7 o'clock we will get started. Uh good evening. It is 7 o'clock on Wednesday March 25th and I am 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. The meeting
tonight is both zoom and in person. uh Zoom fails at any point in the meeting, we will continue in person. The meeting is being televised live and recorded via Chumps for Teledia and will be available on their website and on their YouTube channel.
Uh tonight we are missing Mike. Um and Anita is on Zoom and is Marcy on Zoom? Okay, so Marcy and Anita are both on Zoom and we are only missing Mike today. Everyone else is present in the room. All right, first on the agenda is public
input. Uh, is there anyone on Zoom? Okay, no one in the room, no one on Zoom. So, we'll continue to the next item. Uh, Proctor Road recommendation for road acceptance. And then I'm assuming this is the one
going before town meeting. >> That's correct. Yeah, I think it's the last uh article. Uh I think you may have done one of these um within the last couple of tile meetings. Um it's fairly uh self-explanatory. Uh DPW
and the manager provided a letter to the board. Uh procedurally this requires the planning board to take a vote uh to recommend uh in order for it to be voted on at town meeting. Once town meeting votes on
it, at some point in the future, uh the actual myars will appear before you for signature. Okay. >> All right. Um does anyone have any questions, comments? I'm assuming everyone's looked at it.
>> Yes. No questions. I agree with I it it just came to me it was the planning board considered I think it was a portion of Parkhurst Road that was a similar one that we get >> and this looks like it's the full length of Proctor Road
all the way to the town line. >> All right. If no one has any >> No, I was just say I'll make a motion that we vote to accept the recommended layout if there's I didn't see the special >> I think it's a vote to recommend the town accept >> recommend the town accept
Proctor Road as presented. >> Okay. >> Second >> motion by John, second by Deerra. And we do have to do roll call tonight. Uh so Anita, >> yes. >> Marcy, >> yes.
Sertha, >> hi >> Deerra. >> Hi >> John. >> I >> Joel. >> Hi. >> And I am an I as well. So that is unanimous. >> All right. No new public hearings tonight. Uh citizens petition. I still
have not heard from Mr. Latina. Uh so I will ex take a motion to continue it to the next meeting in April and that's going to be the last opportunity and we will vote on it in the next >> I have a point of clarification. I was
just thinking about this actually >> today and thinking that my understanding and I guess I could go back and look at the last town meeting, but my understand in in the note from the attorney general, but my understanding of the the reason that we made the change that we
made last time was they were changes recommended by the attorney general so that the town would in our in our ADU or boarding house or
whatever it was um would be in compliance with mass general law. Is that correct? >> So it's mostly correct. Um it's because anything that we had so the blood relation and the by marriage could be
construed as unfair housing practices, >> right? So it could open up the town to a lawsuit if someone were to be denied housing um based on the definition of family. So if we were to change
if the if town meeting were to um take up this um citizen petition and pass it as a change to reverting back to the old definition of family, then we would be in effect
um going against the recommendations of the attorney general and potentially opening up the town to litigation. >> Yep. Like it's not that we philosophically disagree with the definition of family and would think we
should refine redefine family. Y >> we're trying to comply with >> it's based it's a zoning definition and not a societal philosophical definition. >> Yeah. I I think that um maybe
if we're going to put it off another time which I think is completely reasonable. I think that maybe we should have our own response that encapsulates that reasoning as when because I assume we
will still take a vote. >> Um and then I think we should try and formulate a um reason behind our vote that kind of explains our position. >> Yeah. From whence it comes. I can do that for town meeting because they
likely will ask the the planning board for the recommendation because this is a zoning article >> and the rationale. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I can certainly talk through that. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> I will take a motion to continue this public hearing >> to April 7th. >> Move to continue the public hearing to April 7th. Motion by Deudra. >> Second. >> April 8th. April, >> sorry, April 8th. Thank you. I was just
checking that. >> I think you said the same thing last night in front of Concom. >> Did I? Yeah. I have the election stuck in my head. All right. Motion by Deerra for the ETH. Second by John. Um, and on Zoom we have
Marcy. >> I, >> Anita. >> I, >> Sarita. I >> Deedra. >> Hi >> John. >> Hi >> Joel. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I as well that we are continuing.
>> All right. Next up, community development director's report. Uh so good evening. Uh two quick items. First item is the um gap analysis presentation has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 5th,
6:30 p.m. at the library. uh that will include uh the planning board, the conservation commission and the board of health. The consultant will be uh presenting and walking through the uh
the proposal findings and and proposals. Um what room is it in again? >> The main meeting room at the library. Main library. >> I'm sorry. What was the date again? >> Tuesday, May 5th. >> Okay. So we'll we'll have a draft out to you
uh prior to that. Second item is um in accordance with the um managed growth manage growth strategy task force meetings. I have been working uh with NIMCOG to prepare and submit um
a state grant to um obtain funding for phase one. That grant is due uh this Friday. Um so that is um it's it's phase one. Um that project uh
the scope uh per the task force uh recommendations is a bit more uh detailed uh than kind of initial draft scopes contemplated. Uh so we're
we're we're seeking two separate rounds of funding. Each round would be upwards um this is between state funding and local funding upwards of 200,000 in totality. Um
that's a pretty extensive um data analysis. Um so uh as I said we'll be uh we're on track to submit that grant application this Friday and then the uh manage growth strategy committee will continue
to meet with NICOG um between now and um you know announcement of that of that grant. >> Okay, that's all I have. >> Evan, on the gap analysis u presentation, is that a public hearing?
>> No. Okay. It >> um it's a public meeting, >> right? >> So, we'll we'll post all three uh town boards will be posted. It will be open to the public. >> Uh but it's not a public hearing. Some of the recommended actions for implementation will require certain
boards to hold public hearings to revise regulations and potentially uh there may be a need for town meeting to vote. >> Okay. But there wouldn't be opportunity for comment from the public at that particular meeting. Um, I don't think that was the way it
was designed. Um, but I, you know, I think if someone were to attend, um, I think it would be within the discretion of the chairs. Um, the primary purpose of this meeting is for the board to engage directly with the consultant.
>> Right. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Anything else? That's it. >> Excuse me. All right, Le on updates. >> Anyone from anything? >> Just last Wednesday, I attended a NIMCOG meeting and I'll cover um it was a bit
of a lengthy meeting, but I'll cover that under that other agenda item. >> Okay. One other thing was I was um considering whether we should extend liaison to the Chelter Water District.
And so I I I don't think I don't think we need to take any official action on this until we constitute a new board. But in any case, um I think that's something that we would we should consider. I think just given the fact that a number of our issues have to do
with water and also because uh just to facilitate communication between our board and what they're doing >> um with both pros and cons various ones >> just that I think the main one being the cher water district now whether we consider it for north as well that could be
>> if we're going to consider it I would like to consider it for all three >> all three >> yeah to be consistent >> okay >> do we have any idea if the water districts are interested in liaisoning with Well, I mean, we can just show up, but um yeah, I don't know. It's a good question.
>> It also may be a challenge because I know the at least East has most of their meetings during the day. >> Yeah. >> Every other Tuesday on a blue moon in the middle of the day. >> Yeah. >> So, it may be challenging to get leaison to those meetings, but we can we can
certainly discuss it. >> Yeah. I mean, obviously, it's the center the most. >> I don't think so. >> Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, >> okay, >> just to put that out there to think about. >> Yep. >> Any other lesson on updates? Anita or
Marcy? >> Uh, Senate Village met um they came up with a third potential plan um for Chamster Street and we're going to meet again on April 2nd and Christine Clancy from DPW is supposed to be there
to come and take a look at the plans and give some insight uh in that way as well. >> Okay. Anita, anything for you? >> Nope. >> Okay. Um for conservation commission, um
yesterday's meeting was Chris Garahan's first meeting as new chair. Um they have a potential uh new member um that I believe is going before the select board on Monday. Um I'm not sure who that is.
