started. Good evening. It is 7 o'clock on Wednesday, July 22nd, and I'm calling this uh meeting of the Chelse 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 in person
and on Zoom. If Zoom fails at any point in the meeting, we will continue in person. The meeting is being televised live and recorded by Chamsur Teleia and will be available on their website and on their YouTube channel.
So, the first item I wanted to mention, Marcy and Anita are both out. Is Joel on Zoom? >> Joel's on. >> Joel is on Zoom. So, we will be doing roll call votes tonight. Um, and then the rest of the board is here.
So, the first item on the agenda is public input. Um, public inputs limited to the statements from the public relating to any issues within our jurisdiction that are not currently the subject of a public hearing before us. Public comment on any of those public
hearings will only be heard during such public hearings. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak? Yeah, I just want to say that >> can you come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record, please?
>> My name is Steve Shimley. Uh, limit 17 McFallin Road. >> Is this about Riverneck Road? >> About the Riverneck. >> Okay. Um, so that item is going to be up on the agenda later. >> Later. Um, I am not going to be having
the public speak tonight um because we have had quite a few meetings about uh the the public input already and we've got two more meetings coming up um next month for the uh official public hearing for that. So, tonight won't be public
input for Riverneck. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other members of the public wish to speak? Okay. All right. Um, there are no administrative reviews, no new public
hearings. Lady Slipper Lane, there has been a request for continuence. >> Did Did they give a date? >> August 12th. >> August 12th. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> And they've extended the deadline to
August 15th for the um >> time to act. >> I then I will move we continue in nine Lady Silver Lane to August 12th. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by John and we will do roll call. Mike >> I. >> John >> I. >> Deedra >> I.
>> Sertha >> I. >> Joel >> I. >> And I am an I. So we will continue that to do >> we need a motion to extend the time to act. >> No. >> Nope. Okay. >> All right. Now we get into zoning
discussions. So the first item on the zoning agenda is the draft for the zoning articles. Uh Evan and I have been working on this draft. Um we have started drafting all
of the uh various articles. Um I'm not going to go through them tonight. I would like you to review it um before the next meeting. Um, Evan, when do we have to submit this?
>> Uh, that's going to be not until not until the I think the select what signs the warrant in September. Um, what do they meet? The second is it the second Monday of every month? Second Monday. >> Yeah, it should be I know they're
meeting August 10th and 24th and then >> August 10th. So, it's the second. So, September 14th is likely when they're scheduled to sign. >> So, we have some time. Um, I'll keep it on the agenda. Uh, but if people can provide any input, um, we're also going
to have town council review it as well. Um, and we'll make any changes based on the uh the public hearings that we have uh coming up. I would like to also get input on the
order of them. Um, this year I am not able to make the second meeting of town meeting. Um, Joel has agreed to present these in my absence. Um, so if there is
an order that people would like to see them go in, please let me know. um if you have any suggestions for we're going to try and see if we can get some at least a couple on the first night if at all possible depending on
what the other articles are. >> Um but we'll see >> and I'll be presenting a list at the next meeting to it won't be the text of the articles but it will just be a list of all the uh subjects of each article. >> Yep. Okay. All right. Any questions or
comments on that? All right. Next item, 210 Boston Road. Uh this is continuing the uh neighborhood discussion um for 210 Boston Road. It's the last one before our official uh zoning public
hearing on that topic. Uh, so first I'm going to bring it to the board to see if you have any other comments, discussion on the zoning for this area.
And I did submit the version two update that had all of the updates from the last time. [snorts] [clears throat] One one thing that I did look into was I was given the comment that we had the last time on the business that's right
there in the corner of of um [clears throat] Austin Road and I think it's Mil Road. It's it's the garage. >> Yep. >> That sort of thing. that um so that made me question well okay that's really a CB
use and so would we want to consider making that part CB and I thought well did we do that Kate's Corner but when I went back and looked at Kate's Corner realized no CB was actually the inner part away from the road it was CA along the road [clears throat] and we didn't change the CA along the road that left
it as um I mean we left it as CA then there's also the another auto place that's up where conquered road comes in that's residential residentially zoned. So I'm I'm actually pretty content with leaving it as CB light and not making it
CB. Um you know just because ultimately I think that makes sense to try to keep a contiguous u thing there and where we have other uses non-conforming uses. Uh I just thought in general it made sense. But that was one thing that crossed my mind is do we want to make that CB or
not? I'm just thinking not right now. [clears throat] >> Okay. I think that's kind of where my head was at as well. >> Yeah, that has a bit of a spot zone flavor to it. [clears throat]
>> Okay. Any other thoughts, comments? All right. I will open it up for public um input and comment on 210 Boston Road area if
there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak. [snorts] Okay. Um so in that case we will close this public um discussion and then we will go to the official public hearing
uh next meeting August 12th. Okay, next item on the agenda is Riverneck Road. Um, so as I mentioned earlier, uh, I'm not
planning because we made our decisions on the draft last meeting. I'm not going to open this up for a lot of discussion uh, on the board tonight. Um, I also am not going to open it up to public comment.
