Uh, good evening. I'm Arts Brew. I'm chair of the planning board. This is the Town of Chadam Planning Board hybrid meeting. This is January 12th, 2026, 5:30m. Please note, this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly
there hereafter for scheduled on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. I don't see anybody. Pursuant to
Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter two of the acts of 2025, extending co certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of open open meeting laws general law chapter 3A
section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Planning Board is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the
order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 508-945-4410 conference ID 222503725 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the
posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on channel on channelam TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We will post a record of this meeting on
the town's website as soon as possible. Okay, I'll begin with a roll call vote. Warren chain >> present. >> Uh Bob Worer >> present. >> Bob Dubis >> present. Frank Shear is absent tonight. Uh Charlene Greenhall
>> here. >> And Katherine Hpern, you are >> present. >> Present. Okay. Thank you. And Arspur, I'm present. Uh let's begin with the minutes of December 22nd, 2025.
Um I asked for a few um edits on page two in the second paragraph on the sign site plan approval. Um I had uh noted in the second paragraph that there was uh site plan
last site plan was 2003 with six parking spaces. Um I since asked um u Christine to check and she confirmed that the number of approved spaces was actually seven on the plan. So I asked for that note to be added. And then
let's see this is uh for long range planning. This is I think the last sentence. Let me see if I get this right. Um made some edits. I've asked uh Christine make some edits. Miss O'Grady said she would
check with staff to see if they would be able to provide some init initial information, but the ADU piece needed to be acted on. And this is where u made some edits. Right now the town as the town is
relying on state law, not one written with local needs and requirements in mind. Miss O'Reate further explained that the town's bylaw has been superseded by the state regulations and that the ADU law uh bylaw and the
seasonal community act can be totally separate. So I just made some edits just to clarify what we were what we actually said during the meeting. Um are there any other comments or edits
to the minutes? No. Do I have a motion to approve? >> I move, >> Mr. Chairman. It's Charlene. >> Go ahead, Charlene. >> I move that we approve the meeting minutes as amended. >> I second.
>> Thank you. We'll do a roll call vote. Um, Warren, >> approve. >> Uh, Bob, >> approve. >> Bob, >> approve. >> Uh, Charlene, >> approve. >> Uh, Katherine, >> approve. >> And Artsp, I approve.
All right. Next uh we'll deal with um long range planning. Uh this planning board discussion on accessory dwelling units. Um I think uh we start with um I think Bob uh you asked to have an
overview of what the actual law that was passed. What what's the content of it? Uh it's essentially in two parts. The seasonal community piece and the accessory dwelling unit piece. Um, we'll give an old uh I think I've asked Christine to give us a summary of that.
>> We're breaking this up into two parts. We'll get into detailed discussion tonight about the de accessory dwelling unit part and then two weeks from tonight we'll we'll get into a uh detailed discussion and review of the seasonal community piece. Gloria
McFersonson will be joining us at that meeting. So even though you might have questions about the seasonal community, I think it'd be best if we defer any of those. But Christine's going to summarize both pieces for us >> to start off with and then we'll go into
the details of ADU. >> Okay. So your packets contained, as Art said, you had a memo with the accessory dwelling unit component. Um you have the proposed bylaw and then you have what your existing bylaw was. Um, and then we
also have added the seasonal communities bylaw. And then there was just a very very brief summary of that one. So now what I'm going to tell you, I'm just going to give you a little bit information in general. Um, the affordable homes act, this all stems from that that was done in in 2024. And
basically it was a housing investment program intended to impact the supply of housing in the state through programs related to housing cost and limited housing availability. Um and then as I've said two of the components of that were the seasonal community piece and
the accessory dwelling unit component of it. Um the basics of the seasonal community and like said we'll um Gloria will go over that at your next meeting. We have she has agreed to um be part of a workshop with you. Um so that next meeting will
start or the workshop piece of it will be at four o'clock and then we'll go into the regular business at five o'clock. um uh on the I think I believe it's the 27th. Um so the seasonal community piece um it's it was the
ability to um it allows communities with that designation. So that designation was determined by the state and then it was approved at town meeting last year. Um the town town meeting accepted the um seasonals communities. It was to acquire
year-round housing um with uh and it has the ability to do that. It has the ability to acquire and develop housing with preference for housing of seasonal community public employees, establish a year-round housing trust fund, and create or preserve year-round housing for individuals who produce or support
artistic and literary um activities. What it is required to do is is um you have to adopt bylaws and zoning or ordinances related to it and adopt um uh for undersized lots that are already
uh devel uh already exist within the town and then to adopt um bylaws and zoning ordinances to permit construction of town houses. So that's that piece of it. The reason that we're bringing the accessory dwelling unit piece to you today is because um as it stands when
that um the state statute came into um effect and basically in February of last year, the beginning of February of last year um it superseded anything that uh Cadam had currently in place. So I know
that you created your bylaw in 2019. Um, so basically we've been working from the state statute and then since then. So now what we have done is we've taken the state statute and we've worked with community development has worked with town council on it. Um, he set up an
initial draft for us and then we've gone through to see um, exactly what components of it match and you know which ones we're still have questions on. So the bylaw before you tonight is what we're going to bring or what we would like to bring ultimately to town meeting in Mar in uh
May. So um I would say to you um you know kind of think about it as uh there are two two main pieces that we're focusing on with regard to the affordable housing act. So we're definitely doing the accessory dwelling units. We do not have all of the guidance for the seasonal. So that's why
we're not moving with that at this point. we don't have from the state. They had said the fall um we're now obviously into January and the new year. We still don't have it yet. We anticipate it um in the near future and I'm sure Gloria will be able to talk more to that. Um so basically what I
want to say to you is an accessory dwelling unit as defined by the executive office of housing and live livable communities um is a small residential living space located on the same lot as another home. It can be in
an existing home like a converted basement. It can be an apartment like attached to the primary residence. Or it can be a completely detached um unit like a converted garage or um a little cottage on a site. Um according
to the um the executive office of housing and living livable communities um you have to maintain a separate entrance. It has to be either no larger than half the glo gross floor area of the principal dwelling or no more than
900 square feet, whichever is smaller. And it must meet local municipal restrictions. Obviously, those restrictions, you know, have to be um >> those like setbacks and conservation things.
