##VIDEO ID:Nh7QqQR9OzQ## e e e e clock we will begin this meeting of the cheler planning board um I'm the chair dear dley just a couple announcements this meeting will be televised and um recorded and will be available subsequently on CH Tel media and if but if the um video goes down we will continue the live meeting um and we are tonight missing um Mike Walsh um Joel to my knowledge is coming um we'll start off with public input which is limited to statements regarding issues within our jurisdiction but which are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing um if anyone would like to speak and public input seeing none assume there's no one on the zoom call not indicating that they want to speak all right next up we have Jackson Road um request for lot release uh Lots one to five it's actually One D five D five correct oh sorry okay oh Casey Ferrer with Howard Stein h um tonight I have with me Kathy frell from Farland Robbins and also the applicant wendland Lou of Northstar realy um so we were here before this board I think it was last January where we um received releases for five of the last six Lots um the we bonded out the rest of the work um and had an agreement with DPW that one lot shall remain held um by this board uh through the bond until all work was completed um at this time the only work remaining to be completed is State work work within the state's right of way uh unfortunately we've been held up permitting that for about a year and a half um we we first approached them about a year and a half ago to request how to remove the driveway that's in their RightWay that's the scope of the work we have remaining is just removing about 200 feet of driveway um so you know our proposal here and what we've talked to DPW about is to leave in place the $385,000 bond uh that the town is holding um and again that's money that was collected from the sales of the previous Lots closings uh put in a bank account um basically protected so that the only people who can withdraw it are the town if they need it or it can be returned back to the the applicant um so we're leaving in place the 385 ,000 um the scope of work should cost less than $20,000 uh so we're proposing to leave in place almost 20 times the amount of of money to uh to be able to fund this um all we're requesting is that we release lot five um so that we can sell the final the final property and um get those buyers in just before Christmas hey Joel okay um we're talking about um lot five Joel and Jackson Road um does anyone have any questions for the applicant pretty routine let's just do it move we DPW memo do we need to read that or you po I just understood that um from Public Works the Department of Public Works was was requested by howenstein and Hudson to to review as builts and comment on the final lot release of lot five at Jackson Road the DPW has reviewed the as builts showing the substantial completion of the project and can confirm that the following DPW inspected work remains outstanding on the project one all driveway removal and restoration at groten Road and mass do RightWay two all street lights need to work and be energized three driveways need to work so that the roadway water does not flow from the street onto private property DPW to inspect and confirm during a rainstorm four clean up trash and construction debris across entire site until final work is complete and final acceptance occurs five as builts and certifications fully reviewed and approved by DPW the applicant has requested that the final lot lot five be released and they will maintain and place the Cur the current existing bond of 385,000 until all work is finished with that said the DPW can confirm that the remaining work would cost less than the current Bond of 385,000 it is dpw's understanding that the applicant is requesting the lot to be released so they can get occupancy as well as sell the remaining two units on lot five per the planning board decision on Jackson Road and signed September 23rd 2020 it states under Section prior to issuance of occupancy permit that all proposed improvements within subdivision roadway be completed prior to to the issuance of the final occupancy permit and the asilt pl plan and letter should be provided prior to the issuance of the final occupancy permit neither of these points has been fully satisfied as shown the list of outstanding work above with that said DPW approves of lot five being released as long as the current Bond of 385,000 remains in place until all work is completed as for the occupancy of the two units on lot five this decision is to be determined by others I'll give you a motion if you want it well the I just want to comment the only question I had was the cost of the work remaining and you answered that because my concern was that if it was close to the 380 if this went on for two years the cost may increase above the bond but um with it that not much difference I have no concerns do we have any kind of an estimate of when when the work will be able to proceed I'm hoping by spring because we're aiming for Springtown meeting Road acceptance so that's our goal right now for timeline um but being M do I cannot guarantee that in any way okay anyone else take a motion okay I move that uh we Grant the release of lot 1.5 on Jackson Road I second okay all in favor is that unanimous yeah do we is mik on Mike's not coming right did you vote yeah oh I didn't catch that so it was unanimous yes thank you all right okay thank you very much guys thank you next up we have a request for a major modification at 65 Dunville Road formerly 61 Dunville Road owners Christopher and Kelly Sullivan are requesting a major modification to a previously approved site plan and special permit and a new um special permit for the construction of a 2un residential building and Associated site improvements the property is located in the CD General commercial zoning district is shown on assessor parcel ID map 9 block block 10 lot 7 consisting of approximately 32 Acres the applicant requests approval under article 21 community and ciod and subsections 19511 c section 19 95-111 D5 and 19515 Doc and any other permit relief as may be required um Madam chair may I begin yes Madam chair members of the board good evening for the record uh Douglas desan from feran and Nicholson here representing Chris and Kelly Sullivan Mr Sullivan is here with us this evening uh also with me uh John Riley our engineer on the project here um the board may recall that a couple years back uh the board approved the develop of a two uh two two bedroom units on this lot which was located within the ciod um and we were able to obtain uh the permits necessary to build um this 2 unit uh building however at that time we were under the understanding and direction that we would have to build a um onsite septic system to support these units and that really dictated the original orientation of the building if you'll recall the the the building was Orient oriented so that the driveway came down a side and you curved in to the driveways uh to the garages under um certainly not an ideal uh design but again um you know when you're when you have to put a septic system in it really dictates what you can do especially on a lot of this size however subsequent to that um it was determined by the sewer department um that in fact this site uh lot is in fact eligible for a sewer connection up to 500 gallons and whereas this was a two bedroom you know two units our sewer would be 440 gallons there by meeting their requirements and allowing us to um connect to sewer so not having to build a septic system uh gave my client the opportunity to reconfigure the building and to Reign it so that it would become a front-facing residential structure in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood I I'd have to go back and check but I think at that point we were the only residential structure that was going to have this kind of little funky side load so um we were able to orientate the the building facing forward as you can see we're proposing um two parking spaces in addition to the uh under garage uh so we are now having three spaces um that one change however triggered a need for another special permit and which we've applied for uh because in the seid district even though it's a residential use the seid wants to see parking to the rear so um we believe that reorienting the building making it look more like the neighborhood in that it faces forward with a face forward- facing garage and parking in front um is is certainly justification for that additional um permit we also made what I believe to be other improvements to the project that make it more beneficial to the neighborhood um you may recall that the original building that was approved was just under 45 ft because that was the you know allowed height within the seid however in working with staff and with his engineers and Architects we've been able to bring the height of the new building down to 35 ft so while it's you know still within the seid it now conforms to your residential Heights again making this building more conducive to a residential neighborhood I will also mention we've actually slightly reduced the footprint of the building so the footprint is even you know slightly reduced from what was approved previously so um we believe that these changes um have really made this a better project for the neighborhood you know it's really going to look better um more conforming with our neighbors and um I will recall that uh just recall please that when we first got this approved um we did a lot of work with our neighbors and the neighbors were very uh gracious in cooperating with us because quite frankly they didn't want to see this lot developed in a commercial manner they wanted residential and therefore they were willing to you know support the project that you approved and again at at a much higher height and a slight larger building so again I I'm I'm happy to go in fact I'm sorry I should go over the site plan with you a little so that what you can see um Evan did you do you yes here we go thank you Evan as as you can see um this picture uh depicts exactly what I've sub uh described the building now faces forward parking in the front I will uh also say that the the the building meets the setbacks you know the front yard setback requirement um and will'll be consistent with other houses along the road and um you know being able to eliminate that septic system has allowed us to to really make it a better site overall it's going to provide a much better backyard area for the units and again they're two-bedroom units so then you know they're not um they're not three or four they're two um if we could just jump to a if you'd like to see the architectural plan um y give me a moment y thanks s so again um front facing um two units side by side uh one car garage um and if you look at the the bottom picture to the left that that that I think depicts for you the you know what the street facade will look like um pretty balanced in fact a balanced is a two unit can be um mirror image and again with the garage doors facing front uh and we have provided two additional spots in the driveway so I'm happy to answer any questions and you might have I hope the board agrees that all in all this is a better project it's lower it's smaller and it's more consistent with the neighborhood and so we're hoping to move forward with this plan um any questions Mike well I'm okay we've got a couple of things going on here uh some of this falls under covid approval as I understand it and some of it does it require reapprovals the covid part of this all complete it's entirely steid yeah okay but then there's the there's the approval of that and then there's the uh uh the special permits the special permit gets wrapped into the to the co okay so we can do this all as as one operation okay seems reasonable enough how much did you reduce the 10t 10 ft that's what I thought you said we were under the 45t requirement and we're now at the 35 ft residential limit can you talk me through how that is possible cuz I'm looking at the old designs mhm that was 2 and 1 half stories with a larger footprint mhm the new plans are four stories with a smaller footprint MH and this one the there the how is it shorter right I'm trying to figure out how a 2 and 1 half story building is taller than a four story building fact and and I I saw this as well um I wasn't sure where that Matrix number of Two and a Half stories came from because it's still in the plans it's in the new plan I just went over it with the engineer a minute ago and said how is this a two and a half story building and it's not but to answer your question the best I can if you look at the um the architectural drawings where we Define the height for you um you can see that um if I may we we are identifying where's the one