Okay, we're recording. >> Great. Perfect timing. Uh, it is July 9, 2026. This is a regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council. Pursuant to chapter 2 of
the acts of 2025, which extends through June 30, 2027, the ability of public bodies to meet in a remote or hybrid manner without a quorum of members in person. This meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so
via Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public is possible, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. I'm going to call the meeting to order. It is 102
and the uh let's see if everybody can be heard. Um, councelor Walker >> here. >> Jennifer Tub >> here. >> Mandy Johanni >> present.
>> Thank you. And Pam Rooney is present and can hear. Um, item number two is public hearing, but that is not on the agenda today. We have, as a reminder to everyone, uh hopefully our final, but we don't
know, uh joint hearing with the planning board on July 15, 6:30 p.m. Um as a continuation, um general public comment. I'm going to
open the floor to general public comment. I see one attendee and if that attendee would like to speak, raise your hand. But it looks like he's probably here to talk about
adus. So if we have attendees in the in later on in the meeting, I would be glad to open a public uh public comment period again. So, our action items today,
um, we can talk about clean energy bylaw or because we have Rob with us, um, hi Stephanie, didn't mean to ignore you. Um, we could take care of the ADU bylaw
issue and bring that up um to discuss. Does anyone have a feeling one way or the other? And Stephanie, do you have a time constraint? >> No. >> Not that not that we should pick [laughter] one person over another.
Sorry. U Mandy Johan, >> I feel like the agenda has an order on it. We should probably follow the order. >> That's fine. I was just making it an op an option. Okay. So, clean energy bylaw.
We had a couple of items um which may be thrown into the air. um by the receipt of the KP law re um responses and I appreciate Jennifer gave me a heads up that they had actually been delivered.
So I I noted that um we had a couple of items just in terms of general cleanup that we were already planning to talk about. Um and one of those is the introduction
introduction paragraph for section 5.11 which is accessory uses. So this deals with the small um under 25 mega um kilowatts um and and building mounted items.
Anybody? I did put in the I did put in the in our folder um just a really draft attempt to look at something for that introduction. Does anybody
want to see it or did you see it? >> Mandy, I mean that introduction looks fine to me. I'd actually be curious given that um I think Rob
is going to be mainly the person executing and dealing with it because they're all yeses, right? Um we're mostly all yeses. I would be curious to see if Rob thinks that's an okay introductory paragraph.
>> Let's call on Rob. Rob, are you um are you hearing us? >> I am. >> Great. Yes. Hi. I had I had no concerns with the the paragraph. Um I had other comments throughout the bylaw, but you know, I didn't have anything related to
that. >> Okay, good. And that would simply refer people to um the sections appropriate. Do you want to um so that was one item. So I think we've
maybe dispensed with that item. The second item that we had left hanging was uh reorganization of sections. And frankly given KP law com um um feedback
I think that sort of is a whole new ball of wax and and I certainly don't feel like we should spend time reorganizing what we have until we have a broader perspective of what's being asked of us.
So, I'm going to go to Rob and and are there some specifics that you wanted to bring to our attention? >> Well, um my notes last week when I reviewed this were probably some of them
similar. you know, I thought reorganizing um starting back I thought I thought the applicability was very confusing and will be confusing for the user. uh and really thought that there could be a better way to break down the sections to
you know base requirements for all applications and then additional requirements for tier 2 tier three that would make it easier to read the the you know exceptions to the sections and then you know like even in I'm looking at the
um the KP law draft where the applicability section is highlighted in yellow where we're you know um we're citing sections that will not apply and then we say except for the case of
agravalttaic canopy where these two sections apply and I'm not sure if that means only those two sections apply and it's still exempt from the rest of them which wouldn't really make any sense but I think it's the way it reads because some of those other sections are only
specific to ag so they they really shouldn't be accept excluded and then things like maintenance and the ones, you know, waiverss and sections that should probably apply in every case. I don't know why it wouldn't um wouldn't be accepted either. So, I think I I think that needs to be worked on and
maybe just general reorganization makes sense and I was glad to see that as another comment. Um I thought definitions um although I don't necessarily you know think it's it has to be the way you know Carolyn suggested
it but I think in definitions we should at least say in addition to those found in article 12 these shall apply because some of the article 12 uh definitions will apply and I don't want this to be read as only these following definitions
apply to uh these types of systems. So those were those are my comments I think upfront. Um I I don't know if you want me to just keep going. Um but there were little things like in within definitions
I think in in best we should use the abbreviation as well because it follows through in the rest of the document. Um, and let's see here in the then jumping all the way down to
the table for the article five table I think the 25 kW in the tier one and tier two one of them has to be an equals to uh so that we don't have that you know gap of that
size in the sizing Um >> uh say that again. So for I'm I'm looking at the >> you have a tier you have a tier one of less than 25 kW and then you have a tier two of greater than KW. So one of those needs to be greater than equal to less
than equal to >> um think >> great >> think that was it for now. >> I don't know how to make that symbol with a computer. How do you how do you type the greater greater or equal to or
less than or equal to? We can figure that out. You just copy it from the table above. >> Aha. >> Excellent. >> Thank you, Rob. >> Oh, sorry. I have one just one more. Um,
if we wanted the yeses to be to follow the administrative approval steps that we've created in article 11, we probably should just say that it says it says administrative procedures unless it's something different that I'm
that I'm not aware of if we're going to actually file administrative approval. We have a process in the department. We have an application and a decision get that gets created as a result of an administrative approval just if that's what you want it to be. Um, that was my last suggestion is to utilize that
process. >> Where would that show up, Rob? >> Um, >> language. >> It's right up in applicability that you know it's either site plan review, special permit or administrative procedures and then throughout where it refers to the to the permit granting authority that becomes the building
commissioner through administrative approval by the by the rest of the bylaw. So, if we wanted to direct that to the administrative approval procedures, um, you know, that makes it consistent with other things we do for
pretty much everything that's an administrative approval. >> So, that would be 180202 after the words administrative procedures adding as set forth in article 11. Or you could just say administrative approval capitalized and
that has meaning in the bylaw in article 11 how we use it. We referenced it from other sections already. >> Administrative approval procedures or just administrative >> approval. >> It only needs to be administrative
approval. But you know we can if you want the exact section I can we can get that too. Okay. So, administrative procedures isn't specific enough. It needs to it needs to be the capitalized version to
>> Yeah. And I guess we probably have I mean, we're I think that whole section needs to be rewarded, but when we're rewarding that, you know, that doesn't show up in table three anywhere. Just the special permanent site plan show up in table three. Um so it would be administrative [clears throat] approval
by you know article 11. Thank you. And I'm I'm I'm guessing that Rob and Stephanie will also take a look at the KP law comments and get some sort of sense of does that
I have I I can't really even speak to it because I haven't had a time to to read it. But um so the same documents from KP Law were sent along to the planning board um on the 15th.
