It is 6:30 on Wednesday, April 8th, and I'm calling this joint meeting of the Chelmsford Planning Board and Finance Committee to order. My name is Chris Lavali and I'm the chair of the planning board. Tonight, Anita Tanini will be the um
chair of the uh FINCOM uh acting chair in Jim's absence. Uh tonight, we'll be following the posted agenda. The meeting tonight is in person and on Zoom. Uh Zoom fails at any point in the meeting, we will continue in person. The meeting
is being televised live and recorded via Chster Tele media and will be available on their website and YouTube. Um so tonight we have the joint meeting to talk through uh the changes from the uh
proposed lighting bylaw uh that came out of the finance committee. Um the planning board did vote on the original version of the lighting bylaw. Um Kelly Bey and I uh presented that version to the finance committee a couple weeks
ago. Uh there were a lot of good discussions and questions that came out of it and so uh based on some of the feedback that we got we did revise it a bit. Um so we wanted to bring it back to both boards tonight uh to uh review it
and uh planning board revote on it and then the finance committee um would vote on it as well. So what I can do is um we're not going to go through the entire presentation. Um, I I'll ask Evan to bring up the word document.
So, I figured we can go through the changes to the bylaw. Um and then answer any questions from uh the two boards and then we can uh the planning board would vote on the uh revote on um number
article 27 and then 28 and then the finance committee can vote on 27 and 28 as well. So 27 is the lighting new lighting bylaw and then 28 is the zoning change for uh
deleting and referring >> taking it out of our >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um so the first change that we have is uh in section
38. Um so this is related to the height. Uh there was some questions um at the finance committee about uh the height of the multif family uh dwelling. Um it was
a little unclear as to what the luminire's height was covering. Uh there are potentially porch lights on uh the upper stories of multifamilies that might be out of out of scope um with
this. So what we did is we clarified it so that it only applies to uh the height for freestanding um luminers. anything that is uh or sorry
freestanding luminires and anything lighting the ground outside. Uh anything that is more of a porch light uh anything that is uh on the building itself that's lighting the building is not impacted by this.
So that was the first change we did. >> So I have a question to ask it here. >> Uh let's wait till the end. We can go back. The next one is uh section 41, sorry, 431.
Um 432 and 433. Uh so the because these are uh residential properties that are suggestions and not re and not requirements. Uh the suggestion was that we remove the word shall um from these
sections and um for the last one is recommended to be replaced in section 52. Um there was some language in here that
was a little bit um unclear and uh could be construed in different ways very subjective. Uh so what we did is we adjusted this to refer to the standards listed in the prior section
under section 1087 prohibitions. We added public works in there. So, anything that is required for these areas for public safety and public works
personnel in temporary situations is not part of this. And then I believe that is it. There were two um other questions uh that came up. Um, one is a suggestion
that we add references to the studies that that Kelly mentions. We add those to the uh FAQs and we'll be doing that uh this weekend and getting it uh printed out with the FAQs for town meeting. And then for the historical
lighting, there was a question about that, whether that is in scope. And after some discussion with uh Kelly and he can uh add to anything that he wants uh if I misstate something, but there are a lot of historical lighting that
might not be um in compliance and there's a lot of uh stuff available now that resembles historical lighting that is that might not be in compliance. So, we didn't want to exempt historical lighting um from this bylaw because there's a lot of things out there that
might not be in compliance and we didn't want to especially muddy the waters with some of the new stuff that's out there that resembles historical lighting. So, I know that there's a house in North Bel.
It's a fairly newly landscaped house that has a lot of um stone work in the front and it has historical lighting around the perimeter and it's new LED lighting and it's extremely bright. Um quite offensive actually.
>> So So you're saying it's nonexempt? >> It's not exempt. >> So it's included. >> It is included. >> Okay. Um, most historical lighting is, if it's truly historical, it will not take the new LED lighting anyway and it would likely not fall under this.
>> So, it wouldn't be out of compliance. >> Correct. >> If it's truly like historical, >> if it's truly historical, it's probably dimmer, probably meets the the requirements of the brightness. If it's more of the new historical look,
it likely wouldn't and we wouldn't necessarily want it exempt. >> So, those are the changes. Um, Kelly, did you have anything to add that I missed? >> Actually, yes. >> Okay.
>> KellyBD 117 Park Road. Um, co-author of this. Uh in the previous few months, I've had many one of the big concerns that came out of where we were this time last year was what's the
impact on the town for this and in particular the u building enforcement officer having to go out and make measurements and and ascertain that things are or aren't in compliance. I've had several conversations and a field
walk with uh the building uh commissioner and uh I think it's fair to say that he's embracing what we're trying to do here and uh is looking forward to um be more aware of of
non-conforming situations. I gave him one of these which is the meter that you use to measure in particular nuisance lighting and light trespass. It's one button. It takes 15 seconds. Um whether he or one of his other uh members does
it, um that would be a very quick activity at night. It's also possible during the daytime to get an estimation, just a visual estimation on a property that um uh something is likely to be out of compliance. If you know which way it's pointed and if you know have a
sense of how many lumens it's putting out, it's it's probably out of compliance if it's close to a property line. But that then but that would trigger the next step which is actually measuring it. So that that was all. >> Okay. >> So at this point we'll entertain any questions from the finance committee or
planning board. >> I have some. >> Sure. >> I just want to understand more about on the height requirement on there. So what you're saying is that just that one subsection required to height but not actually like the nuisances or the trespass is only
limited to the poles and things like that. >> Yeah, it's limited to the freestanding ones and if it's mounted um shining on parking lots, driveways, walkways at that height. In other words, if you're trying to if you're trying to cover a
parking lot from a height of like 35 ft, um, no lighting engineer would do that. Uh, because it's there's this thing called the inverse square law. When you when you double the distance from the light, the the intensity of the light goes down
by a factor of four. The best example I can give you are those uh I will call them monstrosities along the median at the intersections of Route 3 and 495. Those really tall towers. Um Mass put those in because it's easy for them to m
to maintain them, not because they're energy efficient or anything like that. Um they're they're actually quite wasteful in terms of the amount of energy they use. So >> Okay. And then on 4.3, it just seems like a word is still
missing when it says the correlated color temperature of the light emitted by an outdoor luminere not exceed 2700 Kelvin. Like it seems like something's missing. >> That's a verb missing. >> Oh, thank you. Are you looking for shall or >> Well, they remove shall, but I don't
know. Maybe will may you know >> or >> okay I will fix that. >> And then just on the end of that one um then one with a CCT no greater than 4,000 Kelvin is recommended. So what
happens if the other one is unavailable? What else would they use? Are they allowed to use whatever they want? >> So this is on the residential side. >> Yep. >> So they basically are allowed to use whatever they want. I've made several trips down to major big box
u retailers of outdoor stuff and it's more common now to get outdoor security lights at 3,000 Kelvin or below. Uh many of them maybe even still most of them at least what's on the shelves are at 4,000K.
So because these are recommendations, I I I part of it is I would hope that that people would make the right choice and do something that is uh in the best interest of of the environment and their you know they're lighting their property. But on the other hand, it's
it's the marketplace has not yet fully caught up with what we're asking for in this bylaw. I I just feel like that has ambiguity on that end statement and I don't >> it is supposed to >> but why
>> because it's >> because the residential it's their recommendations they're not we've decided that it's we're not requiring any of this their recommendations >> maybe >> that was the approach we ended up taking
as a compromise for this >> I just don't love the fact that it says is recommended because it it does. It means I can use anything. But right in the sentence above it, it's telling me not exceeding 2,700. >> Well, actually, you're not going to like my next wording change then because
>> what I'm actually going to what I'm actually going to recommend is that that first sentence say uh that the correlated color temperature of the light emmitted by an outdoor luminere is recommended to not exceed 2700 Kelvin. >> Is recommended to not exceed. Yeah.
Which I think that's okay. It's the I think having a limit is appropriate. Shall not exceed it gives you a limit. It on the next part it says then one with a CCT no greater than 4,000K is recommended. >> There's a parallelism in there that
needs then one with a CCT. >> I mean it should it should say something of like no greater than 4,000K. I mean and that should be the end of It should be is recommended. I mean, I feel like it should have a limit of some sort so people have
something to go by and they can get anything else within that range. >> But we can't put a limit because then it becomes a requirement. >> Yeah. >> I don't think you'll have the I don't think you'll have the support. >> It's the shall that was probably >> what you're saying on the first part
again. Uh the correlated color temperature of the light emitted by an outdoor luminere is recommended to not exceed 2700 Kelvin. >> Yeah. I >> So in other words, ideally you want to
2700 or lower. Um but then nothing greater than 4,000 is recommended. >> Okay. is your is your I'm trying to still understand is you're concerned that these are not actual requirements but just recommendations. >> There's no limit.
