Is we supposed to all say that we're here or something? Or is that only for a roll call vote? I thought there was some Zoom procedure that we were supposed to follow. >> I mean, if you all want to say your names and that you're here, it can't hurt, right? >> Well, if we don't need to, that's okay. Maybe it's just for a roll call, though.
So, okay. Um, >> and Addie just joined, so you do have the six members who are going to make it tonight. >> Okay. Okay. So, I think our first order of business is to continue without testimony public uh the continue public
hearing for site plan review for 163 Sunset Road for an ADU. Do I have a motion to continue to >> March 9th at 79 at 7 p.m.? >> Motion to continue. >> Second.
>> Uh roll call vote, please. Starting with whoever's last name is be. I >> think that's me. Uh J may I >> guess I >> Daddy.
>> I'm having connection issues. >> Okay, Joe. We can go to Joe. >> Yes. >> I met I Okay. Um, the next order of business was to review the ADU site plan review rules
and regulations and vote on it. Um, and with apologies, I missed this part of the meeting last time because I was sick. So, um, wanted to Julie, how do you what's the best way to do this? You had received and consolidated additional comments based on the last meeting. What
do you think the best way is to review any addition any additional comments about this? Why don't I screen share the version that I have that includes all the comments that I got and then we can just look at them. The board had a number of like things they wanted adjusted and then there were some questions that I reached out to John
Mativier about. Um let me just find I have a lot of windows open. Um >> and then I did receive feedback from board of health and also from the historical commission. So I put them all in one place and actually let me scroll back to the top here. Um,
[clears throat] too many things on my screen right now. Okay. Um, so can you all see [snorts] the document >> and it like the first page of it? Let me just let Addie back in. She's having trouble connecting. >> Yeah, if you could zoom in a tiny little bit once you let Addie back in, that'd
be great. >> Yeah, sure. No problem. Um, is that better or >> That's better. Thank you. >> Yeah, >> sure. Yeah. So, um, let me just make sure. Addie, are you with us? >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yep.
>> Might have to leave my video off just because seems like I'm having connection issues. >> Worries. So, yeah. So, we're just going through the ADU site plan review rules and regulations. And I mentioned if you didn't hear that I that I did reach out to John Mativier about some of your
questions specifically, Addie. And then I did make some of the adjustments that were suggested by the board and I received feedback from board of health and the historical commission. So that's all in this document. Um so just I did I made links like was
suggested. Um I put a [clears throat] paragraph alerting applicants that really the first step is to meet with the board of health. Um the historical commission had made a suggestion that I mention um them
actually further down in the document, but I thought it was the suggestion was better here right up front because if there is an application in the historic district, that's a hurdle that probably should be um [snorts] figured out either before the planning board process or
during the planning board process. Um so that's something we would want to coordinate and know upfront. Um, and then I'll just I guess I'll just keep going. I'm gonna just My comments are on the sidebar, so just make sure
I'm not missing anything. Um, let's see what else. >> Um, could you scroll back up, Julie, to the bottom of page one? >> Sure. Page one, you said. Okay. >> P. Yeah, the bottom of page one.
And um in this the site plan clause here um where it says the site plan shall include a zoning table with the following parameters. Is that the same thing as the site plan review application form?
>> Uh the zoning table piece of it. >> Yeah. >> Well, yeah. So I mean it's it's a table that kind of specifies what the zoning dimensional requirements and parameters are and then whether the structure meets it. meets those requirements. So, yeah, we do have a similar requirement in the
site plan review regulations for like regular site plan review. >> Okay. I'm just wondering like what what an applicant has to I mean I I get what they have to submit in form one of the package, but then they have to looks
like they have to submit the information again on the site plan. Oh, are you saying this is redundant putting that here? >> Yeah. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, sorry. That that was my that was my concern is that the information is getting submitted
seems to be getting submitted in in two different places. >> Yeah, but do we do we need that for the plan? Is it is it relevant to the plan itself since the plan is the document that's that's approved? So, when someone goes to refer to it after the fact, they're not looking at the application.
They're going to be looking at the plan. So this is so so this is specifying that the zoning table would be on the site plan and then Dwight you're saying that below in the application form we actually have the same um requirement.
>> Yeah I yeah I guess if it's on the plan which makes sense then does it need to be on the application form? Great question. Well, >> I my feeling is if if it's a if it's required for the plan, it should be on the plan because the plan becomes the
the the the record of of the of the town, right? The application probably will be lost. Wouldn't be carried forward and if that information isn't there and it's relevant to the plan, it should be on the plan. It's just my way of thinking that you know this is
>> if this is uh pertinent to someone looking at this in the future how do they make this decision did it satisfy these things and the tables on the plan they can go back to and say okay at the time this satisfied x y and z u whereas if it's in the application form that
won't be carried forward >> why don't we just see how it's listed in the form >> I I'm looking at the form right now and it's not one to one Exactly the same information. Yeah. >> Right. There's
in fact is it just frontage? It >> frontage and acorage. Yeah. >> Yeah. Frontage and acreage. >> [snorts] [clears throat] >> At Joe's point, would we also want to include the assessor's map, sheet, and lot number on the site plan?
Usually that is something that we h we have a bigger checklist of things that are required to be on a site plan and usually that information is is on that list as well as like the um map and lot number of all the neighboring properties
as well. Yeah, like I said, right, it just if it's information that's pertinent to the to the document as a whole, as a legally binding, whatever in the in the view of the town or someone else, it probably should be included in the plan. That's all. Uh because if it's
in the application, it gets lost. It doesn't get carried forward. >> Once the plan's approved and, you know, five years after the fact, that's kind of what I'm getting at. Someone looks back at it. Is this relevant to information that needs to be there for
the town or anyone else? >> If I'm leaving it as it is, I just it just seems to me that we're asking for the same information in multiple places. >> No, I understand. But that there are different different needs in different places for it. And I'm not sure the
plan. That's why I'm I'm posing the question. I'm not sure. But if it is part of that, then it it should be on there. If not, then we can remove it. >> Well, another difference here is that this [snorts] is saying the zoning table
needs to have existing and proposed. And I think form one just has existing. >> Yeah. >> But to Joe's point, I think anything that we we want to know, good to have it on the site plan itself.
So I guess the other point I would make are any of these things tied back to something regulatory i.e. number of parking spaces uh you know um like I guess the lot area frontage that's all part of bylaws right
>> correct >> so as a quick check I guess with these things laid it out instead of someone going through and having to determine all that and figure it out in the plan this is a fairly quick method of compliance
>> yeah so that's what we What's part of the reason we require it? And then we can trust and verify the information. What I can do is I can refer to the like site plan checklist that we have. It's just that it's going to include like a
lot more things than are most >> Are these things included in the checklist? >> Sorry, say it again. >> Are these things listed here, verbiage in and words included in the checklist? >> Yeah, and the checklist has like a lot
more stuff. Um, we were just actually looking at it the other day because we got the fire station plan submittal. >> Um, so I can refer to it. It's just like it includes a lot more than you probably need for an ADU. >> So I I guess my question would be is is
this particular information helpful for the plan or needed? >> I always think it is. >> Yeah. I would think that the information that's highlighted is is important to have on the plan. Yeah,
I agree. >> You say we keep it. Move on. >> Yep. >> Sounds good. I'm just scrolling down to where I see um changes that I made. Um >> okay, so on appendix A, hold on, let me
let Addie back in the room. She's having trouble again. Um so this is kind of where we say like how the documentation we're requiring relates to different sections of the bylaw. And I I modified some of the wording related to how the
planning board this process interfaces with the board of health. And then I did get some feedback from from Linda on some language that she thought would would work. Um they the Linda and the board of health agree that their process should be separate from this but that
applicants should be alerted to that the board of health has requirements um and that our decisions should have a condition which um >> we did include in the last ADU decision that you guys issued. It was slightly it
was similar but slightly different language than this. Um, and I should note that this this condition here, this information like this is required by the building commissioner prior to issuing a building permit. So, it's not
necessarily any different than what >> Yeah, I I agree with it. Just emphasizes the point. >> Yep. So, should I keep going? Are you guys okay with this? >> Yep. It seems reasonable to me. >> Yes.
>> All right. Um Okay. And then Addie had a lot of I think maybe other people too. I'm just remembering her comments. Um but there was a lot of comments about the cheat sheet and I did reach out to John. He got back to me right away. He did create this cheat sheet. So, I was mistaken.
and I thought it came from the state, but he actually created it. Um, and he gave me some of the rationale behind some of the things and then some suggested changes that he thought would make it more clear. Um, and I I think I provided his email in the packet, >> but I also put some of it like in the
sidebar. >> Um, and I didn't know if this helped to kind of address the issues or if there are additional questions. [clears throat] No, I'm here now. Um, >> you know, I think it's I haven't had a chance to review it in excruciating
detail. I apologize, but um it seems like he's been responsive to my comments. Yeah. >> So, just let me know if you want me to keep going. >> I know we talked about this before, but
the attic space, what does the bit building code define as ceiling height? Because I remember commenting on if I went up and stood up, you know, at the ridge line and everything else is
coming down, is that habitable space, you know, or something else, you know, or if they've got uh um you know, supports running across from from one side to the other. Um >> it's it's specified in in building code. I don't know what it is offhand because
I don't do residential, but it's it's >> I'm in an attic right now. It's been about 10 years since I renovated this space. I'll show you. >> Well, I mean, I know if I go up into my attic, it's one of those pull down stairs, [clears throat] whatever it is. Not to say that it couldn't be converted to full stairs or something else, but um
you know if you got cross-section supporting from one one roof line to the next and it's you're ducking every 5t, but I can stand up in between those. Is that habitable space? There's like from my own experience there's a section of this room that's
very easy to walk in and then defin sections where I definitely can't and I I believe it was 7 feet was required for a certain amount of the space to be considered habitable and I got an occupancy permit but it has been 10 years and so I might I don't want to mis
misrepresent um >> I won't belor the point I'm just asking a question because it's not clear to me that's I I think the requirement is that you have to have an a there's a minimum average height and then there's a minimum height and I think it's four
feet or 4 foot six that's habit that defines habitable I'm not sure about that but that's what I recall >> 46 is habitable >> or if it's how they I forget what it is
>> it's it takes an average so like it's like if you define a parapit you take the average height. So, it's not necessarily the height at the top of a roof on a sloped roof. It's an average height. They do I believe they do the ceiling height in an in an attic the same way. So, if a if the average height
of the space is a certain number, um, and I I assume the building code he's referring to is is it is it CMR? Is it mass code or is it IBC or IRC? there. I think it would
be helpful to specify. >> Well, I see um R305 down. >> Yeah, that's the that but that that doesn't state what building code is. I I'm assuming international. >> It's international adopted at the state
level used by local building commissioners. >> Okay. So, I think that would be helpful to just instead of just saying building code, I think it would be helpful to because I usually see something like CMR if it's accessibility requirements. I don't know.