Does it make sense that as a result of our meeting today, we have some suggestions or recommendations to apply whether it's part of the open public
hearing or after it's been closed. I'm looking at Mandy. What was your question? >> That that if we are deliberating um on any of the KP law items today or any other suggested changes today, those
will be relayed to the planning board in time for their our joint meeting on the 15th. Are there other are there other such such changes that we want to discuss and
relay to them? >> I'm still not sure. I totally understand what you're getting at. Are we sending them a different copy? Is is your question should we send them a different version that includes the KP law comments and the changes we suggested today or is your question something
else? Well, the only definitive thing is everyone everyone is getting the KP law version or the the the 13B with KP law comments. Um the only the outcome of today's meeting might be
that we actually have a an intro paragraph for the 5.11 accessory use table or not table but um you know paragraph um
and if there was any discussion about any other changes that we like Rob's comments today. We could put those into a version that goes to the planning board in time for their meeting.
>> I mean, it's our meeting too, right? >> Yeah. Yes. Yeah. I I think it depends on whether how much you want to discuss today and whether you want it incorporated for what we discussed today or whether we want to incorporate it at that meeting.
>> How are people feeling, >> Jennifer? [clears throat] >> Well, have we had a chance individually to review the KP law? I mean, I just skimmed it very quickly, so I don't think we can really I guess unless we're
going to read it now. And so, I think we have to wait cuz it literally arrived like an hour within an hour of the meeting. >> Yeah. And and and that's fine. I mean, it was we asked for it to be back no later than
the 10th. So, that was wonderful. probably should have sent a version back in, you know, version nine to KP Law. Um, any other thoughts? I'm not I'm I don't need to belabor this at all if we want
to move on to another topic. Um, I'm trying to in my own head sort of sum up where we are. Jennifer. >> Yeah. No, I'm okay. [clears throat] My calendar. So, do we meet the does CRC meet again before we meet with the planning board?
>> No. Um, the joint opportunity is for the 15th and then our next meeting is the 23rd. I was really hoping and our and our schedule is pushing to have them um
close their public hearing and and sort of tenatively adopt you know with with comments the bylaw as as it's been presented um in order to meet our timeline. So the
KP law suggestions are I'll just say awkward at best. So [clears throat] kind of another part of my question based on I know and you were just able to really skim it quickly. I mean does
it look like we have many changes to make or it really is just reorganizing what we have? >> I mean do you think we should have a schedule of you know, maybe an hour meeting with CRC
before special meeting. That's a good question. Um, let's see if I can summarize what I what I skimmed. They gave us an example of Medway, which
is specific. So I think their suggestion was that um our bylaw appears to allow and give direction to consolidated permits,
you know, regular um special permits, site plan review permits. And their suggestion, I think, is that the consolidated permit process
be its own bylaw and that the the otherwise normal proceedings would be this fleshed out document. A
consolidated would be any divergence from what the normal permitting process entailed. And I'm looking at Rob or stuffing to see if if they've [laughter] even had
time to read it that that makes sense. >> I I need more time with it to >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I've only skimmed um skimmed it very briefly. You have been in meetings all day. So, and I just got yesterday. >> Yeah, Jennifer.
>> Okay, I might be a little slow here because I know it's now the clean energy bylaw, but for ye the first many years this was being worked on, it was largecale photovalttaic solar installations. So, when did it become that it also had to
include the small scale? >> Mandy So yes, it was largecale for a while with a big question about what we were going to do with small scale and then the state law changed in terms of the
requirements for a consolidated permit and um that state law requires the you well doesn't require but allows the use of or requires the town to accept cons consolidated permit applications for anything including what
we've been considering ing small scale um and what we've been considering large scale. They're all defined in the state law as small clean energy projects, but um yeah um everything
>> working on Yes. small small clean energy is everything that goes to the town under the state regulations and their large scale is massively large scale. Um, and so their regulations included
what we would be talking about as small scale. And so we had to make a decision since we had to create something for consolidated permitting. Would we do two separate bylaws? Um, one that just addresses permitting and one that addresses solar um that like the solar
parts of non-permitting and then consolidated permitting or would we try to combine them into one? and the previous CRC's last fall um went with one bylaw that would include
both the consolidated permit process and all the regulations relating to solar sighting. So it was a decision that this committee made last fall when all the regs came out. >> Thank you. Yeah. So, we've we've bundled everything into
our bylaw, everything that falls within the town's jurisdiction. Um, and so, >> but as far as the state's concerned, we will never have a large scale. >> They will they will handle a large
scale, the really large large scale. Your definition of large scale, Jennifer, still falls within us because anything that North Ammeris project is still within the consolidated permit at the municipal level. Their large scale is well bigger than that.
>> Yeah. So, um I'm sitting here backpedaling or or pedal treading treading water. Um, it makes sense that we get a chance to read the document, look at our own document, and sort of mentally start to
figure out how we might or if we want to adopt the recommendations from KP Law. um in terms of clarification, Rob's comments that our applicability section is confusing
and perhaps a few um just a few written comments from Rob on what makes more sense to him from a from a permitting process would be very very helpful. Um,
and then and then all of this, I guess, gets sort of laid out in the July 15 discussion where the planning board to date has really only commented on setbacks for
um, BES and solar from private wells. I mean, that's been their biggest issue. and then simply the the burdensome volume of this bylaw to um to somebody, you know,
it's not an encouraging document if somebody is if we're trying to encourage solar development. So, those are those are the planning board comments to date. Um, I'm thinking that it makes sense to
perhaps try to meet or or get a couple of us together to tackle what impact the KP law um, comments actually have on our document
and be able to bring something forward to people to discuss. Otherwise, we're basically, you know, kicking the ball several meetings out in order to accommodate the KP law conversation.
None of which makes me very happy. Does that make sense? Is and is is anyone willing to sit down and I'm willing to do it? So, if we're creating a subcommittee, it needs noticed by open meeting law.
>> Um, we have met in the past with one person doing some editing and the and the other person providing input. >> Yep. If that's the goal that one person has the final say and we assign this to one person and have clear guidelines on
what that person's doing. But we I I don't know. I think we're we're leaving the planning board out of this process and I'm not sure they're going to be happy if you come in on the 15th with a completely redone bylaw by one person that says, "Oh, I looked at the KP law
and this is what I did in in advance of that." Right? I I'm not sure the planning board would be happy with that. Um because they are in the middle of hearings too and they have an equal right to discuss the KP law opinion and what to do about it.
Um I'm mostly to be very honest trying to think how that meeting will be can be organized to make our way through the KP law comments in a manner that comes out at the other
end with some with something definitive without it being a 500hour long meeting. And that's my that's my big worry. >> Yeah, I mean I I just skimmed the comments a little more thoroughly. Um
the comments in the bylaw are very basic other than the reorganization and the memo basically explains what to do if you want to keep it one versus split up with two. Um you have to add a section and all and reorganize. Um, it might be
helpful for the hearing next week for someone to figure out what that reorganization might look like on both directions, but we don't know what the planning board might think about one versus two bylaws. I think that's a discussion that probably needs
done more appropriately with them because they're the ones implementing it, right? We're the legislature, but we don't have to deal with the uncertainty once it's done, right? They're the ones that have to feel comfortable with, well, if they
didn't apply under consolidated, can we manage this bylaw? If they did, can we manage this bylaw? So, I I wouldn't want to propose at this point, given the KP law opinion, which way to go without talking to the planning board. Um, but
it might be useful to have something that says if you went with two, not an exact this is what it looks like, but these sections would be in the solar sighting bylaw, say, and these sections would be in the consolidated permitting
bylaw. If you went with one, this might be what a reorganization looks like. Um, and you know, I can't say at all right now what that would be because I think I have I would have to dig more into what KP Law said on various things and I
haven't even looked at the Medway by law. So, but that could be helpful for a conversation to have that someone's thoughts on that. We had already talked about some
organization of the material for you know for exactly that reason that it's that it's here and there and needs to be clumped for lack of a more technical term.
