get started. Uh, good evening. It is 7 o'clock on Wednesday, June 25th, and I'm calling this meeting of the Chsford Planning Board to order. My name is Chris Lavali, and I'm the chair of the board. Tonight, we will be following the posted agenda. This meeting tonight is
both in person and via Zoom. Uh we have one planning board member on Zoom. Uh Joel, if this if Zoom fails at any point in the meeting, we will continue the meeting in person. Uh the meeting is being televised live and recorded via Chelsea Media and will be available on
their website and on YouTube for later viewing pleasure. Okay. Uh so the first item on the agenda is public input. Is there anyone on Zoom or in the room that wishes to speak on any matter related to jurisdiction of
the planning board but not the subject of a current public hearing pending? Seeing none, we'll move on. Administrative review, Old Westford Road ANR number 690. Uh for the record, Steven Dresser, dress
Williams and Weey represent representing George Allen and Sun Construction. Uh we're just presenting this form a plan. Uh this is the second iteration that came in front of you. Uh we had to tweak it a little bit based on some uh some
kind of relook at the zoning. Uh we did sit down with Evan and the building inspector to kind of clarify may maybe some issues that we weren't quite certain of. Um, so we had to kind of redo the plan in order to to make some
of the uh some some of the zoning more accurate. There was also we were in front of the conservation commission and they tweaked the wetland line a little bit um and we need the 80% um of the contiguous area of the
required zoning. So we needed 32,000 square feet of contiguous upland. So that also had something to do with changing the lot lines. So, we're just back here. We have the required frontage and area and just looking for the um sign off.
Okay. Um any questions for the applicant? All right. Um there being none, I will take a motion. I will give you one motion. I move that
we uh issue the ANR with no determination as to zoning. Okay. Uh motion by Mike, second, second by John. All in favor? Actually, we need to take a roll call
because Joel is on Zoom. Uh Joel, okay. Uh Marcy, yep. Dearra, hi. Anita I John I Mike I and I am an I as well. Okay. Unanimous. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks Evan.
All right. Next on the agenda is 300 Bill Ricka Road. Hi. Good evening. Andrew Ty for the applicant. Nexus Recovery LLC. I wasn't I think you met two weeks ago on this project. I wasn't here and the Zoom wasn't available so I didn't participate
but I did watch the hearing so I am up to speed on what occurred at the last hearing. I believe Brad Greenstein presented last time and um the partners the other people involved in the business are also here and present. So um I think the board I'm not going to go through what was presented last time. I think the board understands the nature
of the project. It's um an existing large building that uh they want to convert the use. I think it's unoccupied presently, but they want to um convert it to be used as a detox facility, 150 bed detox facility with associated parking. Um there's more than adequate
parking at this existing building. I think there's 457 spaces and for this proposed use, um the belief is 100 spaces is more than adequate. And the reason being is because at max there's going to be 60 employees um for this use. and the residents, the people
that'll be staying in detox, they're dropped off, picked up, they don't have cars, so it's not a situation that needs um excessive parking. Um I know the board had a number of questions at the last hearing, so I think we've tried to address those. We've submitted some documents for the board in advance of
today. We submitted um an existing conditions plan. We existed a stamped proposed site plan stamped by the engineer uh which addressed a number of issues raised by the board. and we have um submitted a storm water plan. So I'm
just going through the questions that I thought arised at the last hearing. Um we can go through those just to show that we have addressed those and and then obviously respond to any questions from the board. Um the updated storm water plan that's a um a 10-page
document that's been submitted. It's engineering. I won't go through that. It says what it says. the waters being obviously contained in a manner in a professional manner and being handle handled in a way that the engineers think is adequate. Um the sidewalks I know the board raised an
issue or the DPW suggested that it would like a sidewalk in front of the property. uh the the plans that have been prepared, the proposed site plan uh put a sidewalk coming from I think 270 Bill Ricker Road um which will go to
this intersection which will allow for a a cross there's a crosswalk. So it will connect to the other side of the road where there's a sidewalk. So, it will connect the existing sidewalk to allow for pedestrian traffic. Uh, but the sidewalk's not going the proposed
sidewalk won't run entirely in front of the property. My understanding, I haven't been there, but my understanding is that it just doesn't work. The uh the landscape, the topography does not make it easy to put a sidewalk in and uh the engineers believe that connecting the
sidewalk in this fashion provides, you know, a manner for pedestrian traffic which is safe and adequate. So, that's what they're proposing. um handicap parking signs. Those have been identified on the plan. Uh the delineated parking for the proposed use
that's hashmarked. You can see it's in front of the building and behind the building they've designated the spaces that would be utilized for this use. Um the board uh raised an issue of the delivery area that's shown on the plans. It's next to the dumpster. So the
dumpster's here. I don't know if you can see that. Actually, could you come up to the screen? There there is a microphone above. Yeah. So, the dumpster is here and the delivery is right next to it. This is the the loading dock area and and I know the DPW or the board asked
about the dumpster also and and um they're going to put a chain link fence and a privacy slats and that'll be the designated area for the dumpster. Um the parking which I was referring to back there is the hashmark areas here. Uh
with respect to the the snow uh placement on the property, I think the board inquired about that. You know, where would snow be stored? Um the suggestion on the proposed site plan is to remove I think there's 17 parking spaces existing here. So the proposal
would be to remove those parking spaces, make this a green area, put some curbing around it because there's more than adequate parking obviously, which would allow for snow storage in that location. And I believe they designated another area over here for for snow storage. Um,
let's see what other issues were raised. Uh, the smoking areas designated here. That part of the building. Let's see there's anything else we had. I think the last issue was uh the DPW is
to confirm the sewer line and pump station capacity and I I know we heard from them verbally that it's adequate. Uh there was an indication they might submit a letter before this hearing tonight. I don't know if that's occurred yet, but verbally we heard it was adequate.
And um so I think based upon you know our submission the proposed site plan you know the applicant is ready for approval for this use and for uh the proposed site plan if the board's you know willing to consider that tonight. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are there
any questions from the board? Actually Evan, do you have anything to add before we get to the question? Okay. Um we do have a new letter from DPW. Um
Joel, do you have that letter to read? Yes, I do. Just one second. Yep. Get to the right one here. This is taking way too long. We can come back to that if you need some more time. You would because I had
it open up now. I can't find it. Okay. To help him out or have the No, it's okay. We'll get back to it. Um All right. We'll go for questions. Mike, I'm not sure I completely see what what the um sidewalk proposal is. I couldn't
quite make it out. Maybe you could just run your finger across. My understanding from the engineers explaining it to me is that the sidewalk is going to run from here. Okay. To this Oh, yeah. Right here. New six six foot wide concrete sidewalk there. We'll go
to here, which which I believe is an intersection here. then there's a crosswalk or there will be a crosswalk and and then I believe there's an existing sidewalk on this side of the road so that pedestrian traffic will have the ability to to basically get to
this sidewalk from the existing sidewalk over here. Now I understand that's my understanding. I'd like to add to a question to what you have there. You I believe that you stated due to like the landscaping there it would be hard to put a sidewalk in
front of that area across the parcel. That's my understanding from the engineers, right? I mean, it looks like the needed parking space is a lot less than what you have there. So, is there a reason why the green space can't be pushed up into that parking area along the front portion, allowing the sidewalk to go front across the property? Well, I
think one of the issues is that um currently the proposal for Nexus recovery is to occupy the second floor of the building. And then I think you you did see lat on the plans we submitted two weeks ago, they're occupying the second floor, then they're
occupying a portion of the first floor. They're taking down all the space, which and they're anticipating then filling the first floor. So there needs to be additional parking for the first floor. Um there obviously could be a situation
where they stay on the second floor and in the existing space they're taking on the first floor and there's a possibility that the other space could be used for a different purpose which might have a greater parking demand. So I know the I know the owner of the property isn't in favor of
decreasing the parking because then it limits the uses of the building and obviously this tenant may not stay there forever. So once that parking's gone, it's not coming back. So I know the owner of the building's in favor of keeping the existing parking. Obviously, they're already reducing 17 spaces, but
it's more than adequate for this use and allows, you know, for full full potential use for the property in the future. Um, and given and and given the the access for pedestrians from 270 and the ability to cross the street, that's a busy street.
The pedestrian issue is satisfied. And as to as to moving this up, I I I don't I don't know. That's just a a major undertaking. Obviously, taking off all this, you know, taking away all those spaces and you'd lose I don't know, hundred spaces and obviously much more costly
endeavor. That's Yeah, that's a really busy street. Like I I I like to be crossing over and then you have like if I'm not mistaken, press Cafe on the other side. That's what I was thinking too because on the other side of this building is where Press Cafe is. So people want to walk to that. Yeah. Like
I think I think you should go back. And Evan, is there another crosswalk near Prest Cafe going back over that street? Um at the signalized intersection. Yeah. The entrance to Press. So is fully
signalized. Workers at that warehouse would have to go to this intersection, cross over, lock down, lock down, cross over again. Right. Okay. I mean, I I agree. One of the things that could give an enhancement by having that crosswalk go across is in future
pieces of using this property, it would just give more access and more people to walk in front, you know, and by maybe moving that green space out, you can still maintain it. It would look a little better. Joel, do you have the DPW letter handy? Because I know that they do address the
sidewalk issue in the update. Yes. Yes, I do. Just one second. Okay. Uh so it's from Sheila Joyce again regarding this application. The engineering department has performed review of the site plan application for 300 BICA road submitted for applicant
Nexus Recovery LLC. The following contents of the submission were reviewed for appropriateness of method and accuracy as well as for compliance with town of Chsford storm water bylaw etc etc. and then cites the three different things that they reviewed the site layout plan existing site conditions and
demolition plan and the on andm plan which are attached to the agenda. So of the site plan review outstanding DPW engineering issues they said not addressed but their comment is no outstanding site plan review concerns comments regarding enclosed dumpster and
long-term perpetual care of the dumpster have been adequately addressed under site plan review requests request addressed sidewalk proposed to be continued along frontage of 300 Bill Ricka Road up until the parking lot entrance/exit across from Elliot Street. DPW will work with owner for any
additional sidewalk extension projects in the future. And then sewer comments um were pretty much the same. I believe I didn't look through them carefully, but they look to be pretty much the same sewer comments as before. Um and similar
for storm water that there were no calcs u submitted uh that DPW's not performed a storm water review. Um approximately 4,000 square feet of impervious area is proposed to be removed to create green space according to site layout plan. Uh
and that's the owner's responsibility to provide completed annual records and the recommended general conditions of approval have to do with the asbuilt plans and also that DPW will monitor and enforce the sewer limit flow limitations and that's the extent of the of the
letter. Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's continue with questions. Mike, we'll get back to the sidewalk in a minute. I'm fine for the moment. Okay. Just as far as like operational, I believe one of the applicants stated at
the last meeting this is their first um you know inpatient center I believe in Massachusetts. I may if that's incorrect, please let me know. Um as far as security um I believe this would be the first facility of this size in town.
if you did encounter um any security issues um is um and this may be for Evan as well. Is there anything with the planning board can um require as far as like the applicant working with the police if that's required to address any security concerns?
Do you want to answer the question first? Yeah. Uh I'll answer that in two parts. So this would be the first facility that Nexus Recovery LLC operates. It's a new entity and the partners of the entity are all people that have operated and owned these types
of fil facilities before. So while this legal entity would be the first I think all of us uh have in my case 25 years and other cases decades of experience operating these in terms so that's more of a clarification on your first point.
Second point is just as a typical course what we would normally do is reach out to local police, local fire, local EMT and just discuss these are our security plans. These are the protocols that we're used to sort of operating under.
