##VIDEO ID:NmVdmTUJEOQ## I'm going to call the Tuesday January 7 2025 um meeting of the ISA metal planning board to order Reed to ask if there's anyone in the audience or on Zoom who might be recording this meeting please so please state your name and the method you recording I'll ask again is there anyone in the audience or on Zoom who might be recording this meeting please state your name and the method in which you're recording none we'll take the all the meeting starting with Mr punderson P hson here Bill fona Russell Denver Cher Willow Rob th and we're joined by Rob Chilla planning director director of plan thank you uh approval on the December 17 2024 meeting then I make a motion to approve have a second second uh any discussion hearing none all uh in approval please say I I and I am abstain me uh we I'll take a motion to take out of order item five under new business so moved a second keep going any discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I Mr clerk would you please call the first order business being number five sure uh new business NR d224 d11 requests to endorse plan of plan and of land reconvey shared lot lines of two Parcels at 30 Main Street owner John uh owner owned owned by John a Pano and two Redstone Drive owned by Carolyn m price applicant Hunter chap to Lane 301 Mountain Road waham Mass 01095 the applicant here want to step forward Brian Smith associate surveyors he everyone brought the plan we have the plans in front of us you might just want to kind of we could read one know that's true I can put up on the screen too so okay why don't you do that hey what you doing so um the the owner at 30 mayard was looking to put an addition on the house to facilitate a um an additional living space uh for I don't I don't know all the details but uh in order to get the size addition that they wanted they were getting a little too close to the property line so they approached butter at two Redstone to see if they' be willing to do a land Swap and reconfigure that property line to allow for a little greater setback on that side and that's what we're proposing here so there's two Parcels to be exchanged equal square footage will be no changes to the square footage of either parcel no CH no changes to the front AG um everything uh meets setback requirements and seems from my side of the fence here it looks pretty straightforward any concerns from the planning department no it's actually our idea to suggest they go down this route because they uh they go down the variance route at first seemed like the better option any questions from the board no do I have a motion to endorse the plan so moved second motion made second any discussion none all in favor say I I matter passes excellent thank you all very much Mr clerk item four hearings case zn-22al Meadow zoning binding law and for the Amendments of subsection 45033 additional use dimensional and density regulations subsection 450 9.3 projects requiring site plan review subsection 50- 111.2 terms define table 3-1 schedule of use regulations and table 3-2 table of dimensional regulations of these long metal zoning from December 3rd 2024 so uh before we kind of get into a little bit so Rob why don't you just kind of Bill Us in and let people know you know a quick synopsis what this is why we're acting on this matter and the current status and what we need what type of timelines we need to fulfill sure yes so um uh we are proposing a um update to the zoning bylaws and we're actually including a section on we called accessory dwelling units known as adus for short essentially they're like um an additional living um units on a property usually you'd see these in like converted garages sheds or just new construction they can also be an addition to an existing single family home or they can be contained within the um existing home entirely uh essentially the term accessory refers to it being smaller in size than the primary structure which is usually the single family home the main house so the governor signed back in August a law called the affordable homes act one of many Provisions included this Adu um being allowed by W which means it doesn't need any it can't be denied by the planning board in any Town throughout the state so as a result of that law passing which goes into effect on February 2nd of this year um the planning board and the planning department have been working on language to not only curve the boom of development that might result from this law change but to do it in a way that's appropriate for the town of East Long Meadow um one of which includes allowing them by site plan review uh which means the planning board would look over the plans for any and all adus and then offer their uh criticisms and feedback and then essentially would have to comply with the law and allow them by right so we did um have our first hearing on this back on believe it was December 4th Mr chair it says that on the agenda um and there have been a few changes since but they're very minor um so everything you see here um in blue with the underline if you're looking at the screen these are new pie of language are being added to the actual existing text and that's red with a line through it it's pretty self-explanatory we're taking that out so I just want to go back and go down to the um parts that have been changed since the previous meeting so right here as you can see anything that's highlighted those are new changes that have been implemented since the last public hearing on this matter um so for example the plan board wanted to take out most of this first paragraph and shorten it to read this bylaw addresses the necessary perming path and design requirements for accessory dwelling units known as adus in order to site these buildings in an appropriate manner for the community so the timeline that we have for this is to hopefully meet that February second deadline looks like we're going to do that um right now this is our second public hearing before the planning board the Town Council has their public hearing on January 14th which is next Tuesday um don't know how long that's going to take but we are going to be close to meeting our goal of getting this thing passed by February 2nd and just to continue to show the minor changes that have occurred since the last hearing just going to scroll through so right here um this section pertains to detached access accessory dwelling units essentially those are the separate buildings that you would have so say like an old garage barn or just a new building that you construct it's separated from the main building that's why it's referred to as detached so we did make an edit here in section c so the text used to read that the Adu would have to abide by the same setback requirements for any accessory structure so for example like a garage or a barn would have to be an additional 10t back from the road than the main building in this case we are conforming to draft regulations that were released by the state about a month ago in which they dictate that the town cannot be more restrictive in citing these accessory dwelling units than you would for a single family home so because of this we had to modify the language here to reflect that so instead of having the additional 10t further back requirement we have to allow for them to abide by the same setbacks as the main building itself so the text has been altered to say detach Adu shall observe the same front yard setback as the primary dwelling and the reason why I took out side yard and