>> Yeah. But they can't be, you know, they have to they have to be in check. They can't be outrageous or um >> the building codes issues. I mean it has to pass. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean but there are >> has to pass the energy code as well, >> right? >> I mean there are some things but we
can't put a great deal of restriction on it. You know it's it's to encourage housing and it's again um to you know to allow that to happen but you know to make sure that it fits within our within our community here. Um >> so so
>> municipalities so if we go through it they can um >> impose reasonable restrictions such as related to site plan review if we decide to do that you can do with title five >> dimensional setbacks like art said um so they use the term bulk in height
requirements we typically here we use the word massing instead of bulk but that's basically what they mean the same thing and then short-term rentals what municipalities cannot regulate is they cannot regulate owner occupancy or family family relationship for the ADU
or the principal dwelling. They can't require special permit approval or use of of the rental. And they can't require more than once parking space for an ADU or if if the required uh they can't require any parking if the parking was
in is within 0.5 miles of a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal, or bus station. Um, >> is there any place in town that would meet that criteria or is that just >> um
>> in general, but it doesn't apply to Chattam? >> Yeah, we don't we don't meet any of those things, but we want to we're going to see within like the bus routes and things like that because I I I think Gloria will have to explain to us exactly what the station, you know, what the st station designation is. So, I do
have GIS putting together a map so we can kind of see on either side of that, but that's the only one. Um, so some of the things that we'll ultimately have to do, as I said, we're going to replace your existing
um ADU section of the bylaw. We're going to change the definition in section two of the definition section. And when then we're going to update the the appendix table, the use table that is in the back of the bylaws. So the definition um
>> of the >> So before you before you go on so I I think the way the community development working with town council looked at this is it's best just to replace what we have with a new draft that deals with a
lot of the changes that the law put in place because right now um we have to comply with the way the state law has established it without any concern. consideration for what we've had developed in the past. So, um Christine
and and I think um community development staff, they put a list of things together that they'll need input from us on and Christine's going to go down and go through that list of things. We'll ask the board members just to if you can put forth your um input on this. We've
gone through many of these things in the previous versions that that we did back in 2019. And once we give guidance on this, then we'll set the process going for a public hearing. That would be in um in February. I think you uh Christine has a
date suggested for that. Um we do have to refer this to the select board and they have to refer it back to us. So, there's a process that we need to go through on this, but I think Christine will go through the pieces that need input from the board members on so that
they can do a final uh update on this before uh it goes for public hearing. >> So, you want to right continue. We'll do these one at a time. >> Pretty straightforward in the memo. The definition that they are proposing is um or that they proposed that we're going
to you we suggest at town meeting will be dwelling unit accessory um the abbreviation ADU is an attached or detached dwelling unit that is accessory to the principal dwelling and is otherwise defined in accordance with the
provisions of general law chapter 4A section 1A and 760 CMR 71. one and it may be amended and further refined in further defined in section 7B19
of the Cadam zoning uh Cadam protective bylaw. Um the definitions that we proposed in the um in the draft that you will be reviewing at the um public hearing, those all came from the model bylaw that is part of your package. Um
we did make a couple of minor edits to those um with council from town council based upon um the needs of of Chadam. So those are spelled out in the memo that I had had provided all of you. Um and then as Art said um we still have a couple of
questions with regard to um items that the planning board should be considering. So, I think you don't necessarily have to come to a decision on all of those things tonight, but it be it would I think it would be wise that you do. The purpose of tonight is again to
ultimately um refer this to the select board so that they can put it on their meeting agenda for the 27th and then in turn re refer it back to you and we can schedule the um the actual public hearing. So, based upon the the um
timeline that we're looking at with advertising and all of that, I'd like to have the public hearing officially on February 23rd. Um, and as it stands right now, this is the only article before us. So, the the
items that are of interest to me to get your opinions on are on page three of the um of the draft that you have in front of you. And that's the thing with the um with the gray uh the gray lying down the side on the right hand side. It
uh it it's probably the second thing in your packet I guess maybe or the second thing in that package. Um Annie's got it up on the screen and there's a there over to the side there are the edits where we've had a little bit of back and forth dialogue um with
town council or with um housing uh to ask the questions. And basically what we're trying to do is um if you want so one of the things that we have to consider is whether or not you want even be the option for more than one ADU per per lot.
um that would be a consideration that you'd have to give. And then if you decide that you want to potentially allow more than one, would it be by special permit? And then who if if so then would it be the zoning board of of appeals that
would be the um reviewing entity or would it be somebody else who would be the reviewing entity or the the >> granting authority? >> So we could just limit it to one though. We could limit it to one. We could do we could do more than one. And the first
one has to be by right though. Correct. >> By right. That is correct. >> And then the second one could be by special permit if we so desired. >> Yes, that is correct. >> All right. >> Um so that's the first thing that you're going to contemplate. The other things that you'll be looking at um and like I said there are a number of things with
regard to that. Um >> well well why don't we start with that one first? And right now we the previous bylaw only was allowing one. Right. Right. Yeah. Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, >> go ahead. >> It It's Charlene. I'm sorry. Um I just
had a question regarding the the definition that will take place in section two. It does differ from the definition that's being proposed in section 19b. Are we concerned about that? Is is the
definition in 19b just further clarification >> the section right so that's what we put at the end of the of the first thing that I read to you the definition that will be in section two of the of the protective bylaws in general um makes
reference that it might be further defined in section >> n section 19 of of section seven >> okay just gives a little bit more so that there was no confusion So the the section um 7B19 that's of of
our bylaw. >> That's your that's your bylaw and right. That is correct. That's where it stands. >> Maybe that's the clarification that we would need to place there. Right. >> Okay. >> No, actually I think it's fine. >> Oh, it's fine. Okay. All right. >> Yeah, I think it's it's fine. Um I think
it it's spelled out clearly. I just wanted to make sure that it was understood. that it was further defined later on in actual section 19. >> Yeah. >> Which in in zoning writing is a little odd, but I it's it's fine.
>> Okay. >> Katherine has >> Oh, Katherine. >> Yeah. I just had a question um uh about uh what you what Art and Christine just said. So, uh, we allow
one and state law now says we allow one ADU by right. We can allow additional ADUs. This is what we'll be discussing now. Um, and by we can do that by special permit if we so desire. Can we
allow additional ADUs by right? That's my question. or do we only have the option to add them by special permit? >> I've been told that you can only add them by special permit. I mean, >> okay. >> All right.
>> Okay. >> Because you don't want to give it a you don't want to give it a blanket um you know, approval either. So >> it would it would seem like if we had the ability to add an additional ADU by right, we'd have to have a lot of
specifications about when that could be by right or how that could be. So but that was my question. >> Yep, that is correct. >> Yeah. >> Comment on that does seem to me we've got seven out of 10 lots in this town are non-conforming. So, anytime you're
going to be doing any building on them by whatever law, >> um, they're non-conforming. So, therefore, you procedures we have in place, I believe in ZBA require a special permit. So, by that any ADU is going to require
a special permit even if it's by right. Correct. >> Well, the the the undersized lots and stuff will come up as part of the seasonal communities designation. So that's where those >> all of those additional ones will will come into play.
>> No, but I understand that. But still any if you're going to build a brand new ADU out back on your 1acre lot >> chances are pretty good it's a non-conforming lot and therefore it
needs a special permit to do anything. Add a bathroom, build a bedroom, put an ADU in. They all require that under our current procedures. So I'm assuming that that would continue to be the case. Even if they have by right the ability to put
in the ADU, it would still require a special permit. >> That that's a good point. Yeah. Um we have so many that are non-conforming. No, it's >> well virtually you have to assume most of the time if not all the time is >> maybe maybe that'd be a clarification. >> No, I don't have a problem with that.