was the front oh this one works so if you add this up you'll see that this is just over 32 feet to here and from this point to here is where the extra three feet are is here um that's the only answer I have because I have to rely on these you know the architectural plans um I'm not sure what they did to modify this but I suspect what they've done is that they've worked with um you know with the height between the stories and also the roof pitch is where you can generally pick up you know additional uh a reduction in Heights don't but the plan before you is this one which shows a 32 foot to here and then we've you know based on our review this morning it's you know that's what gets us to the 35 is that extra Peak and how high is the peak 35 ft no what you said there was 3 ft in that little piece yeah I three or right that's what we've estimated because we were told again we're not required to go down to 35 ft in this Zone but again I know that when we were discussing this project um with staff uh and our Engineers it was suggested that to be able to lower the building to be closer or to meet that residential uh requirement would be beneficial to the neighborhood and and uh so we're committing to you on the plans and in our application that we will meet that 35 ft where do we have the dimensions on the other one what was that I'm just looking at the prior are we questioned out no I've got a few others um Evan on the sewer capacity I thought the department was approving sewer capacity for that already had sewer connections and then increasing yeah this is a new building do we want to read the memo I don't know if it articulates it in their in their memo or not I didn't see it in that memo my understanding I the applicant can speak to this in more detail is that the game changer from the original approval to now is that um DPW went back into their files and prior to the sore limitation regulation being instituted many years ago this property had paid for a a source stub a connection and the connection is physically there I think that I think that's the reason why DPW said it no longer requires septic it can be tied in and that se stub's not part of the other property that cuz this was a subdivided property yep so it's a a second it was a second sewer stub on that that's my understanding chis yes okay and the driveway that's being removed is that other property getting another driveway in the future no that that you'll recall the original Plan called for a driveway to go onto the other property to allow the cars to make that turn that driveway was never installed because you know Chris was not going to move forward with the plan once he found out he didn't have to do the septic so that other that other property the driveway is facing it's to the right right but it's entirely on their property and we're no longer needing or requiring any kind of easement okay so that property's done sold there's someone living there they're very happy um and their driveway was you know we never had to build that extension driveway to allow for the easeman in the turn so again that's why I'm saying you know changing this to front facing you now will have a house with its own driveway in its garage and then you have ours with you know our own driveways and our own garages and so but that does mean that this is net new impervious uh actually we result in uh a slight reduction impious over the originally approved project because we don't have to originally approved we don't have to put all that pavement down the side and on the other lot so we're actually less pavement here than the originally approved project okay but over current conditions yeah there's no improvement right yeah so wouldn't that require storm water review you want to speak to that one of the engineers while I was going up I mean quickly my understanding is that uh the storm water RS do not apply to single and two family okay yeah it's four four four okay that's right yeah I think they've made some provisions and they had a um a storw memo that DPW reviewed okay yeah and by the way we' reviewed the the letter from DPW we've reviewed all of the comment letters um we have no issues whatsoever with what they've recommended and and I do believe in their letter they comment on the storm water that we have provided requiring an onm and we're fine with all of that this a far less complicated you know design now that we've been able to keep it simple keep it simple and and eliminate that set IC and eliminate pavement and one of the concerns I have though is that now that it's a four story um with the other properties being so low it doesn't I can't tell from these plans but it doesn't look like there's a lot of screening on the sides for landscaping um well I don't know if we I'll bring the I'd have to go to the site plan to to address that engineer plan but I and I do I can appreciate your concern but the originally approved building was lower four stories no and higher it was three stories but it but it was 45 ft the peak to 45t right but Windows four stories is definitely higher than three stories well the windows are built into the roof in this situation you're right right right so it's looking over and then we I thought we had something on a law that like we don't have four we don't do we not have four is you do allow four stories in the seid on the seid do in the underlying zoning District okay yeah I'm like I'm not a fan of this style in this neighborhood like the other style felt more like it fit into the neighborhood um this style I know I wouldn't be happy if I this got built the next door to me well I as again originally we worked with the neighbors right and that's a different supported it at 45t but it's a very different looking structure I know but we've also notified our abutters about this response and BR has received no no comments or concerns and I will tell you those neighbors were vocal the original time they contacted us they you know demanded a meeting we did all that and yet there has been no feedback from the neighborhood could we hear from the engineer if they are here like I'm just I'm struggling to understand like how the the total height could decrease but did we say the number of stories went yeah it went from three to four yeah we don't have an architect with us do we have the I don't have the original designs like yeah they're attached to the agenda that's what I'm trying to find but doesn't it doesn't say trying to couldn't find the height on the original on it doesn't say on the original yeah I couldn't find that it says two and a half stories yeah so we're going two and I yeah and again I know that you notified the the Butters but I personally would like to maybe reach out some of the ABS um because this time of year I find December people are really really busy and I know a couple other um projects that people didn't realize was going on because they with all the holidays between Thanksgiving and well I mean we have a process for that and yeah okay oh for new hearings well this is a new hearing we did apply for a new special permit to allow for the parking in the front so they've been notified I I would like to see a landscaping plan for this okay to to what end you'd like to see more buffer between yeah yeah and I like to like I can't tell if there is buffer I based on the plans that we have MH I can't see the Landscaping in there do we have if you look at the uh the new plan mhm and you look to the left of the building you can see that there is um a the tree the existing tree line that uh that separates us from the house on the left um and I will remind you that our project meets the sidey yard setbacks in the seid which I believe when you're abutting a residential structure are expanded to be hon our usual residential setback so we are providing that and again I I I you know Chris could probably answer this but Chris um I didn't see where you were proposing to take down that you know the buffer between your left-hand neighbor there's currently no buffer nor did one ever exist between us and the right side neighbor in fact if you'll recall the original approved plan provided for the driveway to be on their part of the property and you know they granted us an easement to to be able to do that I mean if you're suggesting or asking uh whether my client can um you know provide a a a a a screening along the property line to the neighbor of the right I I think we could Chris are you comfortable with a fence or arities or some just along that property line to provide some protection between the new structure and the neighbor to the right I mean do you recall that this there's room there to do it I think if you put that in between the houses it wouldn't look strange in my opinion can you come up to the microphone I can't hear I thing you're saying come on up thank you can you see it from the uh G GIS map can you bring that up on the cuz I can show you what's there now you know it's pretty insulated the the whole back they have these huge there's these huge uh pine trees that are about I don't know 80 ft tall they separate us from Duffy's Auto behind us actually couldn't have your name and address for for the record as well uh Chris Sullivan 19 Brentwood Road thank you here we are sorry here we are so see all that that's all large maure trees and then this whole fence line is pine trees if we had the house here and put arites this house is 35 ft to the peak I don't how long it would take to grow trees up to block the whole thing but so you see all that and then in the backyard you can see there's two huge trees here that I'm trying to keep um and then along the whole fence is pine trees so it's it's this boundary that is currently has no has no buffer here and again once the house is here um you know if it's a requirement of the board that we we put a fence or our provides um again while Chris may feel it's would look strange if the board feels it doesn't yeah as long as it's we'll put a fence some our varieties but understand we're technically a 35 ft house or structure next to a 35t structure are 35 ft High I do apologize if you know aesthetically you know the board feels this isn't what they would Envision here but I have to say we we really did our best to try and make this actually fit better in the neighborhood and look like all of the other houses along the street with FN facing garages and parking I mean typical residential structure again we can't lose sight of the fact that for better or worse this site is has the ability to be developed in some kind of a commercial use which nobody wants and again that I think was the big reason the neighbors were so supportive in the past and I can't see where they would have issues with us reducing the height of the building um I'm just asking for a landscaping plan because our 18516 a whole section of the seid deals with Landscaping okay and I'm seeing no Landscaping plan I don't even know what trees are being removed as part of this project um so I would like to see a landscaping plan is that something the board would consider conditioning conditioning an appr landcaping plan after approval no I wouldn't do that I would I would want to see a landscaping Plan before approval okay and when you say a landscaping plan I can you know propose what you want are you saying you want to see a landscaping plan that provides the buffer between those two homes I would like to see what tree what what trees are being removed what's the plan for replacing any trees that are removed is there a plan for buffer so you saying you want renderings of this yeah Landscaping plan we've requested it in most of our seid projects if not all this is very different than what was originally proposed and considering that this is very different in what way you mean aesthetically where you're putting it um the number of floors the where the windows are I mean okay but then just help me understand how that corresponds to a landscaping plan well where are the trees is it buing like can people look in like are you going to see see someone in their like you know this was a very different plan to me but it's a 35t building and we're next to a 35- ft building and this is a residential use and residential activity I mean is there ever requirement to put landscaping or fences or in the seid yes there is in the seid yes and that's where when n times out of 10 that is a a commercial commercial use I I if you want a landscaping plan obviously we have to provide one I just want to understand in addition to showing you the trees that we're leaving and the trees will be taking down what is it you'd like to see along that right side because quite frankly I think we can show you that the left side is a very dense buffer the back is very dense what're lacking is Landscaping between the two structures so am I correct in assuming you'd like to see at least our idea