Um, but I do want to address a significant number of issues that came up um on the letter we received.
Evan, can you bring that up from Sean Campbell and uh some items on the Facebook post that he um posted as well. I wanted to address a number of items, questions, concerns,
um misinformation, well, not misinformation, but misunderstandings. um hopefully clear up a lot of this so that way we can go into the public hearing next meeting um with >> clarity. >> Yeah, a little bit more clarity.
So I will start I'm not going to address his letter point by point but I will address some of the uh highle items um and
themes. So, first he's asking us to put a hold on Manmouth McFarland and 300 Apollo. Um, [snorts] unless there's strong feelings from the
planning board to do this, I'm not inclined to do it. I'm inclined to do an all or nothing. >> Yeah. >> Because if we leave these parcels the way they are, it creates more zoning conflict than if we were to change them. Yep.
>> So I think if we're going to do this, it's really all or nothing. So um the next item is 300 Apollo. One of the points he makes um in his uh
post on Facebook and on the letter is that the current use of Apollo um is allowed in IIA uh with the BAOD overlay and the CBLT. He also states that if we change it to
IIA and and the COD overlay that there's it would allow housing multif family housing when none is there already. I want to point out that because that BAOD and CBLT overlay currently exist
with that IIA zoning, multif family is already allowed on that 300 Apollo drive parcel. >> So if there's going to be multif family, changing it to CBLT is not likely to increase the likelihood of of multif
family on that parcel. Um he also mentions that why are we he asked why are we addressing 300 Apollo when the current use does not conflict with the um neighborhood that was also stated in the uh NEMCOG
report while it's true the current use does not future use potential uses of IIA do and uh that property goes up into the neighborhood and uh has frontage on
Riverneck Road. So, an outlet into Riverneck Road is entirely possible in the future. Um the NEMCOG report does recommend that that 300 Apollo um property be addressed
because potential future IIA uses could conflict with the the neighborhood. Um as I explained to him on a call yesterday, he feels that we're rushing this through. Um, Riverneck has been
discussed over two to three years. We have always talked about potentially fixing that zoning in that area. [snorts] And we have had neighborhood discussions. We will have public hearing um on this for
two meetings and then [clears throat] it will go to town meeting. Um so I don't feel that this is rushed. Um I feel that this is for this size area this is actually taking a a decent amount of time.
>> I I agree and also I mean even just in this iteration of reviewing the zoning this has been this is the at least fourth meeting that
we've taken it up and we're going to take it up several more times. So I think to say that's rushed is disingenuous. Um also I feel pretty strongly that this IIA including 300
Apollo and um the other buildings is like an Achilles heel. I mean it's like a it's like a festering ulcer that keeps being >> Yeah. >> brought to us with inappropriate things. And you know to say to whose benefit
this would be to change it. I mean the residents of those streets have stated so many times that they don't want heavy industrial traffic on that street that I think it's quite clear that it's to the benefit of the neighborhood residents.