rear yard here is because the main building and accessory buildings already abide by the same rear and side setbacks it's just the front one that's different for both and also there's an exception where if a garage or shed is 10 feet behind the main building they're allowed to be 5et away from the property line on the sides and the rear adus are not allowed to do that they still have to be the same distance back as the main building itself so the whole point is we're trying to have uniformity here while also complying with what the state's telling us we're allowed to do so that was the biggest reason for this change right here um on this section and you know we'll take questions at the end I'm just going to go through the rest of the changes very quickly there isn't much else um the only other thing that I'm aware of was that was also included in the new regulations that were um given to us by the state is this definition here for what's referred to as gross floor area GFA so this definition here um expands upon the definition we used to have so the definition we used to have read the aggregate of the floor areas of all stories of a building or structure other than adct or a seller excluding the floor areas of any private garage so under the states definition which fell into the same regulations that govern the last change I made um it includes all those attics and basement structures it looks at the total square footage of every floor in the building so you're looking at the whole building's gross floor area when calculating how big you're allowed to have for an Adu so I'm just going to read the whole thing here so people can understand what this definition comes from so gross floor area is a sum of the areas of all floors of the building including basements stellars mezzanine and intermediate floor tiers and penth houses of Ed room height measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the center line of wall separating buildings but excluding covered walkways open roofed over areas porches and similar spaces and pipe trenches exterior Terraces or steps chimneys roof overhangs and similar features so essentially they're measuring all habitable areas and that's the definition is describing to us so that's pretty much all the changes there um I don't know if you want to open up for questions or what the board wants to so we're just trying to be as proactive as possible to kind of uh get this issue out there and pass in time for dat requirement is that correct that's correct I like how this planning board can be very proactive much like when we put the issue of drones before the Town Council and uh you know the issue of drones that went all the way up to President Biden yeah but you know just apparently just I thought there are just concerns of a few individuals but uh so this is a continuation of a public hearing so uh anyone who wishes to speak on this item please feel free to come forward get the Bibles here we go thank you very much Ralph paage before we get going I also just want I also want to just remind members of the public this is does include members of the Town Council that we to hear issues from residents and so when we issues in front of the planning board it's not necessarily a few of us that might have concerns hear things we bring it to this board we submit it to the Town Council so it's not just a few people who have concerns about appearances it's we've heard from other people much like people have told me they've heard from countless people about the building uh Chase Bank yeah a word from anybody I have I've heard heard a word just let people know stage the floor is yours thank you very much Point well taking on the drones our government can't handle it sure our town can but that's okay um so I appreciate uh the continuance of this public hearing from the December 4th meeting um it gave me an extended amount of time to look through the ad U bylaw including uh 760 CMR 71 which currently are proposed uh regulations they're actually in the public comment section uh taken until January 10th which I've submitted uh multiple different comments to them with regards to some adjustments um but in front of you um I created uh 12 is in here that I just wanted to go through real quick and I'm basing a lot of this off of the 760 CMR um information that I recently printed out which is their last and uh most current um so I'm going to just start right in at the top uh under Section uh 450 511 C1 um um accessibility of adus um I just wanted to point out that under 760 CMR um it talks about uh residential dwellings within residential dwelling districts well their definition of a residential dwelling district is any District which allows by right a residential dwelling currently in our bylaw uh under 3 two I think it is table 32 we allow by right residential dwellings in all districts except industrial and Industrial Garden Park so if we go with their recommendation I think what we need to do is look at um the table later on and change the nose because currently it's only um double A A B and C that we're allowing it in and we have to change the others with the exception of industrial and Industrial Garden Park to yes or we have to think to go into our bylaw and say residential housing is not allowed in those districts if that's the way you choose to go or we have to convince the state that their definitions incorrect good luck with that one but I just wanted like I said so this issues I wanted to point out this a good one that you brought up I I appreciate it so I'm just going to just go to Rob for a second so had a lot of dealings with this Rob so do you believe and I'm just asking your opinion that the state would find this overly burdensome if we restricted adus in certain districts that we now allow residential housing in yes Andel because it depends on how many single family homes are exist in those districts right so you could have uh single family housing Allowed by right in the business district but do we have many of those in that District we might have some we also might have some that have been there before the zoning even changed so I don't see that as a big issue and neither did our town attorney when they reviewed the bylaw they didn't really make that a concern but it's up to the board if you really wanted that to be reflected yeah so I mean we're trying to do this in a very respectful and aesthetic eing manner I I don't know if we want to be putting accessory dwelling units anywhere yeah well so I guess one of my concerns let me go back before my train of thought thank you p uh Alo I think other districts District I residence a residence B you know C I get it I get all that I do have one uh thing to point out about this definition this I mean the state kind of does make it seem very vague their definition I mean if a single family home is a lot by right in the commercial District does that make it a residential district now a single family residential district it doesn't I mean I think that definition by itself just seems very broad so it can easily fit in to different districts that might traditionally be commercial um I think the justification for doing it just in the residents double a to c is because those are primarily the single family residential districts we have in town so it made the most sense just to limit it to those districts the other ones are more for non-residential purposes what do you think the state will say to that though I don't think the state would make a big deal about it unless