or our sure proposal of what we could put there to do that y okay and not just in that side but I want the Landscaping plan for the entire property okay sure I but I'll be honest with you in a residential development like this we're going to show you the trees that we're going to keep on the left side we're going to show you the trees we're keeping to the back we're certainly probably not going to propose putting more trees there because no room to put them that's fine but we can provide some relief on the right hand side how is this wider than the original plan or more narrow this the new plan I'm almost thinking it's a little wider right isn't it a little wider but overall it's a smaller footprint correct overall it's small footprint and although it might be wider we are still meeting the exaggerated seid side yard setbacks when you're abing a residential use I think it expands it to 25 ft if I recall it's on it's on the chart sorry trees yeah in in your commercial District your sidey yards are 10 ft and the seid by right it says 8 fet and seid by special permit 5 ft but you need to increase it to 25 ft when a budding residentially used or zoned property so we've done that we're our proposed setbacks are in fact 25.5 ft on either side so that does provide us area for some Landscaping on the right side it does and sorry if I made John Riley Hancock Associates um you're asking for trees to be removed if you look behind the proposed building on our plan and there's a few trees that are circled um and one of them has a leader that calls out trees to be removed typical so I think I'm seeing about four around around the structure that to be removed everything else will one in the dead front of the building which was always proposed to remain there's two in the on the left side back and then as uh John pointed out there's one in the far back so it's going to be easy for us to show you that we already have it but again I think if we put it on a land Cape plan and we color things and you know it'll give you a better understanding of that buffer and again we will come up with something to um propose along the right side and would likely meet with our neighbor to discuss that yeah sounds like it might be and if I'm coming back anyways I will make sure that we have our architect with us so that we can dig into the how we got from you know 45 to 35 what appears to be lesser more stories but less height yeah that'd be great okay um I'm I'm sorry I don't quite have that understanding but what what what is giving me Comfort here is that we're willing to commit that this building will be you know 35 ft plus or minus you know and he's magic however the Architects do that I I know I just uh I just reduce the height of a structure on another project and we did it by looking at the floor to height ratio interstial space thing and then we flattened off the roof a little and we were able to gain eight or nine feet in reduction do you have a uh quick question if I got a letter of support from uh the person I sold the house to cuz I used to own the property next to it to not have any type of buffer is that all you're worried about is just having some sort of yeah I think personally I mean I can't speak to Chris but it sounds to me like the room is wanting to know more about the neighbors it sounds like you have good neighbor support yeah I could ask Ruth to give you a letter yeah I think that would be helpful to me rather than the Landscaping well no I still want to see the Landscaping plan but if the neighbor says they don't want a plant a buffer well if they don't need a buffer they don't they don't have to put trees there I guess yeah but I still want to see the Landscaping plan so we're consistent with all of our other seid MH just make it okay okay are there any other questions or any other information you'd like me to bring when I see you next year Anita did you have anything else no I just I just had a question um you're probably going to read the letters in yeah I was going to ask you departmental letters um I'll wait till after the letter because one of them is about the letter okay from the water district so this is from Shaya Joy project engineer at DPW I'm going to paraphrase due to the length of this um outstanding DPW engineering issues not addressed during construction care should be taken to maintain separation of at least 10 ft horizontally from edge of sewer service to the edge of water services where horizontal separation at 10 ft is Not Practical both Services can be installed closer to each other but the Water Service must be 18 in higher than the sour service per D standards all existing or proposed utilities should be clearly in accurately labeled on the drawing reflecting most updated utility connections finish grades and building elevations should be clearly labeled and reflected on plans confirm 1T to 20 in scaling of site plan slope stabilization for slopes greater than 3:1 ratio is required dunable Road was paved in August 2024 is under moratorium for 5 Years A Street opening permit will be required DPW require curb to curb Paving Granite restoration and thermoplastic traffic markings for the frontage of the property the work the sidewalk work should be coordinated with DPW sore comments no increase to the town of chumford seore infrastructure should be more than 500 GPD this project proposes two two-bedroom duplexes uh if there's any change in use of expansion the applicant should necessary floor plans the sewer impact fee should be of $6,600 should be paid to DPW prior to a issuance of a certificate of occupancy dep pict two separate sewer lines on plan set only one sore line is currently shown each unit shall have their own sore line and should be installed to town standards storm water ownership as as well as onm of all storm water systems and bmps should be clearly stated on the plans to avoid confusion the Deeds are Covenant should clearly specify the homeowner association a property owner who is responsible for owning the system as well as inspection and maintenance schedules and then there are General conditions of approval uh pretty standard so I won't go through all those due to the length uh next fire prevention plans to be submitted to fire prevention as part of the building permit process for review smoke carbon monoxide and heat detectors to comply with the current addition of 780 CMR for location detection type interconnection and power supply applicant advised to submit floor plans depicting location of detectives to this office for approval final inspection required before use applicant to to apply to the town's e911 committee uh this office would approve these plans with these conditions I ask this that you make this letter part of your approval process and public record Josh Abbott captain of fire prevention North chumped Water District the North chumpon Water District would like to note the following regarding the proposed development the permit site plan proposes to install water service line for both duplexes on the leftmost side facing Dunstable Road of the development the district does not permit this method of installation because it does not allow access for potential future replacement of repairs of waterline service for the rightmost unit both lines must be run from the water main to the fronts not around the sides of the respective units they serve the water service should be 1in diameter copper curb stops boxes must be installed in the sidewalk be visible and accessible at all times all fees must be paid to the district prior to turning on Water Service uh also please be advised dunable row was recently paved and the water main is across the street this connection will result in a large surface area requiring pavement Paul peris superintendent treasur collector's office please contact ta track tax collector's office regarding outstanding FY 25 property tax Balance Board of Health no concerns regarding connection to town [Music] sore Police Department no concerns and building department please be advised that to Pro that to further review yard requirements and prior to the issuance of a building permit a certified plot plan by a Massachusetts licensed surveyor needs to be provided to the zoning enforcement officer regarding the subject Pro development for further review respectfully Jose Negron that concludes the letters you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting that all of those conditions were acceptable so yeah especially the water department what it was we were proposing the two water lines to come down one side they they really want to see one water line one water line one sewer line one sewer line and we can do that okay so for the next meeting could you have all the plans updated with all of those changes numbers make sure that we have our story Matrix and everything's accurate I will make sure again we'll bring you further architectural I'm going to have them update the architectural drawings to show the peak heite four and four four stories yeah yeah and and again explain how you get to lower but more stories perfect okay all righty thank you thanks well thank you very much John last question the tax yeah Chris is going to follow up on that okay okay thank you thanks okay any questions I will take a motion if no one else has any further questions for the applicant make a motion to continue to January 8th thank you I second motion by Anita second by Chris all in favor I unanimous okay thank for your time have a wonderful holiday we'll see you next year thank you okay next up we have four payot Drive um which is requesting a continuation without discussion um I move that we continue for p Drive hearing to January 8th second without okay motion by Chris second by Anita all in favor I I okay uh next up we have um 10 independent wait am I in the wrong place I'm sorry I'm in the wrong place so now wait now we have the um new business or Le's on updates y do we have any I have um update from the concom meeting uh concom had two meetings uh since we last met um the first meeting on the 26th uh payot was continued um and then continued again uh last night uh without any um hearing uh ten hildr um on the November 26th meeting um natural heritage um did Issue their report um but one of the things that the concom noted was that there was no mention of the vernal pools in the report um so David was going to contact UM natural heritage to find out if they know about the vernal pools or not or if they chose to ignore them um and I believe they're still waiting for information so it was continued again um last night so they're waiting more information so um and that was pretty much it and then so their next so their next meeting is January 14th so it'll be after our next one John and I attended a ad hoc meeting about payot with um members of the DPW members of the neighborhood um several Neighbors from dunshire Drive the owner Casey was there um concom had a couple members there and kind of the point one of the points of the meeting was to get a better understanding by at least we had the question and so did the concom members of what why are we here why are we being forced to make this parking lot right now um and do you want to yeah the it was helpful to have the fire chief there and as you said in conservation so the fire chief explained the background that there were at least two occasions in the past where they had difficult ulty accessing the site cars are legally parked and that was the impetus for DPW making these requests so I I thought it was a very productive meeting yeah I was um so we we kind of toss different things around but um at the end of the meeting one of the things that came about was everyone had an interest in having the parking lot behind the building be smaller than previously proposed and the DPW clarified that they would be willing to park let cars be parallel parked on on the cuaac but not in the cuaac so that um a preliminary concept of a smaller parking lot was produced by and distributed um by Casey that was a eight or maybe N9 or 10 spots depending behind the building so they would take they would take up less of the Green Space they would retain some green space maybe some land banked space bases um cuz there's still a remaining problem of when there's snowbank when there's um snowband um emergencies then there there's not going to be still enough spots because those spots will have to leave the cold desac um and the the owner has no interest in making a private party arrangement with a neighbor or someone else um so they're still kind of working out the details but it sounds like we took some decent steps forward towards satisfying everyone understanding why we're trying to do this and are there is there space for compromise and it seemed that there was and the fire chief was amenable seemed in the meeting to having striping that would there