I haven't checked. Uh and then they did mention a gap analysis. Uh nothing else really stood out. The one thing um in April because of the way
the meetings are are staggered. Um meetings will happen in April between Concom and planning board. So, I don't think we'll be able to get any updates from them since our meeting is going to be before theirs in April. So, we
probably won't get any other updates from them until May. All right. Anyone else? All right. Moving on. New business. Uh, zoning article updates. Um,
so after >> here's some info about cell. Sorry, I don't know what I did. >> Activated Siri. I think that was my voice that activated Siri. Uh, all right. So, the
after last meeting, I took a look at what else we have um on the priority list and started drafting some of the other more uh straightforward items. Uh the first one if you look at the child care zoning
>> um the first link Evan so based on the attorney general recommendations um it's really to align the definitions of child care
facility and family daycare home with the state definition. Um, so the proposal that I drafted was to essentially combine the definitions child care facility or family daycare
home and then uh redefine it as a child care center or home as defined in MGL 15B section 1A. And for people's reference, I did put that into the document just so people
can see how it is defined. And then the second link is essentially just striking those two lines from the use table. >> And essentially the reason >> you're combining
>> we're combining the definition. >> We're combining it. >> Yeah. We're combining the definition into one uh definition that essentially refers to the state definition since both of those are are referred to in the
state definition and then removing the use from the use table >> because they're exempt uses. >> Can't zone it. >> Yeah, we can't zone it. So they're they're exempt protected uses from the
Dober amendment. So we just take them out completely. >> Yep. >> Any questions? >> I don't see that we have any other options. >> Wait a minute. No. No. Hold on a second. So you're going to take them out. So
we're not they're not going to come or any I see that chart again. Say that again. Anita, you broke up. >> Yeah. So, is line two what we're adding? >> No. For the use table, line two and line
32 are getting stricken. So, those will be completely removed. >> So, if they're putting in a daycare facility, don't we still want it to go through like a site review and all of that even if it's Yeah.
>> at all. >> It still would. >> Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure. Okay. Okay. Under what? >> They would come in as the date the child home care or date whatever the >> under sight plan. Yeah. It would come
under site plan. >> Okay. >> Much like the one did on North Road. >> Yeah. I Yeah. That's what I want to make sure. Yeah, having it in the use table doesn't define whether it comes before us.
>> It just allows it or doesn't allow it or creates a special permit for it. >> Yeah, >> but it's allowed and we can't ask for a special permit. So, >> we don't need to delineate those facts. >> The only comment I would make is um
there are variety of other exempt uses. We don't define any of them. So if we if we choose to define um >> uh what is it home home daycare and uh
child daycare that would be the only exempt use >> are the other exempt uses defined. >> So as you >> in the state >> Oh yeah they all have so per our use table uh you would go to MGL uh 48
section 3 Um, so I just bring that to your attention. >> So you're saying we don't really need to define them. >> I don't need to define them. Um, but if you're going to define one, then maybe you want to consider defining
all of them. Your other option is >> define church and define school. >> No. No. Your other option is underexempt uses. You could do uh, you know, A through E and list the the five or six exempt uses that. >> Yeah. Then then if they add new ones,
we'll have to update it. >> Right? So I just wanted to bring to your attention that we don't we don't define any any of the other exempt uses. >> What if we defined >> Yeah, that'd be too complicated. I was going to say defined the exempt use
definition and then refer back to >> You could do you could do that. You could do that. I I think it's essentially going to say what the what the use table says per MGL 48. >> That's essentially what it would say, but it would be a definition as opposed
to a use in the use table. >> I could do that. >> So I think I think what council it may have been as part of this discussion or maybe a pre a prior town meeting, he had indicated to the board that in some
cases uh you may you may specifically want to have a local definition uh that goes um not not necessarily above and beyond but that I think it was related to the um the boarding house I
think was the example he gave >> such that it's more specific >> correct correct in which you would you would have a a a local definition and a local regulation >> and we do I think it was >> boarding house >> I think it boarding house because we in
the boarding house we we stated the state definition and our local >> right >> so so >> I don't think we're going to endeavor to define church and school so I think we could keep this and
>> not be opening up inconsistencies I mean I think I mean I guess I don't really know to what extent this definition is clarifying above and beyond the state law, but >> I'm sorry. Are you saying to keep it the
way Chris is proposing it? >> Yeah, I think that I think it's fine. >> Okay. Because I was starting to lean towards just taking them out and not putting something in back in place and just citing. I mean, it's just an exempt use and that's cited. Well, of course, why why this in the estates
infinite wisdom you'd have a a nursery or a kindergarten in IIA is beyond me or in CB which has a lot of auto stuff like auto repair contractor's yard maybe not sure I understand
>> an excuse a daycare and a contractor yard >> that's okay >> workers kids have to go somewhere Reminds me in LA we one exit we had there was a kindergarten or something like that off the exit and there was
barbed wire fencing all the way around it and it was like is that to keep people from getting in or is that to keep the kids from getting out wasn't true anyway. >> Wow. >> All right. So, what are people thinking? Should we just leave it out of the definitions completely or
>> I don't have a strong opinion? >> That's where I'm leaning is to just to not have it. If it's an exempt use that's already defined in the MGL and we have in our bylaws with the what the exempt what the use table is for exempt uses and we just leave it out.
>> People okay with that? >> Yeah, I agree with Joel. >> Okay, I will make the update. Okay. Is it can you convince during >> it'll be the same argument at town meeting either way? >> Side by side.
>> Can we get Marcy's head next to Anita's or that's not a thing? >> Marcy's not sharing her head. >> Oh, she's not sharing her head. >> No, just the name. >> Oh, I think you have to when you're on >> No. >> meetings. >> Oh, she's supposed to. >> I think you are supposed to.
>> I think this I think it's a practice for the public. >> She's trying now and she can't. Yeah, my camera is not does not seem to want to. >> We We verified you earlier. >> I'm sorry. I've been trying to. It just doesn't seem to want to like me.
>> No problem. >> Strike through eyes. It's great. >> All right. Next item. Uh clarification of zoning 195104. The special procedures and uh procedures for special permits and site plans.
>> Excuse me. So, this one has been quite challenging um because as I was digging into the zoning and the um regulations, there's a lot of overlap and duplication in the two. Um
so, and at the same time, I'm also working on consolidating all of our regs into one document. So, numbering is also changing >> difficult.
>> So the first document is related to the clarification of the zoning that we would do. Um and Evan has it up on the screen. Page three, number three
is the wording that I'm proposing and this is based on recommendation from town council where you describe essentially um what the overview is in the zoning based
on the um the zoning regulations and then the process and the procedures would be detailed in the rules and rags about how it's done and when to vote and things like that.
So he's suggesting that we mention that if both a site plan approval and special permit are needed, we can do the review um the two reviews simultaneously and then refer to the regulations for
the procedures on how it's going to happen. >> Yeah, I don't think you want to word use the word shall >> there because shall is usually directed towards the applicant. they're required, you know, basically it's their their requirement to do, but this is basically a statement of information that the
procedures are in the planning board, but but not shall be. In other words, we're we're directing ourselves and that seems a little bit >> odd. So, it shall be R. >> Shall be R. >> No, I mean, are you think No, instead of
shall are you thinking are established in the planning and regulations? Yeah, it's a statement of fact >> dictatorial. Why does it say it's like >> why does it say may >> currently it says shall >> but
>> it currently says >> on three uh the current planning says >> oh yeah yeah >> says shall are you are is it with intent that >> the board may decide >> no that should I think that should be shall
>> okay >> I just missed that. >> So, it's just >> because I don't think there would be any case where we wouldn't do it. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't I mean, unless there was a legal strategy.