because those other districts are not residential district they're not primarily residential districts so we are essentially saying we want to just limit exceptional dwelling units to those probably which remind you know just a big reminder that's more than 75% of our town yeah yeah so it's not like we're making it restrictive those areas are pretty large especially res so okay yeah so if we have a house in a let's say a business district that wants to put an Adu on um are we going to have a process through the zba to allow that it would be a variance yeah it depends you can make the argument that's a special permit for for a pre-existing non-conforming use and that you're altering it by adding an Adu but it's not preexisting non-conforming use because it's a residential use in an allowed Zone with residential so it wouldn't fall under that the Adu according to the state you can't put under special permit and I'm just again I'm not expecting to have all these answers tonight I just these are things that I wanted to bring up to the board and again I don't think any bylaw no matter how much you put into it is perfect there's always going to be little bits here and there that this house doesn't really conform or something and um these are just points that I brought up it's a good point to let you you know simmer think about and if you want to adjust you can if you don't understand and yeah so I do like the I personally I don't know everyone else but I like the concept of limiting it to quote residence a be you know not dealing units rob you look like you're thinking that one over so yeah I could see the smoke and if if a if a structure was yeah but if it's an overlay we that's something we could potentially add when you create that District yeah Russ but a structure that's prexisting non-conforming can't be made more non-conforming anyway well actually that's something that was one of the comments to the state and the state seem seems to say well now because we have these two in the same portion of the law our bylaw state that well just because our bylaws do you can't be more restrictive than the state and with the state pre-existing non-conforming because one of my questions was are you going to need a section six finding um but again I think that's more down the road I think those are going to be very few uh issues um there's a limited number of pre-existing non forming residential dwellings mine and yours um this is going to be an interesting discussion we have four three former chairs of the planning board and myself I think I'm outnumbered here so but okay so if you thought about that Ralph I could actually put a a garage on the left it expand my garage and put an apartment above it yes Mike okay um so the next one is uh 450 5.11 D5 um which is the stairways uh not to access secondary guess my question is that was highlighted in the um last go around by the attorney and he said he had concerns over this and I thought the consensus of the board was hey if the attorney feels that uh this is unreasonable that we should remove it I think um sways right now we allow them and I mean if you have access to a second floor of your house through an outside stairway how can we now say well if that goes to an Adu no you can't I think it's burdensome um I don't think most people are going to do that there's always going to be one or two outliers there's always going to be one or two outliers but again I know our attorney suggested that that not be in there and so that's why I've marked it um rob you have an update so basically our attorney flagged that one because uh they were unsure if that one would be seen as overly restrictive and mind you their comments came before the draft regulations were published they just told us to be cautious of that one just in case but you do bring up a good point that if it's already allowed for single family homes that exist in town then I would say probably wise tick it out of the section because that could be challengeable so I'm going to give you my thoughts um let them challenge it I I mean we're trying to also have a certain aesthetic in town even though maybe not every member of the Town Council cares about appearances there are people that do it is cold out um you know you the better appearance of a property the property is valued more where does a town get their tax dollars from property values the higher the property value the more taxes so there's nothing wrong with trying to uh Reach for the Stars a little bit so my thoughts only as one person so that's why I'm bringing these up for you um number three is uh uh 511 D13 um again the accessory dwelling unit shall be designed so that the appearance and scale of the Adu is compatible with the primary dwelling um again this is one that our attorney had flagged um and again this one um is compatible with the primary dwelling so who's going to make the decision whether or not that looks good based on that or you going to make them use the same siding um even though the accessory structure that's right next to it is completely different um I I mean there's literally right now your accessory structure is not required to you know complement your building and it's a detached dwelling I mean obviously an attached to Adu most people are going to match it with the house and you're never even going to see it I think this is more the detached and it just didn't make a lot of sense to me that hey we're going to let your detach garage be anything you want but gez if you have this accessory dwelling unit it's got to be complimentary that's why I suggested that um and again having it flagged by our attorney um more food for thought that's this is what I actually agree with you on Ralph what so because because of how discretionary it is so Mr chair can we um I guess after we're done can we just go back through the changes we I make after okay yeah thank you okay the next one is uh 511 d uh 15c um which is detached Adu shall be constructed in the side and our rear yards um again under the guidance from the state uh dimensional standards any requirement concerning dimensional setbacks lot size lot coverage open space bulk and height of the structures that are more restrictive than what is for a single family home shouldn't be done it's considered unreasonable um so my suggestion would be to just adjust the language to and again I'm going to put in detached and we'll get into that in a second detached adus shall meet all primary building setback requirements for the district in which it is located it's simple it's precise we already have setbacks for each district for the primary building um keep it within the building envelope and we're done um that's my thought on it again I think that was the way the board was sort of Leaning I think this language uh works very well thoughts I think it's very clean thank you yep another one we agree with you don't get too excited here um again uh the next one is 511d 15D um the only reason I mentioned this is because it had been flagged by our attorney and again I just wanted to bring it up um this has to do with the DPW curb cut regulations so I don't see an issue with it but Tom you raised uh when we had a discussion last time there were question if you have a single family dwelling you have to cut the curb and pave back 15 feet on the primary residen why wouldn't you do that on the secondary maybe because they're parking in the same driveway no may but it's not more restrictive so it's it was flagged by the attorney but not necessarily I