would be certain areas on the cues that would be striped and say no parking at any time or something to that effect so that would hope take care of the public safety aspect so it seemed to where the swept plan is so that no one would park where the fire department has to but then they could park in the other places thetically okay um when you get when you oh when you I don't want to interrupt when you're done I just one thing on um zba yep so the zoning board of appeals met on December 5th um I was not able to attend in person but watched the video recording of the um of the meeting um the main subject that took up um significant time in the meeting and a butter uh brought an a wanted to appeal the planning board decision on 150 North Road before the board and ultimately after a lot of discussion hearing all the testimony and um the zba voted to deny the appeal uh by a unanimous vote so uh just to give everyone an update on 150 North Road just just what were they appealing it seemed to be the just the the decision and I think was some determination by the zoning officer yeah they well they they upheld that the zoning um The Building Commissioner you know had cause to issue the permit and and all that did not air EV may be able to so Council Council indicated to the board in the in the uh the appellant that the only reason that the appeal was valid was that by the time the hearing was open the Building Commissioner issued a Foundation permit and Council explained that for a byright sight plan in order to be appealed a a building permit must be issued so prior to that issuance of the building permit there was some discussion and um difficulty in validating if in fact it was a a valid appeal but by the time by the time the hearing opened he did have a valid uh appeal because they been building permit was issued and the issuance of a building permit alone is is appealable yeah but I'm just trying to figure out what what you know what was it that was being appealed I mean normally appeal is because of an action taken by the zoning officer correct this disagree with and that that was all that was all acknowledged um and that it may not have been the proper Forum okay you wouldn't like to have this start [Laughter] a circular appealing process this like what what anyway um so if that's it for John then uh Board of Health met on the the third and um there was uh they're actually now adding uh like the concom they're adding a planning board report to their public input section um I I got there a little bit late so they I were very gracious and reopened their public input so that I could provide them sort of our status and then we had some discussion and um Richard day asked an interesting question and that was what percentage of the size what percentage of what size lots are in zone two with regards to the adus and the question of septic and uh so I I thought that was an interesting question to you repeat that question again yeah what what's the percentage of different size lots that are in zone two so trying basically just trying to get a sense of you know what what's the possible what possible development might they might there occur particularly in zone 2 and so that's I thought that was a interesting question because obviously they're concerned as we would be concerned under not for protection district for what the um you know what the impacts could be in zone 2 with septic so so are they going to propose to answer that question or are they looking to us to answer that question I said that was an interesting question and I said impose it when we get into the discussion that's what I figured it likely won't be irrelevant at all okay so uh so in any case so their next meeting is uh January 7th good um John um so I don't have a ncog update but we did have a tri board meeting on Monday and I think it might be relevant sorry where's m u might be relevant to maybe kind of give the board you have watch did you guys watch the tribe board meeting I did not yet okay so as Paul Cohen has been saying for the last three four years um with the increased in inflation and our limit with the 2 and a half increase on property taxes um at some point those things do not meet our ability to sustain a level service budget will impeded so when um they did the initial roll up and I probably should defer this to John who's the treasurer who can probably talk about it more but so John if you want to if you like me to it you're the expert you can go everyone's welcome to go re back and they review it and you can see Paul's presentation I provide an update on Capital Darlene gave an update on where we are year to date on in the current fiscal year but just to give you a quick summary unfortunately we're facing one of the most difficult um years coming and fiscally at 26 for our operating budget because of the reasons you described um 76% of the town's operating budget are 77s funded through property taxes and there it's limited by prop two and a half and so to summarize we're facing right now about a $2.5 million budgetary deficit um and so there was a lot of discussion back and forth with the school committee School administration um you know it's going to be difficult to sustain level services so that's going to mean some type of reduction in services to to be able to get to the two and a half it's just we haven't seen a a difficult year like this in quite a while probably since the last recession of 200920 and the difference between like the last recession and where we are today is last recession what Paul brought up and you know we shouldn't forget is that you know when we were facing collective bargaining agreements people didn't take a raise they got zero now we're in a very unique situation right unemployment's very low and inflation really high so like we don't compensate people people will leave and go to another town and I think Paul gave an example of um a police officer um that went to Westford right and we had trained them they had gone through the training and was I forget how the dollar amount but was significantly more than what we're paying here in chumford so and somebody went to State last a couple years ago too like it's so we're it's not like we can go to you know the police the fire the the teachers and say Hey you know we're it's not like 08 where we everybody kind of was like you know in Industry people weren't getting raises you know it was appropriate like this is a different Dynamic so um I think it's important that we kind of have that in mind when we kind of talk about some of the other things on our agenda tonight so I think was just I just wanted to bring that up to everybody's attention thank you um all right is that all for um Lea zon yeah nothing here but we do have a master plan committee coming up by next month okay so I'll be reporting on that when it happens so on to new business first up is the center Village master plan committee we are we have a voting spot on that committee and that was a spot that Paul held so we need to appoint someone else um to that committee I am going to exempt myself from that because I an AB butter to that District so I can't vote on most of the things that they take up so I I don't think it makes much sense though I have an interest in the things that they take up I can't opine on them so what days and times do they meet do you know meet um they usually meet the first Thursday of the month at night 6 PM usually well I can I can certainly do it at Le in the inter room till we get our board sorted out come next election M yeah I mean I think they really do need somebody there yeah they do uh we need to keep an eye on them I mean I can I can you know I can do it for the I'll be willing to do it when how many times a month do they me once a month all right it's not a big deal then we can kind of figure out at the election yeah okay all right next up we have town just let me know when the next meeting is you want to do a motion to appoint on that oh yeah I'll take a motion move it move to appoint Anita yeah we'll take a second second all in favor I I I okay um next up we have uh Town council's review of the Attorney General's MBTA zoning approval letter um I don't know if everyone had a chance to read the Thursday December 5th from Council um it looked like there's a couple things that we do need to that should be addressed um but they seem more ter mostly termin minology um I saw only two definites uh one is the Striking the need for additional school facilities as a criteria and then the other one was the family definition right and the impact on Town Services more generally but I think he said that one shouldn't need to be changed it's on a Case by case basis okay and except for the school Services okay me my impression was that we we at least I wanted to look at it a little bit more closely to make sure that the right verbage is in the right place so that if there is some restriction on how you interpret the criteria that that's collocated with the criteria so that you have a sense of how am I limited when I when I read these right because we're not the only ones that read them the residents will read them as well which is great but that way it can be confusing for somebody who's not as familiar with reading through the bylaws and stuff to recognize there's different pieces in different places right so that was one thing I wanted to look at to see is that a case here where where we should you know possibly modify some of the wording so that it's collocated with where it's relevant so I guess procedurally I mean he's making recommendations to us but I don't I don't know that we're going to be the ones proposing the amendment am I correct that you absolutely will be the ones prop we have to propose a meeting okay that's what I was my question no but I mean can we get assistance from Council course yeah in actually yeah I mean these are composing the Amendments yeah I mean these are really housekeeping items right um the definition of family you know outside of MBTA zoning um could quickly run into fair housing law violations depending on how it and then the one directly related to MBTA zoning is you know specifically related to school facilities it's kind of administerial housekeeping items is that spring also spring uh at the latest it would be spring um it okay it could be wrapped into a special depending on where we go with adus uh but yeah at the latest it would be spring so we'd have three things then cuz we have the flood plane the Adu and the NBTA Amendment the Adu needs to be done before Spring we're going to discuss that we're going to discuss that next timeline yep yeah the the fourth item potentially the board may want to advance the uh Kate Corner uh resoning are we really going to have time to do that with everything else well I mention that CU that is on for the January 8th meeting I have not I was just about to send the butter notification mhm so as of right now 65 Dunstable four payet are regulatory items I'm not aware of any new hearings so if you want to continue with Kate's corner I will send that a butter notice out that's I think yeah I mean we can try we can try at least at least we at least we start the conversation with them yeah and if we can't put it for spraying then we can then we have the ball rolling a little bit the ball rolling at least um all right I'll send it up thank you yeah if you want I can take a stab at the actual changes for the these bylaw changes the edits the administ have a draft for the eth yeah the MBTA yeah that'd be great y that'd be great okay thanks Chris the MBTA District compliance uh application will be going in between now and the end of the calendar year I'm working on that uh this week next week What's the progress on the agreement changes so the uh uh the choice agreement revised development agreement is um signed and executed uh the revised development agreement for TRL Crow uh they they've indicated via email that uh there's no outstanding issues um we just need to provide them a a final clean copy uh for their review and signature so that seems to be progressing question now that the choice agreement is signed in um in process do those units start to count no no we're close those units those units will count um once financing is obtained all right and they pull a building permit okay I knew there was a permitting issue but when do we think that will happen uh David has indicated that he has submitted uh for the most Rec round of funding and he expects to hear a decision I think in the springtime but construction wouldn't start till probably spring you know summer fall okay all right update from the select board meeting regarding retail cannabis um I don't know that you did receive an email but I provided a hard copy in your packet I think the take way is there may not be a lot for you to discuss tonight right I mean there unless