share my screen. All right. Welcome to the advisory committee meeting of Tuesday, September 30th. We have one item on the agenda for tonight which is a report review and possible vote on warrant article six which is the zoning for family child
care homes. There's any members of the public who want to speak on this matter before we start our um discussion. Now will be a time to drop your name in the chat and we'll call on you. And if not I believe we'll turn it over
to Carlos for the report. Yes, thank you uh Dennis. Um so this is a pretty straightforward uh warrant article, article um six. Sorry, I was just reading my
report. It seems like it put the wrong article on the top, but uh article six. Um because um there's not much we can do um from from our perspective. Um, article article six amends the zoning
bylaw to align with recent changes that the do that the state has made to the do amendment. Um, as many of you may know the do amendment is an amendment to um Massachusetts law which exempts certain
land uses for example religious education uh or child care from any uh zoning um local zoning restrictions. Uh this allows for someone to propose a project uh or to to
build a project um without adhering to all zoning um rules. And typically the municipalities can impose uh reasonable regulations for example building size, height, uh
setbacks or similary similar uh design elements to the project. What's different about the changes that the governor uh included in the FY25 state budget and the legislature signed in
October, sorry, on July 29th was that the now the amendment explicitly recognizes family child care homes and large family child care uh homes as allowable uses. And it disallows
or prohibits uh local towns or municipalities to regulate these in any way um regarding zoning ordinances. though they're still regulated by a health department, but we cannot impose
any kind of um zoning ordinance like we would on other do amendment um land uses. Uh so so right now the the
town zoning bylaw requires the uh these large family child care homes um to obtain a special permit if they want to um exist and then they have to go through a whole very extensive
application process. Um I will note that the one important part is that this is different from child care or daycare centers where the the daycare center the primary use is the daycare center. The family and large
family child care homes is an accessory use. So the primary the principal use of the uh of the lot will still be um for example a home uh residential and it's
still um subject to regulation but it's the accessory part which is the large family and child care homes that will be classified as an accessory and then exempt from all zoning regulation.
Um so we as the as the department of planning and community development has advised uh we just have to change our bylaws to include in the table of uses um the accessory use of large home uh
sorry large family chair uh child care homes and and that's it. Um when we met on um last week uh we let's see what day we
meet on 22 September 22nd um we talked about um well we acknowledged that we couldn't really do much about it but we talked about what does it mean to uh for all
these possible new child care homes. um what does it mean to the town? And as um one of the members uh former members of the of the park and wreck um
um commission mentioned um our parks, especially in North Brooklyn, are heavily used and um a lot of these child care uh uses will will end up using them more. uh but we can't regulate that
either. So uh we were just made aware of that. Um and we also had some discussion and questions about how it would work in a condo um not in a single family home for example but in a condominium
building and what it would mean to for parking um building services etc etc. Um we also it would it was also discussed that they still have to go through the
whole health department um process to to get that um to get the permitting. But since that that part is really not part of this um warrant article, we didn't um we didn't dwell on
that too much. Uh so by a motion uh by a vote of 720 uh with no abstensions um we voted to recommend to the full advisory that we um make these amendments to our zoning
bylaw. Um Maria, as the petitioner, did you have anything you wanted to add to that report? No, that was very complete. Thank you for asking. All right. Um, so let's go to any questions or comments from the
committee. Well, I I'll I'll start. Um, Anthony, you should put your name in the chat if you want to speak. Um, you're right. I forgot how this works. Carlos, when you discuss the condos, I'm assuming a condo association can still
prohibit this as a a business or something in the condo, correct? Or did you did or was the issue just raised and not really discussed? Uh, it was discussed. I think we I saw that we have um
Jonathan Simpson here, so I think he should be best answering that question. Uh yeah, happy to answer. Um yeah, this this would not touch any arrangement within the condo, the condo masterdeed, the condo rags. Um it's a private arrangement and even to the extent that
that it is governed under state law, it's not governed under 4DA, which is the zoning statute. So it would not affect the how a condo could might uh might prohibit this in its own documents. Thank you. Um, and I will um just remind people um if they wish to speak, put
your name in the chat. Um, the chat seems to have changed a bit. Um, uh, I think you have to hit everyone um, in order to have it appear for everyone. Uh, everyone in the upper left corner. Harry Bors.