>> It's true. >> And >> so like why even have it in here? >> Well, because it's having a recommendation at least telegraphs to residential owners what would the what would be best um as opposed to not having any in there
anything at all. Now the last version of this that we were here this time last year they were actual requirements for conformity and of all the things that were in this that's what I was getting we were getting the greatest push back on. >> I understand I love that version just to
let you know. >> So when we come up when we come to the version 2.0 uh taking Mike Raybeck's suggestion that we revisit this every every five years or so you know the version 2.0 know of this might change those to requirements once people get
used to the notion of having you know actual numbers to guide their choices for lighting. We'll see how that goes. But I didn't want to let perfect be the enemy of good and so that's why we're
taking this tactic. Now, I will say there is still some protection for adjacent homeowners from somebody who has too bright a light and that's the nuisance part. So, if somebody is really doing something egregious, uh there's
there is a um a pathway to get that uh corrected. >> So, that comes to my next question because 5.2 two with glares declared to be a lighting nuisance when it constitutes a hazard to public safety along a public way and then causes intense discomfort to occupants adjacent
to properties got removed. So which part of this protects adjacent properties? Uh actually 5.1.1 because if you read it's it's an adjacent talks about uh how how much the light is shining onto an adjacent residential property
>> and that though glare though isn't considered different. >> Well, so the the nuance here is that uh the building uh commissioner might decide that somebody's light uh is shining out into the street when you're trying to round a corner. Mhm.
>> And so there is a case where glare is a question to public safety. I know of just such a light, okay, on the first block of Actton Road. And and so that's where the the the definition of glare.
Um you weren't here when we had this discussion with with the finance committee, but the definition of glare is very spongy. uh and even lighting professionals um can't really come up with a way to
define it specifically. So, we're we're leaving the glare part in there because the the the whoever is doing the enforcement, uh it's, you know, it's you'll know it when you see it when it's too bad that you're so bad that you're
you're hampering safety, right? Uh but then for the residential the 5.1.1 is the is the sort of actual standard that it might not be it might not be endangering public safety but it might
be keeping you awake at night. And so that's when we want to be able to to take a measurement that will demonstrate that it's really excessive. >> So that's for vertical illumination on 5.1. >> And vertical illumination means like if you're the light I'm measuring you this
way not this way. And a lot of standards that you'll see, I have to say, use what's called horizontal luminance, which is like measured horizontally. Mass dot does that, for example. And it's just not a good way to do it because when you're far enough away, basically all of the illuminance is
vertical and very little of it is horizontal. >> So during the vertical illuminance, what is like the height usually that they look at for light infringement? >> Five feet, which is kind of like the height of a first floor window, more or less. If I have a second floor window
and I have light coming into it, which could be considered glare, that would not be included in this. >> Uh, I could Well, you could certainly we could certainly take a I'll lend I'll loan you the uh the meter.
>> I'd love for you to come to my yard with it. >> I I will I will absolutely you know how to reach me. I'll happily do that. Um and and in fact uh one of the properties that I was uh coordinating with uh uh
Jose Negron about was in fact light from an adjacent property that was shining very brightly on a second floor window. >> Yeah. And so um that's it would certainly be my interpretation would be we measure the vertical illuminance
where the uh incursion is occurring. >> Okay. I just like I said I just have I I I want what we're not doing. So I appreciate it either way. But >> next time. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions? >> I think that's it for me.
>> I just have one on board 3.3 just for simplicity. Is there a way of combining the two sentences? Right. So, if I'm reading it right, you can say the correlated color temperature may be emitted by an outdoor shall not exceed 20 or is not recommended to exceed 2700.
>> Yeah, I can actually see a way to do that. Um and what we would do is say uh and now the light emitted shall not uh not not exceed 2700K or
or 4,000K if if not available >> in either case say hey 2700 is the recommendation >> and there's just leave it at that >> um >> or not great no >> yes
>> not greater than 4,000. >> But if both are recommendations, wouldn't it be interesting to >> what we're it's what we're trying is to create a nuance where you say if you're really doing it right, you want less than 2700K because that's what all the science says you should have. If you go
down to Home Depot and you want to put in a security light and they don't have any of those, but they have some 3,000 and 4,000, it's okay to get one of those. >> In fact, >> you don't want to do 5,000. Yeah, >> but nothing's stopping them because either one's recommended. So why
wouldn't you just recommend that? I like what he said with the 2700 >> because you're recommending it. Why are you recommending 2700 and 4,000? There still it's just a recommendation. >> I guess I would fall back to the the fact that there are not a lot of 2700.
>> You have to you would have to not recommend the fourth. I would go if you were >> what is what is this type that's there that is like common? Is it 4,000 that's common? >> 4,000 and 3,000 is what I found on a couple of inspections. >> Gotcha. >> I suspect that you can get 2700. Uh and
those must exist. They're just not on the floor. And so when somebody goes down there and they they want to buy a $40 security light, they're most likely going to get 4,000. or if they're really paying attention, they can get 3,000 just off the shelf. >> So that's why you picked 4,000 because
it was a more common number. >> What's more available because otherwise >> and and again in my my suspicion is that you know the the the the the customer is asking
broadly for lower and lower color temperature lighting even at night. Um the there 10 years ago when you went to buy a a light fixture of any kind, indoor or outdoor, your choices were
4,000 or 5700, right? And so the the marketplace has spoken and they want warmer color temperatures in all settings. And I this is important to mention when you lower the color temperature, you don't lower the amount of light.
>> It's the same amount of light. It's just a different color. And so, uh, that that that's an important distinction that that often trips people up. >> Okay. >> I I will happily work with you on the next version of this where we where we
have residential standards. You know, really, I I want we're we're we're doing good work here with this and I I it's a first step, >> right? And I I apprec I appreciate all of the stuff that you're doing with this. I think it's important to have more details in this. So, I think it's
helpful. So what if we did the correlated temperature correlated color temperature of the light emitted by an outdoor luminire is not is recommended to not exceed 2700 Kelvin or a maximum of 4,000 Kelvin if not available.
>> I was going to say if this is like a living document that we're going to look at and change. N >> no it's not. We're trying to nail it down tonight so that I can get >> No, I'm saying like like this, but like as um Kelly said, like, you know, this is something we might upgrade in a couple years, right? If you can't find 27,000 Kelvin anywhere,
>> why are we starting with that number? Start high, move low. You know what I mean? Because if this is not a number you can get at most Home Depot, Lowe's, and things like that, we're telling people to go out and look for that. They can't find it. >> I'm just trying to be pragmatic. No, I know you're trying to be pragmatic, but it's like, let's find something we can
start with, and then as it starts to come into this, it's something we can change. >> When we come back in 5 years and do this again, it may be that the standard is 2200K, which is being rolled out quite a bit, and 4,000K will be hardly available. >> Exactly. Right. >> I think I think the intent of this, and
correct me, is that if people see 2,700, then they'll go to this to the Home Depot and ask for 2,700. So then there'll be like a pull through the market to start supplying the 2700. I think that would that's the intent of having that so people are aware that's
the ideal but it's okay if they don't have it >> and it's and it's not just you know it's not just the security lights although that's where some of the biggest concerns are. Uh it's the it's the light that you pick for your porch you know or
for the the the u uh the mass. I'm trying to think what they the coach light that's at the end of your driveway, that kind of thing. Uh those are very commonly available at, you know, at lower lumen outputs. 2700K is all over the place and actually probably
the most common. >> Any other questions? >> All right. Um so in that case we will um I will entertain a motion from the planning board um to
uh recommend article 27. >> I will recommend I will move that we recommend article 27 as tweaked. >> Thank you. >> I'll second
>> motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor? I vote on this. >> Yeah, not here. >> Yes, dear is not here. Thank you. >> And I will entertain a second motion to approve article 28
or recommend article 28. >> Move that we recommend article 28. >> I'll second. >> Second by Mike. Uh >> sorry. Motion by Mike. Second by Anita. All in favor? >> I. >> Unanimous. >> Thank you very much.
Now the >> com. >> Yep. I'll take a motion >> for article 28. >> I'll make a motion to Oh, article 28. Now 27. >> Oh, sorry. 27. Thank you. >> I'll make a motion to uh recommend uh and approve article 27 as written and
discuss amended. Do >> I've got a motion by Cindy, a second by Steve. Any discussion? >> All right. Um, all in favor? >> I >> I So we've got four
and any negative, any naysay? >> Nay. >> And one nay. We have Jim out and Elaine out. So it's four to one. >> Okay. >> Do I have a recommendation for article 28? >> I make a motion to recommend article 28 as written. >> Second. >> Recommended by Cindy, second by Steve.