you have a strong feeling about where the select boot is so they're have a they're proceeding with putting it back to the voters which seems like a reasonable first step to me and I would say before we do anything further we should wait and see see what those results are what the voters say does anyone have a different thought nope so do we know what our discussion is with select board on the 23rd I'm sorry we are discussing that on the 23rd right well hoping we don't any we're not going to anymore okay that was the that was the question that got kashed because their decision to put it on the ballot which seems quite sensible to me um you know I are you gonna say something I was but I'll just not say anything okay uh next up we have ex to use um so I don't know if anyone if everyone had a chance to read through we had a fair bit of Correspondence which is mostly revisions and revisions um of our current policy and also in you know the legal feedback from Council about the guidelines um so I guess the first thing we need to decide is what is our timeline and kind of procedural approach to this um it seems that we're moving down the path of writing some new our our own new zoning policy to be compliant prior to February what is it 2nd correct um Council sent an email at my request you have a hard copy of it I did not I don't think I folded it to you um so as a starting point I think part of tonight's discussion before we adjourn the board really needs to figure out if you want to advance this to a special town meeting if you do the select board would sign the warrant on January 6th which means that the the final language uh would need to be provided to the select board for their packet on January 2nd which means we may need a special meeting between now and then town meeting could take place any day during the week of the 27th normally it's on a Monday but if planning board members are not available Town manager said any day during the week uh would be adequate for the statutory um timelines council's email uh I posed a question of um if we do nothing and February 2nd comes and we start getting applications how do we handle it and then in his last sentence he appears to be recommending that the board take the opportunity to put regulations in place now that will specifically apply to adus Allowed by right under the the new state Act I think the reason my conversations over the last couple of days with Council and I think other councils are making the same recommendation is that with local regulation in place it provides some level of predictability for applicants meaning residents and probably more importantly for the Building Commissioner yeah while those regulations may need to be changed Council still appears to say some level of of predictability is better than no level that makes sense and are these the ones that track changes are the changes to the zoning by that he's recommending yes so um what you have in hard copy and what's up on the screen is the most recent from your last meeting when I was tasked with um amending the laa bylaw Council scene this is the third iteration right this iteration is C reflects council's review of the draft State guidelines the draft guidelines okay yes because those draft guidelines are the ones that are open for public input sometime later this month and then I guess that's another question but I guess we should focus on this question first but I mean I just it's kind of maybe a yes no answer does anybody want to submit anything in the [Music] open request for feed back to the state my my first thought would be no because they don't seem that responsive yeah sad so there will be um I know Nim Cog has reached out to most all their member communities um attempting to have a coordinated conversation primarily among staff obviously uh to see if there's any common themes to submit comments on uh certainly boards uh can piggy back on that after effort or you can you know uh do what you did uh I think with the  board on a prior trying to remember what it was I think I think it was adus initially sure I mean the other thing is we could send out some iteration of that letter and any changes that we have from then to now yeah and take the opportunity to say we have issues with this and just you know it's more of a declaration than feedback but yeah I wouldn't I wouldn't spend a lot of time tonight trying to um Express dissatisfaction or displeasure right I think our Focus needs to be on understanding what we think the requirements are at this point based upon council's review um I've attended several webinars um and then focus on deciding whether you want to pursue special town meeting and then quickly you know finalizing the language did I see somewhere that you had pointed as to where we can also see those webinars um they have not they have not um publish the recordings or the slide deck yet okay will you let us know will and when they do yeah um okay I mean do we want to read through this kind of like we did with the um ncog MBTA draft and or does anyone have a different idea of how we should proceed well I just wanted to ask a couple of topical questions okay first and that is um what about the question of septic versus sewer yeah so um the way the way I think this law and the regulations have been interpreted to date while the regulations don't provide any specificity on utility regulations the theme is pretty clear that you that you cannot treat adus any more restrictively than you do say single families uh so it's not an issue that needs to be or ought to be included as part of a zoning bylaw um which which then takes it completely outside of Dover and then you'd be relying entirely on the DPW um sore restriction regulation yeah uh that that currently is drafted where any accessory detach structure on a on a residential lot such as a pool Cabana or a detached garage um does not allow for its own dedicated line the uniqueness with this is that currently the town doesn't allow detached adus or accessory dwelling units therefore the the DPW sore regulation didn't need to contemplate it but I think the notion of the of the DPW regulation being revised to specifically prohibit a connection which then forces Title 5 if that were to be challenged I'm not sure it' be considered um you know reasonable uh not within zoning but simply because you're the town would be treating an accessory dwelling unit differently than any other right but I don't know if they TI it in I mean there was they say for example the walks there needs to be it there isn't to be a separate walk yeah I mean I put that in I put that in because that's that's a common that's a common um uh provision from fire prevention for adus um again I think there I I as of right now uh utilities it's not specified in the regulation the state's asked for additional comment um and perspective from from communities but I think my message to you is the zoning by in and of itself does not need to speak to everything for example it doesn't even need to mention like Wetlands jurisdiction right no and I I I see that I definitely and I agree with that I was more thinking you know what is what's going to be the I mean if we can can we anticipate like I don't want to kick something into some into somebody else's hands that they're not prepared or ready to deal with it um but I guess Water and Sewer both have to make their decisions about how they want to whether they want to have separate right same or what right I think I think introducing a Prohibition into zoning is is it's it's a clear red flag right right so so DPW then needs to or the town needs to think about correct sewer constraints and and because right now right we at least the last thing I I remember residential was limited you couldn't have new residential connections to sewer you can't but the but the regulation also says you you you cannot increase Beyond 500 gallons so an Adu is not more than 500 gallons right so it's the reg the Restriction currently would allow the Adu the question is can it be connected to the existing main that serves the house right or can a second main be required and that's really somebody else's regulations yeah and if it's on a capacity issue which it doesn't appear to be then it that really comes down to a design best best design practices for or sanitary plumbing and right right you know and sword design okay but DPW is aware that they um need to review um that section of their regulation okay yeah that that was really the one of the questions I had so so I understand on the sewer So currently like if I wanted to add an addition like I want to double the size of my house I'm adding double double bedrooms someone in a single family can do that right with the sewer right that's normal but if I want to take my lot and build two houses I only have one connection so the other one I would have to put septic currently you can't do that in chum there's one one house per per lot well just say I have like a double lot okay okay right and so I have have a double lot I want to put two houses one on each lot right and passes everything because I don't have a connection on one I would have to similar to 65 Dunstable if you if you have two legally separate Lots each lot is required to have its own uh sore and water sewer and water and if I only had one connected to the the sewer I would theoretically put a septic on the other one because I didn't have a connection set up because that would be in addition right under our current restraint corre correct correct so the difference here is that the lot already has a sore connection yeah and now the state law is changing to allow an Adu but in a multif family lot you would have two separate water Ms and one sewer so on like a subdivision like Jackson Road or any any duplex multif family yeah so 65 Dunstable is going to have um two Mains and two water mains connections not Mains water lines right so how so but that wouldn't be this is what DPW is struggling with but it but I would assume it' be the same for an Adu because they're two separate units you could easily come to that conclusion but it's not my point is it's not a capacity issue so it's not it's certainly not a zoning issue right it's not a DPW no no right yeah right so from a from a from a from a best design principle for Designing and operating a a Wastewater system the likely the likely best uh option is two lines and may for all I know and and we know maybe the plumbing code and the sanitary code requires that so there needs to be some internal discussions with the the plumbing inspectors the water inspectors DPW uh to figure it out right okay and it's not a capacity issue I don't view it as a capacity issue in the sense only in the sense that prior to adus ever coming on the scene the the current regulation contemplated allowing exist ex existing single family homes to put on more bedrooms and more bathrooms got it that's what I was kind of getting at like if I want to do an addition I could add more bedrooms and bathroom so in one way to say well how is that any different than adding a two bed ad you right that's detached capacity wise flow wise I don't think it it is a difference it's more of a physical difference and an operational difference however the town could the town could easily say well you know that regulation was written at the time when you know detached adus weren't allowed it was never contemplated okay so would that be a reasonable I guess would that be considered a reasonable so the the reason is only within zoning okay that's why you see the state reg say anything outside of zoning still applies Wetland coner Wetlands okay um Title Five if if it's required Board of Health regulations okay but I think we'll need I think the town will need to have be I think the town will need to be prepared to answer those kinds of questions at a special meeting no question about it yep yep [Music] okay so my suggestion is maybe we just go over the the draft um maybe go through it uh section by section but at a minimum capture the highlights because as I mentioned if you're pursuing a special town meeting we're likely going to have to schedule a special meeting of the planning board between now and um Wednesday the 1st Thursday the 2 so the first section is um the definition Council indicated pull it directly from the uh the guidelines that's what the the blue is I I would like to in the definition add specific language about principal single family dwelling we'll get to that but I I I understand what you're saying cuz that's comment further on but I think I would like to add it into the Y definition there are two places where we talk about the dwelling there's the same lot as principal single family dwelling and then when it talks about the detached detached from the principal DW from the single family principal dwelling in that definition y so in um in this