Yeah, I'd like to get a a better sense of the dimensional aspect of the zoning. I understand that this would change the use that you could have uh family daycare business essentially as of right. Um but I don't know just exactly
how that translates to the zoning of the structure itself. Does that mean if I decide I want to have a large family daycare and I take in let's say I think you can take a maximum of 10 children and I decide that's great but the house
could be better equipped for all these kids. So I want to do an 1,800 square foot addition to my home that would bring me to within I don't just say a within a a a foot of the lot line. Is
that solely permitted sort of like a do exemption that you can do that or are you still confined by the zoning for the area? It's just a use issue. So my understanding is and here's I think
another point that I should I mentioned but I should stress um more strongly which is the other do amendment uses can be reasonably um um
um regulated. But when they made this amendment to the do amendment, they took away the word reasonable. So it no longer can be um regulated.
So my guess would be that no. But uh David um yeah so what I I think very important is that uh child care homes is an accessory use versus a daycare center which is a
primary use. So, we're talking about residential properties and uh I believe and but uh you know uh staff Maria and Jonathan can be more uh authoritative here, but I I we just aren't allowed to
regulate the accessory use under zoning whatsoever. We just can't can't have anything in the zoning that speaks to the accessory use, but it is an accessory use. So my my assumption is that in terms of enlarging your house
that's that's your house and you have to deal with zoning in whatever uh however that exactly however that works. So special permit you know variance whatever if you want to make your house bigger it's the house that you're making bigger.
Okay. So this is use only not the dimensions. Well, it's no, it's you cannot it's it's any regula. You have to we're removing any regulation. We're we're listing them as allowed uses as an accessory use and
we are removing any regulation from our zoning bylaw. It only addresses zoning bylaw and zoning ordinances. So, building department, building code, health, police, everything else is not
spoken to here. So including so the zoning bylaw which dict dictates dimensions is that no longer in effect for this use now accessory use
I I would say that and Jonathan if you prefer to to lead with that um but the dimensions are for the principal use those are the dimensional requirements are for the principal use so um the dimensional requirements for the
principal use are not regulating the accessory use. Um, but Jonathan, do you see an argument where someone might put on an addition for an express um accessory use or a detached use um where they could make an argument to to usurp
uh the zoning? Uh, no. The the bylaw does the dimensional requirements apply to accessory uses at all. you you're always looking at the the structure as a whole. Um so the way just it's the way our bylaw works they would not be able to make that argument.
Okay. Just to use that. Okay. Thank you. But um one clarification so like for example garage is an accessory use or an ADU has also been an accessory use. Um can you enlarge the garage? I mean,
you could there there is a there are rules about how um how the the garage are is is located as an accessory use. But could you do the same thing
um for a child care area space? uh not not under no because it is the the underlying use is a is a residence and that's the what's the dimensional requirements apply to um I do not
believe you could so you might want to have a large you might want to have a large child care home but there are rigs uh not in zoning about how much there it doesn't require a lot of space for for each kid, but
there's a minimum amount of space per kid and there's a certain amount of space required that's dedicated play, you know, like the play space 250 ft or something like that. And your house would have to, you know, in order to get your permits, which the town would issue
to operate, you'd need to deal with those things. They're just not in zoning. Um, Anthony has taken his name off. Um, Maria or Jonathan, uh, what is the definition of a large
family child care as far as number of kids? Is that part of the definition? Yes. Um, so if you look at the the the article under the changes to the use table, table 4 um.07, 07.