from town council though on asked town council >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Actually, one of the documents from the state act spoke specifically to that. >> Okay. >> And yes, it would have to go to the zoning board of appeals for an alteration of a pre-existing
non-conforming structure or lot. >> Okay. >> However, the use itself is not under scrutiny. >> Okay. >> No, understood. Understood. But again, if the process of >> constructing >> creating an ADU
>> is virtually always going to require a special permit here. >> Yeah. >> I just wanted to clarify that that is the case and as a result um that influences my opinion about several of the other issues uh which Christine has
brought up because it sort of means that ADUs are going to have special permits involved. So the that becomes a more important question to me as to uh who is the special permit granting authority and what are the criteria by which they
would be evaluated >> given that there is by right um uh the ability to add an ADU. Um anyway I just wanted to bring that up because it seems to me special permits are going to be required virtually all the time. Well,
previously when we passed uh the ADU bylaw, it was uh we batted this back and forth and we said, "Let's leave it with the ZBA because we generally don't deal with the residential side that often." Um the other thing though is we did have
criteria that was put in our bylaw. Um, is there any criteria associated if you do have a special permit here, do you just stick with the standard criteria that the special permit granting authority has? if if you do go down that pathway of addition allowing
additional ADU units on a site on a property. So I guess I guess I should start by saying that um ADUs are allowed are going to be allowed by right under this in the single family residential zoning districts plus >> there's no criteria like we had. So
there is no criteria plus the um uh I don't want to say the wrong >> but again the general author of general criteria when granting a special permit which is on most construction on any of the lots in town because they're all non-conforming is that the alteration
whatever it is is no more deletterious uh to the community than what is there already. Now that's not a very helpful criteria. >> Yeah. to start evaluating whether it's one I one ADU, two ADUs, what kind of
ADU, etc., etc. And and so it seems to me it is given that a special permits are going to be required that uh some care be added or um that there be care taken in crafting what the criteria by
which an ADU special permit should be evaluated and granted uh rather than just leave it the way it is. Um because somebody can come in and say well notwithstanding what you said I want to do something that's bigger than that and it's no more delletterious than what's
there already. So >> I I think that I I should clarify this is bigger than that. Right. So like I said it's all of the residential all of the residential single family residential districts plus the SB and the general business. Right. Um, so the
the second item on page three of the proposed bylaw, only one ADU is allowed as a matter of right on any lot. >> So any of those any lot within that >> within all of those districts is going to be allowed to have have one by by
right. They're not going to have to do a special permit unless they don't meet some other unless they don't meet some other criteria. They don't need a they don't uh need permission because it's by right that they have an ADU. But given that it's a non-conforming lot in most
cases, any construction on a nonconforming lot requires a special permit. >> So I wouldn't say that most of the lots within your residential within the residential districts here. >> Seven out of 10 lots in the town are non-conforming.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. But that's they're also in other other districts as well, right? I mean, >> no, >> no, they're all just in resial. >> Seven out of 10 residential units are non-conforming. So, you got to assume that, you know, you're going to need and I don't have a problem with a special
permit. I just mean that the special permit granting authority >> um plus the criteria by which they'll be granted >> um come into play here. If you're going to assume that essentially any ADU is going to require a special permit and
>> it's a peculiar situation that we have here in >> because you don't want to give by right the people to be able to do whatever they want with no criteria other than what exists already in terms of evaluating a special permit. >> Okay. Katherine, was that you that
>> I think both both of us. >> Okay. We'll start with you Katherine and then we'll go to uh Charlene. Okay. I was going to Okay. I was going to be gracious and let Charlene go first, but I'll go first. So, I think just for the perhaps for the clarity of our
procedure, could we first make some decisions? We've got >> point one. The state allows, you know, ADU by right on period. But then we need to decide, do we want to allow
additional ADUs um by special permit? I'm just wondering if we could make that decision or get a sense of the board and then make the decision if we do decide that we want to in some cases allow an additional ADU by special permit should
the special permit granting authority be planning board or ZBA. And I'm just wondering if we could just clearly if not a formal decision at least get a sense of the board because those are the decision points that I think we're being asked to make. So that was my
>> Okay. Start start with you Katherine. What's your thought on those three points? >> My those three points. My sense of this is that what the state law is attempting to do is really open
up possibilities for more housing options to be developed in towns and that is something that we want to do. Um, I feel and I I know others may not agree with me, but that our ADU bylaw
was quite restrictive and I think the impetus here is to open it up. So, I would favor allowing in some cases an additional ADU. I think we need to be selective. We um um obviously couldn't
be on all lots, but I think it is something we could allow by special permit. and I would favor that we switch the permit granting authority to the planning board. >> Okay, Charlene, you
>> uh Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I I do need to go back to the alter alteration of pre-existing nonconformity. So, only the zoning board of appeals can grant that relief from zoning. not a use special permit can be the planning board
but the other cannot be the planning board. Um, so this puts us and I agree wholeheartedly with Katherine, I think that we should allow um, you know, additional units by special permit
in that and and normally I would say yes, I I would feel more comfortable if it was the planning board, but whereas we do have so many lots that are pre-existing nonconforming and and I think there are ways to do
this. Um it it may get complicated, but so if there is a pre-existing non-conforming structure and or lot that wants to do an addition for um an additional
um ADU, they got their one by right and it's in their existing structure, so they didn't need to go to to the zoning board of appeals. If they want a second unit and they're nonconforming, then to me it would make sense to have
one-stop shopping. >> Yeah. >> That the use special permit and the alteration of a pre-existing nonconformity be by the zoning board of appeals. In the odd instance where it's not a non-conforming lot and it can meet
or if you have a a home big enough that could accommodate two um say you know apartments that would fall under the ADU uh uh criteria um and it's excuse me and it's not
non-conforming or it's an existing structure that is conforming then perhaps it could be the planning board who does that. But, you know, I think we we don't want to make it so complicated for somebody who may
want to do um a a unit or two units that they first have to go to the zoning board of appeals, then they have to go to the planning board. I I don't want to see that happen. I think that's much too cumbersome. uh it's too cumbersome from the applicant and frankly it's too
cumbersome for those who need to you know the staff who needs to to follow it to make sure everything has happened. >> Um why don't we go to Bob Worer uh next? >> Yeah. Um, well, I I think I I I I
hear that um example, but I also hear all the people who are going to say, "What are you doing to my neighborhood allowing three, you know, people to live in my in a single family house?" We have I I just think we we
need to make sure this passes. Uh I I it sounds it sounds like it's so like hypothetical that it might happen that we're we're trying to accommodate for that. I would prefer that we keep it
at one just because I I think it's important that this pass and I don't want to give ammunition to to a group that just wants to to try to find a way to not even allow this to pass. So, I'm going to say no.
>> And and stick with the ZBA for a review or planning more. >> Stick with one. >> And I think the ZBA should be doing it as well. >> Okay. >> Um any thoughts from you? >> Yes. You haven't heard?
>> I'm with Bob on this. Um um to get one in a in a residential area is hard enough. Y >> and and I I personally if the lot was big enough, I wouldn't have a problem, but uh I did have a small discussion.
