##VIDEO ID:t9ELvT4BT0o## e um meeting we have rather a packed agenda um of the January 8th um 2005 planning board meeting um this meeting for the record will be being recorded and will be a and will be televised and will be available by through Chum or Tel media subsequently also the zoom portion people are able to Comm to participate via Zoom during the public input and discussion sessions but if the zoom goes down we'll do the best as we can to keep things electronically running but if not we will continue our meeting um first I wanted to start with an announcement which is not on the agenda welcoming our new associate member Marcy comtoise who was elected at the prior appoint appointed appointed joint joint planning board at the Joint planning board select board meeting we took a vote and appointed her um welcome and first up we have a conversation uh oh first up we have public input which will be related um limited to statements regarding issues under our jurisdiction but which are not the subject of any pending public hearing um so first is there anyone who'd like to make a comment or um grace us with some public input any any subject that is the matter of that is in our jurisdiction but is not an a matter of an open hearing or on our agenda seeing none we'll move on to our first topic which is Kate's corner so this is an area that we've identified as um having some conflicts and um we wanted to uh conflicts pertaining to the zoning and we wanted to it's one of our areas of of focus um that we would like to address areas in the town where there's um potential zoning conflicts um and this is one we identified so I think the way we'll tackle this is to First have a conversation amongst ourselves discussing the the area and what we think the issues are and what we think would be potential um thoughts for the Redevelopment of the of some of the parcels and and then we'll open it up um to public um discussion to the um relevant neighbors many of whom is who who I think are here um we're going to keep that part of the discussion limited to about 30 minutes um we're going to ask that people limit their comments to no more than three minutes per participant because it looks like there may be quite a few people who want to participate we'll ask people not to be repetitive if at all possible um so let's start with our um part of the conversation for the record Anita tanini has joined us um making us having a full compliment now um so regarding the area at um Kate's Corner in the bayome village um there's part of the areas um IIA some is CB um there's residential there's also I think a CA I mean not yeah um and so there's a lot of different zoning um Parcels within a small area so if we could maybe start I don't know Joel do you want to start or Mike you want to start well I just wanted to ask the question I'm a little bit curious about the history how did it get that way I mean bust it up into at least three separate zoning districts in such a small space is is a bit odd uh almost Maxs of spot zoning uh how did it get that way Evan that tell us something I don't know the specifics but it's been that it's been that way for well over 25 30 years um it likely dates back um to the uh 70s and 80s and my guess is at the time um they were Zoning for primarily what was on the ground um but in this case the fact that um Walky to split is a little puzzling but someone in the and the audience tonight may know what the history was of the ca portion of Lockheed dating back to the 50s 60s and 70s maybe maybe there was a uh a building there and a business there that better represented CA zoning point of order I'm sorry it doesn't answer the question he just post has the virtual meeting started we have someone who just said they're trying to watch from home I don't have anybody looking to join on Zoom I I've got somebody's trying to join on um so there is a problem the agenda stupid question but what do CB CA I what do they all stand for question those are zones yeah here I can I can send I can send somebody an email for the proper Zoom you have an email and then you could go to them where are the U codes listed um so you can read it to yeah hold on does anyone have the page that has the codes listed to attachment you have it what they mean what's it stand for oh I think that's actually in the zoning thing itself and I know what they stand for I wanted to read it or have it read for them so I don't read that I think we kind of just go through all the it's really more matter of what's actually covered is this Zoom link not yeah that's a good point is it a broken Zoom link I think the one that's on the agenda is not correct okay should is there yeah okay on c e s a r email so while we're sorting out the zoom link for people who don't know what the Zone zoning codes are they're districts and on page and 195 colon 5 Article 2 the districts by type and then at the if you look online um you can scroll through and um educate yourselves about what the districts are in your neighborhood and then um there's a Zone use table that's um an appendix at the end of the zoning book or the zoning code which is is available online it's attachment one it's the it's the use schedule so if you if you want to borrow my book I have an extra you could take a look at it and pass it around if people aren't familiar can we just read the ones that we're dealing with tonight just what they what they stand for no is that because it we're dealing with what CA CB n n and then all surrounded by residential n RB so RB do you want to I I can do it right everyone do it so so RB is residential B District which is a low density single family residential districts so RB is single family ra is neighborhood commercial District these are districts for neighborhood areas ca ca excuse me CA CB is roadside commercial District these are General commercial districts which are high traffic generators included are such as automa automotive repair open lot sales right wholesale business retail offices and so on and then IIA is limited industrial district these are areas that are primarily used for office research development manufacturing and warehousing so that's so that's what we're dealing with right now for this discussion tonight and often the districts are more they're not a bunch of peac meal pieces jammed together where where this which is why we're looking at this area specifically cuz it's a lot of different things squished in a small area so one question I was going to have too for Evan just I mean Evan's dealing with the technology right now the districts that are there now are Grant if we ever change anything down the road these districts here are grandfathered in under the present owners current current owners use is use not the current current use for those facilities a grandfathered in how long to change of ownership or no forever no forever forever just so long I believe Evan correct me if I'm wrong like they can renovate the structure right they can go in renovate it but they can't change the footprint or the use without coming to us if they do that then it falls under the new regulations right so like for instance someone can go in and you have Lo Martin there and it's an office building and it works you know and say another office we change it to RB to single family but that building can stay there another hundred years as an office building maybe not L could be some other okay building however what we're what it can't do is someone come in like River Neck Road and try to say oh this is an office building I want to put a distribution center in there that's a different use okay right so whatever in currently their grandfathered in that's not going going to change however what we're trying to look at is you know what we look what we're looking at IIA in areas like North ch um Drum Hill 129 I don't think that's appropriate for this neighborhood and I mean I would ask the neighbors you know what you guys think I mean this is this is why we opened it up so we would like to fix this with your input of what you would like to knowing that what is already there is grandfathered and it can't be changed but to prevent you a lot of heartbreak for those of us who lived on had to deal with riverneck Road know about in hildr um but more we just want to make sure that what we're putting in is what you guys want I also took a look at the overlay because it also has a seid overlay um so I took a look at what businesses and properties are in there and two of the properties are town-owned properties one is a church that is under the Dober Amendment and it really doesn't count towards any zoning anyway um one is a general store and a pet supply store in CA and then in CB we've got a gas station Max the Maxwell property and then two town properties so the businesses affected by this or the business properties affected by this would be four commercial and one IIA in Lockheed okay I was just trying to set the expectations that if we change this to RB it these places could be here for the next 100 years could be I'm sorry I didn't hear you this use could be still used the present use could stay there I just wanted to set the expectations for the public that if this does end up changing a zone or making recommendations there are grandfathered in portions of this and any zoning change that we propose would have to be brought before town meeting cor and be approved by town meeting as as a to actually amend the Y code yep can I just ask um saying if you resed it to RB and I'm talking about Maxwell specifically um it could still be used as CV you said because it's grandfathered in what qualifies as CV because I know the letter that we received um and the last time that we were there for a meeting was a commercial business wanting to move in but it didn't fall under the same guidelines as M needed to be granted so I guess what I'm asking is so what types of of businesses would be allowed without any VAR so so if so whatever is operating today so another person who wants to do what Max Souls is doing basically I'm sorry can you come to the microphone and give us your name and address yeah um sure Susan Higson 30 Maple Road um I'm just curious you said whatever you change the the zone or if that area were to be rezoned and you said RB or whatever for single f whatever it's rezoned as it could still currently operate under what it's zoned as now which is CB I guess not what it's Z now what it's currently used what it's currently it's used okay so I guess that's what so basically anything that's not a pet or garden supply place could not move into that location right because like exactly so like kind I use the example of like loid right like you couldn't have a distribution center and we changed it to our they could still be office building that's what it'sing they still renovate it inside it not change the footprint but they couldn't all of a sudden put a distribution center trucks going you know an Amazon right like so that's what we're trying to prevent okay is like we're trying to look at the zoning across the town and see these areas that aren't really consistent with how the how it's working right like what's around it you know what yeah I mean and I think that's how it how well I was just going to say that's in our best interest and ideally it would be zoned as as RB and so nothing greater than a Pet and Garden supp cling your question and now we're going to go back to our conversation amongst ourselves and we will subsequently open it up for public discussion great okay Joel do you have just very quick the it seemed to me that it was a little bit backwards to have the CB up against the residential and having the ca being the roadside when CB is roadside commercial so I would at least want to make the CB something other than CB which would be ca or or residential whatever I think the IIA is I don't think that's an appropriate place for IIA I think that something more commercial uh would be appropriate and uh and then I think the ca along the roadside could be a c be but again I would leave that I would want to hear from the residents about that so that just in a nutshell that was what my thoughts were on that area so make it more gradated yeah yeah especially take the part that the more the more impinging commercial zone is the one that's actually located in the residential area and the it's roadside CB's roadside it's not anywhere near roadside and the one that is on the roadside isn't roadside so that just you know straight that all I can't see which one that's c c that's C That's Mike no no that's I I want to hear what the neighbors want you know I lived in that area for many years it's it's all residential so right and little little very little commercial so anina um again it I I think I already stated what things but I I it's one of my favorite parts of chelur to be quite honest um and I would like to see it more RB I think my preference would be RB but I'm open to you know some some roadside commercial CB am I'm getting the right terminology no I would not want CB there I C Chris yeah I agree I think um we I think at least CA or um RB would be a good option um I think we also should remove that dead overlay um from the mix I think that that's also causing some problems in that space so I would um like to hear what the residents have to say but that's kind of where I'm leaning Mike uh very much the same tenor as everybody else I mean I we have to recognize that it is a a small Center somewhat separated from the rest of town and it's not an unreasonable thing to expect some like ca there and that may be a good a good answer AA is totally inappropriate there um and even even CB raises some questions that may be able to put it all together under one label and that label might B CA that might be RB uh but we have to have to keep in mind that there has to be some we have to allow for some commercial presence down there it's far away from everything else why yeah I would they said it but no not not addition I I I guess well they get grandp okay you know what we're yeah gonna get get ready to open up the public discussion please so I guess I but I do have that question they kind of said it um you mentioned you said you should allow a commercial well that's the that's really what the question comes down to should we allow any commercial should it be just CA uh should it be RB only yeah can you just clarify what is CA it's well it's called on it's called neighborhood it's called neighborhood commercial yeah what does that so I think you'd have to go you to get it specifically you'd have to go back to the back of the thing to see what are all the uses that correspond to that zone be for a while we'd be here for a while if we listed them all but it' be small store that kind of however I mean if you look at the use and I think it's I think it could be put it up on the board so people can see what can be there and what can't be because I think it's an important discussion I like we're looking at CA and RB yeah um whoever's on the zoom could you please mute can you please mute your can we mute them who is that telling me to give me them I mean I should be able to you got it okay okay and we should be able tell media to turn up your camera too CA CB are on the screen yep so it's going to be hard for [Music] so essentially CA is what you see on um the the wesland side the commercial side uh next adjacent to the wesland on chompster Street CA has uses that are predominantly um complimentary to residential neighborhoods smaller scale as well CB is very permissive as you can see it allows it allows hotels motels retail of all different kinds motor vehical um sales and repair and services um it also allows um fast food drive-throughs while CA does not um both allow office CB allows Banks Banks with drive-throughs so CB is what you what you find on certain parts of chompster Street uh between the highway and the center um Tings Boro road is zoned uh CB so I think we've all come to the conclusion that if any commercial is going to be allowed CA is likely a better a better fit than CB and some of the some of the uses on the table require planning board approval based on the scale so like some things in CA can be only allowed if they're greater than 3,000 square foot for per structure if their planning board approved so they would have to come before us if they were of a certain scale um one thing though that um just to point out that under CA um would have to come through the panel board but Kennels would be allowed I mean well would have to have P have planning board approval but that was a Hot Topic in some other planning board meetings I think there's already a kennel there um but there could be more right anything that's zoned someone sells it someone else can put something in so that's just would be when you're looking at the chart just to kind of think of stuff like that um okay John do you have anything else that you wanted to highlight my initial thoughts just looking at the zoning map is that I would be in favor of uh eliminating the IIA I did notice that uh one residential property on parkerville road was zoned RB the rest were uh Zone CB which seemed a little out of place but and then uh my other thoughts would be would it make sense to rezone the two town-owned Parcels as P for public why not they're effectively that anyway which ones are the two town-owned parcels the down all by the beach okay oh yeah yeah yeah parking lot yeah yeah it's kind of um I I mean I would just also like to say that um while this conversation kind of came to the head because of an attempt to redevelop Maxwell's um into a basically an outdoor contractor site um I I mean I I feel that it's that property the owners of that property have a right to sell it for a use that um you know will hopefully Zone it in a way that it's um the neighborhood can get behind it but they they they're not just going to be able to sell it for a very restrictive use I wouldn't think that that's I don't I wouldn't feel that that would be fair on our part if we zoned it like single family for instance Evan what's the use for that currently retail retail yeah so any retail could be there yeah yeah ret have to be cuz we someone said earlier it had would have to be a garden store but I