comment here this is from this is from today uh last night just I can't figure out how to God um Council initially here it is initially in the second version I had what your your text in there Chris and then Council indicates um but a after having read the proposed regs now several times I'm inclined to think that hlc intends to take the position that a town cannot prohibit in Adu for a multif family residential unit or a two family unit where that Adu will be the first Adu meeting the state definition of a lot if the town does not want to attempt to does want to attempt to restrict adus to single family dwellings we will have to consider what the bylaw would look like uh and if it is part uh and if that part is to be removed so that's one of that's one of a that's one of many very specific uh provisions and the draft uh guidelines that is not crystal clear so is are you saying that we we could entertain putting only one single Adu on a multif family or a two family or then would we be able to anything more than one anything more than one requires a special permit yeah the question and Chris picked up on this I think the first time we discussed this was that I think everyone when this was being rolled out I think everyone assumed just based upon the tenor of the discussion that it was going to be for single families that are allowed within residential zoning districts the guide the draft regulations appear to have expanded it to single two threes and multi anywhere where there's a single family allowed correct so any Zone like in ourc in correct but residentials but but that an Adu would be allowed on a uh an existing two family an existing Triplex or a multif family so so Council I think is kind of waiting for some additional Clarity on that he's also indicating that between now and the regulations being finalized if we choose to move forward the town could take a reasonable interpretation and apply reasonable regulation to restrict it to single family mhm but he's he's not suggesting that that's going to be the way this unfolds when final regulations are get overridden right so Evan when you do provide input I think this is an area where we have to have more clarity because if it's allowed on two on multifamilies that's going to incentivize the immediate building or seeking approval of an Adu so that whoever gets there first gets it by right the second one will have to go through a special permit so if I'm in a duplex I'm going to race my neighbor to propose an Adu so that I can get it by right and he would have to go through a special permit if you're the ownership of the land I mean this this kind of gets back to the whole MBTA um discussion if you're on a duplex presumably it's a condo like like 65 dunable it' have to be a condo unless it's unless it's a rental unless the property own it keeps it as a rental property but as soon as it's a condo undoing those condo Ducks similar to MBTA you know condo associations may may be pretty difficult if not impossible but if an investor now knows that the Adu law exists and they they build it two family and keep it as a rental or convert it convert it back out of a condo if that's possible yeah but I don't see the race once it's condo I don't see the race but it's even we've got we've got the issue with the RC Zone where we actually incentivize you know taking our single family homes putting a two family home and now again that's driving part of the problem why yeah the prices are going so high is because the developers have Deep Pockets and they can outbid any you know anybody who's trying to buy their first home and so unless I think those are all good comments for the state but for the here and now I get that but I guess my comment on this is that at this point I like to restrict it to single family and not to multif family because unless we fix our our C zoning where we don't we Deen de incentivize the conversion of sick and family homes into two family homes we're just adding to the problem here because they you know developers are just going to outbid yeah I I think we should put in the Restriction now and then if the state comes down with guidelines that we can't do that then we look at removing so that that would then be R A and RB but not RC and not RM no it would have to be to single family dwellings we'd have to restrict it to single family dwellings not to the Zone not to the zone you're talking about dwellings themselves themselves okay and then he references that the use table needs to be revised accordingly uh I think currently adus I don't believe is a listed listed in the use table the minor housekeeping item the next actually on that what's that on that we would have to put in two new lines right so the first Adu would be by right second you know um I I don't know if you need to on the second one CU that's statutory I don't it's not I don't think there's any harm if we do um might make things more clear because if someone already has aners but I'm not sure it's I'm not sure it's it's a requirement okay and the definition of I mean your question is should we not also add a definition for principal dwelling no you're thinking no on the zoning table we I was initially thinking of a line for adus and then note that it's than one by in the zone no I mean originally your original comment oh the original comment was about in the definitions there's there's the definition for the Adu but there's not a definition for the principal dwelling principal dwelling statation princip single they do yeah I was just going to clarify instead of principal dwelling principal single family dwelling okay that would be my edit right and so that's what you're that's what you're suggesting yeah okay to the to the extent we can restricted to single family does the way is the way it is defined now is it existing or can it be proposed it can be proposed so somebody could come in with a proposal to build a single family and an ad at the same time okay so the next um uh major area is um is C3 and if you recall at the last meeting I had in I had talked about the existing um zoning sections dimensional sections that would likely be that are currently applicable and would likely be applicable so Council has provided some um very uh specific um language here and he's saying um um for purposes this this this is specific to pre-existing non-conforming MH for purposes of applying uh such um requirements to adus shall be considered part of the principal dwelling to which they are accessory and not as a separate accessory building or structure where the principal dwelling is non-conforming either lot undersized lot or the structure itself doesn't comply with setbacks F or lot coverage the Adu shall in addition meet the requirements of 1958 which is specific to single and two family pre-existing non-conforming provided that when a determination is required that the Adu will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure of the neighborhood which is the which is what the Building Commissioner does now so what he's what he's doing is he's essentially then you see he struck the remainder of the uh sentence he's indicating that by treating the an Adu whether it's attached or detached in you know specifically as part of the principal structure you no longer need to you no longer need to apply 1959 and 19511 that simplifies things um from a from a a regulatory perspective but I think what council is attempting to do here is um streamline the reasonableness um legal determinations what I will say is if this passes as drafted that is that that um provision where the the the detached Adu in particular would be considered um part of the principal structure it would only be applied to adus that is not how we apply it right um to other detached structures so again I think that's within the spirit of of trying to take what very likely could be considered unreasonable regulation uh meaning the way we currently treat a detached garage which requires to be comp with regular setbacks and trying to apply that to a do protected Adu so I just wanted to point that out because I think that's a that's a it's a it's a um it's much different than than than the way we envision handling that so just from a practical perspective using the setback example the setbacks that we normally would apply to single family homes would then apply to the detached Adu so if it's a if it's a specific setback for the single family that would also be applied to the additional detached Adu only where the only where the existing lot complies with lot size and the existing structure fully complied with setbacks so again that's your that's your those are your your your South Chum Street neighborhoods 40,000 square foot laws right so most of the Town doesn't comply correct correct so most of the town is going to fall under uh this provision here you're an undersized lot y you're automatically in in 1958 mhm which you currently are mhm the difference is that if someone came to the building the building department today and had an undersized lot the new detached structure would not be afforded any protections it would be required to comply with current current dimensional standards so now what council's suggesting is again because the do because the Adu is a overprotected use you have to be reasonable and the reasonable standard is you can't treat it any more restrictively than a than a single family home M he's he's making the connection that the way to simplify that or to make it work from a legal reasonableness uh perspective is it a detached datu or an attached ATU that provides an extension Beyond um you know the plane so to speak speak uh would be based upon a a theory or notion that it was part of the principal structure mhm so it's it's making it it's making it more um workable why would it detached be considered part of the principal structure like So currently like you're in um you want to add an addition to your house right you're in address ex size laot M it wouldn't be granted th those those have so those those um rely on the historical setbacks which are which are reduced from current setbacks and the bylaw allows for let's assume you had an L-shaped yeah an L-shaped house and you wanted to fill the L you wanted to square your house off you're allowed to do that by right because your new addition is is not is not projecting beyond the existing plane of the the perimeter of the house okay so we allow that we allow that for for for all scenarios uh so he wanted to capture that and then my conversation with him we were struggling with with detached particularly if you apply 1951 in 19511 as I said speaks it's a current regulation which speaks specifically to detach accessory structures and it does not afford any historical protections because it's it's considered a new structure so we require variances and under under the the new law you can't require special permits or variances so he's trying to figure out a legal mechanism uh that doesn't doesn't have a red flag when the AG or is approved and then we're actually working with the bylaw and the building commissioner or the zoning board is then in a in a predicament where their where their bylaw doesn't provide a clear path of reasonableness so is what he proposing just so I understand is is not to go through the variance mechanism it's just you would apply like you like my I guess my concern is is that if the if you're in an um the current lot doesn't comply and you want to put and you're going to say a small lot right and you have to have so many feet set back right and you want to add an accessory dwelling it's going to be handled the same the same procedure is going to be handled the same way we do it now either you can do it by right if you meet very specific where you don't meet it by right you're currently you're kicked into 19 58 which automatically goes to the zoning board it goes to the zoning board for a special permit yeah but you said you can't what he's saying is it's going to administratively it's going to be a finding that's not in the bylaw uh but he he explained me that's kind of like a an administrative detail as to how the zoning board would handle it so it would still go to the zoning board but it's not like a it's not a special okay okay it's a finding which which is different than Thresh and hermit okay and that's the majority vote that the simple majority vote is the finding right okay but it would still go to that board yes okay okay that's what I just want to understand okay now just to extend the conversation because we now know how how do uses work it goes to the board but you know he explained and he has explained uh Council explained to the zoning board explain to the planning board uh because it's a protected overuse uh you have to have a really really really good reason for denial but just a but if you have like but if it doesn't hit the set like