bedroom and Ms. Krakauer Moore accepted the suggestion. Ms. McKenna agreed with Ms. Kowalski that short term rentals in multi-family housing should be prohibited and also agreed with Mr. Shiple regarding occupancy per bedroom. Gill Engel, 38 Grove St, wanted clarity on the provisions pertaining to rooming units. Ms. Moore responded that she has never received any complaints unless they were in conjunction with short term rentals. The Board decided to make necessary changes to the draft language and hold the vote on Article 48 in the next meeting, but decided to close the public hearing now. Mr. Schanbacher moved to close the public hearing on Article 48 - Short Term Rentals. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED The Board then discussed Article 49 - Permitted Uses & Development Standards. Ms. McCabe presented the slides and went over the proposed amendments to the definitions of a Restaurant and the newly termed Craft Beverage Establishment. Ms. McCabe then went over the amendments to the Table of Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 7, 2024 Page 4 of 10 Permitted Uses in detail. Ms. McCabe explained that Article 49 changes the prohibition for a private postal service, explained the intent and purpose of Article 49, and emphasized that it supports the community’s request for bringing in more eating and drinking establishments. Public Comments Ms. McKenna wanted clarification on the definitions of a restaurant. Mr. Peters and Ms. McCabe elaborated on that. Mr. Schanbacher moved to close the public hearing on Article 49 - Permitted Uses & Development Standards. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0- 0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED The Board next discussed Article 50 - Inclusionary Housing for Village and Multi-Family Overlay Districts. Ms. McCabe shared her presentation on Article 50 and explained the provisions in detail. Ms. McCabe went over the provisions relating to the zoning that was adopted in 2023 pertaining to inclusionary housing in village and multi-family overlay districts and explained the need for the supplemental economic feasibility study that was conducted in 2024 to analyze the smallest project sizes. Ms. McCabe explained that, based on the supplemental study, the new zoning change was proposed. Ms. McCabe said that the supplemental study was conducted for a sample of 8 units onwards, for both apartments and condos, to determine when 15% of the project can be inclusionary. Ms. McCabe added that the current proposal is for projects between 10 and 13 units to have 10% (one inclusionary unit) and for projects over 14 to have 15% inclusionary units, rounded down. Ms. McCabe added that Article 50 integrates income restricted units throughout new construction across Lexington, provides more below market housing, and shared pictures of existing inclusionary housing throughout Lexington. Mr. Creech shared a table showing a summary of properties to show that with a lot of small properties, the Town will be losing on the number of inclusionary housing but supported the Board’s efforts to bring about more inclusionary housing. Public Comments Pam Hoffman 4 Rangeway St, wanted clarification on the percentage of inclusionary housing and its impact on affordable units. Mr. Peters and Ms. McCabe explained the provisions in detail. Mr. Schanbacher moved to close the public hearing on Article 50 - Inclusionary Housing in Village and Multi-Family Overlay Districts. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED The Board then discussed Article 51 – Maximum Building Height for Village Overlay (VO) District. Ms. McCabe shared the slides and explained that Article 51 amends §7.5.5.10 of the zoning by law to clarify the original intent of height bonus allowed in VO passed at Town Meeting 2023. Ms. McCabe explained that the amendments pertain to the table specifying the height and particularly to VO and the asterisk relating to ‘A’ which specifies the height bonus. Ms. McCabe explained that the amendment updates the Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 7, 2024 Page 5 of 10 eligibility for the mixed-use height bonus where over 40 feet is permissible to be based on the underlying zoning district and also on how much commercial is required on the first floor. Ms. McCabe explained that the first change was to replace the term underlying district with commercial or residential district. If the underlying district was residential, the maximum permissible height would be 52 feet, approximately 4 stories. If the underlying district was commercial, the maximum permissible height would be 60 feet, approximately 5 stories. The second change was to change the term net floor area to gross floor area in §7.5.5.10. a and shared pictures to explain the need for the change. Ms. McCabe added that the amendment will help create more active street fronts and provide more substantial commercial uses on that street floor. Ms. McCabe said that the third change was to update the term non-residential principal uses, by replacing with commercial principal uses, in order to clearly indicate the type of uses desirable in the commercial space, by listing