So I I think it's surprising to have that question asked of us. And to me, the the whole reason why we created the CBLT zone is to address areas like this, >> mitigate, right? >> Um to lessen the impacts of the IIA, um
directly abuing neighborhoods >> and also to uh provide some uh relief to neighborhoods with IIA in them. >> So, >> I mean, honestly, I'm I'm while I feel some regret for the
properties >> [snorts] >> that are stuck in the middle of riverneck that have sentiments against this change. I also feel that it's
not at all clear to me that they nec that CBLT will be in fact lessening their options for their properties the way they fear that that it will. And I think I feel
like with the exception of those couple properties, like the rest of the whole Riverneck community, including McFarland and Clark and all the little streets are so much better served. It's exciting to me that we can do something to protect
them. And I think that's what you when I came on this board, I felt like de, you know, development just came in and we just sat here and had to respond. And it makes me happy that instead of being reactive to
things that we don't want, we're actually being proactive and trying to create the alternative that we want. And I think that's [cough] I'm proud of that work. >> Y
So that's all I had on those areas. Um, I think that there are tons of questions in his post and and letter. [clears throat] I'm not going to address all of them. Um
but I think over the course of this work that we've done um I think that we have addressed most of them >> and I think that the there are other concerns that are not um not
founded in fact. So anything else from other members? Okay, >> just that uh I was looking at 150 as well. I mean I think 300 is pretty clear, but I think 150 also makes sense to include because it is still even
though a border is a much smaller part of the residential just the very end of Monmouth. Nonetheless, it's important to consider because of for those two properties. And then I also happen to notice there's a paper road that runs up
on the um west side of Monmouth that connects to 150. And uh so I would definitely want to do things that would you know potentially mitigate any consideration of use of that road. So
>> I think 150 makes a lot of sense to include a 300 as well. >> Yeah. And that is true for 23 Progress A as well. Um that's the other um property at the
end of McFar at the end of Monmouth. Sorry, McFarland that I believe we included in this as well and because it's that bordering properties to residential.
>> I forgot to go look at that. I wanted to >> um the other thing I wanted to bring up today um because we do need to discuss it before the public hearing notice goes out. the
property. There are three properties that are at the corner of Marshall and Riverneck Christopher's Towing that is currently
residential and I'm wondering he did approach me and ask me if it makes sense to go see BLT for these properties and I'm kind kind of thinking that it might be a good idea. >> Yeah.
>> Strikes me as a good idea. >> Yeah. >> I mean, it's had that use for so many decades. I'd have to go back and look, but I mean, >> I don't know. >> My understanding is correct. They kind of moved them there when they put 495 through. >> Yeah. So it's not like
>> if you look at it the >> main property on the corner where the tow >> building is the office with the >> vehicle surrounding it. That's the main property. And then the two on either
side, the triangular one. Yep. >> That's just trees. >> Um and then the other one that's the toll lot. >> But I think they're all under the same ownership. >> Yeah, >> they are. And so in a way if you ma if you think of the the the main structure
as being the more industrial use or it's not industrial commercial use rather and then the other at least the the tree lot as a CBLT.
I mean that's kind of the perfect description of the use as a buffer. I mean, I don't know. >> All if we're to change it, all three parcels would be seen. >> No. And and I think that Right. But I think that makes a tremendous amount of sense. I mean, either way, he's
grandfathered in and then the other two could be, you know, if he wanted to sell it for a different use, it would he would they would have >> some options, >> more options than if it were just res. And I think the location lends itself to
a a commercial CBLT location as well. >> Me too. >> As it was explained to me, his grandfather original land was taken when 495 was built. And that's why so then his they he his grandfather was given this these parcels as an option because
of the land that he lost for his business. So it's been [snorts] this type of business for decades way generations beyond even my years. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. Well, let's just do it. >> All right. So I will add it to the
slides. Um >> actually Joel, do you have any input on this one? >> No, not beyond what everybody's already said. I think it makes sense [snorts] >> physically in those corner kinds of things that we see like on
>> on um Boston Road and so forth. So >> yeah, >> I think it makes sense. >> All right. So, I'll update the slides, the um draft warrant articles, the ad, um and then I'll send that stuff
to you, Evan, this weekend. >> All right. Um we did need to discuss that so we can get it on the public hearing to uh next next meeting. >> Yeah, good point. >> Okay. >> I think we should also try if we're going to not have public
input to have that stated on the agenda. >> Yeah. >> Well, we did close the discussion part. Yeah. >> Last meeting, so >> but those people seem surprised. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh, anything else on Riverneck? All right. uh data center. So Joel has updated the slides based on our discussion last meeting. [snorts]
Joel, do you have any to add? No, I I don't even remember that I updated them after the [laughter] last meeting. So, no. >> All right. >> It's a long time ago. [laughter]
>> Brew my [snorts] mind. All right. So, in that case, um, any final points before we close this discussion out for the public hearing? >> No, I just I think that's I think it's awesome. I think that you did a great job, Joel.