think it must you're saying required by the original structure yeah it's the same it's the same regulation we put on the primary structure so we can put it on the secondary since it since the secondary has to conform to the primary structur step backs and all that type of stuff right keep agree consistent yeah yeah so detached adus requiring a separate curb cut that makes it sound like if you have a detached Adu you have to do a curb cut in a separate driveway and I don't think that's really not necessarily I mean it's just specific to detach adus that might require a separate curb cut but we always modify require I we change the language yeah so make it you know as I'll do right now if if applicable right yeah okay attach adus that may require yeah sear curve code there we go okay um next one is number e a detached Adu shall be limited in height to one and a half stories how tall is one and a half stories as a dimensional regul 12et you're going to put a house up 12 feet so half stories is more the one and a half stories is basically a design what it basically talks about isch roof well when you talk about it it means that the second floor is half the size of the first floor which when you look under the 760 CMR you can't be more restrictive in dimensional requirements than what the primary structure is no nowhere in our bylaw does it say a house has to be one and a half stories it says a residential dwelling can't be more than say 35 ft I believe is what most zones are it would be my suggestion that that language be removed um or set a height requirement I mean put in not exceed um you know help me the conform to the height requirements within that District thank you yeah yeah number it's same section um 5.1 E1 through3 which is the review process this is where I have concern site plan review I 100% agree with site plan review for detached adus going to be putting them on a lot um I think the board the town wants to know where they're going to be located within the building envelope how the utilities are being hooked up and stuff like that for attached adus it's nothing more than addition on a house at best we don't require site plan for that right now to make someone pay additional funding and all to do a site plan for basically an addition on their house I think is over the top um I think your building code really covers all aspects of an attached Adu they have to meet the standards they have to meet the setbacks from the property lines already to get the building permit um I can understand that we have to do a registry um based on what the state is suggesting that we do and to make them before they get an occupancy permit that they have to register with the town absolutely I don't have an issue with that but to make a site plan review for an attached Adu I I disagree with it um thoughts before I gave you mine well I mean just to keep in mind for the site plan review process you're allowed to submit a waiver request for any requirements of the site plan so if it was just a very simple plan that showed the addition and then maybe not the stormw report or the traffic study you know I think that'd be totally acceptable you could just submit a waiver request with the application makes it easier but you know I'm open to suggestions for changing that if that's the board wants so I remember this discussion from the last time so uh let's say we have a uh a ranch and they want to put on an attached unit and the attached unit AB buts or kind of goes out toward the street so essentially you've got an I that becomes an l and the L goes out toward the streets changes the entire character of the Town even if it meets the you know front setback looks absolutely atrocious and I think I told you that I would like to be able to bom on this board I would like to be able to look at that individual and say you really want to do this to your neighbor it's another appearance issue if it was to be to the to go to the rear of the property I I wouldn't have a specific issue but if they just needed to put it in front because they wanted to make some money to be able to kind of do this it really looks terrible and I think I'm I would be opposed to it but you know I'm only one person I agree with you discretionary it is discretionary with that if it's allowed allowed by right just like an addition I think what you're basically sitting there saying is I want this applicant to spend the $1,500 to have the plans and all drawn so I can tell them I don't think it's right I and I don't think that's right I would prefer that they go talk to the planning department before and say you know the planing board really would be interested in this maybe going to the rear of the property rather than to the front of the property considering the visible you know the the the rest of the neighborhood goes out this far and then obviously a sudden you're going to have a 20 foot addition to the front of the property changing the entire appearance of the street are we going to do that with all additions not if it goes to the rear or to the side additions in other words someone wants to put a a family room off at the front of their house are we gonna are we going to make I think it's discretionary so then we need to change our bylaw to remove single family housing exemptions from site plan review and say yeah you know what I got to do a site plan review on everything that's my thought um so we already require some sort of rough sketch or plot plan of additions to the building perit process so we can make sure the addition still complies with the setback requirements it's not going to be it doesn't have to be fully detailed stamped plan but just whatever complies with the site plan review requirements and you can make the argument that because it's just an addition this is only a permitting set just to show to the board I mean most of the times when people come in for the special permit they only show us permitted sets anyways which usually is just probably the first 50% of the plan before they do the construction set so it doesn't really need to be the final product for this process but usually when you get to the building permit that's when they're going to want to know do you comply with setbacks are you within the appropriate lot uh coverage percentage it just really it could be done on a Case by case basis it's it's not like every single person has to do these fully detailed plans there is flexibility there within the site plan review requirements so the requirements in here state that you have to meet the requirements of all site plan which also has a requirement that you're allowed to apply for waivers from those requirements so that's we're trying to make it flexible for people but we want to make sure that the full purview of site plan review is still thrown over all these adus but there are exceptions that people can request from the planning board when whenever they're appropriate so the other question I have for you Rob so maybe Mike carabetta could weigh in on this I mean you do subdivisions and you have I don't know if you have restrictions on you know um you know what you can do to the properties as long as you're within the building envelope you're entitled to do whatever the elements but if you then add a attached Adu to it you're changing the envelope and so aren't there subdivisions that have restrictions on what you know where square footage square footage additions can be added and so forth and you know can they exceed the um you know you build a all your houses