Jennifer. >> Um, yeah. Know, I was just thinking of the timeline that was very helpful that you put in the packet of when this has, you know, it's a very tight timeline when it has to be adopted. So I don't know if well it probably doesn't make sense to do it as a committee but if you and the
council president andor with the planning board chair you know have to look at what h how this reorganization gets fit in to finish when we have to finish in what two and a half months like 10 weeks or
something. Is that true? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Mandy. So, the first read is tenatively scheduled for August 17th. Um, go
Athena, help me out. Their only meeting is either August 4th or August 11th, and it technically has to go through them. I'm not sure which one it is in August. Um, there is a potential consideration for at this point
in agenda setting, we were discussing the August meetings. Um, and no, I'm I'm going to be clear, no decision has been made about anything relating to August at all, [laughter] but there was a potential discussion of
cancelling the 17th and rescheduling it for August 31 given that if we want the bylaw adopted September 14th so that it is effective by October 1, you have to have two readings and and the only way
to do that is an August reading. But potentially pushing that August reading, first reading back to August 31st might give a little more time and better spread the August 3rd, August. Right now it's
scheduled for August 3rd, August 17, and then September 14. And that seemed like another weird long break in council meetings. So there is some up in the air about when that first read August meeting
would be. It might be proposed to change our August meeting to August 31st, which would give CRC it go might have to schedule other meetings, but might give CRC and the planning board an ability
for July 29 to finalize stuff if they make decisions on the 15th to come through and do whatever the reorganization looks like. What I do not know, and this is something we I don't know whether Rob
or Jeff or whoever's more or Athena, whoever's more expert on bylaws. What we do not know is um zoning bylaw changes. If we split into two, do we have to rehold hearings for the new
consolidated permitting bylaw? And that might be really problematic if the deci if the answer to that is yes. Um and I bring that up cuz I have no idea. [laughter and clears throat] >> We we noticed a solar sighting clean
energy infrastructure bylaw that had some of this in that if we're suddenly into two separate ones. >> I I don't know. I'm and I'm going to complicate it because in fact early on we also discussed about we discussed a separate
BES bylaw a standalone BES. >> So you know we did but then we determined so much of it overlapped that we could deal with it within the same one without >> reiterating stuff. So, the clean energy
bylaw includes Bess, but >> so I'm gonna I'm gonna look at I'm looking at Rob. Um and and again we haven't had a chance to read the KP law comments in detail at all, but
from a from a permitting perspective does it does it seem that it makes a huge difference in terms of consolidated permit processing versus small very small, you know, administrative
approval type projects. Um, that being in one document is unwieldy or too I should say too unwieldy. I don't think so. I think it can be in
one document just fine. And I think we can clarify it and make it easier to follow for the user and for us. Uh so I I don't think it's necessary to split it. >> Thank you. That's the answer I want. >> Uh there was a there was a question
about go meeting dates. Currently they're scheduled to meet August 11, September 8, and 22. Um because CRC is reviewing for um considering the legal review, I think the go review is going
to be much more cursory. I don't imagine it will take more than one meeting since CRC is already going through this. >> Thank you. That's helpful. So August 11 is um >> I'd say August 11 is the deadline. Well,
>> yeah, [laughter] >> before August 11. More like August 6th is the deadline to get it on an August 11 agenda >> at August August 6 is the deadline for G.
Okay. So I um thank you Rob actually for that comment because I um it it felt I mean there's so much material that we want to be considered
whether it's a consolidated permit or not that it it wasn't making much sense to me to try to split those into two essentially different processes. these >> um
>> with much of it repeating for both. You know, that's what's going to happen and we add pages to the the bylaw that are unnecessary. >> Um so I you know I would try to make it work as one first. Although I it's to maybe Manny's
question. It seemed to me that you could, you know, working with the same scope of the language, you know, redefining the sections would should be admissible under the current public hearing. But, you know,
definitely would want a formal opinion on that if you decided to go that way. >> I'll say that again. If we redefine section, >> there's a question about splitting it up, but you know, if you're splitting you're splitting up the entire document into pieces that are, you know,
essentially it's covering the same scope of material. Um, to me that falls within the public hearing process that we have open and could be done with, you know, 3.39, 3.391 and, you know, however that would look at the end. Uh to me there's
a way to do that, but my first comment would be let's try to make it work as one because I I think it'd be ultimately it would be cleaner and probably less language at the end. um especially if the planning board is
going through their findings or the ZB is going through their findings, they're it seems easier to um refer to article 18 and all of its materials um rather than them also
having to jump around. So to Mandy's point, maybe the planning board in fact would have some comments about that and and um since they're the since they're the implementation or PGA.
I want to note that we seems that we lost um we lost Alicia. >> She's still here. Her camera's just Oh, good. Oh, good. >> Thank you. Sorry. Yeah, >> I have a question if that's okay and
maybe this is for Rob, but our we've been operating under the assumption that we need to enact these changes by October 1st. Correct. >> That is correct. I can answer that question >> and and that is and that is because there are state changes that take effect
at that time. But my my understanding and I apologize if I'm getting this wrong because zoning is is not my area of expertise, but I I thought there was a sort of zoning freeze when we are in the public hearing process on
applications. So if that's true, my question is, you know, how important is that October 1st deadline? Stephan, I was gonna say it's >> and that's a state requirement. So, we're we're obligated by the state to be
able to offer this pathway. It's optional right now. It's already um required to be as an option for communities to offer it by July 1st, but it's required to be in place by October 1st by the state.
So, it's statutoily required by the state to be enacted by October 1st. Rob, were you >> Oh, well, and there's no freeze. So, you know, when it comes time, just like what happened with the ADU law, we don't have
the bylaw in place and we're kind of fumbling our way through it. If we have an application that comes in that is, you know, that we're we're taking it through a process that aligns with the state law even though we don't have it in our our bylaw yet.
