Good evening. It is 7:00 on Wednesday, June 24th, and I'm calling this meeting of the Chelmsford Planning Board to order. My name is Chris LaValley, and I'm the chair of the board. Tonight we will be following the posted agenda. This meeting tonight is both in person and via Zoom. If Zoom fails at any point in
the meeting, we will continue in person. The meeting is being televised live and recorded by Chelmsford Telemedia and will be available on their website and YouTube. Tonight we do have Saritha missing and Deirdra will be late and likely joining
by Zoom if she joins. Um So with that, we will get started with public input. Uh public input is limited to statements from the public to any issues within our jurisdiction that are not currently the subject of a public hearing before us.
Public comment on any public hearings can only be heard during those public hearings. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak? Yes. If you could come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. >> So long as it's not on the agenda.
>> Yes. >> Yes, good evening. My name is Lori Kinney. I am a resident of 10 East Randall Road up on Riverneck Road in Chelmsford, Mass. And >> about the zoning for Riverneck? >> about the zoning. So I don't know if you want me to wait. >> during that session. Yep.
>> All right. Any other members of the public wish to speak? Anyone on Zoom? All right. We'll move on. So the first thing um wanted to do tonight is confirm the meetings that we're going to do for July and
August so that we know when we need to continue things to. >> [snorts] >> Um I know right now we have uh 210 Boston Road neighborhood meeting scheduled for the 8th of July.
We have uh Lady Slipper project that is requesting a continuance until July 22nd. We have Evan and I worked on the timelines for the public hearings for the zoning
and we'll likely need to do two public hearings for both for the zoning public hearings and we'll probably have to do those in August. Um if we need a third one we can go into September but we can't go too late in
September. So given that I think we're going to need both meetings in July and both meetings in August. Unfortunately. >> See you lobby. >> Is there anyone who can't >> [laughter]
>> Is there anyone who can't make the two dates in July and August? >> I won't be here the 22nd. I'll be in Ireland. >> July 22nd? >> Yep. >> Okay. Um >> can zoom in? >> [laughter] >> I'm going to be on a boat or something. I don't know. I got to check the times. I can try to
zoom in but I got to look at what the I didn't book the trip or any of the things I got to figure out where we will be at that time. >> Everyone else should be able to make all four of those? >> As I can tell. >> What? >> No commitment. >> Can't commit. [laughter] And I have heard a few places that we're staying has really bad Wi-Fi.
>> [laughter] >> Download maps, download this. >> All right, so >> a meeting since I joined. >> We will have all four meetings July and August as long as we don't have any a lot of people out for any of the meetings we should be okay.
Okay. Moving on, administrative review. 61 High Street A&R. If you could introduce yourself and tell us about the A&R. >> Good evening. My name is Steve Ballard from Haley Ward.
I'm representing the owners of 61 High Street. They have an existing almost two-acre lot that they are subdividing into two lots with frontage on High Street and on Lilac Lane. Both lots meet the frontage and the area
requirement for the zone. >> Any questions from the board? Looks pretty sane to me. I did have one question on the application. On question 12, frontage required
on a public way or on a plan approved and endorsed by the board. >> Well, they have it's both. >> Okay. >> Lot two has frontage on a way endorsed by the board. >> I'm sorry. >> It's not public. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Yep. >> [snorts] >> No other questions? All right, I'll entertain a motion. >> I would move that we grant the [clears throat] A&R for uh Let's see, precise address here. Uh
with no determination as to zoning. >> Motion by Mike. >> I can that. >> Second by Marcy. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Unanimous. Thank you very much. >> I'll recuse myself for the next one.
>> Okay, Anita's recusing herself as a butter on the next one. So, next up we have 29 Gorham Street. >> [sighs] >> And I believe >> Good evening. Jed Haney with the Atlantic Coast Engineering. Can everybody hear me okay? I'm on Zoom. >> Yes. Yes, we can.
>> Okay, great. Um >> [clears throat and cough] >> So, the application you have uh, before you that we submitted is for 29 Gorham Street. We are representing the owner. Um, >> [clears throat] >> there's an existing dwelling on the the
main property and then there's uh, three properties at the rear as you see on the plan um, that each standing alone don't meet the minimum zoning requirements
and they're really not being used at all. Um, so the owner owns these other three lots and would like to utilize these these lots and and combine them into one lot. Um, so that's the intent of this ANR application. The
um, the access to these three lots is from the driveway at 29 Gorham. Um, and so that's really it. It's very straightforward uh, application. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you.
Any questions from the board? All right. I will entertain a motion. >> I move that we uh, grant [clears throat] the ANR uh, for the Gorham Street lot with no determination as to zoning. >> Motion by Mike.
>> Seconded. >> Seconded by Marcy. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Unanimous. Um, and Deirdre and Anita are not in that vote. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Have a great day.
>> You too. All right. Moving on, there are no public hearing, no new public hearings. Um, one continued public hearing, uh, 9 Lady Slipper Lane and they have requested a continuation
without discussion until our meeting in July, second meeting in July, which is the 22nd. >> All right. Well then, I will move that we grant a continuance [clears throat] to July 22nd on the 9 Lady Slipper Lane. >> Motion by Mike.
>> Second. >> Second by John. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. [clears throat] >> Unanimous. >> She forgot she had to vote this time. I forgot. >> [laughter] >> All right. Moving on.
All right. Now we are on to the Riverneck Road neighborhood discussion. Um so the way I want to start tonight, if I can find my notes,
>> [snorts] >> is to have Anita go through um the >> changes >> changes in the slides. >> I'm not getting up though. >> since [snorts] last time. Um
I think we have a few things to discuss tonight. So I'd like us to discuss them as a board. Um and then we'll take uh public comment questions of that discussion and then have any
other discussion amongst the board that we need to determine anything else. Okay? >> All right. So the first two slides, Becky, if you can go down. I don't think anything changed on here. So those I don't think we need to discuss.
Then the current zoning for this is where um the Marcucci building is. Um if you go on to the next slide. So I highlighted in pink where I changed things. Um I still have everything um
for Monmouth and McFarland as RB. I There's been some emails going back and forth regarding that one property in Monmouth in Monmouth Monmouth. Um, about whether it should be RB versus P. I We've gotten emails from people saying
they want RB, other people saying they're P. I've just put it in as a P there. We should talk about it. And then there was some discussion at the last meeting about that open lot, whether that should be RB versus CB light. >> The open lot? The >> across by next to up on the paint
>> Oh, the um residential >> The wooded [clears throat] lot that originally was We had put in for CB light next to the Mercury. >> Yeah. >> Um, at the last meeting someone brought up whether that should be used for housing. It's a big parcel.
It's a big parcel. >> lot next to it, too. >> the little house lot next to it. >> Okay. >> Now, do we So, should we stop here and talk about this first? >> Yeah, let's let's quickly have a discussion on the Monmouth lot first.
And then we can talk about that um Riverneck one. So, on that small Monmouth lot, I did speak to the Conservation Commission yesterday at their meeting.
And they did say they don't have an interest in taking that on. Um, it is too small and too isolated from any other uh wetlands or wooded areas. So, they would have no interest in taking it over. However,
uh David Coons did say that if the town did want to protect it, that there is a path for a deed restriction on it if the town wanted to do that. We would have to check in with town council first and then it would
likely need to go to um town meeting. Um if we wanted to go that way. So, I think if we did want to protect it and put it as a um public land, that would probably be the path we would
want to take. However, um we did get an email from the one of the abutters and the after a discussion with both of those abutters to that lot, they did say that they wanted they would
prefer to leave it RB and not do P. So, what are people thinking? >> One question I had was if it's if it's public, then and currently the town owns it,
then who is essentially the one who decides what happens with that piece of property? I'm looking at you because I think you have a good idea. >> So, it's it was it was acquired [clears throat] way back in the '80s as a tax possession, which means it was foreclosed by the town for non-payment
of taxes. And for some reason or another, it has remained in that state since that time. It was not on an inventory of um foreclosed parcels that I inherited when I became treasurer. And many times in the in the town, parcels that were
foreclosed in the '60s, '70s, '80s, at that time it kind of predated the computer age, um you know, it's not uncommon for those parcels to stay in that remain in that state. And if an abutter approaches the town, it's interested, then we would go through we have to go through a public
process to sell it. Um in a in the in formally before 2024, it would typically be a public auction. Um and you could also do um typically like a sealed sealed proposal type of arrangement, but it has to be
open and fair to all to acquire it. Um for parcels that are foreclosed after 2024, as strange as it sounds, you have to now have a a licensed real estate agent um work with the town to sell it. So, I believe because this is we can check with counsel, but I I believe
because this was foreclosed so many years ago, it would be sold at a public through a public process. >> it's zoned P, does any of that change or is that all still >> I believe most likely it's zoned P because it's it's been owned by the town
since the '80s, acquired and that, you know, for nonpayment of taxes. >> if it was zoned P, somebody could still come and want the town to sell it. >> [clears throat] >> But >> Yeah, we I mean, we've been approached for small parcels in North Chelmsford. I think one over here off of Billerica
Road, where private after conducting an auction or an RFP, private parties purchased it. >> But they they were zoned P? >> I would have to go back and look at the zoning, but >> that seems odd. I mean, does the does does the P designation only belong to
land owned by the town? In which case, if the town sells it, >> We need it to be RB. >> What's it >> Yeah. >> What's its designation? >> I think if the town ends up selling it, it would need to go back to the something on P zone. >> Yeah, that's what I would imagine, and I
don't know what that zone would be. >> But I think if there's no indication that the town would want to sell it or the neighbors wouldn't want the town to sell it, >> Yeah. >> we would want to designate it P and look at protecting it. But I think if there
is a desire to eventually sell it or if the neighbors want it sold, then I think we would want to look at residential. >> Yeah, and from a like a like, you know, like if someone approaches and it's owned P,
like and the conservation doesn't want this property, right? Like it's not under conservation, then the town is obligated almost like, you know, from a, you know, revenue perspective, I mean, they should be selling it, right? Like it's Yeah.
>> not necessarily. I mean, we could they the conservation commission wouldn't want to put it under their purview, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't want to protect it. If the town wants it protected, then we would want to go through the
ConCom would work with town council to look at a deed restriction, um and that would go to town meeting. >> And who's responsible for upkeep on this? >> Yeah, that that that goes back to my original question, which is so
if as a as a P parcel under the town's, you know, that's owned by the town, who is it in the town that is actually deciding? Is it maintained? How is it used? How is it whatever? Is that DPW? Is that or is it just basically shelved away and nobody's really paying any
attention to it until such a time? >> I mean, there are other parcels like that that are, you know, isolated throughout town. Um typically, most likely we would not hear something unless a tree fell possibly onto an abutters land and then we'd have to contact DPW and you know, if the if the abutter wanted the tree removed or
something, but my understanding [clears throat] when I spoke to the conservation after the agent after the last meeting, he said he was going to do a site visit and look at the property. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And >> So, so it is >> There are a couple of entities in town [clears throat] that can hold and manage interests to
land. ConCom is one of them. Believe it or not, so say agriculture commission. >> Well, >> They're hard to find out know you would do with a lot like this farming, but uh there may be some others. >> Yeah. >> Or land trusts maybe. >> There's a land >> Yeah, right.
>> Yeah, land trust. >> Yeah, I Yeah, my I have a concern there's a lot of invasive type of shrubs and trees. Um you know, I bought 29 Gorm which has been the backyard has been
not taken care of in about 10 years. And those like they do those invasive type of trees just kind of grow onto like you really need to like that could be, you know, kind of grow out of control and go onto the neighbors and yard and stuff. And I've seen it on my
street. And only that's only been 10 years, right? Like it's kind of like who like >> Yeah. >> Who who's going to be taking care of it if it's public? It'd be nice if maybe there's they can make a small little playground for the neighborhood or something like that.
If I don't know, like >> We can look into it with council, but my also I wanted to mention that because it was acquired as a as a foreclosed parcel, it would also really need to be brought before the select board because as in my under my hat as treasurer
collector, I'm also considered the tax title custodian which means I'm responsible for the disposition of these parcels, but I also need to obtain the approval of the select board to sell it. >> Mhm. >> Or or whatever we're going to do with this parcel, so
>> Mhm. >> My inclination is to leave it RB for now. And then John can speak to the select board. If the select board wants the town to keep it,
we can eventually through a process with deed restrictions and figure out who would >> Yeah. >> take it over, then change it to a P >> Yeah. if if the town really wants to keep it. But I think the >> like got together and say they formed a
committee to like create, you know, kind of like a I don't know, like, you know, like how we have in East Chop so we have that one small little playground, right? To fundraise and say like would if like say they said let's turn it [clears throat] to a playground for our neighborhood, right?
They could come up with a plan and approach the town with it. Then we can always bring that to >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> the town meeting afterwards. >> But I think keeping it RB for now keeps all of those options open. >> Okay. >> Including selling if if >> I was actually went to the other side
and I was I was more favoring making it P because I think that's that's the best path to protecting it. Um because if it's RB, somebody could look to acquire it and even though they couldn't build on it, they could still use the property. They could still pave, I would think. They could still put
something there. I mean, the only reason I know this is because and I don't know if you were sitting in on some of those or not, but on 110, there was a little strip and the only reason that we're familiar with it is because we certified some vernal pools there. And uh it's it would we always assumed, well, no one would ever develop it
because it's uh very small. It's you really can't build on it. But yet someone is using it. Uh you know, do it lay down some gravel. Uh have a storage They have a storage shed there that they use. Stuff like that. >> That's true. >> And so, you know, there is there are
uses that I mean, when we discussed it in in the last hearing, we were just talking about could somebody build there or not? And uh but there's other things that you can do with the property that are not building a structure, but are nonetheless could be considered perhaps something that the abutters wouldn't necessarily want. And
so, that's [clears throat] why I was thinking going to P helps sort of protect it for now and then it's the the step that needs to happen to the hurdle that needs to be cleared is to rezone it back to something residential. and so it just makes the easier path for
protection through P, a more difficult path to to then reverse it back to residential use for some some purpose like that. >> You've convinced me. >> [laughter] >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Anyone else thoughts on that?