It's the it's the not the unit itself that's going to cause some of the problem. I believe it's the parking >> and and the and the noise that goes in and out. And I'm not saying it's going to be noisy, but you have a say you have a 10 lot subdivision,
>> right? This is only speculations, okay? And so, uh, half of them put ADUs on. >> Now you have five more families moving in out there. And say one has a big lot and he puts two ADUs out there. And this so so the so the the traffic even goes
more. And I'm not saying that it's going to be disruptive. >> Yeah. >> But we're we're trying to get one ADU in a in a in a situation. And already we're overloading it >> trying to see if we can get more. And and I don't think that's Let's Let's
stick with one. >> Let's stick the way we have it now and and let's see if it works. >> Okay. >> If it works and somebody has a big lot and and can apply for it and if the neighbors didn't mind, okay, but let's let's try to get one. >> Well, these these are these are a big
point right in here. We get through this and le the rest of it is not as as cumbersome. But, uh, Warren, your input. >> Um, I pretty much agree with everything that's been said here. Well, it's been two different choices here. >> I understand that and I can agree with both. My personal opinion is that we
should keep it at one ADU uh per lot. >> Um for me, um anything more than one one ADU, no matter how many more, goes down a slippery slope of what we're essentially
doing is authorizing by right uh the creation of more short-term rental units. And for me that is not what the law state law is intending to promote nor it either anyway >> nor is it consistent with um well
depends on what you how you define short-term rental unit uh which is again one of the other points to be discussed but at the same time um if uh the an ADU is cannot be owned by the resident it
can only be owned by the uh party that owns the lot. >> So, you're talking rental period only. Uh, it doesn't have any requirements for year- round occupancy and it doesn't have any restrictions on rental other
than it has to be, you know, unless you create a restriction based on short-term rental. Um, my only point is if you start adding additional living space, living units to a given lot, you're creating an opportunity for those who
are not interested in year- round housing being expanded, but rather those who are interested in having an investment property for short-term rental income. And that's not what I think the law intends to promote, nor is it what the town wishes to encourage.
Um, so I'm in favor of leaving it at one, but I agree with Bob. Let's see how it works. >> Um, if in fact my concern about short-term rentals is not an issue, if the definition of short-term rental
apply applicable to an ADU is such that it basically is going to encourage yearround rentals as opposed to quote short-term, then that's a very different animal to me. Um, I do think that it's
important that the in Charlene's comment be recognized that if the ZBA has to be involved in most of these based on just their non-existing non-conforming nature of the properties in town, uh, I think it makes sense to try and keep that
where the authorization is so we don't confuse things um or just make it more expensive or uh drag out the time required if you have to go to two boards. Um my preference would be
however to really ensure and spend some time staff as well as our board to come up with what are the criteria if they're any different that ought to be applied to a special permit for an ADU uh other than what is there now which is pretty
spotty in terms of what are the criteria. There's a right to have it. No question. But what you know what about setbacks? >> You know, that's further down the list of things. I'm in favor of uh the setbacks would be on the frontage as
well as uh on the butters. Yes, indeed. I think they ought to be part of the criteria by which um an ADU or multiple ADUs would be evaluated for a special permit. But I think um I'm not prepared
to say what those criteria ought to be, but it seems to me it's important that they exist and they do not in the drafts that I've seen. So, so in general, I'm saying I I'm in favor of keeping it to one ADU lest we be encouraging
short-term rentals and investment properties as opposed to year- round housing for for um either families or for investment for that matter. uh but um given given that there is no opportunity that there be home ownership
or uh involved, it's only rental, I would I would like to air on the side of not encouraging anything other than year-round rental. Um so, uh but again, I'm in favor of the ZBA being the
special permit granting authority. >> All right. And um just for me, I'll sum up pretty quickly. Um, I like I Bob's uh worrafter's uh suggestion that um let's not make this too complicated because I think that if we go into the special
permit category >> of additional units I'm going to be interested in criteria and what's what is the criteria? What should that be? Should that be every place allows it? What I think that would take time to flush that out. I would like to get the
bylaw pan uh into Maytown meeting. I don't think we should complicate it by going to this extra step. I suggest with uh the other board members that are present here that we stick with the one mass of right. If we're really if that
passes and we're really interested in have allowing a second, what is the basic criteria? Let's work on that as a separate and we can add that to the to the bylaw afterwards. So, um, >> Katherine does have her hand up.
>> Katherine, >> yes, Mr. Chair, um, everyone, I just want to say after hearing these points, I capitulate. Um and I agree that I think it's better to take um the approach that uh that you're all
suggesting that we stick with the one allowed by right and then in that case if any special permit needs to be granted it's going to be granted not for the use right >> but you know for the other for the pre-existing non-conforming and then ZBA
would be the correct um special permit granting authority as Charlene being pointed out. So, um I'm I just wanted to say I'm in agreement that we should just stick with the one. >> Okay, good. Let's >> Yeah, cool.
>> Okay, good. Let's try moving on a little bit. Um we will have time to flush this out a little bit further, just so you know. Um I'm trying to get a first reading on many of these things. Um we'll have time between now and when the actual public hearing happens that we could flush a few of this out if we need
to. after the public hearing, we'll finalize it. So, um, we're not finalizing anything tonight. We're going to move forward with a direction. We'll get another draft. We'll take a look at that and then, you know, the final one
would be at the public hearing. Um, next point. >> So, I would I would just like to clarify. Um, I know you all keep referring to um the criteria. >> Well, we had criteria in in the in the one that we drafted. So the one that you drafted, but you didn't call it
criteria, you called it use and dimensional requirements. And here we're calling it dimensional requirements. And then a little further down we go parking. So it's not like like your um site plan review uh bylaw or anything where you didn't specifically call it criteria and we didn't call it criteria
here either. >> Okay. >> Um but you so you do have criteria, right? You have you have things like your setbacks, your height, your massing, your you know all of those other things. So I I think it's important so everybody understands that there there are criteria >> even if with use as of right you're
saying >> yes okay >> yes because when you go through the dimensional requirements in the proposed bylaw that you have D under the use so we're working on the use um schedule now which is C and then underneath it is D and that's the dimensional and then underneath that is E which is the
parking >> um so basically it you know it has a number of the same things and I took you through a comparison um uh of the of the items within your um
and I have prepared a um a chart that I will give you all for the the public hearing. And basically it says what is the existing ADU bylaw, what is the proposed bylaw, and I've matched up and I've gone across so you can see exactly what the comparison is between the two
um for a number of the different items. >> Okay. So now the next thing that we were trying to consider was um the question came up about under number number three under section C is ADUs um may not be used for short-term
rentals as as such short-term rent rentals as defined in general law chapter 64G section 1 or otherwise rented for a period of shorter than 31 days. So, um what town council had asked here was um
if if you um are allowing this if you want this restriction of 31 days for your short-term rental. He has advised us that the attorney general's office is accepting um an item like this with the 31 days. So,
if you are comfortable with keeping that in, we'll go short-term rentals. No short-term rentals less than 31 days. if you want something more. I mean, we're going to take our chances and maybe the attorney general might not pass it. >> Just Just a minute, Warren. Um, again, I'm going to go back to we wanted this
to be occupied though, and I think our previous criteria was occupied, I think, uh, owner uh, occupied for 10 months out of the year, lease payment and all of that. Remember? >> Yeah. There's enforcement. >> Yeah. So, is that still a criteria that
is part of what is allowed by the state law? Can we can we insist that it be owner occupied or or rental occupied for a lease of uh you know 10 months out of the year? >> That is not the way that this one is written.