don't think that's the case retail to retail okay all right um if no one here has anything else they want to specifically say Marcy no do you have anything then why don't we open up to the public comment and if people could come up to the microphone make you know get in line state your name and your address and um your thoughts or recommendations for us hi my name is Maria I uh Maria carries I live at 10 parkerville and so the there's an area behind Maxwell's that ends up being or part of Maxwell's is right behind my house so obviously having contractor yards right behind my house is certainly not ideal but I am open to um CA if it's as described here I'm agree with Anita it is a unique part of town the reason I moved there uh we have the pond and I took my daughter swimming there as she was growing up and it was really nice and I'd like to keep it that way so I think there's not many other areas of chelur that like it so I think we need to respect what it is today and uh I would like to keep Kate's corner there so I want to make sure CA is support Kate's Corner as much as possible thank you guys thank you hi my name is Richard bam I'm El on first Lane chelsford um my family obviously has been around a very very long time uh and when I think about South chumford I look at it the way my parents and my grandparents and my generations and generations of my family have seen it and I think we have this beautiful historic village that is not unique but is extremely special um not just to my family but to all the residents uh around the pond and I I I would say that each time I drive through there and I see that old signus as the historic village of South chemsford um I have a tremendous amount of pride when I when I see that and um we are people who live in that in that area and we we don't have the power that the planning board has so you are our Representatives you are the people who make the decisions in our behalf and and I would say not just for myself but I think you're going to see this from a lot of the residents um we're going to ask you to preserve our village okay and um I don't think what we need is uh to at all to move into a direction uh that would make it more commercial or or more appropriate for businesses than it is now we know we understand what it is now um but we're going to ask you to to be the people on the front line who help us preserve our our our village in the nature of what it is what it is now I'm not could have belabored the point but I uh I thank you and um I I think you're going to hear a very similar sentiment from the from the people here I don't think anyone here would vote to let's have more commercial Enterprise in in south of chelsford not up here either yeah okay well thank you thank you so much I appreciate [Applause] you hi Steve Christopher 26 fifth Lane and uh thank you guys for all you seem like you're all on the same page here um I had a list of questions or a list of not demands but um this isn't the forum for that it may be down the road but uh I just wanted to bring up real quick too rich did a great job with the South charford Village it is such a quaint thing most people a lot of people don't even know about it down there but if they drive through it's it's incredibly beautiful and but I'm going to speak to it from the pond point of view going forward um as residents on the pond many people that here have been here 30 plus years we've spent hundreds upon thousands of volunteer hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars preserving that pond um and we will fight the fight every step of the way whoever seems to come in there but we are the stewards of that pond and uh and by being in that organization it's it's it's it's made me a better person but to make it even more widely spread is everybody gets to enjoy it and and we do most of the work to keep it that way so I would just suggest and hope please in the future whoever comes along whatever we decide upon tonight that we do keep that beautiful beautiful piece of property that hot pond in mind thank you guys and just a point to clarify I don't we're not going to make any decisions tonight this is just a first step of hearing from the south Cher Community Karen Griffin 12 parkerville Road um I am 100% in favor of removing the overlay which is what I heard you guys say I don't like the fact that my house is residential and the rest isn't so I have no plans on moving this is my retirement home so I'd rather keep it the way that it is similar sentiment to everyone else and if we can do something with um the former Maxwell's property that improves the area that would be most helpful thank [Applause] you hi folks Robert and Mary Ellen Hig we live at 24 forth Lane in uh South chumford and he stole my thunder about the welcome to Historic South chumford signage on both directions from 27 um uh I liked the line that you said earlier that we're trying to decide what to do with many uses crammed into a very small space and I think everybody's concern here is please don't put anything more into that small space is uh is why we're all here you have a a a public beach that is served by the the the pond it's a it's a uh community resource it belongs to chumford it's used by all the members of chumford you have the walking and the bicycle path there paddle boarding and kayaking and fishing and boating is done on the lake and it's just an amazing resource but as was mentioned you might remember that three years ago and two years ago there's been a huge algae bloom that closed the beaches and the algae blooms are a result of what goes into the lake from everything from fertilizers to chemicals and things that we're trying to greatly limit by a tremendous amount of research by a number of people in this room by maintenance and by as of this past year constant and semi-professional monitoring which resulted this year in zero closures of the lake at all so it shows that with neighborhood uh uh and Community Information um we can we can monitor and keep the lake uh pristine for everybody's future use I I do have a question real quick um the map that I see over here I don't know if it's the same one that I see over here because we're at different angles behind um uh raon or say Ron it's lock lock pardon me for the government contract um uh behind both what was Agway and Maxwells and the um the business contractor business there was an area that looks like it's a a swamp land is that a buildable space is that always to remain conservation is and untouched they'd have to have an analysis of here yes sir yes I again I think what we're all concerned about is what might go in there and what we wouldn't want to see in there is something like a condo association that can suddenly claim to be a Lakeside condo association with a walking and bike path um and uh that would be a horrible use of this but it would certainly bring some taxes into the town and we're trying to balance and make sure that where's the right place to be and we think that everybody here on the board certainly the size of the folks that are here um all feel the same way and we thank you for your for your work on that um can you do me a favor and just point where you're talking about on the map sure oh it is hard to see in here but there's all this swamp area here and a little tiny bit right here yeah those are wetlands W yeah you're not they're protected by the wetlands protection act Conservation Commission has jurisdiction over that it's not likely to be developed thank you I just uh wanted to bring that up the other other thing that I'm sure that you know is directly across the street from what was Agway is the biome school there's a small Park um uh that is next to a historic home that is used um regularly surprisingly it's a very small space you have the walking path um what we're worried about is anything that might bring in including retail that might bring in more traffic and be a detriment to what is already a very strange intersection going off on Maple and South chumford parkerville and the Kates Corner area um and um I don't want to take up more time but um I uh I just again would like to just touch that we're real concerned about the environmental impact that anything that comes in here because it is so sensitive because it's so small and because already there's so much in and around there we thank you for your efforts folks and just to clarify three of those properties are town-owned on the wetlands on in the wetlands area hi um Ann sobleski I represent loed Martin and I'm here um just to provide some commentary and color with respect to our facility I mean our facility is the only property zoned IA in this area but it has been there since 1964 we have been a good neighbor we haven't had complaints from the residents and we employ a significant number of people in chelsford some people from Chelmsford we provide tax revenue to the community and to say that just because it's grandfathered that's not going to have any impact on our operations is a little bit fcil I mean yes we could reside the building yes we could repave the parking lot but if we need to make changes to our business and operations there's a possibility that that would be considered an expansion of what would become a non-conforming use and could present a significant problem for us it's ALS Al the situation where I understand that you wouldn't want a distribution facility to come in if we were ever to close down and the property were to be sold but you would have to find a buyer who would conduct the same exact use you know any change could be considered an unperm missible expansion of a non-conforming use so it seriously limits it's not a case of if we were ever in the future to sell the property it could just be used as an office building because someone could challenge that it's not as it's not as simple as that so I would just like to reiterate I mean we've been there for a long time we've been very good neighbors people wanted some shrubberies planted we planted them um we have a lot of Outreach to the community and I do have some folks from the facility here who can provide some more specific information but we're very concerned at the possibility that a zoning change eliminating the Ia use which covers our facility could have on our business operations both now and going forward you guys want to add anything thanks hi Larice Pudo I live at 71 Garrison and uh have been a resident there for over 30 years enjoyed much of the area agree with all the residents around um that we would prefer it just be residential regardless of the businesses that are there and the good neighbor that L heed Martin may be these are people's homes lives in neighborhoods there's a school right there the pond we know the walking path all of this we know everybody's talked about it's a neighborhood and everybody uses it as such so to increase it in any way commercially would be against not just the immediate residents but the impact to everyone we saw the impact on Garrison Road of all the condos on 110 we now have 10,000 new neighbors and guess what roads they use all of ours right the trucks go there people are you know flying down the road all the time there's police I've asked they don't don't have the manpower to man that and to police that so just think about the wider impact as well and please stand with us because it's not just those couple blocks it's a huge area and you know going up through Westford there's no main Trucking on that road so where are you sending all those cars you're sending them up Garrison you're sending them down hunt you're sending them down 27 so I understand that Maxwells may need to sell and you need to be fair but that doesn't mean you turn a neighborhood into an industrial area thank [Applause] you good evening Michael kavan 12 Parker Bill r a couple of comments uh prompted me to uh come to the podium impact and traffic I can personally tell you that the road or rather the road that we live on is very busy with speeding cars and big trucks and our house has a very sharp corner I think we've rebuilt our Stonewall four times thank you I think our neighbor has had a boulder hit by a vehicle that moved the boulder several feet so I'm seriously concerned about any increased traffic in the area again we appreciate your efforts thank you for your [Applause] time okay um so if there's no further um Ellen mariss I'm at 110 Garrison Road uh so I'm not right on the pond like many of the neighbors um I'm up toward 110 real close like three houses down right after that dip um what this gentleman was saying is correct uh the the speed of the trucks on Garrison Road uh we just had a mailbox put in and they asked why we didn't want to put it on Garrison I said I don't want my kids walking out to that mailbox the asphalt trucks from the asphalt plant use Garrison as a cut through to get to 27 um high high truck traffic ripping up the road um Every Spring we clean the potholes out of our yard um because of the high truck traffic um ripping this up and uh just you know something to consider if something commercial was to go in something big for example at Maxwell's we're living this um up in Windam New Hampshire there's a small pond that was not regulated if we have a Summer Place um up there and this is the first year it was uh classified as an urban Lake it's a spring-fed beautiful beautiful Pond lots of uh year round homes like what was mentioned uh the fertilizer the damage um it's a big cost going in trying to fix this there's an improvement Association working on that so the the cost to the residents to the town to fix something once something gets in there could be really uh really large so something to consider thanks thank [Applause] you I'm sorry I'll be very quick um my name is Elisha Harper I just moved into to one Lakeside Avenue on the pond I moved in with my 5-year-old son I feel incredibly lucky to have moved into this area I've been really excited so the idea he's going to kindergarten at BAM in the fall and the idea that he has the opportunity to we could walk to school in the morning the um the idea of any type of increased traffic does scare me and make me really nervous and um anything we can do to try to avoid anything like that that would be much appreciated thank you hi Vivian Merill 23 Maple Road I am directly across the street from Maxwells um I know they're for sale um I guess this whole thing just kind of confuses me because I don't know who's looking at this property or what they want to do with it or how it can be reded developed um what is stopping like a 40b developer from going in there and just building a whole big massive building if it's Zone commercial is it because it's a multif family use that's not allowed or is it allowed I don't I guess I don't understand a lot of the zoning stuff so 40b if they come into the town with 40b that that doesn't matter what the zone is Right anywhere in the town anywhere in the town so that that could happen I mean everybody's jumping up and down about traffic yeah the school generates boatloads of traffic because everybody drives their kids to school instead of putting them on the bus um what's stopping that from happening I don't I don't think you can we're that we're not going to be able to do that okay so how is changing the zoning going to change anything that's going on in that neighborhood one thing that can't go in there now because of the zoning is single family so under because it's currently CB and single family dwellings aren't allowed there so that's a again it's in beautiful area um so again and I'm just not I'm not I don't understand like it's not like I live in East Chumps this is your neighborhood but it's you know I want to make sure what we do it makes sense for everybody I'm not saying it should be one or the other but you know I think even to your point you don't want to limit Maxwell's but to me I think we are limitting it by not zoning it RB cuz I think that would be a beautiful place for some homes to go there um in a beautiful neighborhood so those are the kind of things I wish so you have to subdivide the lot yeah but right now we can't right like if they even want to e that open as an option they really can't do that so again I do does seem like there's a lot of um concern about what will go in there because it's not what it it's yeah um I just want to open up you know I want to make sure what we how we fix this works for everybody or majority of people okay I mean yeah I'm going to say it's going to be hard where you don't know a lot of information that we know what people it it seems like we kind of know what people don't want and that that is information and you know that's a starting point I mean how many house slots could you fit on that parcel how many two 1.87 acres yeah it would take some dancing but but it's got that that length that long length you got to have Frontage so that's a problem with my parcel it's got a very small Frontage but it open up our back I tried to subdivide it 20 years ago and I was turned down because I was going to create a traffic Hazard by putting another house back there so how I I don't know probably one or two okay thank you Vivian okay all right so I guess we've heard oh hi my name is Pam bam rard my family has been here a while um I just wanted to reiterate what my neighbors have said about how hard we have worked to um revive the pond take care of the pond what you may not know is the area you're talking about is in our pond Watershed what makes it unique is that everything that hits the ground in that area will eventually go into the pond that's the way it is most of our Watershed is in Westford and we are working very hard to get Westford to support um healthy healthy conditions for our pond but they are not very Cooperative at this point because most of heart pond is in Chelmsford so we're working on them but I think the least we can expect I would hope is that chamford would support the health of the pond and the watershed area there so I'm asking for your help there um and also when we talk about cluster housing you're talking about it again around the pond and that is not a healthy environment for the pond and it also opens up a precedent for other Parcels being developed as cluster housing