And I think this is again another iteration of what I was saying before. Like I think it's great that we're >> Well, you know, my reservations on it. I'll probably vote accordingly when it comes up, but I don't think it's going to make
much difference to our results here. >> Can you remind me? Yeah, at it the wrong way. We should be regulating >> the annoyance, not the use. >> As I pointed out, I could come up with other industries that would have the
same cooling towers and the same power usage and such. And we're not we're not uh >> well, maybe we should think about that, huh? >> I think once we once we take this step with regards to data centers. So maybe
we should think about >> general annoyance. >> Yeah. What other industries? >> Well, I mean I you could probably dream up uh some chemical processing plants that would similar things. >> We don't could I mean you could have an
aluminum a you know a boutique aluminum smelter would certainly use the power might well use the cooling towers. you know, let's let's regulate what we want to regulate.
>> But we do regulate uses. That's >> probably do it more than we should. >> We should be regulating >> the the effects on the people around them. >> I think we do both. >> Well, you do. There's some of it in
here. I mean, I'm not entirely opposed to regulations being [clears throat] applied to data centers. >> I just think we're doing it wrong. >> One of the issues is the utility I mean the power usage which we're getting at here.
>> I think the power usage I mean we don't own the mechanism for delivering that power. >> No, >> it's really not our territory. I mean I can see situations in which somebody wanted to the power company wanted to
put up you know 100 foot metal towers. Yeah, that would that could be problematic. But by limiting the power use, we're also limiting those other accessory pieces of it. >> You are, but maybe we just limit those other accessory pieces. Limit them
directly rather than indirectly. >> No, I don't think >> I mean, I'm one out of seven, so [laughter] >> I'm not really worried about it, >> but I do think it makes a difference
when we go to town meeting. Yeah. >> So, I would like to dig into it a little bit more. >> Okay. >> Um because like I said, if if it's a unanimous planning board vote at town meeting that has more weight than >> I understand that
>> six to six to one, 7 to1, whatever. >> Well, I'll probably just abstain. >> Same effect. >> Could be. >> All right. Anything else? I would just say I mean I I understand the concern. I
think it it it's a growth industry of of sorts, but I think we're trying to learn from some of the mistakes of communities around us that you know you have a use come in and it seems innocuous in the beginning and then it grows and grows and grows and then there's other things
that come along like >> fuel storage, generators, [snorts] uh problems. >> Let's be honest with ourselves. The big concern here is people are afraid of AI. >> That's the big concern. Nobody wants to say it because it's really not concern.
A >> couple things >> more than that. I mean, >> I'm actually quite in quite concerned about the >> water use and I am utility use and the >> and we could limit the water use, >> right? >> You know, limit the water use.
>> That's that's my point. Okay. All right. Moving on. Managed growth strategy. >> We did have a meeting. Miracle of miracles. Uh [laughter] Troll was there too.
uh current status is we're we're still waiting for some some uh some positive results we hope on on getting some of the grants that are being looked for. In the meantime, uh Evans putting together and matter of
fact has already put together a uh a request to a number of of town departments for specifics about current status and then we'll probably be followed up in a Stage two by request
for projections should we increase the uses of you know various things roads power water sewage and such and what that impact would be. So u but I'll give it to to Evan you're you're actually working on that.
>> I think you covered it. [clears throat] >> Okay. >> So and we have another meeting coming up. You've scheduled it yet? >> I think we scheduled one for Octo September. Yeah, it's in September. >> All right. >> And and Joel was was unusually quiet
during that meeting. >> I thought I was pretty usually quiet there. [laughter] >> Oh, there was there was no shortage of opinions. So, >> there was no shortage of opinion. And thank you for coming. You know, thank you for being here. >> Yeah. I just to add that Evan has put
out a draft uh that he's going to send out to the >> to the um committee to review. >> So it look it looked good at first glance, but I'm going to I'll get into a little bit more. [clears throat] >> Excuse me.
>> All right. Uh next item is the um zoning article up or the tracking. Um, I'm not going to go through that, but every time we have a new um, step in the
process, I've been updating that to keep everyone informed. If you're losing track of everything, that's the tracking mechanism [laughter] I've been using. >> It's great. >> Um, all right. Next item, new business. So, we have been asked to provide a
planning board annual report, >> and we've been very busy. >> Yes, we have. [laughter] So, I um drafted this. Uh Evan took a look and uh provided some updates.
