##VIDEO ID:Ar3UGh1n9JM## e e e e it being 7 o' pretty typical um we're going to bring this special meeting of the planning board um this work session of the planning board into order are we being recorded being live streamed and then recorded for television okay so sorry I didn't know this meeting will be recorded and live streamed and will be available to be viewed later in tele media um and so it's mostly regarding our um new zoning guidelines for accessory dwelling units which we're trying to revise to bring us into compliance with the preliminary guidelines issued by the state which will go into effect once they're confirmed as final um in early February I guess so it's February 2nd maybe yes okay so hopefully everyone had a chance to look through them I don't know if we may should start by so just to set the table for tonight's um work session um as we discussed at the last meeting this is a special meeting um if the board can um get to a place of final draft uh this evening then the board has the uh has the opportunity uh to forward the final draft to the uh select board for um signing of a special town meeting warrant which would be signed on January 6th Monday January 6th that process normally requires that the uh final uh language is submitted uh the Wednesday or Thursday prior to in order for Council to review we're a bit at we're a bit ahead of that process at this point uh presumably the board uh would sign the special warrant on January 6 and call for a special town meeting likely on Monday January 27th um the final piece of this is that the planning board required public hearing uh could take place it could open on January 8th at your regular regular uh planning board meeting we would advertise that um as required um over the next several weeks in the low Sun um does it only need to be one it gets advertised twice but only one meeting it requires a public hearing uh sometimes that public hearing is one session sometimes the board chooses to continue it um in this particular case you would have the ability to continue it for your regular meeting on the 22nd but bear in mind that during that same time frame the select board and fincom would also be uh reviewing and making their recommendations and very often those two boards uh rightfully so want to wait until the planning board makes its recommendation and then obviously we'll be doing pres you know the board will be will do be will be doing presentations to those uh select board finance committee and and town meeting so that's the schedule moving forward I think the uh the goal goal for tonight as I said is um review the final language what's in front of you is uh what is likely is fairly close to a final draft uh Council and I have spent some additional time over the last uh day or so so what we originally talked about revising the existing laa bylaw at this point what this contemplates in the first sentence is to delete the existing laa in its entirety yep and replace it uh with a new Adu bylaw referencing the same section 1956 .1 um we'll just why don't we just go through it yeah we we know um we'll highlight you know what we think is important the objectives are pretty straightforward sorry Evan before you do that so the so you originally looked at the original Adu bylaw and that's what you were modifying and then you came to the conclusion that correct the cleaner thing to do is just to junk it in exactly with a new one okay so we're not starting from scratch with a new one we did try to incorporate what we did have correct but that just didn't work out that way okay yeah just at the end of the day makes just much of the provisions of the laa were either being deleted in their entirety substantially modified yeah it was it was all red line yeah so and then the track change got very confusing very quickly yeah but it was done it was done with full cognizance of what the exactly right and then during this time as as the board knows the regulations came out we think we're learning more about the regulations and how they're being interpreted so section B is definitions can I inter for I have another question for both of you um Evan and Council so the um the there's an there's a Time coming up at the end of the month into early January for public comment on the draft regulations and my question is having ever have you ever encountered this type of a situation before and if so would you expect that there would be significant revisions upon receipt of the public comment Madam chair John ieman Town Council just in case everybody's not aware um I have not gone through the process before with a particular set of regulations um do I expect that there could be changes I think there will could be tweaks I wouldn't expect wholesale changes I think the direction is pretty clear at this point so there are a couple inconsistencies um our firm is going to provide comments minor comments M we don't typically do that simply because our towns might have different perspectives so right but these are more these are going to be clarification comments what does this mean internal incon inconsistencies or whatever exactly okay yeah and and I would think I mean if we get in a real jam and the stuff that comes out is so at odds with what we've done we can simply withdraw what we've got and just deal with it later or if it's Min or do an amendment you could also do an amendment yeah you're a bunch of ways right okay thank you Evan before we get to Part B part A the objectives or not identified as part A but the objectives can we include an objective maybe even make it the first objective that that the objective of this bylaw is to comply with the Adu law because i' I'd like to I'd like to make it clear up front you know these are not all ideas we came up with we're just merely complying with what and also if it does need to be interpreted and you have that statement in the in the front uh that could assist it could assist you know some court and interpreting what we really meant yeah okay which is probably a good segue in section B definitions at this point we only have one definition which is accessory dwelling unit as you're aware the regulations have a series of other definitions and maybe it makes sense to just have a a blanket statement here to you know refer to the mgl or the regulations for other other definitions would you think that may be needed or yeah at this point I don't think it's necessary because we aren't using those terms we're defining the terms we're using gross FL area and accessory dwelling unit those are the two terms yeah I was going to say like any terms that we're using I person my personal preference is to Define them right um in the document so people it doesn't get confusing people know where it is they can easily understand it and they're not trying to go back and forth I I do just looking at it though I think I do see now one term that we do use we have not defined that's principal dwelling you may want to add that consist and I don't see the gross floor area there either internal we could bring it that's it right yeah we could bring it back up if that's defined in we def it in the biolog all the definition it's slightly different it's slightly we'll get we'll get to that okay so the accessory dwelling unit is copy and paste from the state regs uh it's not the same as the laa definition section c is uh applicability this is where uh Council and I spent some time today trying to provide as much detailed specificity as to what is the procedure um so Jose Negron is in the uh room he's our Building Commissioner uh several of the um other building inspectors have spent some time reviewing this um so C C1 um basically sets out uh some of the um the regulation as to as to where where and how these are allowed section two gets into how it will be processed here in chelsford uh the first step is the building permit gets gets submitted with the Building Commissioner architectural floor plans for the principal dwelling and then we've added with dimensions and calculations for gross floor area and proposed Adu with dimensions and gross floor area and a certified site survey for existing and proposed footprint building locations that include setback Dimensions um f lock in lock coverage calculations that process is intended to allow the building commissioner to make the initial determination as to whether it can be allowed by right or if it requires some other some other path to approval so we added that definition you know that that other detail in there because that's the information that the that the commissioner is going to need to make the um initial determination um section three uh refers to the first sentence refers to um an Adu shall comply with the dimensional standards applicable to lots and principal dwellings for the district in which the Adu is located as set forth in the dimensional uh regulations table attachment to that speaks specifically to lots and structures that are 100% compliant so self Chumps R 40,000 foot Lots principal structure complies with all setbacks the next sentence uh says for purposes of of applying such requirements the Adu shall be considered part of the principle dwelling to which they are accessory and not as a separate accessory building um or structure under um section uh not as a separate under Section 195 uh 11 what that is saying is that we're not applying 19511 that specifically refers to accessory principal structures and buildings the reason for that primarily is that uh any print any accessory structure over 260 square ft is required to comply with the standard setbacks so it's somewhat duplicative right um so for purposes of Simplicity uh and streamlining the process the bylaw specifically says that 19511 is not to be applied and then finally where the Adu does not comply with such dimensional standards the applicant may may seek relief in accordance with the zoning B law again this is specific to 100% compliant lot size structures normally that would require a variance or a special permit from the zoning board of appeals the regulations don't allow variances of special permits uh so this sentence uh basically States they're they're required to seek uh relief and that will be uh working with Council when we get there that will be you know determined you want want to speak to more detail on that yeah just briefly it's this is where it gets a little complex because this is a use that's protected by the state zoning act now under Section 3 so when those uses U when local regulations are applied to those uses um if relief is required to put that use into place um even protected uses are actually required to go through the procedure that the zoning bylaws provide for that relief so there's