>> I know it's not written, but it doesn't say that. There's We have an we have a fairly good section on enforcement. >> You do. You do. And you I don't tell me why that shouldn't be part of this one too. That was going to be my first Yeah. >> comment on all of this is why
>> why have we taken out the the the >> enforcement and the uh other components that were part of ours. >> That that was a big part of why we want we were okay with uh moving forward with
this. We didn't want these to be set up as shortterm rentals is the pro is the issue. And I'm not sure 31 days is >> sufficient. >> Yeah. >> To manage that. >> Municipalities cannot require owner occupancy or family relationship for the
ADU or the principal dwelling unit. >> That is part of the of the of the guidance that we've gotten here. We can't impro we can impose reasonable restrictions related to site plan review. Title five, like I said to you, setbacks, bulk high, and short and short-term rental. So, we can use the
word short-term rental. We cannot say owner occup occupied. >> That's right. But we could you could still establish a lease for a period of time though for >> we >> Yes. So, well, that well that's why we're asking you that question, right?
If you want to put something else in there, you know, I mean, we can propose it. We he can review it. If you you say you feel strongly about such and such a thing, he might say no that that's not going to be approved. >> All right. >> Charlene, did you have something that
you wanted to add here? >> That was Katherine. >> Oh, it was Katherine. Sorry, Katherine. >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Yes. Um, yes. Am I muted? Am I? Yes. Um, I just wanted to what's the word? Back
up. Bob, we were quite strong that we wanted the ADU to be occupied to have a 12-month lease that was required and that the tenant was in place. I think we added that for at
least 10 months out of those 12, but that they had a 12 month lease minimum. So, so if the answer to that question is that we can require that again, this is not requiring owner occupancy, it's
requiring a 12-month lease for the tenant of that ADU, whether they're family or non-family or whatever. So, 31 days is way too short for us. We wanted a 12-month lease for every ADU. We had
some pretty stringent controls. you know, if you did if you if the owner of the property um reneged on that requirement for a 12-month lease, weren't they? They were going to be fined per day. You know, they had to sign an affidavit
and we had some pretty strict. >> So, what I would say to you is that you can propose something different. That's the reason why we're asking the questions today. So, one of the questions is whether or not you're comfortable with the short-term rental um definition and 31 days. So, you're
all pretty much saying that you're not. You want it more closely related to what you had before. >> I can bring that to town council >> have town council flush through it and see if there's any issues with uh proceeding that way. I mean, yeah, for
the I think we talked about this a little bit in in our West Chatam bylaw about >> Oh, we did with um this 31day piece. I think uh we were um we still had some component of that in here and I and that
would be the two months that the person is not there. Can that be sub rented to somebody else for that two-month period of time? Um, I'm just throwing this out there because that was a discussion that we had
>> when we were dealing with a occupied for 10 10 months out of a 12-month lease. So Warren >> and with respect to that without dwelling on it where we came out as a board if memory serves um was the extra
two months was absolutely able to be rented out short term because the whole idea of doing that is you're trying to provide a way for the homeowner to continue to own the house and help pay the real estate taxes and everything else. So, um, but we didn't want to make an
>> owner occupied one. >> Owner occupied. Yes. Obviously, >> but this is a rental. >> I get with respect to the issue right here. I'm very much in favor of retaining the restrictions that we have in the ADU bylaw as it stands, which are quite severe. But I would further say I
would want the definition of short-term rental to be anything less than 180 days. 180 days is of course if you're if you're living here for that time, you're a permanent resident. Yeah. >> And uh it means pretty much you're more
likely to have a year- round lease, but it ought to be not less than 180 days. >> Uh anything less than that is I'm not in favor of because it's doing exactly what we don't want to do, and that is create a larger rental stock of short-term
rentals because that's what's going to appear. Um, but I'd much much prefer keeping what we've already >> Yep. Okay. >> got approved. >> Can you read the occupancy requirement? No. That we're not allowed to restrict occupancy. >> Read that again.
>> So, municipalities cannot require owner occupancy or family relationship for an ADU or a principal dwelling. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That's fine. >> That's fine. >> That's fine. Yeah. >> Okay. So the line that we had, no occupancy of said rental unit is permitted other than by lease for a
minimum of 12 consecutive months and other conditions as stated here. Right. >> Okay. I mean, I I think basically yes, all of the all of the restrictions that we had should we should we should uh at
least try to have them >> try to have them have town council look at them and say if if these are still consistent or not we're not limited to it. I mean that deals with that short-term rental piece. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, as long as the wording of
the short-term rental piece doesn't have a 12-month rental >> that gets subleasased by the week. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> You know, you don't want that to be permitted. >> It also says no subleting in here. >> There you go. And that's all. >> But you didn't include that. >> Well, I just read that one line because
that was important. But they're all in here. I mean that they're all here. >> Okay. We go. We're gonna go back to Charlene again. >> Hi. Um so I I it does say in the document the um model zoning uh document
from the state uh proceed with caution. Consider whether there are situations in which short-term rentals should be handled differently such as for workforce housing and other needs that may address such as with matters pertaining to seasonal communities. I
just want to mention that, you know, we have a lot of um seasonal employees who come here and work. And if someone who is a a a business owner wants to put an
apartment in their um on their property for the purposes of housing a seasonal worker that they may employ, they're not going to be able to do that. But if indeed um we put in a a a
minimum um rental period, if the AG's office um deems that that language is not appropriate, I would guess that what they would do is
just simply on that item number three, end the sentence after um general law chapter uh 64G section 1 period and you know because
there has to be something there but if they if the attorney general says that you know 6 months a year whatever we come up with is much too stringent then that last part of that sentence would
probably be deleted and we'd be back under the 64G section one. >> Well, under the circumstances you did, I would still be more comfortable with 90 days, >> right, >> over 31 days,
>> but I would like to try for 180. And if not, 90 would satisfy >> the the summer period. Mhm. >> I I would be very comfortable with that. Um throwing those two numbers out to town council. Um honestly, the the 90
days I'm very comfortable with. If the board wishes 180 days, I'm fine with that, too. But just keep in mind that if the attorney general's office deems that what we're proposing is is too stringent, you know, once it's approved
by town meeting, then they'll probably just cut that latter part of the sentence off. >> We we may want to think about the 90 days that everybody is I mean that that still deals with your issue, Warren, and
uh it deals with the uh seasonal piece, too. And it's not like people are would be in and out on a weekly basis. So that would be our big big concern. >> The magic of the 180 days is that if you are renting a property here for 180 days, you are qualified as a permanent
resident here. So that um means a lot. You're likely to be a permanent resident year round if that is the case. >> No, no, you rented it for 180 days. You didn't occupy it necessarily for 180 days. So >> it doesn't guarantee. Understood.