are built back 30 feet from the from the uh from the street and all of a sudden someone says well I'm going to put an Adu and now you know I'm just going to go up to you know the uh the front set back line and it changes and it changes the entire you know view of the street so if you have a lot you're and you have a building envelope on that lot so when it's someone comes before you with a subdivision all those building envelopes are on the land and or Lots as presented to you so if you have a house that's 50 feet wide and you want to add 20 feet to it and come forward two feet and you have that room in your building El you would be allowed to do it so there will be nothing at least in the subdivisions I thought I've never put any restrictions on like that what other Developers done I don't know if you're within that building envelope you would be allowed to do pretty much whatever you want as far as construction long as you don't long as you don't exceed that lot coverboards and so forth you're talking about like the the box that shows the house on the plants yeah no two lots are the same somebody's got five acres or building envelope is huge somebody's got 10,000 s feet the building envelope is consider as long as you're within that building envelope you're safe once you exceed that and obviously the building inspector is not going to Grant the permit for anything that exed that building and also just f for Thought So currently our site plan review requires that if the building say it's a non-residential building right it's commercial building exceeds a certain percentage outside the existing envelope that requires site plan review I believe if it's greater than 25% that's when you need actual site plan review so the attached Adu can also be seen as an extension beyond the original envelope of the single family home because you're adding a certain square foot you can add up to 900 square feet um that's pretty big yeah so I I don't see why I I don't think it it it makes sense to to consider site plan review unless the board feels like that's too restrictive but I think it fits within that same purview it's just the only difference is we don't allow for that for single family homes at the moment but if we did do that that would make pretty much the board have 50 applications every meeting so that's something else to keep in mind too so through the chair again my thought process is for an addition you don't uh you don't require site plan review but internally when they come for the building and all I mean there's nothing against the planning director and the Building Commissioner looking and going you sure you want to stick that forwards it's really going to look bad on the street have you considered going backwards with it um which is basically what you as a board would want to be doing um that's my thought anyways I'll let you guys think on that um because I don't want to be here all night and neither do you um so I'm going to jump uh next to uh 450 9.3 which is I believe uh page seven uh number a so on A2 uh the construction or exterior expansion of any structure or building with the exception of single family residential dwellings are so in other words single family residential dwelling doesn't need a site plan review um so if we keep it for accessory dwelling units I think A2 the language may need to be adjusted a little bit um maybe it says is uh uh with the exception of primary single family residential dwelling or something on that idea because right now it sounds like any exterior expansion on a single family dwelling is exempt from site plan review um so when you drop down to number eight which is an addition uh for accessory dwelling units under sight plan review my suggestion would be that number eight read detached access dwelling units require site plan review and again that all depends on your feeling on site plan review so um moving forwards um do definitions gross floor area um I do not agree with the definition that the state is looking to submit I don't think sellers should be included they not livable areas um I think the original definition which is also the definition in our zoning bylaw is more accurate um I do know they're going through the question period I had called the state and they said one of the largest areas that that got comments on was gross floor area which is to be expected because if you Google it it seems and it pretty much says every municipal it has a different definition yeah um I would like to see it switched back to the original and down the road once the definitions are all defined and all if we have to make an adjustment to it then we can um but I I really don't think a seller is not a living space it when you calculate the square foot gross floor area of your it's not included in it um plus there's so many requirements for uh uh uh access an egress in the down the downstairs I built a house I had to walk out with the downstairs uh and had the certain size windows that person can access easily so there's a lot of requirements so I would that I agree it shouldn't be counted and I'm assuming the first writing was basically you took the gross floor area out of our existing zoning by law and then you probably saw the updated one under 760 and went well if they're requiring that language um but if we're on some of other stuff I'd like to push it on that well the only thing um I me cut you off Ral the only concern I had I agree with you I think sellers are not living areas but you know there was a recent bill passed um it was like some sort of economic develop I forgot the exact name of it but essentially it allows for the courts to no longer hold the bylaw and the way terms are defined within the zoning bylaw as in a land cor case they now have to go with the state's definition so if that's going to be the state's definition that creates a problem for us because if this were to get challenged for some reason they're going to go straight to that definition in the court so I think we got to just wait and see what they do but maybe we can also modify this definition to take out Sellers and maybe change it from basements to finished basements or something like that I mean my concern I'm going to use my house and as an example I consider my house based on the town's taxes 1180 square feet so if you take half of that what's that just under 600 square feet I could have for an Adu that would probably fit my house if I add the basement to it I can up that to 900 square feet which is almost the size of my house so it would look like I had two houses on the same property and if I did the second house one story it would actually look bigger than what I have and I don't think that's really the intent um and that was my thought on it like I said final comments I do on the 10th yep yes public comments yes public hearing is also on the 10th as well for for the draft regulations okay and yet they want us to pass this by February second exactly yeah so they want us to pass something and then modify accordingly but we also had this discussion last time we were all here that once you we are in the process we're fine yeah was that correct that was the final conclusion in regards to V I could get her attorney to be okay so after we discuss all of this we still really have the capability of continuing this for another two weeks to see if the final RS have come out they're not gonna get them before then I I know I know so I I don't to months I don't see the urgency then because we would incorporate some of the