Okay. I I thought I understood there was um that applications needed to be evaluated for current and proposed zoning if it was during the hearing process. Well, if if our current zoning I mean
whatever application came in say today, it would be reviewed per our existing zoning. It's it's only a by October one that we would that we have to offer and be able
to process a an expedited consolidated permit um that can only take 12 months to process. Mandy and then Stephanie. >> Yeah, I think I'm going to try and clarify Athena's question and add a couple more. I think what Athena is
saying is we've heard in the past that once we're in the hearing process all applications and I'm just going to give a hypothetical. So if an application came in today under the current non-consolidated permit process for um a
solar agic field in on Southeast Street um they would be evaluated on the bylaw as published at the beginning of the hearing. I think is some of what we've heard in the past um because it's in the
middle of hearing. So I think that was Athena's question and since that bylaw has some consolidated permitting stuff in it I is any consolidated permit even if we haven't adopted it by October 1 is any consolidated permit application that
comes in on say October 2 um per the state law evaluated under the bylaw as it was noticed for the public hearing. Clearly, as we've been making changes, it can't be on that, but there was an actual version
that went to public hearing. Um, is it evaluated and considered on that um and the yeses and all for the really small ones or is it still evaluated under um the bylaw as currently written? I
think that was Athena's question. And I guess my additional question would be I think the one piece of not if if the answer to that is no, it's the current one where there's nothing related to consolidated permit. I think the one piece we have to be really
concerned about is um how the regulations how they default for certain definitions such as local government representative which I haven't looked recently but used to be the town clerk [laughter] um in the original draft and and some of those that default if you
don't have a bylaw they define certain things that they left open for you to be able to define by bylaw that we might not like. Um, one of the big ones is local government representative. Um, so I think that's what Athena is getting at though.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mandy. You were more articulate than I was with that. >> Stephanie, >> you're muted. >> Apologies. Uh, two points. Uh, one I wanted to say that um, it should also be noted that if we didn't have this in
place by October 1st, then an applicant who requests the consolidated permit pathway, it would automatically default to the state. So, um, which is part of the reasoning why we're trying to get this in place by October 1st. Um, so I
think to the point someone brought up, if some something came in on October 2nd, if we weren't had if we didn't have everything in place, then it would probably default to the state. Um the other uh point and I think I heard what you were asking Athena about if you have
an applications already in process prior to the October 1st then my understanding and this is just only from I'm thinking back on sort of um conservation commission experience that if your application was submitted you're working with the rules that were in place at the
time. You're not going to to then um because the rules have changed then incorporate new rules at that time. That was my understanding, at least how we dealt with the regulatory process for the conservation commission. I could be wrong. Um, so and Rob, you can correct
me if I'm wrong. Um, and I think that was the only I think those are the only two points. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah, a little little different zoning. So you actually have to have your decision um prior to the advertisement of the first public
hearing to be you know totally you know subject to that original the old bylaws. uh once that advertisement happens everything has effect and that's what makes this these are these are so ADU was you know even easier than this but
you know that's why this is so much different than it used to be when you change a bylaw because in to increase the height and you're in that period from public hearing to town meeting making a decision you you don't want to issue the permit for the higher height
because it might be in violation the day town meeting votes it So you're you're working with those situations, advising applicants maybe to hold on or get your permit but wait and see what happens, not start construction. So you work through that.
And that's kind of what we did with the ADU is that I looked for anything that might have been in conflict with the state law and didn't apply that in our bylaw and kept making adjustments every time. you know, the the PL planning
board and the CRC CRC amended the revision. So, that's just it's messy, but that's and and it's very difficult. And the best thing would be just wait, you know, and that sometimes is the advice to applicants and has been the advice from KP Law in the past. Oh, just
don't, you know, just don't hold any site plan review meetings. Well, you can if they agree to it. you know, you can hold off on it, but uh if they want to push it, we make the best out of all the language that we have and look for those conflicts and try to do the best for the outcome that we're trying to achieve and
in compliance with state law. Um it was much cleaner when we knew there could be a yes or no locally, which we don't have in these cases anymore. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. I I apologize for the tangent. That was really helpful, though. >> Um
that's good. It's sort of clarifying what the our status. Um, so I don't have a whole lot of time between now actually and the and the the 15th. Um, but I will I will take a stab
at and and maybe um would it be okay, Rob, if I gave you a call to just hear your thoughts about the reorganization of the of the applicability and and some of your thoughts on that? >> Absolutely. And if it's helpful, if we want to set up a Zoom with Carolyn and
go through some of her other questions that might be things that we could say, do we really need this? How, you know, how critical is this? if you want to have that conversation, you know, Stephanie or I can coordinate that. >> Okay.
Wow. I would um I mean I'm sort of happy to do it, but I would really prefer if Mandy did that since you seem to have a better grasp on just the um the technicalities. I I think it would be good for someone
to speak with Carolyn um prior to the hearing um just to get more information on the memo, right? And what her thoughts are on how that might look if you keep
it in one bylaw. Um, >> yep. >> You know, and and answer questions like if there's a consol, you know, consolidated permit has its own application process, right? Um, one
thing we struggled with is does all the submitt requirements within this bylaw also apply to consolidated permit? Can you com apply all of them? I think the answer is yes because I think the consolidated permit regulations say these things plus any local
requirements, right? Um, and so you know, like if you're going to have a consolidated permit pathway separate sort of within the bylaw, what sections does that, you know, and and a non, you know, a regular
permitting process and a consolidated permitting process that also then sort of includes the Besson solar sighting stuff, right? Like if I think about as this is like a three tier, although the regular permit is its own sort of non-existent tier because that's just
everything, right? Um what goes in the solar sighting and what goes to the consolidated permit side, right? What can't be included in a consolidated permit? You know, again, when we're looking at applicability with small and large um the various tiers,
you kind I I think I would like clarification on the tears I I can get wrap my head around. I'm not explaining this well. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what parts of this bylaw
can be enforced under a consolidated permit pathway and what cannot, right? And so there might be two tiers that way. All permits and non-consolidated permits, right? And then the tiers within tier one, two, and three best and
and all of that. And that that's what I haven't delved into the memo and all with or the medway thing to figure out, but that might be something best done with a conversation with Carolyn um to get some clarity on that.
Do um I'm going to call on Stephanie just a second, but would it be would it be helpful for folks to once they get a chance to read through this uh memo from her from Carolyn to um
we don't have that many days. We've got Friday, Monday, and Tuesday essentially. And it would be good to sh be able to share with the planning board as much ahead of time. But um if we could if we could arrange that
kind of meeting maybe by Monday would if folks felt comfortable and if I met with them and with Rob um to get me questions that want to be answered by, you know, Sunday night. Does that
make sense? And I'm not looking to spend staff time and and KP law time either, but this does that is a good suggestion to go through it with her. Mandy,
>> that makes sense. Um to me I would though I think if if if the chair is going to meet with KP law it would be good to extend that offer to the planning board chair al also since we are two different committees and um then
he can extend the request for questions to his members um so that both members are coming in with potential questions. I don't know though whether it would be a little more effective to just invite Carolyn if she's available to the hearing on
Wednesday um and start with directed questions to her from committees to wrap the head around for everyone and then dismiss her and and go back into the other part of the hearing.