All in favor? >> Five to zero. Again, no Jim and no Elaine. Okay, >> thank you very much everyone. I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second
>> by uh motion by Anita, second by Marcy. All in favor? >> I >> unanimous. >> Unanimous. Thank you everyone. >> All done. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, we did this. >> We don't know. Yeah,
>> we don't need a motion. >> No, it was a we just did. It was a joint meeting. >> Yeah, it's a joint. >> Still a few minutes away. So, we will take a twominut recess.
This is the other lights that I'm dealing with in my front of my yard. >> Oh, nice. Flip you around. Your lights in the >> You guys see the runway? >> All right, we'll get started. We need Evans. >> All right. With it being now 7:01, I
call this meeting of the Chsford Planning Board to order on it is Wednesday se uh April 8th at 7 p.m. Um my name is Chris Lavali and I'm the chair of the planning board. Tonight we'll be following the posted agenda.
The meeting tonight is both in person and Zoom. If Zoom fails at any point in the meeting, we'll continue in person. This meeting is being televised live and recorded by Tele Cheldia and will be available on their website and on YouTube. So, first item of order tonight
is the reorganization of the board and liazison appointments. So, at this point, um we will first do the chair. I will entertain a nomination. >> I'll make a motion. I was going to say
I'll make a motion to nominate Chris Lavali as chair. >> I'll second that. >> We got the nomination from John, second by Mike. All in favor? >> I >> Thank you.
Um I will entertain the nomination for vice chair. I'll make a nomination for Joel for vice chair. >> I'll second >> nomination by Anita, second by Dedra. Are you willing to accept? >> Yes, I'm willing to accept.
>> Done. >> All in favor? >> I >> I unanimous. And now I will entertain a nomination for clerk. I move that we nominate Marcy for clerk. >> I was thinking about that. I was looking.
>> I second. >> Nomination by Joel, second by Deerra. Are you willing to accept? >> I'm willing to accept. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> unanimous. All right. >> We have the the board um officers and
now we'll do the leazison on appointments. >> Yeah. So, what are our choices here? >> So, we're doing um I have a couple listed here. Nimcog. >> Okay. >> And that has been John, right? >> Yes.
>> Yeah. >> And John, do you want would you be your preference to continue or would you be your preference to um take a turn on something else? >> Yeah, I'm willing to do it for another year. >> Okay. >> Yeah. If if people are satisfied with that, I'm going
>> cool. Sounds good. Um, >> next one. ZBA. >> Oh, I have that. I'd like to stay on that. >> You want to stay on? Okay. >> Concom. >> I will stay on that. >> We're such a stable board.
>> Oh, they're knowing for a few people. >> Community preservation. >> I'd like to stay that. >> Okay. >> I like giving away money. >> Can I just ask who wants to change? Would that be faster? >> Might be. Master plan of implementation. That's
Mike. >> Uh, sure. >> Manage growth strategy. The two the two co-chairs. >> They're staying on it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, >> unless >> if someone is would like to It's nothing
against Mike. Um, I I may have increased responsibilities in some capacity in the coming six months. >> Right. >> You want to revisit that if need be? >> I'm sorry. You want to leave it as is and revisit it if need be? >> We could >> if you're okay.
>> The last one I had listed was the LI naturebased solution which Mike and Dedra are on. That's a short term that'll be done in mid June. >> I like that. >> Okay. >> Those are the only ones we have. >> The ones I could think of.
>> Board of Board of Health. >> Yeah. Board of Health Center, City Village, and then Venezuela. Do we have anything for historical? >> And I think maybe we should have someone on the conservation and not the
conservation the the green one. Badre's one >> like the sustainability energy. >> Thank you. >> You want that? >> Are you volunteering for that one? >> I guess I'll do that. >> Board of Health is Joel. >> You want to stay on that one? >> Yes, I do. Thank you.
>> Senator Village, >> I'll stay on that. and north. >> Mike, you're not a plant flower. >> What about historic? We haven't had anyone in historic or we have >> I had someone on his >> I go from time to time. So, >> no, I was a couple years ago. >> Yeah, Mike has been going.
>> I thought Mike was historic. >> Yeah, I'll be glad to do it. Okay. >> Okay. >> Are there any others that people can think of? >> Bicycle and pedestrian. >> You keep naming them. You're going to
>> Do they meet regular? >> Does that group still meet regularly? Y >> Yeah, they do because we villages got to reach out to them. >> Does anyone want to do that one? >> Which one? >> Uh bicycle and pedestrian.
>> Isn't that where we put the newbies? >> Question. Is that where we put what? >> The newbies. Well, technically you and John are the newbies. >> We're the oldies. We're the oldies. >> Well, if anyone does want that
eventually. >> Yeah, >> we can we can >> It's not It's not a a It's not a deep commitment really. It's not a not a real time user. >> I don't think so.
>> All right. Um, public input. Public input shall be limited to statements from the public relating to any issues within our jurisdiction that are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing before the board. Uh, public comment on any public hearings should will only be uh heard during
those public hearings. Does anyone from the public wish to speak? Anyone on Zoom? >> Okay, we'll move on. Administrative review NNR number 699 Pinehill Road lot subdivision into three lots.
>> Hello. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, Brian Mlysi with Haley Ward representing George Janice, property owner at piece of property on Pineh Hill Road. We have before you an ANR an approval not required plan carving the existing lot into three lots
located in the RB zoning district. Uh 40,000 foot minimum, 150 150 ft of frontage, 150 foot a lot width. Um really straightforward. It's along Pine Hill Road in approved way. Um,
I know it was very quick, but best I just answer any questions. >> Okay, members of the board have any questions? >> Looks like a slam dunk. >> You have my question. You can ask it. The lot two, it looks like the frontage
is less than 150 ft. >> Nope. >> If I may. >> Yes, please. >> Small course. And I did the same thing. I didn't draw the plan, but when I review it, there's a small cross up there. >> 3 ft 147 ft equals a little 150 with a minute. >> Oh, okay. So, so that little thing
there. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Good question. >> That's easy to miss. It is. >> That's it. >> Okay. Any other questions? All right. I will entertain a motion.
>> Well, I will move that we uh grant approval >> with of course no determination as to zoning. >> Okay. Um >> second >> motion by Mike, second by Deardra. All in favor? >> I I
>> unanimous. You Thank you. All right, we have no new public hearings. Public hearing continued is the citizens petition to overturn article 29 as adopted at the
fall 2025 town meeting uh by reverting to the original definition of family. Um I reached out to Mr. Latutina yet again. Um after the last meeting heard
back nothing again. Um so this was the last meeting that we can have this hearing before town meeting. Uh so at this point we can um discuss what little we know about this and then
take a vote. >> Well, I'll give you a couple of opinions. >> Sure. >> Is u it seems to me kind of pointless. I mean the state has taken the position that the state has taken and uh I think
we're better off matching their language rather than passing something that will be effect of really of no effect. >> I mean there's been no argument presented as to why we should do anything any different. So, in the
absence of an argument, why would we overturn? Why would we recommend overturning our >> I'm going to say it's very hard to vote on overturning this if we don't fully understand why it's being brought to us, what this argument is to it. Good point to fight what legal has already said this is what we should do in order to,
you know, keep us out of any litigation. So, it's a tough, >> you know, without him here saying this is why I put this forward, it's very tough to say, yeah, we should overturn this. So, I think we should um take a vote on whether to
approve or deny the our >> our approval or our recommendation endorsement of the um citizens petition. And I think we should have a clause in our motion about our reasoning that
we're we're of the opinion that this the way the the way the definition is currently um approved by us and by town meeting is as it was recommended by the attorney general and in accord with mass state
law and that we are recommending that we maintain the definition as in accord with state Uh >> that's a good point. It's a good point. >> Yeah. Um I will I'm sure be asked at town meeting what our vote was, so I can
certainly add that to it. >> Yep. >> All right. Any other comments? Okay. I will entertain a motion. Well, I would move uh that we do not grant
approval or recommendation, I think, is the correct word. >> No second. >> So, your re your motion is to not recommend. >> Well, I can do it the other way. Okay. >> So, yeah. I'm going to say the citizens.
Okay. I I move that we uh recommend uh article 29. >> I'll second that. >> Motion by Mike, second by Anita. All in favor of recommending the article. Um >> I think that's too confusing.