out the use categories identified in the Zoning Bylaw in the table of uses. Ms. McCabe said that Article 51 would strengthen and clarify the vision for mixed-use and create a more substantial amount of commercial uses and create walkable neighborhoods. Public Comments Ms. Maliszewski expressed her concerns about properties like 331 Concord Avenue having a 52-foot structure in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Peters and Ms. McCabe explained the rationale behind the provisions of §7.5.5.10.a. Ms. McKenna wanted clarifications on Article 51. Mr. Peters and Ms. McCabe explained that the Town provided incentives based on the height to preserve commercial uses across town. Ms. Kowalski added that the amendment was a qualitative change. Ms. Hoffman also wanted clarification on the amendment and also wanted to know if it was considered to limit the number of types of commercial use within the building. Ms. McCabe said that the intent of the article is to have more active uses. Ms. Maliszewski wanted the Board to know that increasing the maximum permitted height from 40 to 50 feet would impact all neighborhoods in Lexington. Lin Jensen, 133 Reed Street, supported Article 51, felt that the builders were constructing minimal commercial space to take advantage of the height bonus, and wanted the Board to consider requiring commercial space on the first floor without giving the height bonus. Mr. Schanbacher reminded everyone that the maximum height of buildings in the RO district was 40 feet and the intention of the amendment is to make sure that developers are not taking advantage of the height bonus by not providing the intended commercial space. Ms. McCabe shared the map of the overlay districts depicting areas that multi-family developments were permitted and explained the areas that will be impacted by the amendment. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, wanted to think about the benefits that the future residents of these buildings would enjoy. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 7, 2024 Page 6 of 10 Ms. Jensen wondered why the same strengthening language that is being proposed to VO districts, was not also adopted for MFO and VHO districts. Ms. McCabe explained that the same language does not exist for MFO and VHO districts. Mr. Schanbacher moved to close the public hearing on Article 51 – Maximum Building Height for Village and Multi-Family Overlay Districts. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED The Board recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. The Board then discussed Article 47 - Signs. Ms. McCabe shared the slides and explained the need to bring about the amendment to the Sign Bylaw. Ms. McCabe highlighted the proposed changes to illumination and explained that for exterior illumination, the new requirement is to require down lighting. For nonresidential signs, Ms. McCabe explained the proposed amendments to principal wall signs and standing signs. Ms. McCabe explained the proposed changes to residential signs and shared pictures of signs and their heights. Ms. McCabe stressed that the proposed amendments will not bring any changes to the existing approval process with the various Boards. Mr. Hornig expressed his concerns regarding standing signs being permitted in CB district and not in other commercial districts and preferred that standing signs be permitted in all commercial districts with the same restrictions. Mr. Hornig also felt that the attempt to regulate exempt standing signs would lead to ambiguity. Ms. McCabe explained that exempt uses such as religious uses can be reasonably regulated and are required to follow the regulations. Mr. Leon asked the staff if they had an opportunity to review the Sign Bylaws of other communities. Ms. McCabe said that staff had reviewed the Sign Bylaws of neighboring communities including Concord, Wellesley, Norwell and North Andover, which has been recently approved by the Attorney General’s office, and has referred to them when proposing the amendments and that Town Counsel had reviewed the language from a legal perspective. Ms. Thompson and Mr. Peters wanted clarification on temporary residential signs. Ms. McCabe explained the proposed amendments to temporary residential signs in detail. Public Comments Ms. McKenna wondered why standing signs need to be amended and felt the amendment to Signs can be presented to Town Meeting at a later time. Jerry Michelson, Chair of Lexington Center Committee, disagreed with Ms. McKenna and said that the proposed amendments to Signs bylaw has to be done now. To Mr. Hornig’s comment on standing signs in commercial districts, Mr. Michelson added that other commercial districts have existing standing signs and they can continue to do so. Mr. Peters expressed his view that some changes are needed for the existing sign bylaw and felt that the Town may not be ready to allow a significantly large number of signs and he agrees with the provisions Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 7, 2024 Page 7 of 10 for allowing Standing signs in the CB district, though he is not sure about the signs in other commercial districts. Mr. Hornig said that the current