>> Um, I can't think of any. >> Yeah. This isn't this isn't referring to the decision. This is referring to the process. >> The process. >> So, I think it benefits all involved. Yeah.
Okay. All right. Any other comments on that change? >> Is there more within the regulation? >> Uh, that's what I'm looking for. I thought there was, but I don't think so. >> No, not for this one.
The next one has the more complicated ones that and I'm using this document for a number of different changes. So, so this document uh the rules and rags were a standalone document. Um I'm
pulling them into that combined document. So that's why the headers have been adjusted as well as the numbering. Um, and then if you go to section
141, it used to be four. That has the >> Where's one for one? Age 14. So you can ignore the first the 134 review of application section for now.
We'll get to that one after. It's the joint site plan and special permit review section that I added in. >> You have May in there again. >> Yeah, >> two times may vote jointly or separately.
Yeah, sometimes that get decided. >> Well, I thought that what you just said is that we were going to be referring to the regs to decide in what order, but so then it wouldn't be jointly. Right. Am I splitting hairs?
So I think here for so the planning board that first May should be a shall review both concurrently in a single public hearing and then >> shall review both concurrently in a single public hearing. Yeah.
May vote >> and then I was thinking about >> separately. >> I was thinking about the votes and we have voted on things separately but in a specific order. >> Right. But you wouldn't vote on them jointly. >> I did find some references in other
towns where they do vote on them together. >> I don't and what I wanted to bring back to this board is does that complicate things? >> Yeah, I don't think we should do that. I think we should do it separately but
based on the hierarchical structure from that that will be outlined separately in terms of >> you may want to keep some may want some flexibility there because some of them >> there may be some permits that you just you don't want to have to do individually you just may want to group
them all together but like aquaer protection you want to do that one separately sure >> because it's pretty important so I can see that you'd want to keep your flexibility as to what you could or couldn't both in one I think the driving issue here was where
the use requires a special permit andor a major business complex special permit that the board procedurally wants to provide notice to the applicant and codify to itself that it is going to
vote on the use special permits first because if those don't pass >> then there's no point there's no point talking about aquifer >> right >> site plan miscellaneous other special permits. >> That's true. >> I think that was what we would
>> Yeah, that was part of it. But then as I was looking at some of the other examples in other towns where they did combine it, >> I didn't know if that >> So what So >> makes sense. you what you may be referring to is there's a bunch of towns that
in their zoning refer to a uh a a special permit site plan >> and they haven't separated the two >> h >> so like uh I think Tukesberry you see the Toukesberry boat record still has >> okay
>> a it's a it's like a combined special permit site plan and that's codified in their zoning >> you mention it didn't they do that with the grist too. They want >> well for for the overlays you the overlays under CEO the board is required
uh to do a single public hearing and issue vote and issue a single decision so that you're not necessarily um treating individual special permits individually. You're treating it as a as a collective. >> Right. Okay. >> This is not referring to CEO
um which was the other point I was going to make. Um I think this I think this is speaking to the um the situation that we found ourselves with with RiverDeck where there's where there's the use requires a special permit and or a major business
complex. >> Uh >> that the board wants wants to resolve that issue first. >> That makes sense. >> Yeah. Just I mean that's essentially how that how that vote played out and how
that decision was written. Mhm. >> You may you may even want to take this a step further and kind of um introduced the language that was included in that Riverneck Road decision that basically said if >> if the use and or major business complex
special permit uh fails upon a vote, then all other permits become null and void. >> I forget the language that we used. >> Yeah. Okay. That's a good idea. I think that's very sensible. >> So
remove the fact that they will be voted on jointly >> in a single decision. Note that it will be even though it'll be concurrent in a single public hearing. We will be voting on them separately and issuing separate
decisions and specify the order of the vote which is special permit vote this use special permit vote first and include the language of the public of the riverneck
>> and the major business complex. >> Okay. >> All right. I can do that. Any other feedback on this one? >> Are we going to run all this by council? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, my plan
>> we have a better working >> Yeah. So, my plan on all of these is to do the leg work now while we have the time. Um, and then when we get closer to again and run all of this by town council, then when we get closer to uh
the next town meeting, have open the public hearing >> for all of this stuff. Um, and it would end up being probably two separate public hearings. One for all the zoning changes >> and one for all the regulation changes
because we have to have >> although some of these are tied together. So, I'm not sure how we'll split those out, but we'll figure it out. Um, so we'll end up doing some regulation changes and some zoning changes. The zoning changes will go before town meeting and then the
regulation changes will essentially just get adopted that night >> internally. >> Yep. >> And into a document. >> Yes. But I figured we since we've got the time, we might as well do all of this leg work now and then hold the public hearings later when we get
closer. You rock. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh so the next item is department reviews which is that section above. This is essentially
adding a little bit more detail on what department reviews we do >> and then adding the departments or the groups. Um
it's actually not just departments, it's also groups. Um and then adding the groups that we wanted to also add >> in the cases where we wanted them to review the traffic mitigation recommendations and special conditions. any input, comments?
Um my thought on this one is um if you're going to start listing boards and committees, uh I'm not suggesting you would absolutely need to, but if that's what you want to do, uh BPAC tree committee,
>> um historical commission, >> um >> green, >> those aren't ones we Typically >> they're not I only mention them within the context that Commission on Disabilities is on here.
>> Well, historically have >> asked for information on >> So I only mention it because you have Commission on Disabilities here. Um >> the Commission on Disabilities,
>> they're not they're not regulatory. They're engaged with the uh building commissioner >> um >> in advisory capacity or or suggesting capacity. >> They're they're required this town's required by
law to have a commission on disabilities. Each town each commission of disabilities in each town operates very differently. Um, so I mean I could see I could see instances where
the planning board's review uh may warrant uh a review from the tree committee. I could see where maybe historical maybe maybe BPAC. Um,
so >> I'm not I don't I don't know I'm not so sure about Commission on Disabilities in the same context of those other three. Um, so because some of these groups are not as consistent.
Should I just generalize it and say may from time to time seek input from other town? Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. In years past, uh, a number of years ago, BPAC actively tried to engage with
the planning board on reviews. At the time, I think the board planning board was mixed about that. >> What's BPAC again? >> Bicycle pedestrian. >> Bicycle pedestrian. Okay. Sorry. >> Um, which is likely why recently BPAC
hasn't been engaged with the planning board. Um, >> I I I would reference it generally and then I think if and when we get to the point of actually considering having any of those boards or committees provide input, I think we need to have another
conversation. >> Yeah. >> About what what specifically? >> Yeah. And I think most of those would be on a case- by case basis depending on the project. >> Okay. All right, I will generalize that. >> Just a suggestion under this is back on
a different section under 1.2.4 um other permits and variances. I'd suggest striking sewer commission since that's now defunct. >> Thank you. >> They do have we do have reference to the Department of Public Works that says highways, storm water. I mean you could
add sewer division but I think >> which one is it? Um there 1.2.4. >> Yeah, there a lot of this is >> old and so that's a future effort is to go through >> before we ratify this one. We have to go
through all of that. And >> that's the other um I do have a question into town council. Um, he never responded back to me yet, but part of it is trying to figure out what in here needs to be in zoning and what
in zoning needs to be in here or should be. So, there's a lot, like I said, there's a lot of duplication that needs cleanup. >> Yeah. >> And it's the sewer commission you said, right? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Okay.