>> Uh Rob or Stephanie? Um, what's what's your take on the most effective use of her time, Stephanie? >> Um, so actually I was going to initially suggest that she get invited
to the joint hearing on the 15th because that way a she can explain some of her comments, but also so you all can hear her um go through them because I think that's often helpful. Um, we did that with the initial drafts of the solar
bylaw when we had Jonathan Murray come in and speak to the solar bylaw working group. It was very helpful. So, I think having her come in and explain it and then I think it would be really helpful if you all came with your questions
prepared and submitted to the them to her in advance of that meeting so that she has the questions ahead of time, but she also has an opportunity to present. Um, and I think the more members you have present when she's there, I think
the better in terms of this whole process rather than just the chairs because I think other people have questions and comments too. So I think the more people you can have and that would seem the way to do it. So that's my my take I offer, you know, Rob has something different.
>> I I agree. The more we talk about it, that sounds like a a good plan. >> Yeah. Great. So I will I will put together an email and Athena is hearing it. So we will we will request uh KP attendance
and I will and I will reach out to Doug Marshall of course as well. Um uh for that would be for July 15 I think the public hearing is at 6:30 5 something like that. Um, and I'll also
reach out to Doug for the similar request for questions to be um I mean I'd rather I'd rather the questions I guess they could come to me and to
Doug, but we'll have to just be on top of it to make sure that they get forwarded to AP Law, you know, at the end of the night Sunday so that they have a couple days of time to think about That sounds like a plan. Okay, that's
great. Um, and in the meantime, well, I'll just follow up with this with this meeting with a request to via the town manager to for her for her attendance. Okay,
great. Thank you. Anything else we want to talk about? Oh, Stephanie, >> sorry. Just one final point that might help in terms of the time. Um, if you have a preference that you want this
bylaw to remain one document versus a few different documents, that also might be helpful to let Carolyn know ahead of time so that she doesn't explain all the other options unless you want her to explain the other options or the planning board feels that it should be
broken up into different documents. But I would I mean in my mind all the time that you spent on one document I it just seems more complicated to have it be different documents. And I think it came up before and you all um rejected that suggestion from KP Law to have a
separate document. So um I I just think I'm I'm just thinking about efficiency of time. So if you have a preference, I would state that up front. >> Thank you. Um, I'm not going to speak for myself, but are there voices from
CRC in terms of that particular topic that I could relay to I'm even h happy to take a vote if we need to um to convey to KP Law. Andy, >> all I can say is I'm not ready to make a
call on that yet until I review Medway, look at their other solar bylaw, cuz she said they had both this one and something else. I I just want to see how things have been done before I say one's better than another. I was ready to go with a single
document. [laughter] It's like just, you know, I'm I'm putting on the blinders. I'm going for the going for the finish line. Um, okay. So, we don't It doesn't sound like we have a consensus here. Um,
but that's it was a good try, Stephanie. [laughter] [gasps] Um, okay. I think we've wrapped up this topic. We've all got to sit down and read what they sent us and just think a little bit about how that applies to our document.
I will follow up as I just mentioned and we can move on. So as a reminder to everyone once again the CRC is being flexible and
joining the planning board on their meeting date of July 15 starting at 6:30. And I just want to express appreciation to CRC members who have been willing to do this double booking. It's really um it's really kind of above
and beyond the call of duty. So, thank you. Okay, moving to action item 4 A 4B. Uh this was brought to our attention by constituents in district 4, issues with
the ADU bylaw and um some discussion of what can we do to ameliate the situation and or clarify it so that we um come out where we thought we were coming out. Mandy,
>> so I have some initial concerns about this agenda topic as to how it got on the agenda. Um, it doesn't sound like it got on the agenda from the request of planning board staff. The item in the doc in the packet was completely unsigned, completely anonymous. I have
no idea who created it. Um, it's got no names on it whatsoever. Um, and so, um, typically if there were proposals for zoning changes or any bylaw changes, uh, they'd have to go from a counselor to
the council first. um with a memo and an actual draft change that is actionable. Right now, we just have concerns um that didn't go through the council. The council hasn't referred it to us um as something they
want us to spend time on. Um and so I am I I guess I have a question. is the new process for this CRC chair that anyone with uh desired bylaw changes can just talk to the chair without any actual
language and say I want CRC to discuss it because if that's the case I think all counselors need to know I have five or six I'd love to put on um to have a discussion that this one sounds like it's having um but I didn't know that was our new process that I you know I I
know I had understood that counselors were going to follow rule 8.1 um and propose an actual measure to the council for referral um with a memo with the actual language and that hasn't
happened yet. So, I'm not sure why or how what process this followed to get on this agenda. Um, that is transparent to all counselors because I was not aware
that I could just ask you to add to a CRC agenda. For example, I'd love CRC to talk about changes to the zoning bylaw to allow lots with duplexes to be split onto two lots without needing to comply with
dimensional requirements so that they can be sold without separately without condoing with no memo, with no nothing, with no attribution to anyone who might have proposed it. Um, but I don't think that that's the right way to go about getting stuff on an agenda. But if
that's the way I so I'd like to know with the chair if that is the new process and how that's going to be conveyed to counselors. >> That's a very good question. Um it's a good question. Um clearly it's
not I guess it so in a way it's sort of following more of the the the route that the town services and outreach um committee seems to follow and that's you know topics are raised and topics
are discussed even if it's not a a final action. So the intent here is if um you know if things come to our attention, how do we talk about it without without a a big formal to-do when the intent is
to raise the fact that there there seems to be an issue with our current bylaw. And and so just bringing that to folks attention so that we we can say even as a group yes
we want to spend time on it or no we don't. How else do we air that consideration? Does it just sit in a dark hole for a long time until uh you know until a couple counselors
say okay it's time to move on it. Let's let's take this up. Mandy. >> Um, I would say, you know, constituents bring us concerns all the time and if we want to address it through a bylaw, we have rules in our council on how to
propose a measure. Um, if counselors want to I I will say I haven't looked into it much, but I heard not very many complaints about how the ADU bylaw is being instituted. Um, some people have. You have to weigh
those that like it versus those that don't. But the place to weigh whether that's something we should take time to talk about is for counselors or the public can provide that same proposal to the council for the council to consider referring and the council as a whole
then says yes this is worth council time or not that's on the counselors to do the work to propose the actual measure. I have found in my now eight plus years on the council, if there are not measures in front of committees or in front of the council,
the council has a real hard time moving anything because there's nothing concrete to talk about, whether that be zoning, whether that be other things. TSO actually has stuff in front of it that was referred to the council. You might not remember some of those referrals,
but waist hauler and lighting was actually referred to them. um long time ago. They didn't just take them up on their own. Um they had counselor proposals and measures that were brought to them. Um we act by measures. We act
by and and and the measure can be request CRC to study this particular issue, right? Um that was done with the housing production plan. request CRC to draft a housing um not production plan,
a housing policy, comprehensive housing policy um with one attached by someone else, right? But we had something that the council deemed was deep enough and enough to discuss to bring back to it.