Do you have any input? Would you like to be called under this type of scenario or this one? Uh this is how we anticipate certain um you know potentially needing you. And we found that that type of sort of upfront before the doors ever open
collaboration tends to solve most issues that might arise, you know, if you didn't do that and now you're opening and you're running into some things. So, we would voluntarily approach uh you know, local local agencies, police, fire, EMT. Thank you. That's what I was
going to suggest. So, they they seem amenable to a condition related to that. uh to go with his, are you going to have your own on-site security on the premises, not just work with local town? So, we don't um we wouldn't hire what
I'd call traditional security, but there are staff, 24-hour staff who are engaged in a role of of security, for the lack of a better word. They're responsible for patient supervision, for checking entrances and exits, for doing
uh hourly checks on the location of every patient. So, it's not a traditional security guard like you or I may think about, but that's also not what's really preferred for a patient experience. When someone comes there, they're, you know, dealing with
behavioral health issues. is we don't want to make them feel like, you know, they're in a criminal justice environment, but we do want to maintain, you know, the physical security of the building, security of patients, security of staff, and that's the best way to do it in a sort of nonformal but still
documented way. Okay. Anything else, John? No, that's good. Okay. Anita, I just it would be helpful if we could get a list of the other facilities that you've had that you run. Sure. Yeah. I was going to ask the same thing
and and also query if there's been any significant community issues at those facilities. Um and then also like what is the incidence of relapse or recidivism by patients while they're
within your facility? while they're within our facility. That would be a very very low number because of the protocols that we have in place upon admission throughout treatment at discharge. Recidivism and relapse rates
post discharge are hard to track and Sure. Sure. And we know more interested in well, you know, I mean, do they do do patients get searched when they come in to make sure they're not bringing Yeah. controlled substances? Yes. Um, so the
the licensing agency that would license us, the Department of Public Health, Bureau of Substance Addiction Services, has very specific guidance and protocols on how to do what they refer to as traumainfores. So they're you're trying not to be too
intrusive, evasive, uh, invasive or intrusive, but also provide the security that the facility needs. So we would operate under their guidance and protocols. And have there been any any significant community
problems at the facilities that you and your colleagues have run? Sure. So I I was involved probably the the most apples to apples one would be the facility the recovery centers of America facilities in Danvers, Massachusetts, not terribly far from here. Actually
larger than the proposed uh site. They have 217 beds and the the community issues really focused around in one case there was uh issues with lighting because that that
facility abudded um a a dozen maybe 15 single family residential homes. Um, and you know, the height of some of the the spotlights in the in the parking lot were disruptive, but they were they were relatively minor issues that I think we
were able to navigate pretty easily and immunably. Um, so I haven't seen that much in terms of like actual neighborhood disruption. There's always concerns. There's always concerns, founded, unfounded concerns. But what actually
happens after a facility opens tends to be quite different than the fear of what may happen. Yeah. So there haven't been like festering Oh no. Not not in my experience. And I've been running these 25 years. Yeah. And and with facilities
a lot closer to to homes and families. I I guess going back to the letter that Joel read, I I didn't have a chance I think that just came in today. I didn't have a chance to look at it. Um, did you say that there's there's no chance there's no change in their thoughts on
the sewer, which means there's a significant disparity between the amount that you're able to get automatically and the amount that you're going to require. Is that correct? So, the balance will have to be bought. That
is that yes. Oh, yes. The balance would have to be bought. That's what I thought. Okay. Yeah. the balance would be purchased and the DPW did confirm that they've got enough flow capacity capacity. Right. Okay. That I just wanted to clarify that point. Sorry about that. Um okay, I think that's all
I have. Marcy, you know I'm sorry. One more thing. I I from a standpoint obviously you know you are business people trying to um
make this plan work to the best of your ability. from a standpoint of this is the gateway of the town and you know a lot of those properties have um have
green spaces in the front between the buildings and the and the street. Um this property does much less so. Um, and I think that the pedestrian access as
well as kind of the green the overall green green of the sp of the space. Um, I personally would like to especially see it look a little different. Yeah, especially if it's a treatment facility like I would I don't know. I kind of envision a treatment facility to have a little bit more green space or like
something more calming than Yeah. What if people want to go sit outside and have a picnic? last time. We asked that last time, too. Actually, I think they put in uh two area. Well, they have the smoking area and then another recreation. Yeah,
landscape green space. Um cuz we had asked almost if they were going to put in like a walking path or something for people to enjoy. But the thing is here, beautifification is a big thing in Chumsford. So, how are they modifying this area to be better for that? Yeah.
But Brad, can you can you clarify? I mean, when individuals enter the program or they enter the facility, are they coming and going during the day? Yeah. Okay. So, people don't leave the facility and they're not they don't not permitted to like walk around the facility or in the neighborhood or something like that. Yeah. So, for
purposes of the people that will be living at the facility, they're living there for the duration receiving treatment. They can use the smoking area. I'm assuming that's monitored so they can't depart from that area. Correct. Yeah. So in terms of the people
participating in this program, 150 beds, they don't have a need for, you know, a space to walk outside in terms of going around the whole building or sidewalk access or something like that. I understand it's it's nice for the town to have that sidewalk connect in front of the building between the, you know,
two different parcels. Um the logistics of that for for this tenant is that I mean that's a significant financial undertaking. That's something that would have to be proposed to the owner of the property. They have looked into it. What their engineers came back with is what they proposed which is that connection
to the intersection because my understanding is is that the top topography and I confirmed it again in front of that building did be a requirement for um retaining walls and things of that nature. It' be a major engineering feat and expense which this tenant obviously can't undertake. Um,
did did I not understand that the DPW said they would engage with the correct? I just didn't know if the board was suggesting that's that's something that this tenant has to perform, which it really can't. But DPW, if they worked with the DPW and were able to come come
to some mutual agreement that would enable them to build a sidewalk that would be feasible for the for the owner and also that the DPW would help to achieve that. I mean, it might be worth exploring that. Oh, obviously the tenant
would be in favor of that. It's just not something What about the owner? I I don't speak for the owner. I mean, I'm not the owner's representative. I'm not in control of their pocketbook. Um, they obviously are making a significant contribution to try to get this to go
forward, paying this, you know, $1.3 million for a sewer fee. So, there's some significant up upfront expenses for this owner to have this project go forward. Frankly, I have no idea what a sidewalk would cost in front of that building. Is it 10,000 or is it 10 million? I have no idea, but I assume
it's expensive. So, you know, that's a big ask for the owner on top of what they're already contributing to try to get this tenant into the building. And how long is the proposed lease? 20 years. 20 years. Oh, 20 years. Oh, okay. Then then I think we should make a
requirement that they have the sidewalk. It's a 20-year lease. Evan, what did what does the DPW statement in there about working with the owner for future projects mean? Do you know? I'm not not exactly sure. I do know that um DPW
long-term vision for Bill Ricker Road is uh sidewalks on both sides. Um so within that context uh if and when DPW advanced that project they'd be working contacting property owners
uh in an attempt to either gain easements if needed if need be or coordinate um you know um daytime construction work with property owners. Okay, let's put a hold on the sidewalk
discussion for now and then we'll get back to it after. Any other questions? No, I think you know with what Anita needed asked, looking for information about your other properties and um whether these you know
patients would be wandering the building um and you're saying they're really not going to be they'll be monitored outside. I think I'm kind of better with that because my concern was is just down the street there is the daycare center. Um and so you want I want to make sure that your patients are sort of
maintained at your facility where those parents who are putting their kids at that daycare center feel that their child are going to be safe and secure there as well. So Sita, how many employees do you intend to have at this facility? I think we
were estimating 130 140 total employees. Number of employees in the building at the on the greatest shift, which would be the first shift, Monday through Friday, approximately 60. Okay. So, getting back to your question about people not
needing to walk outside, there's a potential that the employees for their betterment of life might want to. So, you know, just because the people that are the patients there may not want to, the employees might. And the thing is is again back to the beautifification of the site, I'm sure there residents there as well don't want to be looking out
their windows at pavement. Um just a comment. Um and looking at the snow storage that you have there, how did those spaces come about because they look fairly small. I don't know if the square footage is on there. the um the engineers working for
the owner of the property put together those you know those sto snow storage areas. I believe the one in the upper leftand corner was 17 parking spaces. I don't know how big a parking spaces but in general I mean seems like a seems like a pretty good size when I've seen
snow stored on lots. You know they have a pile of snow and a group of parking spaces. So right it looks like the bottom bottom one is adjacent to the building. Yeah, it looks like that's green space. And it Well, it says in there potential snow storage that they're planning to put against the
building. Yes. So, you may want to think about some alternatives with the snow storage. Yeah, I mean, they definitely can do that. I I don't know. I'm assuming there isn't a restriction that they have to put snow in those spaces given the significant, you know, number of parking
spaces. The adequacy, I assume they could store it anywhere, right? Yeah. I believe it's just to have it marked out on the plan. So, if they're going to use spaces that they don't feel like they're going to use for parking, then it should be slated that way. Okay. Joel, do you have any questions?
Yes. Um actually I was sort of tagging on to what Serita was asking about the uh green space area that is also going to double as snow storage. What is the purpose of that area or what's the purpose of the
creation of that area? I'd have to look at the existing it created for snow storage or was it created for No, the one that's on the other side the um the back. I can't actually see what you're pointing at. Coming to this one.
I'm sorry. Just to be clear, this one. Yes, that one. The C camera's catching up to you. Could you point to it again now that the Now that the camera's actually seeing it? That is the one. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I don't know the answer. So, we've
identified the area. Why was that green space created? The reason I'm asking is because um if it's created for the purpose of the snow storage, then I think I would have one comment. If it was created for the purpose of having green space, then I might have another
comment. So I I don't have the existing condition plans with me, but my belief is that this is I I know they were submitted to the board, but we didn't bring the correct plans with us in paper form. This space is being created from parking spaces. This, I believe, is
existing green space. They're not removing parking spaces. That's my understanding. Well, okay. So, let me let me get to what I'm getting at, which is that the the your next door neighbor has uh documented um contaminated groundwater
and there's a lot of detailed analysis with regards to that regarding their site, but there isn't any information about your site. And on that site 270 um we uh actually you know agreed with them
that they would not have infiltration on their site but that storm water would involve essentially capturing and then moving it off uh into surface water as opposed to infiltrating. So the area where of impervious that you're now
removing and creating pvious means that it's a source of um infiltration. Uh it would seem that the area is not so large that you would be cons maybe not as concerned about the fact that you
would now be infiltrating that area. But if you're going to pile a bunch of snow on it, then you are, I think, in effect creating a higher volume of water that you're now going to be pushing into the uh into the ground. So be because we
really don't know what the status of your site is with regards to that, I still think it's prudent to um I think having the green space for the purpose of green space is reasonable. uh sort of trading off
the benefit of having green space versus the the question of of exacerbating potential um contaminated groundwater. But piling snow on it's a different matter. I think you really don't want to be putting snow on a pous area there. I
think you want to keep it on your imperous because then it'll go through your normal storm water system which even though we sort of asked how was works which um no one's here to tell us how it works I can pretty much guess that if it's anything like 270 you have
catch basins which are probably pushing it into your retention basin and then it's moving off into likely that trench behind 270 because we noticed that was deep and had a had a fairly steep had a um a gradient at least east down towards
the uh down towards the uh stream or whatever that's on the um west side of 270. Um so that would be my comment is I would not use that I I would not use that pvious area for snow storage for
that reason. So, so what I think the engineers did is they listened in at the last hearing two weeks ago and I think they're listening in today also. And I think the board was asking for additional green space. So they thought converting parking spaces
to green space and also using it for snow storage kind of accomplished the desires of the board which now what I'm hearing from you is that it creates a concern with water seeping in through the ground and transporting over to 270 and not going through the catch basins.