a variance procedure it's a special perit procedure however the application of the criteria is modified for ad do use there is you don't have the same discretion any longer so that's where it gets a little more complex it's very fact specific and would be situation by situation so we're trying to make this simple and not get into those questions which are going to be lot by lot structure by structure so how that applies okay and as we discussed uh previously town do have the ability uh to adopt specific uh setbacks for for for all of these standards we've discussed that we're on a different a different path uh but section three basically again for 100% compliant lot compliant structure required to comply with the standard setbacks if you can't comply uh you're seeking zoning relief okay section four moves on to section three that table of dimensional requirements attachment to that is the the standard one that we have on our BW there's not a special table for this correct section okay right so if you're if you have a non-conforming lot which is the next section oh okay y oh wait so this is just for 100% compliant 40,000 foot lot correct we just discussed now do we can we so can we do we have so we're adding an accessory dwelling right now our setbacks are from plot like lot line do can do we have the ability to add setbacks from the primary or no that's an interesting question I haven't had that asked before um the building code does require a certain amount of Separation already when you have uh two buildings that both contain residential uh units there has to be a certain setback for fire code for starters so you don't want to conflict with that if you're thinking of setting a requirement I think you potentially could I think the issue with that is and this comes up later when we talk about design standards I think that's getting that could get into design standards design standards are a difficult area with when we look at the state regulations and what's going to be allowed and what's going to be potentially vulnerable to challenge I just just want to get into a situation where like you know again trying to protect individual rights of you know people who own property you know we're a town we like to still look like a town even though some of our lots are small have enough um you just don't want that City feel right like that opening up your window and you can touch your neighbor yeah I no I understand that think like you know just a reasonable um distance between if these are separate right dwellings that that gives it that separation right you know you're referring specifically for detached for the Detachment I think the building code requires a 10-ft separation sounds right um but as written our bylaw particularly for pre-existing non-conforming structures treats it as treats the detached as an extension of the principle um why don't we why don't we review the next session and then we can continue with the conversation so section four spee specific to uh non-conforming situations and it essentially mirrors how we treat it now uh for single and two family where an Adu um is is not not compliant meaning pre-existing non-conforming section 1958 will apply and the either either the build building commissioner or the board of appeals will be making that um issuing that permit and where the principal dwelling is not conforming for multi family three or more units the Adu shall meet the requirements of 1958 c as applied by the planning board so procedurally that mirrors exactly how we treat pre-existing non-conforming single family two family goes to the zoning board multif family goes to the planning board you haven't seen a lot of those but procedurally we're mirroring um the the existing the existing bylaw the only way you can do you you can only improve the non-conformity you can't so if you're if you're too close to the setback like if it's a 8ft setback instead of a 10t you could only have a 10 an8 foot or less Anita I think to your question but my question was more between like adding a whole new right well about the touching the building you can't increase the nonconformity so the so the standard and this is where the last sentence of section four the standard for either um the planning board or the zoning board is to make a determination that the Adu will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structures to the neighborhood and that such determination is made by a majority vote and shall not be subject to any special permit criteria so it's it's mirroring again the the existing bylaw with the exception that where Council has has Blended um or eliminated 19511 and is treating the uh accessory Adu including a detached accessory Adu to be an extension of the principal of the principal um non-conforming um structure so you know that has all kinds of scenarios that can play out the simplest way to view this is um the way it's currently interpreted is that if you have uh let's say an L-shaped house and the L is the non-conforming part and let's assume the required setback is 25 ft and the L is only a 12 under the current B you'd be able you'd be allowed to fill in the and make it a square and and extend out to that 12T you can extend the non-conformity along the same parallel line that's an existing provision that appears to be working working well that provision will continue to apply uh to to adus um the one where it's a bit more vague uh is is detach scenarios um I don't know if you want to speak to anything related to that yeah I was detached one of the reasons we're asking or suggest we're stating in the bylaw that detach and attach will be treated the same way is for Simplicity so that we can look at these just the way we look at extensions and alterations to existing structures now these will be treated exactly the same so that the rules that we already are familiar with for non-conforming structures primarily applied by the zba will be the same rules here that's why this is put in place the only change was that we remove the discretionary requirement basically special perit which would be a super majority vote um the law is fairly clear you can't require a special permit for these adus so we retain the finding the finding is the same not substantially more detrimental that still has to be made but it's not going to be by a super majority vote the other piece of this is the as you guys know the um single and two family non-conformity that has a historical setback table those are the setbacks that get applied the single and two family uh for non-conformity so zoning was approved in 1938 as you could imagine the setbacks for lots that existed in 1938 that are currently in an RB zoning District are smaller um and again that has worked rather well uh the sliding Scale based upon the DAT the data structure was uh was created that sliding scale does not apply to uh three or more multif family that will go to the for the that will go to the planning board so that section four covers um um pre-existing non-conforming situations section five um reiterates reiterates that an Adu for multif family principal dwelling three or more units uh shall be subject to a minor site plan review per section 195 104g this originally was a full sight plan Council has suggested that uh we we apply it as a minor sight plan minor site plan is defined within the zoning bylaw and then it's further defined within your regulations it's ENT a uh a streamlined submittal requirements related to the plans that are required the type of information that's required compared to a full sight plan minor site plan also um uh in of itself does not I don't believe it triggers a public hearing and a butter notification I don't think it does yeah I don't I don't think it does um so that's the context for um anything that would go to the planning board three or more could we ask for um a better notification and I mean could we put that into our abolutely and is is that something that other people would have an interest in doing so so hold on this is if there's a structure on a multi family laot that's that's currently three 3 adus is it 3 adus or and then one Adu one is allowed by right per lot okay past that they have to get a special permit okay so this would be an existing multif family you have three three units on one lot and they're proposing to add a fourth dwelling unit the fourth being the the first Adu so I know we try to do the attached and detached as the same for process purposes but to me in my mind a detach is a very different process than just like an attached Adu I so in what what way in what ways do you do you see that because the intent here at least is in terms of applying like um setbacks and things like that that you would apply setbacks to the the same whether it was attached or not attached so what in your mind is so to me like an attached Adu is like someone adding an in-law apartment to their home right like so you're and again right like you know I have a colonial style house I want to add an Adu I can make you know it's like add it's no different than adding an addition right except right maybe has his own entrance right like that's less detrimental to the neighborhood right um and just as long as I have setbacks and stuff like that that should be there's one process for that me adding another house foot house is very different and how my neighbors would view it how I would view you know whether they did it or I did it and to me that's a different process like I think there should be an enough you know I know we say like you need minimum 10 ft between the house and the Adu but is it reasonable to make sure that there's enough space between the two so again it doesn't it still looks like a single because these are homes these are you know 900 sare ft I mean where I live when they built East Chumps up the size of the house was 800 ft you know with one car garage right like but they 800 ft so we're adding like we're building East chord out again right like this to me is like we're just building East chord um these are homes and like I think there needs to be a different process you know even from a design perspective uh like you know storm water or um making sure there enough back so I guess like to me like combining them as one may not be the right way to look at it or I'm not comfortable with that process I mean I'm not sure you can treat them yeah differently in terms of process like like for if it's detached it has to have a special permit or whatever we have to treat them the same in that sense we're restricted by law Bas basically what the state is saying to put it bluntly is yeah they recognize what you're talking about and they're not going to allow it but I mean you bring up a point