Uh so, I added in a little bit of information about the purpose of the planning board. Um I don't think we had that in the last uh update. Um, but I think it's really
good to kind of put that out there as much as we can. >> Yeah, it bears repetition. I mean, with the with the two prongs of what we do, a lot of people don't really appreciate that. >> Um, I also uh added in the membership
section a thank you to Evan and Becky for all of their assistance >> uh during the year. um and then started talking about the FY26 activities uh that we have gone
through. Um as as Deerra mentioned, it's been a busy year. Um, so we went to fall town meeting with a number of zoning changes, uh, Springtown meeting with a number of zoning changes,
and then, uh, through the end of or through the FY26 year and into 27, um, we're going through all of this work, uh, for, uh, 2026 fall town meeting, which will
the FY27. So that those accomplishments will be in next year's report. >> Mhm. Um and then listed the approved projects, withdrawn or denied projects, uh proposals going through FY27,
and then just summarized the town meeting outcomes, um kind of the work that we've been doing on a number of the uh modernization of our zoning regulations and um mentioned the we're trying to proactively address the future
planning challenges. uh that we see ahead and then um did a talk through some of the uh leaison roles and then looking ahead to next fiscal year. [snorts]
Any thoughts? Anything that you see I've missed? >> I thought that we were denying everything last time I heard. [laughter] I guess I guess the facts are otherwise.
Okay. Sorry. [laughter] >> So wait, what is 91 tings on there as approved and also as >> continued? Are we still working on that? >> We approved the applicability. Um >> the project will be coming before us at
some point. That was the plumbing with the building behind. Is that right? >> Actually, yeah, you're right. That's Tingsboro Road. That's the >> That was in front of you would be uh on your next agenda. >> Yeah, that was the one that was continued. >> 91. [snorts]
>> We started the discussion last year. >> Oh, Right. Right. Right. >> I was thinking we approved that. >> I was thinking the North Road. >> Not yet. >> I was thinking the 345 North Road project. [snorts] That one we determined applicability
and I expect they'll >> come before us with the project at some point. >> What was the one >> on the Kingsboro on the Kingsboro road because I I was late and it was it's not available I don't think on the teleia
unless I get minutes I won't be able to mow in that one. >> Isn't that the one I just watched? >> Yeah, >> it's it's on CCTV. It is the the whole beginning part two. >> I watched the whole thing. >> Yeah. Sertha just mulled it. >> Yeah, I did.
>> Okay, then I will I'll do the same. Thank you. >> So, unless she watched a different town meeting [laughter] >> there. >> No, no, it was the um [clears throat] the Zoom didn't work. So, I was conflating the zooming with the stream. >> It recorded. I watched it and I watched
the end where you guys said that you [clears throat] were pushing it out to because you asked them, "Oh, are you going to be ready in two weeks?" and they said, "No, we want a month." [laughter] It was on there. >> Okay. >> All right. Thanks. I'll do that. >> Anything else?
>> All right. I do need to submit this by What's the date again? >> What's wrong? >> The date of uh I think it's upcoming week or middle of next week. >> Yeah, middle I think it's the night of our next meeting, isn't it?
No, I think the submission for annual reports is next week. I want to say the 27th. >> I thought he gave it >> was August. I'm getting I'm getting the newsletter. >> Yeah, I think it's our next meeting. >> Okay. >> You know, I got to write one of those together. >> Yeah, you're right. It is next meeting because I said if we don't get it on
tonight's agenda, it'll be late. >> So, um yeah. So, over the next couple weeks, if you come up with anything uh that I need to edit, I'll let you know >> and I will update it. Which reminds me, I need to do one for the ad.
Should be mercifully short. >> All right, next item on the agenda, community development director's report. And that's a loaded one. So, I'll keep it uh I'll keep it brief, but um the um
second shoe has dropped that we were all expecting uh from the state uh as far as um other initiatives for housing production. So, uh, the most, uh, noteworthy are the, uh, first set of,
um, revisions to the state zoning act that were in the the, uh, budget bill that was, uh, passed. These, uh, revisions became effective July 1st. Um, there's a memo from Copman and Paige
that summarizes the changes. I've also included a track change of the 40 section 4A chapter 4A revisions. Uh these revisions fall into four major categories.