So I I think yeah. So yeah, what you what you said is is half correct which is that if they were listening and they did hear the request for green space. Uh I also voiced the same concern at the same I recall that. Yes. Hear that part? Yes. But um all I it just boils down to
what I would request is that you do not designate um snow storage on your purview area. That's all. Well, then and you have plenty of impervious so you can store it, you know, anywhere on any of the parking spaces. The purpose of that being then that it's captured through
your storm water system and it's not infiltrated, but it's conveyed off uh to the surface water. Well, then I think from the owner's perspective, and I I obviously am not speaking for them, but then there's no reason to convert those 17 parking spaces to green space,
leave them as parking spaces, and designated as snow storage and also designate additional areas of snow storage that are not green space, like on the side of the building on the right. That's that's why I get to my original question was what was the purpose of the green space? If the
purpose of the green space was for green space, I think that's a great idea and I think that having that green space, it's not too large. So, I think it's pretty reasonable to allow infiltration there, but I don't think it should be used for the purpose of snow storage and that can be accomplished. Yeah. And it's also
adjacent to the building on that one on the bottom corner as well. So, keeping away from the building. Sure. I think they can make those changes. Anything else, Joel?
No, that's pretty much it. Thank you. All right. Um, I had looking at my questions. Um, so I also had a question about the snow storage. Um, but I think that was
covered. Um, so just to recap, the snow storage should be on the the imperous surfaces, not the green space. And I think there's still a desire from this board um based on what I've heard to have some green space um like that
available. Um probably as Joel mentioned, not too much to increase imper uh to increase pvious too much, but to keep it uh around that size. Understood. Okay. All right. Um, next
item. Let's talk about the sidewalk. Um, I want to make sure that we're avoiding the issue that we saw in the center of town where there was some discussion at
a project about a piece of um, a project to be determined later. It wasn't really made clear. uh there was some reliance on DPW and others uh participating in that discussion and it never happened and it came back to um hurt the board.
So I want to try and avoid that situation again and make sure that we're being really clear about what we want, what we don't want, and also get DPW a little bit more involved in this discussion as well. um because if
there's some reliance on them for this, I want to make sure that they're part of that discussion. So, um additional thoughts on that? Well, so I'm thinking maybe we need to ask them, you know, if indeed, which it
sounds like it is, they're envisioning sidewalks on both sides, like what's their time frame for that? Is that something they have any resources available that they could put towards that at this time? And then if so, is it
something that like if it costs $1,000 and I mean I'm just making up a number of course um to build the sidewalk from the crosswalk to the end of the to the other end of the property. You know,
could we figure out some maybe portion of it towards which the owner could make a contribution which would also probably improve his property in terms of or her property in terms of, you know, accessibility
from surrounding businesses. so that if in the future they had a business where they had tenants who might want to partake of nearby amenities, they wouldn't have to get in their car to drive to the next building or cross a dangerous busy road twice to get to the
next building. Um, so it seems like if we could put the people in a room together and see maybe have the DPW first say what it is they imagine. Second, what's their time frame? Third, how much would it cost if they were to do it now? And then see if maybe we could get a contribution from the owner
andor the tenant with the 20-year lease towards that. Evan, thoughts? Um, as I see it, the the 270 sidewalk is on private property and then your plan shows the sidewalk on private property.
The reason that that's important is that in past DPW in the planning board has taken a uh per linear foot contribution towards sidewalks. Mhm. But DPW builds sidewalks within the right of way or
obtain an easement on private property. Mhm. Um I think the other item that the board needs to um consider is what the attorney has described uh whereby from
Bill Ricker Road this site slopes down to the parking lot. A sidewalk would require a retaining wall or significant regrading. Mhm. And if the board's primary concern or interest is minimizing land disturbance,
particularly uh footings with retaining walls, that's probably a 6 8 foot retaining wall. That's going to uh you know, quickly create direct conflicts and concerns with. So
it is a difficult place to build a sidewalk. An ideal solution would be is there room within the right of way? But that that requires DPW direct involvement. Um if to place it on private property,
you know, maybe maybe the applicant working with the property owner provides you some sort of concept plan, but it's pretty clear it's going to require uh retaining walls andor significant regrading. And I agree with everything you just said and I want to make sure we
avoid the situation from last time too where we're making assumptions and we're not being really clear about what DPW wants and what the long-term vision is. So, Right. Right. I I I mean if DPW is engaged and they understand the
you know the the retaining wall and associated costs and they understand the planning board's concern about soil disturbance they may try to seek a seek a um obtaining easements in combination with
building it within the right of way so that it's it's on the existing same level as Bill Ricker Road. Um, but like I said, that's going to require uh someone engaging with DPW. Could you reach out to Christine and DP? I could
certainly reach reach out. Um, they'll they will have right away plans for Bill Ricker Road. Uh, I'm assuming that there's a survey plan for uh this property. I don't know if this plan that's been submitted is based upon a
survey or not. Um but but DPW will should have enough information to you know have a have an initial engagement. Okay. If we could get them engaged and get some more details as to what they're thinking, what their plans are, um we
can start incorporating that into our decision. Is there any sort of easement in the front of that property now? Because I seen a metal guard rail across a good portion of it. I don't think so. I think I think it's a hard um delineation between uh private property
and public property. Yeah, cuz that guardrails kind of goes Yeah. Looks like it's off of the line. Yeah. I mean, there may be a couple feet there, which is, you know, the reason to engage with DPW. DPW likes to build 5 and 1/2t sidewalks at this point. If I could make a suggestion, I know
this was brought up last time. Um my client would love if this board could um separate these two issues which is use approval of the use which they they've sought and also separately approval of the site plan so that for tonight this
board if they could consider whether or not the use could be approved then we could continue this hearing and have further discussions because I can tell you know the engineers need to talk talk DPW needs to talk to people and we can refine some of these other issues um if
we can at least decide the use issue and table the rest of it and we can go back and talk to the owner's engineers and figure out a little bit more about this because they know the site and we don't and obviously um if they're going to contribute funds that's a decision they have to make and we need to see what
DPAW really wants to do here. I'm a little hesitant to do that because the conditions come through the special permit as opposed to the site plan. Um, well, can't the the use be approved with conditioned upon an acceptable site
plan? We've run into this problem before and that's what we're trying to avoid or we've had discrepancies and issues. So, we like to get it all. Evan, do you have any thoughts on that? Are you seeking a formal voted approval for the
use? Just for the use. just just for purposes of zoning. I mean, what's in front of the board is basically the special permit for the use. Correct. Um, I think what you're hearing from the board is while the sidewalk is not necessarily
directly tied to the to the use, for some members, it it may be associated with the use. uh through this special permit process is really their only regulatory um you know consideration.
um unless we can come up with a um you know a condition that's that's part of the special permanent approval that you know provides predictable outcomes which at this point I'm not sure we can
provide any predictability for any party. The property owner probably wants to do a little bit more due diligence. They don't they have no idea what DPW is suggesting or thinking. Um the the only way to to handle this
would be if the if the board didn't want to u include the sidewalk as part of any consideration for the special permit. I mean frankly I don't know if it should be and the reason being is because the building could be occupied right now for
other uses without having to address the sidewalk at all. So this use which is important for this population is you know being held up basically because you know obviously for the better of the town a sidewalk would be great there but
this applicant can't use the property they don't they can't fund the sidewalk but some other commercial use could move move in there and use 400 spaces and they won't have a sidewalk. So, I mean, tying the two together, I
mean, it doesn't seem fair for this applicant to be held up because of that, frankly. I mean, the building was built without the sidewalk. I'm not sure why that wasn't raised at that time. I I don't know. Okay. Yeah. Unfortunately, we weren't there. No, I'm not I'm just
saying, you know, that would seem to be I mean, the next the next meeting would be two weeks from tonight. And what would be different then? Well, at that point between now and then, uh, presumably we can talk to DPW would have
looked at it a little bit closer and maybe the the property owner is willing to engage with DPW. They can make it a part of their condition of their lease, too. What's that? They could also make it a part of their condition of their lease that they request something like that. Sure. Right. So, I mean, there is
like Yeah, I get that. Like, I understand that you guys don't own the property. I but there's ways to request that from the um to get them engaged and get them working together and all of you guys
together so it satisfies everyone in between us. I think the complexity here is even if all three parties agreed to a condition tonight, to Chris's point, there's no details associated with that. And even if the condition said the three
parties are going to work together, the notion as to how you actually build that sidewalk and what it does to the site, we don't have those answers tonight. And it's still not clear to me to what extent the planning board if the if if the information came back and
said, "Yep, we we all agree we can build a sidewalk. It requires an 8ft retaining wall with footings that go down and some additional land disturbance." It's not clear to me and likely others how the planning board would handle that. Is that going to create other
concerns related to soil disturbance that probably uh no one wants to, you know, then we can make that determination. I like, right? So, what I'm saying is what I'm saying is if you give it two weeks for the at by the by the July 23rd meeting,
we'll at least have a a conceptual understanding as to what DPW and the property owners engineers think is doable. And and if it's and it could be something that's like, you know, they've looked at it. It's way too like costly.
But at least we've like I feel that we've done our due diligence and everybody's talked and if it can't be we found it to be a dead end. The only way to do that is is is give it give it two weeks. And that that's my concern too is
that no one's even talked about this and then it's the same exact situation the board was in last time. Right. So just get some answers and then also allows them to move the snow. a minimum it could be a condition of the special permit that the an easement
be granted if that's deemed approp and the property would have to figure that out. There could be a there could be a a recommendation to the board where both parties say building a sidewalk at that physical location is not feasible,
but but they agreed to do some sort of contribution to be used in the area. Yeah. Something like that, right? Yeah. That's typically how how we've handled this. Yep. This is a unique situation where the the applicant has little or no interest or control over the site and
the property owner um has all those those interests. Um but I would I would suggest you know two weeks uh should be enough time to get to get at minimum DPW to look at a little bit closer and ideally the prop the property owner as
well. Are there any other questions or comments? And do you guys think you can work with that? Two weeks. It's another two weeks, but yes. Yes.