All right. Anything else on that one? All right. Moving on. Um the next item is Miss Bowman's letter to the uh board. Um she sent yesterday invited her to attend tonight uh to have a discussion
about this, but she um is not here. Uh, so I do want to address her remarks. >> Um, I can't speak for other boards prior to this one. Um, but I can say that this current board does not merely pass along
attorney general recommendations like Miss Bowman has um, suggested. We do gather the input from attorney general uh, just like we do other groups and uh, citizens. We take that information, run it by our
own town council for their recommendation. We discuss it, make a decision as a board to either move it forward or not move it forward uh to town meeting and then town meeting accepts or rejects the
change. Often in the process we do adjust it and tweak it. Um, so it is, at least in recent uh memory, it's not the exact uh usually it's not the exact recommendation from the attorney
general. >> Um, so contrary to what Miss Bowman is suggesting, any zoning recommendations that this board makes to town meeting are our recommendations and not the attorney general's. Um, this board owns
these recommendations and they're not ever a pass through for town meeting. So, just wanted to address that. Okay. Next item, manage growth strategy.
>> Oh, you're gonna do feedback. >> I was Oh, sorry. Yeah, feedback. >> I missed that. >> So, thank you. So, as the um planning board designated NIMCOG, I received a memo earlier this month from Jennifer
Wraith, the executive director of NIMCOG, and Chris Hayes. And as you reviewed the memo, you probably saw that um the Nimcog Council voted to endorse um a regional housing strategy called At Home and Greater LOL. That's that large
report that you saw attached to the agenda. M and then um basically the goals are to try to increase housing supply and encourage communities to talk about it and then finally to encourage action. So in this memo um from Jennifer
Rate at the bottom u she asks us to answer and she's asked the planning board representative to go back and share it with the whole planning board and you know and evidence community development director and she would like us to um review this review the strategies and some of the findings in
the report and then answer two questions in writing which she's looking for written answers by April 15th. So I assume like going through ch if you would like the chair you know you as the chair Chris and myself if you want us to work on it um she's like us she wants us
to answer specifically which strategy would the planning would your planning board want NIMCOG and your community to focus on over the coming year what support would be needed to move the strategy forward and then question two as NIMCOG develops the toolkit and implementation guide what additional
tools model policies data technical assistance of public engagement resources would your community need. So I wanted to mention on the um the at home and greater low report realizing that many people on this board have multiple responsibilities I'm sure that
you many of you may or may not have had time to read through all 106 pages but what I would draw your attention to is really the kind of the executive summary is contained in pages five six and seven of this report. So on page five you have
the key findings from NIMCOG. Um and I won't read them all in the interest of time but one of the first ones is that you know households are aging and shrinking in size in our area. Um housing production has not kept pace with demand as many of you know um you
know the talks about the housing cost um the burden that we all know is out there. um that you know municipal fiscal health is impacted and I again I won't read all of these and then they lay out um six goals and 17 strategies. I'm sure
many of you had a chance to look at them and the first one um about housing production is increasing the total number of um envir of um environmentally friendly homes so that people at any stage of life and income can find a place to live.
implementing zoning changes and encourage the production of housing to meet current and future needs. >> Um I just wanted to offer one of my ideas just to kick it off for discussion. Um just recognizing that we we all know that um you know as Nimco
has told us households are aging shrinking in size and the affordability thing. One of the ideas I wanted to offer uh is, you know, should we explore possibly creating like a a zone where or allowing like a cottage style development? And
the reason I bring that up is in some spots in some areas like the town of Westford has one. I know in many vacation areas like southern Maine, maybe possibly New Hampshire, there are cottage developments where you have a small single floor dwelling.
probably about 750 to 900 square feet. >> And the the reason this fits into the age issue is, you know, again, I don't want to generalize for all seniors because everyone's different and I'm actually close to becoming a senior myself, if not already there, but we're all at different stages of life, but
typically I can say with pretty much certainty as people age into their 80s and and 90s, it's not uncommon for people to have mobility problems. So a smaller residence like a cottage all on one floor allows you to have your
bedroom, kitchen, bathroom all on one level. So there's no problem with stairs and then that would then allow people and then it would also if you could build more of these smaller dwellings in a single in a development um you know I
would think that a developer could then recruit more money to make it economically feasible but just just one of my ideas. We'd have to explore it more, but I just wanted to throw that out there. >> Can I ask a couple of questions? >> Sure. >> So, they're looking for us to
give them a recommendation on what strategy. There are 17 strategies, I think, in >> Yes. >> They're looking for a recommendation on what strategy we would like them to focus on. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. And what's the timeline for that
focus? Is it in the next five years? Is it in the next year? >> I It's the next >> I think it's few years. Next 10 years. Like you look at the charts, they're like going out to 20 2030, 2035, like their projections of what's going
to happen if nothing changes and the growing. >> I know the focus of the the whole documents that far out, >> but they're asking us to to make a recommendation on the strategy that we want NEMCOG to focus on in the
next year, two years. >> They're transitioning to implementation. >> Okay. >> Okay. They're they're trying to they're surveying communities on an individual basis and on a regional basis so that they can um prioritize implementation for themselves
on the regional level and then for assisting towns >> we just we just did a housing production plan with them like doesn't that say what our strategy is >> somewhat but I think what one of the things they left out and I I forgot to mention is um
>> this was based I'm doing. >> Yeah. Basically, they're looking at >> Yeah. I want the two to talk to. >> So, this isn't they're this again, this is not for just the town of Chumpsford, but in the region that Nimcog serves, it says to restore balance the housing market. The need the region needs to
build between 9 9,800 to 17,800 units uh new units over the next 10 years. And this is AC across a range of income levels and housing types. And it says at the bottom without coordinated action in housing growth if we if we do nothing basically just let you know adus develop
keep that only about 3,000 units will be developed. So the other my other thought on this in addition to what I just talked about was >> a lot of this I mean I think we're working on in the managed growth strategy task force. So, I wouldn't want us to get ahead of that, but I feel like we need to provide some type of answer
where we want, you know, >> I feel like we've been talking about this a lot. >> Yeah. >> In various little buckets >> and you know, the missing middle >> exactly >> has consistently been something that we've prioritized >> and that seems like one of the options.
And also one of the strategies would be like you know they talk about public private partnerships for funding especially for affordable units that can bring make units more affordable and bringing you know building modular homes
like I I'm I'm not opposed to highquality modular homes in a cottage style setting to get to some part of that missing middle because I think it's quite intuitive that you know my sixbedroom four bath home for myself and
my husband as everyone's left is kind of not an appropriate use of space. So like if if there was options which there currently are not in Chelmsford where I could move to a small community and live in a smaller space that would be
welcome. So I think like >> yeah my to add on what you're saying my other thought on the for proposing like to look to that we study the cottage thing is like what you're saying a lot of seniors are in a larger home some again we I don't want to generalize and
put everyone in one one basket but some are having may have may be having trouble as they get into the 80s and 90s of maintaining the larger home they'd like something smaller but they probably can't find it and then if those folks were were had options to buy a smaller
unit that would then free up that single family home for younger families that may be trying to move into town. But it's just a >> Sorry, it looked like you were trying to say something >> just a little bit. I guess my question around those cottage style and things like that, what prevents it from moving up? Because where I grew up in Westford,
it was a big cottage area and every single house nowadays is double-decker. They went vertical and they are on top of each other. So, it started off as a very small community, you know. So, what prevents that? Is it the rules that you put within zoning and stuff to say you
can't? And then who prevents that from changing in the future? Because somebody decided at some point it was okay. I mean, these houses you're in like my house I grew up in, you see the next door neighbor's kitchen, >> you know, everyone just goes up, you're on the second floor, your bathroom faces their bedroom. Like, it's it gets ridiculous. So, that's my concern with
that type of thing. >> It would have to be in zoning. Um, >> but if the town wants to change it down the road, they can, right? >> But that's where it would start. >> Yeah. But again, I mean, I I understand this
housing story like shortage, but there are communities that are closer to Boston and they have a ton of land and if they started to develop like we have like in my neighborhood, I live in East Chumps. There's a bunch of houses that
are 800 square feet. like they're the ranches that were, you know, first built and they're on like a not even a quarter of of an acre. Like there's plenty here. They don't come up. They're not available because people are buying them and trying to, you know,
raise a family. But I, you know, I guess I don't know. I keep going back to how this the state keeps saying that, you know, the shortage is a shortage and yet they don't focus on the towns that could actually help alleviate it. And I'm talking towns like Conquered, Parallel,
Lincoln. Lincoln has a ton of land. Like there are communities out there that are like I don't I guess I don't know like they opened up then. I don't think we further out like that doesn't have a lot of space.