around this very precious uh natural resource so I thank you for your attention to this matter thank [Applause] you okay so I think then next thing that we probably should do is maybe come up with a list of um the concerns that people have like the hot button issues and think if we can figure out how we can prioritize them and um address them so clearly safeguarding the pond is um maybe the primary um concern safeguarding the historic village character is another um traffic traffic um well that would be a solution right now we're trying to talk about the issues I mean half of me says okay let's go with RB right on the whole area but you can't cuz I mean you lock now you're hand tie and lock key on right from future grow for anything so how do how do you manage that but but how do you but if but if you if you okay now we're having our part of the meeting where leave it IA change it to RB you're turning into a riverneck road issue right where there's residential single family right next to IIA which is here which is kind of buffered now a little bit but mhm I'm just trying to of all scenarios that not even that we solve for now but also 10 years from now that we're not we're not going to have that riverneck road issue where there's all residential residential in IIA right you know and there's no buffer yeah I think IIA is way too broad no I agree so maybe I don't know maybe is there a way we can develop an an overlay that gives them residential only you know but allows them allows the present owner to do it look a lot like spot zoning when I know you can't do that either way like our job is planning here right like what do we want for this area and I you know I feel for ly Martin I get it but we have industrial areas in town that they could easily move to and they really wanted to grow we have 129 like that's you know people you know way before me made a decision that this was our area and it made sense because it was close to rout 3 and 495 I have no idea how this decision came about in South chelsford for an office building um and and you know I feel for it but I don't you know you know it it's grandfathered in it can be that size um you know I'm sure people you know there's other areas that in we in the planning board will work with them they need to change it but like to me that has I go I agree I agree with you 100% I totally agree with you but I'm just thinking what happens to the value of that property for luy Martin when you can only put one house on there and it's going to take a couple hundred thousand just to take the building down it will never be built for home here let me look up un you have to I'm trying to say what you I'm just trying to say what are you doing to a presentant owner you know what I mean I get that but and you and I I think the RB would be great here but what do you do what are you doing to an owner two that owns the property yeah I'm how does that help them does it does it crush them from even growing from even selling the property CU what can because the unless they take out I mean you got the church there you got you know what happens to the church eventually if if something right well the church has do protection right it has do so Martin has 111 billion dollar market cap I don't think this property is going to touch a dent in it so quite frankly like we got to think of Market $11 billion okay I just I'm sure that there are plenty if they wanted to sell and move to a bigger location I'm sure there are a lot of developers that could buy that up and and put a number of single family houses there would be non-conforming though single family lots you can put you can't put a lot in there right with the frontage in a public roadway you couldn't do it you could subdivide that you subdivide it probably be non-conforming though two homes three homes the way some of the developers are pushing density you could put more than that well you're only allowing single family though yeah with all the setbacks I I think it be great for the area I think Maxwells especially that whole area should be definitely hary but even if we kept it IIA I'm not sure we would want lock keed Martin expanding oh no no I'm not saying keep an not a good place for how do I'm just saying how do you keep the present used so you're allowing the present owner to do their business you and there's an overlay on there that's future for what's the end up goal that we want to do there eventually you know what I mean would be grandfather wouldn't yeah ex be grandp so so yeah and again I'm just going to reiterate they have $11 billion market cap this is rounding this building is rounding for them like trust me it's round like like they could write it off and it wouldn't affect their Pano I think generally we can agree that the CB area that includes Maxwell's should go to something less than CB yeah right and so whe RB it seems like everybody's leaning towards RB so that's pretty clear okay we're not reallying willing to get rid of IA and I I don't want to express a distinct opinion on that one way or the other you could at least view it as buffered by CA right surrounded and buffered by CA at least there'd be some logic to it okay so so so it goes from when it goes from CB to something less than CB what it comes down to would depend on what we think about the IIA is that so you're saying the whole are would be ca or we get rid of the CB definitely CB is that's all I'm saying is I think we can all agree that the area that includes Maxwells at CB should not be CB so I think we can all agree on that and whether that ends up being we think it should be ca or RB Mike is raising the point and others have raised that that would depend somewhat on the IIA because we don't want to create a zoning conflict between residential and IIA right so I agree so that's a factor to consider and the other thing I would suggest is that the C B we might want to consider the lower part along Route 27 whether we would want that to go down to ca as well yeah well that's only one property cuz the other properties are all town-owned yeah who's the owner of that property ask that's the gas station gas station we just ask them and then there's Wetlands there okay just trying to just trying to establish what it were agreeing on no no I agree I'm just trying to figure it out can I ask a question um if you were to change any of them to a higher level of commercial or industrial we're only talking about making them a lower TR to Downs no conversation to go higher so any change I was just curious what my question was going to be was um are there any requirements for en environmental impact or Neighborhood Impact or anything like that when you make any sort of changes in your zoning or depends on on the particular use and the requirements and the bylaws some some will some will for like town and of course this is this watershed area I guess it's there a bunch there's a whole other set of requirements that have very little to do with what's in the zoning bylaws okay that we'll control also unless the zoning is changed or or I'm just curious I don't really know anything about it but just didn't know if you were required to get any sort of environmental impacts on any changes that you make it depends on the use are we talking about zoning change or are we talking about an application for the use of the land I think she thinking application I think you're thinking application because somebody you know proposes to do something on a piece of property then yeah depending on the conditions there may be impacts that have to be filed or whatever but for us to reson it I don't believe we have to do any sort of environmental impact analysis or there would be nothing to cuz we're not building we don't know what the impact would be CU we don't know what the use would be you would wait until see what the use until there's a use proposal proposal for use okay all right thank you sorry and just to be clear we're just zoning we're not building anything so we don't know what could go in there we're just trying to Zone it for what allows certain types of could go in there so that's the starting point yes and so that's my concern with the Ia zone is that while Lockheed there in its present form and size is is okay for me all of the other uses Allowed by IIA are absolutely not okay there right so on that point why not create or consider creating an ia1 or an iia2 or an i a for what so put what Chris was saying is you would do that townwide and so there are there are likely areas where existing IIA zoning is deemed appropriate based upon its surrounding context and then many areas where the the comprehensive list of existing IIA uses is deemed in inappropriate too much you can create a limited IA but iia1 IA so for example so for example locki doesn't do compared to other businesses in town they're not doing heavy industry they're R&D they have some manufacturing right call it clean tech call it whatever you want M that that may be viewed differently than other types of limited industrial uses so there's nothing preventing the planning board working with the neighborhood and the business Community to create an EXT an extremely Limited industrial zoning District that that is that is catering towards clean tech R&D uh clean manufacturing maybe that may be a way to um kind of thread this needle and then as opposed as opposed to try to look at IIA as as a as a one siiz fits-all so then you make housing you make heavy machinery heavy industry and warehousing and that all the all the types of IIA uses that are of concern and then identify the types of industrial type uses that you want to promote or not of concern and we can create a separate zoning District so you're you're bifurcating or or further further defining different what you mean by limited industrial and then clean tech or you know whatever you want to call it but that makes sense called commercial though uh I mean maybe maybe real estate law and Zoning law have changed in 40 years and I missed something but when you go to change the zoning on one lot no it wouldn't be one no he's it have to it have to be bigger than that no he's talking about making the whole IA which means you would effectively make the whole piece yeah this ia2 yeah you would designate you would you would revise the zoning map so you look rev look at all the I think it's I think IIA to or uh clean Tech is a really good idea and it probably in many places in town better fits want what we do but we wouldn't expand the Ia footprint we would like subdivide it no no you're missing you're missing my point I think Mike's Mike's point is if I understand it Mike is that basically what you're saying is we can't create a new Zone that is only applied to this one piece of property there has to be other places in town where proposing at all and so I think what Evan's proposing is we have to look at all of the IIA this all goes back to what Chris is alluding to is the the existing use tables problematic yes right so you can change the zoning map but if you don't fix the use table there still still a problem yeah right so I still have an issue with I this like I still have an issue with this office building in this area of town like to me it just doesn't make sense fundamental and I didn't you know and I can't fix what happened 50 years ago but to me me like yes I think we that's another problem we need to fix is you know lightting you know our use table sure for our industrial areas but to me this neighborhood like we shouldn't have had it in the first place that was not the right place and there was I don't know if there was an intent of some Highway being put in there 27 becoming a highway like route three or I don't know who was what was going on back then but to me I'm like I am I appreciate your concern about you know trying to thread the needle but I'm just I'm just trying to assist the board I mean we're not going to finish this conversation tonight um and you've as you know from riverneck Road you will not eliminate a use at a property owner either ex values existing l or values future-- wise the only way you are going to influence the behavior of a private entity is by providing alternative zoning uh options that have equal or greater value that's the only way you're going to change what's on the ground by down zoning you are not going to achieve I don't want necessarily want to change it I'm fine with it being an office building like and it's staying the status quo at this point because it works but I am concerned about you know as the town evolves and grows you know I mean one of the things so that's what I'm saying if you if you don't want it to go from clean tech to dirty Tech then change then then either create a new zoning District or go in and change the use table and I think that's what Evan was was suggesting Anita is that if we like the use as it is now if we're okay with that then we create a new zone that includes this property and other areas that we might want to change the IIA table to create essentially a light a lighter IIA Zone um that does include pretty much just the office buildings and some of the the noninvasive um businesses that we would rezone this property and some of the other areas of IIA so we have to look at the whole I that's where I think we may be in trouble I like the idea of a limited IIA I think it has great applicability across the town right but even if you do lots of other properties in town if you go just at this property to try to rezone it you may I don't don't say you will but you may get into some trouble and that's you'll be fine because it's currently zoned right it's currently zoned industrial yeah but you're knocking it down you're you're basically creating a new a new uh zone no you're changing it you're changing a current zone right you're creating a more a more specific customized industrial zoning District okay you may not even call it industrial as a as a general statement I think that makes sense we better talk to Town Council abut about doing it for one property we're not talking about doing it for one yes you are here you may do other properties at other places and that may be okay but if you do it to one course we'll get clearance from Council I think the starting point here is that it's currently Zone industrial yeah so you're not you're not creating you're not creating a new spot zoning yeah of course yeah but my point is you're you're not going to eliminate a use simply by changing the zoning map or the zoning um table of uses if you're truly trying to change Behavior you have to provide other uses that are again same value or more value which is why the co overlay is still applicable here yeah you're not going to get smack swells or Lockheed to build single family the economics don't work they however multif family may work at a certain point yeah and that's something apparently people don't want right but my my issue is that the overlays don't address the underlying the overlays do not change do not influence do not change they added to because at the time the planning board and the community there was no appetite to do complicated zoning yep and there still isn't appetite to do complicated zoning and even if you try to do complicated zoning every property owner is going to freeze the zoning like riverneck did so you're better off trying to work with those private property owners and provide them added value in flexibility mhm so that you're so that at least you're giving them an opportunity to propose something that is better than what's on the ground and then you're prepared to embrace that opportunity collectively to gain all the benefits of that opportunity one one comment I think it would be helpful for the audience here is if you would describe what you mean by freeze the zoning I know what it is but I think we should tell people what zoning freeze is and how it works yeah I without getting into the legal Le for all intents and purposes if if the planning board um recommends to town meeting and town meeting agrees and they change the zoning from IIA to RB locked and any other property owner under State zoning law has Provisions where they can submit certain plans to the town and they essentially freeze the zoning the existing Zoning for I think it's a period of eight years so while eight years isn't a long time when you talk talk about planning and zoning my point is is that between the zoning freeze and then pre-existing non-conformity it's highly unlikely you're going to get rid of a significantly sized and high value industrial facility and I don't think anyone's intending to get rid of anything no no understood underst I just think we don't want expansion and things to get worse understod because I mean again I don't want to belabor this but when a when a when a property owner representative comes to you and expresses concern MH again that's messaging what kind of message are you sending to your to your stakeholders and they're telling you that it puts the company at that particular property at a zoning uh disadvantage they don't want to be classified as pre-existing non-conforming so that's something you're going to have to work you're going to have to work through but but simply zoning at RB doesn't doesn't create any any opportunity to solve any problem the economics are never going to work so I'm I'm thinking uh currently what is CB on the west the part of CB that's actually in people's yards becomes RB the Maxwells becomes CA the IIA becomes this IIA light the ca where Kate's corner is stays the same and the CB that's below it that has mostly Town own land becomes either some combination of CA or public yeah so you're looking to clean it up reflect reflect more accely what's actually on the ground clean it up and then do some down zoning and then this new light industrial two or whatever I think that's a f good first step that we can take a look at and see what it looks like on the map I mean clearly that doesn't that doesn't address the pond um the pond is basically the purview of mostly you know other regulatory bodies um not so much zoning I mean anything that's going to address impact the pond is going to be the purview of conservation um or any development that comes in front of you Board of Health or so for next steps I