P? >> P it is. >> All right. >> P. And what about the RB neighborhood? >> Yep. We're getting there for the the proper two properties on Riverneck, the large wooded one, and then the smaller
one with the the residence on it. Thoughts on those? >> I mean, my only issue with that is the same issue that I had with the small parcel now also adding in the other parcel is that we're we're looking for creating contiguous zones, and now we're
essentially creating potential we're inserting a potential conflict because now we're inserting a residential potential residential between two CB light parcels. And as much as I I like the idea of of potentially using that for residential,
it's the fact that it's between two CB light uses is what concerns me a little bit. Now, I know that we have thought about CB light as being the transition zone, and so that kind of murky makes a little bit murky, but just creating these little
pockets of zones along this to me seems like >> Yeah. >> you know, which is part of the same reason why I think we're one of the reasons why I think we're interested in RB versus RC for Monmouth and for McFarland is that we didn't want to create pockets of RC here, RC there, that sort of thing. And so that's the
that's been my main concern with that. >> So, I was thinking about this, and I agree with you from like a that's what we were talking about continuing, but it's a wooded like it's wooded now. So, if something with CB light they would have to cut everything down
and built something on there, right? And it's a nice acreage. I think if someone was going to build on it and cut it down, I wouldn't mind seeing single family homes. You know, that we here keep hearing there's a
housing shortage. I think newer homes, you know, would, you know, increase the value like just around it. They kind of like elevate it versus you know, another office building or
something else. I think we have an opportunity here if someone were to buy it, develop it into single family homes, they would you know, they could um would it, you know, substantially, you know, around I would assume around the highway, do something
with that for the noise. Noise. I just think it would like it would almost elevate that whole area with new fresh homes cuz this you know, if you think about it, this area is very old [clears throat] and you know, it has smaller homes and stuff like that versus if someone came in and put like a small little office building.
Um I don't know. I think like just to protect that. >> I think though that if someone were to put single family homes there, it would be a fairly large subdivision. And then we Yes.
>> want to let you know Dieter just joined. >> Oh, thank you. Um I think it would be a fairly large subdivision. And it would end up getting clear cut anyway. >> But even so, I'd rather have see like I
think a even a large subdivision with, you know, acre lots cuz that's what RV is, right? Um newer homes will elevate that area versus it getting clear cut and putting in
a small little, you know, brick building office building. And and and you know, I mean obviously I would love for it to just stay wooded, like I think everybody would, but in reality I think I would prefer seeing,
you know, a road going in with a nice subdivision. And I would be okay with breaking it up because, again, Riverneck Road is all broken up. >> But we're trying to change that. >> I know. I know, but [laughter] but you know, I like I would So I was just [clears throat] thinking about like
what could go in there, right? And again, like, you know, like the machine shop is a brick building, we got Mercury, the old Mercury buildings um are brick. If you continue up Riverneck Road, we have like a warehouse type of
building, green, ugly, you know, like I'm like, do I want to see that or do I want to see a bunch of, you know, nice new homes? >> Right. Well, CB >> And and we have a housing shortage, so I'm like, well, maybe we should do something like that. >> So say a say odd would apply to that property if
it's CB light, would it not? >> Yes, so say odd you could introduce housing um through that. So >> You do a mixed use in that area. >> Yeah. Yeah. So that would be one way that you could accomplish housing and still be CB light. >> But that would be mixed use would not be
single family homes. >> Correct. Correct. >> That's Again, I'm I'm >> They could make them look like single family homes. >> Yeah, [laughter] but we don't have control over that. That's all I'm saying, like I would >> realistically there likely very few single family
homes being built. >> Yeah, they're all duplexes now. >> From a financial perspective, >> if we don't zone it, they're not going to build it. And this is one of the few lots that are like that could be redeveloped. >> Yeah. >> That's all I'm saying. Like we've
built a lot of multi-families in this town. Now we have an opportunity to add a new single-family neighborhood. >> Other thoughts? >> I just joined in. I'm I'm all for maybe making it a village, small village community.
>> So you'd be in favor of RB? >> No, I'm talking about making a village community like we've talked about with our missing middle. Small single-family structures that are clustered. >> So like the center
village. Like I think you had mentioned that before, right? Using a center village kind of concept in other places. DiPietro? >> Yeah, I'm thinking about something like the cottage colony. Um there's one in Wells, there's one in in Westford.
They're like small structures. Um there was things like it on our missing middle for our um MBTA. Like conceptually, we don't have anything like it in Chelmsford.
>> Yeah. >> Didn't we have something off of Turnpike that was similar? >> [clears throat] >> I don't >> I don't know who. >> I think so. >> I remember the discussion. I don't remember what we did. >> we talked about it cuz John had brought something up about it at one point.
>> Yeah, we don't have a zone for that. >> Yeah. >> So we couldn't [clears throat] zone it. >> Yeah. So. >> But if it's RB, then they could come in for a special permit to build something like that. Or variance.
>> I mean, I would like to find a way that we can attract that sort of a development, and I'm not quite sure what the best way is. >> And I'm not I mean, this parcel is only 5 acres, I think. >> It is. >> Just over 5. >> Yeah.
>> So, it >> I say in RB, doesn't it have You can only put five houses there? >> Yeah. >> Very [clears throat] likely. >> Yeah. Or fewer, because you'd probably need a the road. >> Yeah. >> So, um All right.
Thoughts? We need We need a direction on this. >> It's tough, cuz we wanted to make it contiguous, but I I I agree, I kind of like to see that for single-family homes. >> Yeah, I just >> It's It's very It's a tough
>> If it were a larger area, >> Yeah. >> I would definitely want to go for that, but it's only 5 acres. I think you'd only get four houses on there. >> Yeah. >> I think what Chris is saying, even if even if they are large homes, I mean,
and you built four million-dollar homes, I don't know if that's doable financially to for that size site. >> Yeah, but they're four homes with four ADUs to it. So, it's really eight. >> That's not going in a good direction.
>> I know, [laughter] but but that takes care of of eight. >> have a point there. >> Right? Like, they can build four, you know, single-family homes with an ADU, and now you have eight, and you have your little village. Deidra, [clears throat] taking care of you there. >> [laughter] [cough]
>> All right, let's table that one for now. Since I'm not seeing a lot of strong opinions other than Anita's. >> And mine. >> And Joel's. >> I'm I'm pretty CB light. >> You're You're sticking with that one? >> I am. >> Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you,
but but not very strongly. >> [laughter] >> That's the most I can hope for. >> John, which way are you leaning? >> It's got maple trees. >> Usually we could just turn it into a daycare. >> I mean, I I did speak about the village concept before. I didn't identify specific
parcels. I think we'd almost have to It That kind of complicates it cuz we'd have to We'd have to create a new zone for If we're going to do um Excuse me, not village, cottage style development. Um If you want it to be contiguous, I guess I'd have to lean CB light at this point,
but >> Anita, I know which way you're leaning. >> Yeah, but I mean, next week I might change, but for >> [laughter] >> Marcy, which way are you leaning? >> I don't know. I could go both ways. I mean, CB light's not too bad. I do like the RB.
So. >> Okay. Deirdre? >> I I I think we need to think about this more. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I think I would like RB um or residences there, but realistically even if it were zoned, I don't think
it would be financially feasible to put single family even with ADUs [snorts] there. >> Yeah, but here's the other thing though, too, right? Like you know, someone We have You have CB light. One of the buildings is not
occupied. What if that building was occupied right now. >> One of them is, not the other one. >> Yeah. >> All right, the one that >> 190 I forget which way the numbers run now. >> It's uh 201 that's occupied. >> 1 uh 199 >> is occupied. Yeah.
>> 201's the left one. >> Right. >> All right. Which one's occupied? The right or the left? I thought the left was. I thought the left one was by the between the CB lights that >> I haven't Yeah, I was just saying I haven't visited both, but I was at a ribbon cutting at the building on the right. It was a small It was a company
that's a a tenant. They don't own the building. It's a small audio visual company on the right. >> Yeah, it's on the right. So, it's So, it's 199. >> That one. Okay. >> So, it's 199. >> Yeah. Again, like having these two office buildings on this road
happened a long time ago and I don't know what they were thinking with the little connector. Um but they kind of stand out as a sore thumb, right? I'm not saying like but at some point someone may own that. Like we have one
of the parcels that's RB. And someone buys that part, you know, that parcel now. And they they may come back to us and say, "Hey, change this one from CB light to RB. And I'm going to develop this whole area for single family homes."
And yes, like the prices today may not make sense, but I also remember a time when the old with the cross point, the old Wayne building went for $500,000, right? Like no one bought it. And it was It like
What I'm saying is the economy in the dynamics change and the market changes. So, if we have this as one if that one parcel is RB that may encourage a developer looking at that whole area.
>> Okay. Let's table that one for now. Are there other changes >> All right, so let's >> slides? >> Um yep, so let's go down to two slides. That's the current and then we'll go down to the other one. Um
So, we talked about We have that one parcel um So, let's do the Walsh where we have that those um campers parked near the East East Township water. Um I changed that to CB light.
I kept the small parcel with the house on it as RB cuz that's what it is. I'm not sure whether that should like do we do that that way or can we do it that way? I want to do it that way, that was just a thought. Um
Trying to keep what's on there like zone what's on there correctly. Um >> Mhm. >> And then I believe the parcel um that the other gentleman across the way by the pigeon >> Mhm. >> Um
one that CB light. >> As an example, both those properties we had the um owners up. >> Right. >> So, and they were question like we told them to take a look between if it's CB light or how this might >> Yep. >> affect them. So, I'd definitely like to hear from them. >> Are Mr. Walsh or Mr. Perrin here?
Uh Okay. >> Okay. >> Um >> Okay, well, that's good. >> Could we We last meeting we had asked you guys to take a look at the CB light zone to see if it would meet your needs. Um could I ask you both at some point uh
or now um to come up and give us your thoughts on your your two properties. Either one. >> Good evening, Greg Walsh. I own 128 and 140 River Neck Road. And I spoke last meeting and you did
say you would thinking about CB light. I'm Adam and I want to keep my property as IA zoned. I don't know if you've done any studies to find out what the loss in value could be to me. >> Yeah, I spoke to you, assessor, and there really isn't
any loss in value by changing zoning. So, I did speak to >> away IA. >> Right. >> Which would allow certain things by right. And adding CB light, which would reduce some things by right. >> And add some things by right.
>> And add some things. >> Well, you want you talked about adding coffee shops and stuff. This is Nobody wants to come over to River Neck Road and buy coffee from my property. I I can't see me putting a supermarket or something in there to keep it commercial. Not that I'm looking to do anything with my property at the moment.
>> You also abut wetlands, too. So, even looking at your property under IA, there is not a lot of things you can do by right. >> Well, there's I'm sure there's a lot of IA property with wetlands attached to it. So, I I know where my wetlands is.
We've had the wetlands delineated several times already. So, to to make that argument that it's because I have wetlands on my property doesn't hold. >> I'm just saying from a valuation why your valuation would not change. That's what I'm saying. So, you're limited with
the wetlands. You have a lot of mitigating factors that you're not going to lose by changing CB light. >> Has there been a study done on that to tell me exactly what I'm going to lose them I'm not going to lose. >> You can contact the the assessor's office.
I spoke to them who they're the ones that assess the value what you get taxed on and we discussed changing zones doesn't really change the value. >> Okay. So adding CB light, you still want to remove the overlay, correct?
>> Mhm. >> So removing the overlay >> Well, hold on. Removing one of the two overlays. >> Okay. So what I still have the option with CB light to be able to get a special permit. Let's say I mean you're talking about housing, right?
We need housing in town. We also need IA zones in town. But with housing would I be able to put housing in there in a CB light zone without a special permit? >> With the seoid? >> With the seoid overlay you would be.
>> You still need them. >> In the IA you >> cannot >> would have an issue with it. >> Not with [clears throat] the overlay there though, right? I wouldn't have an issue with it. I could come before you for a special permit to build houses
if I wanted to or duplexes, right? I mean we're talking about housing shortages. You want to put houses in, but we have no way to tie into sewer. I remember years ago when I had my first house, I was forced to go from my septic system to sewer. Now I
can't if I wanted to build houses there for my children down the road, I can't do it because I can't tie into sewer. I'd have to put septic again. So would would what would be better? Keeping it IA and maybe you have some contractor base there someday down the road. I mean there's a lot of plumbers,
electricians, carpenters that need places to to work out of. >> CB light. Mhm. That's a good >> CB light doesn't allow any outside storage. >> My guess is that in IA that close to wetlands you'd have a hard time getting
outside storage approved in that location, anyway. >> Depending on what? Like my my land is delineated. I know where my where I can be and where I can't be on my property. You know, my my wetlands has been delineated several times.
You know, I have a I have a beautiful pond back there. I have all kinds of animals. My wife loves to sit back there at the pond and stuff. And you know, this times it's been brought up about the East Water District and stuff. I'm downstream of the East Water District. The closest well to me is over 1,000 ft away.