But I mean I think there's people in Chumsburg who who would welcome having some lower cost lowerized options also. I mean and and be able to stay in town, you know. >> I know Westford
>> Westford over by 495. But I'm thinking like when you're headed towards like Market Basket and stuff, they have that very small community over there with very small houses. I don't know what the requirements are for people living in that area, but it's a very small zone that they seem to have a lot of people living in very small houses. I mean,
it's a neat idea, but then again, where does the space come from? And I I agree that a lot of this is needed, but my eyes immediately went to the last um strategy
regional infrastructure growth plan >> because no matter what we do on anything else, if we can't improve our infrastructure, >> none of that is happening, >> right? So to me, I would love Nimcog to
instead of focusing on all of these other things that won't do any good if we can't do that last one, >> focus on that last one. >> Push that up to the top. >> And let's fix the sewer capacity, the traffic, the infrastructure. That's
>> right. So let's put that as our priority. >> I would love to see that first because all of these other things we're kind of doing in different ways already, >> right? But unless that infrastructure gets improved, no one's building anything new, >> right? >> Or improving anything.
>> Yeah. >> Because there's no sewer capacity left. >> So, I would love to do all of the other things, but I don't see them h actually doing any good without that last one. Mhm. >> And I think that that last one
is going to require a lot of assistance from NEMCOG, from the state, because I don't see that one happening anytime soon with just Chelse. >> Well, it needs money and like where do you get the money from? You need money from somewhere.
>> I mean, maybe we should suggest that they should build smaller water treatment plants. Like we can't just all keep piling on to Goose Island. it's done, you know, like what else can we do or can they help us do?
>> I mean, the town did a study and they really, again, I can't quote it verbatim, but it basically said that they could not identify a suitable area for a sewage treatment plant because of being realistic. Who in this town wants a sewage treatment plant next to them?
>> Yeah. But I mean, >> well, that's why I'm saying it needs to be a regional effort, not a town effort. No, but also too in the same report they also studied the options for the town to connect to the Mass Water Resources Authority, but that's going to be a significant investment in a multi-year
project to either connect going through Bill Ricker to Burlington or going try to go through Wuburn. >> But like the UMass project, I mean, they built they built a water treatment plant for the for the however
how many units altogether? 396 plus 60, you know, for whatever it is. And they built a water treatment plan for that. >> Mhm. >> Like if you scale it down to a neighborhood and, you know, include I
mean maybe there could be some funding provided by the government or by the regional authorities to help with that with with that. I mean, if they're if they're going to make housing such a priority and our infrastructure to provide housing is
lacking, then how can they help us mitigate that? >> I agree with Chris. That should be the top. I would also recommend that they include school infrastructure on that one as well >> because I don't think I saw
>> Well, I think that just goes along with the infrastructure, >> but I don't think I saw water, sewer, energy listed out here, but nothing about school infrastructure either. >> Yeah, that's a good point because the
working with the MSBA is a ve is a long multi-year process. So, you know, I think I've said this before, too. It's it's not that easy to build a public school. It can be done, but it's a significant investment and it's it's a multi-year process. >> And the other thing we can do is also
reference the the you know, we're still we have not the managed growth strategy task force is just getting underway and so the results of that might direct the town in a certain way. >> Right. which was our comment on the housing production plan was okay well
yeah this sounds good but understand we're looking at that and things may change >> all right I think that's all good input that we can use to frame a response anything Okay.
Um, let's see. What's a readout? >> He's going to read something. >> Ah, so Deodor and I actually went to the Citizen Planner Training Collaborative Conference this past week. Um,
I didn't have a chance to pull together all of my notes and they didn't release the slides till some of the slides this afternoon. >> Oh, I didn't even see them yet. >> Yeah. Um, just the one I went to. I didn't see all of them. Uh, so I just wanted to give a quick summary of the
conference. Um, and then I think at a future meeting, if Deedra is good with this, we can compile some additional information and feedback and information and get it out to the rest of the board.
Um, so it was held at Holy Cross on this past Saturday. Uh, it was a full day, almost full day till 3:00 session. Um, I found it really, really informative. I thought it was a really good session. got to meet uh some uh planners and uh
planning board members from other parts of the state in the area. Um the keynote speaker was Chris Klutchman. She is the under secretary of the executive office of housing and livable communities. She
talked about um the MBTA program, the uh ADUs um and what that office is doing. And then the sessions I went to is um reasonable and defensible decisions. Uh there was one who wants to be a
zoning expert uh that talked about zoning facts and information and then there was one about managing challenging meetings. Uh that was okay. it was less about
challenging public meetings and more about uh challenging uh meetings kind of one-on-one difficult decision discussions stuff like that. So >> um didn't see a lot of relation to
public meetings, but >> that's not what I thought that was going to be. >> Yeah, me neither. >> I was kind of I was kind of jealous that I wasn't going to them. >> You didn't miss much. Well, I didn't go I I went to two for the second for the third one and locked out of both of them because they didn't
seem relevant to me. Um so I went to the first one I went to was on um climate resiliency playbook advancing mass communities climate action and interestingly it was um
showcasing an actual climate resiliency playbook. There's a site um online where you can look up um various questions regarding ecosystems
and infrastructure and um housing and um they're trying they look into v various questions and lowhanging fruit responses and suggestions. Um, so
the website is actually um resiliency playbook or resilience playbook maybe I can't read my writing um.mapc.org or and if you go there there's it's
really interesting. I mean there's review standards and that they that you can bring in and um suggestions for regulation and how to integrate various regulations into town
bylaws and zoning. Um, so I would I would s I would I mean I haven't really gone to it since the meeting and played around with it, but it seems like it would be something really worth >> delving into. Um,
>> so if you want to uh write up your notes and send them to me, I can compile everything and get the slides and stuff. And then the other one I went to was designbased zoning, achieving community vision through form-based code. Um, which was also
really interesting. Um, they did a couple case studies. One was, um, Newton Village center zoning and one was Littleton Village common um, form-based code that was done in 2019. And there was also a an
a um Evans equivalent from Orleans um who talked about a project in Orleans. Um but basically that highlights what is formbbased code and it you know as opposed to traditional code um and and what are the advantages of using it and
and and you know suggests things that can be considered enabling people to do by right projects that incor incorporate certain features in getting what we want in terms of the local zoning.
Um, anything else? >> The third the other two I walked out of. >> Okay. >> You took a lot of >> All right. >> What was that? >> You took a lot of notes. >> I did. >> So, if you want to send those to me at some point, I can compile them. >> I'll try and organize >> with links and stuff and get them out to the rest of the board.