>> But the other question I would have is is again I'll make reference to my own house because it's older, but know I've got to pull down stairs. How is access to the attic part of the equation of habitable space,
right? or access to an unfinished basement. Um, you know, if there's a crawl space underneath there, and I'll use Doug's Dwight's analogy of 46 or something. You know, these are all spaces that uh uh depending on how you can get there
kind of define whether it's usable or not. >> I think all these things are defined in the building code. >> I think they are. >> And I'm not up to speed with it, so I I won't believe it. I'm and I'm using AI to summarize this, but I'm I'm seeing 50% of the required
floor area must be 7 feet or higher. No portion of the required floor area can be lower than 5T. So, I I think you're right. I think this is clearly spelled out in the in the building code. And >> as long as >> Go ahead, Addie. In the in the prior to
applying section, it refers to says the construction of protected use ADU shall conform with the state building code, a capitalized term. >> Okay. >> Um, title five of the of the sanitary code, local building health regulations. So, I
think maybe just when we refer to this in the in that cheat sheet section, just refer to the state building code. Um, I think it's a pretty standard term that we use in mass
rather than just capitalizing the word building but not the word code. [laughter] >> Just capitalize state building code and state. >> Yep. Is this what you're talking about, Addie? >> Yeah. Okay. Should I keep going?
Yep. >> All right. So, this is the application form and I did make some adjustments based on your feedback from last time. I reordered things and then I tried to make it clear how applicants are supposed to
respond. Um, so yes, no, or not applicable. And then the historical commission just corrected my mention of the historical inventory and gave it a its accurate name and date.
>> Um, just one question about including the specific date there. would I mean we we'd have to revise the form with each revision to the historic property
survey. So should we just say something like the the >> currently >> historic building survey or historic property survey? >> I added the words most recent. Is that
>> makes sense? Carla's most recent historic properties survey. Does that work? >> Especially if you are going to update it in the near term. >> Great.
Okay. Should I keep going? >> Yep. >> All right. Worm two. Um, so this is where we have the applicants professional certify the square footage of the space.
And then um this the next form is the building commissioner statement which is um actually just certifying both things that the ADU will conform with the state building code and the protected use ADU
um will meet the square footage requirement. Hold on. I thought I did that a little differently. see if I make a mistake. Okay. And then form four is this um affidavit of common ownership. And I had town council review the language that
describes kind of like what the penalty would be if zoning enforcement needs to be taken. Billy, does the does the site plan approval get recorded? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> And they have to provide proof of recording before they can pull a building permit. Actually, you in in um Carile's zoning bylaw, you guys have a provision for appeals of site plan review that follows. Actually, that's mentioned
here. It's mentioned somewhere in here. Um, >> I'm I'm just only asking because, you know, a title um a title company would find the site plan review with this affidavit in it and
wouldn't you you'd have a very difficult time selling something separately. So, that's an added protection. >> Yeah. I mean, if the affidavit ends up being part of the decision, right? >> Well, it should. It seems like it should be, right?
>> Yeah. So, we have conditions in the decision that relate to the common ownership, but the site plan application hasn't traditionally been part of what has been recorded. >> Well, maybe it should be. >> I don't think the affidavit has to be. Just the fact that common ownership is
required making its way into the site plan approval that gets recorded will be enough to alert title, >> right? All right. Do you guys have anything else or are we ready? No, we're good. It looks good.
>> Okay, just save this. You know, is Sarah still with us? Did we lose Sarah? >> We >> We lost Sarah. >> Did lose Sarah. Maybe we're having a plague of computers forcing shutdown.
That's what mine did. The machines are finally taking over. [laughter] Um, do you want me to take over in herstead, Julie, so we can >> That would be helpful. Yeah. I haven't heard from her, so I don't know. >> Okay. >> Specific challenges.
>> Let me see if I can find the agenda. Um, >> all right. What do we have next on the agenda? We have >> We have to vote. >> Do we need to vote? >> Oh, yeah. >> If you guys would vote. [laughter] >> Um, okay. So, I would
like to take a motion to approve the rules and regulations governing site plan review for a protected use accessory dwelling unit. um dated February 9th, 2026 as amended per uh this discussion
>> tonight. Yeah. >> So moved. >> May I? >> Oh, yes. >> What was that, Dwight? >> I think if we're now voting to May I
>> Oh, I didn't hear a second. I didn't hear a second. >> I did. I second. Oh, okay. [clears throat] Thank you, Stacey. >> Yep. >> Uh, go ahead, Dwight. >> I guess I >> radi. Okay,
great. Thanks, guys. So, that's 50 approved. We will get those rolling. We might have a couple applicants coming in the next few months. So, Great. >> All right. By my clock, we have one more
minute before we can go to the RC zoning bylaw. So, >> I have 25 seconds. >> Seeing Jeopardy in our heads and then we'll move on. >> Here's Sarah coming back. Hold on. Let her in. >> Hi, Sarah. Welcome back.
>> Sorry. >> It's okay. [laughter] just the way it's going tonight. >> We uh we did vote. >> Okay. Excellent. >> And we are now at 7:30 and moving on to ROC. You can take it away. >> Perfect.
>> I hand it back to the chair. [laughter] >> Battery problems. Um Oh, okay. Let me get my agenda open. Hold on. Everything closed. Um, I think it is time to start discussion for the
CSC bylaw amendments. Um, and Julie, I know you shared this morning the sort of collected collective thoughts of the board. Um, do you think just trying to figure out the best way
to I know you guys had a pretty robust discussion last time without me. So, um, let me know if you think this makes sense, but are there were there sort of, um, common I guess questions, what do we need to decide? We need to look at the schedule
and we need to decide on sort of parcel sizes, right? Um >> yeah, I think the the big thing for tonight is deciding whether you want to move forward with something at annual town meeting. >> Um and then
>> we start with the schedule. >> Yeah. And and I will say I did receive feedback from three members. Um Yeah. So here, why don't I I have the schedule open. Let me just um find it and just share real quick.
Okay. Can you all see it on your screens? >> Do it a little bigger. >> Okay. Sure. No problem. Is that good, Sarah? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. So, tonight's the green. Um, and
then it's working kind of the the backwards or forwards, however you want to look at it, to town meeting, which is Monday, May 18th. Um, I'll give you guys a minute to like look it over and then let me know if you have any questions.
Blackboard closes a town meeting warrant tomorrow >> for a May 18th meeting. That seems like it's earlier than difficult. No, >> so we have to be ready for a hearing in
a month and a half. >> Yeah. So, I have the hearing scheduled to open on March 23rd. Um, like you could always add meetings if if you're not ready or whatever. Like this
is just the the first way I've figured out this can work. There's probably other ways it could work. Um, and then like like every time there is no harm in like having a placeholder on the warrant and then deciding you're not ready closer to town meeting like if
that's how that how this goes. So okay, so this schedule means we're adding a meeting each month so that we can cover the ground necessary and do hearings and so forth.
>> Correct. Yeah. I had added in one extra meeting each month. Um >> Yep. >> Like in Yeah. >> Yep. >> And I think other other the things we'd have to add in is outreach to other boards and committees.
So that would mean another, you know, if we did it like before where we sort of divide and conquer and you know Joe Joe went to board of health and I went to select board and um I forget who went to fin. I had a couple
conversations. I went to fin once. So we have to also factor in all the different outreach to boards and committees >> in addition to you know or >> is this in is this enough community outreach? Is this enough? You know, do
we have the pulse of the community whether or not we think this is um something that would have a chance of passing a town meeting which would in the last time was an open house, right? Um or couple open houses.
>> So, um planning for that as well, >> right? [clears throat] this enough. This feels like Well, I'm not saying we're fasttracking it, but [sighs and gasps] I know I also don't want to lose the momentum that's already been built for this, but um we have enough runway for
this. sort of feels to me like um it's definitely doable from the standpoint of the process and the workload. We did more and less time with MBTA. The thing I worry about is I don't want the
community to feel taken off taken caught off guard >> um and have a backlash against this because it's a really good idea. And it if we can communicate it well and
accurately, we can it can very much be framed in the context of this is an alternative to um properties um becoming subdivided
whether you know through subdivision roads and subdivision plans or through ANR lots that carve about >> larger properties and and as an alternative to those properties becoming, you know, clearcut and massive houses
being built in them that could, you know, represent lots of wins all around the table. But I worry that um we don't have enough time to get the right message out and build
support around that and it'll feel like a bait and switch to some who can become very vocal around well we didn't get what we wanted on for MBTA so now we're trying to get at it
another Okay. >> Well, I I have a question. Um, so is it we're not are we just we're just setting up a type of zoning and we're not going to put it on any sites. Is that accurate?
>> Correct. That's right. >> Except that you would figure out a minimum lot area >> that would be required for the zoning to be utilized. Right. And then that like the maps I sent earlier today like would be you know it as they're currently
configured right the eligible parcels >> but they >> similar to how the ROC and senior ROC are written today. It would be sort of a version of that.
So would those sites automatically be zoned this way >> or would that be another uh meeting or you know town meeting or something? >> Oh no, that that wouldn't be another town meeting, but someone would have to
exercise the overlay for the site to be zoned that way. >> Right. So this is it's kind of a floating overlay that can be applicable as property owners with the right amount of acreage want to use it. >> Okay. Right.
>> So, similar how it works to now like like now you need to have 15 acres to do ROC and you you need 10 acres to do a senior ROC. This would be similar in that we'd be specifying the lot size and somebody would have to opt to do this instead of
a subdivision or a single family, but it would give somebody the option to to do that. So it would be sort of a third option that or fourth option that people could do depending on the lot side lot side. >> Yeah. And then one key difference with
this between this and the the buy right zoning of MBTA communities is that this would be the way that it's currently conceived is by special permit. So the planning board has a lot of like leverage and negotiating power and the ability to deny it if it's really not like in line with what the zoning
intentions of zoning. So, >> okay, that that answers my questions. Yes, thank you. And one thing I've been thinking about too is it would be great if this kind of to Add's point, but taking a little bit further, it that it didn't
feel like this just comes from the planning board, but this also comes from other town boards and committees who, you know, Fincom thinks we need some, you know, we need some more revenue in town and um the affordable housing trust would like to come up with another form
of um you know, missing middle housing and create some more affordable units. And it would be it would be great if this didn't just feel like it was a planning board thing that it felt like it was sort of a a collective
approach to fixing and addressing some of the issues, a lot of the issues that came up in the master plan. Um, so while we would obviously sponsor it, we would sort of want other to be really
doing it >> in partnership with other boards and committees. >> Are we beholden to the the spring fall town meeting cadence? >> That's a great question. >> We're either doing it this spring or
we'll wait until the fall, right? and the fall may or may not happen >> there. I I believe they're planning tomorrow night the select board is going to pick a date for a fall town meeting and that they're planning that it will happen. There's like a number of things
that are out in the universe um that may happen at a fall town meeting. >> I guess to Add's point and what [clears throat] I was trying to get earlier is trying to get some uh organic for lack of a better word buy in from the town. Um, is there enough runway to
generate that for the spring goal or do we wait till fall to do the open houses like we did before and and sort of spread spread it out and and sort of uh generate the uh the interest we're hoping for.
>> I hear that. You know, the downside of fall is that open houses would likely be happening during the summer months again, right? Where people are not paying attention.