Uh vested rights uh per section six of the zoning act. Um expansion of protection for certain uh uh non-conforming situations. The third is a new variance standard
and the fourth area of revision is um um electronic notification. Uh so as you can imagine um staff uh continues to review these. the
state will be providing um some uh webinars and and resources and I uh fully expect that there will also be resources available for uh citizen planners. Um this uh just today the mass senate uh
debated the act related to economic development. Uh within that um debate was the um um allowing um two family um basically
wherever there is um residential zoning permitted. that that second attachment under 33 31 speaks to um speaks to the the mass Senate um
discussion. I don't know the outcome of that. Uh I know it started at 1:00 today, but there was no uh there was no online updates on that. Uh the third item which is not on the uh
agenda is um question number seven on is on the state ballot. Question number seven um speaks to allowing um this is starter home. I think it's referred to as uh starter home zoning
allowing um single family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet and at least 50 feet of frontage bordering uh a public way that also has access to public sewer and uh water services.
Uh, so that again is a state ballot question, question number seven. Um, I think it's the first time in a long time, if not ever, that there's been a zoning reform done via state ballot. Um,
>> is there is there any take currently on what public sentiment sentiment looks like on that one? Yeah, I mean if you were to spend any time on on social media, the general sentiment is is opposition to all of these, if not most of them. I mean, MMA
has uh been consistently opposed to er erosion of local control of zoning. Um but I think as as we discussed and no surprise, we all knew that there was a second shooter drop.
>> Yeah. after MBTA zoning and and ADUs and uh what I've outlined uh this evening, there could be a third and a fourth shooter drop. The state is committed uh to produce housing um and they're using every tool that's available to them
>> and and some of these examples are not are not administration um proposals. There there are amendments being submitted into the House and Senate bills. And then um the um the ballot question obviously is not a an
administrative an administration um initiative. >> So the ballot question is requiring towns to allow that type of zone um community to be
zoned. >> Yeah. Yeah, it doesn't even it wouldn't even require reszoning. >> Um, it just it simply the ballot question reads, >> "The proposed law would allow single family homes to be built in a residentially zoned area as long as the
land on which it is to be constructed is at least 5,000 square feet, has at least 50 ft of land bordering a street, road, or public way that it faces, and has access to public sore and water services.
The proposed law would allow cities and towns to reasonably regulate certain aspects of those single family homes, including their height, distance from uh neighboring buildings, open space, parking requirements, and whether they can be rented out on a short-term basis.
The proposed law would allow uh HLC to issue guidance or regulations to administer the proposed law, >> but with a sewer moratorum. >> Agreed. Agreed. that. >> Um, yep. So, like all of these zoning provisions, uh, they are simply zoning
provisions. Um, so, uh, for for purposes of Chumsford, uh, any per the, uh, existing, um, sort of capacity limitations regulation, any, uh, new lot for residential purposes
would need a title five system. So you're not going to fit a title five,000. >> I know. But I mean in terms of that specific proposal technically those lots if they don't have a stub they wouldn't have access to
sewer. So >> yeah. So I mean the law doesn't the law is a little gray doesn't provide a lot of details. >> Hence the regulations remains to be seen. >> Okay. I mean, you know, I think the
state knows that there are a lot of communities within 495 that are not dissimilar to Chsford. Uh, with that knowledge, would they, you know, would they essentially exempt communities? I don't know.
>> Probably not. >> So, you know, there there's a there's a lot still to be determined. And on the uh on the on the budget bill uh amendments that that uh that Copelman provided an update on, there were already indicating that a lot
of this is very um there's a lot of gray areas. There'll be a lot there will likely be numerous test test cases >> in a period of adjustment. So would it make sense for us to work with NEMCOG on
potential comparison of our current zoning to the model zoning once it's released for [snorts] both of these, the budget bill and the economic development bill once that's resolved. >> Um that's certainly a potential to use
um technical assistance to >> NIMCOG. Um I'm I'm not sure we would absolutely need uh Nimcog uh to assist us with that. >> Okay. >> Um I think as we as we proceed after
fall town meeting and we um develop our next set of uh zoning um we can revisit that. >> Um the next item on the um >> question. um on that development bill. I'm just
looking at what you have here just because I don't understand it on duplexes and things like that. They're saying that you can't limit height >> said you can limit height. >> It said you can't limit under the town couldn't regulate duplexes more stringent than single family homes.