mean I I could take a crack at creating a draft um proposed zoning map but I think the big the big item here is maybe having a a subset of the board or the full board board prioritize a work session to look at the existing IIA and try to cherry-pick existing IIA uses that would be considered clean and then maybe there's a list of new uses that we don't currently Define and regulate like to like to include and you know and ask the residents of the neighborhood to you know kind of go back and look look at our zoning look at the ma like look at what can be in the various areas and if you feel just email us your thoughts you go home think about it now you know what some of the CBS Casa are these are um but you know look at that the chart um and what is you know what's allowed what isn't allowed and feel free to reach out to us um and we'd likely have another one of these another four oh yeah yeah oh yeah yeah all right so should we put this on our agenda um I don't know how the next meeting looks we'll have the one that is continued today uh I think January 22nd looks full okay yeah I'm probably looking at uh February one of the February meetings okay yeah I mean this does not sound to me as if it's headed for Springtown meeting no so no but we can try to get it for fall town meeting would be ideal I think fall would be ideal so we put in front of T um fall town meeting do we also want to just kind of I think it's important that people understand the process um and the citizens rights like anybody can propose um a warant article at town meeting like it doesn't have to be presented by the planning board ideally you know we'd like to work together with people but it's not I don't want you feeling that like we're doing something to you right like um every citizen has a right no no no I mean that's not our intent it's certainly not our intent so every citizen has a right um to do a citizen's petition and to propose to tell meting um you know there's something that they don't like about our bylaws our you know what have you um we're we we started this process because we recognized through a previous um application that this was a problem so we're trying to get ahead of it and make it better make it better um but you know I don't want you like I really you know I just want to make sure people understand and you can do that at the state level too as a citizen you can propose legislation we all have that right as citizen so I just want to make sure people understand that um thank you thank you okay so can we target the second meeting in febrary second meeting in February yeah at the beginning of the meeting uh February um February first meeting February 26 26 second so this will be back on on the February 26 planning board agenda mhm 6 P 6:30 y yeah that looks good okay um next up we have just give a couple minutes for the room to oh you know what I wanted to say and I we neglected to do at the beginning of the meeting that 61 um 65 rather well 61 versus 65 dun Road has requested a continuance so if anyone here is here for that property um we haven't granted the continuance yet but I believe that there will be one so um that was a late request from the applicant thank you thank you thank you next up we have uh new public hearing regarding the Adu bylaw um for the purpose of receiving public comment to amend the town code chapter 195 zoning bylaw by deleting section I'm not going to read the whole thing Chris is going to give us a lovely concise presentation to clean should we take a break while people clear yeah yes okay like two minutes just do it that's I'm saying RB RB this the part and leave the ca make that CA instead of e e seems to be cleared so next we're going to address the Adu bylaw we're going to start with with a presentation by Chris of our um the bylaw that we're proposing to put to put on the town meeting special um session as a for the warrant tle just before you do that can you read the legal ad that's on the agenda just open the hearing sure Adu bylaw for purpose of receiving public comment to amend the town code chapter 195 zoning bya by deleting section 19561 Limited accessory apartments in its entirety and replacing it with a new accessory dwelling unit bylaw to amend the use regulation schedule section 195 attachment 1 by adding a new line a. n.f protected accessory dwelling units we're going to start with Chris giving a presentation of our proposed drafted warrant article so tonight's draft is a uh culmination of discussions that we've been having in past meetings and a work session with Town Council um we are having our public hearing tonight um potentially continuing it uh into next meeting um and then um at the end of the uh public hearing voting on the um the proposed changes and I will I've presented the draft to the select board uh earlier this week U be doing the same presentation for the finance committee tomorrow night um I believe both committees will be voting on the recommendations after we vote on ours um and then this will be going to the special town meeting um in uh Monday the 27th thank Monday the 27th so the first slide um if you can go to the next slide Evan so the highlights of the Massachusetts Adu law um it was signed into law August 6th of this year of well 2024 last year um it does take effect February 2nd of this year um the theory behind this legislation is essentially the same as the MBTA law that was passed by the state uh to increase the housing prices the housing stock um in the hopes that it will decrease um the housing prices uh the state law will be applied to any municipalities um regardless of whether they currently have Adu zoning or not um and if it is contradictory to state law the state law will take precedent our current uh limited accessory apartment bylaw will be ineffective as of that date if we don't take any action um so that's why we are going through this process um the state goals for Massachusetts are that they want to facilitate housing stock growth between 8,000 and 10,000 new adus in 5 years and they want to prohibit overly restrictive regulations on adus uh for example owner occupancy requirements uh so they've created these protected use adus that must be allowed by right in any zones where single family dwellings are allowed they've essentially added this definition of an Adu to the do Amendment protected uses which limits special permit discretion um other do Amendment protected uses are child care and nonprofit religious institutions and schools um as we have dealt with in a couple other uh or one other uh recent case um the attached and detached adus must be allowed by right in any zoney District where single family dwellings are allowed not just in single family zones uh but anywhere that single family dwellings are allowed they can be ac they can be accessory to any single family and multif family dwelling units there are limits on restrictions that we um can uh impose and uh processes that we put in place to only those that are placed on single family dwellings and other accessory buildings in single family zones we cannot create limits on onor occupancy age restriction and affordability um those are some of the specifically prohibited regulations but other regulations imposed by municipalities must be reasonable um based on state definition um limited parking restrictions on adus uh include that we cannot require any more than one on street or off street parking space and within five half a mile of any transit station we cannot require off street parking um a transit station in the definition of the state regulations is any MBTA regional and local Ferry subway train bus station bus stop and Route um if flagging is Al is allowed along the Route then that whole route is considered um the transit station in our case the RTA does allow flagging along its route in chelsford so essentially just over half of chelsford is within the half a mile of the LRTA route next slide so our strategy and approach um for these changes is first and foremost to ensure that chelmsford's bylaw is compliant and enforceable um as of February 2nd um and we want to provide clear standards and processes for the residents and town staff um it's similar to our strategy for the MBTA zoning where it is State aligned um because the state regulations are still being drafted and it's accepting the state's accepting public input it is still a moving Target um we do expect that the draft of those regulations will be released early February there is no date as far as I know set yet um but it's unlikely to be anywhere near uh enough time for us to implement by the February 2nd Date so our approach is to have this initial bylaw uh at least comply with the state law um while we're waiting for the final regulations after the regulations are final um and after probably some time for the new bylaw to uh take effect we can as a town reassess how far further we want to go and what other changes we might need uh for the final um regulations and then propose additional changes if needed key provisions of our proposed bylaw um include that only protected adus as defined by the state will be allowed we are the state does allow um municipalities to allow a second protected Adu by special permit um but the the approach that we are taking is that we are not um going down that route we're only allowing one protected Adu um per lot the maximum size uh based on Gross floor area as defined by the state's definition is 900 square ft or 50% of the principal dwelling whichever is smaller um we are requiring one off street parking space um but no parking requirement for adus within the half a mile of the transit station we are prohibiting short-term rentals as Allowed by state law um which are less than 31 days other uh Provisions is that no new curb cuts are allowed for adus um we must use ex existing driveway and walkways to Branch off the same design standards as prior entryways and stairs for attached adus um we're keeping those and then for detached adus we're mirroring the bylaws um that we have for the S the current detached structures um on properties where they cannot be located within the front yard area and shall not have a height in excess of 20 ft or two stories or greater in terms of the review and approval process for this bylaw um for adus on single and two family uh it will be a plan review by The Building Commissioner for adus on multif family which include three units or more it will be a minor site plan review by this board um our current Table of dimensional requirements will still be applicable and it mirrors the current processes for zoning relief uh for any pre-existing non-conforming situations with the exception that no special permits or variances U may be required um so essentially it would be uh going to either our board or the zba um with uh without needing special permits it will essentially be a simple majority vote if non-conforming the Adu must not be substantially more detrimental than existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood so a couple other questions have come up um related to uh development but um that we are not addressing under our bylaw they're being addressed um by other uh areas in town uh related to sewer and septic So based on um feedback from the DPW their current regulations will remain mostly unchanged uh but they will be revising those regulations to allow Adu connections uh to the Sewer for detached adus um current regulations all allow an increase for the residential property up to 500 gallons per day based on Title 5 calculations uh so any Adu sewer increases for these adus would be under that 500 gallon per day amount so those would be allowed the SE connection design um we are not uh addressing in our bylaw but the design will be essentially determined based on design best practices the Contours of the lot um um and the conditions of the of the lot the following tables essentially a simple comparison of our current lla uh bylaw with what we are proposing for the Adu bylaw um the big differences are that we are now going to be allowing detached and attached up to uh 900 square ft um as opposed to the 750 in place now and then uh removing the the uh restrictions on owner occupied or the uh familial relationship La what does it stand for limited accessory Apartments Apartment may want to the whole so people no M so in terms of the timeline of next steps um tonight we are having the hearing in depending on how things go uh the hearing might continue into the 22nd um as I mentioned I have presented already to the select board on the 6th uh fincom will be tomorrow night um I don't know if they're going to vote on it or not on the agenda we're gonna on the agenda is supposed to be voting on it I think it might depend on what our ultimate decision is um I have committed to the select board that if we do make any changes to our draft um that I will reach out again to them uh to give them those updates and to give them our final vote before they vote uh and then the select board will be voting on this uh for the recommendation on the 27th um right before the special town meeting um as I mentioned before if we get the final um regulation drafts out uh to us in the meantime um we can uh potentially amend um the bylaw uh before town meeting uh depending on what the changes are um or plan something in Spring to um update and that's the presentation I only have um one question comment can we go back to like the first couple of slides a couple times you refer to this as being very similar to the MBTA um change but I think there's a distinction distinction here MBTA was a mandate for us to rezone versus this is different if we don't do anything it defaults this it's a state law like it's the property owner has the right because of the state by comparing it to the MBTA zoning I was I was talking about our approach in terms of and also their approach I mean in both situations they're trying to generate more housing yeah but I I've I've gotten a lot of people espe with the town suing and like that like I've gotten a lot of confusion or like why do we have to do it like so and so is sued for the MBT and it's like yes that's one thing but that's that was a mandate for them for us to change our zoning this if we do nothing then it the it like every property falls under the state the state law so it's a little different in that from that and again this is a great presentation I I just want to point like let you know that I've heard that feedback okay and I don't know how like to articulate it I think what I can clarify a little bit is that I think what I've seen is that the state has learned from their roll out of the MBTA law yeah and um change their approach for this one uh so that way they did default to the state law if towns do nothing y um and I think their roll out in terms of the regulations was different uh because now they're getting additional feedback and while that's extending the timeline for us to actually get the regulations and the guidance um I don't think it's going to be able to be I mean town council's here but my guess is that it's unlikely to be challenged as as much as the MBTA law was challenged because of the way they're rolling this out compared to the uh MBTA zoning would you agree with that Town Council I do they're promulgating it more in accord with the law I I have a question from the presentation that the presentation addresses the process uh particularly through the zba if it's non-conforming what if what if the uh Adu is basically what you're looking for let's say that you want to look for a setback that is less than the allowed setbacks so what is the process there so it's not a matter of being non-conforming it's not a matter of of uh pre-existing it's just a matter of you know I just want to put my Adu closer to my my border if they're choosing not to comply but they're but they're not a non-conforming um correct then it's a a variance it would nor require a variance the bylaw is drafted it's it's a permit um to the zoning board um and using that same uh substantially so it goes through the same process correct okay is that so in other words if I if I if I have an evu I want a I want a a dimensional relief I go to the zba I'm not getting a variance I'm doing this special per this not this uh finding whatever thing that I'm doing so let yeah let's let's be very very careful and clear about non-conformities it's a very complex fact specific situation for every nonconformity so I can't say outright that if you wanted to to put a an Adu within the setback whether you would require a finding or whether you would require a finding and a variance it really depends on what's there right now right you might be able to do it with simply a finding you might be able to do it as a matter of right if you're a single family resident or you might require a variance but it really depends on what's there right well I mean we spent a lot of time talking about well if the existing principal dwelling unit say already is not complying with dimensional requirements and so I'm adding I'm adding an Adu the Adu also is not complying with dimensional requirements but it's not out more out of compliance than what the principal dwelling unit is so okay I get that but if your principal dwelling unit is in compliance but you want to put your Adu such that you do want some dimensional relief you are not going through the standard variance process is that correct but you're going through the same process as if it was non-conforming yeah you would start there although you just said your principal dwelling was in compliance so but I'm also assuming that in some fashion there's a non-conformity here and I'm not sure where that would be no I'm saying there's no nonconform right just principal dwelling unit perfectly clean everything's fine the lot you just want to put in your Adu and it just so happens that because of the lot or whatever like that you want less setback but you are not going through the standard variance process because it's an Adu because it's a protected use no so you would file for a variance because that's what you would require okay at that point it goes to the zba they would apply the standard but when they apply that standard they have to take into account the