They're traveling. They're away. I mean we still got a lot of people attending last year but of course the stakes felt very high to a lot of people and they made particular effort. We we I mean we could also think of open
houses different ways, right? So we could think of, you know, one in one in the spring that's really more kind of initial outreach and and sort of taking the temperature of of the town and seeing what people feel and another, you know, maybe one in the fall. They
wouldn't have to be in the summer. We could do one in late September. Um and then do, you know, two hearings. we don't need to do as many hearings as we did for MBTA and you know it it wouldn't be as intense of a of a
schedule just because it's I don't think it will be quite as as uh divisive I hope I don't know well the other thing is given given the past reaction I guess from going through
MBT communities Um, I think we may be better off spreading this out a little bit, uh, rather than till soon. Um, that's just my >> gut feeling on it, but
I think I really like the idea of um, have warrant articles ever been co-sponsored or does there always have to be one lead sponsoring entity? Because >> I'm assuming for a bylaw amendment planning board has to has to lead.
>> Okay. >> Has to be the single sponsor. >> Okay. >> Does that sound right, Julie? >> That's correct. Well, unless it's a citizen petition, but you know, there's probably a way you could be the sponsor and then have a list of like, you know, co-sponsors. You know, there's probably
a way we could put that in the language. It wouldn't be like the official process, but >> it got a different way. It comes across that there's more support from the town. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I do like the idea [clears throat] of it being kind of a multi-entity
>> Yeah. >> supported >> initiative. I mean, particularly um FinCom. [snorts] >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I would agree.
I mean, what's also true is there could be some turnover in this body. >> Um, and who knows what that will bring, but >> no, Sarah's coming back. >> What did you see? The >> Sarah's very tight lipped right now.
>> Yeah, the eyes just went up and down like [laughter] >> nonverbal communication. Yeah. >> Um, no, I mean, you are you're right, Stacy. We we But yeah, but there could be um
there could be value in us socializing this over the spring >> and then there's a chance for an election for the community to sort of further tell us potentially through a vote. >> Yeah. depending on who candidates are,
right? Kind of that could be directional in some way. >> Yeah. >> You could use town meeting as an opportunity to advertise the idea as well. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Interesting idea.
>> So, >> information. >> Is there the opportunity to put items on the warrant that are non-binding? I fought this fought this in town meeting for the spring, not binding, but as anformational
uh gateway or uh introduction to what we think we may be doing in the fall. >> I think we can do it as a presentation to town meeting without having to have any kind of warrant article associated
with it, binding or not. Um I think the the work we did with MBTA um I'm I'm remembering that we that there was issues with trying to do something that was non-binding um in terms [clears throat] of like
getting votes for it, right? But but >> is this a question for >> socializing it? >> Yeah. just just like putting it out there as you know here's something that this group of boards is working on
because income says we need more money >> throw them under the bus as a >> to put the pitch in in short terms >> you forgot to take a step back. Is this a question for Wayne whether we can do something like this or
is it worth pursuing? >> I think it'd be more of a question for town council. >> Okay. >> Than for Wayne, but >> or maybe both of them >> in terms of whether or not we could do a presentation on it. I think that's been done before.
>> Well, that would give us the most immediate feedback. >> I thought you were asking something different, Joe, but yeah. >> Yeah. No. So if they if we did that and again Yeah. So basically I'm looking at it from an information an information standpoint, right? So how does the town
get their information? So part of the stuff, you know, they get the warrant, they read through the warrant. If there's something on there that's non-binding, is there the option to do that to basically say this is what we're thinking of? And is it is it uh is it worthwhile to pursue something like that or are we
better off pulling back our cards and and going through um you know the openhouse procedure, the organic growth and all that whole process to and put this off to the fall. The other thing I'm trying to trying to glean out of this is that if we do something at town
meeting in the spring, uh with a little with some um prior notification to the to the community, uh it becomes a it becomes a pretty quick um feedback in terms of how the town feels about it with the
presentation and if there's a Q&A question after that, whatever it may be. And I'm just thinking that really will tell you it becomes a litmus test. Um, you know, if the town is going to buy into this and again, I'm just exploring different
ways to present the information and get feedback. Trying to utilize the town meeting. Realize that's a that's a probably a good source of a a start to see where we're at with this. I don't know if it's possible. I'm just throwing the idea out there. That's all. I I would just be hesitant like to have
some kind of vote associated with a preliminary plan because people get anchored to things like I'd really want to have the opportunity. >> Yeah. We don't have to have a vote, but I think even just from a feedback perspective from whatever, you know, talking to
people afterwards or if there's the opportunity to ask questions, whatever the case may be, we could probably get a pretty good feel for where the town sits on this with the feedback you get from people. I mean, granted, everyone's not going to be vocal about it, and we're not going to get [snorts] all the
feedback we want, but at least it'll give us some some type of insight into where um people feel this is uh possibly going, you know, good, bad, or indifferent. >> Yeah. There's also old home day for, you
know, in terms of maybe even more people going to old home day. and >> yeah, >> you know, put a I don't know, >> put a partnership in the one that you like or like we could, you know, think of of interesting ways to engage with the public. I think I worry a little bit about [clears throat] making town
meeting longer because it's it's already so long. I don't know what's going to be on the article, how how long it how many >> I wasn't thinking about that, but yeah, you're right. >> It just it I don't want to I don't want to cause frustration if if it's already a long agenda. Um, but definitely agree
that it would be great to get the sense of what people are thinking and whether or not they would support this before taking it to town meeting or or even whether or not but what what would be supported, right? You know, is it it's is seeking six acres too small? What's
you know, what's the right >> unit size and density and all that would be great to get feedback on. >> Yep. Am am I hearing sort of a consensus about waiting until
the fall? >> I don't want >> I am for sure. Personally, >> say it again. I would support waiting to the fall and and growing this a little more uh in
depth with feedback and uh presenting it in the right way and um you know all that's involved with it. >> Yeah, I would I would agree. As much as I like to get stuff done, I
think it would raise the temperature for some folks unnecessarily. >> It will it'll be in the mosquito and it you'll see you'll see some letters in the the comment sections about uh
planning board uh items discussed. >> Yeah. Chris, do you have a thought? Pro or con? >> Well, I I was preferring the fall, but I was okay with the spring if but it doesn't seem like it seems like everybody else is good with the fall, too. So, yeah.
>> Okay. >> I'm good with the fall. >> Do you want to take a vote to postpone potential bylaw changes to the fall or do we just do we need to vote? I don't think you need to
vote unless you >> I know Julie always likes to vote. If we don't need to vote, I'm happy. >> I usually do, but I think in this case, like you don't really like you would I would want to vote if you were going the other way. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um but if if anyone disagrees with me and wants to vote, by all means.
[laughter] >> That's okay. >> Um >> so I guess >> Okay. >> So that's I think I that that feels a little bit more comfortable. Um, and I think we should really start thinking hard then about what that outreach needs to be because I felt like we had a
pretty robust process last time and as painful as it was, we we got a lot of feedback. Um, and I think we should figure out how to do that again in a less um stressful and panicked way.
[laughter] So, um, maybe we can we can Julie and I can chat maybe and come up with something for the next meeting to sort of look at what sort of brainstorm, but anyone anyone with suggestions about that. Um,
>> no, I mean the big difference here is this is not being forced. >> Yeah. >> So, it's a different >> it's a different take on it completely. >> Yep. Yep. Mhm. >> But you know it seems like final housing trust
maybe even you know I think there's definitely environmental obviously envir huge environmental benefits to preserving more contiguous chunks of land and clustering development. So maybe you know land use >> who else do we need to reach out to to
get buy in and and and um >> and you know they might also have different >> thoughts about land you know track sizes too Julie I'm thinking you know maybe there's a preference to >> go with bigger or smaller or I don't know but would be great to hear what they
>> think about that. >> Yep. >> Okay. and give you a little bit more time to like look at the the partial sizes that would be, you know, really impacted by wetlands and other environmental constraints and regulatory constraints. So, um, and you know, we
can I I don't know that I ever want to see a matrix again in my life, [laughter] but but it was really helpful in sort of visualizing the pros and cons of different approaches. doesn't have to be
a matrix, but maybe there's, you know, we can start to think about different I don't know. This is this is a whole different beast, but I think some some systematic way of evaluating the sizes and locations and things like
that. So, um, and then financial implications of, you know, Addie, I don't know if you've thought about this, but is there a is there a unit yield that's like too small and just wouldn't be financial financially feasible for anybody? I don't I don't know. And if that's just totally based on the size of
the unit that makes it affordable or or worth uh not affordable, capital A, but worth the investment, right? If we're trying to keep unit sizes small, I think we also need to do a bit of a financial analysis of >> how many units,
>> how many units, the size of units, all that, >> all that good stuff. >> Yeah. And I think >> how do we get that information? I think we have to think about the fact that there's um a a if we were to go down to six acres,
a 6 acre approach might manifest very very differently than a 15 acre approach in in terms of the the development execution, right? And >> Mhm.
>> would we prefer the smaller? Um would we prefer the larger? Would we, you know, we've been we've been talking about like what's the minimum lot size, but is there also a maybe a maximum lot size, >> right? Um, >> and then >> yeah,
>> and then the other piece that's sort of been rattling around in my head is this idea that well, you know, we we've we've I think some of us, myself, well, I'll say this differently. There are so many things we got
so used to talking about because it was required by MBTA that might not have any relevance here that we can think about, right? Like we can limit the number of bedrooms. What a concept, right? We couldn't do
that with MBTA. Um, and if we sort of, you know, I sort of I feel like I need a a a minute to or reorient my brain in that way
>> to be thinking about like what is it that we would actually want? What outcomes do we want? and how do we enable those outcomes without working into the in the within the constraints of what the MBTA law and rags gave us.
>> Um and also thinking about the unintended consequences that we might be enabling that we want to think through how do we ensure that we don't get what we don't want. Right? like the [sighs and gasps] just by way of example
the you know the existing um I don't know if it's ROC or the other one but that enables these like ribbons of conservation space that don't really mean anything right >> um >> th those things take time to think through I think and
socialize and get feedback on and I know that we've already decided we're going to not push this through at this town meeting, but um I I look forward to a robust conversation around those things.
>> Would one good starting place be sort of a set of goals? I know we've got, you know, we've got like master plan goals. That's probably one way to start, but then what would collective goals be for a cluster ROC?
What what what are what are the things that we don't want to see that are happening now? Whether it's >> big unit sizes and high really high prices that don't hit the missing middle. Is missing middle the target? What what does that mean for unit cost?
What does that mean for unit size? Um what are the things that we want to incent in incentivize and create and what are the things that we're trying to avoid? Maybe if we set with start with some brainstorming some project goals. Yeah, help us.
>> Yeah, I think the biggest caveat with all this is given the real estate market and how how difficult it is to get to the missing middle, the missing middle here is going to be as much as we want it to be, it's going to be outpriced.