>> Yeah, because it's deny overturning it. >> Yeah, I thought we were voting on whether or not we are going to overturn 20 based on the citizens petition and overturn anything. >> So the article >> present it to town or town. >> So the article is to overturn.
>> Okay. Our vote is to recommend this article or to not recommend it. >> We let's not recommend it. >> Easier when talking about this a town meeting to have the vote in the affirmative
>> and then if the votes unanimously >> against it. >> Yeah. So it would be what I would say is the vote >> vote the board voted unanimously against recommending article 26. So it would be article >> a motion to recommend it
>> which was made >> and then if you want to recommend it you vote a yes vote. If you don't want to recommend it you vote a no vote. >> But the article 29 was the article from the fall town meeting. >> No. >> Are you sure?
>> Oh sorry. Article 26. You're right. >> So it's article 2. >> The citizens petition is article 26. >> Okay case. Amend what I said to say article 26. >> Second that amendment change. I'm still
>> so motion to uh recommend article 26 by Mike second by Anita. All in favor of recommending article 26. >> Silence. >> All opposed. >> No. >> No. So >> unanimous.
>> Unanimous against recommendation. >> I hate those double negatives. >> I know. All right. Community development director's report. >> Okay. Good evening. Uh, four quick items. Uh, first one is on March 27th,
working with NIMCOG, we submitted the uh, state grant application uh, for further advancing the managed growth strategy. We'll likely hear back on that uh, sometime over the uh, summer.
Um, >> how much was that for? Again, >> the max we could ask for for state money was 50. Uh, but the total um phase one project was 96,000. Okay. So, the the
difference uh was uh NIMCOG is providing some money and then there's a local match and then some in kind services. Second item is the uh LI naturebased solutions task force meets on April 16th and as I mentioned that that project
will be completed by the end of June. Uh pre-Town meeting is April 22nd and we've already cancelled our planning board meeting. Yep. Uh and then uh just a quick update on the um ADU appeal. Um
this was the appeal of the um zoning board uh denial. Uh a pre-trial conference has been scheduled for May 14th. Uh so we received that update uh today from councel. Just uh just trying to keep the board uh
as up to date as I as I can on that one. Uh there's nothing there's no action for the board uh at this time. That's all I have. >> Can you recap what that's about? I was going to ask the same question. I was at El Dorado, I believe, um where uh the
applicant asked for a a waiver to allow a dedicated driveway for a detached >> ADU. >> The zoning board uh did not grant that. >> So, they they've appealed. >> Interesting.
>> And is there >> So there's have there been any other case similar cases? >> No. >> So we'll be the president setting one for the state. Oh, I don't know about uh statewide. Um I don't know to what extent >> it's going to state land court or >> it goes to um I don't know what court I
think it was superior court >> if I remember correctly. >> Yeah. So um you know we'll we'll obviously work with council >> of course >> and council will uh you know work with whatever town officials >> sure
>> they think are appropriate. Okay. Okay. That's all I have. Was there anything on the um appeal to our approval of the water district? >> Um that one uh there's no update that
I'm aware of. Um as you know, as you recall, the board approved it. >> Uh so the town normally takes up what's referred to as a passive defense. Um and it's it's now uh the district that's um responsible for advancing
um uh defense of you know of the appeal. >> I haven't heard anything. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Leon updates. Uh, so Senate Village met last Thursday.
Um, Christine Clancy came in to talk about some of the plans. Um, and Kelly from Nangco was there. Um, we sort of have started breaking Chumsford Street down a little bit more. One of the first things they want to focus on is connecting the rail trail better because
it is a mess at Fletcher Street, especially trying to cross because the rail trail ends and then you have a sidewalk and then you got to try to cross Fletcher and that pole and to there. So, we're looking at can we extend it to go in front of the baseball fields and then cross by um the
insurance company making that an easier uh crossing there >> and make a lot of sense. And then what could be done with the pocket park there. Um I know Christine says there's a whole bunch of people and utilities and this and that. So that's going to have to be looked at. Um there was also
mention because of all the light poles looking into how that can get restructured, redone. How is this going to be paid for? So if it doesn't have a bike lane, it doesn't qualify for tips, but can some parts be covered by tips? Can other parts not be? And she also said that uh we would have to reach out
to legal for a couple questions with some of the um the ways that we were going to restructure with the sidewalks and the um businesses. Um we're also she's putting out there trying to get the plans from Mass Dot for the potential rotaries that are going to go
at 495. Those get crazy every time I go to a meeting because um what we've heard is that they plan on putting a bike lane through that which makes a little crazy because you're putting it on the on and off ramps of 495. Um and then coming out
because one question was well can't we connect the bike lanes up I think is it Emerson Street by where Duncan is? I always get the name of the street wrong. Uh connected to the rail trail there. Um, but the safer route would to send would be to send bikers up Golden Cove and connect the rail trail and miss 495
completely. Um, but Masdot has their regulations for some of those things. So, there's still a lot of questions and way too many moving parts. This is not something that's going to be started anytime relatively soon, but so they're currently right now liking plan C, but
is this something that can be done? And how do we get it done if we can? So basically plan C is taking it in bites. >> Taking it in in bites. Trying to make sure that we're not taking all of the parking away from the businesses in the front of the buildings, which was what
both plans A and B were. Um because when you do that, as it's been brought up by the businesses too, well, we have to have snow storage. That's still in the back. And if we have no parking in front, we have to park all of our snow in the back. Especially like a winter we just had. Where do our customers park? Mhm.
>> Um how do our delivery trucks get there to deliver things like Flip Forest and Subway and some of the other businesses that do have regular deliveries? Um so those were things that we're still >> ironing out. >> Yes. >> Do they tell you you guys televise your meetings?
>> Um they are recorded. Um but they're not >> Yeah, they do record them on Zoom, but they have not been televised. >> Oh, interesting. >> But you can join everything via Zoom. I wonder if they could get put um up >> if they're if they're recorded if they
could get put up on Chelms or Tele Media for later. >> Is that something that could happen, Evan? >> Um I can look into it. I don't think any of the um committees that do Zoom recordings are currently uh posting those videos, those files on
telev. I don't know if I don't even know if it's possible or not, but I >> Right. I mean, it just seems like it's something that would be that has an interest to many in town. >> Yeah. The the as you may be aware, the committee has had um um community
>> uh presentation input sessions. >> Yeah. >> So, the the committee discussions while they're interesting, they're really um very detailed. Um, and then if and when the committee has something to present or
ask for feedback, that's when they usually formally reach out to the community. >> And I know unfortunately for this meeting to the business owners who came to last month's meeting were unable to make it, but um have already reached out saying what what went down like they want to stay especially up to date on
what's happening because it is impacting um their businesses. more reason and before we had the last public hearing at the library um I did do like I walked to every business and just told them about it and they had lots of questions. I'm like, I don't have all the answers. But so when they came, they they did have
lots of questions um and lots of things that I don't think um Nemcog really thought about was like, well, this is how our trucks have to get in to deliver, so wait, we can't block this side off for you guys. We have to look at some of these things. Um so >> yeah, I think getting the business
owners in involved in this has been great. And as many of them said too, like we'd like to know when the next, you know, open form is where like at the library um when we have some more finalized plans coming up. Um so it's been good getting them involved.
>> Anyone else please update things like far away? >> I'll move it for you. >> I can give you um the vinyl square. There's been lots of discussion of a bunch of different things. Um, one of the things is the clock should be unveiled and ready by the parade. Memorial Day parade, I think that's what
they said. Um, there's going to be some brick work around it. Um, and they're also going to be installing the EV charging stations inside of that parking lot. >> But, um, one of the things they're having a problem with right now, just in general, that we learned is that other parking lot that has the dollar lease that's running out. Um, they have the
dollar lease that's running out. They've yet to extend that. So, they're still they finally got in touch with the owner, but it sounds like it's a little bit in limbo. So, hopefully that gets finalized soon. Uh because that lease, I believe, is running out. Um so, that got
brought up. Um they talked a little bit about the the dock. Is that the dock that they had over there? >> Um at the river. >> Yeah, that they're looking at working on that. The boat ramp, trying to get that
finished. um hopefully by the end of the summer, but we'll find out about that. Um >> is that a town initiative or >> state? I think it's state >> initiative. It's a state project. >> State project. Yeah. >> And will that become a public boat ramp open again that
>> once they complete it? >> Yes. >> Oh, nice. >> Yeah, that'll be good. >> Um let's see some of the other stuff. They talked a little bit about the commuter rail um M M Cog potential feasibility study and community
coordination. So doing some talks and things about that for the rail the commuter rail that potentially what did they say from LOL to Nshawa I guess part of it supposed to be from like UMass LOL have connectivity which will be interesting um nothing like huge for details it was
kind of just highle discussion a lot of that stuff I think those are the main things >> and then we are going to have some lovely plants in vinyl square so be ready >> are they not No, cuz they there's
>> there's no water in Vinyl Square to be able to water the plants. So, we're looking at some alternatives to at least beautify it for the parade and so they can be lit up. So, we'll see how it goes. >> Any other lesson on updates? Concom um hasn't met. They've got a
start staggered schedule with us this month. So, they'll be meeting next week. >> Do they have a new chair yet? >> Uh yeah, Chris Keran. Oh, that's right. You said that. >> Yep. >> And a new member, I hear. >> Yes. >> A new old member.