reasonable regulation standard that the state is applying it becomes more of a fact specific determination okay we apply the variant standard once we get done if we don't allow it then we look at what is this a reasonable application of that standard based on the intent of the Adu bylaw and that becomes basically a a determination for that board okay so that's that's a little squirly because I mean variance process you have to establish certain criteria it's very specific it's fairly strict yes and so you're saying you have to go through that process first you have to start through that process and then when you come up with a no then you have to now reassess because this is a protected use correct okay well good good luck to the zba on that one I mean there's likely and hopefully going to be uh more guidance in the final Reg on that there may be there may be okay but that but that's that's covered under Section um C3 the first sentence says an Adu shall comply with the dimensional standards applicable to lots and principal dwellings for the district in which the Adu is located right section four talks about pre-existing non-conforming so section three speaks to the process the council just mentioned well well no section three says section three says that you don't you don't get any special pass right but but the fact is it's a protected use doesn't that influence somehow the variance process that you're going there's not a standard Varian Bo going to need some training and hopefully some guidance yep yeah okay okay so next up I mean we have the final draft of the bylaw um we have a picture of the bus routes that basically shows that uh 55% of the properties in town do not require any offsite on-site parking because they're considered to be part of the transit route because if you can flag a bus from a place it's a bus stop um I think that that brings us to the other um public comment other things yeah so public comment before the amendment presentation I think it's all that's all covered under public comment okay so we'll open up to public comment now or um I don't need a motion for that Mo we uh open the public comment Michelle Caputo Starkweather 19 down Sher drive so I'm just reiterating because I just want my brain to understand what I just heard because it was confusing so I live on dunshire Drive there's a bus stop at the end of dunshire drive on Dunst so if we did an Adu which I'm not planning on doing but if we did an Adu we would not have to have parking for that Adu because we're within a half a mile of the bus stop was that my my understanding was correct not even any the root is the entire route okay you could put parking but we could not require it I'm not required so if I said oh I'm going to build that for my daughter who doesn't drive well she doesn't need parking either so okay so my second question was and I kind of got a little bit with that setback question but you know there's lot sizes and there are setbacks and there's Wetlands which we discuss on a regular basis here are those like especially the Wetland part not that I'm going to put something in my backyard cuz it will be underwater but if I wanted to put something up close to my house I could petition for that even though I'm in a Wetlands this this doesn't affect the wetlands whatsoever the wetlands are under the wetlands protection act which is through the Conservation Commission so any anything relative to the Adu to Wetlands is Conservation Commission jurisdiction not ours okay however Wetlands could affect things like the F and stuff like no not F but um the placement placement certainly and then I I think also the amount of Upland that you have could affect the ratio uh as well so there's ways in which it can influence it right but the wetlands itself uh and and in terms of Adu with respect to the wetlands is through the Conservation Commission okay I just was kind of curious because I'm like am I worried that we're going to now have other buildings built in my neighborhood there's no Provisions to override or or vary the wetlands protection act or the I just was a I just wanted a little bit more interpretation thank you Nancy arway 65 Littleton Road all right so I have a couple things here um first of all the use tables under uh B exempt uses uh allows exempt uses per mgl 40a literally in all zones so so if you don't put this in place at the point that it becomes effective by the state it is in our zoning already to allow it what this does is adds restrictions on how we apply it it's good thing we need to get this done um okay secondly um under let's see if I can find this I'm juggling too many documents here no can't um under design standards and something in your uh draft I would suggest that you add a line that reiterates the need to apply for uh through the um historical commission for any property that is has a structure over 75 years old for the historical commission to evaluate and approve compatibility of architecture for any changes you can do this because it's already part of our uh bylaws not the zoning bylaw but uh section 16 for everything do we have to reiterate it or would it just not apply it would apply it's going to apply anyway um but I would suggest that you do reiterate it okay I'm not sure the historical commission the only thing they do is take an inventory um administer the demo delay bylaw when the Building Commissioner deems it it's a demolition but if you're changing anything on the outside you're under demo only review a demo they don't review what you replace a demo with even though they've got into a bad habit of telling people that they have the authority to review what they intend to do well they do their legal Authority is purely the Demolition and nothing more all right I know they ask but they don't do design review like the district commission they have no authority to um Place conditions on what what's being replaced via a demolition having sat in on those meetings I'm aware I'm aware they do it okay um well they certainly do it for modifications they do it for modifications all I guess all I'm suggesting is I wouldn't I wouldn't blend that into zoning zoning bylaw I agree I mean there certain things were not touching like septic not even touching historic districts right yeah just leave Al all right all right which leads me to the last issue I have suggestion whatever actually I think this one's probably an issue um you think it's what this the my third one is probably an issue as opposed to just a suggestion and that is uh framing this new bylaw by deleting L laas llas laas Evan made a statement in the prior public comments that was really pertinent and he said nobody wants to have pre-existing non-conforming property it's just a burden going forward from what I can tell from the Assessor's Database we've got somewhere over 200 lias is in town if you delete those from the bylaws every bloody one of them is now a non-conforming property with no protections and that's a bad thing laa laas are not the same thing as adus adus are rental properties laas by definition are family units rental properties have a number of protections on them in terms of the environment the space use the the uh fire constraints whatever that don't apply to single families and their extensions so those llas laas do not automatically qualify as adus and what's more if they're being used for family there's only a handful of of users that are going to want to convert them you do need to put in here a mechanism to convert to evaluate and convert laas to adus by having the building inspector evaluate the property for compliance as a rental and as an Adu but you can't automatically consider them adus and you really shouldn't make them non-conforming properties I rest my case thank you I know we discussed that yeah I originally has stated that all of our adus are under 900 all of them are attached or within and by definition they all likely will will comply with the protected Adu uh statute whether someone wants to abandon convert their laa I'm not sure that's as as relevant as the fact that they all likely will comply as a protected Adu so what would be the protections that they would be afforded I guess I don't understand that as an laa that would be lacking in a Adu I think they would just I I mean in lie of a mechanism and I guess there's nothing preventing someone from applying to the Building Commissioner to have them to have the commissioner verify that it's an now an Adu um but the existing use restrictions essentially become null and void right and I think all of them that qualify for an Adu become an Adu I'd ask Council to maybe not qualify I don't understand see any scenario where they wouldn't qualify um the Restriction automatic removal the what lead paint removal if you're Renning that out you've got to get it out of there that's not a zoning measure but it's a building code measure exactly it's not a zoning measure but that's my point is it doesn't necessarily qualify as a rental unit but the state definition of a protected Adu does not speci specify that it's a rental it could be owned or not we just can't dictate that it can be owned right so it could be a do we have a mechanism to approve a dwelling unit as a rental no we don't regulate ownership we don't regulate so we don't regulate in terms of rentability we don't regulate ownership on and it doesn't matter right and and effectively renters in our community have no protections well they do through the rent the renters law and the Board of Health and yeah is their Advocate but I mean I think it's worth maybe asking Council if the bylaw should have a mechanism to convert laas to adus just procedurally I'm not sure we absolutely need one but I think you also need to continue to re recognize that we have laas 40a doesn't say that we can't have other restricted classes it only says that we have to have the unrestricted ones there you go I sawry miss no thank you um so number one uh the board is proposing to replace that particular section you certainly don't have to you could add a new section um at this point there might be some confusion and difficulty in drafting to do that but it's certainly possible um and that would take care of the issue of suddenly rendering adus that are not going to be existing adus that are not going to comply with the state definition rendering those non-conforming but one thing you want to keep in mind Devan had mentioned that as far as he's aware at this point all the existing adus by size would qualify as protected adus under the new state definition and one of the proposed drgs in the proposed state definition is that if there are any conditions that apply to those adus now under their special permits you cannot enforce those once the state law takes effect so it's essentially literally making them complying adus as long as they meet that size requirement to start with so to the extent that you want to deal with this at a later date once you have a better sense of what's out there that might make more sense it doesn't sound like it's going to have an immediate impact but it may it's it's just hard to say but that impact may be fairly small or may you know again if you can't even enforce the conditions that make them different than compliant adus then they may be for all practical Pur purposes identical so so it would make it more confusing to have both of them listed then because that's that's what I took from the the explanation in the slides is that any differences for those old one the lla the laas would no longer be enforcable no void and so that automatically essentially like you said if it meets the size requirement which I think all of them do because they were already under the size then they're technically already protected ad does state regulations say that you can't have housing that has restrictions or that you must have must allow housing that doesn't have restrictions there's a different there's a big difference here may I respond yes so the state regulation prohibits certain restrictions on adus one of those would be occupancy or occupancy by relatives or owner occupancy those are prohibited for these protected adus that's what that's all it says okay so but laas are not adus and we are permitting adus anywhere but Nancy I think based on the state definition of what an Adu is our laas as they've been built because they're the only the only definition from the state for an Adu is essentially an accessory dwelling unit under 00 Square ft or 50% of the the dwelling that's the only real definition of an Adu and because all of our laas meet that requirement they are already automatically considered a protected Adu where we can no longer enforce those restrictions so then do you need to put in this new bylaw a statement that says specifically that laas permitted prior to the date of this bylaw are considered approved as adus in other words specific grandfathering of all of those units thank you I I think what I've heard is that we don't need to the state law essentially says that unless unless the Building Commissioner deems that a particular laa um is over 900 square ft but then they wouldn't be an laa because our laas were right so so there'd be very few existing laas that became pre-existing non-conforming I think for clarity it would be good to put put a grandfathering counil has suggested is maybe let the dust settle let the final regulations come out and then adjust accordingly if need be okay because we may need to make additional adjustments depending on the regulations coming out anyway but of all of all the potential issues that the final regulations may include this particular one I I think is self-resolving because it's it's a fairly straightforward uh fact finding and like I said most of the existing laas by def definition and default will become protected compliant adus adus and couldn't since we already have the database couldn't we essentially be proactive from a town perspective andate to the owners of of those laas saying now classified and word will get out pretty quickly yeah but you need to do something you know a positive action proactive yeah proactive on it okay that's a good suggestion thank you hi folks again Robert ha 24th Lane um I know the regulations haven't been um uh stamped sealed and accepted yet at the state level and so I have uh just two questions on a particular property they may be exceptions to the rule but I'm just curious to know how they would be affected by Adu um and they're not my properties um uh if if a um conforming lot had a home on it and two Cottages pre-existing um can both of those become adus uh they're currently unconforming and not occupied but there is a relative living in each of those Cottages can both of those or just one of those provided their 900 or half of the gross become an Adu as you understand it only one can become a protected based off of what we're proposing to town meaning we're restricting it to one okay and odd question could one swap the primary and rebuild an Adu um which is barely livable now could one remodel the Adu and call it the primary and have the other then become the Adu which is a much bigger property as long as they because it' be the it'd be the 900 you still have to have that got it thank you um and how many can you have more it's a question of whether you'd want to or not but can you have more than three members living in an Adu can it be a family with children or is it kind of intended for maybe a couple and a couple only no restrictions there's no restrictions on that okay and I thank you that answers my questions you want presentation yeah um you you already have it right it's right on the screen yes yes um again I've submitted amendments to the proposed bylaw uh I'm I'm sure you guys have had a chance to read it um my name is I live Eldorado Road here sorry about that uh I also run a Facebook group which now has 80 members of the Town who are interested in adus some with more than others uh again you know the reason I put this presentation together I I I understand the town wants to comply I I also understand from observing the meetings that there's a great reluctance to change the character of the town okay but the the law is the law and the the objective here is to get the bylaws into compliance as much as possible with the with the laws and what we know of the existing state regulation which are in current draft form okay um and not just you glass over things so um if you don't mind Evan do slide three please go down again very simple what you cannot do is require for a protected Adu whether it's attached or detached any discretionary zoning approval for the use or rental it and use means use it as intended okay it's not how you would like it to be used how you would like it to be characterized it's to General Le you okay next slide please um if you don't mind number sorry my glasses on number six okay it's it's very simple that you know you you may have a legitimate thing hey you know what we don't want to have more people in school we we don't want to have this sorry number page number six sorry which which slide they're not numbered that number five the next one please sorry yeah basically protected adus get the difference in almost every case unless there's a extremely compelling Town interest which is Tien to override it okay next slide please and any design standards must be clear and definitive okay I've heard a lot of chatter about changing the character of the neighborhood the character of the neighborhood is already changed it's a two family neighborhood down okay that's the character of the neighborhood you cannot have anything that that weaks of neighborhood character next please next slide and again with regard to design standards you are allowed to have different design standard for an Adu for a protected Adu but only only in a historic district with the bolded caveat that it cannot be in any way so restrictive as to prohibit render infeasible or unreasonably increase the cost of a protected Adu okay so whatever design standards apply app to primary residences those are the design standards that apply to a protected Adu you cannot have in a non-historic district different design standards for a protected Adu and again any design standards are considered