you bring up a point of separation between the detached unit and the principal unit so that's one thing and and and I think that's worth discussing is there anything else that you think it should be treated differently than we would treat if it was attached well then then then I go to what deardra said then like you know at the like if then I'm not so sure I want it to be a minor site plan review like if we have to keep the if you're telling me that we have to keep these two these two types together under the same process then I'm not comfortable with a minor site plan review so why don't why don't we continue review doing the draft okay because the next section D design and use standards I think May partially speak to um if you're concerned about detached in particular what type of design standards can we come up with we already have some in the bylaw that treat detach structures differently um or treat them have specific design standards there may be others so let's let's go through Section section D so section D1 um this is probably the only provision that's a carry over from the laa to the extent that we legally could um it's essentially the way I interpret this as an essentially essentially a preference provision it is the town's preference that to the extent possible common shared entry ways should be utilized rather than exterior passage wage ways and access ways so as to not detract from the single family appearance and council's already um indicated that single family appearance may need to be struck of the principal dwelling next senten is uh new exterior doorways for the Adu should uh be located on the side or rear of the principal dwelling again that's a preference the last sentence is an example where the state regulations in their slide deck and I I I did a screenshot of of some of these slides appears to be a design standard uh that that's that's reasonable stair staircases serving a second or third floor shall be enclosed and I think the state has that on the top slide clear and objective design standards exterior staircases may not be visible from the public way so that gives you it gives you an example where the state if you choose to uh adopt design standards um that's an example of clear clear and clear and objective um moving on to uh D2 that is the um gross flow area definition that's a design standard that's copy and paste directly from the state regulations the state regulations use the S use the um floor area grow floor area definition of the building code that's slightly different than our zoning definition so for purposes of Adu gross floor area copy and pasted the state regulation definition um Jose is it 7 feet or 6 6.8 Florida sailing for State 7et 7 feet so this has come up um the state definition says gross floor are includes all square footage whether it's whether it's conditioned or not conditioned so garages are included basement attics as long as the floor to ceiling height is 7 feet or more so it's very permissive and again the only reason the gross floor areas is being used is to calculate the size of the Adu MH uh D3 is parking that would that produce a larger gross floor area than under what's defined under a current bylaw our current bylaw um I think uses I think it references 6.8 but it also references the uh the State Building Code so it's very very similar uh let's just get that gross floor area um says as otherwise defined in the most recent edition of the mass State Building Code it does reference 7 ft so it's it's it's very similar but just to be uh absolutely certain we copy and pasted in the the Adu regulation okay D3 refers to parking as I mentioned uh last meeting it appears as though um our LRTA bus routes are defined as a bus station we believe the LR ta allows flag stops which means that the entire bus route becomes a bus station which means that um no parking can be required within a half mile of the bus routes outside of a half mile uh no more than one space for the Adu can be required the only provision or or language to bring to your attention in here is um the the pink uh text here uh um we had this discussion at the last meeting uh this this contemplates the option for the property owner to provide that one extra space initially when this was drafted and I included that in here again it was restricted to single family uh now that it's um adus can go on single two threes and and fours maybe it doesn't make sense or make as much sense to uh provide the property owner with the option to build that extra space or not at the last meeting we had some conversation on that I think the I think the uh will of the board was to require the space to be to be to be physically constructed um for what it's worth you know I did ask Council whether you could treat you know single and two differently and maybe provide the option for single and two and maybe require it for multif family and I explained you know my my I guess my concern on the single family you know one space with maneuvering backing out making a three-point turn is you know at least 500 squ ft of pavement so if you're trying to maintain you know the character of a neighborhood adding 500 plus square feet of pavement you know that that has a large V visual impact the other provisions um in this bi in in section three uh refer to um that any new aduse parking space has to be accessed from the existing driveway so we're trying to we're trying to um better better better use existing pavement on the properties um section four specifically indicates that no new curb cut shall be permitted Council came up but with this one this is another means of trying to maintain the accessory component of the Adu uh as well as reduce uh visual impacts um to the um to the ls in the neighborhood uh section five codifies the um the special permit requirement for a more than one Adu uh I think Paul con asked when we were in our um our work session whether in fact what did how did you state it are we required are we required to approve them allow or even allow require the special permit even allow more than one H um right now to the chair based on the most recent guidance we're getting from hlc that requirement in the state Act is now being interpreted to mean if you want to allow more than one it has to be done by special permit it doesn't mean that you have to have a special permit provision to allow more than one so this this right here is an option at this point you can put it in or you can leave it out so if we leave it out then we wouldn't be allow any more than one correct let's leave it out I agree Yep this might be a good time to bring up the question I had on the slides then um on slide 35 it had a use case or an example where there was currently a 1200t Adu on a property and a 900 squ ft Adu protected Adu is being proposed in this in that example that second Adu the new one is a protected Adu and must be allowed so in those cases wait why that would that dwelling would have two adus correct and the way that's explained by the way I have it at slide 36 is that yeah sorry it's 36 okay um yeah what's going on there is that the state act and all the requirements in the state Act only apply to adus that meet the state's definition so if you have a Adu that meets that definition and that's the definition we're using by right you're allowed one per lot so if you happen to have an Adu on your lot now that doesn't meet the state's definition then the lot is still open to one Adu by right under the state definition so you could have two adus but the state technically doesn't consider the pre-existing Adu is an Adu under the state law so that's the explanation now whether that's a good idea I don't I can't say so would most existing adus be our were existing laas I would assume but I mean that's the way you've defined them to this point so um I guess what they're saying here is it's an accessory dwelling unit bws have allowed those to the this point under different requirements than perhaps the state allows they're still talking about those as adus but as far as adus that meet the state definition that's a particular type of Adu one of those is allowed by right per line so you're saying like the Adu that you're talking about having two one would be a in-law apartment now you could still put another Adu on that property separate as long as the existing Adu did not meet the state requirements okay so if the existing Adu in- law apartment met the state requirements can't then you can't put another one on you can't put another one so like so just like so if I had a like I had something that was smaller larger I larger larger someone larger then I can put a a 900 one yep none of them are larger though all of the existing laas are under 7 or not larger than 750 in shord right now shord only reason they don't the reason the primary reason they don't comply with the current or the new state Adu is that they're family restricted with a deed restriction and it can't be rented so then that those would all qualify as not meeting the current definition or what if you made them no longer well family that's a very good question um so there's the slide before this talks about the enforceability of permit provisions residency that would not comply basically what it says is you can't enforce them so okay but so then if you stop forcing them if you if you stop requiring them to have family then it would be qualified Adu a qualified Adu only get the one they couldn't get another correct so by changing the bylaw and saying it they we no longer require family so now they comply no well if they exist remember that under standard non-conforming law a current bylaw does not apply to currently existing legal uses their grandfathers the old term that we use they pre-existing legal this is an un an unusual provision where the state is look literally Looking Backward and saying those are now illegal um I haven't seen that before but so all existing laas will become illegal under this the under this no no no no not illegal that's not have that please they if they meet the state definition and you'll see the definition is fairly simple it has you you've seen it before and it has less than 900 square ft or no more than half the gross floor area if it meets that definition that would be an Adu that complies under the state regulations these other requirements that are currently in place for that Adu occupancy according to this cannot be enforced any longer so essentially would strip those requirements that's a given so can this bylaw or should this bylaw include a provision that speaks to existing existing laas automatically become adus I would not do that not because it's wrong just because I as a general rule don't think bylaws should be