Um, you know, based on on where it is. Um, >> I think the missing middle in Carlile is very different than the missing middle for the state. >> Yes. Um, and
it's, you know, I think most fundamentally when you look at this concept that we're going that what we're proposing is to go from half a unit per acre to one unit per acre. If you on the most fundamental level, if
you take the same square footage and you cut it into two units, that is worth more than the than the single family home. It just it just is that you can sell that square footage for more dollars per square
feet. Simply that. So I think it's we can we can achieve the economic feasibility aspect of it if we can get the town to buy into this idea that density
should be based on bedrooms not units. And um you know one unit per acre versus a half unit per acre if you've got the same number of bedrooms. you know, we go back to that same argument that I've made for years,
right? But, um, it's not gonna we're not going to be able to incentivize $500,000 homes here. It's just it's just not really possible without extensive
subsidy to be able to deliver that. >> So, I've thought a lot about um, assurance technology. Uh, is there [clears throat] a way to incentivize that to be broken up into, you know, I I I I'm not sure. I mean,
according to the tax assessor, there's 29,000 square feet of livable space [clears throat] there. I have no idea how many units that could be converted into, but I would assume more than 10. And I don't think there's a way in our bylaws that anybody could do that.
>> I think this would enable that. this like some of the language within this is intended to enable something like that because we've got the >> so uh well so on that I from what I could tell there was no more than four units per building.
>> Yeah, but then we can wave that through the through the special permit process. >> I thought that was like I I didn't see that. I didn't see a way to get above four units. [snorts]
Um maybe Julie could speak to that. >> I mean, yeah. So, these were all discussion points, right, for you guys because I was thinking through exactly that scenario, Chris. If like if we did say four units per building and you weren't allowed to wave it, then structures like assurance technology
wouldn't necessarily be able to be utilized that they're, you know, reutilized under this bylaw. So, um I don't remember exactly, but I think I had put it in as kind of like some ideas and then some questions about like what is it you want to do? And I did think I built in a waiver or I at least
mentioned that you could. >> So, so it says for you know what you built in was there's a footnote to the max number of dwelling units per building that says >> the town promotes site planning that expresses the rural character of the town and quality design. Accordingly,
the maximum number of dwelling units per building may be increased if at the planning board's sole discretion, an applicant demonstrates that a higher number of dwelling units per building better retains a rural character of the town or allows reuse of existing structures. >> Okay.
>> And then on page nine, note number two, the planning board reserves the right to wave the strict enforcement of the standard as follows. um uh specifically enables the the preservation or reuse of an existing structure.
>> Yeah. For all the other dimensional stuff. >> I guess I just I I saw a maximum number of dwelling units per building four in multiple locations. So I you know that I couldn't >> it might be worth like adding the
language where we do say four. >> That's not in the table. Julie, just note unless waved by planning board pursuant to >> right like right up front so it's clear to someone reading it like that they're not limited necessarily limited by that >> right
>> yeah that's good good feedback thank you um >> I do see one spot where it says in no case will buildings with more than 26 building units be approved. So that's >> that was just stolen from your last
discussion when you were like trying to figure this out for MBTA communities and you were like we have a Benfield and >> you know so I just brought some of those ideas forward so you could like >> talk through them and figure out if that makes sense for this or if it's a different number or
>> you know Yeah. >> Yeah. and 26 would encompass the entire assurance technology. So, so >> yeah, I don't know that there needs to necessarily be a maximum number. I think I think we were contemplating that in
the context of MBTA because it gave us that like anchor of Benfield like Benfield being the biggest building anyone could conceive of. >> Um >> Right. >> Especially by right that was by right and it was site plan review. This is
this is special permit. >> Yeah. >> And we might end up like you said with a maximum, you know, we might have a maximum lot size. We might get to something like that in which case it could
upper number limit of units. So we have a couple ideas for next meeting like brainstorming project goals and things like that. Um, Julie, is there are there other are there other sort of points of contention or things that a lot of us were commenting on that
you think we should discuss in more detail tonight? Or >> I feel like I'm I'm looking forward to seeing your maps that take out some of the you do a little bit more analysis of the sites and I think that would be really helpful. >> Um, yeah, unless you think there's other critical things we should discuss
tonight. Um, >> so I mean I would like to hear from the rest of the planning board. I only heard from three people. Um, but the feedback I did get there was a lot of stuff about like the the actual nuts and bolts. Um,
and I think that, you know, those are the biggest richest discussions that you need to have, like like the things you've kind of been talking about tonight, like what is the right base density and what would the maximum number of units be and what, you know, >> how much lot coverage like would be
allowed, right? Like what does the clustering of the site look like? Um, so just working through and then how do we get at that like smaller how do we get at smaller units? like just all of those things. I think those are the big
the big questions. Um and most of the feedback I got. So I think I would ask like in so I can work on an outreach plan that like you know I we should know I should know Wednesday morning what the town meeting
date for the fall is. So I can work on an outreach plan that kind of gets us to that date. And um and then I was wondering like do you think do you remember I think it was probably was it in 2023 I don't know 2023 or 2024
I think it was in February there was like a land use summit >> that Ryan convened. >> Do you think it would be helpful for me to see if we can reinvigorate that idea and kind of have the focus be around like something like like this kind of
zoning and get people from >> I think that's a great idea. in the room. Okay. >> All right. So, I will I will talk to Ryan about that. Um, and then I was going to ask you like what other kind of deliverables do you want for March? Like
like can can the people who didn't send me feedback commit to sending me some feedback on this draft and then I can like put that together for March and then >> I can do more mapping analysis and I can do an outreach plan and I can work on a land use summit. Is there anything else?
I think it's worth like trying to structure some conversations, Julie, around some of these key points because it's hard to provide specific language feedback in the absence of a robust conversation
about the key elements that we're trying to achieve. >> Right. Okay. Um and so yeah, >> um you know, maybe what we can do is identify,
you know, tonight a handful, maybe less than a handful, like three or four, >> I don't know. Is that a handful? Depends on how big those pieces are, I guess. um items that that we need to think through
together and that we probably need um some some support around in terms of like how do we visualize this and you know what is the what are [snorts] the potent so I I'll just take as an example
right like if we say um we're we're targeting like let's figure out how we get um uh smaller units, right? Like and how do we or how do we talk about a unit size that
seems to make sense? Mhm. >> Um, and what is that giving us? And what is a typical like if we're f we're focused on this less than 1850 ft like what does that look like from the standpoint of a price point in the marketplace? And
um, you know, these some of the visualizations and um, data points that can help inform a conversation. I think would be helpful um
to the board for um you and Noel to bring forth and and structure our conversation around. >> Sure. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. No, and then it can also be leveraged for communicating with the
community as well, >> right? Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, you know, do we want to talk about what let's like identify a couple of key
factors that we need to have a robust conversation around. I mean, unit size I think is one of them. >> I think >> um building coverage, building coverage, lot coverage. Um how much Yeah. How much buildable area? how
much space >> essentially how clustered and >> yeah how clustered >> right >> and that's also going to you know necess we're going to need to work through some of those and what what what does that look like on a certain lot size and does it give us the size
buildings unit sizes that we intend >> and also the protected open space that you want to achieve yeah on the flip side right yeah >> so >> is these developments viewed as um associations or private individual
ownership of of the units with you know associated lots etc. How do we see this from a >> the idea that the whole the lot would have to stay the lot it can't be further divided. So once it gets approved under
this uh special permit for the um for the site plan and the and the specific commitments that it makes to the development, it can't then be further divided. So it would have to be an association of some sort whether it's
a um whether it's a owner of the property that that and the units are for lease for rent >> or an an owner's association with condominiumized
um ownership units. >> Yeah. No, I understand. Just looking at this from I guess a legal perspective, how this plays out from, you know, the to meet the missing middle. How does that end up becoming a framework for
people to own something there? >> Yeah. I'm curious, are there any ways to actually incentivize rental units like or is is like no p the market
decides that stuff and there's you know I'm just thinking of there any number of families in town that have to move out of their house for four months because their house is getting worked on or you know their their family circumstances are such that they need
something temporary. or you know plenty of people aren't ready to buy but you know workforce housing rental units could be valuable for some of those folks but I don't know what the legal
if there's anything that can be done I'm guessing probably not through zoning I'm just trying to think of you can't like I don't think zoning can address Um
what's what's the term for >> teny >> teny >> teny type yeah zoning is not really supposed to >> okay >> restrict that >> um but ADUs have to be under common ownership
and there may be a way to structure some of the additional density that is granted for smaller units as ADUs.
>> Maybe. >> Yeah. >> Can't you only have one ADU per? >> Yeah. >> For the protected use. ADU. >> The protected use. Okay. True. Um 900 square feet's a tough
family size unit though. You're you're lucky to get two bedrooms in that. Um, >> well, maybe something to talk about. I don't know if that, >> you know, is of interest to others, but
yeah, just putting it out there. [snorts] Joe, just just so you know, the homeowners association piece is 512A 11 5. Boy, then >> Oh, yeah. [laughter] >> Sorry about that. I was trying to embed
it originally and then it ended up being so different. I feel like it should just be a different section. >> Um, >> just the note that the the Yeah, crazy. [laughter] [snorts] >> I'll fix that. I think it's it was
probably gonna get chucked anyway by somebody. So >> what was the >> just the the 12A piece of it like Yeah. >> Oh, okay. What is that from? Like what is >> Oh, it's just cuz 5.12 is ROC and so I
thought it originally was like thinking this would be like >> largely ROC language with just a few tweaks >> and then I just like went a completely different direction. So it doesn't really make sense anymore anyway. >> It's ROC in the sense that it is
clustering without creating lots. Right. Like conservation cluster is like creating lots individual lots for each unit and ROC doesn't. Right. >> Right. >> So >> so so it's more like um it's more like
Woodward Village than it is like um >> Never Hill. >> Right. or like the 75 West Street. >> 75 West. Yeah. >> Right. >> So the So the other really critical one I think we need to talk about is density
and density bonus and what you get the 50% density bonus for. >> Right. Do you guys want me to screen share that section? All right, I will. >> Well, I just think it's one of those
it's one of it's on it's it's in the handful, right, of things we need additional support on >> I don't know that we need to look at the document, but we can So um do others think there's something else
any other kind of I you know sort of critical factors that we need support to have a robust conversation around. So I think what we've identified so far is density and
density bonus, unit size, lot coverage and and clustering and by extension the protected open space aspect of it. >> Those seem like the critical pieces, [laughter] right? >> Yeah, >> they are. And they all interrelate,
right? >> Yeah. part. Did you mention partial size? >> Yes, >> you did. Okay. >> I didn't mention that in my handful, but that's another one. Yeah, I >> think partial size. Yeah, [snorts] because I think the other thing I was
thinking about in the in the context of collectively coming up with something that the other boards and committees would support would be, you know, there's been that mention of we need 100 more units or something, right? So how do we can we get something that you know
based on the number of ADUs we sort of anticipate every year which has been a lot fewer be for several reasons than we expected in this if you add those two together do we somehow get to maybe about 100 units? Is there a way to sort of is there a
logic in there to to enable >> the number of units that Fincom thinks we need? >> Right. I don't know if that's a way to approach it, but it what might be one way to think about it. >> Yeah. >> Because I think the question will come
up is how many how many how many units could this enable >> over time? >> I think >> so. Yeah. The time horizon matters too. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yep. [snorts] >> I think that's a good start though. I think we've got a good maybe five major
topics to dive into. Would a financial analysis be one of them? That that I think that's kind of like after the fact. >> Yeah, that's that's sort of >> I mean I can I can the financial analysis. You mean in terms of feasibility? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I I can I can contribute to the conversation without running actual numbers in a in a in a uh coherent manner. I think that will be helpful. >> Okay. Um, but I think ultimately we should definitely run actual numbers.