regulations within anything that we do here so we do quite honestly because we've already started the process we've made a good faith effort to hold public hearings on this that we could actually put it not push it down the road but put it off until we actually um get further Direction from the regulations most likely thank you again I'm not sure on that but um So based on well based on what I as you know I do a lot of work for the Affordable Care Act yes that is now 10 years old there are regulations that are still in draft form and have never been implemented and so I will guarantee you the not going to allow us to go 10 years without allowing an Adu also can look at this a few more months down the road too they're not going to have it done okay but this is a great process we keep on and so my last two basically were the notes under the um table and that if you adopt what I said up above especially with regards to one and a half stories then that note's not necessary same with the other one thank you for taking the time to do this P out today I sure you did I just want everyone just to as a reminder this is something that the town will have to pass in some form there's really nothing this planning board nor the Town Council that have final say on it will be able to not do um and so in 15 years if you don't like the outcome of it you can go back get our local legislative delegation who voted in favor of this law so representative pupo representative Ash and state senator ala who all voted to pass this so um go from there so so one parting comment is I believe the Town Council was hoping to do a first reading of this at next Tuesday's meeting not that I'm putting pressure on you but I'm and I think we were thinking that because we have a first read meeting then it goes to a subcommittee within the two week time frame and then on the 28th we're hoping to hold our public hearing and by then pretty much anything and everything should be ironed out and it should whatever we get to at that point should go right through so so well don't go though that question becomes again on timing and how quickly we want to act on this given that final comments are not due to the state until Friday they're going to hold up a hearing on it Friday um and who knows if that'll get continued excuse me so who knows if that that will get continued oh yeah because I would like to take what Mr Paige provided to us go back see how it fits into our current draft on things see what you know um our town attorney might want to take a peek at these as well and see if they would make any changes that he would feel uncomfortable with um so what's the pleasure of of this board yeah have other people too that yeah I know I'm just trying to find on on on process but we will be taking additional testimony we don't need to answer that right now I do have a question for the chair um so I guess are there any changes that you want to make tonight from this list that I can document so I can make those changes accordingly for the next heing date well I was trying to keep track of it so far it seems like uh direct I think it was 450. 11d which talks about the the stairs the outside stairs did you want to get rid of that all together it seemed like the board wanted that to to be the case yes so I believe it was for and then also umby designed so the appearance and scale of the ad is compatible with the primary dwelling to be strict as well okay y I thought I thought we were good with three I thought we were good with four yep y so I think four was just to make the change for the setbacks yeah and five adding that may require for the separate curb cut yeah uh was there anything else after after that I guess modifying gross floor area take out non- living spaces so I could write that down and then the two notes um 11 and 12 wait was that for the use table Ralph or was that for the dimensional table I was confused by yeah y okay so just take out those two notes well yeah take out those two notes from what it sounds like is The Right Move okay we can do that are we all pretty much in agreement for those right anyone else like to be heard on this matter Mr carabetta my best to your father long time my name is at 202 Allen Street um I looked at the bylaw I don't I don't really have a problem with I think Ralph covered everything that I would have covered um I think I want to leave you with a thought though I've got a couple phone calls from people that have accessory structures ie2 car garages within a 5 foot setback they want to know if they can put apartments above here and tonight that's not going to be possible so that says if they have to build an Adu they have to build it within their primary setbacks correct after listening to us we're talking about property values what it's going to look like aesthetically detriment to the neighborhood so now in theory you could have three structures on a property because you can't use the garage as an Adu so I don't know if that's something you want to consider I don't know if you want to look at maybe doing special permits or stuff that already exists I think three buildings on a property could be too much and say a c Zone but it is possible it is plausible so I just want to leave that with you guys to contemplate good thought yeah thank you thank you good cheer I on to that yeah so when you think about it too if it is being attached to an existing garage it's within the five- foot setback and it's a 15 or 20 foot setback um area for a single family I mean we would look at where the addition to that garage starts and how far it is from the property line so technically the ad wouldn't be 5 feet away from the property line on the side it would just be the two-car garage and the ad on the side scenar would be somebody want to go upward so the walls already there Foundation you got the walls are basically taking a roof off the second floor on in that case that would complicate it further so yeah would that be more desirable than having a third building yeah yeah it would be that's what we're trying toally I think it would crowding of the property right that was also neg trying to avoid the crowding of the property and that would do it and that would do it one thing yeah in my think you know maybe maybe 54 is not the ruler two buildings I think is going to be less detrimental than three I agree yeah this bylaw is going to get passed you're looking at the possibility of three buildings and in a or Del you can have three massive buildings on one line so again I know you're talking about Aesthetics you're talking about I want you to Food For Thought I'd like you to think about it so so how do accomplish that then that look something Exon say GP there is and also you could uh make the argument that because the shed is pre-existing not conforming that you can get the garage pre-existing not conforming you get special per from the planing board it to prove if it's not more detrimental to the area if you were to put that Second Story on once the yes so you create the nonconformity by putting the at but if you make the argument that by putting the ad on top through special permit process that's it's not g be more detrimental I mean the bylaw already has an Avenue for that to go down for these non-conforming structures that's just something else keep in mind too but again that's a case by case sort of situation let's take it one step further yeah so I threw this question to Rob or the weekend so does the state legislation limit the number of um accessory dwelling