drafted to try to explain what the law is that should set the law get it and that's an explanation who makes who makes that determination The Building Commissioner will make it in the first instance okay does the Building Commissioner feel that he has what he needs in order to make that determination should because all all all existing laas either at a minimum had a building permit issued in some cases had a special permit from the zoning board but I mean to make make the determination that it's no longer uh you know complies that it doesn't comply with the ad well I think to Mike Walsh's point a homeowner may choose to continue to use the laa for family only so the the way that the they're no longer required to they're not required to but they may choose to but that but that c characteristic does not discount it from being a protected Adu it's only the essentially the size I think so part of the definition I I think that's correct yes interesting okay all right so we just want to be sure that the Building Commissioner is is pre is armed and prepared for what kinds of questions he may get with regards to that since we seem to be struggling with it we'll follow up with him and more on that and I think individually these are going to be my understanding is they were all issued pursuant a special permit each special permit should be examined and see what permits what permit conditions continue to apply and what don't um but I think you can have some bottom line rules residency requirements are not going to apply right right so just to finish on design uh number six um a catolog just refers who the B adus must comply with the mass building code the fire codes local regulations such as the DPW s capacity connection restrictions and any Board of Health regulations someone today asked if you have a 900t Adu and it's two or three bedrooms what's the maximum occupant that can be in a I believe the Board of Health State Board of Health regulations regulate how much square footage is needed uh per individual in a dwelling unit um but clearly that's not not intended to be part of the um the Adu bylaw number seven is a local option uh where towns can prohibit short-term rentals as defined by mgl I believe it's 31 more than 31 less than 31 days yeah it's 31 days or less as a short-term rental by state definition yep and then the final number eight um is a design standard it's attached to all existing laas that the fire prevention letters include uh we a uh detached adus shall provide for adequate Provisions for emergency services via a hard hard surface such as paved brick a concrete that's a a new change a walkway from the Adu to a walkway for the existing uh that should be principal dwelling and or a walkway with a connection directly to a roadway and an identifiable from the street via mailboxes and or address numbering on the building number nine that I had uh just thought of is some uh requirement to uh submit it for e91 addressing I don't know if that needs to be in the in the bylaw itself or if that can be handled administratively through a building permit um it may may have some value to include in the bylaw um the the e91 the E 911 system is the official addressing system that the town clerk uh uses in conjunction with police and fire and it is then given to the postmaster and to the state for um addressing purposes for emergency services so that that covers the existing bio what I wanted to Circle back to is um under D there's um I inserted um some red language which speaks to um some of the uh slides in the state slide deck about providing um clear and clear and objective design standards so the examples they provide are are roof pitch and so you know I'm asking the board you know do you want to specify um a pitch of a roof or prohibit a flat roof um our current detached accessory structures 19511 um does regulate the maximum height of a detach structure at two and a half stories um so the height of the structure may be a reasonable regulation the state's giving examples of uh pitched roof which you know to me means uh you could prohibit a flat roof um we already talked about the exterior stairway uh which brings us back to you know Anita's point if the concern is related to uh detached or multifam um this is our opportunity to try to either identify existing Provisions in the zoning bylaw that already have designed standards specific to multif family or detached or attempt to create something that's deemed reasonable want to add to that yeah I if I could unfortunately this is on page 27 of the state slide deck if we're looking at it the state has given us some guidelines here that really Narrows what I think we can do and expect it to be consistent with the state law it says that no designed standard can be applied that would not be applied to a single family residential dwelling in the single family residential district in which the ad was located um so that you know notwithstanding that adus can be allowed as attach to a multif family or a two family one per lot nonetheless the state is staying as to design standards unless you're applying them to single family dwellings in that District you can't have more restrictive ones even for multif family or two family which so so for example you could not have a regulation that had a lower height for the ad you than for a regular uh compliant house well that's I wouldn't even that's a dimension I wouldn't even consider that a design standard I think they're talking about what what does it look like you know how does it to your earlier Point what does it look like on the lot yeah couldn't you couldn't you make an argument or suggest that the Adu has to uh replicate the main structure in the house the intent of the main structure of the of the property I think I think you could the they've said they want these to be objective and that's why they give the examples where you have 9 ft or 12 feet pitch about that sufficiently objective I think that's close because you're actually looking at a house that actually has a design so you could say it needs to be similar to that right but but if this goes in front of the zoning board would they have the right to look at an elevation to see if it approves do they have that we don't have that right to look at exter exterior do they have we do not have any design standards for single or two family we have we have we have Architectural Review for multif family via site plan approval right and that and that's frankly the problem that we have if we don't have any now how do we impose them so how do you enforce it how do you enforce the intent if it's not approved through the zoning board of appeals at the time when they're going far as ad to you if if we could apply design standards yeah it would be it would be tied to the the by building permit review The Building Commissioner it' have to be clear and objective enough to point where the Building Commissioner make judg right and I think that's the point of what the state is saying they want these determinations to be possible at that level at that level all right so the only other one that that I jotted down and again I I hear a council saying we don't we don't necessarily A require for single or two family is screening fencing or buffering if it if it were a multif family and it triggered a site plan then obviously that process would look at screening buffering fencing so again I I was working with Council trying to figure out to what extent the multif family could have some design standards that are that aren't applied to single and two family but the problem with design the problem with this is that single family homes by definition are not more than one building if you're putting a detached Adu on a property that already has a single family building you're essentially no longer creating a single family environment so I don't understand how we can apply design standards for one building in a situation where there are by definition no longer one building right I mean I think to the design point and and Evan's point about buffering that's actually one good reason to have minor sight plan review because through minor sight plan review if it would be something either that the multif family already has that could be extended or improved for buffering screening and many even have this you could apply it through that process potentially rather than making a requirement that applies to every everything that running down the line um so there is some benefit to putting it there I would also say the buffering is not a design requirement that's something different um I mean you can use it aesthetically but it's not about the design of the structure itself is essentially shielding the use from other properties could we look at anything on flat roofs I heard the answer before as far as like from a safety standpoint like again not in the construction industry but usually flat roofs tend to be concrete and steel structures where residentials more wood frame and I'm thinking snow load things of that nature as I drive around I don't see many residential flat roofs but I mean again it it strikes me that as Evan said if if it's a standard you're going to impose that's not already imposed on single families it's probably a noo the building code dictates the snow load yeah right so if someone wanted to build a flat roof now that the building inspector would have to just enforce that most towns are going to be in a similar position very few towns if any particularly in a Suburban context have design standards for single and two family if you're in a historic historic district then yes but generally speaking it's very very rare a Suburban town would have you know design architectural standards for single and two family so could you go back to the the verbiage the intent to match the design intent of the original primary structure on the property leave it at that I think you could certainly try it I think you get a caution from the state about how it's applied and of course the question would be is it specific enough that it can be applied by The Building Commissioner and that CH I'll take our chances with the state put it in take our chances for the state right objective and if you did it if you did do a minor site plan review could you ask for an elevation to for them or no you can't ask for you mean a limit on height no no an elevation of what the look of the Adu looks like so you can look at the property and say yeah that does not meet the criteria can you ask for that in the minor site plan review if it's in there now you can um it is it in there I don't think it is right but that's our that's our bylaw we can change that I thought it was yeah I thought though you still have to submit