>> It's like 10 pages of each. I would highly recommend um this conference for others to attend. Uh it was some of the sessions were good, some were not that great obviously. Um but it was a really good chance to talk with a lot of other
planners and planning board members about the struggles that they're facing um and some of the challenges and solutions. So, >> and I don't think the two that I went to weren't good. It's just they weren't relevant to to >> a planning board member. was really
geared towards being a consultant >> which I thought it was like working with a consultant >> but it was no being a consultant so that didn't um >> and then there was a roundt discussion that was just a very small group and I thought I felt like if I was going to be there I should have specific questions
that I wanted to discuss and I really didn't have a specific question so I just felt embarrassed to sit there and spectate >> what were some of the top problems or whatever that
>> um a lot of towns at least at the tables I was talking to people about a lot of towns are not seeing a lot of projects right now um because of the cost of goods being so expensive and interest
rates being high. Um so a lot of towns are seeing a decrease in projects. Um the other trend that we heard a lot about was um the warehouse boom uh in building all these warehouses and now they're sitting empty because no one's
they they can't get tenants for them for those flex warehouses. >> So um those were two trends that uh weren't interesting >> and then distribution centers uh things like that. So similar similar issues
that other planning boards are facing. >> All right. Manage growth strategy. Any other updates? >> No. All right. Zoning article updates. Um
so this is a version of the document we went over. I'm going to be using this to keep track of all of the changes and drafts and stuff like that. Um, so I'll keep updating this as we move
forward. >> Nothing really to talk on that one. Uh, Riverneck Road. Um, we will nothing to discuss here. We've got, um, that on the agenda for May.
Um all right, pilot changes. So if you go to the last document, so there are three changes related to pyo that we were talking about. There's the updated policy for when we would use pyo.
There's the updating of the bylaw to remove the dollar amounts and the in D1. >> It's responding to to you, Chris. >> Trying to get back in.
>> I don't know why it's responding to me. >> Um, >> she's holding the button. >> And then the last one would be the eventual public hearing we would need to have on the updating the formulas. So, I figured I'd tackle the first two
drafts um for an updated policy on when to use pyo. >> Can I have that extra >> Oh, sure. This >> Oh, for some reason my mine is set up for the last meeting. >> Oh, mine was too. I had to go get a new
one. >> I don't know how to do that. So, I can't get into into Google. So, >> so the um when I was doing some research for updating the policy on when to use pyo, I found uh in IPS switch bylaws,
they have this um wording. And I thought that this wording was pretty on track for what we were talking about um last meeting. And then another example I found
actually doesn't accept pyo for fractions. They round units up >> which I thought was interesting. So, we could go with this draft. We could make some changes.
Thoughts? >> I like using it for the um for the fractionation. I think I think it's fair. You know, you're you're making them do the round number
ones, provide the units, and then hopefully um using that the dollar amount from the fractionated units that hopefully you can leverage to generate more units. Mhm.
>> Um I feel like if you if you make developers round up, it's it's possible that it just reduces >> the affordable units built. >> It could reduce the viability of the project at that point, I think.
>> So >> it seems more fair to me. >> Okay. Are people good with the wording? >> No, it seems fine. Okay. So, so just to clarify the the existing bylaw section C
indicates that all fractions are rounded up, >> right? >> Yeah, I noticed that too that ours actually says that even though >> we haven't been. >> What do you mean we haven't been? >> I didn't think we rounded up. I thought we accepted pyo for the fraction.
>> Well, we've only done that, I think, once and it was a theoretical. I think it was the one it was for the plan in the in central square that hasn't been built. We tackled the question. >> You may have had a discussion but I don't think there's been a project. >> It was just applicability
>> in in Yeah. >> But when we discussed it in >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, there hasn't been a real project in a real discussion with an applicant >> um talking about um applying the pilot to
the uh to the fraction of a unit, >> right? >> Whether that's a former board or a current board, that's never been >> it's never been discussed that level of detail. >> We had a work session on this. >> Yeah. Yeah. I remember that. in the work session, we kind of um
had arrived at that as a >> Yeah, but I didn't realize our bylaws actually said we shouldn't be doing that rounding rounding up for purposes of um to remember our bylaw mirrors 40B. So
40b regulations round rounds up um and if you have a fraction of a unit uh based upon 25% affordability then it would require an additional affordable unit. So for purposes of of
creating affordable units rounding up provides more affordable housing. >> Right. Right. The so just the other item here is I think the um the isswich model appears to in parenthesis say the development less than seven total units
that's probably embedded in their their bylaw. >> Again ours mirror is 40b. So >> for every every four units one affordable is required. So, I mean, I would con I would contest what Evan's saying because the former boards haven't
they they haven't been using I don't think this formula. They've taken random numbers and said, "Oh, you added a a pocket part that's 3x5 and we're going to value that at a lot of money and take that off the pilo or you've done a line
for water that you needed to do to build the development. we're going to call that a community improvement and give you credit towards your pilot for that. And like no units are actually got have been getting built. And so we said we're going to make the units get built which was a big change from what had been
happening >> for a number of years. And then it when it came to this fractional bit then we were having some flexibility with regards to an actual payment in lie. So right now we're we're 20%. In other
words, that if you're building four, then you need to add an affordable unit. So that's 25% actually. >> Yeah. The bylaw the bylaw states that um the the project needs to comply with the
40B uh standards. So there's difference between ownership and and rental, >> right? Our bylaw says that the regardless of which option it has to be 25% and then it contemplates a a density bonus. >> Yeah, because I was going to say this
works out to what 10% I think, right? Because it's if it's less than eight >> the um switch. >> Yeah. So requiring one for eight is >> ours just Yeah. I mean the the the
strate the strategy for our bylaw at the time was twofold. We were still chasing 10%. >> So that's why we did mirror 40b. Um the other big benefit which this board
is aware of with three meeting house um is that um our bylaw requires that the affordable units are at 50% AMI and under 40B law if they are then all
of the rental units count. So uh that's been a big benefit to the town. >> Yeah. Right. Um, so the board's seen a variety of different kinds of projects over the years and the ones that you've seen more
recently or, you know, a three meeting house type project. Those developers seem to be able to make the numbers work. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. I mean, I do like the 25% because I think we do need because we're going to be using losing units in 2030, right?
Likeund and something. >> Um, yeah. I think some units are uh at least per SHI they believe some units are coming off in 2028. I I believe David Hison has provided documentation
uh to indicate that those are protected in perpetuity. So we at some point we'll have to work with the state on that. >> Okay. >> I thought also that our our former council thought they were protected as well. >> Yeah. Yeah. you know, if if you if you
parlay this into, you know, mayor's growth strategy and then we just talked about the housing strategies. If the board is going to pursue missing middle cottage style, lower lower density per project, then the um the 40B
um ratios may not work. >> They're very difficult for small projects. Mhm. >> medium to high density mathematically they they work. So again if you're talking about a strategy of infill development on Cha
Street small conver um quads or you know aplex the current the current inclusionary housing bylaw just may not may not be a good fit for those kinds of projects. Mhm. >> Well, I mean, we might want to look at
having a a different tiering system for smaller developments. >> Yeah. >> You know, in terms of the requirements for affordability, >> I mean, I wonder, you know, I think the original intent of the pilo was to make it make give the
board more flexibility. Um, but I think to the detriment of making units, it hasn't really worked. Um, so I mean if we can find a a sweet spot. >> Well, I mean we don't need to do the
pilot, do we? We could just not accept. >> Yeah. So the way the bylaw is currently worded is it there it provides an option. It doesn't need to provide an option. Meaning it doesn't have to legally doesn't have to provide a pilo. Um,
at the time the reason the reason that the pilot was included was twofold. One, the board members in the committee that worked on it wanted to provide a a buyout option
and they also wanted to have a provision that said that the board could uh reduce the formula. And then David Hison at the time uh sta stated to the board and the committee that many of the smaller developers in
town have little or no experience with affordable housing and wouldn't be interested in managing affordable housing. And David said that it just it would be just as easy and preferred if the pilot was provided and then his
relationship with the town would continue to be strengthened where he would go to the town, he would apply for the money and be given the money to build community- based housing. Mhm. >> So again, depending upon the strategy, if if if you're doing a tiered approach
and it's, you know, 12 15 plus units, maybe the current ratio works. But if you're really going to be strategizing, you know, smaller infill type developments, >> the current bylaw probably will not work. >> And the challenge we also have is with
ADUs, those are adding >> and they're adding units and not affordable ones. >> Not affordable at all. >> Yeah. So, I mean the other part of this may be uh provide the board with an update on the on the uh 40B SHI
projections um once once um once Smith Street comes online and once the um 46 units or 50 units at uh UMass West campus come online. I >> think it's 54.