So, there's no areas where I'm getting anywhere near the East Shunga Water District. It's all downstream. >> But in general, which is why we designed the CB light district, the uses that are allowed in IA
are more detrimental to the wetlands and um and and the ecosystem than the CB light uses. And so, what we what we wanted to do is in areas that are a little bit more
sensitive, shift from IA to CB light to allow those property owners to have more flexibility. Yes, there are some uses that are taken away, but we also added a number of other uses
that are easier to get approved next to wetlands. >> Well, I'm asking you. Can can I get housing there? >> Yes. >> In a CB light? With a special permit, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. But you're going to leave a certain overlay on my property or or on the entire prop
the entire river >> the 129 overlay that was really designed to be on 129 is going to be removed because that's only allowed in IA. The SEAD overlay, which is allowed in IA and commercial,
will still remain in your area. >> Okay. Well, I I I'm going to tell you I don't agree. Um I've obtained legal counsel. I'd like to have this frozen until we can have another meeting and talk about it before you take a vote on anything uh regarding
my property. >> So, this is >> you're spot zoning right now. I mean, you're talking about making one RB, one prop PCBL. There's a lot of spot zoning going on. Um >> So, this meeting is an informal discussion.
>> Correct. >> There will be an official public hearing um that we have to do before it goes to town meeting. So, there will be this We're not making any decisions in these informal meetings. We're making a
decision on a draft that then goes to the formal um public hearing. >> Right. >> Then the the formal public hearing, we'll end up voting on a final draft that goes before town meeting. >> Yeah. >> Our vote is a recommendation. >> Yeah.
>> So, we don't actually decide. We just recommend for town meeting. It's town meeting that decides. >> Okay. Like I said, I just you know, you you talked about just removing the overlay. You didn't say there was like two different overlays the last meeting. You just said that to have and you said
remove the overlay and >> I said 129 overlay. >> Well, I'm the 129 overlay. >> I don't think they realize that there's two overlays >> Yeah, there are two overlays there. They're only talking about removing one of them. >> Okay. And that one is just for IA. >> Yeah. >> How much IA land is left in Chelmsford?
>> There's actually quite a bit. >> That's not built on? >> There's almost no lots land at all that's not built on. >> The IA >> zone. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> So, we're going to remove the last piece of IA land from Chelmsford.
Yeah. >> Um not >> No. >> No. There are other IA >> We're removing the piece of IA that the only way you can access it is through residential road. That's what we're trying to do here. It's because the IA that we're talking about and that we're targeting is IA that is accessed through
residential road. If it was accessed through an industrial, probably wouldn't remove it. >> Well, it is access to industrial. You have I have a a high-tech machine building on my road. I have a >> No, but it would for you. >> across the street from me.
>> But the only way that you can get to Route 6A Route 3 or 495 is through a residential road. That is the issue. Okay. >> Okay. So, there'll be nothing till that till the public meeting, right? Till the the next one? >> Yeah, at some point within the next
meeting or two we're going to close this discussion, make a final recommendation for the public hearing. Um and then we'll have more testimony, more discussion, and then we'll make an official recommendation vote that then goes to town meeting. >> Okay, will we be getting mailings again
like we got them the last the last time? >> Yep. >> And are all the residents on River Neck Road getting the these mailings about the >> Yes. >> the IA change? >> Yep. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Mr. Perrin. >> I'm pretty much in the same boat. >> Could you come up to this >> I'm Phil Perrin, 101 River Neck Road. Um
pretty much in the same boat as Mr. Walsh. I mean, he's owned that property for as long as I've been at my property and bottom is commercial properties. And like you said, you know, you're spotting deciding on who's getting what and who's not getting what. Hm. I'll just
talk to Mr. Walsh and we'll get together and we'll discuss what we need to discuss and till the next meeting. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anything else on that? >> So, I do have on that. So, I've got the house back there and I've got the the
question I have is the other two little pieces of RB. Do we make that all CB light? >> I'm talking about the one down on the bottom of it. >> Top on top? >> Okay. About where the pigeon club is.
>> Mhm. >> So, they're up in where the cursor is now. >> Mhm. >> They're two lots. There's one in the front, one in the back. The one in the front's >> Yeah. >> town-owned.
>> The one with the house on it? >> Nope. The the one in the back of that. There is a property line right behind your RB label. >> Okay. >> And that is town-owned.
The front parcel is multi-family. >> So, do we just make that both that CB light? Connect that? And put P for the one in the back? >> My thinking on this one would be to make all of those parcels CB
light. >> Okay. Oh, I see which which one you said. Okay. All of them. I see which one you said. >> Because the multi-family >> Yep. >> is still viable under the overlay. >> Yeah.
Okay. I can make that change. >> Thoughts on that? >> I don't know. That makes sense. >> I agree. That prevents it from being such a small CB light. >> the one in the >> [snorts]
>> I'm even considering that back public one a CB light. >> Just make it all CB light. >> John, do you have any his- any history on that back property? >> It's that one. >> So, Anita's >> Here, I'll grab my here on
>> Anita's label is right on the property line, so it's the back one. >> So, this one right here. This one's owned by John's town. >> I can research it for the next >> Last sale was $0 on in 2001. Oh, and Anita, there's one more
lot. I just noticed as I zoomed in. >> Oh, the little one? >> Yeah. Little triangular lot um at the corner. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'll grab that one I grab um >> Yeah, so there'll be 1 2 3 4 5 6 lots as CB light.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Are folks okay with that? >> Yeah. >> I >> Yeah. >> Deirdra? >> Mhm. >> Mike? Okay. All right. What's next? Anita?
>> Uh let me just make these changes. Um And then the only other one, if you go two two more slides ahead. Yep. Did keep going down. What did we decide on this little thing here? Are we making that I keeping that IA?
>> Which one? >> The one that's yellow. [clears throat] >> Uh >> [sighs] >> What parcel is that one? >> Oh, that's the power company. >> Yeah. Okay. And then I was going to take this slide
since we have the other slide that shows like their homes. I was just going to cut this and take that piece off of it. >> Yeah. >> So we're not looking at it. >> Twice. >> Huh? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um I think for this one
Yeah, I guess. >> I think it was wasn't it if it was the power company we had to keep it IA? >> Does it matter what we zone it? >> Yeah, I was going to say it shouldn't matter. >> Okay. >> I would do CB light. Cuz I don't think it really matters what we We're all around it's public, right?
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Doesn't matter what we zone it, it's going to be an island. >> Right. >> So could we just zone it public like everything else around >> It is a utility company. Would utility companies be They're exempt from like everything.
>> They're exempt from everything. >> [laughter] >> So, just do a P. >> Yeah, do a P. >> I'll double check with Evan after this meeting or >> Yeah. >> Yeah, so all right. And let's just do a P and call it a day. They're exempt anyways. Okay.
All right, so I'll fix the slides. I'm only taking these pieces down here. >> Okay. All right, any other any other topics? >> No, do we want to open it up for the others? >> Um so, there is one other topic that came to Evan and my attention that we'll
get to now. Um this is the property 127 Riverneck. So, this is the um >> Which one is 127?
>> This is the area that has I believe it's a party rental company. And now there are uh party buses also >> Oh, yeah. >> on that property. Um
and so the owner of the property contacted Evan and I um wanting to retain the IA uh use. Through an email discussion, we were trying to figure out what the actual use is.
Um she's here tonight to to speak about it. Evan and I wanted to get some more information um because based on what we know about it and her description, it sounds less like warehousing
and more like a retail {slash} rental business >> Mhm. >> that we don't quite have a use description for yet. Um I was thinking about potentially doing something in the future
on rental companies. Um because I think we have enough of them in town where it might make sense. >> But I think Like a Is it like a livery? >> Well, the the buses are livery. You can rent out the the coach buses and
party buses. And then there's a party rental company, at least in one of the other bays, that does tables, chairs, tents, bouncy houses, I think. And so, Evan and I wanted to get a little bit more information about what the businesses are in there and how big
they are, so we can figure out what the more appropriate use is, cuz he and I are not leaning towards warehousing. He and I are leaning more towards re- other retails and services not yet defined. So, we wanted to get some more
information. >> does retail, right? >> Yep, CB Light allows that. >> yeah, would be covered under that. >> Yep. >> And I'm going to >> Whereas IA doesn't. So, that's why we wanted to get a little bit >> technical term >> I mean, yeah. >> So. >> Yeah. >> So, if you could come up and state your name and address one more time and give
us a little bit more information. >> Good evening. My name's Lori Kenny. I am a resident of 10 East Randall Road, which is off of Riverneck Road. So, I am an owner of 127 Riverneck Road. My family built the building in 1985, so I have a unique perspective on the
property. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight, but I am proposing that we keep the property IA and do not put it in DBLT. I want to acknowledge that you guys did provide the information to me that the town has confirmed that the existing warehouse use may continue indefinitely
as a lawful pre-existing non-conforming use, may transfer to future owners, and may be rebuilt following a casualty loss. I appreciate the clarification, but understand the protections that grandfather and I understand the protections that grandfathering provides. My concern tonight is not whether the current use can continue. My
concern is whether the proposed zoning actually reflects the property itself. There appears to be some question about how the property should be characterized, which you guys just mentioned. The historical record is consistent. The property was originally zoned IA. The original occupancy permit was issued to a distribution company,
and permit application specifically identified the industrial classification. The loading infrastructure and majority warehouse square footage remain in place today. The Chelmsford zoning bylaws defines the IA district areas for office use, research, development, manufacturing, and warehousing, and classifies
buildings with loading docks serving warehousing warehouse space as industrial warehousing. By the town's own definition, this is exactly what IA zoning is designed for. I'm aware there's a question about whether the primary use is warehousing or office space. The building is
approximately 14,700 square feet across four sections. The larger combined two sections on the right of that 10,000 square feet is 80% warehouse with loading infrastructure squarely fitting the bylaws industrial warehouse definition. The smaller two sections has more office presence, but
also includes storage and a loading dock. The character of the building is determined by its predominant use. By square footage, the predominant use here is warehouse and industrial. I do understand that our current tenants are a party rental, but that does not when their lease ends,
the off the building is designed as a warehouse. It was previously used as warehouse. This is the first time we've had a tenant in there that does not conform to the IA industrial warehouse use. Um, since the building was built in 1985, we have predominantly had distributors in that building. So, by
you guys removing that IA designation, it's going to cost us significant upgrades within the internal building because there's only three office currently three offices in that one side of it. It's all warehouse space with loading docks. So, just because it's currently occupied by someone that
doesn't fit your definition when their lease ends at the end of this year, and I want to put in someone who wants to use it for warehousing space, which it was originally designed for, that creates a big problem for me, and it does devalue the property. >> Okay. Um
So, you mentioned the 14,000 sq ft total, 14,700. You said the two bays on the right are 80% warehouse, >> Yep. >> 20% office. >> Potentially less 20 than 20%, but I
wanted to be conservative. >> Okay. And what is the use in that that those two bays right now? >> Currently, it is filled with um it is the party rental place, but they use it as a warehouse facility.
>> Um Previously, it was all importers of different products. >> Okay. And then the other two sections, >> There's a little under 4,700 sq ft. There is a loading dock
attached to that unit as well. And there is storage space in there. I just don't know the exact dimensions. >> Okay. How many loading docks in the right two bays, in the right two sections? >> Um there's one loading dock and there's a big garage door. So, there's there's three garage doors on that side. There's
one on the other side. >> Okay. Any other questions from folks? >> I mean, it it sounds like that it sounds like that use does not fit a small distribution center. I mean, certainly, if the size
is less than 20,000 sq ft, But the definition of a small distribution center does not sound like that use is matches the the description of a small distribution center. Uh but what your claim what you're saying >> it
industrial warehousing. It's a warehouse. >> Okay. >> So I looked at the definition of warehouse which it fits exactly. >> Okay. Yeah, I think it's still it's still Yeah. All right. Any other questions?
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um thoughts on that parcel. >> People need a little bit more time to >> it's grandfathered in.
There isn't any excess space like to build. It can stay the way it is and operate the way it is. And I think it still goes to the fact that, you know, this is Riverneck Road, which is a small tiny
road, and there's no major access, and we're trying, you know, >> Yeah, I mean, when the when the tenant leaves, ends their lease, that doesn't mean the building has to revert to CV light parameters, all right? I mean, the
building would still be grandfathered in in its current use. >> Right. >> As warehouse. So, like, I don't understand the the delineation being drawn about the tenant's lease is going to end. But that
doesn't change anything, really. >> So, as long as the warehouse use is not abandoned for period of, I believe, 2 years, the >> [clears throat] >> grandfathered state continues.
And I'm assuming that it's not based on the the units, it's based on the building. >> It's based on use, not structure, I believe. >> But if if it's divided up into four units, and two of the units
remain warehouse, so, based on unit? I need to think about I think I need to think about this one more. >> Yep. >> Yeah, I definitely need to think about it. think so. >> All right. >> You can bring it up with um council. You need to be
>> So, let's think about this one a bit more as well. >> We might want to run it by council like well, what happens >> Right. >> Yeah. >> as tenants change in a building that's overall zoned as a warehouse and mostly being used as a warehouse or if it's not
mostly but partly, like how does that does that have any impact on the zoning? I don't think it does, but I don't know. >> Yeah, I'll check with Evan and town council on on that. Okay. Any other
questions on that one or things we need to check into? [snorts] All right. Other changes or other topics? Okay. >> Um I did want to bring up the RCRB
discussion. >> Yep. That was next on the list. >> Okay. So, spoke to Evan. Um I we did the calculations. Sean sent me the calculations. There's two pieces to the calculation.