unreasonable if they are more restrictive height setbacks etc etc I don't want to go into details and again I don't want to looss over this I put three examples at the end of it if you don't mind going to the the last three slides uh well I took away from your meetings again setbacks you're allowed to have setbacks but the Adu and the primary have the same right to the setbacks you cannot say front yard because that's essentially neighborhood character if an Adu wants to be put in the front of the primary and meet the setbacks these must be allowed next please again height requirements if an Adu meets the height requirements in a non-historic district it must be allowed next and if an Adu needs access to the curb and meet the setback requirements it must be allowed you are not allowed to discriminate against a protected Adu except in very specific things that the state law and regulations allow and I'd like to get feedback from Council on that please I'll wait for the board to sure and I'm happy to have a discussion to have question so can I address one thing Evan can you go to slide eight of his presentation where it talks about the design standards and unreasonable regulations uh right there um so one of the things that we had talked about in one of our previous meetings is while you mentioned the the design standards um need to be applied for the ones that we would apply to a single family dwelling the key from at least from my perspective and we can get Town council's opinion but is the the blue box on the right for the guidance from the state are there design standards for other accessory structures like garages home office structures and our barns based on my reading of this it's we can apply design standards that we already apply to single family dwellings and their accessor structures and I think that's the key that we are working through um I think that we may find different guidance once the the final regulations come out but based on these slides that's how I read what you're looking at is bullet point what I'm saying is the regulations are actually on the left and and and what I'm saying to you is if you look at slide number nine please again this is the actual regulations which slide is that the next one uh yeah again this is the actual regulation these are comments okay what what what what it's saying is the actual regulations say but that only apply to dimensional standards uh the previous slide is applied to design standards standards it's a different so my my so until the final regulations are released what I've been going based on is the state's guidance both in the regulation and what they've provided as guidance additional guidance in those comments and um so that's how I've interpreted this and I would like to get based on our discussions prior I think Town Council agrees but I'd like to get his opinion today again the design standard would not be applied to a single family dwelling okay you're repeating yourself we're asking for Town I'd like to get town council's feedback on that because I understand what you're saying thank you yeah so I I agree with what the board is how how the board is approaching this um we have draft regulations um I think just looking at this one slide we can see that there is a strict interpretation of the proposed regulation on the left but then the commentary to the right which is coming from eohc suggests that there's a potentially um other less strict um interpretation of this and that was the interpretation Chris pointed out which is that um if the bylaw it does have designed standards uh for accessory structures to single family residences that those would be something that could um if you applied that to the Adu that would be reasonable now we don't know yet these this is clearly an area where excuse me the state is still working through this they've asked for comments I would expect we're going to get comments to these draft drags as to how they're going to do this um and if I may ask Town Council hold on a second so as far as dimensional standards I think we have sort of the same problem um it is say single family residential structures one of the issues though is that these are accessory to those structures and we're treating them as part of those structures and that's under zoning that's how accessory structures are treated they are part of the use so to say that you are applying dimensional standards to a single family residence you're applying the same standards to an accessory structure what if you have standards that apply to accessory structures a single family residential now can you apply those that's what we're looking at that's what we're suggesting we can do I think there's an interpretation of what's been proposed that we can do this that may not turn out to be true again we're in a bit of a gray area here but I think that is a possible interpretation and I think that's the direction that we as a board have discussed going for this initial draft and for this initial proposal until we get those final guidelines Guidance just as from an approach perspective I think we've heard um at least as long as I've been on the board considerable um feedback from the town about the amount of overgrowth so our approach or at least in my mind my Approach on this is Let's Be As conservative as we can be um when we're proposing new RS um and let's not open the floodgates on day one I mean that's what I have heard repeatedly from citizens of this town and they're not happy they weren't happy about MBTA they're not happy about the adus so we're not like we're trying to stay within the law um so while there may be differential in your interpretation versus ours we're relying on councel um and if we need to change we will but we want to be as conservative and protective of people's rights as we can under the law and that's why we're doing it in this manner okay um again I what I'd like to ask council is assuming and this is you I like your legal feedback that the the right portion was not there and only the actual regulations were there do you believe that the draft bylaw is in compliance with the left portion if only the left portion were there you you understand what I'm asking you but I have I have to take questions from the board I can't take directly so I have to ask for the board's permission to address things and the board may have an opinion I I I don't have that question personally I don't know about the rest of the board but I feel like these are guidance recommendations from the from in the state yeah I mean I can answer that question is that what you proposed if that blue box wasn't there yes you're right that would probably be more restrictive um but because that blue box is there and because it's from the housing office I'm considering that their initial draft guidance to planning boards and until we get those final regulations that's what we're going by but but where where are we even more restrictive Rel to dimensional more restrictive I mean the the wording on the left which which slide this one yeah design standards yeah the wording on the left the interpretation that he's he has is the design standard is for that single family dwelling not the accessory structures but given the fact that so the he's objecting to the two story that's that's not a design standard that's a dimensional standard well any of these standards that we're app again just to go back again dimensional standard you just you just said it you're trying to apply a different dimension it's exactly the same as what exists now it's exactly the same we're not treating it any differently we're not creating anything new these are the exact same dimensional standards that exist now we four primary resen and and and accessory it's right here it's right here in their guidance but Evan that's what that's my point is that the accessory the accessory buildings and the accessory structures that guidance is in the blue box to the right I know that's their guidance that's my point is that his his question was if that BL box didn't exist like your first slide says if you have questions you should go to the state and ask questions we're just trying to follow their rules they're the ones that provided the editorial comments we're not making any of this up they put it right in there setback for accessory structures we already regulate accessory structures so we're not we're not creating new dimensional standards was certainly not more restrictive and then just back to design standards we don't in I'll reference what council said I think you initially had you initially expressed um an opinion that we're not really none of our design standards are truly design standards in the sense that they're not architectural um they're they're more like site design standards not archit textural design standards distinction without difference it's all based upon how they Define these terms but I mean if you go to their design standards we're not doing any of this none of our design standards uh speak to um garages home offices historical design standards we're not telling people what it must look like what kind of materials right uh um and it's not we're not asking that it conform to the neighborhood or anything like that in our design standards yeah there's nothing but at the end of the day you may be you may be correct maybe this maybe the the final guidelines are very specific and talk about driveways and curb cuts and things of that nature well I have an email from you saying that they are design standards so well referring to them as design standards my point is maybe right here right now we have to to come up with a better a different term than design standards maybe they're because again you refer to them as design standards am I correct guidelines yes yes okay I feel like we're semantic but I'd love to hear what you have to say I make just one quick Point here the commentary is making a legal argument about what he wants to see in this bylaw and that's fine that's fair and what we've expressed is that there are more than one legal interpretation that's possible at this point that's what we he can still make an argument that as a policy matter he would like to see less restrictive standards that's fine he can make the same argument without making it a legal argument and say I think we should be more expansive in what we allow and they're certainly allowed to do that but as a legal argument I think we're you know at this point we've got more than one we're agreeing to disagree and I mentioned that to you in my email to you it's a fundamental uh it's a fundamental difference in interpretation will you be at town meeting yes okay just want to make sure thank you lucky you in the hope and expectation is that the State final state regulations clarify all of these points yeah and I guess we're going to be back in a month if we need to be we will yeah okay thank you thank you thank you okay so what what do you want to do with this public hearing do we have any other folks do anyone else want to speak on the matter of adus further um I would love a um motion if people don't several of us we'll give it to you first one is to close to first to close the public hearing I move that we close the public uh hearing motion by Mike second second by Anita all in favor unanimous okay second motion is recommendation from the planning board to town meeting um all right I make a recommendation um that the planning board um approve the recommend approval recommend approval um of the draft draft propose you byos article motion by Anita second by Chris all in favor I I unanimous okay recognizing that we're very likely going to be Revisited regulations get sorted right when we have more definitive information okay next up we have um a motion I mean we have a request for continuation without discussion of 65 dunable Road formerly known as 61 I shall move that uh we continue uh the hearing on 65 dunable Road formerly known as 61 dunable Road 2 when should we continue it to I believe they requested January 2 second can we do that yep okay second motion by Mike risb second by Anita all in favor I okay next we have these poor patient people from P Drive sorry guys something less controversial something completely different let just have some than happy Kumbaya moment I thought we in a good spot with this one all right you ready I can begin so for the record Casey Ferrero with Howard Stein Hudson um it's actually been a month and a half or so since we've been back here um we did in the meantime have a let's call it a joint working session between planning board conservation uh some of the abutters DPW fire department Etc uh that was on December 10th I believe um where we kind of Revisited the layout uh to to see what may be possible um to kind of uh assist everybody's concerns or alleviate to the to the best that we can everybody's concerns um so what you see before you is that plan fully engineered that we presented at the December 10th meeting um that that plan essentially went from a 14 uh spot parking lot at the rear to a seven spot parking lot at the rear um we are maintaining there's an existing strip of pavement at the front of the building excuse me uh we are maintaining that and creating four spaces out of that existing lot or out of that existing pavement um so that totals 11 spaces on the property um and then we are showing where you can I guess acceptably fit five parking spaces uh within the right of way uh it is important to note that we cannot stripe those parking spaces DPW and and the regulations will not allow uh spaces to be striped within the right of way um but we're just showing where we can fit safely um five parking spaces one of the requests of the fire department was to stripe out no parking areas um so that we are going to install no parking striping um where the uh apparatus needs to maneuver um another location and this was brought up by one of the abuts was for trash pickup uh we were striping out a no parking area in front of the trash pickup to ensure that nobody is blocking access to the front of that receptacle um we have done those turns and auto turn to make sure that the truck can get in there and the truck can safely and adequately get into that trash facility uh to remove it and and get rid of the the trash um and if they're striped that way what that means someone could like get their they can get their vehicle told like like what can they do like if someone's parked in one of the no parking zones uh it's similar to anybody parking in any no parking Zone in town somebody can call the police police can come review it and have the car towed if if necessary um it's more likely that they just approach the building and say you know move your car out of the no parking Zone but yeah they'll they'll treat it as if any other no parking Zone in town um I think what you'll notice Beyond on the the scope of the change in the layout that the drainage is almost exactly the same um I will note because one of Chris's concerns at the last meeting was to change the um curbing along the bottom side where we approach the ditch to Granite um we are maintaining that as Cape Cod for one reason uh because that is not a gutter line for the water so all of the pavement um slopes away from that curbing so even if that curbing was destroyed the water's not going to run off in that direction because it's a ridge line it's not a gutter line um so I don't think the the added expense of doing Granite there is really alleviating any risks so I'm maintaining curb uh Cape Cod curbing there can I just ask how the sloping where does the sloping of the that lot go sure I can point to it right so we have this um unit right here so start in the unit so this is a high point this is a high point everything slow this kind of second so it's going towards middle um sorry uh if you actually go to the next page Evan I just want to point out a couple things about the drainage so in in the reduction of space that the parking lot is going to take up we're actually able to um I know one of the previous concerns was the runoff from 106 turn uh not turn bike sorry tsoro Road coming onto our property and how that interplays with the proposed Pond uh well in this layout we're actually able to completely swail that away from the proposed pond so it doesn't interact with our proposed pond at all which is actually the preferred method for off-site drainage uh through the mastor water standards you actually don't want that going through your systems um so with this reduced layout we're able to take that Inlet Point from our property and move it away from the pond so that it can travel in its current condition without going through our Drainage Systems um so with that being and I can point out where that is so we have this Swale around the side of our of our pond so we have an inlet point from that property here so what we're doing is we're intercepting that before it continues into our pond and just allowing that to act on its own independently of our development um what that also allows us to do is our uh overflow wear of the pond instead of being pointed directly towards dunshire at this time we now have a point where we can pull it to the right and then it still has a path to get where it needs to go without directly draining towards the dunshire properties so Casey just to clarify so the water coming off that other property will essentially be diverted around towards that okay so our pond now is only responsible for what we are creating on our property um so that'll go to the wetlands the other one correct as it currently does go our mes through our proper into the wetlands um I will note however we're still maintaining the um the outlet from the pond that is a pipe Outlet as well um that does still go to the location it did before um and that is solely because the elevation that that pipe needs to hit we can't get that any further up without significant changes to the topography in this area and we don't want to create more disturbances than necessary so where that elevation needs to hit is is in the 99 area the only location that's found on our property is right down here so we have to direct that pipe towards this area question about that now that the now that the Overflow is pointing