And >> um, one of the things that I wonder about that kind of runs through all of these these these sort of nexus points is
when we're calculating density. So forget what you know about MBTA communities. When you're calculating density allowed on site, are you including the land on which you cannot build because it's wetland? So in other words, if you have a 10acre parcel and 9 acres of it is
wetland, do you then have the rights to potentially 20 units on one acre because of you know what I mean? >> Mhm. Um, I don't know that we that this
contemplates that in a meaningful way, right? >> No, it doesn't. Yeah, that's a great thing to think through. Have you seen anything like that in any of the other cluster bylaws you've looked at, Julie? I mean, [sighs] most
towns that I've seen like still do the whole proof plan, you know, where you prove what you can get by, right, with a subdivision and each lot has to have a certain amount of upland, right? According to zoning and then based on that's like your base density, right? And then for any anything above that,
you have to provide affordability or whatever, you know, >> right? >> Um that's kind of like the standard model that I've seen in the last couple decades. >> Yeah. Um, that doesn't mean that there isn't something out there that a town has recently done that's like a little
bit less um, futile. I guess I mean I don't know. I just feel like that's like a whole step that I don't know like gets gets you much, but >> yeah. I mean, I can see that it establishes a like it establishes a
baseline from the standpoint of all the factor. It it puts the onus on the developer to say what the minimum what the um what the um what parcels are. I can't I'm not articulate tonight. I'm sorry.
puts the onus on the developer to establish what's the feasible zoning for a parcel or feasible density for a parcel given its constraints before proposing something that is um
>> right >> pursuant to the to the bylaw. So, so it it feels like extra work and feudal because you're never going to build that thing. But in order to figure out what you have the right to, you have to show
what you could do alternatively. And that may actually be part of what can win this win the town over for something like this because it's it we it would >> it could potentially show like the alternative here is clear cutting for
>> you know 10 acres and this is what so maybe maybe there's a reason why that's a popular way to do it. >> Yeah. I mean I get why it exists. It's just like is that how we want to get
there? >> It may not be how we want to get there in terms of, you know, the base the base density and everything above that being um you need to have affordable and you need to do this, you need to do that,
you need to do that. But it could at least um enable a whole lot less structure in the language of the bylaw itself around
what counts and what doesn't towards your density calculation. >> Right? I mean it is a consistent methodology that could be applied across like many different sites, right? So it gives like a one gives it it gives you a consistent approach to use. The other thing that it would do like I could tell you right off the bat is it would rule
out a bunch of the sites that have like some scattered wetlands, right? They might have like a developable portion but like with a lot of wetlands or scattered wetlands so that like an actual standard subdivision plan would wouldn't really work. So and if that's like where you're starting from,
that would rule out probably a bunch more lots. like I was looking at them today, you know, and there were some that were obviously covered in wetlands that would need to be removed. And then there were others that were like, well, you know, a creative developer could but if they
can't actually prove a bite subdivision. >> Yeah. >> And that's the gating, you know, >> and and is it because of the subdivision road? So the yeah the road would take up a lot of the land, but then also just being able to create a a number of lots
that would be worthwhile that would have the right amount of upland area, right? The a the minimum like the minimum acreage like the two acre, right? Base zoning and then whatever the bylaw requires that needs to be outside of resource areas, right? Um, and with the,
you know, if you have to do the the radius and >> Yeah. you know, >> um, so I mean that that's an it's an interesting exercise. It could be really informative for sure to like to think
through that step. Um, yeah. But and maybe I guess I'm worried that it would actually eliminate many many more parcels than
you might think just because what parcels are left that are undeveloped in Carlile are the ones that are >> hard to problematic. >> Right. [laughter] Exactly. Yeah. Um, >> yeah, >> there might be some comfort to some
people to that though, right? If it's if it's a parcel with a lot of wetlands on it, you know, you're the amount of area that you have for nitrogen loading is limited, maybe maybe that's not a bad thing. I mean, I know I know we're trying to encourage missing metal housing, but
maybe those there's a balance here somewhere, right? Um, another thought that I had and I don't know if this is possible with zoning either, but in terms of adding to your point of of using bedrooms as a limit,
not just or not necessarily just units, if we could use that, how many how many how many bedrooms could you get if you were to do a a typical subdivision and restrict the number of bedrooms that you could have
in a clustered RSC2 that number or some percentage of that number would kind of give board of health maybe some other people some comfort in terms of of um the
amount of development happening. So >> I I think you can use wetlands as nitrogen loading though, >> can you? You can use the land. You can use the land. You just can't actually >> you can put septic near them, but you can use it for nitrogen loading. You just can't actually build that septic,
>> right? Right. >> Because there's no space. >> Right. >> But I do think using Sorry. Go ahead, Stacey. Well, just listening to these different approaches, it sounds like when we have the really in-depth conversation about
it, it'd be good to like I'm so visual that like I want like a show me a parcel >> that has, you know, here's wetland and wetland and wetland and here's what it would yield with these different ways of
calculating. Um because it sounds like that could create or it sounds like there will be some maybe significant variation depending on how we do it and >> like I think I'm tracking you guys'
discussion, right? But then I also like yeah it'll be helpful to for me to have some visuals to go along with >> take some example parcel >> what each of them Yeah. would do and not do for us. Yeah.
>> Yeah. you circulated earlier today, Julie, um with the different parcel sizes was very helpful and then adding in the constraints layers to all the environmental constraints to to to the point um you know some of
the parcels become quite difficult to develop. >> Yeah, I was thinking about the ones that aren't necessarily like a ton of wetlands because like to Sarah's point like maybe those really shouldn't be developed anyway. It's more just the ones that have like a wetland chain running through or like they would just
be hard to configure >> around in a way that would result in anything. >> I mean the the uh conquered street one that had been a 40B is a perfect example of that. Mhm. >> Um
>> yeah, >> right. >> With its vernal pools and its um challenging topography and its wetland access. Yeah. >> Access issues.
Um but by the same token there was a you know we considered it for MBTA communities because there was a you could get what did we end up with as a that Joe Pesnolo put together. It was not an insignificant number of units if
you if you densified it and clustered them in a particular way. >> So do we do we need to consider stringing partials together to meet that minimum also? Meaning somebody could buy multiple parcels, put them together, and then do it.
>> Get your six acres, whatever, and you know, etc. >> Well, we can put a cap, can't we, Julie, since it's not MBTA? >> It's a great That's a great question. Let me write that down for town council. Um because, you know, it with the
special permit and the fact that this is an MBTA, maybe maybe you could Yeah. Um, >> I mean, we had a cap on the number of special permit ADUs. >> You did. Yeah, but that was dating back to the 80s or Well, no, maybe I'm getting that wrong. Maybe that was a
more recent thing. But anyway, it like times have changed and so the and the landscape has changed a little bit around zoning. So, I'll just note that for for town council. Um, to be honest, like when I was looking at the mapping earlier today, I was I was
initially or I after after reviewing some of it, I was thinking maybe six acres might be a little small. Um, but that was just my like initial kind of >> my gut reaction to like the mapping
analysis. Yeah. >> So, I think we have a good plan of action for top like sort of in-depth subject areas that we need to discuss and make decisions on. Julie's going to work on an outreach plan and we
can work on project goals and the things we want to we want to achieve and the things we want to avoid for the next meeting. We do have a lot a lot left on our agenda for tonight. So unless anybody has any pressing
things, um I we might want to move on and uh continue this discussion in March. >> Do it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Sounds good. All right. Um >> Sarah, actually really quick, I was going to ask you, did you want to take I
I no one's hands are raised, but we do have a couple members of the public here, and I didn't know if you wanted to have any public comment for any of these. Um I was looking for hands too, but we're certainly we can certainly see I do see two member two or three members of the public here. If anyone has a um um comment about
the cluster of bylaws that we've been talking about if anyone members of the public would like to ask a question or make a comment. >> Yeah, this is this is Nancy Hardle. The only uh comment I have is did you check
or does it matter? I think the state CR does not allow um septic systems and such in the protected area. So open space I believe and Julie can check this. I don't
believe the the state allows those structures in what they consider a CR. So that would be the only comment you might want to check. Okay. Anyone else from the public?
>> Since you guys are asking, um, Kale Cochran, 683 East Street, um, >> I was wondering, um, I was going to just email Julie after, but, I might as well ask now. Um, you weren't potentially going to use this zoning as part of the strategy for the boghouse, right? Like I
I know you're going to talk about the boghouse in a bit, but this this was never going to be one of the potential options for for the bog house. >> No, I think that's too small of a parcel. We're going to have to get there some other way. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. But good question
and a good example of why we would want to have some sort of um way to in to permit existing historic structures or existing structures to be developed and and allow the planning
board some leniency around um you know structure sizes and other things like that. Um, okay. Um, Julie, do you want to keep going with the other other business? >> You had PBL amendment on there. Do we
need to discuss that? >> Yeah. So, I just wanted to give you a heads up about that. Um the zoning board has recently received an opinion from town council that the section section 6.3 of the zoning bylaw um goes beyond what state law allows the town to to do
to regulate in terms of special permits um for non-conforming structures and uses. So so they have town council has recommended that we address that at a near future town meeting. Um I I have asked Ethan to put together some
language that would help us rectify that situation. Um the zoning board may be discussing it on March 2nd if they decide to go ahead with their meeting that night. And then um Eric couldn't make tonight's meeting. He's the chair of the zoning board, but he did say he would talk to you about it at your next
meeting. And so I did put a placeholder on the warrant just because the warrant closes um tomorrow. So I just just to cover that base I put a placeholder in case you guys decide that you do want to take it up for annual town meeting. Um so more on that TBD
>> and so that would be something we would take up not DBA. >> Well so yeah I mean if you wanted to otherwise they could submit it as a citizen petition but I mean it's a little cleaner like if you agree it's a good thing to do like you're going to have to have the hearing process and all
that. So, um, so yeah, and then, um, I did want to also alert you that the the GIS program funding, uh, there was a warrant article, I think it was it was for FY25 through FY27, so
it, um, authorized $45,000 of, um, funds for the GIS program to be spent on hardware and software and some consultant support. So that funding is going to be used to cover um the known costs of our um GIS software like our MA
our access GIS um for this year and then it's going to be built into the FY well Ryan's going to work to build into the FY28 operating budget. Um, and so I just am giving you an a heads up that next annual timing 2027, we'll need to if to
to have another warrant uh GIS funding warrant just for like additional money beyond the known costs like if we want so if we want to continue to expand the program or if there's any other software and hardware things that come up or trainings that are needed um we would
put we put a request on the annual next year. are other towns or or other entities in town hall who want to add data into the GIS system. I assume they're in charge of adding
their own data. And so right now you you guys are okay. So that's I think something else we should we should discuss is once it gets to a certain point other town like you know the assessor's office they should be responsible of that. >> Yeah. So
>> add the data to the GIS. That shouldn't fall all on planning board. >> Yeah. So the assessors actually they are the only other entity that does pay for some of this. >> No. And no, they they do their stuff is managed. It's it's more like anything we want to do with DPW or conservation or
>> um and and those layers are still like in process and being created and worked on. And the septics all all that stuff is >> right. And maybe that's another topic for if you we do a land use summit like this should be sort of everybody should be contributing to the data at some point.