the plans on even under minus s CER you have to submit the plans that meet all that a long list of criteria if it's in there you could still ask for it but good okay you know how you know again I'm primarily thinking of design site plan review not as a design review but as a basically locating things on the lot for proper movement and light um but I you know the other thing is if you do put it in it survives review the other issue is well two issues number one if it's not fairly objective it's going to give the Building Commissioner difficulties in applying it so you know saying that what's proposed is architecturally similar you know who makes that determin how do you make that determination it's very difficult it's even difficult now we have Provisions that if there's a slow proof that's what I'm saying if there's a slow proof there's a slow proof If there's a if there's a flat roof on the single fil now then you'd be entitled to put a flat roof on the Adu right and I that's something where this state I think is indicating if you want to be that specific slop roof slope roof flat roof flat roof I think you could do that okay rather than leaving it open-ended as you so you're saying made it a little bit more defined yeah take the next step right we could do that how about slope roof with a similar pitch yeah that's what I mean yeah yeah prob similar sighting purposes of roof you want to be specific that any proposed new Adu attached or detached would have a similar pitched roof as the principal structure that's that's we're not we're not referring to architectural style was specific to the roof the roof line maybe within 10% or something and again we're going to run up against what we're looking at on the board here if it's not applied to a single family dwelling then right are we going to be able to enforce question I have is though if you a lot of the structures that are in town the pitch roofs have an attic would the and would you allow the second floor of the Adu to be used that's above the square footage or no don't think we have any requirements about basically you're just looking at the envelope 900 ft what I'm saying I can just see where developers and uh and residents will stretch it and if you have the property of the size of 900 on the first floor but then we match the intent of the home which has a pitch roof so now you can add another 200 uh square feet or 300t we SE more than one gaze in isn't that still doesn't that add to the gross it would add to the gross but it would happen after the fact that uh that it would be a later buil right and then you know and it's not like the building inspector be able to pick up on it right all the time well like they would get they would you have to get a building permit to do that yeah but a lot of people don't well say if they do interior fit outs they don't but Mike it does include that in the gross area from the beginning to go to a second floor if it has the Headroom it would be automatically included from the beginning in the if square if it's part of the Adu right remember you can build a detached structure that's greater than 900 square ft but the Adu cannot exceed 900 well someone wants to put in a three-car garage with an Adu above it we haven't even talked about how that's handled but but that's that's an option and similar with with the Adu someone could submit a building permit that shows a a structure bigger than 900 square F feet and the floor plan specifically articulates that only 900 square ft is being labeled and used as an Adu we deal with that now the Commissioners deal with that every day when it comes to laas is it an laa or is it just an addition to a house but in that case the area above the garage would be protected the garage underneath would not be correct it's going to be based upon what what specifically proposed on those on that proposed floor plan that's submitted to the building as a building permit so just just like now there's all kinds of scenarios and iterations that the industry you know knows some tricks and tips the same will the same will evolve as part of adus M so that I think uh then the last section um the the second step or the third step of the article would be to amend the use table and um it would be to add what I think I think what I think we need to do is there there's currently a a Artic a line um G this is for um accessory to residential uses I'm sorry in line e is currently says accessory dwelling units but that's specific to the center Village article 105 17A is Center Village so what this is proposing is to add a new line f accessory dwelling units referencing section 19561 which would be the new Adu bylaw and then um as I discussed with Council the state regulations say anywhere a anywhere existing single family is permitted so the new use table line would read R yes RBS RCS and RM yes rest of the zoning districts would be no now the state says zones where a single family are allowed by right or special permit or by variance or any other permit this is how it keeps going so we don't have that situation now but in the future if the zoning were to change where single families were allowed by special permit in other zones right we could get into a situation where the single family home has to go through a special permit process but then the Adu would be allowed by right well I I I I had a thought on that it's something I picked up on as well and uh I wondered if it might be either possible or convenient to make a very small change to uh C1 where currently says where single family dwellings are allowed could we add by right would that cause a conflict that's on the edge so we actually had that language we had The Language by right or by special permit and then when the state's definition came out and it's this huge expansive okay so so you you think that would probably run a foul of what the the state's trying to accomplish yeah at at the least it's going to get a comment from the AG saying you have to apply this consistent with the state's definition whether it says that or not so rather than create false sense of because it it occurred to me for example we we do have situations where we put residential in other areas for example we can do that with multif family at least in ciod right and you know I'm not sure I really want to see this expanded to uh cover industrial areas but I can imagine situations but I think we have to it sounds like we may have to yeah yeah and keep in mind that you don't necessarily have to draft for every possible scenario um one of the big reason that to do this is to provide um consistency for homeowners who are looking at this and also for the billing Commissioners to apply it but if there is a conflict going down the road Ro the state act will take precedence so it you know even if the bylaw we run into a situation where the bylaw can let's take a possibly even practical example you know you go U you're down 119 uh 129 rather and you cross Route three on the right there's a small chunk of chumford the guy's got a business in there and he's got a single family house I don't know whether he's using it as a single family house but it certainly was built as aing single family house M I believe that that's IA MH yep can you put any Adu in it uh so under the definition of where it's allowed not necessarily but if that is an existing non-conforming would certainly be existing non-conforming right in that case yeah then it's it's definitely going to at least qualify for one all right and there's not much we can do to to limit that I guess but but there's that's a real example of what you're talking yeah I mean it essentially allows adus in any Zone we have in town is where there's a legal dwelling on the lot single family or no where there's a legal dwelling on the lot let's leave it to that or where we have mechanisms that would allow us to permit a legal dwelling on the lot the overlays do not allow single families they don't currently they allow multi family but they allow multi so they're close but but as I understand the way law is written in a district where single family dwellings are allowed so yeah that application potentially maybe the dwelling down in IA or IU doesn't qualify because it's not in a district where single family willings are allowed maybe it was maybe that's another well obviously when it was built that was before any of this I was just trying to clarify um seid in the 129 overlay those do not allow single family yeah you have to build m family which means three or more you could build you could propose to build three single families but one single family is not permitted right but my point is that even three single families a single family dwelling is technically allowed there it well you'd have to build them in threes but it's still a single family dwelling well under I hear what you're saying our zoning defines it as multif family which is three or more so the those overlays don't reference single family all right but I hear what you're saying I mean the the typology could be literally three single families on one lot I don't know how the new Adu bylaw the new ad law is going to handle that and then for districts that we have like the IIA District um Down River Neck we have single family dwellings all over the place down there would those lots qualify for adus I mean I think what we're seeing right now is under the state Rags no because they are not in a district where single family okay residences are allowed even though they already exist there correct so before when I look at this as a non-conforming dwelling there is an argument to be made but you applying their definition which is a protected use Adu it has to be in one of those districts that could likely be a revision they make I I could see that one slithering I mean because even even at the local level right why wouldn't chord want to allow those single families mommoth to have a similar opportunity right if you're going to allow it in 80% of the town why why would you exclude existing single family okay and I I had if we're done with this one I had another thought this involved uh D and we have the provision in there of well we have several Provisions pertaining to parking uh including one that says you can't add a curb cut well I think this makes sense most of the time but I started imagining situations that were really more similar to the variant situation where you have a piece of property that for some particular characteristic of that property is not suitable and I I imagined a piece of property that had a single family house on a cliff and then another piece of land uh right now we have no mechanism to allow that to be used because we have an absolute restriction on curb