straight towards the Wetland this one here or this one that one is there a need for that other pipe so without this pipe letting out water slowly throughout time the only other way we could control the flow out is by massively upsizing this Pond okay so allowing water to slowly trickle out is what's allowing us to mitigate the expansion of okay this a roughly roughly what's the amount of volume that you expect to be coming through the pipe versus the Overflow or the rate either one so if you give me one second here out of the pipe itself through the 25 year the the I guess the bigger Weir which is on the right hand side is not used right um um so in let's say the 2-year storm we're at just under two CFS uh with approximately 6,000 cubic feet um which represent a reduction of about 04 CFS and about 90 cubic feet over the existing condition okay in the 10 year uh we're looking at just over four CFS which is a reduction of .12 CFS uh and a volume of 13,700 in change which represents a reduction of 82 cubic feet um so essentially what we're doing is we're mimicking the existing add conditions to the best that we can so that we don't starve the Wetland of water but we also create the quote unquote improved condition upon the existing um that is required as part of the design standards and so when you have like a 100e whatever that's primarily flowing through the Overflow right so it right it'll start through the pipe and then once it overwhelms the ability of the pipe to outflow it yes it's going to go into that um higher flow events are going to go off to the side down the so basically when you have a heavy rain really heavy rain most the water's going to be coming over that yeah Weir not through the pipe right that's good um over the sale into the S correct and then and then following the flow path down to the to the Wetland um beyond that um I will say so the one of the major concerns that we had with allowing part paring within the right of way um or I guess relying on parking within the right of way was what happens when the town calls a snowband for parking um you know this basically is in the event that they're expecting a heavy snowfall they don't want people parked on the side of the road to inhibit plowing operations um so what we've been able to do is we did maintain sort of a green space um behind the building and that was mostly because one of the requests of one of the Conservation Commission members was what are the kids going to do when this is built um we don't want to force them to go play in the in the culdesac we you know we're taking away all their Green Space so we added a green space behind the building but it actually acts on two fronts uh it can also be snowband parking so whenever you know the town calls a snowband we know that ahead of time the town gives uh you know notice ahead of time to allow people to move their vehicles once we know that we're going to designate that and that rear area there there's four parking spaces that the um property management company can facilitate for four people to park in um you know I'm going to leave the specifics of how they do that up to the property management company whatever is going to work for their scenarios um but we are providing the ability to park four cars at the rear and then one car in the front in a tandem parking type situation um so that that allows them in this you know how many times we have a snowband every year maximum Maybe five times um you know in these rare scenarios they have the ability to park on the site but we're not going to make them a permanent parking with the requirement of payment curving and all that stuff um can you refresh me where the snow storage is going sure so we show snow storage so I know one of the um just go down one Evan I know during the last meetings one of the abutters was talking about how you can't plow snow the opposite direction um I somewhat agree it's definitely doable but it is not the most feasible way to do it um so we did add a small amount of snow storage up in here most of the time what you're going to have in a low snowfall event is it's just going to be pushed to the curbs in every direction you're not going to need it's not a huge parking lot it's not a Kohl's parking lot it's not a Walmart parking lot you're not going to need massive areas to store the snow um in some events where you are going to need the space there is some space provided here uh in front of the pond and I'll note that that area of the pond is sloped to go back to the parking lot so once that melt it's going to go back to the parking lot and then be treated anyway so you're not going to get the snow melt directly into the pond um but we also have a note on the plan that says if the snow storage is exceeded and you cannot fit it on the site safely it must be removed okay um so any snow sto any snow event that creates an accumulation in excess of what the site can handle it's on the property it's the property owner's responsibility to safely remove it um and that's you know most no events aren't going to need that but I'm sure there will be some and who enforces that the building inspector I do not know could enforcements through the Building Commissioner okay um I had one more question I can't remember I'll have to think of it I had one question on the emergency spaces oh I know is that Grass Is it artificial turf is it it's going to be reinforced grass we provided a detail of it it's basically um grass underlane with stone to give it some rigidity so it's not going to basically rut under the tires H okay but it's still perious material my other question was the erass on the left side of the building eass on the left side isn't there an exit there on the left side yeah so there's there's stairways here and then a stairway in this area as well and is there any issues with that with safety and visibility of people exiting there into the driveway which is now going to be a thorough fair so I think we briefly talked about this at the last time um one of the asks was could we put a fence up or something I wouldn't want to put a fence up there because if you have a fence right behind the curve line you're just asking for the curb to end up being pushed out into the roadway just by the insulation of the um and then you're also going to be requiring this which I don't think that would be wide enough anyway to be a walkway to go this direction because you don't have that distance between the curb and the stairway um so I offered what we could do if the board would want is we could add mirrors to the fence that's going to be here to allow someone driving in to have direct uh sight line I guess into is someone coming down there and walk out um I think that would mitigate for the most part it's not like people are going to be driving 30 m hour down this um but if if the board feels that's necessary we can certainly add that yeah and maybe a speed bump well what the speed bump does it prevents water from draining across the oh you know speed basically have to go at a high point yep um just creates a blockage for flow yeah and problems with snow plowing Y and the plows some new problems I think I think the mirror is a good idea I mean you have that in Europe all every like all all over the place oh another thing I did want to add is we are maintaining the fence lines around the property there's one fence line that exists that goes that cuts the property we're going to have to remove that fence line and what we're going to do is use those removed panels to repair the existing fences in any locations that are currently in disrepair uh we can't currently commit to replacing the entire fence line cuz we just don't have a cost yet and we don't know what this whole thing is going to cost and what you know so what we can commit to is replace repairing the fence in place with the panels that we remov from the removed section okay I just want I just wanted to add one thing uh Kathy robbert before Pelle LLC um this exit is really for access to the basement um so uh it doesn't get a lot of traffic you know except for people coming out here in here to get to the washing machine in the basement um so there's not Heap loads of traffic that goes through there I see okay thank you it's not a major St standard access point that's good information to know for that clarification Casey one of the things that um I had mentioned in a prior meeting um is if we could put the snow storage and removal um information in the omm plan as well um yeah we will add that in thank you cool um any questions from the board well it seems about as good a compromise to a nasty situation as you're going to get um um should we take some public comment I had one more question for Casey um the you for the snow storage around the fence would it make sense to put signs inside the fence saying no storage inside the fence or something like that so that contractors don't sure push it against the fence and put it inside and mhm create a nice melting Pond yeah we'll find some kind of verbiage to get that across thanks how about if you come up and how about if we open to public hearing open a public is open comment or whatever um Michelle Caputo star weather 19 Sher drive and actually my question was to Casey cuz I couldn't tell where he was talking about those extra emergency parking spaces where are you talking about a tand okay which is the Green Space right okay okay thank you I just was reading it and I'm like is he talking about down at the bottom just didn't didn't really quite get it okay so when I left just before Christmas time I had the impression we were still going to have some trees and a little bit of wet LS like the buffer zone left and I don't really see a difference and I see every single tree except for maybe whoever's tree wasn't allowed to be cut down cuz it doesn't belong to payet drive um I don't see any trees anywhere I don't see any Landscaping I don't see anything and that is a concern for us the loss of the tree is a gigantic thing for us the loss of the Wetland buffer area I understand that there's a pond that's supposed to take that but we have a wetland buffer area and Wetland rules for a reason and so I was under the impression we were going to still have a little bit of that left and I don't see that at all so I'm not really feeling like oh there's a win-win here I'm feeling like man it's just a different loss so that's it thank you I be able to talk after yeah you can talk now if you want I can just address everything I don't know what you guys want okay so just to address that last comment um while the limit of work did pull in we also in hearing the request of the commission to allow that green space between the building and the parking lot that did kind of push us back out to near where we were before and then adding the sale around um in having to do the grading most of the trees were going to have to go away anyway because it's not like they were at the limit of the work where if we pulled it back a little bit they were going to be saved most of those trees were going to die regardless and they just happen to be kind of towards the middle of where we were proposing before now they're closer to the end of where we're proposing before but the same trees are going to have to go anyway and as part of just to I guess reiterate the conservation stuff you know we're still in front of them so going to have to meet all their regulations one way or another so conservation wanted the green space behind the building which pushed everything closer to the wetlands so one of the Commissioners was concerned cuz originally we showed the Revis parking somewhere up in this area was that now there's really no green space for any child to play when they had visited the children were playing and they were concerned about where these children going to go so they just requested that we find somewhere to just put some green space or keep some green space to allow a spot that the children could play without having to cross the parking lot or go out into the right way um it was you know seemed like kind of a compromise on their end to just maintain something for I mean I think it's important to note that it's the Conservation Commission that is as far as the concerns for the trees and the wetlands I mean the people who jurisdiction over that are large more over that than we do are essentially looking for this to move where it is so uh less we can say about that that is one member of them and we'll still present that to the rest of them and hope so they have not agreed they have not agreed to that we have not had a meeting with them yet to that's next week right that's next week okay okay okay okay one more she all right can you guys hear me um so s Fernandez 27 dunshire Drive can you pull up my email comments so just have I think there's been a lot of compromises there's definitely been some changes I still have some questions off some of the stuff that's here can you pull the microphone a little closer to you sorry or you closer to it can I pull it can you hear me better yes yes perfect all right yep um it's on it's attached to the fire department one they didn't separate it the second one there's one that was put up today she it was there earlier today it was with the second fire department con it was like the blue line yeah I sent an email to you it's the green one Evan that's it's listed there no he's yeah he's not on the right one no there's a there's a there's three here if you go online yeah you have it one two three what's that one must be you got to go can you go to the online yeah there's an update to the agenda today and go to the not the butter one because that's the old one that one yeah that one and then if you just scroll down so just some of the things that I just have a few questions on the first one is the No Parking being marked out the thing is is they're marking it at that right corner and right now the plan doesn't state that that's actually being painted so one of the requests is making sure that it does um but they're not marking the neck and what I did up here is I actually removed the areas that's not the road and it's extremely close up there so if anybody parks within the neck the firet truck won't be able to get in and out without an issue so and the thing is is when people are coming in here they don't know that they won't know that they can't park there they've currently been over a year parking perpendicular things like that if they Park perpendicular they're going to be within the area and I know that we keep on talking about the inability to be able to mark this because you know it's a caac we don't want to treat it differently but we've kind of proven here that there's a safety issue with this kvasac with people if they're not parking Within These five spaces so that's just a con concern of mine and they noted about the no parking area so I kind of have a request if it's possible to actually mark them out or add additional no parking zones along the road to make sure that the people are parking where they're supposed to that was my main my like main point there um the other thing is the people that do come in and do the maintenance for them all the time they come in with a big trailer and a Truck and they're always parking in there so you know if they're not parking those two spaces or the other it just could cause a problem with people responding so that was my question on that um the next section here they talked a little bit about the fire lane marking I guess my question is who maintains that who does it is this going to be something with like the DPW are they the ones that are going to come in and do it so it's the apartment complex's responsibility to make sure that these things stay um because it's a public way it just seems interesting the other the other thing here is I know they talked about the trash area on the next one um just the same drawing um you just stay on that drawing it's fine yeah it's fine there so that no parking area in front of where the trashes I did ask if there was sufficient access because they do have to come in on a straight line it didn't look like from the drawing that they actually could but the engineers said they can I'm assuming that that's you know correct but they do come in straight on um and like I wanted them to draw it I guess that was the thing on here to make sure it was on the drawing and again who's responsible for it it sounds like them I guess you can go to the next one we actually talked the Beyond one one looks like that we talked about the recycling last time so the recycling I added the two little green dots that's where they hold the barrels right now which is going to be adjacent to that parking space down below and you can see it in the picture to the left with this setup and if somebody parks within that area the recycling truck won't be able to come in and pick it up if they come in that way they honk their horn you know it's a pain in the butt and you know I thought they were going to put the recycling location the drawings via our last meeting but I'm not seeing it anywhere here so my request here is that they add recycling an area that actually can be picked up and make sure that it meets the Board of Health requirements for what the recycling should be for them the next section is a little bit about the snow storage we did talk about that he answered questions about it sloping inward but if you go towards the bottom there's a note on the drawing that says all snow to be stored at the edge of pavement I did hear them talk about that as well so it sounds like if they come in they'll push some of the snow up against towards dunshire drive direction in that area so just a little bit of concern if that's acceptable because that's where they're going to pile it when they run out of room they're not going to keep it up in that other area they're going to keep on pushing it towards the fence so if that's okay and let's see the last one was where is the snow going to go from those four emergency parking spaces is that also just going to be pushed towards the fence line again I don't know where that storage is going to be it wasn't stated and then he did talk a little bit about that outflow and why they can't have it not