It should all start with coming to the council to get seven counselors to say, "Yes, this is an issue and we'd like to discuss it." And that takes counselors that are interested in it their time to draft all of that. Um I am concerned um
that I as a CRC member am being relied on a lot to do the work that other counselors should be doing. Um, and I am concerned and I will say this right out now that something like this will be
attempted to be put on my shoulder shoulders to come up with an amendment even though it is not something I brought to the council. Um, and I I think there are many counselors that try to have stuff done without doing the work themselves to start the process um
through the rules of the council. >> Thank you. I I think we've actually spent more time than I was going to talk than I was going to spend on the topic. Um, Jennifer, and then I'm gonna just You're muted. You're muted.
Yeah, this really doesn't have to happen in CRC, but it is an interesting discussion because in TSO, it's not just items that are brought, but the chair will say, "Ask the committee what we'd like to take up." So maybe we shouldn't be doing that. So that's another
conversation outside of CRC. Um because I think that the part of TSO that's outreach, I think there's been some discussion about what we should proactively do as outreach, but that that's another conversation. Um yeah. So
with this I with this particular item I will probably you know and maybe other counselors but bring a proposed um bylaw amendment language to the council. Um one thing that you know now that was
shared as part of this being on the agenda. I've kind of been waiting till it to see what comes out of um ZBA because this item and a butter is appealing through the ZBA and I believe it's been scheduled for a meeting
in July. Is it July 23rd? >> Yeah. >> Yes. So, >> so maybe it's just by way of update that you know this is going before the ZBA and then we'll see you know how it comes out of ZBA.
So, thank you. And and to Mandy's point, you know, you're you're you're correct. You always are. Um, this is what I what I wanted to say is, hey, CRC, you we all spent some time
developing the ADU bylaw. there appear to be some issues issues or flaws in it that that we did not um pay enough attention to. And the the bottom line is
that protected ADUs are actually being built larger than we thought they were going to be allowed, which which eliminates essentially the need for a local ADU. And the local ADU is the one that comes with some protections and
guidelines uh in terms of occupancy caps and dimensional requirements and owner occupancy. So I simply wanted to alert people that that topic was there. We all invested a lot of time and energy on it
and it didn't kind of come out the way we thought it should. So, that's the that was the heads up and that's literally all I wanted to spend on that topic, which is why I was going to talk about it first before we jumped into the into the clean energy bylaw. Mandy.
>> Well, I would like to know who wrote this document because it's not attributed to anyone. Um, and that makes it hard to evaluate. If it comes from Rob, that's one layer of things. If it comes from you or a counselor, that's another layer. If it comes from an
abutter, that's another layer. I have no idea who wrote the document that you put in the packet. >> Okay, I can I can tell you >> Okay, it's from Noah Cune. Noah Cune lives on New Court. Jennifer, you've got your trying to say something. um and put
together uh put together a memo with essentially with his findings and and and all it's doing is is identifying and highlighting the fact that we have a discrepancy in what we thought um
protected ADUs would would be compared to local ADUs. So that's that's who formulated it. >> Thank you for that. It would have been nice to have that somewhere on here. Um, an attribution. Um, and and you know,
I'll I'll leave my other thoughts to to that part alone. Uh, I I will say I'm going to contest that there's a flaw in the bylaw. Um, I know we as a committee discussed in detail the height that an attic or a basement
needed to be or couldn't be in order to be counted as part of gross square gross gross um square footage which is is different than habitable area. We discussed those those terms in detail and their differences. Um I I
will cont you you know so I I contest that quote there is a flaw and the use of the word flaw. Um I will not contest that there is some interpretation of this bylaw um that might be being seen
differently than expected but that does not necessarily mean the bylaw is flawed. I don't like the word blah. Um, [laughter] so I want to put that out there. Um, that does not mean that there are that it is being interpreted or
applied in a way that was not understood at the time of adoption, but that does not mean it's a flaw. It could just be a misunderstanding. It could be a problem with the definitions. It could be any number of things, right? But it doesn't necessarily automatically fall to the
bylaw is flawed. Um, the state adopted these ADU regulations to create more housing. Full stop. Um, and this bylaw is creating more housing. Full stop. Um, people may not like the type it is
creating. People may not like the size it is creating. People may like the type it's creating. People may like the size it's creating. I I don't know enough about any of it to to determine whether what we adopted is quote flawed or not
versus is having um different intentions than what some people thought it would do versus what other people thought it would do. So, um I'm not sure there's an actual problem um if this comes with an
actual proposal to amend because without a proposal on the floor, I don't know what the the request is. So, I can't speak to what the differences would be. At that point, I would be seeking information from our building commissioner about how it has been
applied and what any proposal would do in changing the application and have questions at that point. But without a proposal on the table, I don't I I can't ask those questions because there's no compare contrast on how it could be or how it couldn't be, which is the issue
with talking in hypotheticals because we're not talking about any particular concrete plan that we can compare it to. >> Thank you. Uh Jennifer.
Um yeah, so as Pam said, I guess she was just bringing this issue and something that you know again is going to be the decision is being appealed at least by one butter before the ZBA. So I think that was her there was not a proposal
but um you know I and I think it's flawed if not flawed the intent and I think intent is important. The intent was for 900 a protected use ADUs could be up to
900 square ft of habitable space. We have a local ADU that can be up to,200 square ft. And the intent, I think when the council adopted it was that you could build an ADU larger than 900
square ft, but it would have owner occupancy and um you know uh uh occupant some occupant limitations. It would have some restrictions, but what you got for agreeing to those restrictions was a larger ADU. As it turns out, protected
use ADUs are being permitted that are, I think, up to 13 a little over 1300 square feet. So, that wasn't the intent or why would we have had a local bylaw, a local AD use bylaw. And um yes, it's very good for what we are seeing in
district 4 is and this you know getting a little far field from our conversation right here but all just about most I almost feel like I could say all but I'll never say all. The vast majorities of ADUs are accessory to single or
duplexes or triplexes that are already rented to students. So, this is creating a lot of overcrowding and it's very good for the owners, but it is not good for the
neighbors. And and that's, you know, this that's just the way it is. So um and these um and when the state intent, yes, it was to build more housing, but it was to build more housing for
for the work the local workforce and people that were having trouble getting into housing. And that is why on the Cape and Islands there they cannot have ADUs as short-term rentals which are only going to be for the purpose of uh
vacationers paying large rents and benefiting the property owners. So I would you know I I think for we've always had this conversation the point of the ADU bylaws was really I don't believe for investors to be able to
um you know exploit um a town with a large uh seasonal population and none of the ADUs I'm seeing built in district 4 which is why people are so upset are being built for anything other than students that share high rents.