cut that might be a space where we might want to loosen up just a little bit and ow it under variance uh perhaps under under variance uh rules or something of that sort couldn't that be handled as a variance well yeah maybe it could be I would think you could so what what happens in those sit I mentioned this previously so what we can apply what are on their face reasonable regulations we can apply those there may be situations where um the benefit to the community does not equal the difficult y of actually putting an A and that's that's what I'm imagining right so the way that unfortunately there is no formal process for that the way that this has worked over time with other protected uses is that a request is made by the applicant to first of all to the Building Commissioner if it's denied then to the zba to allow for a variance from that it's not even a formal variance it's literally I'm going to make an argument that this is an unreasonable regulation as applied to me there's you'll already see these in the definitions in the state RS okay that determination can be made by the board you don't need a process other than what you already have oh okay so we can we can handle that yes so we can keep the what what would it what would it look like somebody comes in they they have a minor site they show a plot plan they show an Adu on it and the Adu shows a curb cut and we look at the property and we say there's no way you couldn't not have a curb cut cuz you're going to need a separate driveway for this thing cuz the way the land is put together how would we what what thing would we do to permit that we wouldn't be seeing it right it be it's still going to come into US Building Commissioner that sees it for multi come to the planning board MTI if you're talking m to the board of appeals sorry so we can Resort the best we have so since they gave us the test the regulations we can look up what that is so this is if you're looking at the regs it's section 7103 subsection 3 unreasonable regulation um so it says that you can reasonably restrict provided that any restriction of Regulation shall be unreasonable if and then you'll see three tests um one does not serve a legitimate Municipal interest sought to be achieved by local zoning well curb cut you know I suppose it depends where it is although yeah it depends on the situation right then two serves a legitimate Municipal interest but its application in this situation does not rationally relate to the legitimate well that's almost that's almost a variance yeah well it's close but you're going to get a lot more the difference is going to be owed to the Adu not like a variance it's it's flipped okay and and what we have a way to say that in our in a decision that we make approving something to actually say that yep absolutely okay if we can as long as we can say it in our definition in a useful way then I don't think we need to touch this and you could certainly require them to show it as well show show why you can't put put it somewhere else you're right it's it's similar to a Varian standard in that fashion yeah but as I said the the the difference is now owed to the Adu and a variance it certainly is not right speaking of definition would it would it be worth defining the Adu as a protected use Adu as opposed to more generic Adu in our bylaw in other words using the state definition of protected Adu yeah I'm using the term protected use Adu versus a general Adu I it would make sense if you're going to have other adus that you want to put under that umbrella right now that's not going to happen you're limiting your bylaw to that ad you so Adu works fine okay um you might have to come you know if you want to broaden this this might not be the time given the tight schedule you have but if you want to broaden this you could come back and rearrange that I don't think we do no but I'm thinking more of making sure we're limiting do you guys want to participate in this conversation good Mike and Anita yeah we are okay I'm I'm just making sure we're limiting in this case yeah I no I think it's because the definition we have tracks the state definition exactly so so protected use Adu um it does propose it uses the part about locating a lot in a single family residential zoning district and no other Adu was located on that lot um we have not Incorporated those standards um we will have to apply them anyway should we put those in there we could okay okay if that's something that I mean I guess I'm a little bit little bit leery of that at the moment mainly because we're going to be crossing paths with how these regulations are still being reviewed and commented on while you're going to a special town meeting okay um what are other towns doing they're doing what you're doing I've had some towns that have already passed Adu bylaws um some are working on them now running into the same problems which is the moving Target that we have um typically if the towns allow them by right now by special permit and the standard is a larger size they're they're tending to retain that as a separate category and then having a set of regulations that just pertain to the state ones um just to give basically more freedom it really depends on what you already have in your community if you're comfortable with this then you add these and leave the other ones where they are you know so so just back to um D3 the park the property owner option to provide a parking space what how where do we where do we want to land on that I would like to require it even though it's going to require more pavement I think the option would be people ending up parking on grass and yeah we're we're going to wind up with that situation we have in front of us now people parking in the in the circle and then the police can't come down and then right like yeah no let's so required for all all scenarios okay yep well except for the 0.5 mile there but yes just out of curiosity how the town yeah what's the percent asking for that not bloody much we'll do up a map uh I think we have eight separate routes in town that might be useful a town meeting because I that might come up yeah do an overlay of the bus routes and yeah we're going to need that for the building department anyway I mean I I I think you're going to find the only place it doesn't applier the middle of the cranberry bog are we 100% sure that a bus route equals a bus station y yes but I'm not 100% sure on is whether the LRT does the uh flag stop along the entire route that's the key it's got to be flag stuff BR put your arm up and they stop like haing a it doesn't have designated spots we can easily test that well they certainly do have designated SP we think we think that they allow flag stops I yeah I I've seen them let people off all over the place so so usly getting off well maybe they do right the idea being that the bus driver will stop on that route if you flag them as opposed to you go to the stopper otherwise we're not stopping yeah I guess that's the difference you wouldn't get anybody on like so so I'm just thinking CU we have one right in the corner like there's a sign yeah right there are designated bus stops right is that what you're talking like someone goes at that you don't have to put your arm out on those sign spots no they'll stop talking in between bus stops along the Route someone just Flags the bus down and they'll stop like well we're not 100% sure we think the LRTA stops if they do supposedly then that constitutes yeah and I think if I drive up and down uh 110 fairly often because I work down there and I see situations that look to me as if people are flagging the bus I don't know if they really are we'll get clarification on that right we'll have to it's pretty important is important I don't see stops anyway so I think that covers everything we needed to cover tonight well so we're going to require one space yeah yeah we're we're required yeah we'll we'll require shall be it shall be constructed and then the other things were the design and use we didn't really nail those down yeah we reviewed what's in the draft I don't think we came up with any anything specific specifically new to add well I think we should say the height can exceed the height of the primary structure and that would that would already be the case based on what we've got in um where is it C2 or no excuse me C3 so it has to comply with dimensional standards unless you're talking about an existing structure that would be below what's for instance you got aot house that's going to get into a stylistic consideration I'm thinking of some examples around not in this town but you know the AG gropus house right yes it is classic classic example of bow house architecture right and it's low and flat roofed right and I think if you tried to tell somebody that they couldn't build you know a gingerbread Colonial Adu next to it uh you'd probably get beat up for uh uh trying to apply uh visual standards that aren't legit I mean I I would suggest you know our design standards at this point are sort of grouped in D1 um I think the rest of this Falls outside of that so I think the question the first the Baseline question is are we going to try to have design standards because we aren't we can room that and that'll be the end of that if we are then the question is how specific can we make them and can we somehow tie them to existing single family design standards can we find them well I like to M suggestion that we have you know similarly sloped roofs in the Adu as with the primary structure I mean I think that's fairly specific and somewhat find a coral corative requirement now in the zoning bws that's the other well it wouldn't exist because it would exist have true structures right so I mean you're categorically not allowing us to place anything like this if you're saying we should has to exist very carefully about applying our view of Aesthetics as much as I despise a lot of buildings that I see get us do somewhere you get us thank you you really have nothing like we run into a ton of problems existing because of this thing or we go a little bit more detailed and let someone push back right gu that's somewhere well if we that we to be similar in the new building as it is in the old building I mean I if they want like your example if they want to put the gingerbread Colonial or whatever on there next to next to a um you know a row house that we have down on you know um the camp and allei homes you know yeah then then that's something that the zoning board would have to deal with or someone would have to deal with making that option a variance you know it's one way you could think about approach this and I haven't really thought of this until now is I mean these are accessory