Um one is the FAR and then the other is building coverage. Um just an FYI, I mean, it doesn't um take away what Sean had mentioned about the FAR. However, since these are non-conforming lots and a pre-existing non-conforming
lots, um if I I'm just going to read out. It is also important to note that the assessor's card distinguishes between finished and unfinished. Okay, the zoning um Okay, variance, since most of lots are undersized, they do not require variance
for exceeding FAR or building coverage. Per section Per section 195-8, they would require special permit from the ZBA to exceed FAR or building coverage. The ZBA generally approves projects for additions and undersized lots as long as there's no significant a butter
neighborhood opposition, and the project remains generally consistent with neighborhood character. >> [snorts] >> So, you know, the And I spoke to him and he basically said there's a history with the ZBA that for these undersized these non-conforming undersized lots, so long
as they're you know, the there's no butter objection, they typically approve approve this. Um that being said, if it's a FAR issue, and that's what they're concerned about, I'd rather us fix the problem, not a symptom of the
problem by putting a band-aid and changing this to RC because that works. I think there's a FAR issue, you know, for all the across the town. We brought this up before at town meeting, um and I think it's worth revisiting that. And we fix FAR,
right? Like if that's the really the real concern here is FAR, then let's fix it. Um cuz this is This is not the only section in town that has this. Um this is not the only street that has the same issue. But again, most of these
Chumleys are you have to go through the the ZBA to get the special permit if you want to do an addition cuz it's all that, right? Like we all have that. Um and I know North Chumley has some smaller
lot sizes. So, maybe like we zone it what it is, keep it consistent, and then let's pick up the FAR, and we look at that as part of this. But from a perspective of whether or not you can add an addition, you can add an addition.
Um you just have to go to ZBA and get a special permit for it, which you have to have your plans anyways to get a permit from building inspector. Um and as long as it's not you know, you don't have a butter objection, which
if it's reasonable, I can't imagine people objecting to something. Um but it also protects people, right? Like if you're an a butter and someone wants to build something that's just crazy, then you also have that protection.
So it works kind of both ways. And I think um my preference is to keep it what it is, not fix the like not try to fix it by doing something >> Just to clarify, when you say keep it what it is, you mean >> RB >> keep it >> RB
>> we're going. >> Yes, cuz they're all single family homes, on single family lots. That's what it is. >> Cuz I just want to make sure keeping the way it is really means I >> yes, I know. >> [laughter] >> And then, you know, then fix FAR. >> Okay. >> Let's look at it. Let's look at FAR. Let's look at the issue we had. I know
what I particularly had an issue with it. Um and if that was addressed, I would be fine with going forward with fixing FAR. >> Other thoughts? >> I have thoughts about RB versus RC, but I'll actually hold on to them until um
Mr. Campbell has a chance to present and engage in debate on it then. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. So I think at this point we'll hold off on the RC RB debate. Um at this point I think we'll take uh other public comments,
um discussion, questions, um folks who have spoken before and who have other topics to discuss, feel free to come up. Um >> Good evening. Frank Smart, 223 Riverneck Road.
I'm with Anita on that 5-acre lot. I feel it should be IB. When you drive down I'm sure you know where I live. Most people do if you've been here a long time. When you immediately make the corner past my house going down the road,
if you look to the left where the Mercury buildings used to be, you can barely see them today. All the trees have just blossomed. If you were to go further down, take that 5-acre lot and just level it to put a building in there,
that'll look awful. It'll look out of place. Even the little machine shop that's in there, that looks pleasant. That guy has a lawn that's meticulous. So, I'm for It's some nice residential homes in there. Some cottages. Did you have a
a good point. But I'm all for that. It just when you drive down the road now, it looks pleasant. And I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hello. Good evening, members of the planning board.
My name is Harshad and I live at uh 29 Monmouth Street, which is the last house on Monmouth Street. Uh firstly, I want to thank the board for uh working to establish more appropriate zoning in the neighborhood. And uh what I ask is, while doing so,
you preserve as many of the current rights and opportunities that we have within our current zones. Uh my family purchased this house uh less than 2 years ago. It was in October of 2024. And before buying, we spent a great deal of time evaluating not just the home
itself, but what it could become over time as our family's needs changed. Uh we have like one kid who's just turning three and there's another one on the way. Uh the sellers explained that they had planned to expand the property by adding a garage.
Uh I think they even pulled permits for the garage. And an additional bedroom. Uh they had developed plans for those improvements, but there was a significant health issue causing them to sell the house. Uh and this information mattered to us. Uh it demonstrated that the property could expand and uh it had
room to grow and adapt over time to changing needs. And uh this is what made the home attractive to our family and it was part of the value we believed uh we were purchasing. Um so like many young families, we don't know exactly what our what our home is going to look like 5 years, 6 years, 7
years down the line. Uh we may need additional space, a garage, another bedroom, and other improvements uh to make the home work for our family. Uh and we may also never build those things uh because we don't have a decision today, but knowing that an option exist without like going through the zoning
board and other like um you know, like bureaucratic cycles, uh that is like really important to us. And plus because my property is the last on Monmouth, it acts as a transitional buffer between the industrial properties that abut it. Uh between the residential
properties on one side and then the uh industrial properties on the other. Uh so from what I understand, um and I'm like a uh I've done some research, um RC or CBLT would preserve more flexibility for our property being
a transitional property. Um and if there are concerns about future density or duplexes, which were raised in the previous uh in the previous uh planning board meeting, I would uh support addressing those through uh single-family use restrictions uh rather than reducing the
flexibility through like a very steep zoning change from because I'm currently zoned IA and I'll go down to RB which is very restrictive. Uh So I'm simply asking that as the town reevaluates zoning families like mine be allowed to retain as much of the value
flexibility and opportunity that came when we purchased the property. Uh thank you for your time and consideration. Good evening. >> Thank you. Anyone on Zoom? >> We had someone from McFarland but they dropped off the call. >> Okay.
>> So >> Is there anyone else? >> unidentified but I'll allow the unidentified person to >> Anyone else from the audience? >> Hi, I'm Katie Melville. I live at 6 Monmouth Street. Um I first just had a couple questions
about this FAR calculation. Um on the table that I think Evan provided, it says I have 3,600 square feet which like that'd be amazing but I don't. So I'm a little confused about where those numbers came up. Could it possibly
include my shed? Cuz I'm wondering and could it possibly include include the chicken coop? I don't think those are actually supposed to be in the FR FAR. So I'm just really confused by this. >> Yeah, I I also was confused by that and and so I [clears throat] asked Evan about that. And what he um replied was that
uh those are estimates done by the assessor and so the assessor uh basically goes out makes a designation but there they don't necessarily designate whether it actually is GFA or gross floor area. >> Okay, great. >> Uh and so then I asked well then how do
you determine, you know, that uh they're meeting FAR and as far as doing the computation and so forth. And he said that basically, they don't compute FAR. Uh what what they what they do is when the applicant submits a plan, the engineer whoever prepared the plan is
the one who computes the FAR. And and they're taking that into consideration all the rules of what constitutes a GFA and so forth and so on. >> Sorry, what's GFA? >> Uh gross floor area. >> Okay. >> So that FAR is the ratio of the gross floor floor area to the lot size.
And so [clears throat] um so it so there that makes sense because they're the ones who are actually looking at what is physically there. >> Okay. >> And what qualifies or doesn't qualify. And it looks to me at least just based on a comparison between what the um
building structure, you know, the the whatever however many square feet that the assessors are saying versus like if you just look it up on Zillow or something like that, it's almost half. And so that's why I was like, where are these numbers coming from? And I think it's just that when the assessors do it,
they don't necessarily clarify what that is actually GFA. And it's when the applicant submits, that's when you find out what the real GFA and then the FAR is. >> Perfect. Cuz when we calculated it just based off of I mean, we've had plans done in additions, we are in the FAR for
RB just to let everybody know. Um I think a lot of people here are here cuz they are speaking against what you're proposing, but I'm here to represent the people who are in much support of everything you're proposing here. Thank you for rezoning everything that needs to be residential to
residential. I know we have some disagreements on what type of residential that is. Um I'm not the only one who supports Monmouth Street McFarland being RB. Last meeting I was here, I talked about how there are other similar neighborhoods in Chelmsford with small lots that are of zoned RB. And you
know, you tonight you've talked about how these are non-conforming preexisting lots and that the FAR you know, can be taken into consideration of going through the CBA and all of that. So, I don't want to like reiterate that, but I just want to let you know that there are many who do support the un-zoning of RB,
and I just really appreciate all of your time on this. Uh the last thing I'll say is about that the lot between me and the abutter, um I mean, I I did email you, talked to the other abutter. We thought we wanted RB We thought we wanted RB, and I think that's still what we want, but I mean, really the
underlying issue is just like we want it to be protected. We just We'd love it to stay just area. Um if that means the abutter and I have have to buy it, like we're you know, we're open to that, too, but like, you know, we don't have that money just lying around. Like, we'd prefer it just to stay how it is. So,
anything that puts it more towards that, we're on board with. Um Public doesn't seem like the best idea. Like, I don't really want to park there. It's like a dead-end street. It's not I don't want public land, people just coming and walking on it. But, um so, I still think we're leaning RB. I do think my other abutter is on the Zoom to talk
about it, but it just really the underlying thing is we just love it to stay this nice wooded area. Um And I think that's it. So, thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? >> Good evening, members of the board. Uh Shawn Campbell, 19 Momen Street,
Precinct 10 representative. Um certainly a lot to take in in this meeting, and this isn't part of my speech, but um a lot of fireworks here, so I might have to uh trim down some of my speech. Um I feel like I better not even say what I have written down here. But, um okay, so
>> [clears throat] >> first off, uh I want to thank the board. I was going to thank Evan, but you you know, I guess he's on vacation. Thank you, Becky. >> [laughter] >> And to the residents who have taken part in this, um a lot of time has gone into this uh studying these properties and
trying to get it right. Um I I I don't see this as a residents versus the planning board. We're all volunteers here uh trying to do the same thing, trying to make our town better. Uh so, I appreciate what you're doing
and uh you know, certainly I didn't want to come across as harsh or anything um cuz I I know you know, we're all in the same boat. Um this kind of decision doesn't come around often. So, I've tried to give it as much attention as I can.
I'm here for my neighbors, that's my job. And I want to be clear about one thing, under my own analysis, which you saw the FAR and um my home isn't one that loses out. I I can still add on RC or RB. Uh this isn't
about me. It's about what's best for the corridor and the families that live here. Um where I I support the goal of this article completely. The town found a real problem, homes sitting in an
industrial zone. Uh correcting that makes sense. Honestly, if I was thinking about myself, I would I might just want to leave things exactly how they are. Um but I've tried to look past my own in
interest and focus on what's best for the neighborhood as a whole. Um the residents are handed the town industrial rights that came with the properties. So, these these are our rights,
um this IA, um and we are saying, at least on Mammoth Street, we agree. We're not I haven't heard one person from Mammoth or McFarland say, "We want to keep IA." Um
what we ask in return is treat us fairly. Don't go beyond what the study actually identified. The conflict found The conflict study found one thing, homes in an industrial zone. It did not say homeowners
flexibility was a problem. It did not say home size was a problem. It did not say lot coverage was a problem. It did not say any residential dest- destiny um was a problem. So, my concern
is simple. The remedy should be no broader than the problem. Using the town's own assessor's data, I looked at all 38 homes on Mammoth Road, McFarland. Today, all 38 can expand by right.
Under RC about 30 can still expand. Under RB, that drops to 17. Uh and I just want to touch base on the FAR question. Um so, that uh neighbor, they added an addition. It was about 1,200 square
feet. I believe your basement is calculated. So, that 3,000. So, if you looked at Zillow and you saw 2,100 plus the addition, they're close to 3,000. Um so, they're definitely um from my understanding, definitely way
over the FAR on RB. Um so, here's my straightforward question. If RC corrects the industrial conflict, what public benefit justifies the ability to move away from 30 more homes?
To be fair, I'm not saying RB is a bad district. It works well in plenty of Chelmsford neighborhoods. The question is what is best for these lots? They have lived under industrial standards for decades and they're now
only becoming residential. Um and uh I didn't put this in my speech, but I I should bring it up that um you know, in the email I sent, I think RB works. I think RB for Lady Slipper,
Shed Lane, it fits. It's designed for a 1-acre lot. And if all your neighbors are 1-acre, it it's a great setup. It looks If you drive through those neighborhoods, it's great. Um because we lived in an IA, neighbors some neighbors
expanded, some didn't. So, we're and then some houses got in. Our lots are all different sizes. It's kind of strange. Um >> [clears throat] >> I I wanted to um also touch base on and I want to
recognize uh the owners of 127 Riverneck Road. Um this property has been kept in top shape and has never been an issue. It's clean, single-use site, not a mixed site. I support
whatever zoning designation they believe is right for it. And I'd even suggest keeping the overlay there as a test case, given how small the lot is. Um [clears throat] I also want to talk about that overlay,
not part of my speech, but from my understanding, the 129 overlay is not over there. It's just the seal light. Is that correct? >> No, currently the 129 overlay is part of that area. >> So, I checked on the GIS and it it
didn't go that way. >> It is. >> Okay, it is. Okay. >> It's on the GIS. >> So, I saw the seal light, but not the 129. Um >> [clears throat] >> Consistency across the corridor. My broader concern is consistency. As we
correct these industrial conflicts, I think we should look at the corridor as a whole. A core corrosive vision for the future, not patchwork of different approaches. Um
140 and 128 Riverneck are owned by the same person. They were identified in the zoning conflict analysis. They're part of the same corridor and the primary use is residential. People live there. Families live there. These are homes first and foremost.