So I and again I don't the intent of our bylaw the re we I believe that when the council adopted it most counselors thought they were approving ADUs that would be up to 900 square ft and that's why we had a local option where they
could be larger and now it turns out the protected use are larger than the local option. So there's no reason for anyone to avail themselves of the local ADU. Mandy, >> I would just request that as we talk about this, we use the correct language
that's referenced in the bylaw. For protected use ADUs, the language that only is applicable is gross square footage. Nothing about habitable is applicable at all. In a protected use ADU, the measurement is gross square footage, which is different than
>> gross floor gross floor area is the actual word. >> Gross gross floor area. sorry, gross floor area which is not and is different than habitable area and a lot of people keep referring to ADUs uh protected use ADUs about sizes with related to
habitable area but that is completely different than gross floor area. Um, and I think part of a lot and and I'm not going to say this is the confusion, this is the issue or anything, but when we ourselves confuse
those two terms, it makes it harder for the people to understand that those terms and those measurements are actually different. Um, my understanding actually when we did the ADU bylaw was that gross floor area would actually
create smaller habitable areas than the number of the gross floor area because of what would be included in gross floor area that isn't necessarily included in habitable area. But that's part of the concern about equating the two because
they are different measurements. And I think if we're going to talk about it and potentially have a measure proposed to the council that may or may not get referred to us, um we need to be intentional on which term we are using
because gross floor area and habitable area are are different. Um you know because gross floor area doesn't just include finished spaces. >> [laughter]
>> and habitable area tends to include just spit finished spaces as a as a brief summary. Um, and then in our long-standing dispute, [laughter] I will push back on saying that um
10 month a year residents are seasonal residents. 10 month a year residents are residents of this town that are not seasonal. Um, and they have housing rights as much as any other 10, 11, or 12 month resident of this town has. Um,
we do not have Cape seasonal housing as people think of it where people come in and rent a house for one week at a time or 3 weeks at a time over the summer. We have a yearround population that includes students that live here nearly
year round, especially if they're not in dorms. they have year- round leases um and and non- students who also live here year round to say that and dismiss some of them as seasonal I think is a disservice to um the students and other
individuals that live here during the school year including professors that then and employees that then go off on the summers and work somewhere else or spend time overseas during the break and all. Um, we have residents, they live
here year round. Um, and they are just as much entitled to housing as any other person in this town that is not associated with an undergraduate degree seeking person.
>> Thank you. I'm going to actually acknowledge Rob Mora who has been up whose eyeballs in this topic. Yeah, I was trying to stay quiet, but I guess we're I guess we're talking about it. Um, just a couple of things. You
know, I mean, we've issued I think we're right around 40 ADU uh permits since the state law came into effect in February of last year. Uh, and I I think I've looked at two this week and I've only been back two days uh from vacation. So,
it's a a very busy thing uh that we're dealing with. Um, and I, you know, it's there's three interesting, you know, situations that we're seeing as a result of this new law. Uh, and obviously on the 23rd, I'll talk about 27 new court
very in much detail and that specific issue, but it is the attic exclusion. The other one has to do with basement. What is a basement? What is not? And it'll be interesting to find that one in makes a difference in that case, you know, and I'll point that out and talk more about it. And then, you know, the
third thing that, you know, is um, you know, something that I'm trying to work through is storm water management. And, you know, we don't have storm water management regulations that apply directly to the development of ADUs. So, I'm trying to use some, you know,
really, you know, vague language in the bylaw, you know, connecting it to parking spaces. Um, but it doesn't capture anything. there's a lot of roof runoff on structures that are right up next to the property line. So, we have these situations that, you know, that
we're seeing as a result of this bylaw and the lack of, you know, regulations that are being applied in some cases. Um, and I, you know, to, I think it was Jennifer that mentioned, well, there's no point of the local ADU. Um, I would
say there is, uh, because the the same definition of gross flurry applies to protected and local. So if you're, you know, playing out that scenario where you're getting an actual habitable space larger than gross floor area of 900
square ft in a local ADU or in a protected ADU, you're also getting that in a local ADU. So that's available in both cases. Um, so I just wanted to, you know, share that update and, you know, there's a, it's a very active, very busy, um, we're getting a mix, uh,
mostly investors that are building these things so far and permitting these things, but we're getting a mix of, um, both owners and investors asking questions every day, every week about ADUs and what can be done. >> Thank you,
Jennifer. And then I'm going to >> I have a comment I do want to ask, Rob, since you mentioned it. Do you know of the 40, which is way more than we got, I'm sure more applicants for ADUs or actual applications than before the protected use ADU became an available
option. Um, would you say that that most are being built to be student rentals? There was a time I think I was at, you know, there was I think I when I had 34 applications, 19 of them were
investorowned and not intending to be owner occupied. I I don't know the current number. That was, you know, probably a month or or two ago at least. So, you know, more than half would be I think I'd be comfortable saying are investorowned
uh projects on properties that uh hold rental permits and are not, you know, not owner occupied. >> Yeah. Because I think we put Yeah. I I just I I felt that, you know, one reason I ran for the council. I mean, we really have blinders on to say we just want to
build housing. you know, it doesn't matter what that housing is for because in, you know, streets like Grey Street, Cottage Street, Whitney Street, High Street, those are areas where there's all different size houses on differentiz
lots. You have the we we have members of our local workforce who live in these neighborhoods. These are neighborhoods that, you know, are still affordable because also there's different. It's not like the same size house on the same size spacious lot that are in some developments. These are neighborhoods
where the kind of people we talk about, we want to be able to stay here and we want to be able to move here, live. And we have blinders on to say if you were living next to a you know two houses or you know a duplex with eight students
and an ADU is being built where four or five more students can live and all the cars cuz we don't put any that that that is not negatively impacting the rest of the neighbors and I you know I've gotten emails from people because
these ADUs are going up adjacent to h single or double, you know, unit houses that are already rented to students and they're like, you know, now I really have to move. And we can pretend that's not happening, but I I think that's doing a disservice both in the short
term and the long term to our community. That's all I'm going to say. >> Thank you. I'm going to step in because um I had I was going to say something. Um, I I have to I grimst a little bit when you when when
Rob said that the the same upsizing that's happening with the the protected ADU is happening with the local as well. I have to remind us that it's an ADU. It's an accessory dwelling unit. It [laughter] really it really isn't
intended to, you know, like overshadow the the main house. Um, I think people are generally supportive of having ADUs and that opportunity. Um, a lot of it rests in Rob's hands because you're the one permitting a lot of
these. Um, and um, we appreciate the care that you take in permitting because you may not feel the ramifications um, of having that in a neighborhood. U, Rob, and then and then Mandy.
>> Yeah. And I mean some of that really is a result of the language that the state gave us to work with. So you know I was looking at an application today um that got approved and it is essentially a two family dwelling and from the outside
standing on the street it looks like an equal side by side two family dwelling. One has a basement, one doesn't. >> And because of the state, the language that the state law, the way they wrote this, that meets the the requirement, the 50%. So, you know, one of those
units, the they're the habitable space is exactly the same. One of them has a basement, so it has double the gross floor area and it qualifies as the principal struct principal dwelling. That's that's what was created as a and these were these were comments we made,
you know, during the public hearing process a year and a half a, you know, a while ago, you know, and didn't didn't get any reaction to. >> Thank you, Mandy. >> Yeah. >> And then I'm going to wrap it up. >> I I just want to state that um I
appreciate Jennifer bringing up New Court and High Street and Grey Street and that whole neighborhood. Most of that neighborhood could not be built under our RG regulations today. Um, if we love the sizes of those houses, the new court lot sizes and all of that,
none of them are conforming to our current RG lot size standards. Almost none. It's it's a lot. Our current RG minimum lot size is 12,000 square ft. And a whole lot of them are under 12,000 square feet. Some of them I was just paging through are under 6,000 square
ft. They cannot be built under our current regulations today. Um, it's and and and I love that area, too. But we have to recognize when we state that is a fantastic area that our zoning does not allow that neighborhood to be built
today [clears throat] at all. And and maybe that I would love to talk about dimensional regulations at some point. It was on my list if we are just taking things to talk about. [laughter] Um I that would be on there. minimum lot
sizes, minimum frontage, um because many of them I didn't measure the frontage. That takes even longer on the GIS than just clicking the identify and seeing the the square footage of the of the property. Um 50 foot minimum lot frontages. Many many of them might not
even have that. Um, we cannot build in our current zoning some of the neighborhoods that many residents point to as neighborhoods they want to see because our zoning dimensional table does not allow those sizes at this time.