We've actually copied verbatim the definition from Mass General Law 40, excuse me, Mass General Law chapter 15D, section 1A. Um, so the definition here is, and I'll I can read it to you if you wish, or you can just, um,
I don't have access to it right now. You can read it. Yeah. So, uh, use 6A cites this definition. a private residence which on a regular basis receives for temporary custody and care during part or all of the day
children under seven years of age or children under 16 years of age if those children have special needs and receives for temporary custody and care for a limited number of hours children of school age under regulations adopted by
the board the total number of children under 16 I believe that means 16 years of age. We're again we're copying this from the statute in a family child care home shall not exceed six including participating children living in the
residence as defined by MG Mass General Law Chapter 15D section 1A or its accessor that's family child care home. Large family child care home is a private residence which on a regular basis receives for temporary custody and
care during part or all of the day children under seven years of age or children under 16 years of age if such children have special needs and receives her temporary custody and care for a limited number of hours. Children of school age under regulations promulgated
by the board, but the number of children under the age of 16 in a large family child care home shall not exceed 10, including participating children living in the residence. A large family child care home shall have at least one
approved assistant when the total number of children participating in child care exceeds six. Thank you. Um, Dennis, unless uh David Mark. Okay, I just had a trouble unmuting. So,
does that mean that if somebody gets a foster child that would that would uh include be included in that definition that you could have, Maria? I believe so. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Lisa Jonas,
I'm sorry. I'm still puzzled. Is it what I just wrote there is is the zoning just relevant for uses or is it also dimensional? And just following up on Harry's question, if it also is the dimensions,
under what circumstances would would this um household be affected if they have an accessory use that they're using it for family daycare? So this doesn't pertain to accessory structures, but accessory uses
uses accessory to the principal dwelling. And I would also add, Alisa, that just the way that they define family child care homes and large family child care homes, as Maria was just reading, it makes it clear that it's a it's a private residence that on a temporary
basis takes these in. So you the zoning dimensionally is still going to be applied to the private residence. It doesn't the residence itself doesn't receive any sort of um any sort of exemption. And once you start building accessory structures you're not living in, you're no longer treating it as a
family child care home. It's not your residence anymore. You're building something completely separate that our zoning could, you know, theoretically still apply to. So it sounds like it is just the uses, right? Yes. I would Yes. Okay.
Okay. Anybody else? Dennis, I think we're ready for a motion. All right, Carlos. So, I move um
favorable action on warrant article six as presented by the petitioner. Okay. Um, so we're going to vote on our recommendation of favorable action on warrant article 6 as presented by the petitioner.
And let me share my screen. Uh, Michael Berger, yes. Ben Burnbound, yes. Harry Bors, yes. Cliff Brown,
yes. Anthony Buano. Yes. Elise Cooer Stone. Yes. Couture Stone. Couture. I get that. I'll get that pronunciation. Couture Stone. Yeah. No worries.
John Dogget. Is he not? I don't think he's here. Traveling. Traveling. Harry. Okay. Harry Freriedman. As a protest against increased state interference, I'm voting no. All right. David Mark Goldstein. Yes.
Neil Gordon. Yes. Susan Granoff. Yes. Perry Gman. Yes. Kelly Hardbeck. Uh, yes. Alisa Jonas. Yes. Janice Khan.
I don't think she's here. Brian Lad. Yes. Alec Levitz. Yes. Carol Levin. Yes. Liz Linder, I don't believe not here, I don't think. Pam Lodish, yes.
Jocelyn Murphy, Joselyn's not here. Danell O'Neal, yes. Linda Olsson Pelky. I'm gonna say yes because I was on the subcommittee, so I missed the discussion, but I think it's fair unless
something drastic came up. Nope. Okay. Fran Fran Pearllor. Yes. David Pa, yes. Carlos Rujo, yes. Margaret Robotham, yes. Lee Selwin,
I don't believe he's here. Christine Westfall, I don't believe she's here. Okay. By vote of 22 in favor, one opposed, no abstension. Our recommendation is favorable action on warrant article six. And for you the
newcomers, uh, Margaret and Elise, this is exactly how all advisory committee meetings go. There's they're they're efficient. They're they're they're almost unanimous. Harry votes no, but other than that, you know, we're always
in agreement. Um, so take a cue from 7:22. And we're done by 7:22. No. So seriously, Harry, um, you want to outline what our schedule is for the next couple of meetings? So this is our last meeting for full
advisory for this week. Um, u because of Yom Kipper. We are meeting on next Tuesday the 7th, but I believe Dennis, correct me if I'm wrong, it will be on Zoom. I I think that's correct.
Okay. And then we will also be meeting next Thursday the 9th presumably on Zoom. There there will be no executive session um on Thursday the 9th. The executive session has been indefinitely postponed.