signs bylaw is not enforceable and hence not enforced and so restructuring the bylaw now is important and his only concern was with the provisions pertaining to standing signs. Mr. Creech agreed that it is important to restructure the bylaw now and added that some more research is needed to increase the signage in commercial districts other than the commercial district in the center. Mr. Peters asked for Ms. McCabe’s suggestion on how the Board should proceed with the Sign Bylaw. Since Board members wanted to make changes to temporary signs, Ms. McCabe suggested to limiting the temporary signs specifically to a total sign area. Ms. McCabe also felt that the Board should move forward with a draft to Town Meeting that is likely to be enforceable and meets the current State and legal requirements. Mr. Michelson added that this bylaw should give choices to business owners, but they will be bound by rules and their own limitations. Ms. McKenna said that though she wanted to make changes that are needed to support businesses, there has to be a balance. Ms. Krakauer Moore informed the Board and the public that staff made extensive visits to measure existing signs in a variety of zoning districts and also did a study on the signs that were permitted by special permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Krakauer Moore stated that the number of permits and applications that an applicant has to submit to establish a business in Lexington is very high and the process could be easier if it was permitted in the bylaw. Ms. Krakauer Moore added that after gathering data from the study, staff came up with different formulas and compared them in order to come up with a bylaw. Ms. McKenna appreciated the efforts by staff and felt that since Lexington has many unique neighborhoods, one size fit all approach cannot be used in Lexington. Ms. McCabe asked for inputs from all Board members on how they felt the Signs bylaw should be amended. Mr. Creech said he is favorably inclined to the idea of allowing standing signs on the smaller commercial districts, though he was not sure where they will be placed. Mr. Peters, on the other hand, said he is concerned about potentially expanding the number of signs. Mr. Schanbacher agreed with Mr. Creech and favored including standing signs in the smaller commercial districts to help patrons to find locations. Ms. Thompson felt that the standing signs should be permitted depending on the location as it might be inconvenient for pedestrians in some locations. Mr. Leon felt that larger signs may be necessary when you are approaching them at relatively high speeds, but in more localized slow pedestrian traffic areas, it is not compelling to identify a sign from a hundred yards away and that people do not locate businesses only in the traditional ways anymore. Mr. Leon said he wants to be supportive of businesses, but businesses can present their location in other effective ways without creating too much visual clutter. Mr. Leon added that standing signs could be location specific and that appearing before the designated Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 7, 2024 Page 8 of 10 Board is the best way to evaluate many factors and to find a solution. Mr. Creech felt that a little more research will help in framing the bylaw more effectively. Mr. Peters summarized that there were three Board members favoring standing signs beyond the Center Business district to all Commercial districts and two members were against it. So, Mr. Peters suggested that the public Hearing remain open on Article 47 for further review by the Board during the next meeting. Mr. Schanbacher moved to continue the public hearing on Article 47 – Signs to Wednesday February 28th at 6 p.m. on zoom. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED The Planning Board then discussed Article 52 – Technical Corrections. Ms. McCabe shared the slides on Article 52 - Technical Corrections and explained that the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) changed their name to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) and added that Article 52 replaces references to DHCD with EOHLC. Mr. Schanbacher moved to close the public hearing on Article 52 – Technical Corrections. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED The Board then discussed Articles 53 and 54, to include 507 and 509 Bedford Street in the Bedford Street North Multi-Family Overlay District. Mr. Peters recused himself from the discussion due to a potential conflict of interest as the addresses under discussion are in his neighborhood and left the meeting as a zoom panelist. Mr. Schanbacher chaired the meeting in his absence. The applicants, the landowner of 507 Bedford Street, Anmol Wassan, and 509 Bedford Street, Paul Rossi, were present. Mr. Wassan shared the presentation with the Board and explained the specifics of the location and its proximity to the already zoned multi-family overlay (MFO) district. Mr. Wassan explained the reasons as to why including the two parcels to the Bedford Street Multi-family Overlay District would be ideal. Mr. Creech wanted to know the motivation behind the proposal. Mr. Wassan said he felt the addition will be consistent with the Town’s Planning for this part of the Town and would be an ideal location for multi- family housing. Public Comments Ms. McKenna wanted to know the total acreage of the properties under consideration and the feedback from the immediate neighbors on the proposal. Mr. Wassan gave the area of the two properties combined and added that they did not reach out to the neighbor. Doris Wang, 12 Drummer Boy Way, expressed her view that there was no necessity to add more properties as it might add to the anticipated traffic congestion due to rezoning. Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 7, 2024 Page 9 of 10 Paul O’Shaughnessy, 61 Ivan Street, said that even though the properties under consideration are contiguous with areas zoned for multi- family housing, there needs to be a limit to adding properties and he does not favor this inclusion. Ms. Hoffman opposed the inclusion saying that it was a dangerous intersection and adding more parcels is not needed at this point. Arnold Clickstein, 19 Drummer Boy Way, urged the Board not to expand any more than already agreed to as it is a dangerous intersection. Mr. Creech felt that considering all the developments already coming in the vicinity and with those anticipated to come up in the future and with the proposed traffic improvements being years away, it was not ideal for the parcels to be included. His 3 concerns were a) the already very busy intersection, b) adding more properties when, as yet, we have no experience with MBTA Communities results and c) we would be setting a precedent that would be difficult to back off from Ms. Thompson said she does not feel comfortable considering this proposal with such a short notice, asked the applicant the reason for not coming up with the proposal last year when the areas were zoned, and also asked him to talk to his neighbors who seemed to be not supportive of the proposal. Mr. Hornig said that the decision should be made based on whatever would enable the Board to meet its goals. Ms. McCabe explained that even though the proposed properties are not directly contiguous to the MFO, the property in between (the Drummer Boy property) is also zoned for multi-family developments. Mr. Schanbacher felt that if the third property were to be included, it would make significantly more sense and make it somewhat contiguous within a generally multi-family zone. Mr. Schanbacher said he is in support of the proposal and would be much more strongly in support if the third property was included. Ms. Hoffman said adding the third property will lead to more traffic and add to their traffic woes. Ms. Thompson moved to close the public hearing on Articles 53 and 54. Mr. Creech seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Ms. Thompson moved to recommend Town Meeting to disapprove Articles 53 and 54. Mr. Creech seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 3-1-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – no). MOTION PASSED. Mr. Peters returned to the Planning Board meeting. Board Administration Board Member Updates There were no updates from the Board members. Review of Meeting Minutes: 1/10/24 & 1/24/24 Lexington Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 7, 2024 Page 10 of 10 Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board approve the draft Minutes of the meetings held on 01.10.24 and 01.24.24 as presented. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Upcoming Meetings 02/28/2024, 03/13/2024 Mr. Peters reminded the Board about the upcoming meetings scheduled for February 28th and March 13th and went over the proposed agenda items. Adjourn Mr. Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of February 7, 2024. Ms. Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Creech – yes; Peters – yes; Schanbacher – yes; Thompson – yes; Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10.09 p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting. Material from the meeting can be found in the Planning Board’s Novus Packet. List of Documents 1. 331 Concord Ave. Cabot, Cabot & Forbes – Public meeting on a Preliminary Subdivision application to subdivide the lot into three lots on a small cul-de-sac: Staff memo dated 01.30.24, draft Board approval decision dated 02.07.24 2. Annual Town Meeting - Zoning Amendment Public Hearings: Zoning Amendment Summary dated 02.02.24, Draft motion to amend Zoning Bylaw – Short Term Rentals dated 1.29.2024, Draft motion to amend Zoning Bylaw – Permitted Uses and Definitions dated 01.23.2024, Draft motion to amend Zoning Bylaw – Inclusionary Housing for Village and Multifamily overlay districts dated 01.12.2024, Draft motion to amend Zoning Bylaw – Maximum Height for Village Overlay Districts dated 01/01/2024, Draft motion to amend Zoning Bylaw – Signs dated 02.06.2024, Draft motion to amend Zoning Bylaw – Technical Corrections dated 01.16.2024, Presentation for land owner Petitions from 507 and 509 Bedford Street to be added to the Bedford St North Multi-family Overlay District, Draft motion to amend Zoning Bylaw - 507 Bedford St dated 02.02.2024, Draft motion to amend Zoning Bylaw – 509 Bedford St dated 02.02.2024