>> Um >> well so Julie um didn't uh didn't the finance committee say that they wouldn't really object to if we just rolled it into our budget every year. >> So that is the plan moving forward is that the known expenses will be built
into the operating budget. Right? So, the warrant article is really to cover like expanding the program and some unknown expenses that might come up like as we're as new staff are coming to town hall, as we're training staff in different departments to be able to update their own data and manage their
own systems. Um, you know, but I I also think it would be wise for Carile to look into like shared services. And I've talked to Ryan about this, maybe even joining with Conquered um or just figuring out how to extend our contract with our GIS consultant who say this
none of this would exist without him honestly like um you know he's he I do a lot of the coordinating of his efforts with other town departments, right? Because he is in it and can do it, you know, like I can't I'm I don't have the
bandwidth or the knowledge that he has. So, I'm I've been thinking through some of these things and talking to Orion about them just to to try to make sure that the program sustains itself. Um, >> but yeah, >> so
right now I don't have a lot of other departments like asking for things that are not already known about, right? They're they're all the things that we were that were that we we've been building the last couple years are still a lot of them are still in process like the fire department layers and and the
the health um data that's all still >> like in process right so there's nothing that's been there's nothing new but but a lot of the plans that exist that are being created like the MVP report have a lot of new things in them right that'll
at some point. Uh some of them are analysis of the layers that we're building now, right? To like take things to like the next level of understanding. Um and then some of them are kind of like new ideas. So yeah,
we are I don't know. Should I keep going? >> Yep. MVP. >> Okay. So I'll segue into MVP since that's the next thing on the agenda. And I did just mention the um climate resilient carile report. So the um MVP
core committee, it's an entity of the planning board. I believe it was established in some form in 2020 before I worked for the town and then I kind of took over. It's and it's it should have always been an open meeting law committee. It's only recently been an open meeting law committee like since I
discovered that a few years ago. Um it is awkward. It is a committee that is mostly staff. Um it's the way that it's structured because I was we were like retrofitting it to like make it an open meeting law committee but it's like mostly staff and then the way we structured it was like
the voting member would be an elect an elected or appointed board member if an elected or appointed board member is present in the room otherwise the voting member is the staff person. Um we struggle every meeting to get a quorum. Um, >> and
we're at the phase now where kind of like the policyy's been set, the report's been issued, right? And we want to start implementing and the core committee. They didn't officially vote on this because I forgot to have them officially vote on it, but they we did come to an agreement that we would like
to be sunset at some point so that we can just focus on implementation. And the goal would be we would check in. I mean, it's mostly staff, but but there are some volunteers that come to every meeting and have been very active in it. And so, we would check in and continue to loop them into all of the things um
that we're doing. So, it's it's mainly just to streamline and make implementation easier and then take the need for like an we post agendas, we do minutes, and it's mostly a staff meeting and then we also do not have any public attendance um ever. So that is something
that the MPPP core committee would like. They have another meeting at the end of February um which could be their last meeting um if this board agrees to sunset them. Um,
yeah. And then in terms of implementation, there are a couple recommendations in the report that that deal directly with the or that are in one of them's indirectly related to the historical commission's demolition review bylaw. And so I've been actually working with Chrissy and Ben on trying
to like incorporate some language that or propose some language from the MVP committee to historical commission that they might put in their bylaw. And then there are some recommendations that directly relate to the wetlands bylaw. And so because the consom is currently working on a wetlands bylaw, there's a
little group of staff that are on the MVP core committee that are working to try to incorporate some of the ideas from the climate resilient car report into the wetlands bylaw as well. So those are two kind of like um they're not necessarily the highest priorities, but they kind of rose to the top because
those efforts are already underway. Um and MVP core committee want to strike while the iron is hot and try to get some of these ideas incorporated if possible. Um so that's the implementation piece and the sunset request.
And I guess my question is who because it sounds like the committee is mostly staff. I just want to make sure that like the implementation doesn't get lost because so much great work has been done. So who would that fall to you to really kind of track that or how do we
how do we not lose all the good ideas that were generated? >> So that's a great question Sarah and it it's on me right now and I'm the chair of the committee right now because this is an entity of the planning board. Mhm. >> It is probably far better suited to be
with our sustainability coordinator. Um >> or even like we work as a team, but like in terms of like keeping track and like like so many of the ideas are in her wheelhouse. >> Um that it would I just haven't been able
to fully kind of offload it because it's an entity of the planning board. Mhm. >> Um >> but yeah so so >> and then my question is with in the absence of a committee how how does that get decided?
>> How does which piece of it gets decided? >> Who takes implementation whether it falls to sustainability or you or you know >> yeah so >> how do the how does the work get delegated for implementation? >> That's a great question. So we have an implementation matrix that identifies like a champion entity and like
supporting entities. >> And so it would basically like the way that I see it happening for planning board is anything that's in it that's like where the planning board's listed as a lead entity or a supporting entity I put it in your work plan and then you guys can decide if you want to prioritize it and then
>> and then we like staff kind of reach out and kind of try to figure it out amongst ourselves and work with the board, right? And so I see that it working that way for like the other recommendations like >> like different staff would take them to the boards and committees they support and kind of like we do with master plan
like here are all the master plan recommendations that list the planning board right here are the housing plan recommendations of the plan here's the climate resilient car right and then you guys decide like what your priorities are um >> question does the um select board have
have they reviewed it. Have they approved it? >> Yeah. So, um >> Okay, great. >> I'm not they didn't like they didn't fully like support it like you guys did, but Kate Reed was this board member who was on the MVP core
committee. Um and she was very active in it the whole year. Um you're the the planning board, I believe, is the only entity that like actually voted on it because just simply because it's in kind of in your jurisdiction because of the way the committee was created. Um,
but that's a great question. >> I mean, we know we'll, you know, have the accountability follow- through implementation of the pieces with our name on it. >> I'm wondering if, you know, for the other entities involved,
we can't say do it to them, right? We can't compel action from other groups. We would have to just rely on the various staff to raise it
and be a champion for it with the other entities. >> Yeah. And this is like part of the awkwardness of it all because like >> in our last few meetings, I mean like like since Kate moved like there hasn't been a single elected official in any of these meetings which is like a just
awkward for us because we're like >> sure >> we have a plan and we're creating policy and ideas and recommendations and like we're just a group of staff mostly. >> Um so just figuring out kind of like how everything's going to go up and then come back down, right? funnel back down and be implemented and like who's
accountable to who. Um, it's a little tricky. So, I'll talk to the core committee about that again. Like we've been kind of grappling with like the same questions of like how do we make sure this happens from here on out. Um,
but yeah, I'll talk to the core committee about it again and see if we can kind of like figure it out. I mean, I think like Ryan's been sitting in for the se for the select board and like intends to take, you know, the recommendations that involve the select board and kind of put them in their like how he does with their goals and their work plan and like, you know, have
things filter back down, but >> we don't have a lot of authority otherwise. >> Would there be more authority if the select board formally voted on it? >> Yeah, maybe. >> Would that create more authority? >> Yeah.
Let me talk to Ryan about that. It's not something that's ever been that he's ever suggested that I'm remembering anyway. But maybe >> maybe that's something he just never thought of. Um
>> Well, couldn't we vote to are we are we going to vote to sunset it or no? Or >> I thought we were going to vote to sunset it. >> Well, I mean, we can. I just I >> I was actually hoping Christina would be
here tonight to like maybe help with this conver because she's one of the volunteers who's been extremely active in this um and has been at all of our meetings and has some thoughts about implementation >> and all these questions. But
>> so I mean I think it if the committee doesn't want or it doesn't want to keep going I think we could vote to sunset it but I do we think we want to keep thinking about implementation and how best to >> right
>> try to encourage that where we can >> and I'm happy to talk to Ryan too if that's at all helpful maybe maybe just kind of like the um you know the master plan implementation. It's still living on. We're still doing it. And you know, how do we just
>> keep it on the top of people's minds? So, >> so are people okay voting on that tonight? >> Anyone see any reason not to? Okay. Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion?
>> Um motion to sunset the um Oh my god. The committee >> committee. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Roll call vote, please. Starting with Chris.
>> Oh, Dwight. >> With Dwight. Sorry. Thank you. >> De May I? >> Gas. I >> radi I >> Okay, thank you. And I will follow up on the big questions about implementation
and how we make sure things happen um and whether the select board should vote. I think that's a good idea. >> All right, moving along. Um, do you guys want to talk about the summary of the Yimi legislation or just
like I I didn't know if there was anything in it that um or should I move on to the bug house? >> Why don't we come back to the legislation next time and move on to the bug house?
>> Sure. Yeah. So, um, I had given you guys like a little update a couple months ago, I think it was. Um, and there's I have an update now, but it's like I I don't want to like go into all the details if you don't want me to like >> Is there anything that we you need
action on or >> I mean, >> can I make a suggestion, Julie? >> Yeah. Yeah, please. I think I think it's worth giving the planning board the update that you gave the um CPC >> since since that's going to be,
you know, since we voted to to recommend the request for the CPA warrant article. So, >> yeah. Okay, that's good. Thank you for that for keeping me on track. I was just like, I've given this presentation so many times. I'm like, who hasn't heard
it yet? [laughter] Um, all right. So, just one second. Let me get this. I have so many windows open. I'm going to just close some of them. That way I can have it breathe.