And here's the thing. At the last meeting, the owner asked about multi-family. The board pointed it to RC. That property is large enough to use it. So, RC is already on the table here and recognized by the board as a residential
corridor. >> [clears throat] >> And then I I was pointing out to um to be kind of careful on this, but um there are two properties identified as uh this uh 120
eight and 140. And they're they're two homes. So, it's not a home and a business, it's two residential homes. Um And now I see it's marked CBLT. Um So, I'm going to kind of skip a little bit of that.
With before I I don't want to kind of go into that, but um I I think what I'm saying here is um we are all being asked to transition from industrial zone to residential. And um I support our I RC as an appropriate
residential solution for Monmouth and McFarlin. I believe it should be considered for the rest of the corridor as well. I'm even talking about a 5-acre lot. Um I heard Deirdra speak about village. I mean, I know the zoning pretty well.
We have RM. We have RC. We have RB. Um we could do RC there. I mean, I would be I would be for that. Um I heard Mr. Smart speak about residential. Um so
yeah, I mean, I'm pretty advocated towards RC. I think I think it's a fair compromise. I I mean, we we're giving up our rights. We can do more today with IA. And if you look at that chart I
sent, it's indicating how much I could build right now with IA. Now, we don't do that, right? We're not exercising. I mean, I don't do it. Um but we have a lot more rights right now
and we've had for 50 years and we haven't abused it. It's not a problem. It's never been a problem. Um so I think it's unfair to think that uh down zoning to RC would be dangerous to our neighborhood.
I did speak with Evan and I did come up with you know, a compromise um that we could use the zoning overlay or we could create another zoning overlay. Um if the cuz it sounds like the duplexes um which is only possible on four of the
homes and you would hit the sewer capacity and you'd have to tear down the properties. Um but there's a way to to mitigate that. Um if that is the primary concern for sticking with RB. I will tell you that I
would need a variance um on my lot because I would be bare-bones conforming under RB. So if you read the email to Evan, um I I would not really have a pathway. So, I would, you know, these other homes,
they wouldn't be guaranteed. Um and I can tell you that some neighbors do have a problem when you want to do something. So, you never know, and you have to invest before you find out. It's very nice to be able to go and see Jose,
pull paperwork, and know, "Hey, I can do this, and I'm spending money, and I have the plans, and to not worry about, well, I better be really nice to my neighbors because if I don't invite them to a party, they're probably not going to want to speak in favor of my addition."
Um and you know how neighborhoods are. They can be contentious at times. So, you you know, if the flexibility is nice. Um and uh I mean, you heard Harshvard speak, you heard Song speak. Um And I think uh I also heard the board
speak about that it's not nearby, but it is nearby. Um and I do know that a couple board members are RC. Um and I would I would suspect that they're not um they're not afraid of being RC, and they probably wouldn't want to give up
their RC. If in these neighborhoods that are RC are much larger than uh lot sizes of Mammoth and McFarland. So, um I'd like to point that out. Um does the board >> I'd like to respond to that when you're
done since I'm one of those people. >> Okay. >> When you're done. >> Um no, it's fine. I mean, um you know, so, how do you feel, Joel? Do you Do you worry about duplexes? I mean, I did hear you speak once, I think, um um on an interview where you discussed
RC, and you said your neighborhood was RC, um which you gave flexibility, but your your neighbors prefer single family, and you don't see any demand for [snorts] people tearing down their homes, putting in duplexes.
Is that inaccurate? >> Yeah, my my neighborhood uh is RC. And I think I would be surprised if most of the residents of that neighborhood were aware that they're RC. Uh so, everyone lives in it and acts
like it's RB. Uh but that doesn't mean that it couldn't go RC. And um whether that's a particular location in which somebody would want to go RC versus a smaller lot, smaller home area like Hildreth, uh
you know, that's a different question. So, I I can't do the market analysis, but uh I but I think that if if my neighborhood was aware that it was RC, I think they would want to be RB. They certainly prefer RB. Uh because we had a neighbor who came
in, the lot was advertised that you could make two build two units on it, and they said, "No, I just want one unit." They're coming from Cambridge. They didn't want two units. >> Right. >> So. >> Right. And we also have the ADU thing today where, you know, somebody can
basically do that. >> So, just to you were saying that you people who lived on RC, you thought they would be happy to be in RC, and I think probably our neighborhood would rather be RB. >> Right. >> It's an interesting perspective, and I appreciate that that feedback. Um and I definitely hear you on the lack of uh
understanding zoning. I mean, um I greet most of the new neighbors, and then I explain to them that they're in IA, and they they look at me like, you know, "What? I'm in what?" And I'm like, "You're in an IA." Um so, I think yeah, zoning is um is something that is is complicated. Um but
for for me, somebody that's pulled multiple permits and has been here, you know, pretty much my whole life, um and it's important at sometime, and then when you need it, it's nice to know that it's there. Um so, the
Um so my simple ask here is well correcting this conflict, we just do it as light as we possibly can. Um so, you know, we we want to address the NIMBY card report, um but we don't want to go overboard and just strip all of our rights. And the
other thing I wanted to ask about was the 129 overlay. Um I was at, you know, that meeting 10 years ago and I was right here and um we we created an exclusion zone for Riverneck, I mean not Riverneck, um McFarlin and Monmouth. Um
and they were deliberately added and they were added because we're in the 129 business district. We're We're literally right there. Um and the exclusion zone was created for residential property so they could have benefits.
Um I mean, nobody used it. Um but it was it was deliberately done because of our location. Um so, I assume you're removing that. I mean, it's not part of a conflict. Is that correct? Right. Okay. Um so, is there any reason why you're you're removing that?
>> So, I can give you my opinion. Um the 129 overlay was intended to be on the IA district. It is um I believe it's codified as IA and not commercial
overlay. Um so, if we're removing the IA district, then we have to remove the 129 overlay. >> Right. I mean, I don't have uh heavy objection either way. Um I just wanted
to kind of justify or hear hear why it was being removed. Um and I wanted to kind of point out to the board that, you know, it's it's another right that these properties are supposed to have. Um and I think what we're seeing, I mean, I followed all of your um zoning um rezoning of um Kate's
Corner um and then the North Chelmsford property and I think that this one is getting the most kind of heat um, compared to those those zonings and I think what's happening is people are you're you're in the industrial district
um, and this is where people have lived for you know, 50 60 years and we've tolerated um, farms being converted into large
300,000 square foot office buildings. And that happened and that now I'm hearing that that person or that that property is going to have more rights than the residents that remained in the area. So it's a little disturbing and that's why
you know, back to my initial point that I thought you know, the RC at least gave some flexibility that we weren't stripping all of our rights away. Um, where RB um, I I felt was more it was one of the most restricted zonings you could do um,
for our area. >> Okay. Any other points? >> That's pretty much all I got. Is any questions from anybody? >> Yeah, I would I would like to comment about the RC. So last time you brought up the RC you sent us a number of
documents in which you have been I commend you for the amount of work. I can't imagine how much time that you put into it. Um, but documenting your case uh, using the accessory numbers so forth and so on.
And so I mean I understand your argument to be that basically it's more restrictive to go to RB than RC because RC gives you greater latitude terms of far in terms of setbacks and so forth if you want to expand your homes and that going RC is not going to have
any greater negative effect than going to RB because uh, your I think your position is that RC will not in fact result in duplexes, which is a part of the as right of RC. Um but I want to rebut that. And uh
on on two counts. The first one is that uh RC uh is uh Well, let me go to the other one. The sewer First of all, with regards to the sewer because that was one of the things you mentioned was a sewer constraint. Um
that I asked Evan about this. Uh he said that homes are allowed a 500 additional gallons per day that they tallied at about 110 gallons per bedroom. So, that means that you can have theoretically four more bedrooms
uh then it's not inconceivable just from the sewer perspective alone that you could create a single-family into a two-family based on the sewer aspect. So, I don't think sewer's a limitation based on that. Uh the other one is the um
is any constraint with regards to either the setbacks or the FAR. Basically, the dimensional constraints. Uh and in that in your examples that you're using, if we were going to use those for the assessment as to whether we thought it would go RC or not, I
think those are based on I think those assessor values are far larger than um than they are actually. My argument I can make my argument either way because first of all, if you use the numbers that are there, those numbers are very
are large enough certainly to be able to um divide any single-family home into two homes. Just, you know, if you're talking about 3,000, 2,400, that sort of thing. You can create two homes out of that. Uh but I actually think those numbers are are much larger.
I think the actual uh FAR is much smaller is at least probably half, maybe 3/4 of that. And if that's the case, then you that gives you the flexibility to be able to additional flexibility in order to be able to add GFA, in other
words, to create two homes. So, I think that and I looked at a couple of properties, one of which I've been in, on McFarlane in particular. And um and I I I don't think there's a credible argument that one could not go uh
two-family with the single families that are there. I I just don't think that's a credible argument. Uh but if I can finish, then that says that it's it's it could happen. So, then the question one might say is,
well, is it likely to happen? And I think in that argument uh we've seen that in in certain some sections of town that are RC, it doesn't really happen. Other sections of town that are RC, it does happen. But the real penalty
uh of that, it's not so much a matter of, well, do I like single-family? Do I like two-bedroom? What happens to the neighborhood? That sort of thing. One of the major concerns is that when you go from single-family to two-family by right then you essentially are increasing your housing inventory without a
corresponding affordable increase, which means that puts the town into an increasing position of being vulnerable to not meeting our SHI and therefore being vulnerable to 40B's. So, it's a what we want is not that we're against that kind of housing, but we want to do
it in such a way that we can make sure that we get an affordable component with it so that we can maintain our 10%. If you open up two large neighborhoods that they could go duplex, is going to put us into some, I think, a significant issue with regards to how we're going to
maintain our SHI. And that affects the whole town. Because now any neighborhood is subject to a 40B. And I was on the ZBA long enough to see what effects that can have on residences and neighborhoods who go through that whole process. Uh, and so I don't I I
don't think it makes any sense to consider RC for either of those uh, for either Monmouth or for McFarland. Um, I [clears throat] think we can make other arguments. I think you could say, well, there's contiguity, you know, there's there's there's already Riverneck is RB, all the other streets
forest, Clark all RB, that it fits in that sense, but I think the main argument for me about why it should be RB is RC poses too much of a risk that we are going to be increasing housing without a corresponding affordable component. >> Okay, well, I appreciate, you know, I'd
like to quickly reply to at least a couple pieces. Um, so the data I got about the FAR was from the town. So, I mean, I'm just using the town's own data. Um, it's not something that I >> Right, and I already commented on the assessors. >> Yeah, so I I mean, they they do go around, um,
you know, the Zillow data, I wouldn't probably say is is accurate. I mean, I I would say there's definitely, um, the town data isn't perfect, um, but it's just, you know, I I got to work with what I got and, you know, that they do go around every 2 years and take measurements and, um, it looked pretty
close in some of the cases. Um, the FAR wasn't the houses weren't super large, but the lots were really small. So, in the case of my neighbor that that that you pointed out, her lot is 0.29 acres. So, that that that is very tiny. So, uh, even a 2,000 square
foot home on 0.29 acres would probably be over. I mean, her home is definitely bigger than that, but even even that one probably over the RB. >> Yeah, but I don't I still don't think you can make any sweeping assumptions about what is being what is a penalty or not a penalty based on the assessors
data. I I think the assessors data is is a number that they use, but it's for their purposes, but I don't think it's uh a valid number to be used for the purposes of assessing, you know, whether these neighborhoods are being penalized by the
FAR or not. >> Right. >> And so, in that sense, I mean, I think it's a it's a it's a cogent argument and it's and it's a and it's a good calculation, but I think the data for the calculation is suspect. Such that you the the really the source of information should be used as what's
submitted on the applications because those are probably the most accurate FAR numbers one could possibly get. >> Right. Okay. So, and then the other point I wanted to discuss was um regarding McFarland. So, from my understanding, you know, which is I've I've written that data, there's only one home in McFarland, 30 McFarland, that is
is large enough to support RC. So, we have we have basically 30 homes. Um there's only one that has the the the acreage. And and correct me if I'm wrong, cuz I could be wrong, but um >> I think you are wrong. >> Okay. So, if you have a if you have a
0.3 acre lot, you can could you split that and be an RC? >> You don't have to split the lot. And a lot of lot of fams, I mean, I just looked at a couple of different houses on McFarland and I did a street view look just to make sure. So, these are single level single level homes. So, if
you have some flexibility in the FAR, then you can go to a second level. You don't have to increase your dimensionals for our setbacks and stuff like that. >> So, from my understanding, you needed um to convert into a duplex under RC, you had to have a minimum square footage lot size, which I think was half an
acre. Um so, you you couldn't take I mean, so if what you're saying >> saying, but like if if you have a single one floor, you can go up. You're thinking >> I'm saying the size of your square has to be at least a half acre for your >> No, I don't think that's true.