Understood. >> Okay. >> Bob has his hand up and Catherine has her hand up. >> Okay. Bob first and then Katherine. >> I I didn't even cross my mind that uh there are a lot of restaurant tours and >> and landscapers
that do have summer help. And so if you are a landlord and you put an edu up and you have a small company and you you bring the J1s in or however some some of them have been coming and going for
years and years and years. >> Yeah. that if you if you do work for the person that owns that that I can see a short-term uh summer rental uh for that person or uh usually it's spring uh
spring cleanup to fall cleanup >> and I can understand not having a 12 month rental for that >> considering that they do work for that person. Y >> and and then I I would assume that maybe the person might might rent it or just
might close it down for the for the rest of the year. >> So I that is a question that I didn't think of. But other than that, as far as renting it to somebody uh that that doesn't work for you, something I'm in favor of a a 12-month
>> uh rental because a lot of people that work here year round, >> so you move out for a month, where do you go? Yeah. Yeah. >> You know, see, that's that's the problem is once you're settled, once you're settled and you get a job and you work and you're making it work and doing these things and then all of a sudden
you got to move out. >> It it doesn't doesn't really work that way. >> Y uh Katherine, you uh >> I think I am in agreement with Bob. Um, maybe I'm not remembering things correctly, so correct me if I'm wrong,
but I, as I recall, in our ADU bylaw, as we drafted it, it was only a 12 year a 12 month lease. It had to be a 12-month lease. There was no subleting and no two-month period where you could sublet it to someone else. That was with the
West Cadam Neighborhood Center. But for the ADU, we had the only thing we allowed was a a 12-month lease. And it was rather strict, um, if a if a property owner lapsed on that, they had to sign an affidavit that they were
going to, you know, issue this 12-month lease and abide by it. And if they let it lapse, they were fined by the day. And it was a it was a fairly significant monetary fine. And if they were going to move into a period of time where they
were not going to hold a 12-month lease for that ADU on their property, the building uh inspector had to come in and take out the kitchen, like actually remove the Wasn't it something that strict that we had in it? >> I I think there was something that
strict. Yeah. I'm not I'm not sure that's what we're suggesting at this point, but yes. >> No, this is exactly what you had. It is um under section four use in dimensional requirements of um your existing or your
former um section 19 either the ADU or the principal dwelling unit shall be leased for a minimum of 12 consecutive months with no subleting to occur. Both units are prohibited from any use as rental on a monthly, weekly, daily, or a
daily basis, including but not limited to seasonal rentals and rental through vacation rental services and websites. Neither of said units shall be used for boarding or rooming house purposes for any other boarding and lodging use, nor
for commercial use. No occupancy of said unit shall be permitted other than by the lee for a minimum of 12 consecutive months and other conditions as stated herein. And you did this in 2022. So you
did this after the um initial uh correct ADU bylaw was set up. >> Yeah, I don't think we need to be that strict. >> Yes. Yeah. Right. >> Yeah, I I agree we don't need to be that strict, but that's what I recall. We didn't actually have that even that
two-month leeway that was in West Chadam. So I would suggest if others agree that we stick with the 12 month lease for the ADU, but we don't need to make it as strict as we had it before, but the 12-month lease should stay
intact. >> All right. I this this is probably going to have to go through some drafts. So, uh, let's, uh, have me work on this a little bit with, uh, Christine, and we're going to get another draft to the board members before. >> Can I make one? >> Yes. >> Are we, I mean, the penalty of ripping
out the refri the, uh, kitchen was pretty strict, but, but putting a penalty in for cases that are found to be short-term rental. Are we allowed to have a in here that says, you know, that uh
there'll be a penalty if we find that it is being used as a short-term rental? I mean, that to me, that's all we need to really do is just say you can't do that. And >> I don't know. I'll have to ask that question and get back to you
>> at the next meeting. >> All right. This this needs to be worked on. We're probably going to have to flush this out again. Uh we'll try to get this uh to you as as soon as we can. >> Okay. >> But I I think that um let's see what we can do between now and when the public
hearing rises and we still have time even after public hearing to do a slight modification on it. But I would like to see if we can finalize this by the 23rd or sooner. All right. So, uh there's some homework to be done. We'll do that and then we'll get back with it and I'm
making my list. All right. I I one more point. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> The um and I it's one of the reasons I wanted to have the uh >> the short-term rental other agreement is um you you mentioned ADUs on small
properties. >> I actually don't think that's going to ever be an issue because you have to have a primary resident to put an ADU on. So you'd have to put two on that small property. So, I I think we're okay. I I'm not going to worry about
ADUs popping up all over. Only regular small houses. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, I just wanted to say that was actually good news. >> All right. So the only other thing that we had that we had questions on um for
this particular round of reviews is the under dimensional requirements under D there was a place um uh the zoning board of appeals may wave setback and coverage requirements by special permit. However, the setback shall not be less than 10
feet unless already allowed in the zoning district. Um, so what we were asking about was whether it was the side setback or a setback from a butters. Um, so that's that down the bottom of that item that's up there. Um, it's the two
questions there. Um, and he said it could be it could be both if you want. So I don't know how you feel about that, but that would be the other thing. And I guess that's not going to be quite as controversial as the things we've talked about so far. I mean, >> I I think this had to do with uh more so
than in the residential area than in the in the business and commercial areas because ADUs were allowed every place. I I believe in our previous uh bylaw and I think we set that setback for uh for
that purpose. That's that's what I recall on that. Uh Bob, you haven't any >> it's to protect the it's to protect the abutters basically, right? It's the It's the abutter piece of it. That was the question. >> So, if we don't put in this, people will
actually be able to go to the ZBA and put a unit closer than 10 ft to the next one. I mean, there there's already >> Okay. So, >> there's there's some districts that have a zero um distance uh setbacks in some
of the commercial districts, business districts. I >> Okay, but that's the that's the commercial. So we're really only talking about in commercial. This is >> I I think so that's what it applies. Yeah. >> No, this again is for the residential, the SB and the and the GB. So this would
really come into into right I guess in the SB and the GB. >> That's a 15oot setback >> nor normally on a residential side, right? But then in some of the commercial side, I think it can go down to 5T because we have to include those other two districts in this. So are are
we giving are we being real strict on on maintaining the existing setbacks or are we giving the ZBA some flexibility on that or are we punting alto together and letting >> well we're not telling them what they
can do or not do. I mean, they'll use their discretion, but I mean, he's just asking whether or not that's something that we want we want to whether or not you feel strongly about it, something that we should consider. I don't know that it'll come up that many times. I mean, obviously, based on the discussion
tonight, I'm going to reach out to to GIS and get the numbers for the number of lots that we're dealing with in all of these situations. No, but I the question I'm asking is >> I I would think somebody wants to do an
ADU, they go before the ZBA. The ZBA says, "Okay, you can't build a 12thstory building because that's not part of our you also can't put it right on your neighbor's uh area." What why do why do
we need to have more uh detail here than already exists? >> Exist already. So you're saying if a GB or SB has a certain setback that say 5T >> blow that and that setback in the
residential side's going to be 15 feet >> or 25T >> or or 25 depending upon why not just leave it at that. >> Yeah, we can we can just leave it as it as it as it is proposed. You don't necessarily have to make a change to it. I just had to ask. >> No, cuz once we start allowing or
putting in, now we're allowing stuff that might not have been allowed before. >> Yeah. I I can't see a rationale being proposed for why you would make them more liberal or more strict than the setback requirements >> that are there >> that are there already for whatever else
you want to put in other than an ADU. >> Okay. No, it's I I I would say I wouldn't want to defend having it more restrictive. >> Okay. So, that >> I want to hear from either Katherine or or Charlene if you uh want to chime in on this.
>> Um it's Charlene. I don't think we need um a at all. >> Okay. >> Uh it's Katherine. >> Yep. Go ahead. So, uh, so we're we're I hear that we're
choosing not to add any restrictions, but correct me if I'm wrong, but all of these we're considering items that are going to go to ZBA for a special permit. Um, we're considering nonconforming lots
where an ADU is going to be constructed by right. So, if we do add some sort of stipulation, would it limit the ZBA's ability to say, "Okay, the setback should be 15 ft, but
we're going to allow it to only be five." In this case, if we put some sort of stipulation or restriction on it, in those cases, then the ZBA could not allow going from 15 to 5. Is that the correct
understanding? >> So if you take out if you take out session section A, they can't ask they can't ask the ZVA to wave >> to wave that requirement. >> So they would have to stick with whatever the zoning district calls for for a setback.