>> Yes. A new old member, Dave Mclofflin. >> Dave's back. >> Yep. >> Yep. All right. Um, moving on. Uh, managed uh actually no new business. Um, old business, we've got a bunch tonight. Uh,
managed growth strategy. Um, any other updates other than what Evan covered? >> Evan covered. >> Okay. >> When's when's our next uh meeting on that? >> To be determined. >> Yeah. I know we were talking about it, but we hadn't pinned it in. >> Correct.
>> All right. Moving on. We've got um some updates on the uh next zoning articles. Um, so I've got some new documents posted. Uh, version two of the
tracking document um is up here. Uh, just again keeping track of all of the changes and all of the work here. Um, so Anita and Mike, um, we're think I'm thinking May 13th meeting if you guys
can be ready for that. >> I think we can do that. >> Okay. Excellent. Um, I've got some updates on the child care zoning to review tonight with you based on our last meeting. Um, some changes on
the zoning site plan, special permit, uh, and regulations based on our last discussion. Um, I want to see if anyone's got any updates on the contractor yard and then I've got some updates on the pilo.
So, we can go through those tonight. Um, AG recommendations. So, childcare zoning too. Um so what I did since the last meeting is essentially um strike the
definitions and lines from the use table um which will default it to the state exempt definitions. So um that's really the only change. >> Seems sensible >> based on last meeting.
Um, and then the zoning table isn't different than it was last time. So, um, so I don't have an updated version of that. >> The Any other comments or questions on that one? >> Okay. So, I'll consider that one closed
out until we do the public hearing for the fall town meeting articles. Let's see. the clarification of 194104. So the first one is the special permit
195 104, right? >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Um section three. I rewarded this a bit. I think that was the only change there. >> That's the only change from last time. Um, and then
Evan's way ahead of me on that one. And then the regulations document. The only change since last time. Find where I put that change. Most of the changes are formatting
changes. Um, if you go >> the outdoor lighting section. Um, if you go back up to the outdoor lighting section,
page nine, I think. Yeah. So, what I did here is um assuming we pass the bylaw um essentially referring to the bylaw for the regulations
and not going too deep into um actually that first paragraph should be struck too. So, I figured we'd take out that whole section and refer to the bylaw. >> That looks like one 3.4.
>> Uh, next change. >> Yep. >> Public hearing and decision. Okay. So, this was the rewarding that we talked about last time. What I also realized is that not only in
141 but also 142 um needed to be updated because we talked about the consolidation of the procedures there as well. I had missed that statement before. So the first section really just talks
about the process >> and then the voting. So I kind of split it up. So in keeping with the the framing of each section, it talks about the process initially. Then it talks
about each step of the process and then I added in a voting on decision section. And this is where we also have the site plan approval special permit. So, I wanted you to take a look at this wording and see if it if it makes sense.
That looks good. >> Town council will take a look. >> Yeah. Town council will look at all of this. >> Yeah. >> Um before the public hearing that we do. >> Yeah.
>> I think Okay. Um, I like that there's a positive action that's taken whether we're actually approving it. >> What was it or not? I like that we're taking a positive action >> to if we're saying it doesn't apply. We're taking positive action to declare
that we not taking action. >> So, I like that. >> Question. >> Sorry, but do you have something else? >> No, no, that was it. >> Just back to the my favorite topic, the lighting one. when you said you were going to strike that first the first thing cuz would they still be required
to give um the candle light in the plan like showing the light? >> I've got to double check that but I think we've covered that in >> somewhere else >> somewhere else. >> So remind me of that when I argue again show me it's somewhere else in
>> I've got to double check. But um that's another piece that we have to do with town council is look at our bylaws and look at these rags and make sure that there's no duplication in them >> because I found a few areas >> or contradiction. >> Yeah. Or contradictions.
So once we do some of these smaller edits, I'm going to go back in and compare the two and make sure that we don't have >> um and I think that lighting plan is mentioned somewhere else and I don't remember where off >> submission requirements for so
>> is where I expect it to find. >> So >> certain things I like. Yeah, this >> glue right in on that. >> This document, >> this document and then the um
>> the zoning >> one are going to be works in progress for a while until we kind of figure out each of these pieces. Yeah. >> And then we'll do one final. Yeah. So, >> because there's so many changes
that need to happen, >> so little time. Yeah. All right. Um, any other comments on that? Do they look okay? >> Yep. >> All right. So, I will consider that one completed for now until >> till we come back
>> the next change. And the next change is in the next section. Site plan and special permit. Um, this is the department reviews. So, in 34 or what was 3.4? four.
>> Oh my god. I think it's 134 now. Yeah. 134. So this is discussing the changes that we had talked about last time where instead of specifying
individual boards or departments or commissions um I mention it in general that we may request input and then so >> you think we should have that somewhere codified as to when and where in the
process we're going to like should that be at the beginning that we I mean in at some point in the application process that somewhere at the beginning of it we have that maybe on our checklist that maybe we use more than we use it typically and have like who else do we
want input from on this particular project and >> so I think there is a standard form that Evans sends out for the initial department reviews >> right >> um and so that may change over time so I
didn't want to include that here. >> But we did mention that the um it does mention here that the planning board will transmit the copy of the application to various boards. So it's that initial submission
>> and then during the public hearing process if we need specific department reviews other than that initial list >> if they come up. >> Yeah, it would be if as they come up. >> Okay, I that's fine. But I wanted to leave it open that we may
depending on what the project is and what the subject matter is, we may seek input from >> additional boards. >> And then I also wanted to specifically call out the DPW and traffic advisory committee for the traffic related
mitigations. >> Yeah. people okay with these changes? >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Yeah. One small change. It's just suggested 1.4.2 the public notice. Um I once was a former subscriber. I'm not sure if they're still We may want to
strike chumps for independent, but we would I would want to do some checking. I think they may be out of print, but I'm not. >> Yeah, that's one of the things that I have on my list to run through. for the more general editing of this. >> Okay. Um,
so we've covered that pilot discussion. Just lost it. Saw it a minute ago. >> All right. Looking at what I did here. >> All right. So, we have two short-term um updates. Uh
I changed the I think it was seven units to four in that um the policy piece. >> So 25% of four is one. So they generate a unit, right? >> Yep.
>> So anything less than four. >> So if it's less than four, then they get fractional units. You know what? I wasn't sure about something about do we do we are we in inlementing any rounding up
>> like I know some towns if it's above one then it's two and we were talking about fractional bits went to potentially the pyo unless we wanted to say if it's more than I don't know 1 like 66 then you round it up or I don't know what would
>> well our current one says round up >> right but so if it's 1.51 we're going to make it Mhm. >> Okay. >> Yep. That's what that's what our regulation currently said says. >> I think we should keep that. Okay. >> Fine.
>> So, just to clarify, the the bylaw is only applicable for four or more units. >> Correct. Yeah. >> If you're three or under, the the bylaw is not applicable at all. So, there's no fractional discussion. >> Is that okay?
Meaning if someone if someone comes in with a COA project for three units, the inclusionary bylaw does not get triggered. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So if that's the case, then the way the bylaw is currently worded,
there wouldn't be any discussion of any pilot, fractional numbers or anything. >> Yeah. Right. So in that case that that development lesson for units is kind of useless. >> Yeah. Super. It will never happen.
>> Yeah. It just it just was the bylaw would never contemplated capturing projects of three or under. I mean >> I think the primary reason is that economically those projects don't don't work. >> Right. >> Right.
>> Um so just as as long as we're clear that those projects wouldn't trigger it and there wouldn't be any discussion about >> Yeah. And rereading the statement, it says payments may only be made when less than
one full unit is required. >> So that wouldn't apply to under three. >> It would be development of four units. >> Mhm. >> Instead of less than. >> Yeah. >> Right. So the fractional comes in where
you're at you're at five or five, six, seven units. >> Yeah. >> The B 40B and the bylaw round up. Y. >> So, but I'm a little confused. Math is hard. If it's four units, then we're making it be five. >> No, it's one.