facing our neighborhood but I do know that it's still a major concern of our neighborhood of having the water running towards us so just still concerned about that and I think I heard them talk about the fencing the fencing is horrible I don't know what they're going to have left when they take out that other side for good pieces the thing's Fallen apart all over the place so the fact that they say that they're going to take pieces from that section and repair the other half they're falling over and it's open I zip tied the area near me just to hold it together because it was falling falling apart so I think that it should be a requirement that replace the fencing for this project it's kind of like what I have there thanks um as far as the recycling goes I kind of anticipate they're on wheel barrels anyway so they could just be wield near closer to the trash enclosure and then the recycling company will just have to be made to dispose of it properly um I don't necessarily know that that's a concern or an issue that I have um but you know we can show it on the plan they're just wield barrels is there enough space within that trash or the um the trash fence to put it within that area wouldn't say there's enough within the fence but we could definitely put it adjacent to it it's already a um we're going to be removing a lot of of that Pavement in that area because we still have to meet that requirement the prepos at the front there um but we could certainly find a spot up next to that the trash in the front there to to put it um where it's not going to be blocked by vehicles um it can be just right next to that no parking Zone um you know yes we're going to be responsible in maintaining all the line striping that comes as part of this the DPW has already said they're not going to be doing that um so you know if this is our proposal we're going to have to maintain it um Casey could you put that in the on M as well sure maintenance of the [Music] striping yes should take my notes out real quick um the other one of the other ones was the drain line that goes towards our properties you know again it meets the requirements there's less going there in the post condition as there is in the precondition so um you know while I understand you don't want water going towards your property it's still less water in the end than it was in the previous condition um and then as far as snow removal on the emergency parking spaces again the snowbands are ahead of time um it is more than likely that the cars will be parked there when it's snowing if it's not it'll be on the snow management company to clear that parking space you know you're not going to plow on top of the grass so they'll likely just hand shovel it or clear it in some other non-intrusive way because you don't want to destroy your property and in just clearing these spaces so it's more than likely just going to be hand shoveled over to the parking where then it can be plowed or removed in whatever fashion that they're doing that um I don't believe I'm missing an answer to any of the other questions but if I am please feel free to ask me Casey on the um bottom part of that um parking lot near on towards dun dunshire in the ditch what's the slope after that curbing is it so it goes up briefly um to maintain a flow path into the parking lot and then it goes down towards the fence line okay um so the down towards the fence line is I believe a 3 to one it's not it's not knot steep but it goes up just briefly creates a Crest and then it goes down towards the fence line would it be possible to put no snow no snow storage signs along that edge of the parking lot mhm yeah and I you know another thing that we can do too is provide within the omm in that snow storage section um kind of a map of red zones and green zones that'd be perfect anyone else anything else Amia kuto Stark weather 19 dunshire drive so I understand this is an awkward shaped lot that they're trying to shove a lot into and I understand there's limitations but like there's a smaller parking lot and a smaller Pond but they're still disturbing relatively the same area in their older one the edge of the parking lot was between 7A and 78a and it still kind of JS out like there's little patches they preserve and I get they're trying to preserve Green Space to obviously child safety but I was a child not that long ago children are still going to play in the street even if they're like there's no lawn obviously that's the only place they have to play but even with a lawn they're playing in the street now because they're play they're on bicycles rollerblading basketball you're not going to do that in a lawn and so I don't know if there's a way to compromise something to push that back a tiny bit more because there're still cutting down all the trees in the original larger plant it's like 16 odd trees the tree line is pushed back a tiny bit closer to 12 uh away from 12a than it was in the original thing but like it doesn't feel like they're reducing the foot footprint even though they have a smaller plan and I just don't know if there is something that can be done but it felt like if it was supposed to be smaller it was supposed to be less disruptive thank you like I said before the trees specifically that we marked out were not on the edge of the disturbance before they were more inward so even though we pull back the disturbance and there's also has to be an understanding that your limit of where you're physically doing something is not the limit that's going to kill trees there's a tree root system and you know if we have a tree that's 10 ft away from where we're going to be digging or where we're going to be stationing Machinery might not die immediately but it's going to die over time and you'd rather remove that tree in a safe manner than let it die and then fall over um so you know while yes the footprint of the development may be smaller that doesn't necessarily mean the effect is going to be smaller because of you know those reasons it also should be noted that everything beyond that and behind the Castor property there's still a ton of woods there's still a long stretch of Woodlands that continue on beyond the Wetland and through the back um so it's not like we're taking out half the trees that exist there we're taking out a portion of the trees that directly AB but where we need to put this um but there's still a vast amount of trees in Green Space that are part of the buffer zones that is part of the Wetland and that you know was going to remain undisturbed in that area um I actually thought of one more point that I did want to bring up and it's in how we reshaped this I think it's kind of important um before we had all the parking spaces aligned par perpendicular to here uh one of the things we thought about in reshaping this was allowing them to face towards our building and away from our building and that way headlights are not shining into the dunshire houses um we do have the fence there um but we did know that that was a concern an Express concern before um so you know it is important to know that we are keeping them in mind as much as we can um give them what we have I I have to say I would be much happier about this if it was a known fact that you were going to replace the fence with something that was um an improvement over the current fencing yeah I can talk with the owner about logistics of that and how that fits in um have you been out to the site to see the fencing I have I mean it's been a few weeks I mean I walked it with the owner after one of the last meetings personally I don't think the fence isn't that bad of there's certainly panels that are missing some of them um are like you know wooden strips of it of the stockade fence that are missing um that can easily be replaced without replacing the whole fence um I personally don't think it's in that bad of condition I'll go back and take another but you know I'd implore the board if you're going to require that then please go look at it and make that determination based on what's actually there I'll do that is there any space to plant and any replacement trees so one of the prior offerings was planting kind of a screening tree along the curb line between the dunshire properties and the parking lot um we didn't end up doing that because we don't need the screening anymore um if you want them as a replacement for the existing trees you know I can talk to them about that as well um but again we're trying to keep this as least cost inducive as possible yeah just given the scenario um people feel like we're ready to yeah I I just want to say that I while it's still not ideal um I don't think it ever will be it's certainly in my opinion a vast improvement over the prior um plans and I think the neighbors the town and the applicant and the engineer uh for coming together and um coming up with this this compromise um compromises usually everyone wins and loses at the same time and I think this is one of those cases where it would be great to have more green space um more trees but then moving that parking lot we would lose the emergency spaces so I think I think it's a good compromise um all of the concerns that I had are being addressed in some form or another so yeah I agree I think it was a good together but it's still has to go in front of the conservation correct correct so they may um because there was only one person who said they wanted the green space for there's two people at the meeting two of them two of them it hasn't gone to the whole the green space Also serves as emergency parking so if you take out the green space then you create a problem with the emergency parking if it was just Green Space it'd be different but just procedurally are you guys contemplating closing and voting tonight or Chris were you looking for the revisions to be submitted in a draft decision available for your next I think in keeping with our standard process that we've been following I'd like to see the revisions first um but in general I don't have any other concerns that would need to be addressed with that in mind could we have a draft decision for the next meeting I certainly have ample time for that you know presuming that you know I think Chris's changes are minor enough that we could certainly include them and then you know provided we get them to you in a timely manner and you can review them I'm hoping that all the revisions that the board is contemplating is presented tonight so that I have time before the next meeting to do it yeah and I think for special conditions the ones that we've already listed in terms of the yeah and many of those will be in a revision any why don't you continue going around the table so we don't get too far ahead of ourselves all right so Mike well I'm fine as I said and I I tend to agree with Chris and this is about as good as we're going to get out of a difficult situation I'm satisfied John I agree I think that that the revised design was a good compromise that came out of that meeting the working group um I would like like you I like to visit the I would like to see the fence um you know with my eyes uh because I would like I think that's not too much to ask that a property owner keep the fence in good working order otherwise it's not doing what it's intended to do if it's falling over so I would I would like to view that with Joel I agree with John I agree with what has been said and I don't have any any new to add um I agree with um John and your point about defense I I agree I think you know this point it's small incremental dollars to put that in Chris pretty much said you're I think I'm no I'm pretty much in agreement um I haven't been out to the property had to check it out but um would like to get out there and check up the vence to see because it should be something that's maintained by the property for um The Neighbors on dunshire um you wouldn't want to see that destroyed um making sure the snow removal is not pushed up against the fence because it's only going to create more damage and interfere on their property and I kind of agree with the neighbors uh if you're taken away all the trees it does change a lot it also changes um some how water is absorbed and moved around the trees do a lot of that to take some of that excess water and flow it in there it'd be nice to see a way of keeping some trees in there for them um and to help out with that I know that's more on conservation but okay I would be curious to see what they have to say about the plan yeah next week and I will so just you will we'll take a motion just to before you take a motion to continue it sounds like the planning board is prioritizing the four emergency spaces in the back that's a critical design element for you I can't see a way around it yeah reason I'm I'm highlighting that is that I think you should authorize or direct Chris to specifically say that to the commission at their next meeting because what likely will happen is the neighbors and or Commissioners will prioritize less tree cutting mhm and the only way to achieve that is to eliminate or Green Space right which then gets so at some point at some point one Board needs to take the lead on a particular priority otherwise there's conflicts right this may be a good scenario where the planning board prioritizes you know one design element over over all the others it's kind of Lynch Penny unless someone can design a different way of for emergency space CU otherwise I think you're likely to get the commission or or right now yeah right I think that makes sense requesting a motion to continue I move that we continue until January 22nd January 22nd second motion by Mike rck second by Nita all in favor unanimous all right we still have a rather full docket while it's 10 p.m. I don't know if we want to push any of this yeah it's getting late the the only item I I need for a time sensitive is new business number two um it's essentially the consultant who's working for the town on the um Gap analysis wants to know if the initial engagement with the planning board um is your preference a subset or the full board the second the second engagement is with the full board but he's asking uh if the planning board um desires a subset or a full board engagement as part of the first step I think for efficiencies might be better with the full board because it wasn't having me to repeat everything to the full board he didn't have a strong strong opinions either way I just find that sometimes if you meet with the subset then the next meeting you have to kind of explain re explain everything right and it pushes everything out yeah so you might just start all of us call it a day yep and I can go through the bylaw changes pretty quickly to review them and we don't have to decide on them tonight but I can give you a quick overview that'd be great yeah um so the bylaw changes um related to the AG's office uh feedback after the MBTA zoning uh submission um really focused around two major areas uh one was the definition of that we use in town for zoning um based on the AG's uh feedback that it might run up into some legal uh problems if uh challenged in the future and then the second one was around the special permit criteria um I guess it's not a legally valid criteria for discretionary zoning approvals to have um a criteria related to the the need for additional school facilities um interesting didn't realize that um that is the only Town service impact that cannot be um considered as a criteria interesting um so uh given that um the Attorney General suggested we strike that specific language from our zoning so I look through our zoning and um found all of the areas that might relate to this uh to either of those two and gave the sections in this document highlighted the changes that I would propose um there were a couple sections that seem to be related but are don't look like they're going to be needing any changes like 19513 conver conversion of dwelling units it talks about families related to single family dwelling but we're not really talking about the family unit itself so those don't need to be changed um and then the other place where we use the term family for a family unit um is in the LA laa um zoning which is going away anyway so um so my proposal is essentially updating the zoning based on my highlighted changes yeah pretty basic and pretty minor changes do we want to put those on this warrant yeah yeah for Springtown meeting not do these I would do these and then U flood plane which I'm going to be bringing back to you and we're targeting that for spring as well yep okay so if people have questions or comments they look look sensible to me okay I look at the AG all about don't then we can finalize when we talk about the spring meia anybody had any it's coming right around the bench on another subject is anybody had any commentary on the Webster decision today that came down so I read through what I've read the thing I read it um I think that because the law was upheld um and just the implementation of it uh I don't think we'll need to be changing anything I don't think we will but it's interesting basically what the SJC was doing was saying look guys this is the law but we found a good excuse to let you wait another six or nine months and get it right before the AG comes and clobbers you yeah that's how I took that's that's exactly what it was but I think they learned their lesson and did the Adu laws differently so that that's not going to happen thew see that the Adu laws it was fascinating but I've I've got a feeling they're going to take this opportunity to look at those guidelines again yeah and make a few tweaks make a few tweaks and maybe make it more like the Adu implementation that's exactly what they're going so we may need to go back to yep our zoning maybe not depending on what those are well I think we were pretty close so um make a motion to adjourn can I make a motion to adj want to just do the minutes minutes right make a motion to approve which minutes minute uh meeting minutes 121 second motion by Anita second by Mike R all in favor I I I make a motion to approve minutes from 127 second motion by Nita second by Mike reck all in favor I unanimous make a motion to adjourn second I all in favor I see just in time my e e e