>> But again, that's a decision that the board needs to make. It's not for staff to make or for >> Yeah. So, so how does So, to be honest with you, so I'm not sure if I'm clear on what the board members are saying. We're
saying we don't want to restrict the ZBA's um ability to be lenient on those setbacks. >> No, no. What what I heard Katherine board members here um
>> is that delete this section because this was in certain cases it was going to um set the in in certain districts make it more restrictive like for example in the SB or the GB which allows a closer
setback um of a structure. So if it's allowed right now, why are we setting this minimum restriction even further set back in those districts? Now in the other residential districts, if
it's 15 or 25, then that's what the ADU should be set to also. That's what we're saying is if we remove this, what we're doing is just living with the current setback criteria for any other structure
>> in all districts. >> All districts. Yes. >> And so we're we so we are saying that we are overriding the CBA's ability to grant relief from those setbacks in the
case of ADUs. >> Well, it it I I I'm interpreting it the other way. They already have the um ability to allow a setback up to 10 feet, right?
By special permit. However, the setback shall be not less than 10 ft unless already allowed, >> right? So, so right there is they are the zoning board already has some >> leeway, right, to to
uh wave setback rules, >> right? >> I just don't think we need to get any more than they already have. >> Correct. >> Or any less than they already have. >> So, I I don't see the the value in adding this
>> to this to this zoning bylaw. So you want to omit point A. >> Yeah. Yes. >> So we want to omit point A. And if we omit point A, what is the net result of that? >> And forgive me. I'm just trying to be
clear on >> No, it's it's a it's a good question to ask us >> the action that we're taking. If we take out point A, >> we may want to ask the town council for that uh clarification, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. Go ahead. Uh Charlene,
>> if if it goes to ZBA and they want to make it closer than is allowed under normal zoning, they need a variance. >> Oh, okay. >> ZBA can't wave anything as far as setbacks. They would need a variance. Unless they're already non-conforming
and the existing structure and they're building an addition is going to be, you know, as close, that's a special permit. But if they're going to be closer than an existing structure on a property and encroach in that setback, they're going to need a variance.
>> All right. So if if you leave this in, then it does provide the zoning board, assuming that they're the authority is going to be reviewing this. It says that it may wave a setback then it's allowing this. So this is actually providing more
flexible. Now that I reread it, it >> I'm not in favor of that. It ought to be no more favorable than >> for a property owner who wishes to put a structure on their property that's not an ADU. >> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let me interject for a minute.
>> Y >> if you already have a an existing lot that's non-conforming, >> right? And the existing house is five feet from a from a setback and part of the house is 10 feet from a setback and and the only space that they can build
has to be in line with that and and it not intruding on the neighbor. Say the neighbor's house is another 30t away. In in that case, I could see him stretching stretching the uh the five foot for uh
for for an ADU to add on to it only as much as they needed along that five foot and then come back to >> uh out of that. >> So, >> but that's what the existing that's their existing. That's what I mean. >> But that's what they already can do. So,
>> so so leave it the way it is and it it >> as long as the neighbors are okay with it. Yep. >> Uh I don't see any problem with that. >> Okay. >> So, um Bob Dubis wants to leave point A in. >> No. >> No. You want to take it out?
>> I I I want I want him to have jurisdiction over saying yes. In this instance, we can allow it. >> Well, then you would leave it in then because right now this this provision, this this clause A allows them to wave a set >> in certain areas.
It's you you wouldn't be able to put an ADU in without without the bounds being moved a little bit, right? >> There are certain areas and and the lot might not be big enough, so they're not going to put it there anyway, but they might have a bigger lot from the existing house, but they need a little bit of that area
>> to to be intrusive. >> Now that I reread this, I think it will achieve what you're suggesting. We we have so much difficulty around this this town that uh they're going to have to make the decision and I'm sure that the neighbors if the neighbors are against
it >> Yeah. >> then they're not I don't believe they're going to get it. >> Okay. >> They're going to have to stick with the setback criteria. Right. Yeah. Because they're still allowed to put it in as of right. So got it. Or if we're going to keep it, then it shouldn't say shall not
be less than 10 feet, but it should be not less than the the required amount for each zoning district or something that >> should be no greater than what's there now. >> Well, that no,
it's the other way around. >> You know what I'm saying? I know. I know. Send it to the lawyers. Let them >> should be no less this less than what's there now. >> I'll work on that. >> They can they can So what we're suggesting it says now is they can wave
the setback but no setbacks will be waved. >> That's controversial. >> I'll work I think I got the intent here. I'll work on this with Christine and we'll have another draft. >> So we if we're Yeah. I I just think we need to be clear
if we're if we're going to say we don't want any setbacks wave. I don't think that's practical. >> Yeah. >> I I think there's in this town there are too many pre-existing non-conforming structures where the setbacks, like Bob said, they're already waved and you've
got to build the ADU, you know, in line with the house. So, um, >> but we don't want it. So, so are we going to leave this in as it is? I I would think I still think it if we leave it out, we're not taking any power away.
Y >> or or giving any extra power than they already have. But that's what the that's what the con that's what we need the >> the lawyers to confirm. So that that's another item on my list to check out and
>> we'll get an answer for you. >> We are actually leaving it in. I mean, if we take it out, they actually have a little more power because they could wave the set back and set it at five feet. Whereas here, we're saying they can wave the setback, but it can't be
less than 10 ft unless the zoning disoning district allows less than 10 ft. So, it to some extent to leaving this in, we are um curbing the power to grant a waiver
>> a little bit. Yes. Okay. Well, we we'll get a clarification on it. If there's a suggestion on it, we'll bring forth an alternative language next time. >> Okay. All right. Um other things that we need to >> So, the only other thing I want to tell
you about is um in the appendix um the table in the back of the uh protective bylaw. >> Wait, wait, wait a minute. Sorry, >> Charlene. >> I'm sorry. I just had one question. under E parking. Um item number three,
why the construction of a new garage to serve an ADU shall require a special permit from the zoning board of appeals. I don't understand that. >> Uh that's a good one.
We had a discussion about this before um on the previous. >> Is it a use special permit? Is it a I I don't understand I don't understand it. >> Well, we >> and why it needs to be there. >> What we had discussed last time is that
if someone wanted to build a garage and put an A do above above it, you know, what is it that we did or did not want to do? Of course, back when we set this, it was a special permit, so it didn't it didn't matter. All right. So, if there someone was going to build a garage and
put an AD ADU on the upper floor of it, uh requires a special permit. So, you're saying that if you are going to construct a new garage and put an ADU on top of it, that requires a special permit, but it doesn't But if it is allowed by right, if you build a garage
loft up there, it's by >> that shouldn't be in there. >> Yeah. Yeah. Should be allowed by right. >> I mean, I I can ask the question. Nobody um from community development asked a question about that, but I think, >> you know, I I think that this applies and I will confirm it, but I think this
applies because you're putting in a new garage. It's got not it's not necessarily got anything to do with the ADU component piece of it. I think it's because >> what if the garage doesn't What if a garage is allowed by right and then you happen to put an ADU over it? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't I don't know. That's what
I'm saying. I'd have to ask the question, but I think that this was geared towards towards that. Um, again, nobody from our staff here asked the question on that. >> And also, is it a use special permit? And if it is, what is the criteria for it? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> The other thing that I think we added in in a 2022 bylaw change is we said you could actually build a separate structure on their property and and have it just as an ADU. Correct.