Um I believe and Dennis again helped me here. Starting the week of the 14th we're going to meet live on Tuesdays. Yes. Okay. So, uh, next week, um, both meetings are virtual. Starting the 14th,
we're live on Tuesday and, uh, virtual on Thursday. And, um, as I understand it, there's been a ton of subcommittee meetings that have been going on, which is great. Um and we are if you have uh concerns about
getting materials in on time or if the there's any issues related to um recommendations from the committees and we need more time uh um Carla Banka is continuing to rearrange our schedule to be accommodating and we still have
flexibility. Um and I'm I'm not worried about getting everything done. This is a late warrant. So with that, yes, I'm sorry. This is Jonathan Simpson. Uh when you're go back to in person in a couple weeks on Tuesdays, are people can still participate remotely? Like if I
have to jump between meetings or something like that, correct? Yes. Although for for committee members, we're encouraging you to show up live, but it will be they will be hybrid. Right. And we're encouraging, you know, I mean, clearly when we have the if we ever have that executive session, it
would be great if everybody, you know, who's going to be participating that could be in person rather than remote. It works better. Um, and uh, and as you know from past experience, the meetings generally are more efficient in and more
productive in in person than they are uh, over Zoom. So, the more people that show up, the the the better it tends to be. I just put the next four meeting dates and agenda in the chat. Great. Thank you. Uh David, did you have
your hand raised? Well, just an announcement if you're done. Yes. Go ahead. Um, so I attended a fascinating uh ad hoc uh subcommittee meeting last night chaired by Harry Bors uh and which is and Harry can speak to this but at the
request of the moderator uh Dennis put together a small group to to look at uh uh social media and online communication and communication on on the list serve um by advisory committee members and just try to help us develop
some guidelines and help Dennis develop some some standards, practices, guidelines on what we we what we should and shouldn't be doing and everything. But what ca one thing that came out from this meeting that Harry passed along having met with town council about communications was
that um and I'm speaking here to the land use subcommittee but I think it's interesting to everybody the um the process that land use sub subcommittee adopted and voted a year ago for development and approval of our minutes
uh is not uh look looked on favorably by by town council because even though it's just minutes, there's a sort of a deliberative quality to us passing edits back and forth. And so, um, I'm going to
be writing the the the only set of outstanding minutes for land use subcommittee. So what I will do is I will simply give my draft of those minutes to Lisa for posting um to to to an AC meeting or to
something and then I'll let you all know that they're available so that then you can and I can once they're posted I can actually email them to you. But then what you'll need to do is essentially bring your edits to a either a land use subcommittee meeting or some kind of a
meeting and we'll we won't be able to use the process that we adopted in which you guys just sent me your edits and then uh if I didn't hear from you the minutes were approved. We we we have to not have that for the moment the tacid
approval uh in that way and we'll just go back to uh editing minutes in a in a in an actual meeting setting. So I don't understand what the issue is there with what we you want to explain. Sure. The issue is it was explained to
us is that you are no longer in an open meeting and you are having a deliberation. You're discussing the minutes. It's a deliberation. That's illegal. But how are we discussing it if we're simply reviewing it on our own and
sending changes to David? Well, uh that's that is up for interpretation. We have been told quite explicitly that is deliberation. Even if you're just doing it to to
remove the semicolon, I think was the technical ter even even to fix punctuation that it's a deliberation. Oh, for crying out loud. So, so what we have done what we have done just you know there's it's like a
lot of things. There's there's keeping up with the spirit of the law and keeping up with the letter of the law and sometimes those two things converge and sometimes they diverge. Uh, but the way we've gotten around it is one person gets assigned to write the minutes and
when they have a draft, it gets dropped into the meeting packet for the next meeting because we know it's coming up. Which means at that point it is in the public domain for anybody to retrieve at any time, including other subcommittee members or committee
members. and they are certainly welcome to make their own edits as they so deem fit and drop their copy in that meeting packet and oh by the way send a copy to everybody else on the committee and it
becomes a way of in essence having a publicly documented deliberation should push come to shelves bit like scratching your head like this but as we understand I think it's necessary. Yeah, but that's that comes without 48
hour notice of a posted meeting. So, you can't get there that way. No, you it goes to a posted meetings uh packet. Anyway, that is you can deliberate by packet now. That's great. Good. Well, in essence, that's what you're