>> One of the four would be >> one of the four would be affordable. >> Okay. >> If it's five, then it's a 25 percentage. >> 1.25. Okay. All right. Fine. >> So, when when would we be when would we be doing a pilot then?
>> For 1.2 round. >> No, for five. You don't round up. You round up if it's over 50%. >> Okay. Is that >> Or do you always round up? No matter. >> Always round up. Always round up. That's the way it is now. >> No, I thought we I thought we had decided we were going to accept the pyo
for the fractional bits instead of rounding up. >> Right. >> And that's like the only time we're going to accept we're going to take pyo. >> Okay. >> So, it's not really in lie of it's we're going to put it it's a toll. It's a demand.
>> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I just >> I think we're all on the same page. >> Yeah. I was just getting confused because we're talking about what it is now versus what do we want it to be? What we want it to be is that if it's over 50% or something, then we want to >> 51.
>> If it's less than 50, that was the question I was asking. >> It's less than Yeah. Right. Well, that's what I'm saying. That was your question. >> Yeah. So, >> and I was told then we're going to round it up, which is what it currently says, and that's fine with me, but I was just making it >> do we want to entertain that if it's >> interrogation
>> less than some fraction like 50% that we take a fractional >> payment rounding it up >> above just I think if you look at the language of the bylaw, fractions of units shall be rounded up to the nearest round number, >> right?
>> So, we have to round up. >> Yeah, I would keep it that way. That way we don't ever get below the 10%. >> Right. So technically we have to round up and not accept. >> Well, I mean we're talking about revising the bylaws. >> Exactly. But that >> it's kind of begging the question.
>> Like I like it the way it is. >> If we're Yeah. If we're going to stick with the way it is, we don't have to do anything, right? Because we don't have to introduce any language because it's all clear. We round up. >> Well, we're just making the point that we're not accepting it for for whole units because that has been done. >> Yeah. It's been in the past accepted not
not since this in this board's okay >> I mean they've they've said oh well we're building 30 units so we have to do however many 25% of 30 is and then oh by the way that would be a value of x but we're going to we're going to say that x
we shouldn't have to pay the whole x because we're going to building a 5x3 pocket park that's worth 100,000 and we're going to subtract the 100,000 from the x that we would pay and also we're going to build a pipe over there that we need for our development anyway, but that's a community resource. So, we're
going to subtract the the expense that we incur building that pipe from our dollar amount and we're going to whittle down the dollar amount. So, we're not doing that. >> Okay. But that that I mean that's at the discretion of the board, right? I mean, there there isn't anything encoded that
says you can do that, right? >> Right. >> So, >> but we're putting it forth that we're not doing that. We want we want the units. >> Okay. >> So, can we write that? So, they can't do that >> at least the whole number units. >> It said the board's discretion. I mean,
the board can say no, right? I mean, I'm getting confused here. It's like are we trying to encode something that future boards would >> just we're re Yeah, kind of. I would >> we're orienting that we're not accepting the dollars. We want the units. >> Then, why don't we just get rid of Pyo
altogether? What happens when there's I don't I'm still not understanding the partial. So in your case where there's 30 units 25% is 7.5. So what happens to the half? >> It goes up to >> So then they have to have eight units. >> If it's 0.51 then it goes up.
>> No, we're saying this by says it goes up regardless. So they would have to build eight units that are >> right. So that's there essentially that's there's no pilo, >> right? So let's get rid of pyo. Then that solves your problem. Evan, are there any other cases besides the fractional where the bylaw allows the
pilo? >> Yeah. Yeah. The the bylaw allows the board uh allows the applicant and the board full discretion. You don't have to build any units. You can the pilot is intended to do a to do a full full buyout or a partial buyout. Nothing
nothing exclusive to fractional units. But the >> but the fractional unit language is shall. So to me that does not give the board the ability to take pyo for the
fractional units. >> I don't think it's ever I don't think that's ever been interpreted. >> Whether we should is another question. >> Yeah. >> So do we have to have a pilot at all? No, not legally required. >> So since they take it off,
>> I don't I mean I think in in deference to the fact that the housing authority has historically when they finally get >> a small pool of money, which the way it's been working has taken an awful long time. They make good use of it and
they build good units. So, I'm not opposed to having, you know, the the rounding dollars be incremental to the affordable housing fund, but I just don't want I I I want the
>> the getting the basic platform is we want units, right? >> And then, you know, the little bits we can make go pilo into the affordable housing fund. >> Yeah. that if if you're doing pilot only
based on the fractional units that will never accumulate enough money to do anything. >> You'd be surprised. I mean, they did projects where they gave six cents on the dollar of the pilo and they ended up after several developments with $600,000.
>> That wasn't just based on fractional units. That was more substantial pilo, >> right? But it was six cents on a dollar of based on the formula which was already undervaluing the units, >> right? But it was more than fractional units. So if you're only applying the
fractional unit piece of the pilo, that's going to be even less than what they were getting now because they were allowing pilo for 20 or whatever number of units it was.
It was small developments that that that was used for. >> I mean, my thought is I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with the pilot, but we have to update the numbers. I mean, the problem is all of us here are not always going to be in these seats. The you know, and so we
don't know what a future board's going to do. But I think if we update the numbers, um >> that too, >> you know, that would help. Not to throw keep throwing numbers out, but what if just hypothetically I was a developer and I came in with five units and so 25%
would be 1.25. I'm just thinking since you wouldn't round up, it might be a big imposition to say okay to that developer, you've got to go from 1.25 to two. It might make that small project uneconomical for them >> because I think we said it's four under
does not apply. >> Three, three or under. >> Three or under. So if I'm I'm just trying to think of it from both sides that you know if I'm trying to build some afford you know going from 1.25 I might be willing to construct a unit and give a donation for the 0.25 but the
board's saying to me okay you have to go from 1.25 25 to two that might >> own change my whole right >> but the board and the board could still request too though right is that what I'm understanding so it comes it's to the discretion of the board if they would take a payment is that
>> correct >> so like they it was that 1.25 25 and they say, "Well, sorry. We want to." >> So, I think I think what we're trying to do here, though, is kind of balance the discretion of the board for that
specific project with the long-term sustainability and the long-term ability to stay above the 10%. >> And I think that we have two mechanisms to be able to do that. There's the
changes in the bylaw which we have to look at for the the amount and for when to apply it. But then there's also the policy piece of it which is more of the recommendation of this board to say you
got to really think about when you're accepting the pilot because that's going to have long-term potential impacts for future boards. >> And I think that it's a little bit of both. I mean, if you make the the pyo amount
higher, like significant, then that automatically deters someone from wanting to like you say like it's some significant expense. >> Then they're going to be like, well, maybe it's cheaper to keep the 20 units
>> than even if they try to take away this, this, and this, it's still a significant >> piece of chain. So, you have that. You can also look at it from that perspective >> as a deterrent. What allows them to do that subtraction that you were talking about like the
subtraction for the park and other things like what in the pilo allows it >> because it's payment in lie of so they were putting a lot of things in lie >> I mean the thing you could put in there blocking >> calling those community benefit
>> park but they weren't they were arguably not community benefit or not much community benefit and then the values that were put on them were to my It's >> impression capricious >> section E is where it talks about it.
>> It's essentially the density bonus, right? >> Yeah. >> No. Well, the site design amenities. Oh, I guess maybe. I don't know. Oh, I had never thought of it in terms of a density bonus, but maybe. What do you think, Evan?
>> Section E was the provision that applicants referenced saying we're not we're not asking you for a density bonus. Um, but we are providing um other
community benefits that are being asked for. So it you know the context of the original bylaw was contemplating larger projects. >> Mhm.
>> If the board is beginning to pursue missing middle and infill development by nature those are smaller projects. Mhm. >> So the so the you know the payment in lie of number and to what extent you're
willing to uh keep pilot as an option you know play a direct role in the the negotiation so to speak between the board and the applicant. all of these levers that you can push and pull between CEO and center village
and architectural and landscape review and um pilos and the the asset the water and the sewer department make. Ultimately, it's the board who's going to have to figure out
of all those ass which ones are the priorities. >> It's you can't you can't treat them all equally. It just it just doesn't work that way. Unless you're talking about bigger projects. >> But the challenge is that we're seeing a lot more smaller projects now than
bigger projects. >> You're seeing a lot of conversions. >> Yeah. >> Of existing square footage. Um so those those are unique in and of themselves where you know they're not they're not building a new building. They're not building new parking. The infrastructure is already in place.