>> So that was an element of what we added when we met in the the uh original bylaw. Um so it it it went in sync with this whole piece associated with an ADU above a garage, a separate structure, or
they could add a structure onto their own building. Now that was our thought process when we were putting our original ADU bylaw together on this. Uh Warren, you had something? >> No, it was all okay. When I read that, I thought they were talking about just
building a standalone garage, period. No ADU associated with it. And it didn't seem unreasonable to me in that draft that I read that if you want to put up a building that happens to be a garage, you might need a special permit to do that. >> Yeah. Well, the other thing is is this
doesn't limit um a homeowner from adding an addition onto their house and making it an ADU, does it? Um Christine, >> no. That was one of the things that I had read you early on. >> Yeah, you're allowed to do that which is what we said that we want to allow and
consider as part of this whole thing. Okay. >> Can can I ask one simple wording question here in terms of a couple places? It says provided it if you look at for instance F the last sentence. >> Okay.
>> And it says provided that no finding may consider. Could we just end the sentence with period and then say no finding may consider the provided that is just com it's I've
seen it in a couple places in the wording here and it's so you'd like to separate the two pieces. >> Well I the other one that it where was the other one? Oh, it it's in the one on under under parking. At least one off- streetet parking space must be provided
for all ADUs. Period. No parking space shall be required if the subject property is located within take out the provided that in no in that case too and just make it two sentences. It's it's
confusing to have it as provided that. I'm okay with that. >> I'm sure that came about as uh the way attorneys and you know they write they write things. So I I will ask that that's okay. >> Okay. So the the use table though
anything on that. >> So for so for the use table um we did uh just put the permitted things across the top and then we changed some of the footnotes. Um, and so it would be that top line of the use table or the first the first item of there where it says
accessory dwelling unit. And then we took out one of the um the footnotes at the end of after the table. Um, in certain cases a special permit is required um for section 19 which is the ADU because you're not going to need that. You're not going to need that foot
footnote anymore. >> Okay. So, we changed the some of the P, you know, some places to P and then we took out and had to reumber. >> And Christine, just a quick comment on that. You took out the footnote number seven, but you didn't actually delete it
from the table. >> Well, no, because No, because number eight becomes number seven instead. >> So, we took out we took out note number seven and then >> eight became seven and then we had to put >> Okay, >> so there's seven. So, there's no more
eights anymore. >> Okay. Okay. Got it. All right. I I think that's all I was looking to accomplish today. Um I got some homework to do. That's okay.
That's what I come here for every every second Monday. Um, any uh other uh things from you uh Christine, I mean Katherine and Charlene? >> I'm good.
>> Okay, >> I'm good. And I just wanted to thank um you Art and Christine and and Jay and Katie and everyone for going through this so thoroughly. Um, I think it really helps us to have your review in
advance and then give the board something to very clear points to think about. And I think that was very helpful and um I just thanks very much for >> So now what the next what the next steps will be will be that um you'll have to
uh authorize me to send the referral to the to the select board so that they can refer it back to you so we can schedule your your public hearing. That can happen with these few things still outstanding. We're obviously going to work on it. We'll get it to you. But I
would like the okay to in concept or you know with what we've got so far to send it and we'll highlight the questions that you have. >> Board members agree with that. >> Yes, I see n >> I see nods from everybody. Katherine and Charlie.
>> Yes. Okay. >> All right. So >> agreed. >> We're recommending to refer this to the select board then. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Wait. Clarification. >> Yes. It takes a vote of the board to refer it to the board of selectmen. >> Okay. Are we doing that?
>> Make the motion. >> Okay. So, uh >> or are we doing it on the 26th that the next meeting? >> No. >> No. Because we want to get it on there >> on their agenda. >> Agenda for the 27th, I believe. >> Okay. In which case then I would
recommend that we refer this to the board of selectmen for the next annual town meeting and to hold the proper um public hearings. >> Second. >> Okay, let's do a roll call vote. Warren, >> um just a question. We're voting on
something that doesn't even exist yet. um >> you know, so I'm not 100% comfortable that we're authorizing something to go to the select board that has yet to be drafted. >> Well, what I would say to you is you have a draft before you. We've been
given our marching orders. You will finalize all of those items at the at the select at the uh public hearings eventually. This is just so we can get it to say that we are going to bring it forward for sure and that we are, you know, I I will also let them know in the memo that goes to them that you are
amending it slightly. The overall concept still exists. >> I'm I'm okay with this except to say, you know, given that we haven't even seen what it actually is going to look like, we're in favor of submitting all of our comments to select board, but I'm not sure that requires a vote if we're
giving them. This is the sense of the planning board as to what we'd like to see. That's all. If it requires a vote, so be it. >> Okay. Well, >> it it requires a vote. >> Okay. This is just a heads up. >> It it requires a vote. Could we say
something like we have a draft with some items pending revision? And could we say something like that? >> Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion. >> Yes. Could we? And I'm asking Art and
Charlene and Christine, could we re make the motion again, but add something about the draft as presented with with items as discussed still open for revision? Something like that. >> Yes, the public hearing allows for
amendment of what we're proposing, right? I mean, that's why you have the public hearing. It's not like it's set in stone in order to move forward with the public hearing piece of it. So, you have to give them something to say that you're bringing something forward so that you can have your public hearing.
Otherwise, you can't have a public hearing. And you need to have a public hearing in order to flush out some of these last minute items that you're still working on. >> Well, we're only two items >> and we're going to flush them out before the public hearing. Yes, >> these are going to be fleshed out by the
next meeting. >> That that would be that would be my intent. Yes. >> Right. So, we could vote to to refer this to the select board. >> I'm just suggesting that we note that there are some pending items.
>> Okay. >> And if that's not correct, we don't need to do that. >> Okay. So, you're making your motion for the referral then, uh, Katherine? Yes. I'll make the motion for the referral of this draft of the um accessory dwelling
unit bylaw with items pending or item um that we refer this to select board. >> Um do I have a second? >> Second. Okay. Warren, >> do I have to vote or can I make a
comment? >> Um can you just This is for a vote. I mean, it's open for discussion if you'd like. Yes. >> I'm not in favor of not sending our suggestions to the select board. >> I'm not saying we're not going to do that, but >> but the motion was that we send the
draft forward. >> All right. You're not in favor. Let's keep going. >> So, I'm not in favor. >> Okay. Fine. Approve. >> Approve. Um, Katherine, >> hold on. Yes, I approve. and Charlene >> approve
>> and Artsboro I approve. Okay. >> Okay. So, if there is any other business, do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. >> Second. >> All right. The roll call vote. Warren, >> approve. >> Approve.
>> Approve. >> Charlene, >> approve. >> And Katherine, >> yes, I approve. >> And uh Arts Spru, I approve. And the time is 7 7 p.m.