Couldn't cap their height below three stories and couldn't impose rules that individually accumulated make duplexes physically or financially infeasible. So it looks like I mean to me that says you can't cap the height. >> It's um it's akin to what the ADU
regulations said. You can't as I understand it you would not be able to treat a two family uh differently than your single family heights. >> So there's a sight height restriction in town. It would still maintain even though the city restrict. >> I think that what that's saying that you
can't be more restrictive. So we allow we allow single family to go up to 35 ft in height >> and also saying here commercial conversion. What is that? >> That's um >> hey Sa can you grab a mic a little bit
closer to >> I was asking about the [clears throat] commercial conversion. I don't really understand in that one. That's uh a there were some programs in Boston that did this where they converted um commercial office buildings
into uh apartments and condos and h different housing units. >> Yeah, there's a there's a there's a darth of empty office buildings in the city 128 495.
So, as as Chris mentioned, you know, there's dedicated programs in Boston. Um, this is codifying, you know, a zoning provision. I think it's an opt I think that one's an opt-in provision. Um, we essentially already allow that
through uh through >> seoid. M >> in fact what in fact is there's many of these provisions that uh uh Chumsid has already uh codified in the bylaw and >> has been um has had on the books for some time. >> Yeah. It makes me think of like the mill
buildings and things like that that >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But that's kind of my point that I made the last time we had this issue is we can zone anything we want but it doesn't mean it's going to get built. the state really needs to start putting some money
behind some of this stuff and grant programs and other things like that if they really want things like that to be done. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think the sense I have is the state's approach on zoning is
um try to try to open up as much opportunity which is the the two family by right. >> Um also try to make as much as much housing production by right as as they possibly can.
>> Uh the theory being that if you make the process easier >> by right >> uh there'll be more investment. Mhm. >> You would you wouldn't need public subsidy >> preclude the nimi. >> The um the second step is that um for
for towns that facilitate more production. The current model is that there are uh state grants available to uh assist in accommodating the the infrastructure upgrades that are needed.
There's been little or no indication that the state um is willing to um provide um funding in advance to create infrastructure to accommodate. They they
the mass works model is that it they want a real world approved project and then they will provide um the infrastructure investments that that's needed to accommodate that particular project plus some additional capacity
within that within that same general geographic area. I think as part of the economic development uh bill there's there's some new proposals for uh proactive infrastructure um investments but again I mean the
state's model at least um the last probably five six years has been um to give it to communities that are that are demonstrating a commitment to um housing production and you know and economic development.
But again, we can't I mean, take Chelmsford for example. We can't demonstrate that if we don't have the infrastructure. Correct. We're in a we're in a we're in a we're in a difficult position. I'm not sure how unique it is. I think it's I think it's
becoming more common. >> Um and I think it's becoming a regional issue. Mhm. >> Um I'm not aware of it gaining any traction either at a at a greater local level
um or at a state level. And you know I think that's a a unique uh characteristic of of greater lol. um you know to what extent can the legislative delegation work on behalf of
the the nine communities and NIMCOG and those nine communities >> uh well it's not all nine that are sending their their wastewater to uh Duck Island but it would take a concerted effort of those communities to
begin a conversation and dialogue um and then bring the the delegation in and then the administration and and I'm just not aware that that we've gotten that far along with it. >> Okay. >> But then I mean final comment as you
know I mean Lel is aggressively growing >> and they have they have uh strong partnerships with the state. Um, so while while it's not necessarily
a uh um publicly documented uh I think you can read the tea leaves the state the state the state knows the state's in you know a partnership strong partnership with low uh ll's aggressively pursuing it
um and so the wastewater question isn't being necessarily um applied, >> but eventually they're going to run out of capacity, too. >> You would think you would think I mean, this is this is information that uh you
know, I'm not privy to. >> Um [clears throat] I know that the town of Chums has over the years attempted to >> obtain some of that information and begin a dialogue. Um what is clear is that wherever there is additional capacity at the plant l
has indicated that they will keep it for themselves. >> Um so that's that's kind of difficult to create a starting point of a of a dialogue which is why chumps then initiated the the alternatives uh
feasibility study. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And a lot of this will be a lot of this detail will be flushed out as part of the manage growth strategy. Okay. Um just moving on to item number three. Uh the update here is that um the
board had asked me to engage with NIMCOG. NIMCOG uh does have some technical assistance money available uh to assist Chelmsford. Uh that process formally will begin in October. Nimco
would like to uh visit the board in your second meeting in October, which I think is October 28th. If not, it can be the first meeting in November. Um they want to do a kind of an
introductory uh overview presentation. Then they would do a an audit of our existing zoning bylaw and general code, identify gaps, and then u recommend um make recommendations to fill those
gaps. Uh right now they're providing uh very detailed technical assistance to the town of Westford. Um so our technical assistance would be uh fairly light in nature just based upon the funding
that's available. My point my point being is that because they're providing uh Westford with uh draft model bylaws, we'll likely be able to uh look to those um for uh for inspiration.