Um but if and when we get to uh changing the bylaw to pursue missing middle and infill development cottage style uh there those are smaller projects. Um, some projects will be able to um
accommodate the affordability, but as I mentioned at the last meeting, you'll have other developers that have little or no interest and they'll tell you that and they'll say, "I'm more than happy to pay the pilot." Um, so I think having the pilot in there
is a good option because at least it provides a a discussion point. I think what the board's been talking about is putting in a policy saying that this is our expectation. This is our preference with everything else being equal.
>> But there may, you know, there may come a project on Chumpshire Street where the board and the community love the project and they, you know, they demonstrate to you that the that the project economically can't can't carry the affordable units.
And then you know a discussion takes place where the board says well we really want you to and the developer says okay but I need to you know eliminate this eliminate that value engineer the architecture ultimately it should be the board's ability to push and pull those levers on
a case-byase basis because if you if you treat it like a 40B you'll get a you'll get a 40B B type development where the architecture the quality of the architecture >> construction >> is is is >> yeah in the quality of construction is
more towards a 40B project than something the board would normally approve under zoning. >> I mean I think you said it quite correctly. I mean we want to signal to the community and developers that that is our priority is to get the affordable
units. But I think also we don't want to completely tie our hands behind our back and remove all >> right >> given so I think we're talking about is creating a policy >> uh and maybe updating the the table.
>> Yeah. Mhm. And I think the short-term thing is really more about creating the policy and removing the numbers. Um,
I think for any larger changes than that, especially to the bylaw and u updating the numbers, we're going to have to have a specific public hearing and coordination
with the housing authority to to kind of coordinate that and to get that through. Mhm. >> The challenge is I don't know if we can I mean we can try but I don't know if we're going to be able to do that before the fall town meeting.
>> So I kind of want to try and position this in a couple phases. The first is the policy and cleaning up this um these numbers to make sure that we're not getting messed up with the numbers
>> choose. Yeah. And then if we can fit in that longer discussion because I do think it's going to be a longer discussion because we're having a longer discussion here. >> If we bring in the the Charter Housing Authority,
>> Housing Advisory Board, it's going to be a long discussion, right? >> So I don't want to stop all of this for that. >> So I kind of want to do both things in parallel. So if we can come up with some policy wording, if this is good, great. If not,
we can update it to kind of give the direction in the meantime and then have that larger discussion about updating the formula and um
setting the the direction on the the bylaw from a larger perspective. Are you planning on keeping in that number two that talks about the more the board may by majority vote modify these per unit fees? >> Yes. >> So, let's still keep that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, the the recommended short-term change would only be removing the struck the stricken text in that bylaw. >> But isn't that isn't that what that text
is talking about is those numbers? No, the numbers are on file in the office >> because those numbers can change >> whereas theoretically market driven although these haven't been updated in >> right like a decade
>> theoretically. >> I was just trying to understand it because it's saying they may modify these per unit fees. That's I was trying to figure what that was. >> Right. So, we can modify these. >> Mhm. >> And then they're kept on file in the the town office. >> Okay. >> The problem is that we can't technically
modify this bylaw without the town meeting. >> So, if we do change the numbers, we would have a set of numbers in the bylaw and a set of numbers at town hall. >> Not a good idea, >> right? >> So, then why should that text be there?
So the So in number two, if it's hard to see on here, but it actually struck out SE on these and it's the per unit fees. >> Oh, okay. >> Not these per unit fees.
>> I thought it said these. So >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. I got to make sure that's a little bit more highlighted in red. Strike it out in red. >> The blue the blue was working on the other one that you did. >> Yeah. >> But yeah, I was reading it until you pointed out I was reading the theme. That's why I think I was going.
>> I just realized what you were talking about. >> This just makes sense. >> So number two, it's modify the per unit fees. >> All right. Now that makes a little more sense. This whole thing's confusing. I wanna I want to go back to because I'm I'm still very confused about
about what is currently the actual bylaw and my understanding just from having glanced through it now. First of all, this is the inclusionary bylaw. It doesn't apply for anything less than four units, right? It doesn't apply in case of 40 because we just lose zoning
alto together. Does it apply in terms of subdivision? No, it it only applies to projects that are approved under CEO or center village. >> Okay. >> So, it does not apply to definitive subdivisions. >> Okay.
>> It also does not apply to um uh pre-existing non-conforming uses or structures, 1958. Uh a good example of that of a project that came in under 1958 was
um Princeton Street uh at the corner of um north. >> Oh, the barnlike structure. >> You take a right uh from north at the light where the gas station is onto Princeton. The first property on the
right. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. is a 14 unit townhouse project. >> Okay. >> Um could the bylaw be expanded to cover >> any and all residential development? It could. The original the original
strategy was uh where we are allowing residential opportunities where we historically never have via seoid in center village are going to apply it. There was there was clear uh discussion
initially uh with the board about to what extent should it apply to definitive subdivisions. Um there were some strong opinions at the time and likely still are. Uh,
I think it goes without saying, but simplistically that means that the board and the town would be would be introducing uh affordable housing in traditional single family neighborhoods where there aren't any.
Um, and that seemed to be a a point of significant interest and discussion. The only the only single family 40B that exists is Equestrian Lane. So the town does not have a lot of
single family affordable housing stock. 40B, you know, deed restricted. Mhm. >> Um and then the final item is uh with the community being mostly built out, there wasn't really um it was never
envisioned that we'd get a lot of definitive subdivisions, >> right? >> Whereby the town was changing the zoning to encourage multif family through CEO and center village. >> Okay. You know, what are thoughts around that though of it possibly being
expanded to cover more That'd be an interesting topic for that larger public hearing. >> Um my own personal thought is that that might not be a bad idea, >> especially where we're trying to encourage housing, right? I mean, you
are trying to encourage and there's lower income housing and stuff like that. I mean, does that help? Does this help that? And >> if you look at the projects that we're seeing being built, we're seeing a lot more of those projects than the larger projects right now. >> Yeah,
>> that's why it's what I was wondering. The other thing though is that like say if you have somebody who wants to build five units under say or whatever. So that's 1.25. So the way the bylaw is now is the affordable units they have to provide is
two, right? because it's it's a four which is one and then a fraction which rounds up to one so that's two and then the payment in lie of if that was applied would apply to those at most two right
>> correct >> and so there isn't a well you pay for a fraction the way the bylaw is written right now >> so that's I think that was to dear's question right is do you want to have some sort of fractional pay payment or
um you know included um okay good so I mean that's the baseline and so then the question is how do we want to modify it and I would think that partly this might influence the managed growth strategy right because we don't necessarily want to disincentivize
development per se you know by putting undue burdens on either because of sizes of developments or or rounding up or whatever. But um okay, at least I have a clearer idea as to what we're starting from. >> But it sounds like if they can't don't
think they can fit it, they pay for it, right? So instead of putting like the two units, they put one and then they pay for one. >> Is that how that kind of works? >> Yeah, I think that's the I think that's the way it's written >> because that's the idea. >> Yeah. And I think the idea too was that
developers necessarily didn't necessarily want to have to develop an affordable unit per se and that they knew that like Kevin was saying it'd be easier to pay and then the housing authority who is or choice or what have
you who are professionals at developing affordable housing then it would be more suitable for them to do it. But if >> the only problem is it introduces a time lag, you know, because now it's like they need to you have your development before you, they're on a certain schedule, but now there's some time
after that that affordables will be built. >> Not just a time lag, though, but it's it's a reduced number of units, too. >> So, because you're not getting a one for one, >> right? It's not it's not a I'm going to
give up I'm going to pay for this unit and then it's going to get developed later. It's I'm going to pay for this unit and once we get maybe a hundred of those we can finally buy we can finally build one.
>> So it's not a one for one with a time delay. It's a time delay with a >> whatever the whatever >> whatever the ratio >> whatever whoever's going to build them whatever their critical mass is as far as how many do they need in order to build. >> And in the meantime
our percentage keeps dropping because we have all of these single units >> being built. So, putting aside the longer term discussion of what we want to do, um I think we're on the same page in
terms of the short-term bylaw change. How do we want to word a policy to help guide us? >> Why don't we do a chat GBT? See what they say.
>> I've tried and it doesn't work very well. >> Not for this one. say, "Aren't there other AI generated?" >> Right. Right. >> Where does it get stuck? Is it getting stuck on definitions? Like maybe just give it more data.