>> Yeah. I mean that's that's 75 more units. So in 2030 probably be hovering around 10% again >> gives us some blue >> between ADUs and new single families and conversions we average about 25 new
dwelling units a year on a good year >> I can see >> that and those projects don't even come before the board right >> that's my point is that those smaller numbers keep creeping up >> and we're not seeing the larger developments because of the sewer issue
and so we're not >> right >> we're not balanced. >> I was going to say I do I can recall one instance where so these payments go into the affordable housing stabilization fund. So if you remember just a few years back, town meeting approved a
withdrawal of it was like 625,000 for a Chumsford Housing Authority project Maple Maple Ridge on that little carve out of the 255 Princeton property. So there's like there's an instance where you know I mean I know that was a small part of the
>> overall funding but you know >> the choice one >> I'm not sure if it's choice but it's it's the carve out of UMass West. In that case, you know, >> that's a good example as to what David and the board and town meeting contemplated and understood as a
strategy at the time, >> but that's the first time it's been used, I think. >> Well, that that 600 plus thousand was cobbled together from a variety of projects that paid that >> they hadn't been collecting it hardly. >> All the projects paid a pilo. It didn't
pay 100% pile. They paid like 6% on the one at the at the um >> turnpike. >> No, the restaurant. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, it's been it's been wide ranging. But the point I'm trying to make to the board is
um as I understand it, the board has essentially said of all the priorities or all the ass, we're going to prioritize getting you to build the affordable units. We're not interested in pocket parks and sidewalks and
>> better architecture and things of that nature. >> If you do that, it comes out of you, not us, not affordable housing. >> So, the the initial strategy was we acknowledge that not all developers uh are interested in managing affordable
housing. Not all developers have the wherewithal or interest. >> Doesn't the Chilford Housing Authority manage the affordable unit? They do on contract, but you still have you still have developers um
who don't have any experience with um the the um dealing with income eligible people. There's a variety of unique and in you know specialized
interests that go along with providing affordable housing. So this is why David was saying at the time that uh he he advocated for if you take the pilo and he wasn't advocating for reduced pilo. He was saying if you take the
pilot, we have a we have a successful track record with the town whereby we can build community- based housing that that meets a very specific need that's supported by the town and creates housing in a in in volume. So that's the
strategy that the town's been relying on for the last decade plus. >> Right. But now David's fading out of the state. >> He's still he's still um he's still the director of choice. >> But he does it all over the state. >> Right. Right. >> So
I you know I I think what you're doing here is good. It's but it's it's within a very you know it's within um it's more of a refinement rather than a revisiting. >> Yeah. >> Right. So maybe it's less about not wanting to
do the pilo and more about making sure it's 100% pilo and not reducing it for other >> amenities. And that's that's all part of that's all baked into the the CEO
special permit negotiation. And again, the strategy at the time with CEO and Center Village and Inclusionary was to provide the board on a case-bycase basis the ability to push and pull the levers based upon what was
best for the neighborhood and for the town. The the the fact is that the developer has a sum of money in their proform that they're willing to do miscellaneous mitigation of public benefit, but it's
not an endless bucket. >> If you add on 100% pilo, uh, water and sewer capacity, impact fees, sidewalk fees, >> enhanced architecture,
most projects in Chelmsford, if they're not large scale, just can't accommodate it. So I think I think this isn't saying we're prioritizing 100% pilo, but I think that's kind of the the context of the conversation. >> Yeah.
>> But when the when the next project comes in, you know, once the board understands the neighborhood issues and a butter issues and the board's priorities and the town's priorities, the board may want to reserve its right to
change its mind. Marcy Anita, any thoughts? >> Marcy shaking her head. No. >> No. >> I mean, I think we want to prior I think we want to continue to prioritize building units rather than getting funding. >> I agree.
>> And I think we also want to prioritize not making it an undue burden to round up. So finding some way that if rounding up is going to create some sort of undue burden like if you've got you're building two units and now you have to build a third that has to be affordable.
>> That seems like an undue burden in my mind. Mhm. >> Um than providing some sort of option for a pilot in that case. >> And I think recognizing the economies of scale, it might be worth saying >> under 10 units >> we I don't know what the number should
be and I don't know how we could arrive at a number honestly. I don't know if there's maybe we could ask David but um >> you know if it's under 10 units maybe 15% would be a more reasonable
requirement. I I don't know >> but I think it's worth like exploring that question and trying to get some input. I mean maybe numcog could help us with that question. >> Um >> yeah absolutely. Yeah, >> but I think it's tied directly to what you know managed growth strategy and
what are the housing strategies? What's the scope and scale? What's the number of units? So, do people want to put this on hold until we do a little bit more work on the managed growth strategy or because I think the other thing is that we have I
think most of the people on this board are in agreement with the approach that we want to take. But I think the question is, do we want to codify that in our policies, regulations, zoning? I would I would for what it's worth, I
would codify this now. >> Um >> yeah, >> because you know the existing bylaws including the um the sore constraints where you cannot connect to the municipal source system
if it's 100% residential. There's a variety of other constraints where codifying this policy is just for the here and now. And I think we fully understand >> the reality of the here and now.
>> Okay. I can also update the uh less than seven units and make that the four or more is applicable. >> But that would be something we'd be looking at, right? is to create potentially a scale of some kind. >> A tiered approach.
>> Yeah. >> And the other thing is that we never updated the the formula of the dollar amount >> per unit. >> And then, you know, for for owning and for renting and for studio versus two-bedroom, like that's a very old
number. And we made a decision when we were changing to prioritizing the units not to update the dollar amount to kind of see how it went, which we really haven't done because we haven't had a project where it came up, but we didn't want to make it too ownorous
by I mean, but those numbers are very outdated. >> Yeah. So what I think I'm hearing is that we move forward with this policy and this by the simple bylaw update >> recommended by town council
um in the near term. Mhm. >> So when we start doing the next round of updates for town meeting, in the meantime, we would approach the third point of this, which is updating the formulas and
as part of that looking at potentially stratifying the >> small development, big >> small development, big development. >> But if you do that, then you need to take out the the numeric wording here, >> right? >> You need to what? that
uh payments may only be made when less than one full unit is required i.e. development less than seven total units. >> I think for the short term we leave in the percent right the four units.
>> Yeah, I would reference the the current inclusionary housing dialogue. >> Yeah. Which which is four or more. So for this change we do the four or more and then in the third step of this >> would we reference would we reference the inclusionary
>> bylaw thing I mean just so that you don't have two places where a number has to be changed >> right >> so I'll reference the inclusionary bylaw >> I think that's a good idea >> and then for the longer term which is going to be a lot longer process
with the hearings and input from David and housing authority update the numbers and as part of that potential stratification. >> Okay, >> that's good.