Okay. Okay. All right. Um, so Evan, you'll reach out to DPW and connect the parties up. Thank you. Anything else? No, I guess I just wanted to point
out that I mean my my clients obviously concerned with the sidewalk issue holding up their project and they just want to note that, you know, the property that follows their property doesn't have a sidewalk either. So, it's a sidewalk that's really not going anywhere, stopping at it's longer
sidewalk, but it's not getting you to uh anywhere else. But yeah, thank you. So, we'll come back with a revised plan for for next time and hopefully there's some progress with DPW and others. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. All right. I will take a motion. I moved. Well,
let's see. Are we in public hearing at all on this? Oh, yeah. That's right. Thank you. Probably have to. Uh there are any uh members of the public who wish to speak on this. Move to continue the public hearing. Motion by Mike. Second. Second by
Deerra. All in favor? Uh Joel, I. Marcy, I dear hi. Anita, hi. John, I am an I. Unanimous. Uh, all right. All
right. We are moved to continue to uh Thank you guys. Have a nice night. Thank you. Oh, we need a motion to continue. We just did. Well, that's the public hearing. Yeah. I guess that covers it all. Yeah, that covered it. That covered it. We're good. Next meeting. Thank you
guys. Bye. All right. All right. Next topic is 5157 Middle Sex Street in Princeton Street. All right. Um Joel, are there or Evan? I
mean, are there anyone on Zoom for this? Nope, just Joel. Okay. So, if you could pull up, let's go with the slides. So, I'm not going to go through all of
these slides. U most of these slides are for information purposes only. Um it's exactly the same information uh that we had for Kate's Corner. Um but it also includes the Middle Sex parcels. Um, as
I mentioned last meeting, so I can I interrupt? I have an issue with that with what? I I with the fact that it includes the additional parcels. Um, I mean, we had a request. I thought we were starting with this main parcel for
now. Um, and and if not, if we're expanding it, then I think we need to be sending out a butter letters to all the property owners. We I'll get to that in a minute. Okay. and also the stakeholders. Yes. Yeah. Um so
I did have a discussion um with Virginia um about the inclusion of the uh vinyl square committee in this discussion. They were going to try and send someone tonight. Um unfortunately they weren't
able to. I do plan on attending the vinyl square uh next committee meeting uh to talk more about this. Um I don't think we will be able to get
this in time for town meeting um in the fall. However, I do want to go through the exercise of looking at the parcels in this area to apply this zoning change to see if it
would work. But I think as we're doing that, we need to be including more people. Absolutely. And that's why I don't think we'll make the fall town meeting. I wanted to get some initial discussions in place tonight, start reaching out to more uh people through
vinyl square committee through the notifications and then continue that discussion. Um but I did want to pressure test the zoning um sooner rather than later like tonight because we start the uh public
hearings for the zoning next meeting. And so I wanted to if we see something that might not work, I wanted to make sure that we're tweaking that before we get to that that public hearing. So this is just a draft. I didn't want to go too
far into vinyl square because that creates a whole other set of issues that we would need to deal with in terms of uh overlays and stuff like that. Um I wanted to take a look at the uh properties that we are specifically
talking about but also take a look towards um the right hand side of the map just to again pressure test some of the uh CB light applications to see if it would work. This doesn't mean this is the final it doesn't mean that this
can't change. Um, but it's really just a matter to pressure test before we start getting into the public hearings on the CB light discussion next week to make sure it's going to work. And just um, and is the thought process
um, get to go to town meeting, get Kate's Corner, get this zoning approved because that is you can't do anything unless we get the zoning approved. then get K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K Kate's Corner approved and then maybe give like kind of like a heads up
that we're looking at all areas and we may be back at another town meeting to reszone other areas. Yeah, that's my that's my thought process is that we present the CB light zone um as a couple articles to conceptually Yeah,
conceptually get that approved. But in that discussion, I'm likely going to be talking about Kate's Corner and also this area in in ways that we've looked at applying it and it seems like it's going to work. We're looking at applying
it in other areas and we can talk a little bit about those. Um and then vote on at town meeting vote on the zone and and the uh dimensions and then in a
separate vote vote to change those zonings in Kate's corner because you know having that makes sense because you have the whole audience of town meeting. Yep. So you may have like people a lot of people may not know about this right. Um and it's a great way to kind of ask them to kind of rethink like as opposed
to try to do everything at town meeting. Yep. Um gives them an opportunity to come back to us and say, "Hey, what about this area? What about this area?" Yeah. It's a chance for us to make sure that people are seeing that we're thinking about this holistically. Seeing
making sure that we can apply this in different areas, not just in the one area that we're bringing to town meeting. Um and make sure that um we've looked at a couple different areas to see if it's going to work. Because what I don't want to do is try it in another
area um after it's approved and see that it doesn't work. I want to make sure that we're trying it in another area first and seeing if we have to tweak it before and then we'll continue with the the vinyl square discussions. Continue with this as long as it as long as we need to
and then with the neighbors and the owner business owners and then bring it to the following town meeting. I don't think we're going to get it in time for this town meeting just based on the vinyl square uh committee timeline.
Now, what are we looking at here? All right, so these are the properties um that I took a look at. Uh all of that area around the mills and the train tracks are IA at the time at this
moment. The right hand side um is CB. The Okay, I'm lost. Where's the mills? The mill is CB. Mills right here. Okay. The the initial request was this building
and this building. All right. That's why I was trying to figure out why that one has. These are these are owned by the same entity. Trying to the mills. What is Where's the establishment? They cross the street. Across the street. Where's the establishment? Right here. Across the street in the pink. The pink on the
ball. Oh, okay. See, I'm glad. I'm glad. Okay. I am so glad. I think it's flipped cuz that river brought that up because I thought I was looking at something totally different. Doesn't the river go that way? Down there. Okay. Why am I going
used to coming through there that you see? Yeah. I'm upside down. North. You know what? When they said when we said the mills, I'm thinking the mills of the establishment. I'm not thinking across the state. They're all mills. That's right. You weren't here for last week. No, I wasn't. I'm sorry. You know what?
Can I back up further? I'm really sorry, but in the zoning um list under industrial E number 12, it's the retail sale of goods, the majority of which are produced or undergo processing on the premises. Now, this would have to be, if
I'm not mistaken, uh, less than 10,000 square ft. Is that right? Is there a footnote attached to it? Nope. No footnote. Yeah, I didn't think so. Okay. So, I a there's no not not for
that particular Okay. But why why couldn't you have we don't think that should be by right the retail sale of I mean a yes is my question. retail sale of goods, a majority of which are produced or undergoing processing on the premises.
There currently is an IIA. I know NCB. So that's a good catch. That technically should be Evan. Can you back up two slides on line 12? It's by right in CB and by right and IA.
Technically, that should be by right in our new zone. Yep. I don't know if that was a mistake or if we just missed that. All right. Hold on. Make my Are you keeping the M? I'm keeping it. Okay. All right. Because I missed it
last week. All right. Sorry. No, we're catch. All right. Uh so if you go to the so the top left um currently that wedge shape between Middle Sex and
Princeton is currently RC. Um the one that says stays RC. So, anything that says stays uh like top middle would be stays RM the right would be stays CB. Um,
what I found is that in the industrial section across the street from the mills, across Middle Sex Street from the mills, um, in the top near the RM, all
of those are single family or yeah, single family um, residences. So like 13 to 19 to 22 that property those are all residential resial. Okay.
And and you want to put them in your like you're conceptually now only thinking of changing those to the light changing RC. Yeah. They're industrial now. So to fix that
conflict. Okay. Got it. Switch over to RC. So RC would essentially extend from where it is now down middle sex a bit. What's see it says right by there says stays IIA. What's over there? So anywhere that it's stays
IIA near the river. That's all either railroad owned uh electric company owned. And so I'm assuming those would we would want to keep industrial. Yeah, they have a lot of good frontage. Huh. They have a
lot of good frontage because that is that's the railroad. Like when you're looking at it, it's all kind of like the cows in Ireland. And I can't expect that we would be able to change that easily from anything other than IIA. No.
No, I'm like, but like does like I guess I like does it matter if it's CB light or IIA what's what's on there now? Like I was like the railroad itself like my point is if it's just the railroad then why don't we just keep it all like just so
we don't have I like a in those like I guess like they can't like if I don't know I don't know 20 years they decide to pull up the railroad and want to sell it then you have two industrial spots over there. I know. I I find that weird, too. But I don't know. I couldn't figure
out if railroads are allowed in Yeah, because eventually that's going to become maybe like the MBTA, right? Yeah. Down the line. So, what do you want to put along it? So, it really doesn't matter what it is. But what are they going to build next to it? They're not going to pull it out. Well, they might, in which case, they
couldn't put it back, right? But if it ever goes defunct, then yeah, it might become a bike trail. What's currently on those two parcels that say CB light? Which ones? The ones just below where it says staya. You get there's uh 131920.
So 131920 I believe is one of the mills pro mill. Okay. Okay. And then 1492 1492. I don't remember offh hand. It was either mill or another
because those are we're looking to change those from IA to CB light. That's why I'm I can't I couldn't remember either what was currently on those two properties. I don't think there's something physical on those. No, it's it's just they're owned by Yeah, let me double check. Well, it looks like
there's a picture of a track, I guess. Well, the train track I know runs through it because it cuts across Middle Sex Street there. So 14 191 is railroad. We should ask our attorney about that.
1419 one is railroad. 131920 is Chumsford Mills. 14192 is ragtime realy trust
okay and then do you have 14193 question that's railroad that's railroad what are you planning 14193 14193 is that one gonna right now on this plan is that going to stay IIA with 14194
that 14192 like that could Awesome. Like a little river front bounded by railroad on all sides. Oh, we have bridges like Boston. Make a bridge. But getting back to like what Anita said
though, can we have railways? Can they be in CB light? Like because if they could then track run through 1419. Evan, do you have any idea? Can we ask the lawyer? No, it but it but it's already there. So I think like it's in it like it's like regardless of what we zone it,
it's there. It's grandfathered. I think the perspective you want to take on zoning is to what extent would accessory uses associated with rail operations be allowed under your zoning.
So freight yards, maintenance yards, things of that nature. The railroad itself has has an easement that's not going anywhere. Yeah. Yeah. So 193 build a freight yard if they wanted to Yeah. build buildings,
maintenance yards, storage yards. That's a good point. Freight yards. Yeah. Not by zone. Local zoning would apply. Okay. All right. See like see leeching and everything else you want to avoid. No leeching. So I've heard a couple people suggest
that those should convert over to CB light. thoughts Joel. Anyone disagree? So then we would also change the ST's IIA 193 and 191 to CB light. Is that what
we're talking about? Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I think 194 too, right? Yeah. 194. Uh where's 194? It's to the right. To the right. Yeah. Yeah. So 193 194 19
one which currently are not labeled well 19 so essentially it would all be CB light in there. Anything I would be CB light and then we'll have to make sure what our CV light says about freight yards. I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow it. The other areas to point out, um,
between the CB light and the STS RC, there's a multif family there, um, tucked away next to the mill. Um, where's that 13351? Uh, is that the RM? 13362.
Oh, it's the one with underneath the RM. It is the RM on the left right there. Oh, yeah. What's 13351? Where is that one? About on the other side of Middle Sex Street in that little triangle
by Edward's place. I think Edward's loops around it. Not seeing it. Oh, that one. Uh, that one is a residence. Wow. So, that's why that one's RC. Um,
that's why I put those as RC. Mhm. Um, that's a single residence right there. I I think it might be a duplex. Mhm. The question marks in the bottom near the mills on Princeton Street, that's
Electric Company. 13368. Uh, that one is one of the mills. So, this because that's a question mark. And the 13363 is also a question mark. I wasn't sure which
buildings were included in this proposal from the owner and which ones were not. So I just put the main building as CB light and then I put question marks on those two building. I think it's a different owner. But what is the current
what is it currently? I don't know. Like what's the current zone in that area? That's IA. Can you slice a building like that with different zones or do they have to be the same? I would just put the whole area I would just put the whole area CB light. That's right. Yeah. Like I can't Well, the qu
the question though that we have I think is what's in there now? If it's significant warehousing, we aren't really able to do CB light. Which building you referring to? 1336.
1336. 13368 has the um uh the aerial yoga and the batting cages. Yes. Yeah. So that's that's commonly owned with the large mill. That's the property owner who made the request. Okay. So that should be CB
light. 13363 is separately owned. Best of my understanding that building has been historically used as self storage. At the next zoning board meeting, uh they property owner has an
administrative appeal um asking the zoning board to overturn the building commissioner's determination that an auction house is not is not a permitted use. So that gives you a sense as to,
you know, the types of uses that the current property owner is contemplating for that property. H again it's not heavy industrial like that's not heavy industrial it's not but it's would auction be auction house be
allowed under CB light he has question marks on I don't think we have that on our table I don't think so I don't remember is there an analogous use for auction house um I mean there's the closest thing that
that Jose and I thought uh was in our zoning bylaw was some sort of iteration of retail sales. Yeah. Like antiques shop the multi currently under IIA retail sales is not a permitted principal use. Is it in CB light? Yeah, it would be in
CB light. That would make more sense to me that like and they're going and they're asking for if they're going to the zoning bullet for that, this would be better. This would be for them. Yeah. And it would make I mean again like an antique shop there would What is 13365? Is that what used to be
brick house? Because it's not listed as as labeled as changing in any way. Uh the little parcel to the right of that is the former. Yeah, the pizzeria. That's not brick house anymore. No, I don't think they own any of them anymore.
Now looking at the uses that the owner who proposed the CB light sent to us, I do have some concerns because there are warehouse uses there that are and we don't permit that in CB light,
but they would be grandfathered in, right? Those those uses would become pre-existing non-conforming. But then if the that business owner left and the site was vacant, then a new business coming in would have to conform to the zoning. No. Um the pre-existing
non-conforming use can can continue as long as it's not abandoned for a period of more than two years. How big are those warehouse spaces? They look like they range because the numbers are like 6,000, 5,000, 10,000. So they have different
sizes. I think the largest I saw was 16ish. Oh, 13,500. 16,24. Ltd refreshments is at 16,224. So I think that's the biggest one. So it looks like there's a few. Wait a minute.