doing. So this this was this is what we worked out with town council when we had this issue that that would technically be permissible. Yes, it's a little bit cluji. Yes, it takes a leap of faith in terms of your
colleagues and if you want to assign it to one person, although some of us are really happy to assign it to one person and not have to go back and review and edit, but that's just where things stand right now. This is worthy of a test. You should do it, Harry, and I'll file the complaint
and see how the AG deals with it. Oh, two questions. First of all, can we even have this discussion right now since it hasn't been not noticed? Well, I I thought about that a minute ago. David brought it up, but Right. And the second one is So, does
this mean that the select board sends all their has the select board does not send any edits to meetings? Correct. It is done. It is done through staff and sort of a hub and spoke approach. So, when you send it to the staff, it's
okay. It Yes. It cannot, as I understand it, it can't be generated by a uh select board member and then sent to other select board members, but they
they can send it to staff. Staff can take their staff can take other members edits, but they can't be shared around. So, we can hire uh assistants for every uh subcommittee, and then we're then we're all set until we have that. If you want to spend two very long evenings
discussing this with town council, I'm sure that we can arrange it. It gets a little convoluted. I think Lisa's job just got a lot more complicated. Actually, I want to I want to stick to the chat. Carol, you had a question. Well, my recollection was we were
authorizing voting to authorize the subcommittee chair to write and approve the minutes. that this in no way impacts that that does that does not that does not impact that this would be say on a subcommittee somebody's writing minutes
and the inclination has always been you write the minutes you pass it around somebody looks they send you their comments well that's your mistake right all right so so on the capital subcommittee we can keep on doing it by fiat fine that's all I can unless when you write the minutes Carol
you talk to yourself and say, "Carol, is is that what I really want to say?" Then there's a deliberation and you can't do it that way anymore. Well, I always talk to myself, but okay. Just don't send them Don't send them out to your colleagues without having them
being deposited into the packet for the next posted meeting and then you're covered. Got it, Susan. Okay. So, I'm going to clarify a modification of this. Our subcommittee
has voted to have the chair approve all minutes, but the chair isn't necessarily or often or ever the person writing the minutes. Uh there is a need to if you're
approving it, you may find errors and you want those change and you tell the person who wrote the minutes to make the change. Is that no longer permissible? As as we understood it, that then becomes a deliberation.
Not absolutely. Okay. But under open meeting law, the uh it says very clearly that the chair can approve or disapprove of minutes. The assumption has to be
that if there is something that's a problem that the chair should be permitted to tell whoever wrote the minutes to make a change or else what's the point? I I do not argue with that level of reasonleness.
I I will just say in our conversations we ran into difficulty in that line of discussion. So it's it's just a heads up. You you you can have the conversation so long as it's not a serial quarum,
right? If if it's just with one the person who is supposed to make the change. If two is not a quorum, one person writes. Yeah. But but town council said two is a quorum. Two is a deliberation. This is new. This is new. Yeah. This is new. you can
deliberate with an I'm still inclined, by the way, to agree with Neil that at some point we're going to need a test case um and and actually uh get because you know the the fact that the the ground rules keep changing
is is is going to be long-term untenable. And I think the reality is at some point we're going to have to have town council here for for for an evening where all of these questions gets asked and back and forth. And I would say have a big cup of
coffee and come early. But Harry, not until your uh committee reports. It's premature. It's just be aware that the notion of having a deliberation outside of a publicly posted open meeting um
is problematic and look for ways to avoid that. And I'll just leave it at that. And I'll assume that that's exactly what everybody's doing. Well, open meeting law permits us to
select the chair to have final approval. If that has no meaning, then we're undercutting the one of the provisions of the open meeting law. Well, I I won't argue, like I said, argue with the reasonleness of it.
So uh Susan just to be clear the arguments that you are making are are indistinguishable from arguments that many of us have also made. So we're you know uh I I I I don't want to go into another area of of conversation about
this but I think that when the subcom when the ad hoc subcommittee comes back is will be a good time to get town council here to have more conversation about this. Yep. Yeah. Anthony,
sorry guys, I don't want to get any more off track, but um so like you just said, I heard two is a quorum. So if I have a question about a warrant article and I want to know Dennis's opinion, can I call Dennis and be like, "Hey, Dennis, what do you think about war article 7?"