>> No. >> RC, if you're if you're in an RC zone, then you and you're single family, you can go to duplex. >> Right. Okay. So, >> Even if your lot is less than the than the standard or whatever. >> Right. Okay, so if I mean that would
change a lot of my data. But um so I will double check on that. Um but from everything that I did read, you had to have uh an acre to uh to to conform to be a duplex in RC. I mean your your particular neighborhood and I
know that your homes are they're over that threshold, so they have that that avenue. Um >> Well, I mean we I mean we have a a home that went from a single family to a duplex. >> Mhm. >> Um and and that one went from four bedroom, two baths
to two uh where each uh home of the duplex had um three bedrooms, one bath. >> Right. Okay. >> And uh and they're on they were on I think half an acre, less than half an acre, something like that. >> Okay. >> So
you know, I mean it it uh you know, >> So I'll check into that. A question on that is if if I find out that um I'm right or my my what I researched was right, would that change your opinion? >> I mean
yeah, the well, I mean my opinion is that I think that >> one home that was >> that RC will be, but even so, I would be reluctant to zone something I would be reluctant to zone something thinking that it wouldn't happen there
anyway. Except for the case of the MBTA zoning, but that was because we were being directed to do it as opposed to we're doing it of our own free will. >> [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Um and then the last point and you know, so I kind of predicted that um you know, I I know the duplex is a serious
concern, which is you know, from my data it was only four homes, but maybe that data is I'm going to double check that, but I did give you an avenue that hey, look, we can we can use the current overlay and we can we can do more with
the FAR, modify the setbacks, and get some some relief for the residents like our Shored and Song without being RC. And then we can remove that duplex fear right off the table. And I discussed with Evan about that. He
said he thought that was kind of messy because of Chris's point of the 129 overlay is for, you know, business and he recommended RB1 as an overlay. So we we do have a tool that I was exploring
that would allow everybody to really and I spoke into the neighbor that spoke in opposition of RC and their fear was the duplex. I don't think a lot of people have fears on the FAR. I don't think a lot of people have fears on the setback,
but the we the planning board does have it at its discretion the ability to mitigate this. And I I think I I I definitely hear the fear on the duplex and I don't like duplexes. I don't like ADUs, but I know we we we got the you know, we had to
deal with the >> Well, again, if you heard me, it's not that I'm against duplexes. It's that I am against increasing housing without a corresponding affordable component. Do you hear that? >> I got that. Yeah. >> Okay. That's the issue. It's not that we don't like duplexes.
But the more that we allow housing to increase without a corresponding affordable component puts us in increasing danger of not meeting SHI and therefore being susceptible to 40Bs. We're we're dangerously there right now. So >> So but we've heard also from
we're we're thinking about zoning another parcel CBLT and keeping the overlay that would allow high density multi-family. Um >> Most of those come with a an affordable component. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But they would have the option if they
just wanted to do duplexes or something something there. >> CB light? No. >> No. For a CB light overlay, it would have to be multi-family. >> You'd have to come in front of the board for approval. So, you have That's where you would put that. >> So, the fear of the board, one of the
fears of the board is establishing affordable or non-affordable housing that it could put us over the threshold. >> Okay. >> The other concern we have right now, which was my concern with the ADUs, is that the more ADUs that come online,
and they are increasing, um it's that same issue. We're increasing our housing pool without the affordable component. And we've already got that one pushed at us. Um we don't want to do that voluntarily.
>> Right. >> Okay. So, I mean I I think I'm kind of hearing, you know, some of the board that the fear there's couple fears, but the main objective is to um prevent any, you know, basically more development. Um but a concern from the neighborhood, you know, and even a
concern I'd have, is right now we have that right. Um and we're entitled to that right. So, you're taking that right away, and right now I have the ability with IA to do, you know, 40% to 45%, and I'm still looking to reduce that, and now you want to reduce it to 15. So,
so we're looking at, you know, uh uh if people are really studying this, they're looking at a a significant loss of their property's rights um under this particular zoning, which is why I just really was hoping for some type of middle ground, rather than the most extreme measure.
>> We're also, keep in mind, we're also trying to protect the neighborhood from having to go before the board every time a a um large project on Riverneck Road comes up to us. So, that's the other thing we're trying
to do here is to protect residential properties from the IA zone and from these large projects that keep threatening the residential neighborhoods. >> Right. And and I I definitely respect that and I I I see that. Obviously, I've
been involved in that. And a And a comment I'd make on that a little bit is I'm I mean, so we didn't at least me, I didn't choose that. I mean, the the industrial came to me. It was farmland. My My mom's street was a dirt road when my family moved there. Um
it you know, so I I and I I wrote a lady slipper versus Monmouth comparison. Um and you know, they have a lot of luxuries and they've never had that that, you know, so I I think I'm saying is yeah, we deal with that unfortunately in our area. And it's it's a real negative thing that, you know, and I
appreciate the board um what they've done in the past and what they're doing now um on that aspect, but it you know, I I didn't I didn't ask for that. The town designated that, you know, our area one, you know, the the business district. And one of the things with that negative
thing was we have these rights. Um and I think you hear that from, you know, different property owners um that they they know their you know, their especially the people that have been here the longest, they know their rights and you know, they've they're a little bit concerned um and uh you know, I think uh you know,
I was trying, like I said, to find some middle ground. Um and uh I'll go back and check on that that thing and I hope uh I hope you would consider at some point the, you know, modifying the RB1. I think it I think it was a you know, it satisfied
some concern and it would give uh to Joel's point, he you know, you would still have some flexibility on what you would put in there. It doesn't mean that we have to carry um the RC um um or dimensions, you know, just to
get a little bit of something extra or even a tool that, you know, because we're part of the 1299 overlay and you're removing that, that we have this mechanism in the future that if there's something new or our area is changing, we could go before the board and we could have something modified in this
overlay. Um I to Anita's point prior about um the town-wide issue, I don't think it's a town-wide issue. Um a lot of the homes, including yours, they were established in RB. That's the the the they got a permit and they built it and that's how it's been. Um today I
could pull a permit, my neighbors could pull a permit, they could add on. Um after this change, it's going to be questionable whether they can. >> But but hold on a second. >> We we need to keep moving. >> Yes. I I do have one question. >> Okay.
>> If we fix the far, it gave you back the right, does that satisfy your >> That would satisfy. I I mean, if you if you created that overlay, um >> Not creating an overlay, just fix the far percentages for the zones for RB.
>> I I think to Joel's point, if we modified the far for town-wide, um it would open up some big doors that, you know, I I didn't study those doors. Um modifying um the So, if you went and you you suggested everybody in town-wide
that's RB can now add more by right, um it's a big door you're opening. Um and I I don't know I don't know how that will play out. There's different, you know, different neighborhoods could have different opinions. >> To be fair, Sean, the same applies for an RB overlay. Um
we wouldn't want to do an overlay for two streets in town. We would want to make sure, just like we're doing with the CB light zone, that there's some applicability to a larger area than just a small area. So,
>> You're not the only one that's talked about the FAR. Like, I've heard it from other areas in town. This is not the first time. Um, so, again, I if we were to fix the FAR, does that satisfy
your concern for the addition? >> Um, I I mean, it would be a move in the right direction, but I I like I said, I couldn't speak for the whole town and I mean, I I don't know if I I don't I don't think it would justify. Um, I think the issue that we have here that we've had this
flexibility. I mean, some homes have utilized the FAR um on our streets in McFarland for expanding and some haven't. And now you're you're you're taking that right away from the ones that have it. Um, so, I think I I I think that that that
is kind of the issue here and I think we're in a unique situation where we're looking to create our first residential zoning and we're looking to kind of get it right match as you pointed out what what's on the ground. And I think what's on the ground um some cases RB may fit,
but in most it doesn't. It's non-conforming. The lots are tiny. There's different setbacks. There's different sizes. Um, I think that um I think in the future people do want to add to their homes. Um, you know, as Harsh Arad said or my other neighbor who who added um I think it was 1,300 sq ft
on. Um, they their family was expanding and they liked that ability. Um, I would I would suggest that her expansion um under the if she was if she was in RB, I would I would probably tell her it wouldn't have happened.
Um, I don't think she would have got that permit at all. Um, you know, and I think it would have been more contentious um especially in an RB neighborhood. If you have a 0.3 acre lot and you want to add a third on
um and you're looking at that type of density on the lot. I I don't think it would have happened. >> I am going to cut you off here cuz we do have to keep moving. We have other agenda items. Um and I do want the board to have a round of weighing in on RC versus
RB. Um this is not going to be the last meeting on this. I think we'll go one more meeting. Um >> You said that that's coming um towards uh towards the fall town meeting? Is that what you were thinking?
>> Yeah. The target is to get this in front of fall town meeting. >> Right. Okay. Um and uh I I did want to touch briefly on that lot. Uh so I watched that ComCom meeting. I heard you speak. I heard, you know, I heard the feedback. I'll check into that. I mean, I I'm not surprised they said what they said.
They're usually um they're usually not, you know, ecstatic and going to jump up and down and say, "Hey, we're going to take this lot." It it was it wasn't a hard no. So it could have been worse. Uh and there are some um some mitigations that you that that might
that might help. Um so I wouldn't say that's fully [clears throat] closed uh on that. So but I'll follow up with that, you know, in the next meeting. Thanks. Thank you guys for your time. >> All right. Um any other thoughts from the board on RC versus RB?
>> Um I'm kind of with Jill on that one. Like I really think I like the RB for that. I live in an RC. When I moved into that neighborhood, there were two duplexes. There are eight now. Any time a house goes up for sale, single family house, someone's coming in, tear it down, putting in a duplex. So it's, you know, increasing the number of housing.
We're looking at potentially four more in that neighborhood. Um it So now it's sort of like you're really jam packing that the neighborhoods in and I think that to protect some of that the
what these neighborhoods are, an RB is a better fit for it. That's just my opinion. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> I agree with um Marci and Joel. And I am in a RC, which I didn't realize was RC
um when I bought it. Um and I actually was really surprised one day walking up and down the street collecting signatures to find all the duplexes that I thought were single-family homes all around me. Um
and I have significant concerns about the increasing the number of units without a corresponding um affordable component. I have significant concerns of adding that to the burden
that we're going that we're getting from the ADUs. Um and and I think RB does reflect more what's there. Um I also think
that we should look hard as a next potential or or soon down the line task to look at the FAR. Um I think now that now that we do have the imposition upon
us of the ADU being by right, I think that mitigates some of the concerns that the town meeting expressed about changing the FAR calculation. Um so I I think that would be certainly
worth another look. And then finally, I think that um we should have uh a a amount of time per speaker. >> Okay. >> We We were um there was a lot of around and about and
repetition there, and I think that we need to have able to focus and allow other people to have an opportunity to speak. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other perspectives? Um for my own perspective, I think I
would be leaning towards RB as well um for the same reasons Joel has articulated. I think it maps to the rest of Riverneck. If you look up and down Riverneck, any of the
residentials that are there are RBs. Um I understand Shawn's point about it being near 129 um but realistically
while it abuts the 129 properties it really isn't part of the 129 corridor. Um because I there's no way of getting to Riverneck Road directly from that corridor. It is at the end of 129 um in
towards the center. Uh and not on the other side either. So I think while it does abut the 129 properties and there may have been a vision in the past about it being part of the corridor, I think realistically
how the traffic flows and how where vehicles go, it's not part of that corridor. Um It's more in as we've pointed out before it really is RB on both ends of Riverneck. Um so
that's where I'm leaning um and I do agree that we think I think now would be a or not now but as one of the next things we tackle um taking a look at the FAR calculations. >> I I just want Yeah, I I I just like to
like fix the problem that they've identified, right? It's FAR. Um and this is not the only part in town that that's the issue. So, if that's what they're concerned about, I think there's a way of fixing it by not putting the neighborhood or the town at risk.
Um but if, you know, I also think that like if we don't have, you know, agreement with River with Mammoth and McFarland, then we shouldn't be bringing this to town meeting. >> I Well, to that point, we're never going to get
100% agreement. >> I get that, but >> Um I think also the RB provides protection for neighbors while still allowing the flexibility
for expansion with the ZBA. >> I I I right, there is mechanisms to do this. And >> And I think that along with fixing the FAR >> It's not an RB versus RC issue per se. It's an issue of making it
not IA. So, I think the town is going to understand that we don't want these neighborhoods to be IA. And I think it's a secondary issue RB versus RC for the town. And I think the town will recognize that even though maybe some residents feel
like they're being imposed on, the town will also recognize that they potentially would be imposed on for RC. So, I I I understand what you're saying, but I think that I think the town will recognize that it's there's a big picture here that's trying to be solved.
>> I'm not Again, you know, I think we have one shot of this of changing from IA, right? Moving away from IA. And if we're not aligned and there's you know, neighborhood resistance to it, then it won't pass. And then we don't
have a shot at it. So, you know, if it's about rights and they you know, they don't you know, we have mechanisms to go through the ZBA that like you know, there are ways to expand and build upon in your in your property
under RB. But if they're more concerned about their rights, then I don't think you know, I don't think it's >> part of that argument seems a bit specious is that the rights that they're talking about are rights that they have under IA, which is also the same thing that's allowing all of the kinds of
projects that have come before us that they come and say we don't want. So, those are all tied together. If we're going to get rid of the IA, there is going to be some it's not just that we're taking the rights away, it's that they are getting something in exchange for it, which is
to not have the potential for these kinds of projects occurring in their neighborhood. >> Okay. >> But you you make a good point though. >> [laughter] >> All right. >> So, we do need to move on. Um so, for next meeting
let's think about that five-acre parcel. Let's think about 128 140 101 127 and then the RCRB discussion. >> Yeah.
>> I would like to have us come to a final proposal um for the public hearing at the next meeting um so we can finalize this in time for the public hearing and we can get the
slides and stuff together. >> [snorts] >> Okay? All right. >> That's good. >> All right. And I would like to thank all of the residents for attending this and all of our meetings on this and having a the
discussion with us. I know all of you are taking a lot of time out from your your evenings to work with us and uh I we do appreciate that. Okay. Moving on 210 Boston Road
uh proposed coffee shop um based on our last meeting discussion uh this is going to have a neighborhood discussion on July 8th. Um and
so we'll have that discussion. >> Uh-huh. >> Then. And uh last version of slides is version two for that one. All right, data center. >> Joel. All right, so I
I drafted uh some language for a definition and then also use and then uh asked Evan for his comments and then he made some comments that I thought were very pertinent and relevant and change it potentially would change it somewhat. So you're going to see the the version
that is not changed based on Evan's comments, but I do have some of Evan Evan's comments that I can let you know what it was that he was saying which I thought were good. Uh but anyway, I figure might as well go through the go through the slides so if we can we can do that.