But these buildings don't have major loaning docks, do they? It's limited infrastructure. They're right. Like so this is like again like unless they have like I think yes it's not traditional warehousing. It's not traditional warehousing that we
think of like this is not high volume historic society is listed as a warehouse. This is storing things. Yeah I saw that too and was like what? Well we can we can ask the property owner give us a little bit more information on these warehousing businesses. Yeah, I
think if if they're storage for an associated retail use, think the bakery. I think in most cases that'd be fine. The only and I think in most cases that would be accurate from what I saw, but I
think one of them that I did see was where did I see it? Uh Granite Group wholesalers. Yeah. But again, unless they come unless they destroying granite, right? Like unless they go and change the
infrastructure, which would then require site review from us, like they would have to come in front of the planning board. Like even if they're grandfathered in, I just don't see it being like a major traffic like Oh, no. I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying that
based on our definition of warehouse. Yeah, but they would be grandfathered in. The other thing we can do is I mean we can ask the property owner just to make sure they understand that if the zoning were to go through certain certain uses
and tenants would become pre-existing non-conforming. I think they understood that. Okay. And I think long-term they preferred having the opportunities under CB light which involves more retail and and I don't and I mean I think mill stores are perfect for that. Yeah. If
you're not like re I agree. I just want to make sure that we're not pigeon holing them. You don't want something unintended consequences. Yeah. Know cuz like as you said like look at some of these you got orthopedic associates is listed as warehouse like what's Yeah.
They're putting probably probably uh probably patient records maybe or depends what exactly we don't their uses when you say warehouse. So that's definitely going to make a big difference. Now what is a wood operation?
I do have a question for the the pink area which is not included. Are we going to look at that in a more like is this what you're talking about like looking at it? I think last time, didn't we say we were going to take little pieces of this like and fix it like not go after everything
at once, but tackle in smaller bits. And but that's that goes to a larger discussion with the area residents and vinyl square committee about what the long-term vision is. This is really
specifically targeting this discussion industrial zone areas that could be CB light a budding residential resial where you reduce the conflict. Yeah. I mean do we have any more IIA up in Vinyl Square? We
do except it's not really a budding residential. It's you weren't here last. It's near the softball fields. Uh the other mill, you know, that weird building down the hill that everyone thought was abandoned. We all thought was abandoned
that you didn't think there was anything there, but there is. There's something there. Yeah, we all had this discussion like two weeks ago. We all thought it was abandoned. Okay, I really have to get out of East Ch. So, I still have just a couple questions
here cuz I'm still confused. That one at the bottom of where CBite is of the warehouse that has little question marks on them. your what the one where you said I think was it the utility company or something number I can't see it it's like 1336 question mark 1336 that bottom
yeah the one that's attached to it what is the intent with that one weird cutout one that's actually a separate property and it's owned by the electric company so is it a but it's part of the same building could be the infrastructure for the um cell tower I think I think so but
I'm not 100% sure so what would be the zoning there. I don't know. That's my question. So, so my other question though is can you have when two buildings touch like that, can you have a piece of a building a different zone than the rest of the building? I don't know. You can. Do we
have other places? They're technically different street. There's property that has half of it in something and half of it's in something else. Well, in Kate's Corner, we had half a property that was the buildings. I don't recommend it though. I don't think it's something we should like. No, but Part of the reason
why I have it a question mark is because it's if it was a just a a mill building, it would be an easier discussion, but because it's the electric company, I'm not sure what that would fit in. So, where does that fit utility on our No, I
Well, those types of utilities are typically exempt from zoning. Yeah. So, then we don't have to worry about it. If it's cell tower, it's it's still exempt from zoning, but not to the same extent as um like a substation. So why don't we
just make it CB link? Yes, you just make it the same. What about the 13365? What's the intent with that one? The pizza place. That's not CB CB light would allow retail and restaurants, I think. Yeah. So we're
just thinking this whole area CBite. Yeah. Yeah, just do the whole darn thing. By the way, I don't know if you guys noticed, but Bay State auction is in that building. So, it makes sense they want to do auction in that building. Yeah, it's probably the same people. I saw 1363
the in 30 Well, on this paper. Oh, okay. So, that's in the and then Yeah. To the three. Okay. I like I like the direction that we're talking like moving the railroad area to CB light, changing the other areas to CB light. Joel, what do you think? You're being quiet.
question marks to CB light and I think we have a place to start. Excellent. Okay, this is the flight to see that. So, my goal tonight again was to just pressure test the CB light zone, making sure that we're not um having any
unintended consequences with the uses in the warehouse. I think we've covered that. Um it looks like we're able to flex this uh zoning a little bit um to take care of all the IIA here. Um so what I will do is I will make those
changes to this um slide deck um for both the table. I'll make that correction. And for the map, um, I will bring it to the vinyl square committee. I think July, end of July is their
meeting. 21st. Yeah. 21st. It's on a Monday. I would bring it to them with a kind of I mean, you know what to say, but and I'm there with them conceptual and we are looking for your feedback. I had a long discussion with Virginia
already on this about the approach. Um and she's fine with that approach. Um so yeah, she'll she was starting to talk to some of the members already uh to get their feedback and input um and to see if anyone could come. I also offered to
meet with them one-on-one before the uh meeting if people wanted to meet with me. Um I haven't had any takers on that yet. Um, but I figured meeting what's that? When is the vinyl square? 21st.
Monday. I'd have to look. Yeah, they're on Mondays. Yeah, I think it's They moved them around because we don't um, so yeah, and like I said, it's not final. This is just a starting point. We can have further discussions around the
rest of Vinyl Square as well. Um, but really for our purposes, uh, to make sure that the CB light zone was going to work in one other area besides Kate's Corner, um, before town meeting, and I think we've accomplished
that tonight. And it'll be on July 21st. So, thank you. Welcome. You did a really great job, Chris. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Uh, next item, Kate's Corner. Um,
we I think beat that one to death in addition to the the um edit I will make on that slide deck. So, we are all set there. Um, massage. All right. Massage
establishments. So, if you could pull up wrong one. The last. Yeah, that one. Last one. Yep. All right. So, what I did, I'm starting
to get all the slides together for our um public hearing and uh for other discussions. So, essentially what I did here is I took the current definition.
Um next slide is the change. So we're essentially replacing the entire definition of massage in uh section one and in D
changing some of the terminology there. Uh what did we change for hold on? Number one, it's essentially a wholesale take out the definition and replace it with the one from the states
definition. I keep forgetting you weren't here last week when we discussed all this. I know. And I went on vacation, so my mind is You're allowed. Totally. So yeah, essentially the recommendation from town council was to take the state
definition of massage, put it in and then reference the uh state licensing of massage therapists in D as opposed to board of health since the board of health doesn't license
them, the state does. Keeps the rest of the bylaw intact. Okay. And then the use table change. Um the current is the uh board of appeals change to
um my right by right. Thank you. Any questions or comments on these? Looks good. All right, moving on. ADU zoning changes. I'm really happy that town council
provided that email clarification because I was really confused about what we had to do from that document. I was read I think I read it three times. I was like, "Oh, I was reading. I'm not going to law school." Yeah.
Um, and so essentially it's uh one deletion and one recommended change to address a second potential deletion from the attorney general. Mhm. Um, so the deletion is
on this slide. Deleting the bold and underlined text. And the next slide gives you the updated text with that deleted. I'm still trying to understand
what that change mean. Yeah. Means. Well, it just it's kind of redundant to say the lots and dwellings for the district. It's just for the district, I guess, but it's like extra words. Evan, do you have any insight onto this?
Because I could not figure out why that change the um the original language just provides clarity that the dimensional standards are applicable to both the lot and the
dwelling. So the the AG for some reason is asking us to delete reference to both of those principal dwellings and lots and simply just refer to the
district. But doesn't that still imply that the dimensional standards are applicable to anything on the properties within that? Um well the it goes on to say as set forth in the dimensional table. So
new structures will require compliance with the dimensional table. However any existing dimensions associated with lot area and frontage are not applicable and they weren't intended to be applicable. Okay.
So, I think that's what the AG is is is indicating that you are not to apply dimensional standards to to the to the lot, the lot size. If it's undersized, you can still put an ADU on. If it doesn't have the adequate
frontage, you can still put an ADU on. Okay. I guess. Yeah. Because if you look if you look closely at the um the final regulations, it talks about um it talks about non
non-compliant lots are are um is not a factor for determining ADUs. So they can literally build right up to the edge. No, they still can they're still uh required to comply with setbacks. Those are the
dimensionals requirements for the structures. Okay. And then what about FAR? Do they still have to comply with FAR? Yeah, that that was in our that that's
in the bylaw. That was the AG did not did not strike that. So, it's just our first set of dimensional requirements that have to do with the law. Correct. Okay. Then I can see why you need to make that change. Maybe you can explain it to me some
night over a beer, Joel, because I have no idea. Or I may ask you to come up at town meeting and help me explain it. All right. Um the next one is the recommended deletion.
Um, so in 1956 C4, we have this text on slide.
Where am I going? Slide five. No, you're in families. We're still on the ADU. Oh. Yeah. Back up. Back up one. All right. So, in C4, um the section that was a problem
um was this one here on slides five. Actually, no. Am I Yes. Slide five. Yeah. Okay. Because it also um talks about section 185
8 C and 8E. Um, and so what the attorney general had concerns about is the applying of the special permit because
even though we don't mention it in this text, we do mention it in the sections that we um refer to in that section. Mhm. So, uh, the
instead of that text on slide five, now now as I'm going through this, I'm realizing I have to update these slides to make it more logical. So instead of the text on slide five, we
need to update it with the text on slide seven with the new text there which is what what is underlined. Yeah, that's just addition to. Yeah, we're just adding that to Yeah. So before it was as
applied by the planning. Hold on. Was it removing the applicability of removing this provided that when a determination is required not substantially more I think is being included. I have to I have to edit these slides a little bit more then. Yeah. So
I would my recommendation is take what the current wording is do a strike through and then add the what they want to add. I think I'm I didn't realize that it was also deleting some. Okay. Okay. All right. So, we're deleting some text
in C4 and adding the underlined piece. Question, Evan. Do you think that it it's it seems to me that these changes were made by the attorney general but
have not in any way related to the appeal? That was my next point that I was going to get to. So the Go ahead, Evan. The letters that the AG received Yeah. Um
yeah, the a the AG did not strike the um prohibition on a second driveway. Um nor did the AG strike the um uh within the within the front yard.
Front yard. Yeah. Yeah. So, these were just the issues that the AG had with our text, which they took a little longer to do because they had too many to do. And they did specifically because we all they did grant an extension um
specifically related to the to the um resident um letters they received, right? But the but their changes didn't ultimately correct. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All of the other areas that the residents concerns were were approved.
Right. That's what I thought. Yep. So, these were the only changes that the AG's asking for. Yeah. I would just make sure we make that point. Yeah. Now, Evan, the deletion that the AG made, does that
automatically take effect? Is is the AG's office approval of our bylaws with those deletions or do we have to reapprove them? We need to go back to town meeting. Okay. Yeah. Okay.
Which is what what this is intended to do. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. So, are you going to bring that one back next week like clear or you just Well, next week we start the public hearing on these anyway. I believe so. Yes.
Or next meeting, I should say. Yeah, next meeting. We're not meeting next week, are we? Cuz I don't want to be there. Everyone's coming. All right, next one. Family definition.
Oh, fun. Fun. So, with this one, we have some options. So, I'm not going to go through all these slides. Um, thank you. On slide four, I did extensive research of other towns
in Massachusetts. About 100 to 150 of the 351 municipalities use the definition I have here. Slightly different than the one we proposed, but not by much.