>> I don't think it needs to be too complicated. I think a couple years ago the board had a policy discussion and took a vote. Mhm. >> You know, was something as simple as um the board's primary primary interest is
creation of the units and the the board is not inclined to uh grant grand grand pilo in and of itself. Something to that effect. Okay. I'll watch the video back and write down whatever just
>> It was a couple years ago. I can't remember. >> Was it a work session though? I don't know if it was televised. I don't know if >> No, no, it was it may not have been televised, but >> or recorded. >> I'll take a look as well. >> Okay. But it's a pretty it's a pretty simple uh statement of preference. >> Yeah.
>> Strong preference. >> Yep. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, we can have a that can be the >> that can be in the bylaw letter a preference. >> Well, no. Ideally, not not for this one. >> Too gray. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and we've been telling
people that that's that's the board's of all the boards perview of priority. That's one of the top >> top priorities. >> Okay. >> All right. So, I'll make some updates on that one. Touch base with make that change. Once
we do, I'll come back to the board with that. I'll also work with Evan to see if we can start scheduling that larger discussion. You know what I didn't mention on I I don't it's not really the right time but
I didn't I forgot about that I went to housing advisory board pet um >> which mostly we talked about we're like what is our role now that we're at 10% and um if you don't mind me saying like
three more sentences out of order um and then so we came we were kind of brainstorming and we decided to have a meeting in the all inviting town people to come to us with ideas pertaining to affordable housing and you
know whether we can figure out some way to help seniors who want to downsize you know I don't know have a roommate finding service if they want to bring in a tenant and we we talked about all kinds of crazy >> when's the next meeting
>> uh the second >> May 6th Wednesday May 6th of the month. >> Okay. Can you mention this to them that we're going to be approaching them about >> Yeah. >> a public hearing meeting to discuss this?
>> Yep. >> Thank you. Okay. Anything else on pilot? We'll move on. >> Pilot out. >> All right. >> Any updates on contractor yard
definitions? There were some >> I I had a thought there. It's not a proposal, but um as more I think about it, uh there's there's a tendency for people to write regulations about things they can
name. You can name a contractor yard. The pro contractor yard isn't the problem. It's the trucks. It's the dirt. It's the noise. It's a bunch of things that are often associated with a contract yard. Maybe we should try
focusing our attention a little bit more on regulating and stopping those particular things, the things that actually cause the discomfort to people. That doesn't say we we eliminate contractor yards from the from our
tables, but I think we might want to change the scope of the discussion just a little bit. I think we kind of have to do both. >> Yeah. Well, there there's some of both because I mean, for better or worse, contractor yards are a concept and it's
enshrined in our bylaw. But but I mean, let's talk more about the things that we don't want. I mean, if if I have a contractor yard next door that consists of four wheelbarrows and two shovels, I don't care, you know. >> Yeah. And I I don't know if you were
here for the meeting. We talked about this one, but >> that may have been the last meeting and I wasn't >> It was the last meeting. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I wasn't here. >> So, we talked about um redefining it like you said in terms of the impacts. >> Yeah. >> Um and the specific um
uh machinery and things like that as opposed to >> the indoor versus outdoor. >> Yeah. Um, we also talked about maybe looking at the home occupation bylaw as
a guide. Um, maybe having a parallel to the warehouse approach where we had a small, medium, and large. >> That might be a >> concept. Um, John, you were going to talk to Nimcog to get their thoughts. >> I will do that. Um, we've had some really full agendas and not all of the
members. I mean, we have good representation from chumps, but not from always from other communities. So, I will check on that. Okay. And I will be reaching out the council. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, anyway, that's that's my thought. >> And then Joel is going to look at the IT information as well. Okay.
>> DPW. >> So, let's um >> put that aside. >> Yeah, let's continue research on this. Um I'll keep this one on the agenda. Um I will also continue to do some research
and see what we can come up with. But I think this is one that we need to address sooner rather than later because we are seeing more and more of these coming before us. Okay.
Anything else on that topic? Okay. Um, Riverneck we will talk about on May 13th. So I'll keep that one on the agenda. Uh feedback from feedback on at home at greater lmcog report. John.
>> Yes. So thank you Chris. So at the last meeting we I discussed um NIMCOG's at home and greater l report and and the questions that the um executive director Jennifer rate had posed to all um and asked all members to from Nimcog the
planning board leaison to go back and um discuss the report at a at a board meeting um and and every and discuss what strategy would we like to focus on going forward and then answer like what type of um you know technical assistance or something could they help us with and
a lot of members provided feedback. So I worked with Chris to craft a response. Hope everybody had a chance to take a take a look at the memo. So basically what we're saying in there is under the strategy the the planning board request that NIMCOG focused on NIMCOG strategy
number 6.3 which is to conduct a study complete a plan to increase regional sewer capacity. I think everybody kind of or not everybody but all a lot of members talked about how really our soil limitation is really something that we see as like a main obstacle to you know
future development in town and then that we also wanted NIMCOG the the planning board wants to work through the managed growth strategy task force to develop recommendations to guide future developments. So that's really the strategy that we we identified here in
the response. And then um then we also I I drew upon the report um that Weston and Samson um was engaged to to provide the town just saying about you know the sewage flows to the city of LOL. Um we've approached and exceeded our daily
aotment and just kind of make the point that you know the Duck Island facility with the city of LOL it's it's pretty much at capacity. They're not taking, you know, they're not looking to grant extra capacity at this time to Chumsford. So, it's just trying to make the point to
Nimcog that, you know, that's probably the area where they could be of great assistance to us and hopefully they could develop a regional strategy to include LOL, Chumsford, surrounding towns that, you know, have a sewer system. So, if if people are satisfied with
that, um you know, if you'd like me to um email it to the director as the the NIMCOG rep or if you'd prefer it come from Evan or Chris, that's that's fine. Um that's really all I have on that. If anybody has to has any changes or edits,
>> no changes. >> I think it sounds like that's what we need >> most from them. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> All right. >> All right. Thank you. >> Sounds good. >> And I'm happy to have it come from me or
like >> Yeah. Actually, it's from both of us. Yeah. It comes from you as chair. And um if you want me to email it to Well, I'll actually the next NIMICOG meeting is next week on the 15th. So, if you want me to I can email this to the director in advance just so she has it. And
>> Sounds good. Yep. Thank you. All right. Any other topics before we get to the minutes? All right. Meeting minutes. March 25th. It >> was a short meeting, but a long minute.
>> Long spent a lot of time talking about the pilot, too. >> Mike was not there. So, you >> I can give you a motion, but I can't vote on it. I just have one minor correction. It's just for due to the AI program in the on
page one in the first paragraph. It just says MIRS. I think they were trying to say my m L A R S but I can just send it to Becky if people are >> fine with that. >> Yeah. >> Motion to approve
the minutes if we'll if if that's okay. >> Yep. um >> with that correction. >> March 11th with the aforementioned correction. >> Uh March 25th. >> Oh, sorry. >> What am I? I'm sorry. I'm looking at I don't know what I'm looking at.
>> Oh, it does say >> Oh, yeah. >> Oh, it does say March 11th. Yeah. >> We need to make two corrections then. >> Or which mean catch you? >> No, I didn't catch it. I was on Zoom at the 25th. This is the
25th on Zoom and we were on Zoom the last meeting. So, >> so you're not as tired as you think. >> So, those two changes get into that. >> I've heard everything else and I'm like I think this >> March 11th should be March 25th.
>> 25th. It's correct. >> Yeah, it's correct in the footer but just not the >> title date. Yeah. >> All right. So, motion by Jared, second by Marcy. All in favor? I >> unanimous with Mike with Mike
abstaining. >> All right. And so now we have meetings coming up in May. >> 20 13th and 27th. Um so we are off for a
while. So hopefully um Mike and Anita can do the work on the riverneck. >> Wait, so when's our next meeting? >> May 13. May 13th. >> Oo. >> We can talk about the um contractor yard and get a bunch of stuff done. Evan, do
we have any >> You'll have a new public hearing. Um a three a two lot definitive subdivision off of Chestnut Hill Lane, I believe. >> Okay. >> It's adjacent to Culis Farm and above Lady Slipper.
>> So that uh Concom opens their hearing uh next week. Uh >> what zone is that? I'm sorry. >> What zone is that? RB. RB. So, it's Okay. >> Yeah. I'll send out the um the plan tomorrow to the board.
>> Okay. And then um what was I going to say? And then uh not next week, the week after we have the town manager uh town meeting prep meeting >> and then the week after is town meeting. Um, so we'll let you know how that goes
after town meeting. All right. Motion to adjurnn. >> Done. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by Anita. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you everyone.