structures and the state does say well do you have any design requirements for accessory structures in your zoning bow well you don't you could put them in yeah yeah that may by putting them in for all accessory structures then you can apply them to adus um and then accessory structure would that be a shed yeah so then here we go it's a shed it's a garage yeah right pool house right but going forward I mean if that's something the want like but my shed like has like it has a similar pitch to my house like it does not everyone does most most sheds and MKS are pitched not flat for obvious reason and then it becomes like how similar like you know then it's like well you know some are like this versus the house is like this but is that similar enough right I think you should that somewhere I agree the other interesting part of this and uh Jonathan correct me from wrong the state regs specifically mention modular and prefab yeah yeah and uh my understanding of prefab is it very often they are a flat roof is there tiny not necessar not now yeah my preat the colonial big Colonial I'm uh the the manufactured homes are very often are flat roof like a like a I don't I mean what comes to mind is is femur a HUD type of emergency housing you know so it's not it's not clear to what extent the regulations I think they're saying that local municipalities cannot prohibit manufactured or or modular it's handled under the building code that's fine as long as it would this discussion it would still fall under the design of the roof of the primary structure yeah and now all I'm suggesting is I don't know to what extent the state regulations are suggesting or stating that it's kind of off limits if it's a if it's a manufactured um these would require a foundation right State requires a foundation a foundation can be a slab understood um but it does require a foundation yes um but the dist I'm back to my distance between the primary and the main house can we put something in there that has that requires I mean I know the town requires 10 ft but can we make it 20 ft between the like the accessory drilling so it's not all cram next to the house yeah again I think if you if you want to draft something that applies to accessory structures in general you might even have a graduated one but it's again I think that's the state is saying that's your Baseline if you have something that applies accessory structures in single family dig you can apply it to adus but doesn't what it doesn't as I read this doesn't want to see is an Adu design requirement where there is nothing else for single families or accessory structures well I have like I have a table for my like or structures right like we have setbacks from properly line yep can I not apply that setback or some portion of that setback like for the Adu cuz like to me it's like well mean between the Adu and the yes like if I have a setback already like to me it's not unreasonable if I have like 20 or you know I think one of them is 12T setbacks like if you in a certain size lot you have 12T setbacks from your property line why can't you have it from if it I'm talking for detached from the primary can we do that yeah I I mean I think I would view that as a design requirement unless there's you can come up with another zoning basis for it that's not not how it looks yeah um could add it not could add it you could you could try to add one why can't weit if you wanted to I don't know just just one caution here by the way if if we're going to add something to apply to accessory structures which I think is a reasonable basis for trying to get something reasonable to apply to adus you're not going to go to town meeting though with a bylaw that's now talking about something other than they use you're talking about garages and other things uh what are what are the possibilities for getting this taken care of uh pretty much as it is I I tend to think it's pretty close uh and then consider further things that would cover all the accessory uses as a later piece of work I mean I don't think we're gonna all of a sudden have the town covered with flat roofed adus I mean I I think most people that want to build these things want to have some modicum of uh similarity and and you know balance pleasing design there's always there's always one no this is about dollars and cents they're going to do the cheapest way they can this has nothing to do about well you know if they did Park a trailer on top of a slab right that's basically what you do Evan was there um I think you mentioned it earlier um is there someone in here I might have missed it that it cannot be in front of the other house the primary I think you mentioned that last meeting that no has to be behind the primary or to the side the um D1 was in expresses a preference for the for the door for the accessway the entry right to be in the side or rear however as drafted there's nothing that prevents an Adu from being in the front yard between the street and the principal structure the current the current 19511 specifically prohibits accessory buildings to be placed between the front of the building and the street yeah we have a fair number of lots in town some of them a little bigger than absolutely required with the house quite far back where the only practical place to put an Adu is going to be between the house and the street and I don't think we're going to get away with Banning that but if we already have that as a as a restriction on Accessory buildings we should be able to apply a to use right unfortunately though you're wiping out that entirely and replacing with this so it won't still be there but you could keep it can we put it back um well the other way we weren't we weren't applying any provision within 19511 to the proposed Adu bylaw including that provision so maybe we can keep maybe we can keep I think that's a good one like we don't put them on the front of people's Lawns yeah houses I think that would be a good one but instead of applying all of 19511 pull that piece of it in as a design standard I mean I can't say you can't put it in there I just and you might as I said the AG may say well it's not clear that it's a conflict but we caution you about its application all right well I'd rather get cautioned by because there's a whole bunch of other towns doing this well it's true but I just the possible negative implications are that if you if it gets challenged you will have to defend it legally and that's where we start looking at well okay what are what's the I like to get down that path and I like it to get challenged by people first and that gives I think residents and and stakeholders in this state an opportunity to really look at who we're voting in at the state level because I think once just like the MBTA that now all of a sudden towns are waking up and realizing oh I don't want I don't like this um I think when people start seeing what happens here this is one of those other ones I got slipped in that doesn't protect the home yeah I wasn't sitting there when they voted it so I can't tell no I I understand that but like you know again simple request just to play out aita scenario if we include the no accessory building shall be located within the required front yard area and that's a it's either a dimensional or design standard the AG cautions us moving forward someone submits an application they they indicate or notate that they're not complying with that and they're proposing to put the Adu in the front yard as drafted that requires relief so that relief goes to the zoning board right and as part of that Dover process the applicant has a legal right to make the application seeking relief protected use and then what what Anita is saying is that that's the zoning board's opportunity to to deny it to deny that particular relief but the Dover the Dover um Cas law is a bit more nuanced right they have there's a series of uh Criterion decision assessment they need to make is that correct yeah that is correct and so the only the question then would be if you can because that would be essentially your local buffering process to deal with particular applications somebody says well this case this isn't fair to impose this on me so it would go first The Building Commissioner then to the board CBA to determine whether it is and they might say no in this case it has to be allowed so they have to prove that the K located in the side or rear essentially I mean we go through those tests again but it's not probably we can Envision how it might go but it's going to be a call for the board to make when it sees this so you know the only issue then if we put it in now is it going to survive review um for the AG is it going to so can we at least get it to the point where we can apply it I I rather us like try because at this point like you know they're still making they're still trying to figure out all the like you know as you said it's still they're trying to provide feedback now as we're talking so may I make one suggestion if the primary goal of the special town meeting is to get something off the books and and past the AG maybe maybe we maybe we proceed with what we know yeah is is not going to be questionable to the AG final regulations come out and then we amend as well on on the question of whether the AG cautions if it Standalone within our bylaw in the ad Adu bylaw [Music] would that be more questionable than if we refer back to the accessory part of the bylaw and say these apply because if we refer back to that accessory building part of the bylaw we're already applying it uniformly across right yeah that would be a Bas if we pull it out and put it in it it loses the context correct so we would want to refer back to correct to the fact that this this is a design stand that that you have for accessory buildings to use it's your confident you're confident would get it would be acceptable to the AG I think there's a better chance let's not take confident too far here um but yeah I think I mean that's given what we're what we have it's you know they're saying if you if you're applying this to single family dwellings and I think you can include their accessory structures y MH and you can apply to adus as long as it has defined standards that can be applied not just you know doesn't look good um that would not apply okay it's final just question is that going to be considered a design standard or a dimensional for purposes of inserting it in the the bylaw here depends how you write it I'm hearing it now as a design standard but depending on how you write it could be a dimensional requirement so we're looking at you're looking at the existing requirement um that we have in one night 511 for accessory buildings yep um so EVS