>> Is that our zoning plus link? >> No, it's the draft. >> Okay. We don't have >> Yeah, the zoning plus one was actually not meant to be. >> Oh. >> Anyway. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah, so
So, I start with the definition. You can go up there. Yeah. Uh So, the first thing I wanted to capture was just what characterizes a data center from something else. And this is mostly language from the model bylaw that
I had given a link to in a prior presentation. So, uh it One thing I wanted to say was that I was struggling between trying to capture both where it's it's being used primarily and where it's
being used secondarily. And it seemed like the two ways to do that would be to have a primary and accessory approach or a full or partial use approach. And so, I chose the full and you partial approach.
And Evan actually made a very convincing case that should be principal versus accessory. So, that is going to change some of the language, but the basic idea is there. Which is that >> [clears throat] >> what we're trying to distinguish between uh where somebody is primarily operating
it as a data center and where you actually have a data center that's occurring within your larger primary business. And uh but in either case, what we're concerned about [clears throat] controlling are the impacts of the data center. So, what I didn't want to do was allow
an accessory to actually have liberties with regards to the things that we don't want that a primary was restricted on. So, that was that was the um the thing. So, Evan has some suggestions on on how to handle that, which I thought were good suggestions. Um so, basically, but it's for storage
management, processing, and transmission of digital data, which houses computer or network equipment, system servers, appliances, and other associated components related to digital data operations. So, this distinguishes it from people who, you know, have like
like your manufacturing computers, you're doing whatever. It's It's that It's not that you are having computers and that sort of thing. It's that you're doing it particularly for the purpose of digital data operations. And that is what makes the data center unique from
other things. Um but I did want to mention that they could have associated infrastructure uh to support sustained operations. And so, these could be could include, but not be limited to Then, these are the
things that we're identifying and were identified with regards to Lowell, which is generators, fuel storage, cooling systems, and they also this model language also had utility substations, and I thought that was interesting. And I think that Evan
uh was asking, "Well, is that on-site? Is that private or is that public?" And I was more meaning I'm guessing that what the model language was anticipating is that somebody would actually build some sort of a utility thing on their own property, it's their own private utility. And so, I think we do want to capture that idea cuz I think we don't
want that. So, um so, that's the sort of scope of the definition. Um so, it's meant to be comprehensive. Uh and so, then now we want to subdivide we want to create sub-use definitions. So, if we go to the next slide.
So, it's based on a It's based on a It's like, for example, unlike the distribution centers, which are each stand-alone definitions, this is more like the contractor yard, where as there is a general definition and then distinctions under that general
definition. So, that's the approach that we're taking here is there's an overarching data center definition, and then there are sub-definitions corresponding to the sort of tiers. And rather than use tier one, two, or three, I just went with small, medium, large just because that's people a little bit easier to comprehend what that is.
And so, the [clears throat] small data And so, these are things that where I'm open to, you know, what numbers these actually might be. Okay, so I put in some draft numbers, but again, any anything that you think should be added or changed or whatever, I'm definitely open to. So,
small would be that it has up to 1 MW. And a lot of this is based on the stuff that Chris supplied. And also, there are other places where I verified that these are reasonable um partitions. Is that it has up to 1 MW of total electrical consumption. I'm going
to get back to that. Is less than 20,000 sq ft. So, we were thinking that having both the power and the size would be relevant. Even though, I mean, they are somewhat related, but it's really the power that's the main one. And then and has no external
associated infrastructure. And then I also threw in no water-based cooling. So, just wanted to get the water You'll see this and in the medium, it's over There's no water involved. So, [laughter] it's like So, that that sort of solves it. Don't need to go to
the water trick like, "How much water do you think you You know, what's the capacity? What's the limit? What's" I just say, "You know what? Let's just make it easy. Just say no water involved in the cooling." Um So, that would be a small data center. So, that's meant to be controlled in
terms of you're controlling to some degree, you know, how impactful it's going to be by the amount of power that essentially it's going to be using. So, the We're trying to the still trying to get at the right language for how to say
how much electrical power it's consuming that total, you know, based on their not In other words, so that they wouldn't say, "Well, this is" as Chris pointed out, "That's not the not this much from the grid, but it's just how much you're consuming. So, if you have your own, you
know, solar panels or your own on-site whatever power generation or whatever, it's how much is actually being consumed. And so, >> I've got an idea on that. >> Okay. >> [laughter] >> Yeah. >> If we add if we say total electrical consumption regardless of the source.
>> Okay. That sounds good. >> Yeah. There you go. There you go. >> Can I ask you though like how do we measure who measures the consumption? >> easy to measure, but it also brings up a question here. We don't You're talking about megawatts.
You want megawatt hours over time. >> Well, and Yeah, that I mean >> Or or you can you can limit the peak. >> Yeah, I think it's a I think it's a peak >> It's a peak. >> Okay. If that's if that's the intent, >> Yeah. >> that means it hits it once a year and it
throws it over the edge. I think what's more interesting is the actual total power consumption. And for a data center, that's going to be pretty much continuous anyway. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, but you will probably want to get the the unit right and it's going to be, you
know, some kind of watt time. >> Uh >> Well, except for a research I was looking at, it was megawatts. >> Yeah, and they're being pretty loose about it. And I think [clears throat] you know, >> Because we don't have any standards We don't know. So am I. But and and so I
I thought about that, but but because the essentially the unit that everyone is using that they're conversant in is megawatts, that makes sense because then otherwise now we have to define and understand when they say megawatt, how many megawatt hours you're really talking about. And so >> Yeah.
>> So, I thought >> Okay. Well, maybe in the case of a data center it's going to be pretty much continuous anyway, so maybe it doesn't >> And it is based on total consumption because data centers have two different numbers of energy usage. There's the
server and data usage, and then there's the accessory >> Right. >> um energy usage of the cooling and air conditioning and all of that. So, we want to make sure that's the total consumption. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> No. >> Okay. Um I'm a dummy on this. How much
is a megawatt? >> So, >> It's a lot of juice. [laughter] >> Like Like >> How many homes? >> is a roughly 1,000 homes. Powers 1,000 homes. 5 megawatts, roughly 5,000. 20, 20,000, 50, so it's
>> do I see What do I see that's 60 on my on my light bulb? What's that? Watts. >> watts. >> That's not mega watts. >> not mega watts. It's just watts. >> Got it. I'm going to get it now. Okay. >> It's a 100-watt bulb, not a 100-megawatt [laughter] bulb. >> That'd be one very bright light bulb. >> Very bright. Very warm.
>> Okay. >> Sorry. I told you >> I wouldn't have thought of that either. >> I would probably would not know. >> [laughter] >> Yeah. Okay. So, then So, that's small. Then medium would be up to 5 megawatts, um
less than 75,000 square feet. And by the way, the reason I chose 20,000 was because that's the trigger for the major business complex. And I chose the 75,000 because that's the max distribution center that we have. Not that they're related, it's just that it's a number we're familiar with. Um
limits to associated. So, now you can have associated infrastructure, but you're limited. And so, now we can say define decide what these numbers are. So, I said no more than two generators. Evan pointed out we might want to specify the size.
Um less than 15,000 gallons of on-site fuel storage. The reason I chose that number is because that's the number they're allowed before you have to get a permit. And uh but that's a number I definitely want to confirm with the fire department. But basically, I don't want to have any number that triggers any
kind of special anything. You know, it's just that whatever is going to be allowed by right. Uh cooling systems must be closed system and not water-based. And so, we'll have to get Sarita's input on that. >> Uh well, couldn't you have a closed water-based system? Of course you could.
>> Well, yeah, you could. >> Yes. You could. [laughter] I just I want no water. >> Uh well, I'm not sure that makes any sense. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'm not sure you can have that. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, you can you can do it with melted salt the way they do it in nuclear reactors.
>> Or or refrigerant refrigerant systems or things. >> Yeah, I I think uh >> Okay. So, Jacob, maybe strike not water. >> Yeah. Well, we have to do something about that to make it technically sound. >> Yeah. That sounds good. Yeah. And I want to get Sarita's input
on that cuz she's the one who looked into that. And then, no utility substations. So, basically, we're just saying we don't want you to have any sort of on-site little power plant kind of thing. And then, large data center is your greater than 5 MW, and I don't need to
say anything more cuz it's not allowed. >> Okay. [laughter] >> So, if you go to the use table, then um So, small, medium, and large. Small is largely Now, I was saying originally commercial and industrial. I think that we're probably going to have a lot of
discussion about that. So, I'm totally open to it. If anyone has thoughts about it. Medium data center, which is industrial only with planning board approval, which was Chris's recommendation, which I think is a good one. And then, large data center is just not allowed. And then, in addition, we would add a
note to dimensional requirements for IA and IS that there needs to be a 500-ft ft setback from any external infrastructure from >> [clears throat] >> residential districts. That number, you know, is in the literature is between 500 and 1,000. Um
again, you know, I just picked 500, whatever. So So [clears throat] Evan's Evan's thoughts were that he wasn't sure that it made sense to allow a primary uh data center use in commercial
because it could, given the nature of the building, uh which tends to be look different than say an ordinary commercial kind of building, that it could break up potentially the look of a commercial area and that sort of thing. And I I thought that was a good point. But that
it could be allowed as accessory if you're assuming that a sex accessory is essentially contained within a building that looks like a normal commercial building. So I thought that made a lot of sense. >> Yeah, and I was thinking the same thing um in those terms. >> Good. >> We can always paint the windows on. >> So So you're saying
>> [laughter] >> Well, I mean like the Yeah, exactly. The the liquor place. That's what I was thinking of, you know, just putting in some fake windows. >> Just so I know, the data center, the ones we're saying are small, those are two data centers or those are just what
people have that are they're using data? >> Yes. So there are So it's really the accessory versus primary. So most companies have an accessory data center within their
building. Um >> Yeah, it's called the computer room. >> Yeah. Computer room or I'm sure Wayne Tower has a significant size data center. >> So is but let me go So is the small data center, is that what you're our server
rooms are like what people have in their offices? >> Well, I think the small data center as it's listed here includes those server rooms and stand-alone under 20,000 square foot data centers. >> Yeah.
>> The stand-alone ones are the primary data center use. The inside commercial buildings and office buildings are the accessory use. And I think that's what Evan and Joel were discussing is
in those office buildings and commercial buildings we probably want to allow the accessory use but not allow the stand alone. >> Mhm. >> Because the stand alones are going to be an entire building. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> And Evan was also suggesting to capture
my concern was to say that basically any accessory use that's beyond a certain level becomes considered a primary a principal use. And I thought >> good. >> I thought it was a a neat way to handle that. Cuz that was my concern again is you know that somebody's got a large
secondary thing with five generators one that's like well, you know, it's secondary so you're okay. So we wanted to be able to capture that. Yeah. >> That's a good point. Okay. So we're going to distinguish between accessory use versus
>> principal >> So that's what we're going to add to this. >> That's what's going to be modified to. >> So >> going to allow the accessory um use only in the commercial district.
And the primary use would only be allowed in industrial. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's the way it should be done. >> would be allowed in commercial and industrial. >> Yeah. >> Right. Right. Right. Yep. What's IS again? >> Heavy industrial. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Okay.
>> And also Evan pointed out I didn't include CB light which I need to do. >> [laughter] [snorts] >> But CB light would just be along with same as the other commercial. >> Yeah. Yeah. So accessory use only. >> Yep. >> Yeah.
I I that's I think that's great. >> Yeah. >> So, commercial use, like where's retail? Retail is what? Isn't that >> Commercial. >> Commercial. Mhm. What retail would have that accessory use?
>> I can't imagine. >> Any of those large office buildings >> buildings. might have a common data center. >> Yeah. >> Um I would think >> Like I'm thinking like I don't know, like for instance, something like like the the Town Center Mall, right?
>> Mhm. >> Let's look at that. Does that have a data center? Like do they use data center? No. Like >> Just the mall. >> Yeah, somebody might have a computer room, you know. >> Yeah, Kohl's may >> have a computer area that would be considered under this definition.
>> It might be, yeah. >> A small data center. >> one of the moves in the industry, which or potential moves in the industry, which uh Chris highlighted, is basically the distribution of uh AI um uh generative AI computing
out to the nodes, to the edges, you know, so that potentially places like a Kohl's or whatever could have a mini generative AI kind of thing that could be associated with it. And um and so this uh so we want to and I think we do. I think we capture that
idea, you know. But to answer your question is well, do they have it? Potentially it's very limited right now, but in the future it could potentially expand to something more intensive, and so we I think we capture that. >> So. I think this is a really
hot button. And I'm questioning whether it is to go in front of town meeting to get these definitions defined. To get it passed. Do we just say, "Okay, it's not allowed
in Chelmsford now." >> You can't. >> And then we say we already got some in Chelmsford. >> Companies need data centers >> [cough and laughter] >> Yeah. >> as as an accessory use. They have them now. Most companies have them. >> I mean, there's two there's two strategies you can take. One is to have
a a comprehensive definition and then restrict that definition and control how it's being done. The other one is to have a very restrictive definition and then and then say it's not allowed anywhere, like you say. Right, but I think you're safer with the
more comprehensive definition and then have better controls on on where it's actually being done. Because, yeah, the the I mean, everybody has some kind of not everybody, but uh you know, you do have companies I mean, you have like Barracuda Networks that's in uh
uh in the Apollo area. You do have places where these people do have these kinds of stuff. I mean, you have the one data center that we identified. They actually have a generator right here outside. Uh it's it's it's cleverly screened, but you can see it. So, I actually stopped and looked at it and got the name. >> remember like
>> Zoll Medical likely has a data center in that building. >> I'm so again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here >> Mhm. >> because you know if we don't have it defined, then it's not allowed in in, right? So, people are going to be like, "Well, how did these people get these data centers cuz it's not allowed?"