And I just wanted to point that out because I agree, Jennifer, that neighborhood is one of the most loved neighborhoods, not just because of its location, but because of its diversity, because of its lot size changes, because of its a little bit too closer to stuff,
right? Um there's many things we can point to that residents point to and say that's what we want to see. Our zoning doesn't allow that right now. >> Thank you everybody. That was the five minute conversation I was hoping to have.
Um, our next action item is minute meeting minutes of which we have zero. Um, so let's go to the agenda. Next agenda preview. Clearly, we are going to continue to talk about the clean clean energy bylaw and the public hearing on
this on the 15th. Um, at some point we need to get back to design, downtown design standards and then the ADU bylaw, which I would like to talk about, but we seems like we
would need to prepare a different approach if we want to talk about it in more detail than we did today. Um, to actually look at wording of of a bylaw. So Mandy, >> yeah, I would request that ADU doesn't
show up unless there's a proposal to the council for a measure under the rules and it gets referred. Um, council meets on July 20th. Um, any proposal that might be created could be put on that agenda if we know about it by Tuesday
the 14th and we have it in writing in compliance with the rules by the 15th around noon. Um, and that's adoptable. So, a redlinined version that says or or even just a motion. I I don't know what it would look like because I don't know
what you guys are looking at. Um, but if it's to amend section blah blah blah by inserting the word blah in front of these things or maybe it, you know, it doesn't have to be a full out red line if it's as simple as inserting a word or changing a definition to to amend definition to read blah, you know, like
it doesn't but it it it would need a memo and compliance with the the rules. Um, I recommend you look at the rules, but until then, it's just really hard to talk about stuff without an actual point of conversation. Um, but if you are
going to keep ADU on without a referral to the planning uh to the from the council, um, I'm going to send you a list of other zoning things I'd love to put on the list [laughter] um to also just randomly talk about too. Um, so let me know if that's the case
because I've got a couple others to add. I would love to talk about the zoning map for East Ammerst. Um, the use table for Dut >> the zoning map for East Ammerst. Oh, >> um the use table for duplexes, apartments, and mixeduse buildings, a
40R zone potential up in North Ammerst. Um the dimensional table as I just me mentioned um because it is I would love to relook at those sizes and look at lowering some of the minimums um particularly for lot size and frontages in various residential areas. Um, and
then, uh, I'd love to have a talk about lot size splitting once duplexes are on, even if they don't match match meet the standard dimensional tables to see if there's a way we can get duplexes built that don't have to be condoed to be
individually owned. Um, if we're looking for ownerowned housing and increasing owner opportunities, not forcing condos, condoization for multifamily housing like duplexes or in I I'm
[clears throat] a Philly girl. Row homes. [laughter] That's what we call them in New York. I think it's brownstones. Um, that could be individually loted instead of condoed. I'd love to have a conversation about that, too. So, why don't you put those in a list
and send them to me and we can we can um start some discussions once we get through some of this the heavy lifting that we still have in front of us through through October one.
Anyway, thank you. um announcements only that CRC will be joining with the planning board joint public hearing July 15 6:30 p.m. Um there will be the following actual CRC
meeting would be um article probably the continuation of article 18 clean energy public hearing to July 23rd. Actually we did continue it to July 23rd. Um, so here's a question. Um, CRC continued
our public hearing to July 23rd as our next opportunity to hold the public hearing. Does that mean that we are not allowed to participate on July 15
when the planning board continued its hearing? Mandy, >> I mean, I would defer to Athena. We can't hold a hearing on the 15th. We cannot open a hearing on the 15th if we're deferred if we're continued to the 23rd. Um, I don't know if that means we
can't be part of that meeting at all. Um, or whether we're just in discussion while they're in hearing, although that's kind of weird. Um, if you notice a meeting for that night that is not hearing, I I I'd defer to Athena on that. But I I know absolutely you can't
>> say this is a continued hearing for CRC on um July 15 if we actually noticed it for the if we voted for the 23rd. Yeah, we did vote it for the 23rd. But so just as today we talked about clean
energy bylaw, we talked about, you know, some of the KP law comments. Um, is that not a way of of improving our knowledge or expanding our knowledge of this of the subject in
order to come back to the 23rd? That's So is is Athena still here? I think we had this conversation before. I feel like we did. I don't I don't hear Athena's voice. >> I would check. Oh, here comes Athena.
>> Your your question is whether you can discuss the proposed zoning amendment at a meeting that's not a public hearing. That's not our public hearing because we continued CRC continued our public hearing to the 23rd
which was going to be our next meeting. It's expected that we would have a joint meeting on the 15th which is the planning board's next meeting >> and they will be in public hearing at
that time. But I think that's the question. Could we be at a meeting where they're in the middle of a public hearing that we cannot be a part of because our public hearing is Thursday, the next week? Does it look weird?
>> That is unusual. I'm looking to see if it's already been posted. So the co the conversation Athena is if we >> it doesn't look like the planning board has posted their meeting yet. Um I don't
I I think if the intention here is for the committee to join the planning board and participate in that conversation then it should be noticed that way. Um so we can talk to Pam Field Sadler about that. I think if it's clear in the meeting notice then I I don't see
um a significant issue with it because the CRC will continue their hearing on the 23rd as they voted. Okay. that that works for me, especially if we're going to if to save
staff time and and KP Law time if we're hearing jointly the information from them. Um, that that makes sense. That's expedient. And I'm pretty sure Pam Sadler was was
going to post it that way. But we can we clarify that. Let's leave it at that. Item seven, items in not anticipated by chair 48 hours in advance. I have none. And I think I'm ready to recommend that
we adjourn the meeting. I make a motion to adjourn this meeting at 3:20 2 239. Sorry, I'm getting dyslexic. >> Second. >> Let's go around. Uh, councelor Walker, are you with us?
>> Yeah. >> Um, Jennifer Tub, >> yes. >> Mandy Johanny, >> hi. >> And Pam Rooney is an I. Thank you everyone. Um, and thanks for guidance from staff on walking us through the
ever more complicated clean energy bylaw. >> It's the uh housing inspection bylaw for how long it's taking. >> Yeah, I know. Take care. Thank you, Jennifer.