poting to shall be located within a required front yard area detached accessory buildings may be located in the rear no right no accessory building shall be located within the required front yard area now that's that's true already under the dimensional RS that's what front yards are for right um DET Common Sense the front it's interesting that front yard is expands beyond the front yard setback or can yes okay depending on yeah I think we defined front yard Jose and I had looked at this provision multiple times ahead of me let's take a look again and that speaks very much to the case of the way set back house which we can easily have 40 ft in front which you cleared and then put the Adu and then right and uh know where they are hold on I would caution I I think I don't think that would hold up well i' like to try somebody who knows better than and I'm not sure I want to spend a lot of town money considering that most people their biggest investment is their H I don't want to jeopardize people's investment but they've worked hard building this the home who's putting the 8 I understood yeah so you could have a 25 foot setback set back further yeah I can see your argument to a big lot right the house is set back a half we have we have around town I know where maybe that's an exception but there's other places where I bet they're not going to want to build a home is past the setback it's further in a little bit yeah that you could put an accessory in front and still meet the well let's say if you left CH the question is say you have a 40 foot Frontage I think that's what you haveb di table what's RA yeah ra and RB dimensional for some reason I be 60 in R uh but if you have a house that's 100 ft back right right then you have putting something without trying to prevent yeah a setback IE just a line coming off yeah one that's a th000 ft back that's a different situation situation but then that can go to the zba so in that case make a draft with the changes that we've discussed so Jonathan's working on um 19511 the front yard yeah okay now that I have a better understanding of what we're talking about so yeah in that case since you have a definition of front yard that's defined by where the building is located not by just a set distance from the front lot line so in that case this does have meaning and you can't locate it so Evan's correct that's already in your bylaw that can be in my opinion that could be applied to an Adu yeah lety it should um but I think we want to put that in spefic where we can we want to put it specifically in the Adu bylaw because we've already said we're not a we're not going to put it in there we're just going to refer back to it no no no I think you do want to put it in I think it because we've already said 19511 doesn't apply to these remember we have that earlier in the Bible yeah so I think you want to but the fact that it's here is is enough to make the argument but do we have to refer back to it because if we pull it in Standalone the AG may not know where apply apping it they better know they supposed to look at the whole Bible yeah we'll tell them if they don't no I think I think the idea is it's fine if it's here we can give it a try yeah so is that the only piece of that we want to pull back in the only other provision would be the last sentence an accessory building with a footprint greater than 900 square feet or a building height in excess of 20 feet or two stories shall require a special permit I think the the 20 ft or two stories maybe that's applicable yeah yeah well you know we're not going to be able to require a special permit for it no matter what we do um can we not allow anything over that then well footprint greater than 900 square feet is pretty much not going to apply anyway given that so we're we just say an Adu may not have a building height in excess of 20 ft or two stories or two stories um I think you could um I guess the broader question is do you want to it's going to force a certain type type of design onto an Adu is that something that's preferable as opposed to having them more constricted but me looking like the same height as a house I mean two stories is 450 450 it's kind of small Max I think I think what 19511 speaks to and I think what you guys are trying to achieve is that if it's DET particularly detached that it is accessory and subordinate which is which is what 9 195 from a design persp you want to make sure that if we say that we would like that we would like the accessory structure to be a subordinate to the main structure in so far and specifically we would like it not to be in the front yard and not to be taller than 20 20 feet or two stories I think I think for the same reason that we could do the first sentence I think we can do this sentence and I would put as a separate requirement in section D just say pull it right out and say this is what we're going to do for 8 let's let's give it a shot now 20 we recognize that 20 ft is not 20t 20t is the if you have a pointed roof it's somewhere between we Define the building he yeah it's all definitional by the building inspector so we'll use those as design requirements in D1 in place of what we're suggesting here okay and then I just have one not related to sorry before we go there um you said in place of what we have in D1 that was my understanding but I'm not that's why I put it out there is that what I'm hearing or I mean I thought Evan is that I thought it was an addition to D1 yeah maybe maybe it's a new d a D9 or yeah M yeah anything in D1 still should remain requirement to submit address maybe added gave us the nine so this would be 10 yeah or we can add it to D1 I guess the one question that I have about D1 that remains is the part about detracting from the single family appearance of the dwelling first of all we we need to get rid of single family because these can be added to multif family and two families right um do we say then detract from the appearance of the dwelling that's probably not going to fly it's just too vague um so we if you're going to have some sort of appearance about the primary dwelling oh yeah you oh yeah absolutely you can say it but detract from the appearance is what I'm kind of focusing on here can we well we're that's why we're giving specific so so maybe maybe we just we should delete that appearance of the single of the existing yeah I don't think appearance should be part of that I mean that's difficult for the Building Commissioner to okay fair in again unless he has my taste in L of these two design standards that we're pulling from 19511 I don't know what what more we can do yeah we can't put down just can't be ugly no yeah we have a few of those drop an asteris see Michael R yeah right um can I ask and not I just did we ever get back to the Sewer connection how does this work with sewer and does it need its own SE I know like septic how do how will that all work so I can I can update you briefly um Clancy has indicated that um the current regulations um will likely uh be remain unchanged in the in the sense that the additional capacity that an Adu will require is not not the issue with the current regulation current regulation allows um 500 allows increases not greater than 500 square fet Christine has also indicated that the regulations will remain unchanged in the sense that they will not require Title Five they will continue to allow connections to the municipal system or the same adding on to the same connection how how the how the additional flow for the Adu is connected remains to be determined that's they're working that out they're going to work that out the example she gave is that if you if your Adu is at a lower elevation than your principal structure typically that requires a a some sort of booster right yeahp and so that's the level of detail where they're struggling with so it's not going to be a question as to whether they can connect they will be allowed to connect SE Title 5 systems will not be required and and that's because every home right now is required you could put a five 500 square foot you can put you can you can put uh five no more than 500 additional gallons per day so if someone Builds an Adu and what happens if they want to put an addition on the primary down the road they can't do it the um the gallons per day is based upon bedrooms boms just like Title Five you can put addition you could have put as you can put additions on your house yeah but not bedrooms correct okay so that's that's where adus with the existing principal structure will eventually be capped via bedrooms yeah under the um DPW soil limitation okay all right I have my limited questions okay all right so I think we've covered it Jonathan and I will uh circulate a final final draft I think what we're hearing from the board um is that this is uh acceptable to be submitted to the uh select board for inclusion in a special town meeting M okay and then and we'll post our this the timeline that you laid out at the beginning yep we're going to advertise the public hearing open on um January 8th do you need a vote for that so can we see this let's do a vote before all right I move it can we see the draft before it goes to the select absolutely y yeah but uh for purpose of tonight a motion to forward it for inclusion of special to meeting I will reviewed and revised I will move that we forward the draft as amended and adjusted tonight uh to the select board and that we schedule the uh appropriate public hearing I have a second motion by Mike rck second by Anita all in favor I what's our agenda for January 8th um it's going to be a long meeting yeah yeah I did the I did the notification for um um South chumford uh the resoning uh I did that um January 8th 65 dunable was continued the katees corner zoning discussion for pet and the Adu uh public hearing it's not too bad it could be as long as you want it to be in in the next three weeks sent a note an email regarding the 110 did you want us to respond to that no no need for you to take any action on that I'll I'll be talking to Jonathan on that more detail and then we'll we'll update the board accordingly okay can we agree that if anything else comes in they'll get put to the next meeting to the 22 do we want to consider starting half an hour earlier like at 6:30 yeah maybe if if if we think we might have to stuff some stuff or is that that's a problem for you just I'm heading into year end uh but is this January 6th 8th 8th yeah I'll be I mean I'll be busy for two months but I could do 6:30 6:30 on the 8th I could do it yeah we'll start early you're in the countdown anyway oh you got to get off earlier by starting earlier no I know you want to do a motion to adjourn so moved second hi all be e e e e