>> No. I disagree with that because with data centers you could get it in under warehousing. Or you could simply it as the general infrastructure for a business.
>> Okay, we just we may just want to make sure we emphasize that. >> has regarded it as up until now. >> Yeah. I mean, that was in the first slide I did, which was which was the reason that we need to take action is because what the lack of definition is creating
situations where people are coming in and doing things without really sufficiently identifying it as something that they don't want. And yeah, I think that's in part what happened in Lowell. Was that they started out as one kind of a data center, and they ended up as a
different kind of a data center, and they couldn't distinguish between the two. >> Quite quite candidly, I think this has more to do with people's uh fears and concerns about AI. >> Yeah. >> Than it does about anything else, and that is I completely agree with. I have
those concerns. But it's unclear to me how this >> No, so I think if we if we kind of go with that approach about how this is different, like if we don't define it's coming in under this and in first to your point, infrastructure. So, we want to get our
hands around it. But I don't know. I still think like knowing how a hot topic this is, do we do no for medium and large, and then when there's something that
comes like in that size, maybe that's when we bring it to town meeting and say, "Okay, this is it. This makes sense." You know, like I'm just knowing how every how emotional everybody is with AI. >> Yeah.
>> I worry about anything that isn't like normal data computing. >> Yeah, I was just saying I I just say, you know, we don't want someone that's a creative writer to be able to fill out an application and uh um somehow split hairs and get around just cuz it's not
allowed. Like I know I won't say the number, but we talked about a very small one on the Worker Road and you wouldn't even know it's there. Um I've never been in it or around it. I don't We have never heard any a butter complaints, but we don't want some We don't want to go I think we try to
approach uh present this to town meeting as we're trying to be proactive so that we don't fall into some of the trapdoors that neighboring communities have fallen into and have huge resident concerns now. That's what I I would approach it.
>> I'm saying my mother worked at the unit on the Worker Road and PCF and she's like, I never knew that was there. So >> Yeah, like that seems to be a relatively, you know, a kind of a you know, low-key one, but I but we I think we just try to explain to town meeting that we just
don't want to fall into a you know, traps that other communities have fallen into and >> But I do take your point about maybe we go with the medium data center as a no in IA and industrial for now.
>> For now and just you know, just define what what is there. >> And allow allow the accessory use and not the primary use. >> Yeah. I think that might be easier to sell. And then if something comes if someone
makes an inquiry that now we have it defined and someone says, well hey, I kind of fall in this and this would be then we can assess and you can present to town meeting, you know, this is how many jobs it'll add. This is what it'll do. Like, you know, especially where it's changing too so
quickly. Then we could reassess it and it's easier just to flip, you know, a no to a why or to a PB later. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> But if we start with it at PB, we reserve that right for ourselves
without having to be constrained by a coming back to town meeting kind of a timeline. I mean that >> Yeah. >> Yeah, but to Anita's point, because this is such a hot topic right now and there is so much opposition.
>> Angst. >> I'm angst. >> I am a little concerned now that she's pointed it out that if even with the PB, even with the special permit, people would have significant opposition to it.
>> Okay, fine. I was just being devil's advocate. >> Cuz if it was meeting the requirements, then we don't really have a standing to say no. >> Yeah. >> So it's it's uh I think if you want to I think that that that makes sense to me. >> Yeah. >> Not allowed.
primary use. >> And then again, I think like as this this technology progresses, and I think that's the other thing like people like this is just so new, we don't understand it, we haven't even captured it, blah blah, you know, like it could open up a whole bunch of door doors and I can see that being valid
concerns. Um when we have someone who says, "Hey, I'm thinking about doing this." Then you it's easier to present >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> as an example to town meeting, this is what they want to do.
And and then it's easier to just change it's already defined, just change it from Y to PB or >> Yeah. >> And I mean, we're trying to balance the, you know, impression of the planning board is that, you know, we do things that are not in the town's economic interest. So we [laughter] were, you know, trying to >> There is that. >> And but but on the other hand, you know,
>> Looking back to the approach we took at the lighting bylaw and my comment to Sarita about taking baby steps, I think this is another example where >> we could take a baby step and at least get things
defined, get the accessory use allowed. >> So I'll I mean I'll draft I'll I'll draft it that way and then we can argue about it next time. >> Okay. All right. Um any other comments on this?
>> I think you know mine. >> [laughter] >> All right. >> So I won't repeat. >> So Joel will make one last draft for next meeting. Um we will uh make one final decision next meeting. Um and then get this ready for
public hearing. >> Yeah. I was saying I was going to try to go Monday to the Butler to see what was the >> Oh yeah, that's right. The Lowell >> the Lowell one to see what they have to say. Um just get a good idea. >> Yeah. >> So you're going to go and you're going to go? Okay. >> Yeah.
>> So you two will go? >> It'll probably be a lot like what you sent me in the Facebook things. >> Yeah. >> [laughter] >> I can guess what it's going to be like. >> Well, someone posted it on Facebook the Channel 5 news thing and I'm like, "Oh, okay." And I'm like, "Now I'm interested. I want to go check out what
Lowell was." But working in Lowell and listening to some of the neighbors and stuff out there, too, it's, you know, it's a pretty big deal for them, so. >> What's their concern, the neighbors' concern? >> The noise, the electric uh electricity use, the water use. And whenever you've ever heard Lowell have any water ban,
they now have a water ban. >> Yeah. >> It is a massive >> Yeah, it is huge. Fire hazards was one of them, yeah. >> They've added a lot of diesel tanks, is what I understand. >> It's a very dense >> You know, it's funny. I look at this and I say
They took out data center and put in industrial usage and had all the same stuff. As a regulation, it might make a lot more sense. I mean, why do we forbid something that uses 5 MW and
cools with water if it's silicon? And we we ban it and we allow it if it's a chemical process that uses 5 MW and cools with water. >> Well, I think at the low plant they'd still have the some of the issues especially cuz this you know, you get all that diesel fuel there. It's
a huge fire hazard the density of the area. I mean everything's on top of each other there. Um >> Well, but my point is why are we making this only data center when there are lots of industrial processes that could fall
into this category. >> I'm not sure that there are that many industrial processes >> be you could have an outfit that's busy trying to make diamonds. Uh compressing carbon. They're going to use a heck of a lot of heat, a heck of a lot of energy. They're going to have to
cool the mess somehow. >> But you don't see a lot of those in New England. >> Well, you haven't lately [laughter] but They may be out there. We wouldn't know. >> button topic right now cuz they're popping up everywhere. And >> the reason we're talking about this is because everybody's talking about this.
>> Yes, it's it's becoming problems in lots of communities not just here but throughout the United States. >> All right, we do need to move on. >> Yep. >> Managed Growth Strategy, any updates? >> to move the meeting out from tomorrow. Uh and we're in the process of rescheduling.
>> Okay. Um >> I will let you know as soon as we have a date. Right now we're in the selection the date selection process, you know, where everybody sends an email and >> [snorts] >> All right.
Um the zoning article updates um I just continue to uh give the updates on on tracking sheet um for your information. Um So, the way after talking with Evan, I
think the way that we're going to handle the zoning and regulation changes is we will go to town meeting with the zoning changes. [cough] Um PILO related >> Yeah. >> Uh
few other bylaw the uh voting process, things like that. Those all go Any zoning changes will go to town meeting. And then we have a planning board meeting shortly after.
And that's when we'll have the public hearing for the regulation changes. Because they are a Some of the regulation changes are hand-in-hand with the zoning changes. We don't want to make the regulation changes before the zoning and two out of step. So,
because we've got the meeting right after, we'll do the the zoning >> Mhm. >> public hearing before town meeting, get that done. And then we'll do the regulation public hearing after town the meeting after town meeting.
Um and so, we'll have a number of the regulation changes um in that discussion. Um it'll be the PILO ones. I'm pulling all of the regulations
together into a booklet just like we did with the policies. Um and then making updates like the I think we have to remove some regulations related to lighting. Um and a bunch of other ones. So,
>> You know. >> Yeah. A lot of cleanup. All right. Contractor yard definitions. So, Becky, if you could bring up version five. I cleaned up the version.
Added pictures. >> [laughter] >> 8 by 10 color glossies? Um >> Nice and pretty for Anita. >> So I cleaned up all of the uh tracking. If you could scroll down, there were no changes to the text,
if I remember correctly. Um Uh no, uh a little bit to the Yeah. Oh, there were some minor changes. Um so I did adjust the size of the vehicles slightly.
I believe that the Let me pull up the other version. Uh So for light vehicles, I had up to 10,000 lbs.
And after looking at the pictures and the sizes, I realized it's probably better to go with the 14,000 um to make it level with what the gross vehicle weight ratings are.
And then the medium was 10,000-ish to 26,000 and I changed that to 14 to 20. And then the heavy commercial
was over 26 and instead it's over 20. So I did adjust the weights slightly. Not significantly. Um I think that was if you scroll down
Uh yeah, there are no changes in the use. No changes in Oh, for the parking table, I just put it into a table format to make it easier to read.
>> [clears throat] >> And I think that was it for changes. Thoughts? >> I think you captured it. >> I think that looks good. >> All right. So, we'll consider that one closed and ready for the public hearing. >> Cool.
>> All right. Uh >> Strong work. >> Thanks. No new business. I'm assuming Becky, you don't have anything to report? >> [laughter] >> Oh, come on. >> Liaison updates.
>> Uh Senate Village met um It's still talking about Trump's Street um breaking down right now with what they potentially want to do, what would be covered under TIPS funding, what would not be covered, and would have to be covered by the city. Um still looking at
a couple of different options with some of that to also help make it so that the business is not feeling like they're sort of get losing all their parking and it's going to impact some of that stuff. So, um and I know one of the things that makes it very hard to sort of look at and plan is
because we have not seen and I know DPW hasn't seen the plans yet for the rotary that they are anticipating putting at the end of both 495 north and 495 south um because as MassDOT is doing it, they will be putting a bike lane through there and how that's going to connect
everything. >> Okay. >> So, this is it's still as I said, this is going to be another 2-year potential project that if we start anything, it wouldn't start till at least 2027 if not 2028. >> Okay. Anyone else?
>> I'll just mention I attended a Nimby Cod Council meeting last Wednesday and I was able to stay for most of the meeting. Um the next day I we did receive that update with some few topics and I did forward it along to the chair and vice chair the um just about the meeting in Lowell in case
it was of interest about the data center for the you know the that neighborhood forum meeting. And that was the that's all I have for that. >> Okay. >> And then I know Evan was going to be on the call during the day. >> The battery
>> Yeah, the battery >> clean energy >> clean energy stuff. >> thing about >> Yeah. So, we'll get a an update from him next time. >> Lowell also >> just had an article about battery storage about five different battery storage places going into various suburbs. >> Yeah.
>> So. >> Going in where? >> Uh different places different it's it's two municipalities um municipalities that have their own uh power utility um departments. So, it's to assist them.
>> But nonetheless, it was interesting to see. So. I think that's something we want to be on top of. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> It's changing fast. I mean the the whole battery scene is is becoming dispersed. >> Yeah. >> Mhm.
>> Anyone else? >> Yeah, CPC met. Um we had a couple of proposals before us, both of which were approved. Um David had it to be brought forth to town meeting. Um recommended by the CPC. So, one was
David Henson was promoting um um a request for $460,000. Um there's a wall behind the Choice building at the
UMass um campus, UMass West um campus that I guess there was some lack of clarity in the original plans
who who was paying for the wall and um so Choice is being asked to pay for the wall or and and I mean I think they feel like they're getting a a pad and they're getting a um the land and they're getting the
um sewage the waste treatment plant for their facility and um from I'm blanking on the name of that development company, but in any case um so David was asking for $460,000 to build this wall and um we approved it.
It's going to be necessary in order to gain basically 50 units of senior housing. Um so that's one. The other is up by the senior center, there's a building that's been a
um housing development for disabled adults and it's apparently in a This kind of a long story and David will give a long presentation at um at town meeting about it, but um it was
it's owned by the state, but maintained by the housing authority, but the state was supposed to be funding the maintenance and because it's been in existence for I think 40 years, the ADA requirements have changed. It needs a It's It's
currently vacant because it needs a complete um re- redo in order to be brought up to current ADA standards. Um and so a private company is coming in to do it in cooperation with a non-profit
um but they're asking for some additional seed money from the town in order to keep um this is I think eight units ends up to be counted as eight units of affordable housing that houses disabled adults.
>> [snorts] >> Um and so they're asking for I think it was about the same number, maybe 500 600,000, I think. Um which we also approved. So I
I have to say as I was preparing to talk about this, I realized I don't exactly know. I think it's going to be put to bond. Um and um I look
but I guess we'll have Dave is going to bring it to us, so. >> Okay. >> But that's kind of the advance. >> Is the is the us the planning board? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> At least the >> All right. Um ConCom met yesterday. No major
discussions with them. Um most of their regulatory hearings are continuing to get continued. Um same reasons as ours, I guess. Uh so um nothing new from them from them.
And I already talked about the parcel earlier. All right. Any other updates? >> Nothing cool from the Board of Health. >> Nope. >> All right. We don't have meeting minutes tonight. Um so I will take a motion. >> So moved.
>> Motion to adjourn by Mike. >> Seconded. >> Seconded by Marcy. All in favor. >> Aye. >> Unanimous. All. >> Good night, everyone.