units that can be on one parcel because then it becomes a subdivision almost I would agree you but and so a garage is not if you're adding if you're adding correct I I agree but yeah if you're going up you're only adding one Adu correct if you have but then someone gets greedy and they got of them and I don't mean that in a negative way saying someone must get greedy but you know no but that's plausible but I'm thinking of appearances again correct you know correct so they only allow one I mean yeah by right after that it would be on a Town by Town basis under a special and our attorney is five us leave language for the special permit out of the bylaw yeah currently with this our town would only allow one yeah correct okay so that kind of takes care of that problem yeah it does take care of it okay right anyone else like to be heard on this matter please step forward hi Greg Thompson Porter Road um I just wanted to speak for those people that are actually interested in having ads in this town I think it's an opportunity uh for a lot of folks uh economically to uh create another rental income which is a real thing it's an opportunity to have younger family members live on your property but outside of your house or older family members and so I want us to not lose sight of what the intention of this you know the legislatur is the governor passes for a reason to increase housing stock we're low in housing stock so I just wanted to propose I know we're talking the primary envelope and there's exceptions perhaps to the primary envelope but perhaps we could consider accessory uh setbacks um because I believe in the people of these Salo that'll want to do best for this town in in my instance the property that I own on Porter Road if you force the if I was to build ESS Adu on that with the primary envelope it would actually put it much closer to my neighbors than it would if I was allowed to put it way back in the accessory envelope 5T from my property line way back and so if the goal is to keep keep it further from the neighbors perhaps we could consider perhaps twice the side Lot requirements from an existing primary residence so you have to be twice you know 20 feet times two for the Adu but it could fit within that um side Lot the 5 foot setback because it gives the building envelope that box you were talking about is so much bigger if you widen it to the accessory uh envelope so I throw that out there because again in my situation it would if I do a detach it would be right outside the kitchen window if I'm allowed to do it outside the primary envelope it's way you know it's 50 ft back in the corner not near any other houses so just keep that in mind as we think of that because there is opportunity also as we think about smaller um Lots in this town certainly the Big Lots will be able to comply with the primary envelope but the smaller Lots will have trouble fitting uh within that envelope so we'll be restricting people in their ability to create wealth for themselves or to do what they want on their own particular property so you know we can talk about fencing we can talk about uh setbacks but just if we can start to consider that and I also would say that in um commercial there are a lot of houses that are are pre-existing in commercial to say to those people and they looks just like residential uh uh streets you know mostly on this end of town um to say that those folks can't do adus at all you know I I think if we meet the 25 uh% maximum lot lot coverage requirement right you still meet that then you should be allowed to do an Adu potentially because this is an opportunity for all of us as residence because my house happens to be in a commercial residence it's it's a residential neighborhood there's other houses around it I don't know if we should restrict that so I just want to throw that out there the one other thing I wanted to bring up was the um the plumbing issue in terms of tying into the primary house currently uh we're allowed if you have a garage and you put a bathroom in the garage you're allowed to tie it in with the house house I believe so in some circumstances it may make way more sense to tie into the existing house if we can uh address the metor meter issue then it would to run plumbing sewer specifically all the way out to the street so I know we're restricting it but perhaps we could reconsider that because if there's no detriment then why not tie into the house if it makes way more sense than cutting into the road again because it'll require the road to be cut um and go all the way out to the street versus right to the house which would be closer so couple of thoughts exciting I'm interested in creating more housing for this town we're out of lots in this town I think this combined with the center Town District gives us some opportunity but I would like to have the opportunity for as many residents as we can and not restrict it I believe in the people of e Sal meno I believe they'll put up nice structures if you live in a house you don't want something junky in your lot you don't want routy neighbors and so that's the best we can do yes I'm not naive that some houses will be double rentals that's a real thing but that happens now we have a rental on one house and a rental next door to so it's not that much difference so I know it increases uh density but that's the only way we're going to get more housing in this town is to increase density so thank you for your time on this appreciate it here do you mind if I um speak one thing on that matter sure so uh brings up a good concern about the res sea and how those lots are pretty small a lot of those houses might exceed um they might be considered not conforming structures because they may not abide by all the setbacks because the regulations were enacted after they constructed but to go around that you could just do a non-conforming special permit for an Adu in that situation and prove that it's not more detrimental to the neighborhood by putting this there you could use that as an Avenue to get something like that permitted but I'm just saying there's a lot of work around I think that's a hurdle though for those people specifically on this side of town that have small Lots small Lots less expensive house yeah as long as we don't allow for more than the 25% lot coverage they're allowed to build whatever they want now anyway it's the same issue we have in other districts so to say that they're restricted just because you know they have a c in their zoning versus an A or B or C C has in commercial um just a thought so thank you you anyone else like to be heard on this matter okay so I so I think the process and hopefully you can speak for the Town Council Mr Paige so you have a hearing next week so if we were to vote on a a draft so what you're gonna be voting on Mr chair is your the board's recommendations to go to the Town Council so what we did tonight is that we took a document that was submitted to you that the Town Council also received okay that same original document we made changes to it during this public hearing process which I'm going to include the changes that we discussed from this okay these are your recommendations as a planning board to go to the Town Council for their consideration so that's what you'd be voting on tonight and that would essentially close the public hearing as well that makes sense want to close it I think we have to close it timeline gota close it yeah we only got one meeting one meeting a second well no we had that discussion