I can't do that. If you're so I think if you're on separate committees and you're not considering the that article, but if you let's say you had a hearing and and you were somebody one of you was writing up the minutes and the other one called the other one and we're going to have a conversation. Hey, what do you do
what do you remember? What do you think? How and another person said, "Oh, yeah, I recall that." No, remember they said this. You want to put that in there also? that at that point that would be construed a deliberation outside of the meeting and that wouldn't be
permissible. Okay. Now, but real quick, zoom it outside of a minutes. Like what if it's doesn't have to do with minutes? And I'm just like Dennis, what is this? What do you think about this war article? It says A. Do you agree with a am I not allowed to do that? Uh,
that's a good question. Um, the the test is always is it a quorum? I know. That's why I'm confused now. I've always had a quorum. But there's also the issue of deliberations. We'll have to have town. You can deliver with less than a quorum.
We're not going to get the answer here tonight. We'll have to talk to town. We're not going to get the answer here tonight. You're you're not going to get you're not going to get the answer if you invite town council. Um, but you'll get you'll get an answer and you'll know where some edges are
and then you can use your best judgment as to how to apply those. Well, I I just looked at the open meeting law, the law and defines what a quorum is and it's a simple majority. So, yes, but that's different than than
deliberations. No, it's if it's when the quorum that's who can deliberate. Oh, well, sorry. Well, and anyway, it it's a conversation with with town council. I don't see how what the select boards do and it's kosher either because
they're making changes without deliberation. Well, so who's making those decisions? They send those to staff. They don't share them amongst themselves that we know of. That was the distinction that was presented to us. They just don't admit to sharing it
amongst themselves. I think that's right. Yeah. So, at any rate, at least just be aware it's something else to keep you agitated in the meantime. I promise with all my heart, I promise with all my heart to never
deliberate with any of you outside of a Zoom call. I promise. Uh, at the risk of dumbing this down because I'm a newbie, what if I just want to reach out to a colleague and say, "Hey, how do you think that hearing went?" Um, is that
part of this? Like, am I even able to ask a friendly question or a hearing that you've already had? Yes. I I as I understand it, technically you can't deliberate outside of the meeting.
But if the vote has already been taken. Oh, that's interesting. If a vote is already Yeah. Well, do you mean by this subcommittee or by the full committee? The subcommittee. So, say I want to reach out to a to a colleague and say, "Hey, how do you think that went?" You
know, do you feel good about it or whatever? Just a friendly question, not not necessarily politics, per se. It sounds like this might be restricted. I think you're you're new enough here that that you have the benefit of plausible deniability and you can you can give it
a go. I mean, to Neil's point, our understanding has always been that that kind of conversation was okay. And the the the question we're wrestling with right now is how to deal with inconsistent um guidance that we've been
getting from town council. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. And that if you called everybody on the committee one after another and got their opinion, that would be clearly out of bounds. That's that's a serialized form. And one
thing we will also hear, and this gets back to intent versus the law, and this is going to come back in other things, um, is if you only do this with one person, then it may be said, well, you did it with one person, but there's no
guarantee they're not going to do with the other one, and that you're going to get a serialized qu. Not to say that it happened, but it could happen. And that was another argument that we sort of had to wrestle with when we were discussing this, the did it happen or could it
happen? Um, letter versus intent. And yeah, I personally have a lot of trouble with the idea that you can't do something because you might go on to do something else that would make it illegal later. I agree with Dennis.
You just don't do the second thing. You can't press your foot on the accelerator because you might later choose to speed. It seems seems crazy to me personally. Just don't speed. Easier for you to say than some of us.
But yeah. Yeah. By the way, just to confuse everybody, if the subject matter of a prior meeting is not coming back to that body, feel free to talk as much as you want. Mhm. But it could Yeah. Good. See, it might come back,
Neil. Well, well then, yes. Always reconsider. All right, I'm gonna as I'm going to suggest we adjourn. Um, then are we allowed to talk about that or not? 62%.
Thank you. Dennis, could you stay on for a moment at the end? Yes, I'd be happy to. Yeah, by the way, I sent you an email, Dennis. Um, I know isn't we had our public hearing on war article one. So, okay, check the box. Too much information.
Great. Thank you. All right. Bye. Goodbye, everyone.