That is all I have. >> But if we start that in October, that will be probably for spring town. >> Yeah, for springtown meeting. Yep. >> So, Springtown meeting is going to be
another big zoning meeting. >> Oh, boy. >> I think it's I think it's expected at this point. [laughter] >> I'm just getting them used to it. >> While we're talking to I just wanted to mention a couple dates that I found. So,
um so the first so the August 10th select meeting they're present will be presented with a first draft of the warrant. their second meeting. They'll be presented with a second draft of the town meeting warrant and then this they'll actually sign the warrant September 14th.
>> Okay. >> And what's the first night of town meeting? >> It's around October just October >> 19th. It's the week. >> Monday, October 19th.
>> Yep, that looks right. Yeah. So, we've got town meeting that week and then planning board the week after. And what we had talked about is that October 28th planning board meeting starting the public hearing for uh
regulation changes that are aligned with the zoning changes from the week before. So that October 28th meeting might be a busy meeting. >> Okay. Anything else, Evan? That's it for
me. All right. So, leazison on updates. Not a lot here. the I know the um historic uh did look at a couple of uh of demolition requests, but I don't think there was anything wildly
interesting there. [clears throat] >> Okay. Anything else? John >> just mention uh so last Wednesday was a NIMC card meeting. It was a short agenda um just a summer schedule. It says I don't have we didn't share like um you
know the communities exchange thing where you exchange what's going on in each community. It was just basically uh we approved some minutes and the warrant bills payable warrant and um and also I wanted to mention the August meeting will be cancelled due to um their summer
schedule. So then things will all gear up again in September. >> That's all I have. >> Everybody else gets to take some time off. [laughter] Anyone else?
Joel, do you have any updates? >> No. >> Okay. Uh, nothing of note from conservation uh commission last week. Um, they just as we're starting with the
uh lady slipper next meeting >> 12th, isn't it? >> Or the 12th. um they probably will as well. So, nothing likely to come out of that.
>> All right. Um minutes. Did folks look at the June 10th minutes? >> Yes. >> I would move to approve the minutes of June 10th. >> Second. >> Motion by Mike, second by Deerra. Um Mike
>> I. >> John. >> I. Deerra >> I. >> Uh, Serita. >> Hi, >> Joel. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I as well. >> All right. And so our next meeting is going to be
August 12th. Um, we will be starting the public hearing for all of the zoning articles. >> Yeah. >> That will be a big night. >> You want to start it at 7 6:30. Do we have So we have the
what projects do we have? >> 91 Tinsboro >> and presumably Lady Slipper. The zoning public hearing was advertised to start at 7. >> Start at 7. >> Well, we could do the Well, we could do start at 6:30 and do the paperwork, you
know. >> Yeah, but there won't be much paperwork. >> Most of it will be tied up in the public hearings. >> Okay. You may be able to get through 91 Tingsboro. >> Yeah. Why don't we Why don't we try for 6:30? Sorry, [laughter]
I don't want to be here that late. >> Yeah. >> Um we'll try for 6:30. Uh and we'll start with Tingsboro. Then um we'll do lady slipper and then we'll do the public hearings for the zoning.
>> What about the chump moth? >> Uh they'll be coming back but they have not submitted yet. >> Any other hot potatoes coming our way? >> Um now that you make now that you ask um
uh Loheed Martin has submitted for uh CEO applicability. So we may have that on for the August 12th meeting. I'll see if I'll see if the I'll see if
the 26 works works for them. Um >> that's it. That's it. >> Okay. >> I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. that we adjourn. >> Motion by Mike. >> Second. >> Second by John.
>> Joel. >> I. >> Sertha. >> I. >> Deudra. >> I. >> John. >> I. >> Mike. >> No. I >> And I'm an I. We are adjourned. Thank
you everyone. Good night.