like is that more of a guideline and it's going to be handled on a caseby casee basis so let's assume let's assume they they assume they apply to the zoning board for a finding yeah in the in the finding the finding requires let's say a 20 foot setb and they come in at five 7 10 the zoning board does not have the legal ability to outright deny it simply because you don't comply they're going to have to go on a caseby casee basis and more often than not they're likely going to be required to approve this is this is the this is the the strategy of the law it created a do use if it were not a do use then then you'd still be able to apply a special permit there would be discretion so the state the state clearly knew what they were doing from the start tying it to what they believe is a housing crisis they likely learned the lessons from MBTA zoning and they figured out a way to prioritize and emphasize more predict ability on their end and less discretion on the local level but they specifically say that it's not to be treated any differently than you would treat a single family right yet we don't allow single families to expand so what C maybe at our special meeting we can we'll have Council there I think a good idea Council there I've asked these questions he said um even if you want to pursue a bylaw that did treat it exactly the same it's so it doesn't solve the problem what it does is it creates a problem for your zoning board every time attorneys are working with single family homeowners applying and the attorney's going to show up and say this is a protected overuse your setback requires 20 feet I'm at 10 I think your 20 is unreasonable so what council I think is trying to do is thread that needle knowing knowing that if you don't have reasonable regulation the attorney show up and basically say your regulations aren't reasonable not reasonable for not unreasonable for everybody unreasonable for my client on this lot based upon what they want to propose remember the adus for detach can average from 500 to 900 right the largest is 900 yeah but I you know this is new and this is one of those things that that I think needs to kind of be vetted out because I think when you start having a lot of cases start going to land court because people are denying there's going to be a lot of litigation no question about it right right and this is one of those things that I don't think we need to be on the front line of being aggressive on this especially on undersized Lots in this town um and I we don't we shouldn't be aggress like we shouldn't be in the Forefront of like going okay let's you mean aggressive in allowing yeah okay yeah I like yeah I think we you know we aggressive in not allowing is what we should be doing I I understand I understand what you're saying um because let me tell you like all of a sudden now I'm having everybody come tell me oh guess what my town just voted on the MBT and they're all all all upset and I'm like uh yeah you kind of have to comply by the end of the year and you know I think this is going to play out just like that and I think there's going to be a lot a lot of um additional grump not disagreeing with you but I think what council's suggesting is you know be laser focused on trying to come up with the best solution based upon a not so great situation yeah I also don't want to make it you know floodgates that people all of a sudden in undersiz lot we make it into a city because that's if it's not conforming I mean I wish Council would hear if the if the let's have him here next time if the board if the board chooses not to proceed with a special town meeting I'm February 2 applications will be filed I'm not saying not the and the Building Commissioner is likely going to rely on guidance from Council we think I think I I think we know what council's guidance is going to be so I think what council I think what council's message is is you're better off you're better served trying to get a front of it to the best of your ability to provide predictable guidance um right I mean he's going to defer to do yeah and he's going to differ to the intent of the law as we understand it now as we understand now but the the outcome as Anita is articulating it's it's pretty predictable at this point it's if you're a community that has certain challenges this is likely not the strategy that many towns would have taken right I I guess I'd like to like have him here and as go through this with him and tell him like kind of like I get um but I rather be challenged and I rather be challenged in court and I rather because like we're not going to be the only ones doing this agreed agreed and this is going to change you want to you want to finish we'll go through it just quickly and then we'll and the I mean on the other thing is that based on you know what I see on social media Town sites and you know letters we're getting there's also a lot of people there's people on both sides of this argument in this town that feel very strong I I know but you like all I'm trying to say to the board is even if you if it's determined that the draft regulations become final regulations there appears to be very few local options that can be taken yeah and there's even fewer local options that can be taken that actually have any any direct implication on how many mhm so you're likely left with constraints that aren't going to be zoning related well how DPW handles the right um it's not going to be typical zoning issues right can we that's exactly what the you know how the state um strategized this yeah can we just walk walk through this what will happen so somebody comes with a with a proposal for an Adu they go to the building inspect I mean if we follow what what Town Council his email from today okay so they go to the building inspector um and they are looking for a determination that it does not increase the non-conforming nature the building inspector may say it doesn't or he may say I think it does in which case if they disagree then they appeal that to the zba is that right and then the zba has as their framework that it's not a special permit but what they are looking at is is this more sub is this substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood that's their Criterion and so then they make a they make a determination they have a vote and if there is a majority vote that the existing non-conforming structure will be more detrimental then they will be denied correct and that's what the town council's recommending we take I think that's Reon structure if the proponent of the structure doesn't agree that that was reasonable then they'll be appealing that and that's fine I I'm fine with that yeah but I mean that's that's sort of the normal process so I I think that's a very good suggestion actually because that's really at the heart of what you would be considering a special permit anyway it would still require a better notification board uh a voting board of your peers case uh you know merits based upon the specifics of the of the situation right and he and and the building inspector has specific guidelines in in E yes with regards to assessing whether it's non-conform and that has been working really really well right okay if you recall you were on the zoning board yeah there were years when the zoning board was receiving a tremendous amount of applications and then we created 195e that allowed a buy right option and which is significantly reduced uh single family homeowners from having to go to the zoning board yeah I I think that's a very good suggestion okay all right so we've covered the procedure I just want to go over a couple more things um the state the the state um law allows for site plan the initial draft that I provided to council included site plan it contemplated site plan for detach structures council's um initial reaction and he uh remains saying um given the size limitations for adus the extensive site plan review criteria in the the board's schedule he's he recommends not requiring site plan unless you have a specific concern you want to you want site plan to address and again he goes back to and he'll say this to you do you do you require a site plan for current single families well we do if we're over 4,000 square fet but generally no uh so that's again that's where he's going back to so the law requir you not to treat adus any more any more restrictively than you do a single family I would think screening would be a landscaping SL screening would be a very important issue because you're talking about putting structures into places that previously wouldn't right so that's what I was thinking and and maybe we can articulate that he'll likely say are you able to develop a specific performance standard that if it's met it doesn't it wouldn't trigger site plan which is kind of what I did for further down related to the the walk accessible walkways and things of that nature so I guess we could I mean you could say it has to be a combination of fence Andor Landscaping that creates a you know you know a visual buffer yeah yeah could do that I I I would definitely want that and regardless if it's like if the principal house and the Adu is over 4,000 does it come in does it automatically go for a site plan like how do they determine current our current site plan RS uh say uh it's any grow square footage over 4,000 square ft on a single family trigger s so what if you were 3100 and now you're going to put on a 9900 Adu so now you're triggering site plan review newly y I'll read it to you construction or exterior expansion of a single or two family structure that will result in habitable space of more than 000 ft on a lot which is held which held a single or two family structure within the past two years so that automatically that defaults that still stays so yep like if you had like yeah I'll bring and added a 900 square foot then it would automatically still stay well I mean council's going to have to review that I don't know if we specifically talked about that um I think I think you know I think we may be able to think about ways to articulate what are the concerns with a detached and again my initial draft I did articulate them um I I articulated on design section D um my initial draft had um had texts related to um where additional parking was required uh it must use an existing driveway um it was essentially trying to uh restrict building an entirely new driveway for a detached Adu in the in the spirit of maintaining a single family neighborhood character uh and as you see in in council's um edits he softens that a little bit he was much more comfortable with a Prohibition on no new curb Cuts shall be permitted for an Adu curb cups meaning at at the street um which makes sense but we discussed well you know what if you have a detached Adu it's rental not family the owner who lives in the principal you know wants the Adu to have a separate parking area this wouldn't allow a separate driveway but now they have to pull a parking from the front of the house and you know around to the back so now you're creating all this new Paving so I was trying to figure out a way to prohibit that um so and that's one example where maybe we can figure out maybe we can articulate some very specific um concerns related to detached um but like I said we thinking of fire and safety right like if it's far like you would think that they that would be an issue like when they need to get there like well so I did I did add um uh number eight under uh design standards detached Adu shall provide for adequate Provisions for emergency services via a paved walkway from the Adu to a walkway for the existing single family and or a walkway with a con ction directly to a roadway and identifiable from the street via mailboxes and or address numbering on the building that's taken directly from fire preventions letters to the zoning board of appeals for current adus again does that warrant site plan Council would probably say well if you you can create a very specific design standard then no um that kind of gives you a feel for where council is with site plan mhm I don't think I don't think council is going to um hold the line and say absolutely no if that's something that the board feels strongly about you know then that's the way it will play out but I think what he's sending he's giving you some C some some caution saying you you wouldn't be able to use your existing site plan submission requirements we have multiple plans it has to be more of a minor site plan that's fine yeah I mean like again it's where can we cater and create our own category of site plan for 8s yeah exactly M yeah um I had initially had the laa shall not have more than two bedrooms I picked that one up directly out of Hudson the state's been using Hudson as an example and um Council writes a good town or a bad Town Hudson's being used as an example of a town that already