All right. So, so this is the presentation that John Valentine and I gave to the CPC last Wednesday. Um, you've guys have you're aware of the project goals. This slide hasn't changed since the last time I spoke with you
about it. Um, so I will just keep going unless you want me to dwell on this. Um, I'm we we know I've gone over what we've learned. So, I'll kind of just like start with this column here, which is what what I'm working on right now. Um,
so we have the housing trust has authorized funds for a housing consultant. She's really um kind of like the foremost housing expert in this area and has already been very helpful. Um, and then I am like this close to having
a contract signed with Gap Architects for the schematic design phase of their work. Um, and I'm working on additional scope with Niche Engineering because based on some new information and new staff and the and [clears throat] availability of more
money. We are expanding the wetlands delineation and the topo survey. Um and then at some point in the early spring hope to get the wetland delineation confirmed by the conservation commission. So that all costs money. Um this housing trust has authorized
$35,000. I'm still trying to pin down a piece of it so I don't know that's the right number, but um that TBD on that. And then um let me just go to the next slide really quick. what we the housing trust has made a
request to the CPC for $200,000 of additional funding beyond so there's the the thing I just showed you they is is housing trust funding that they've already authorized for those three contracts and then there's additional funding they're requesting from um annual town meeting
and [sighs and gasps] some of these things are pinned down and some of them are not and I do need to update this based on some information I got in the last couple days um and some feedback from the CPC but basically What I want to try to achieve in 2026 is like pinning down the site plan and the
schematic design so that we know like what like what is the land area that we want to propose to carve out from article 97. And then um on the flip side of that like what might the replacement land be? The when I left
off with you guys last time there was an idea that we might be able to get a waiver from providing replacement land. Town council thinks that's a total long shot. um just based on the their legal understanding of how the wording in the
waiver clause is actually applied um and just their experience with article 97 and the EA. So they think that's a long shot. So um the other thing that is interesting about that that I learned uh recently is that if we are granted a waiver, we might not know until the
project is about to start like until EA can actually see it all coming together. >> [sighs and gasps] >> So, I think either way we have to have the replacement land conversation. Um, so the request to town meeting includes
$36,000 for like permitting. So, assuming that like GAP architects and the engineer, niche engineering would like actually do the design and then also help take this through per local permitting. Um, I had them scope out the permitting piece. And so the GANAP gave
me a price of 36,000 to do the permitting. Um the site plan and permitting piece with niche I'm still trying to pin down. Some initial numbers I've gotten. You know, everything has a price and there's a lot of things they need to do. Um but I'm I'm really trying
to get the number to understand what's behind the numbers they've given me. I guess let's just say that. And then I'm probably going to seek a second quote from our other house doctor engineering firm. Um, we've added in $15,000 for additional
housing consultant work. Our current contract is 15 grand. So, we just figured like if we burn through that and we need more. Just just that's the number. Um, I spoke to town council. I think 15 to 20 for legal is probably more than we need, but based on some
other towns that have recently gone through article 97 um and some of the uh issues they've encountered, there's a definite potential that the legal costs will get driven driven up. Um
this is low. Um my understanding is that the appraisals don't cost that much, but the survey work definitely will. So, um I need to increase that. And then I had a pretty robust contingency in here for unknowns just because I'm doing this without the
benefit of uh a town engineer helping me. Um, and I'm really relying a lot on like the consultants to kind of like tell me what I don't know like on like I'm trying to under to ensure that they understand the scope right of the project and the goals of the project but
also like include things in their scopes that like I am maybe not thinking of because I don't do this every day. So >> kind of walk that line. So that's that's where we're at right now. Um,
and if all of these things happen in 2026, which I feel like is maybe aggressive, but I'm told it's feasible, um, then a fall town meeting, we'd have a few things that would need to happen. So, fall town meeting would need to authorize the basically both components
of the land swap. Um, and then there may be an additional request for for fun from CPA. That's a possibility. Um, and then the other big question I left off with you guys last time was whether we could permit the site via friendly
4DB or if we should try to like create some local zoning that would entitle the site for multif family housing. Um, and the housing consultant thinks that the friendly 4DB is the right route to do this. Um and that like all the documentation of like you know the
survey of the land, the votes of town meeting, the intent, right, would be enough to submit to the state to get a project eligibility letter, which is a it's one of the early steps of the 40 of any 40B process, right? you submit a bunch of documentation to
the state and then they they come out to the site, you know, and then they if if they agree with everything that's been submitted, they will issue a project eligibility letter and then you can use the comprehensive permit statute for your permitting process. So,
um, what's important to note about the friendly 4DB process, right, is that it's led by the zoning board and it would include input from other boards and committees, but it doesn't obi beate the need for a cons hearing or a board
of health approval, right? Because no 4DB gets around the wetlands protection act or title five, right? So, those processes still happen. Um and then like in terms of like the friendly part of this like my understanding is that
typically that means that these projects would also strive to comply with local regulations to the best ability possible. Right? So in the board of health approval and the cons hearing that like the project would would try to be mindful of you know
local wetlands buffers and board of health septic design flows. Um, so more on that, but that's my initial kind of understanding of how this works. >> Julie, this is this is great. Thank you
for this update. I'm curious what the conversation is so far about um what land you might exchange with. or for the article 97 piece
>> it really hasn't hap [clears throat] the conversation really hasn't started yet um like you know at least that I've been involved in um the the site that I have heard like from multiple different people is like we'll just give them the like a portion of the Conan land but the
land has to be equal ecological and financial value so like I'm not you know >> like it'll be a significant effort with EA, right? Having them come out, having them look at sites, having them, you know,
agree to different scenarios. Um, >> yeah. >> And like town council hasn't really had much luck getting in touch with them. So, I'm like a little bit hesitant to like when I say like I hope these things can all happen in 2026, I'm just thinking there's only so much that we
can control. >> Yeah. >> Right. And if the state is involved, and they will be in like any capacity, like there's just No guarantees. Um, but yeah. So, I don't know why my hand is raised. You
must have done that by accident. I'm trying to un raise it. Like the >> You were trying to get your own attention. >> The buttons [laughter] on Zoom. I don't know if you all are experiencing this, but like they're new to me as of today. Like all the many different things are moved around. So, like
>> I don't even know how to do this. Sometimes when you do a hand motion Oh, chat is what happened probably, right? [snorts] I can't figure out how to lower my hands. But anyway, >> so
those are those are the highlights. Um I'm working to pin down the request the CPA funding request a little bit more. Um, yeah. >> And I assume it will be asked to
potentially be asked to support this CBA request. >> Yeah, probably. >> Okay. >> Yep. And I I you know, I probably should say also like so I've given this presentation a version of this presentation to
um conservation commission, the select board, the housing trust. Sorry, not the housing trust yet. Hiscom housing trust members have been involved in all these meetings and have seen it, but I'm going to talk to them directly Thursday night
CPC. So, I'm trying to like kind of keep everyone in the loop um as things move along. So, >> great. Thank you.
>> Sure. Um, next thing we have our minutes from the January meeting. Um, yep. Let me just share them. So, I did not get any um amendments ahead of time. So, if anyone has any, just feel
free to shout them out. Um, let me see if I can make this a little Can you guys see this? Okay. Mhm. >> Okay. >> Um, so we go through page one and then on to page two.
>> Uh, page two, I did have a comment. >> Okay. Where >> right on the minutes, Mr. Gas moved to approve the meeting minutes as amended, which is interesting and a little funny because on the first page it mentions how I was
absent. >> H Okay. >> Were you absent? >> I was. >> Great. So, I'll just um double check who did that. [laughter] Um,
>> and I had one higher up in the the first paragraph. It says, um, the requirements stem largely from the previous use of garbage disposal, blah, blah, which had initially been permit but was now being reconsidered in light of new evaluations. I would say in light of new
board of health regulations. Um, okay. In light of new. Okay. Um, anyone else? All right. I'll move on to page three. And on to page four
or not sure why there. All right. And I guess that's it. So if anyone else has anything or nothing else, we have a motion to approve as amended. All right. Thank you.
Okay. Uh, roll call vote, please. Starting with Dwight. >> Jasai. >> Ready? >> I guess [laughter] >> Len and I. >> Okay. Um, invoices. Julie, do you want
to share our screen for any of these? >> Yeah. Sorry. Let me just grab them. Um, there are two I believe just Okay, you have Hold on. I got to actually share my
screen, don't I? Uh we have an invoice from Nich for um work they did witnessing the paving at Woodward Village. And we did get a field report from them for this and we do have funds to cover it. Um and this is for
$1,577.71 and it would come out of the 53G account for the Woodward Village project. So that is that 53G account is funded by the developer for the town's peerreview engineering. So it's not this is not town money.
There's that one. And then grab the other one. I have an invoice from our GIS consultant. He's been doing a lot for the town. Um so just these I actually asked him to break these down a little bit more
specifically for me. um just mainly well for a lot of reasons but anyway um to just give you an idea of like what he's been working on. So he's he's continuing to work on digitizing our septic asphalt plans which contributes to the work that Horsely Whitten is doing for our
subsurface hydrogeeology mapping project. Um he's been coordinating um I don't know if you all remember the town meeting boat to authorize funding for the um police and fire to get a new dispatch system. Um but he's been
coordinating like the base mapping that dispatch is going to use. Um which is it's a pretty incredible um just I don't know the whole thing. I've been involved in some of the conversations and it's very interesting. Um he's been working on a fire
department analysis. He's been he's going to help us coordinate like we we have a contract with near mapap and we're going to get that um up and running and he's helping coordinate that. I'm trying to think there's like so many things. Um, oh, every year when our EZRI our licenses, our software
licenses like need to be renewed, I have him like make sure that like we're getting what we should be getting and um like the old version of the software goes away next month and so we're all migrating which is why I've been like
forcing myself to learn the new version because like pretty soon I don't really have a choice. Um, and so he's been helping not just me with the migration to the new software but also our um assessor So, we've been having meetings about that. Um, so there's just a lot
going on. Um, and I'm glad he invoiced. He's like notoriously bad at invoicing for his work. So, this is um $3,336.25. It it comes out of his current contract, which is paid. It's It's an ARPA funded
contract actually. Um, >> so a quick question. Um, so you mentioned a new uh new software and I was wondering if that is going to affect our user experience
at all or much or a lot. >> Um, so the new GIS like the ArcGIS Pro software, it's like what we do on the back end. So your what what you're using for Axis GIS is a completely separate and it's a
completely separate consultant. That's an online hosted mapping system completely different than what we do on the back end. Although the consultants [clears throat] integrate all the things, right? But it no, it will not impact your experience.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> So those are the invoices. >> Okay. Uh other comments or questions for a motion to approve and authorize the town planner to sign.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote please. Starting with >> Dwight. I guess I >> I >> Right. Thank you guys. >> And I >> Oh, sorry. >> Thank you. [laughter]
>> Unintentional. pause. >> I took a I took a Joe length pause. [laughter] Um, okay. Leaison reports. I have just a little bit from his historical. We decided to
also wait on the demo review and delay bylaw just to to um figure out how to expand the historic inventory to get a little bit more data to get a lot more data um to sort of um give people some more facts to to base their decision on.
So just so you know, I don't know if it'll be fall. We were hoping for maybe CPC funding for that because we have no funding. um but we can't use CPC funding for that. So trying to figure out how to get some funding for um whether it's grant or otherwise for
consultant help to expand this the historic properties inventory that was done in apparently 2010 as I found out earlier tonight. So I'm teasing a little bit but um but yeah, so that's where we are on that. So >> I would say Sarah I learned from that
meeting which I didn't realize is that the reason the inventory is outdated is because the it was stopped >> right like the work the work effort to create the inventory was stopped. >> Oh >> I hadn't realized that was the reason. I just I thought like it was a complete
effort and then new people thought like it was missing a bunch of things. >> It was stopped by who? Like I didn't know that. >> No, I don't know. That's just what I took away from the meeting was that it was just never completed. >> So maybe I'm getting that wrong, but >> No, that's this was 2020 2010 was way
before my time. I don't I don't I didn't know that. That's that's interesting. >> Well, I could be getting it wrong, but that's what I thought. I I heard from that meeting and I was like, "Oh, that's the reason it that people think it's incomplete is not because it was >> like Yeah. I don't know. >> Yeah. >> I had a different understanding before
that meeting." >> Yeah. Yeah. So anyways, that's where that's where that is. So that will not be on the spring town meeting. Um any others? >> I have a quick I can just do the CPC update. Um so the uh items we voted to
approve were for and again this is the CPC votes to approve applications to be brought to town meeting for CPA funding. Um, we had the Gleason Public Library asked for another um,
it says 300 to 500,000, but I think it was 500,000 that we approved. It was It was 500,000 that we approved. And that's so that they can um kind of get the rest of the funding they need to go forward. The um, library renovation
project was over budget, of course, because it took so long to raise money, of course. Um, and so they're like, "Please just give us the rest of the money we need to finish." So that's that one. Um, there's a preservation and restoration
of historic town documents. Um, the CCHS amenities building, which we did vote to approve last year, but it was contingent upon conquered. Conquered dropped the ball. Um, well, there's more to the story than that obviously, but
it's coming back around. This time it's going to happen for real. And uh then there was the uh 200,000 for the uh housing trust for the bog house and $100,000 for rental assistance for
um Carile residents. This is 2 years of $50,000 rental assistance for low-inccome residents. Um, these are residents that were that benefited from um funding associated with
I'm going to I can't remember the name of it. It was the emergency relief stuff that happened during COVID, you know, from the Biden TAPA tapa tapa. Um, and this is um kind
of a holdover to help those residents be able to stay in their homes. Ultimately, the long-term plan is for seek uh the housing trust to find a much more uh sustainable source of funding to help these residents.