Um, I gave some examples of some of the towns. I also mentioned that some towns and cities have added the text onto that other uh phrase as distinguished from. Yeah, as distinguished from. Could you
add in like percentages to those two to make it No, I did not. No, I'm wondering how to make these people want I think you send them a special invitation to come to our public hearing and have them vented out here versus town meeting versus town meeting. And then a few
towns have kept the blood relative definition and then added the word or. That's fine. And then our the proposed definition. Only a few. But I mean the t the the the the after the or part
encapsulates family too. Yes, it does. It's redundant. Yes, it does. So let's just leave it. So the reason why and go to the next slide. The reason why municipalities have used this language is because it's actually complies um
with the Fair Housing Act. It is provided as model language by a number of planning organizations. MAPC is one example. um it's simple uh to deal with and it's
actually following the legal legal guidance in um primarily Commonwealth versus Jaffy. Um and if you go to the next slide, Commonwealth versus Jaffy does not provide an actual definition, but it it actually asks for these four
components of any definition. It actually recommends that you use the single housekeeping unit language, describe the functional aspects of that housekeeping unit, avoid requiring kinship, and emphasizes the unit's stability,
permanency, and cohesion so that it's not related to more of a boarding house scenario. And there's no size limit. Correct. It actually, and that's my next slide. Sorry. Actually, the the size
limit conflicts with a number of uh fair housing requirements as a cap. I see. And so the recommendation is to eliminate any of the caps and and limits from zoning and keep those in other
regulations like um health and safety and things like that. What what was the I don't remember but what were people's main concern against the definition of family that they had during that meeting that then you can then turn this rage
there were two primary concerns the state shouldn't be telling us what to do and we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to perkline okay so you added westward in there um is there other towns that you could highlight because you have the big group of towns are there other towns you could highlight that trump the ones that I
listed first are the ones They're more closely they're similar analogous to us. Can we No, can we can we just do me a favor? Can we list out and all in bullet point like one by one all how many you saidund
150? Can we list them all out? And I think you should No, I can't actually. I'll list them out and just go flip and flip and flip. No, but you got to think wait but like wait hold on a second but think about this. You're going to have people there's a few people with certain things that they're doing right? So, how
do you take their opinions and make sure that you're talking about it to make them okay with it? Like, what can you say to help with that? I think certain people were not going to ever matter. You only need Well, because it seemed like it jumped one way and the other two. Mhm.
What you Yeah, I was going to say what you did. I like what you did with it because you've shown that it's based on the Supreme Judicial Court's decision. So we're not just kind on a limb, you know that there's some pretty and and we can always defer to town council if if if representatives question. Why is it
good for them? It remember it was change. So people don't like change. No, I get it. But and it was the and we kind of surprised them on it. Like again, they weren't prepared for it even though we've been talking about it and it was in pre-Town meeting and all that. Like people heard of it for some time and just kind of I think But what does this
change allow? Like how does this change benefit those people? It does. to town. It keeps us from getting sued. It makes us well legal compliance, right? This whole thing I heard I think I heard you talk about that at the last meeting, but I mean it's putting us into a more compliant manner. I mean, I don't know
if you can push that a little bit more. I will try. I don't know. I'm just thinking I'm thinking about ways of like how do you get people like you need to connect to people and move people. So, how do you do that with what they were pushing back on? But then you'll have other people standing up. But if you have like a clear thing because nobody
wants to be told what to do. So how do you make it clear, easy, not hurtful? This is a very inclusive language. No, I think so. And I think that's the problem for some people. I I think that came up if I remember right because the guy they also said that um
any of those um family arrangements or non-family arrangements are already allowed. So, so while some people were may have been um concerned about inclusivity, they also acknowledge that the current
definition allows for those those arrangements. Actually, it doesn't. I think it says um family are no more than four unrelated. So that's where people were saying that you but if you have if you have
a father with two kids a mother kids understood there but it seemed like there was a segment of the people who voted against it acknowledging that the current definition
accommodates many many if not all uh arrangements. And then there was a a core group of people opposed who just didn't want didn't want to change the definition. Yeah. No. And
then I think if we get if if criticism comes up, we just try to explain that we're not trying to change like probably everybody in that room had a different idea in their mind of what is a family? Someone trying to have what the somewhat trying to stick to the idea of this traditional family where everyone was
related. But I think we just come back to the town's not out checking housing units to see who lives there. And so it's kind of uninforcable and we're just trying to, you know, again, avoid legal disputes and just come. We're taking family all together out of it. Evan, can you go to slide eight? I was going to
say which one do you like? So these are all our our are our alternatives. the initial one that we proposed at a town meeting. Um the one that is the
simple generic common definition um or the one that also includes details from the Jaffy case. The second one seems a little bit more personable with some of the language. More personable with some of the language
because it's talking about, you know, access to common living, cooking, and eating areas versus just to a single housekeeping unit, which I like the straightforward language, but I mean the other one might be a little bit softer for people. Yeah,
I think alternative 2 is just it's very defined. Here it is. I mean they there's no practical difference between the two. I don't think so either. But I think to me the stability, permanence, and cohesiveness including that allows for some of the concerns that people had
about this also applying to use cases where we don't think where it's more like a boarding house, right? Um I think the the Jaffy recommendations kind of address that.
Yeah. So it tightens it up so that those cases can't happen. Um but it does keep the the family but hold on. Do we but where but that's defining family and we don't have the word no I think we've had to
take the word family out of most of this. It's who's in a multif family unit dwelling unit. So this would be the definition of family. No. Okay. And and go back to the towns have
what percentage of what what do they have? 100 250 out of 351. I mean it's an estimate um based on a report I found. But it is roughly a
third to 45% use roughly that definition with some small variation. So they have one or more persons occupy a dwelling unit and living together as a single housekeeping unit with potentially some slight variations like I've noted here
which extended out further with the uh the alternative two there with so I like what if we did it in between like one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit who share access to common living cooking and eating areas living together as a single housekeeping unit. Period. Stop. Yeah, cuz it sounds like you want
to get rid of like stability, stability, permanence, and cohes. It seems judgmental. No, but so I was I mean that's a compromise. Not cohesive. I mean that's a compromise. I could be family not being co instead of that. I like the simplicity of one or more persons occupying dwelling unit and
living together as a single housekeeping unit. Um as distinguished from a group of occupying a boarding house group, home lodging, you know, and calling that out. I like those two pieces together. My only concern with that is do we have
those terms defined in our bylaws? I think we have boarding house. Let's not go there. Well, we have boarding house or group. We have boarding house, lodging house, hotel. All right. Get rid of fraternity and club. We may even have a club or fraternity.
I mean, I think that's a nice step home because I wouldn't want to add I wouldn't want to add that if we're not defining what those are. I like I like what Dra said with cutting off the end. It's still personable. The thing is you still need to connect with people and make them want to vote. So, how do you do that? You're getting rid of the word
blood. And I think that's which one? Getting rid of getting rid of family related by blood marriage adoption legal. The concern I have also about adding those specific cases is that what if there are other cases that we haven't
thought of and listed there. So that's why if we if we add the stability, permanence and cohesiveness or some component of that that already eliminates the boarding house, group home, lodging house because
those are more temporary living. Yeah. Situations. So what else could you say? Well, that's why the that's why Jaffy um case recommends including that type of language.
Yeah. Where there's um emphasizes unit stability, permanence, cohesion. And just when I think of stability now that Dudra's mentioned it, there's a lot of people in a home that's probably not stable. So, well, we could we could eliminate that word and just permanence
and co cohesiveness. But if a third of the roughly a third of the towns have it and you can go back to a legal decision, then it shouldn't be a heavy lift for town council to defend to defend it. You know what I mean? Like that's the beauty of using that decision in my mind. Yep.
I agree. What does Joel think? Joel's been very quiet tonight. I was I was wondering um well one how do you enforce this in the sense of if somebody is running a boarding house out of their home you
know and you're saying oh we're a family then how does the how how does the zoning enforcement officer even Oh I thought I just I was just wondering about that in general but overall I mean was the concern that essentially we're
what we're doing is we're opening the door to any kind of a living arrangement like a boarding house or what have you that could be anywhere or is it more of a culture you know issue where you're taking sort of a traditional definition of something and now you're defining it
as something else um because if it's that then I'm wondering why we would even keep the word family I mean if people have associations with the word family that they don't like it being redefined what we're trying to do is we're just trying to define you know who
how do you describe what is living within a household? And so if we just remove the word family and replace it with something like household unit or something like that, then we don't run a foul of of that issue. Um I mean because most of what we're talking about is
complying right the legal requirement. I doubt that the federal government is defining what a family is there. I think what they're defining is these are the characteristics of what you can not discriminate against and that we can take those things and we can put them
into a definition and what those characteristics are together. We don't have to call family. We can call it something else. Now you're making me a housing do more research. Housing occupancy unit. Housing occupancy.
I mean I I kind of thought and maybe I'm making a an appropriate jump but I thought we were starting off from the point that multifamily has family in it. So now who are the occupants of the multifamily unit
that constitute the family? But even in a multif family are you they're really families that are living in it per se, right? So there's no way of as Joel says enforcing who is living in these. Well, we don't have to worry about the enforcement.
So I was that was something that crossed my mind as far as the enforcement goes. I was I was more wondering since if we're taking a term that has traditionally been understood one way and now we're turning it to use it for some other means then one option is to
is to take the new definitions and apply it or the other thing is just to change the word altogether. But what word would you use? Family could easily be replaced by household unit. So Joel, the in my research, I did see a couple towns define it as family or household unit,
but it's it still needs to be defined because like deer said, if you're talking about a multifamily building, Yeah. What does family mean? Household unit building. Yeah. But then we have to change all our definitions,
all our terms in the bylaws. Well, if you're going to if you're going to take a look at it, look at the definition of dwelling and dwelling unit. Dwelling refers to single and two family and multif family. Dwelling unit uses the term housekeeping
unit. So, what was the purpose of this again? What are we trying to do? Can we go back to the start? I'm getting I'm confused. The purpose I like this can't define we can't define family. Okay. Where do we like what do we have it defined as a as
a blood relation kinship type of unit and based on fair housing practices and AG review that is all right then I say pick number two alternative number two yeah can I make a motion that we vote on which one we're
going to pick I'm good with number this good with number two without the word stability to yeah I don't care whether Okay. Yeah. Like whatever you want. Like that is my vote. I stand by you 100%. We're not
trying to We're not trying to reenact the culture wars. We're trying to keep our zoning legal and defensible. Yep. You're just I otherwise all to our zoning book. Practically speaking, what all of this means is if somebody drives
by and they don't see 10 Harley-Davidsons and a bunch of guys uh in colors, they're going to call it a family. Now, you know, it's only ever going to be dealt with from an
administrative point of view if something really radical other is going on with the property. Yeah. The rest of it's irrelevant. I'd say my personal opinion based on the Jaffy decision because then it gives the town back up. Yeah, it's a good point.
Yep. Okay. But let's get rid of stability. All right. All right. Um, take a vote. Why do we need a vote? I'll do a roll call. Uh, all in favor of alternative to removing the word stability. Joel,
I'm going to abstain because I do think that the definition is right. So I I do think that those words are the right words to use. I just don't think we should be using the word family anymore. Wait, but isn't that number two?
You got me confused, Joel. He thinks we shouldn't be defining family. Yeah. No, no, no. What I'm saying is what we're doing agreeing on are definitions for the word family, right? And what I'm saying is I agree with the definition. I do think our zoning should be built around that definition. I just don't
think our zoning should include the word family in it. Got it. I think that should change to something else. Okay, I agree with that. But let's take one step first. That'd be a lot more work. That's going to be a ton of work. Yeah. Yeah. And I really don't want to go downtown
until we can get this over. But I do agree. I mean that with what Joel's saying because why are we having it so getting stuck? But but we can't get this one over the hoop. The hope that you're not going to be able to change Yeah. single like could you imagine trying to
go in front of town meeting trying to change single family and this definition all at the same time? No, it would never work. Never work. Let's do one thing first and then Joel, you abstained. Sorry, I just trying to get the mute button to work. Uh, that's great. Okay,
thanks. Sertha, I have no vote, don't I? That's right. Marcy, Ira Anita, I number two. Are we doing two? Yes, number two. Yes. Alternative number two. John I. Mike. I am an I. All right.