adopted went to town meeting and adopt revised regulation to be compliant they had this provision in there so I said oh you know must be good uh Council says I suggest omitting this I understand it will be governed by the state building code and we are owner occupancy um I'm sorry this one here I would omit this the town cannot regulate the interior of a single family residence mgl chapter 40 Section 3 and I believe the state intends that the size limitations in the state definition together with the State Building Code and Title 5 is applicable to be the sole limitation on size and occupancy so it's another example of you know to what extent do you talk about utilities and thing things of that nature but but the state was happy with Hudson with their limit the AG approved it but remember that was prior to the draft regulations being um being issued you know my initial I'm part marking this is a um one that surprised me the draft state regulations um have a specific definition of a bus station and uh and I think this is where the state may have learned a lesson with MBTA zoning the state guidelines the draft guidelines Define a bus station as a location serving as a point of embarcation for any bus operated by a Transit Authority for routs that allow flag stop locations where passengers May signal signal for a bus stop at any point along its designated route the entire route shall be considered a bus station oh lovely so it's not a bus station it's a bus route it's a bus yeah bus stop you have a bus stop no it's a route yeah so doesn't have to even be so the reason this is applicable is that is that the draft regulations have very specific parking requirements if you are within a half mile of the bus route no parking can be required if you're outside a half mile no more than one space can be required and they don't so the L Transit Authority would be under that yes yes yes so I I didn't know that when I drafted this initially I knew that the state losted uh no more than one space so my Approach was well let's not require it let's say they may because again I thought we were trying to prevent more Paving in a single family neighborhood than what's required so I wrote May giving the giving the property owner the the option of whether they thought they needed additional parking yeah because remember it's not just the parking space it's also the maneuvering patment that's needed it adds up pretty quickly well you know council's council's edited uh this section as well and um his edits basically copy and paste the state law so again if that's something that the board wants to allow a May we're going to have to revisit that W with with with Council um so there's you know there's a variety of I think design criteria that we can discuss with Council to try to provide more predictability um related to potential impacts so so what does the state law say like you don't have to have no parking spaces is required within a half mile of the bus route okay so he wants to put that in versus in may he he he did take out May because in um number three he wrote uh not more than one additional off street parking space shall be required for each Adu I had May in there he removed the May and and reinserted the shell which which is what the the state law says shall but my understanding you can be you can be um less restrictive not more restrictive but this is not more than one shall be required you had more than one may happen right or something my intent was that um it was completely optional that was my intent well it still is we just can't require it what's completely optional Park having a parking space yes I'm not sure that's how it's worded if someone goes into the building commissioner with a byright Adu no won't the commissioner say where is your one space if you're outside of a half mile bus route no it says not more than one shall be not more than one shall be requ one one is required oh so he's saying that we want we have to we have to put one that's what the state law says yes oh and he's saying we my initial take on this was we acknowledge that the law requires you to have one but locally we're saying it's your option we're not we're not going to require you it's it's it's the applicant's option in an effort to I see reduce reduce Paving and parking we should go back on this one on that one yeah I mean it's another it's another topic for conversation on the other hand if the law is going to be expanded to twos threes fours there are neighborhoods in town we actually do need the the off street parking right we can if we're able to restrict it to single family then maybe parking isn't yeah right we can be less restrictive we come back I thought we could be more restrictive we just can't ever be less restrictive I thought in something like this oh something like this yeah that we could be less restrictive like this ISS you a require like that seems weird that they require like it's because that would be almost like yeah I it's another another clarification needed from needed from Council but I think my recollection is that we can't be less restrictive but no you're right you're right y but I think in most places we do want off street parking at the time when I wrote that I just assumed it was dedicated restricted to single family I think if you're in a typical single film neighborhood of chumford you know most most sing family houses have have a a gar a driveway that can handle four cars probably tand them yeah yeah you don't want but is there any place where we wouldn't want parking the issue I don't think the issue is parking but remember if it's for detached and it's and if it's rental or even if it's not rental that detach structure is likely going to be in the side of the rear that's a pretty long driveway yeah the entire Drive reducing the impervious reducing the impervious is what that but so that detached Adu would require on street parking then if we if we don't require a parking space and we're pushing to not have a parking space for that detached Adu but they' have to they'd have to figure it out he would said may like that way gives gives you the option what I was trying to avoid particularly for detached was was putting in the driveway people like to park to their FR door I was suggesting that you would you would just put um uh you would attach some new Paving to your existing driveway just enough to accommodate the additional one or two parking spaces for an Adu right and that's my point is that that requiring one additional off street parking space for the detached Adu would force people to make that space whether it's off their driveway or a long thing but if we don't require one space they're not going to pave it and they're then we're going to have all kinds of other issues with on street parking you could like could you could you could you're saying I think what Cil s is suggesting just based upon um some of his edits here is that um he's most comfortable with simply saying no additional curb cut and he and he seems to be okay with the language that he left in there that says um an off street parking space shall have vehicular access to the existing driveway a separate driveway shall not be permitted for an Adu so so basically so that's reducing pavement but it's not being as restrictive as you possibly it's it's it's kind of a working compromise yeah and but that's why I also like that not more than one off street parking space shall be required because it is forcing us to have a parking space there yep whereas putting in May gives the option and I don't think we should give the option in town but hold on a second so let's let's play this out right say you have an El parent and you want them to come whatever live in your house they don't drive yeah why would I need to expand my driveway they never have visitors no they're you know 95 years old and have Alzheimer's and don't know where they are but I want to hear them except that's fine except if a developer comes in they want to save money they're not putting in an additional space and they're rent they're renting out both units so now we have a ton of developers coming in which we've already said is likely to happen yeah saving money and we get a ton of on street parking now but where if we said May wouldn't that option or no no it gives them the option yeah it gives them the option and you can't and you can't distinguish between rental and non-rental okay right so then we get a ton of on street parking now where we so requiring the one space for trying to figure out a way to and if we get into the situation where there are two families doing detached without an additional space okay okay you convinced me that's so I think that covers the that covers the the highlights the low lights um you guys must have an interesting Thanksgiving no we don't talk about this stuff at all okay what what do you want to do about pursuing a special town meeting which would require a special meeting with Council or I think we should have another special meeting that we just talk about this with Council and I guess the question is do we want any public input I'm not sure we do I mean that will be a town meeting I guess um I would invite the public if you choose to move forward you're going to be required to hold a public hearing true right right zoning public hearing okay so can we do could we do you think we could tackle this in an hour uh no I would think you could do it in two hours dedicated work session with Council okay could we I mean it has to be done by January 2nd so I would propose that we do it next Wednesday double book next Wednesday got to get two meetings next Wednesday at the same time oh well next week is a good week to try to try to do the meeting yeah I can do and like any other day next week let's see Monday do we have yeah I have a meeting Wednesday too Monday you have C plan have I've got but I can always do it after that that's um well we should probably pick two days to get strategic plan what day what time is that Monday till 7 yeah it's it's fairly short 5:30 so it's not a Monday at 7 I can do Monday at 7 I cannot a Tuesday Tuesday I can do that I can do I can doday pretty sure I think I can and do you want to give Council a backup date I can do Thursday or Friday uh same same Thursday I or Friday yeah I would prefer if we're going to do Thursday I'd like to do it a little earlier like 6:30 6 even 6:30 I'm generally free all day Thursday okay so first preference is the 17th Tuesday yeah second pref refences Thursday the 19th y okay if you have any um specific questions just email them to me that way I can f them to council perfect thank you questions and suggestions I'm really anything yeah so you're going to work on the MBTA rewriting that so if we were to do a special town meeting we would do adus and MBTA we could I don't know if that makes the most sense but I mean we could I don't know if the the planning board the moderator and everyone involved in special town meeting I don't know to what extent they want to be you know bothered by anything other than I think Adu right right I think we just want to focus on that alone otherwise people will get confused and then get czy so then at Springtime meeting we have MBTA update and then the flood okay and then Kid's Corner if we get to it yeah okay that's that's doing the budget in the spring yeah so that's usually we're not happy with heavy heavy zoning on zoning but if it's an easy thing yeah those three are would be fairly easy this one is going to be the more complicated okay uh should we move along to minutes people have a chance to look at the minutes I know there was one place case's name is spelled wrong on page three of the first one yeah and then that same one that's the um that's November 13th uh was just a spelling thing I was going to send to Becky um it's probably from the AI program uh marose is misspelled near the end and then I sent two updates to to her as well on 10 Independents on the third the 13th meet meeting um it mentions four-way stops but those are really four parking stops or wheel stops not four-way stop signs yeah and then the uh liaison for concom report was that the we held the continued hearing for payot but the 10 hildr was continued without discussion yeah so those are the two changes I sent to her perfect um we might as well just vote him and get him out of the way yeah take a motion I move that we approve the first of the minutes 13th 13th M second okay motion by Mike grab second by Anita all in favor I I okay I take a motion for the 20 second of the minutes motion by Mike second second by Chris all in favor all all right okay so we're going to get back about the next meeting dates take a motion uh you want a motion for uhing oh that one okay are you sure you want to go through with a journey I move to a journey second motion by Mike second by on in favor e e e e e e e e e