And that's it. It's about $2 million worth of funding overall. Um, so I had a little more too. Uh, so the Oh, the, uh, COA actually does do stuff on that rental assistance, too. And I the probably the funds come from
the >> That is actually that it goes through the COA. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, uh, but I I have kind of a a lack of, uh, liaison report in that I've been trying to go to the trails committee for
a while, uh, but I missed the last three meetings, and I'm sure they would probably want to say something about the boghouse, and I'm not sure if they have or have not already. Have has the trails committee weighed in on the on the
boghouse at all? No, but I should probably go visit them. >> Yeah, I I'm I'm I'm going to attend their next meeting. [clears throat] I'm almost positive. Uh I really have been trying to hit that. Um >> they just had one on Wednesday of was it
last week. >> Yeah. Yeah. I was I was conf I had a confl I've had a conflict the last three meetings that that that they've had and I'm I made sure that I'm going to hit the next one. So, I'll I'll be sure to bring that up to them. Um, I'm not sure
they're going to I I I don't know what they're going going to say, but you know, obviously the trail there is a trail head where the boghouse is, >> but there's also other parking and trail access nearby. So, but I'm still going
to be curious as to what what they have to say about that. >> Thanks for the reminder, Chris. I should talk to them. Any others? >> I don't have anything from Magic because
I just I haven't I haven't seen a meeting notice since the holidays, so I might have missed it. [snorts] >> There was a meeting. I've been going to Magic, Stacy. Um, [snorts] there was >> Was there one today?
No, last week. Wait, hold on. >> There was a sub regional something today that I missed. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I apparently missed last week's >> um last week's was about Data Town. It was just like an overview of all the things
that Data Town can do. Um >> Okay. >> The community share for me is like a real value ad. I mean, obviously it's all interesting, but where you learn about what other towns are doing. I will say two things if I can. There's now an okay time I can give two like little
things about so MAPC and HLC are spearheading because of some feedback from rural and small towns over the last year a coordinated effort where they get the regional planning agencies and um rural and small towns together to kind
of like like bring us together as a cohort so that we can do more idea sharing. And they're also rolling out a housing choice. It's this is all terms that I might be familiar with and you might not be, but they there's a housing choice program at the state that like up until recently
didn't really have a pathway for rural towns to be involved in. So that's like something that's coming down the pipeline. Um they had a meeting today, but the invitation to planners only came to my inbox today. So I was like too busy to attend. But I do plan to like I
do know a bunch of the planners that are going to attend those. And um I plan to kind of like go to as many as I can just to get ideas and learn what Right. Um and then the other thing I actually just learned about today which I'm going to get wrong so I'm just going to look at
my real quick. Um it's called the Massachusetts Land Use Strategy. M I LUS. I don't know where the I comes from. Um anyway, it's a um it looks like
it's it's coordinated by it's MAPC, the EA, HLC, MASDOT, and the Executive Office of Economic Development, the Office of Climate
Innovation and Resilience. and they're coordinating. They have these webinars and they're coordinating the the mileus will result in a coordinated strategy map and interactive web-based land use planning tool for use
by state agencies, planners, project developers, and municipalities. So, I don't know. Um, but I the webinar is on Thursday, February 26th. I might attend and just see what what they're cooking. So, I like when all these agencies like
work together because that is uh helpful >> usually. >> And on a bright note, we were not in the list of towns that the state attorney general's office sued for non-compliance. So, yay us. That's huge.
>> Yeah. >> Right. And actually, this is the week we should hear from the attorney general's office about our zoning. So, they have 90 days and this is the week. Ashley >> and I Tom Cler and I were talking about it. This is the week. >> Okay, we'll keep going. >> We're not we're not officially approved
yet. >> We are by HLC, but not by the attorney general's office. So, >> oh man. >> Yeah, but like for many towns, they got approval from the attorney general before they got the HLC one. >> So, we are whatever. I don't know.
Oh, so while we're kind of on that topic, I'll throw in that about a month and a half ago, I took I went to uh Simon Catalo's office hours uh at the library and um I you know told him that I was on
the planning board. I did not tell him I I specifically told him I was not speaking for the planning board, but I expressed my own displeasure with the state legislature uh forcing us to do our, you know, uh
you know, so feedback I heard from town a lot was that this is, you know, not it's it's not well done. It doesn't suit our town well at all. And it was difficult to you know get it to work
here. And uh you know I I did say so I said you know but I did say that you know if I had to imagine I I also told them that we were working on our own you know zoning which we are that's what we were doing tonight. And you know, it
would be I you know, I don't know how the rest of the board feels about this, but I would not be excited about either of those bills getting through the state legislature. I'm interested if anybody else has an opinion on those two bills.
>> You're talking about YMI and Yiggby. >> Yes. I haven't studied them well enough, Chris, to have an opinion yet. I'm sorry. >> I've skimmed and like definitely there are pieces that I'm like, "Oh, that
raises questions for me." >> Yeah. And I think town council did a pretty good job of doing a summary of of what it >> for us. Uh, you know, some of the main takeaways from it. And uh it you know if
if you if you so here's my opinion on it. Uh you know if you thought MBTA was difficult this would probably be harder. >> I think the big difference is that a lot of these come through just as law though
Chris not as compliance law. >> That's true. That's true. That's true. that but but wouldn't we have to uh change our own bylaws to conform to the law? >> Maybe, maybe not.
>> Yeah, that and I I I thought about that as well. You know, it it it would just kind of, you know, make it so that our bylaws, anything that was conflicting with the state law is going to now be the state
law, not our bylaws. Right. >> I do think that at least as they're written currently, they give like a year to um some of them, maybe not all of them. Like there it's like effective year after.
Um I think I read that. But I mean obviously it's still in a preliminary format. >> Yes. Yeah. And I, you know, I just would, you know, rather I I would rather try that we try had the ability
to try and uh come up with solutions that we think are going to work rather than the the state force it on us. >> I'm curious, did Simon express a view on either of those bills? >> Yeah. So, uh, I I would say if anything,
it it felt like, well, I'm going to vote for it anyway. [laughter] >> Um, so I but I I I I shouldn't say that. I mean, he didn't say that, you know. I I I shouldn't I can't speak for what how he would vote or anything like that, but
I also know that, you know, the state legislature is under pressure from a lot of people to have more affordable housing. So that that's what they're trying to do. And you know, I he he uh you know, he he he did vote for the economic bill that included the MBTA
communities. And I I I didn't really hold that against them because I I know what it's like to, you know, not agree with everything in a bill, but have but but still think the bill should go through. So, you know, um,
so, you know, uh, but I just, you know, told them that, uh, you know, I I I personally wouldn't wouldn't would prefer not to, uh, not to go through an MBTA type of communities thing again.
Um, and you know, I was I was wondering if anybody else felt similarly, and I I still don't have a feel for that, actually. >> I apologize. I missed the miss the miss
town council's review of that, so I haven't fully digested either of them and need to need to read more to have an opinion also. So, >> I haven't read all of it, but I from the few key points that I thought I read
sounds like it could be pretty impactful. >> I mean, title five would still apply, right? >> Yeah, it'll still apply, but it's still it's still >> Well, very impactful. >> Yeah, potentially there would be no minimum acreage.
there would be no uh you know every every lot would be capable of having multifamily housing. M >> um you know these are some of the bigger things that you know
>> I don't think most of our I I I I think most most of the residents here move here because that's something this is this is more what they wanted than what the law is saying what what the proposed law is saying it wants.
So, you know, >> it removes a lot of the checks that are in place right now. >> Does it talk to any does it get into um like mixed use at all or is it strictly housing and residential?
>> Uh I didn't I don't remember any mixed use stuff in it. I I was focused on the residential since we are mostly a residential community. >> Curious. there. >> I think Ethan's summary I don't think had any u mixed use references.
>> Yeah, I don't recall any. >> Okay. Well, we'll have to follow that and see what happens. >> Yeah, >> I assume a lot can change before, you know, things get changed in committee and edited and we'll have to keep following that. So, if you hear anything, Julie, let us know. But, um,
yeah, something I will >> something to do on all of our copious free time. I think we're at the end of our agenda unless anyone has anything else. >> I did want to me make one mention Sarah.
>> Sure. Of course. >> So, your March agenda, the fire station renovation and expansion project is going to be >> coming to you, the site plan review. >> Um, and also the community farm school is looking to relocate. Um and so they are
going to come to you also for a site plan review. But regarding the fire station um there there is a question about whether the planning board so so the fire station project right there's um an architect and an engineer hired by the town like to work on behalf of the
town and there has been a question of whether the planning board would would want to hire a peerreview engineer for the engineering design. Um, and I just was wondering if you guys had any thoughts on that because if you want that, I will try to get that. I'll put
together a scope and try to get quotes um, so that when you open the hearing in March, you can make a decision so that just to try to keep make sure things keep moving. Um >> so my opinion on that is that we you
know we hold private entities to that standard. We should hold ourselves to that standard too. >> Agreed. >> Okay. >> All right. So I will I will get that going and hope to have a couple quotes
for you guys to look at. for that um at your next meeting. Thank you. >> Great. >> Thanks. >> Thanks. >> And then so we've got that we've got um the [sighs]
continuation of the hearing from tonight. Any other hearings? >> Um those are the three hearings and then Woodward Village is scheduled to come back to you guys. Um, so I will I guess we will see because I
think you were hoping to be able to ascertain more maybe if it wasn't like winter time. So if it's still like a raging winter, >> um, maybe that one goes to April. Um, but but yeah, TBD, I guess. But yeah, >> let's keep our eye on that because if we
have like a huge thaw, it actually could be a good time to go >> Yeah. >> look at how things are draining. So um, >> right. anyone notices a warm spell, we should all go look at Woodward Village again and look at that site. >> Warm is a relative term. [laughter]
>> Exactly. >> True. >> That is your your next agenda. And then of course all the other fun discussion item will you know more updates, more zoning, things like that.
>> Okay. But ADUs are done. So that's >> regulations. Yeah, >> regulations are done. So we've >> tied a bow on that, which feels good. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Well, with that, um,
does anyone want to make a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion. [clears throat] >> Second. >> Second. Okay. Thank you everybody. Thank you Julie and Noel for all your time. >> Thank you. Good night everyone. Good night everybody.