So, one abstension, the rest. Okay. moving a happy. The fact that we have to define a family is crazy, but that's the world we're in. No, I know that's the world we're in, but it's still just the fact that we have to do this again is crazy. Yes,
that too. All right, so manage growth strategy. Let me see. So, yes, I had a conversation with Virginia after a town meeting on Monday and
I wanted to go back and read before tonight but didn't get to it. Um, reread the um strategic plan because it occurs to me that after talking to an Virginia
that I'm not sure that I didn't there's not a misunderstanding of what they were suggesting we do and what we're how we're taking it. And so I wonder if it might not be a good place
to start to have us and the strategic planning committee and possibly the select board and the town manager and Evan I didn't mean to put you last Evan um maybe have a a combined work session
to to make a plan of what we should of of what exactly a managed growth strategy G means and how what they meant about how we should approach it.
I mean, they spent a lot of time doing a lot of work and were basically saying you didn't do the job or that was what it seemed like we were saying at the last meeting. No. Um, I think my opinion is that it's not clear that
all of the members of that group are in agreement as to what a managed growth strategy is because to be clear, the the strategic planning committee did specifically hand this off to us, right? So, it's not like
we're just pressing ahead and disregarding them and thinking we can do it right or whatever. No, I mean, we have town manager be rather viferous about the fact that we were to take this responsibility. So, yeah, it falls on us. I think the less cooks in the in the
kitchen is kind of better. Um I think it's been handed off. Let's follow the procedure and let's go with it. And we did have Evan and um Aaron and um Budrey here last meeting to talk about what it
specifically was and is and what the expectations are. So, okay, I think we've got a general direction. Okay. Um, and I think that part of what I wanted to start talking about tonight, um,
like what Joel was talking, what we were talking about last meeting, is what's the task force composition? Um, what are the goals that we want to set for that task force?
Is there a rough timeline that we want to get this done in? And we had talked about what are the metrics of those goals and what's the definition of done. I don't think we need to define all of that tonight, but we should start talking about it because I think based
on my understanding the planning board is going to be essentially the steering committee for that task force uh to develop the strategic uh growth plan. And so as a steering committee, we need to come up with some guidelines and some
direction for that task force. Um, so that's kind of what I was thinking of doing tonight. Thoughts? That's good. Good. Yeah. Okay. I'll give you a couple. Yes.
uh probably a timeline in the I would say three to no more than four months, possibly even less, but do something to make sure that this doesn't go on forever. Do we want to have something to
say at town meeting in the fall or is this kind of parallel to it, not not related to any particular time? No, I don't think it's tied to town meeting. No, I don't think it is either, but I just wanted to make sure that everybody was
thinking the same way. Yeah. Is I wasn't at your last meeting. Is the one-stop application accurately reflect what collectively we think a managed growth
strategy ought to be. Can you pull it up? Determine preferred based on What I read in that very high level has a scope summary. I mean the short project description
says hire a consultant agree upon and define integrated approach for land use zoning economic development housing environmental infrastructure and fiscal consideration. Determine preferred approach for desirable growth in terms of location, quantity and type.
assessment of roadway, water, sewer, and storm water distribution systems to identify supply demand and capacity limitations and reision policy revisions. I mean, is that what you're asking? Well, yeah, it it has a detailed scope as well, right?
But I mean, let's start with that. The only reason I'm asking is that that kind of scope budgets out to 80 to 100,000. Mhm. That's a that's a that's a pretty extensive process.
Um somewhat similar to the uh strategic planning process, what level of public engagement is needed? Uh what level of of consultant services on the technical side is needed?
That's certainly more than three to four months. Yeah. I mean, how long did the strategic plan that was a year, right? So, I I'm just I mean, and and we get I'm surprised to hear at this point I'm not surprised to
hear that people from the strategic plan and planning board and others have different viewpoints. But if everyone's referring to um the one-stop grant application, maybe that's an easier an easier path to
agree or disagree on what it is we think we need or want because this clearly defines one one approach. If this isn't the approach, then it could be a 3 to fourmonth process. It
may not require $80 to $100,000. This is what I think is needed to do a datadriven um okay professional consultant services
to really drive to the point of it's not so much about natural resources. It's really about what are your infrastructure constraints? What kind of growth economic housing strategy do you want? Can existing
infrastructure accommodate it? If not, what needs to be done to upgrade infrastructure? Yeah, I I agree with that and I think um given our discussions before you submitted this, I think that the examples that we saw around uh strategic
growth plans for other communities um made sense and and I do agree with you. I think the timeline is absolutely for this type of thing more than a 3 to four month timeline. Um I think could we pin it down six eight you know what what I
think we need to let this kind of drive because I think this could be a good output um that we could then hand off to our state reps to get additional funding for the town to support their housing initiative. So, if we do this correctly
and this comes back, I mean, I don't know. I assume we don't have the infrastructure here. Um, maybe I'm wrong, but if it does say that and it says this is how much, you know, additional you need to support this. Just to back into it, if
the if the one stop comes back and gives us 80 and we're providing, you know, 20% 25%, you're talking a $100,000 budget. Yeah. That's that that's that is a that is a that's a robust commitment. The
town is basically saying, you know, we're undertaking a a very robust, very datadriven, very strategic planning process with with intended with intentionality and intended consequences. If it's if
it's anything other than that, then it's it could be significantly uh significantly less expensive and a much lighter lift. Well, maybe we should have the consultants get I'm just reacting to what you said where I'm just reacting to what you said
where several months after strategic plan completes its work. This has been posted for a couple meetings and there's conversations about we're not exactly sure what we what we need or what we want. No, I wasn't saying that.
I was saying I'm not sure the kind of the strategy and I mean I I personally think that I have no idea what a timeline for something like this should be and and I would
probably want the input of the um of the of the consultants whoever right that we're talking about engaging to tell us if you're going to give us X and Y and see how much is it going to cost and how long is it going to take cuz I don't
know what what it takes to delve into the data to get those that output. Right? And by timeline, I wasn't implying that we should be setting the timeline for the entire process. I was more thinking about okay, when do we need to set the task force up? When do
we need to get start getting them together? Um because they're going to need to be the ones to pick the consultant. Um, yeah. So, that's the time that the upfront timeline is what I was thinking, not the overall timeline. When do we find out about the grant
money? That's what I was going to ask. Be October. So, if that's like October, I mean, that's still time. And then do you have to ask for additional money at like the town meeting or something like this? Not not likely. No. All right. So, what do we need? What do you need for us? Let's move on because it's we're
getting stuck here. I would like to um talk about what we want for the task force composition first. We had talked initially I think Evan about two planning board. I you I recommend two planning board,
two select board, two former 2020 master planning committee members, two former strategic planning bo planning committee members, one town meeting rep, one at large, you know, one resident, something like
that. So that's 11 people. 11 people at a minimum it's nine people. Again this again two master plan two strategic plan one town meeting one at large and what was the last and then whatever you just need 11 at a minimum
you're talking I think you need a diverse group of people people who were tapped into strategic plan having two 2020 master planning committee members may be beneficial you're talking nine but I think but that doesn't include any like I think we need
like to have some residents who are like or yeah so if you wanted to drop in if you wanted to drop two down to one on strategic plan and master plan then you add a couple more residents I would yeah I would drop the so you're still at 9 to 11 right wouldn't we want some representation
across the components I was just thinking that too so that that would include I mean I'm glad you zoning economic development yes but there's housing there's environmental open space natural
resources is yeah so many of the many of the members who come from strategic plan or master plan will likely double be be double representing but that would reflect an 80 to $100,000
yeah you know 9month process is it heavy yeah it's a big committee yep but I think for this type of of discussion it needs that large um perspective. Okay. Because it is going to be pulling
in from a lot of different data and a lot of different perspectives on this. Okay. So I heard two planning board, maybe one select board, one master plan,
two strategic plan. Did I hear two town meeting, two at large, and one concom one one strategic plan? I think we said two planning to um board. Anita was talking about two, three, four residents
and some and like let's like maybe like you added an extra town meeting. Yeah, I think we should at least have two town meeting. I think don't I? Yeah. And they're they're residents as well. I wouldn't I wouldn't designate a concom member. Yeah. I would not designate because what about housing advisory
board? What about you know it's just maybe you bring them in as stakeholders but it shouldn't I mean I mean again I don't view this as heavy on natural resources and open space just like I don't view this heavy
on um um you know culture and quality of life. I mean the the the real core issues here are do you want to grow and if so how you going to do it? Nuts and bolts. Everything else is kind of kind of
secondary because if you're going to prioritize environmental and open space well then you know then you don't need really need to f focus on where you're going to grow and how you're going to grow. But you also have to ensure that we're protected. So, I mean, they
protect what we have for open space and for environmental. I' I'd really caution against making this group too big. It'll just become unwieldy. And if I can go back to the experience I've had on master plan and on strategic plan,
actually finding enough members to to fill a big committee like that is not easy. M you're still going to have to reach out and do engagement. I think eight or nine or 10. That's about as high as you want to get. So my
recommendation is that we target for a high number. See who we get for volunteers and appointments. Uh because the last um task force we asked for or someone asked for two concom members and
they provided one. Right. So, I would like to to cast the net wide. Um, see what we get and then if we need to trim it down, we can trim it down. Okay. That's an approach. There likely going to be some overlaps. So, we'll see who a
lot of overlap. Yeah. 500 people in the volunteers in the town do all the work. I also don't want to overt tax people. So, that people who are doing other task forces not necessarily think that they should be doing this task force. So, I want to make sure that
we're spreading it out. So, I want to try and keep the the initial call for people high and then we'll see what we get and then make the the final call on that number if that's okay. I like that approach. I like that
approach. Okay, move on. Okay. So, two planning board, one select board, 2020 master plan member, two strategic plan committee. I do think we should have a concom representative
if they want to be part of it. Let them choose. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. One at large or sorry, two at large and two town meeting reps. Okay, that works. Okay. All right. That sounds an awful lot like the strategic planning committee. Yeah,
it's an extension. So then um the result of the managed growth strategy task force will be to ask the planning board to do it. Yes. All right. Um so now I want to talk through what are the highle goals
um and what definition of done is I don't want to do that tonight I would like you to start thinking about that um what do we expect out of this we'll have some initial discussion on it um we
can then also ask the um consultant that we eventually get. But one of the things that I want to do is make sure that when we get this group together, we've got a really clear goals that they can achieve and then what when do we expect them to
be done? What's their final deliverable and at what level? So, think about that. We'll talk about it over the next couple meetings. Um and then we'll start reaching out to people to start getting that group together. Um if we hear from the grant in October, um we'll
probably have to convene the group in September um to start really getting them together and thinking about the goals that we're setting for them um and then getting them forming and storming and norming so that they can select the
uh the consultant. Okay. So, we'll start chatting about that next week, our next meeting. All right. Anything else on growth strategy? No, I just think there's a I think there's a lot of good stuff in this
thing that you did in the onetop full application that matters to what we're talking about. So, there's a lot of good terms in here and stuff. One thing that I didn't see in the proposal was specifically identifying a
projection of what our uh needs are going to be with regards to both economic development and housing. How we establish what because those are I think the two primary demand signals and how those are going to be um you know identified or estimated.
I think that's going to be a critical starting point for this. Would you say the housing and what? Uh housing and economic development. In other words, like in your projection of where things are going to be in the next 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. Where what do you
think your need for housing is going to be? And particularly like what kinds of segments are you targeting? And then also what kind of need do you have for economic development which is likely going to be tied to our financial forecast. There's a little little bit of that in the goals of objectives section where
they're talking about housing environmental. There's a little bit in there. Yeah. I mean I'm talking about not identifying it as something that needs to be addressed but identifying how we're actually going to as Evan was pointing out this should be a data driven exercise. And I think you need to
start with what do you think your needs are going to be, you know, based on based on I mean we know our financial needs uh because uh John does great projections for us and so you know we can already get a handle on what kinds
of financial needs are we going to have. Um I don't know if we have a good estimate on what our housing needs are going to be but I know there's a housing production plan. So, I mean, those are the kinds of things that I think we would want to identify early on because we're just going to basically be responding to those in terms of what
kind of infrastructure do I need to support that, what kinds of protections do I need potentially and natural resources because of it and all that sort of, you know, how does it impact social and so forth and so on. So, right. And I think that goes off of last time when I was asking for like statistics and some data around what are
where are we today, right? so that they can see where we want to start. And I'm assuming the consultant that we'd be working with would know what, excuse me, what we would need to pull together for that starting point. Mhm. I would hope so. Right. It just wasn't
identified as a specific task or objective is my point, but we can certainly I mean, it certainly would fit within the general scope. And so, you know, I don't have I have no question that we that we could task them to do that. I'm just I'm just saying that we would want to task them to do that. Yep.