Okay. >> Um, and just for people's uh reference, I did put a few links here for other towns and what they're doing. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Uh, let's see. Next item.
Contractor yard definition updates. Um trying to remember what we had talked about on that one. I think uh you and I discussed uh limited information out there. >> Yeah. >> I had indicated that uh I believe
council has access to a statewide database that can do keyword searches. I have not approached him on that yet. I think he's delayed on your response for your other item. It's in the middle of town meeting. uh season. Um
>> that's going on for months for him. >> Uh March, April, and into May. Um so I can still um reach out to council and inquire about the statewide database that they have. >> Yeah, if you can. >> And then Joel, I think now looking at my
notes, you were going to check in with DPW. Yeah, I haven't had a chance to check on the DPW, but I did do a search generally on IT related stuff >> and there's some some limited stuff online, but I probably will reach out directly to it as well. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um,
we may want to think about maybe looking at this in late May um to give people time to do that research. >> Yeah. We can put that on the agenda for May. >> Yeah.
>> Along with Riverneck. >> All right. Any other topics for discussion tonight? I had raised the question of whether we should uh start looking at data centers, the definition of data center. So I could I could pull
together a sort of a introduction discussion type of briefing for an upcoming meeting or the next meeting or the meeting after that to just sort of identify with these there's a lot online about data centers fortunately. So it's like what the major issues are what are
the kinds of things then that we may be concerned about that sort of thing. >> Sounds good. >> So okay >> you're picking up on what's going on in >> Lel Tukesbury I think as well. Is that a battery storage or a data center? >> That was battery storage. >> Yeah. >> So the battery storage I think have some
sort of exemption because a state sighting facility. >> I don't know. I don't think data centers have any protection yet. >> Nope. Not yet. >> So I mean just not to belabor this but remember in our zoning if the use is not specifically listed it's prohibited.
>> Oh. So, >> well, yeah, >> I mean, data centers clearly aren't warehouses or distribution facilities. I don't know what they are, but I know they're not that. >> Well, that's that's part of the problem is that is that generally people don't have it well defined, right? And so then
they come in and part of the problem is just figuring out >> do you apply, do you not apply? >> That's why I'm mentioning to you, >> where do you apply? If if if they can't if they can't with a straight face >> uh convince Jose, you know, the building commissioner that they fit into an existing use classification.
>> Yeah. >> And it's it's not it's not >> it's not permitted. >> It's not permitted. >> And this was really prompted more by the L situation. They're just putting things on hold until they figure out. >> Yeah. And it also be interesting how maybe Lel actually maybe they changed their zoning to accommodate that. >> What is the L situation? Sorry.
>> There's a data center that's going in L. It's already in. is there >> in the Sacred Heart neighborhood. It's just they've expanded over time and you know I mean I think that area was I don't want to speak negatively but it was kind of industrial when Prince the when the when Prince um Pasta moved out
it was kind of a depressed area. They were looking for something to fill that void and >> I think the the specific issue >> that's been there for years now. Yeah, it has been. But I think the specific issue is not with the data center itself, but the >> the required um generators and cooling
tanks that sit outside. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. The data center requirements now have exponentially exploded because of >> AI. >> Interestingly enough, it now has added data center as one of its land use codes.
>> They generate a lot of traffic. No, they don't generate much traffic at all. >> But yeah, hardly any traffic at all. But they did add it as a land use code. >> I don't know what the definition for. I just saw that they did. >> So I was going to ask >> maybe we need to >> maybe we should look at that for
riverneck >> what to allow it >> data. Well, the building that's already there doesn't have to generate traffic. >> So they >> Well, there's other issues. Yeah, they're saying like other issues with that I know >> like is like grid capacity reliability
during peak demand, cost and strain on local infrastructure >> like you said backup generative fuel fuel storage noise impact >> water use for cooling, >> right? >> Limited job creation. >> There's a bunch of stuff.
>> Yeah. And my guess it's all fueled by solar power. Right. So, >> this is a growth industry for you. >> Given my knowledge of IT and um data centers, I'm guessing the one in LOL
went in as a warehouse or other use. >> Because data center was probably not a primary use and then expanded to be a primary use. >> Yeah. >> And that's kind of what I would worry about here too, >> right? >> You could
>> so can we exclude it? You could classify a data center under a number of different uses. >> Well, could we give it its own designation and then exclude it? Like >> that's kind of what I think we would look to do.
>> I'll uh girly bar >> distribution centers. >> Well, I mean those you have to have like a specific zone, right? It's just I mean we do have a very high industrial CX I think it is. It's like right in the middle of of an IIA area.
>> I think first we need to define it. Yes. >> Look at the impacts and then see if we want to allow it. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> In town. >> Exactly. >> Because the thing too is like you can have portions of a warehouse that have so much automation everything else. They have big portions of these things in their
>> facilities. So where do you draw the line? >> Right. >> It would be primary use. >> Yeah. An AWS data center is obviously now a primary use whereas >> so I guess change use right if something
was less and that it became more change use right >> yeah and my guess is that that's what LOL's dealing with is that it probably came in as if it was Mark is it Markley >> Markley >> yes so it probably came in as a an IT
service or something like that and then it expanded to a data center. >> The most recent hot button issue I saw was the um the requirement how many they wanted to install several additional diesel tanks for you know to back for the emergency backup generator. So that
was a point of contention. >> We also at the same time may want to look at the R&D definition >> to make sure that that would exclude data centers. >> Yeah. as a primary use.
>> I have a random question, but I keep on thinking about it when we talk about all these definitions. I remember we were talking about that coal storefront thing and people were talking about fast casual not being a definition anywhere and we have fast food restaurants fast casual. Does that need to be defined at
some point if we're trying to bring in certain businesses and people are complaining about it? >> Because that was that kept on coming up and >> I'm trying to remember back to those discussions. Kevin, is there an industry standard? >> Yeah, there's definitions for that. >> I thought so.
>> Um, >> the only place that it's specifically mentioned at this point is in the 129 overlay. And while we don't define fast casual, we define characteristics that we want them to meet. >> Have silverware. >> Yeah. >> Right. But like so does that need to be defined in our >> It could if you're going to begin
treating um well one if you're going to begin encouraging fast casual restaurants over traditional fast food restaurants um then yeah then you'd want to you'd want to define it. You'd want to put it in the use table.
But if you're >> if you're going to combine if you're going to consider fast food and uh upscale fast casual basically the same difference and you could just use your existing >> fast food definition. >> I just know when people were talking and listening to talk about town that seems
to come up. I keep on hearing it come up. So it's just something >> I can put it on the list for our priorities to look at. >> It's I mean it's small but it's just something that if we're trying to change or allow certain businesses I like the idea. Yep.
Okay. All right. Meeting minutes. March 11th. Sera, you are out >> for that one. So, you will not be able to vote on this. Looked okay to me. read it through quickly.
>> Yeah, I didn't notice anything wrong with it. >> Trying to find my notes because I wanted to make sure. >> Well, if SHA wasn't present, there couldn't be a 80. >> Yep, that was the note that I just
found. >> Back to that. >> We were out. So therefore, there's no 80 votes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Just no 8 Z votes tonight. >> All right. So, I will take a motion to accept those minutes with that one
change. >> Motion to accept the minutes from March 11th with the exception of the 80 vote being corrected to seven. >> Motion by Deerra. >> Second. >> Second by John Marcy. >> I. >> Anita.
>> I. >> Deerra. >> I >> John. >> I >> Joel. I >> and I am an I. That is six of us. Yeah, six of us, one abstain. Um I will take a motion. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion by Dearra. All in favor? >> I >> I >> thank you everyone. Unanimous.