Sounds good. I like it. I agree. If the board would like I mean I just need some time. I could work on it uh over the summer. I could I could put a short presentation together about the town's finances, you know, like because I think people are going to ask, well, why do we need why would we want to encourage
growth? Some people will ask or and I I can show what our strengths are, what our challenges are, and then get everybody's feedback and then That'd be great. Yeah, that would be really great. And if you could throw into that some whatifs on like what the mixes might be of what we're looking to get from, you
know, our business tax base versus our residential or what kinds of residential and that sort of thing would be really interesting to see cuz that's going to that's going to influence then how much business we want to try to attract and how what kinds of residential we want to
opportunities do we want to create and so forth and so on. And I think that would be good for the board maybe in the fall September time frame to look at and have that task force see as well. Okay. Thank you, John. I think that
would be really great and I was kind of secretly hoping you would want to do that. All right. Uh, next item. Where is my agenda? Cushing Place Bridge. Um, just a placeholder.
Any news on that? I have not advanced that. Okay. Um, at this point. All right. He is on updates. Um, this goes to Marcy, I guess, but the Cushing Place. um bridge
topic. We probably should try to bring in um the center village y into our thoughts and plans on that since there was also their plan. Yeah, they haven't met. So going to be
meeting July 10th. Okay. I was going to say I hadn't heard anything when the next meeting was because they didn't meet this month. Um, so I know we had talked about the last meeting, um, if they're okay with not having the bridge based on what town council had said, um, and going a different route and bringing
that to them. So, I will talk to them when we meet on the the 10th. Okay. And I also talked to I also uh talked with Evan over email about what we had talked about as next steps uh, with town council
for the bridge. Okay, maybe reach out to the chair of the center village. I thought Mercy was going to do that. Yep, I can reach out to him. Thank you.
All right. Yeah, a couple of you taking another uh just a couple of things. So, um on June 4th, um there was an informal um meeting with department staff. Evan had invited a planning board member and a couple people right either out of town or
couldn't go. So I volunteered to go. Um it and it was from it was an opportunity for the owner of 242 Bill Rucker Road to meet with town staff including um you know DPW engineering conservation community development director etc. And
just to orient everybody so this is a vacant parcel of land on Biller Road. It's boarded on the left by the Harvard Vanguard Atrius facility and on the right is um the neighboring lot is the memory care facility of Sunny Acres
uh the nursing facility and memory care wing and um so what was proposed was a a a structure um the the business use was um proposed adult daycare. They got some valuable feedback. Um my personal opinion I'm looking forward to it coming
in. can we'll all we'll all review it. I'm I'm looking forward to them coming in. I think it fits in that area with the neighboring facilities and that. So, I'm sure we'll hear more about it. So, I just wanted to mention that. Um they I I what I took away from it is they they
got some valuable feedback that day from engineering conservation um and others and they seemed pleased by it. Um and then on June 18th, I attended last week the NIMCOG meeting. Um a number of things were discussed. They talked about
doing a um comprehensive economic development strategy for all the member communities that make up NIMCOG. And so looking forward to that coming out and it was a good meeting in LOL. And that's about all I have.
John, what was the time frame for that for for the economic study? Right now they're taking public comment through June 30th. Um and but you can you can if you go to the NIMCOG website
um you can you can view it and they're they're just looking to try to um you know they they're going to study each town and the member district. They're pulling together data and it's to have like this comprehensive document that they can use when they
apply the for grants and other things. So, it's kind of interesting, but I I don't know when the final document will be produced, but they're taking public comment through the end of this month. I know that's coming quickly, but So, it's the goal to get a comprehensive economic plan for the
whole region by co-leading the districts or is it to kind of have focused economic development plan for each district? I didn't quite I used to try to have a cohesive plan for the district but they wanted to they they are studying data from each town from what
they said. So um I think it will help either applying for grants, different opportunities, things of that nature. So okay, anyone else? I have um housing advisory. We met today. Um, we actually
had um a short presentation from Mike Asolo, if that's how you say his name, from NEMCOG. Um, we got a few days ago 53 page um draft of the housing production plan for Chelmsford. Um and
he did a presentation of um a needs assessment and then a a way to get um a vision statement for the housing production plan and then goals to support um the vision of the of the of
the vision statement. Um and so there's like a grid and various tasks for each of the five goals. um brief it you know I could talk for an hour but um I won't but there is a grid if you I don't know
where you can find because he we got it emailed to us but the h the draft is going to be posted tomorrow and on page 115 of it is the action plan is the beginning of a grid and it breaks out um
the different strategy items the goals and you know each one so just for instance the First one is encourage and foster public and private partnerships to address the housing needs for vulnerable populations. And then there's
five different um strategy points within that particular goal and each one's broken out. You know which which of the goals does that achieve? Who would be the
leader the lead agents on that topic? um is it medium, low, or high priority? And then is it something that's like a one-time thing? When's the goal of completion or is it ongoing? Um there's quite a few things on the grid for which
the um planning board is listed as one of the leads or partners and a number of them are also things that we're interested in doing that we've already identified. They kind of tie in with our thoughts about the overlays, looking at them, thoughts about looking at areas of
conflict within zoning, thoughts about looking about where we could put certain types of housing that we are looking to develop, whether it's the missing middle or smaller kind of startup communities. So anyway, there's a lot of overplay
overlap with things that we've been talking about as as a board. Um, and so anyway, it's going to get pres the draft is out for comment starting when it's posted until I think the middle of almost a month, the middle of July. And
then he's going to pre present it to our meeting, our second meeting in July. Is that right? Um, and then he's going to also present it to the select board um the couple days later at their next meeting after ours. And then um we will
endorse it. Is that right? It's required to be approved by select board and planning board. Yeah. And then and then it goes to town meeting. No. Then it no state endorsed as a it goes to the state as our production plan which we are
bound to produce. We're not legally bound to produce it. It's a um it's a creature of 40b where if you're under 10% you can use a plan production plan to um potentially uh
negotiate potentially deny potentially leverage. We are it's a it's a regulatory document within the world of 40b. So, I understand the intended use of it, but it feels very backwards to me that we're
doing that before a strategic growth plan. Yep. Um, the other way to look at it is it can inform the the OSRP plan, which was just recently adopted, uh, the housing production plan. They're
really they're very they're very highlevel documents um more aspirational than than strategic based upon whatever constraints are agreed upon. But it it has action items. It has action items
but the action items are very similar to the action items in the master plan. Many of them are suggestions um or or asking someone to study this further. They're not they're not necessarily um
tied together in any coordinated fashion. Again, OSRP says preserve as much open space as you can and protect the environment. The housing plan says, you know, build build housing for anybody everywhere. But that's why I'm
thinking that the strategic growth plan seems like it should be informing both of those things. It will. I ultimately I think if the growth management strategy is successful logical and we're talking about government it's also planning remember it's also
it's also planning so planning is yeah these are things that we all might want to look at but then once we have the strategic vision we can say well this we had as a medium priority but this really should of all we have absolutely no interest in doing any of this because
it's counteractive it's counterproductive to what so if the growth if the growth management strategy is successful, I could see those other documents being modified accordingly. But as a starting point, much of what's in those standalone documents, existing
conditions, values, um guiding principles is is relevant. Yeah. Okay. And then the growth management strategies struggle a challenge will be how do you how do you balance some of those
competing interests? So as part of developing the managed growth strategy, we should look at those documents. Exactly. Yep. Y the foundations, the current state, not necessarily those will be tremendously tremendously valuable for the consultant in the process because you're not starting from zero, right? There's also a lot of data
in it. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. But then they'll have to be redone later depending on what we come up with on the strategy. Okay. Yep. All right. Any other liaison updates? So, for Concom last night, um
they let's see, they're in the process of doing redoing some bylaw and regulations reviews. They've come up with a few different areas. Um they are going to check in with legal counsel about recommendations for um whether or
not they want to make changes to the regulations or the bylaws depending on what the changes are that they want to do. Um, so that's still in the works. They also got an update on the gap analysis um, from the board of health.
I guess the consultant has come up with recommendations based on the surveys that he received. Um, and so the recommendations are going to be distributed soon. Um I don't know what that means uh what timeline that is but
they'll be distributed to the individual um committees and uh commissions and then we'll have to figure out what we do with those. Um so my based on what little I know of it, my recommendation
is probably that we would want to get all of these groups together, look at what the uh recommendations are and where they overlap. and then see where we want to work together to close the gaps.
Great. Awesome. So, but that all may change depending on what the recommendations are and how deep they go. Are they not sending out like a full list? Like, wouldn't that make sense to know who's doing what? It would. And I'm hoping that Joel
has some further insight based on board of health. Maybe ask for it, Joel. a full list. We all know I'll try. It's It's been uh you know, yeah, it would be good to get a full report um to see what the other uh recommendations are for the
other areas uh so that we can have a good discussion on it. But is that something that's like publicly available? It should be if it's going to each of the boards groups. Yep.
Okay. All right. Um, no new business, no meeting minutes. Um, our next meeting is July 9th. We will have the continued hearing. We will have new public hearings on all of the zoning articles um that we're putting forward. I'll have
the slides uh updated and ready to go probably over this weekend um so everyone can have them ahead of time. And then um we'll start talking also about the uh
the probably the uh task force a little bit more if we have time depending the um speaking of time the chumps mall 265 chumps street uh two two standalone drive-throughs uh public hearing will
open on the 9th. Okay. So maybe we won't talk about the task force that night. Um and then just related to Kate's Corner, um I'm sending out uh direct notifications to all of the impacted property owners
plus a budding property owners. I'll I'll send that out tomorrow, copy of the planning board on it. Um and it included I think four of the slides from from the slide deck. um that all that information related to Kate's Corner is also posted on the
planning board website. So the mailer um refers people to go to the planning board website. Um and then the legal ad for the um zoning public hearing for July 9th goes in the low sun. It was in the low sun today and
next Wednesday. Okay. Are there any other special groups, special interest groups that we should notify about Kate's Corner hearing that people can think of? They seem pretty well informed. I think anybody that wants to know about this is I just want to make
sure we didn't miss anyone. No, but maybe they have like a heart pond association. There was and I think I think actually a couple of people we've seen and discussed it with are involved with that. Can maybe we send out can we send out um maybe an email to the town meeting reps in that area or all the
time? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I do that uh regularly for those plenty of public hearings. Yeah. Like like even for like maybe everybody everybody just so like they know. Yeah. I mean some of the articles other than Kate's Corner, all the other articles are townwide. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And then I you know just
based upon experience while I send them out as you know town meeting attendance is light. I would encourage you as elected officials and some of you at town meeting reps to do the same thing. Yep. I think I think what we've learned and it's pretty obvious is that if town
meeting members show up at town meeting is the first time seeing zoning. Yeah. Yeah. It's it challenging. It is going to be tough though because it is July. But but you know maybe I don't know like like you send it as the chair because you can just click but even just if you
guys make make do emails at le increases awareness. Yeah. Yeah. Just like hey you can't make like you know we're doing this. We're not closing we're not going to close it on the 9th. May keep it open for an extended period of time. Right. So give give people at least they're aware of it. They could tune in. They could watch the
video. Mhm. Okay. All right. I will take a motion. Motion. Second. Actually, it doesn't need second. I believe a motion to uh adjurnn. Does not need a second. All right. Fine. I'll vote. Yes. We're not taking Anita made the motion. Favor.
I All right. Good night, everyone.