of keep it open as long as possible yeah all right but I would like to show my show the board's good faith and willingness to work with the Town Council to uh to meet their deadline or their hearing for next Tuesday um and try to show good faith to the state that we're moving forward so I'm wondering how we can accomplish all of that and somehow still provide the F ability to end up getting more data from the state after they've produced more yeah respect to the regulations what if now this is a this would be a zoning ordinance and we could certainly always make amendments to it that's I was just going to say if we make amendments and we hold public hearings we get around it that way or not get around it but continue continue the discussion and continue make changes as a correct I don't think this document isn't the final right and but we and I agree with you in good faith we need to submit something that we all agree upon to the council to keep the ball rolling yeah zoning is never concrete I know that I know that I'll be doing zoning amendments my entire employment here and then you know and when this thing finally shakes out which could be another year or so we can continue to make continue to make changes as the state gives us guidance yep okay Pete then that would close a public hearing though but on this on this this right on this one because we're we're here we've got this we if we agree on this recommend it we're going to recommend this to the council as changes come through we can act on those amendments then you the process starts over as long as we have the the ability to uh you know look at and and revise our by doing it this way we can by doing it this way we can okay yes sir so through the chair um if you choose to make some adjustments and take a vote on it and submit it to the council our next Tuesday meeting is what's considered the first reading um it's not for two weeks later that the council would hold the public hearing and actually um May May adjust what we see from you so if in that time frame something else that comes in um the council would be more than open to you know a letter from the chair that said you know what after we closed the public hearing and after we voted on this this came up um and we'd like you to consider it so would would it traditionally go to your planning sub committee it is mandated to go to the planning matter sub so you'll hold a hearing next Tuesday and then it immediately goes those two weeks planning matter subcommittee will meet and make their recommendations maybe you could make us aware of when that committee meets I will do everything in my power to attend if not our vice chair could attend to give the committee the flavor of what the planning board has to say so that understanding of the minds I will make sure that the date in the agenda is forwarded you typically Rob I believe you received the notice of it I also go to all the meetings too okay so if you guys want to pass any notes you can def give me a note all right thank you um anyone else wish to be here on the matter anybody from Zoom don't see anybody um what's the pleasure of the planning board hearing yeah I don't know whether you want to make a motion to close the public hearing have a second second any discussion on closing the public hearing I don't like it but but we do have another Avenue yeah we do yeah okay hearing none all in favor say I I anyone opposed no one opposed so we close the public hearing on uh let's so the on the document or on the draft draft as submitted with amendments do I have a motion so moved have a second second any discussion hearing none all in favor say I I anyone opposed hearing none okay so this matter passes thank you all who um I think any old business here none other business Community Development report let me just pull that up real quick Mr chair I'll go through it briefly uh y'all can have that in your packet as well like usual I put up the next meeting dates just so you can have that in your calendar pre regular schedule we have no upcoming public hearings before the planning board U for the um there's upcoming events I did attend one of the cptc trainings yesterday it was for site plan review uh just a few takeaways I wanted to briefly mention to the board that I learned um so it mentioned that site plan review is a tool to share information and determine compliance not used to shape development or deny use so typically that's how the courts treat site plan review so that's just something to keep in mind moving forward uh whenever we have another petition come before us um also they gave us good advice on how um site plan review can be acted of three ways you can deny it if all the required information is not provided to us so if they're not giving us a traffic study we can deny the site plan review because they failed to give us a traffic study um if they didn't request a waiver that is okay uh we can approve it with reasonable conditions if needed and then deny if no reasonable conditions can satisfy the problems of the plan the biggest caveat with that one I wouldn't say caveat downside is that the courts never really upheld this third decision before and they usually tend to side with the applicants so you as a board could do it but just keep in mind it's susceptible to challenge yeah if they're gon to side with the applicants we're gonna it's a slippery slope it's a slippery slope so and then there's two more coming up that I'm going to attend on your behalf and and give you updates on so next one special permits and variances which is tomorrow and then writing reasonable and defensible decisions which next Monday on the second page um wait Robert these all like these are virtual you're not going in person yeah they're over Zoom and they also have recordings and I look at little slides they send too I can send the slides to you guys if you want them yeah I'd like to see that let me uh send board all right uh we'll do that tomorrow all right so the two public hearings that we have before Town Council the Adu for them is going to be next Tuesday which is the 14th of January and then the solar bylaw amendments was continued to January 28th of 2025 the reason for that is because the sub the play matter subc Community needed more time to discuss their revisions okay so that was continued further and then lastly um I did submit comments to the executive office of housing Lial communities on their draft ad regulations as I mentioned I will also be attending virtually the January 10th uh public hearing which I'm still waiting for a zoom invite for so hopefully they actually let me go and not a Friday that's a real surprise I know 10: a.m. oh 10: a.m it's not 3 o'clock so that's all I have for my report and I believe have I have one item so um I'm going to ask each member of this board that if you are aware of any meetings over the course of the remainder of this year any what any meetings okay that you will be unable to attend either physically or virtually that you try to get those dates to Rob okay as soon as possible so that it makes it easier for him to schedule hearings where we have a full Quorum so I already told him I'm going to miss a meeting in May I'm gonna miss one in October the May is a maybe virtual uh second one I'm on the aisle of Sky I don't think I'll be able to call in I wouldn't worry about from the a of Sky reason September is usually a tough month for me yeah and I'll I'll talk to Rob so yeah so if you could do that that would be appreciated traditionally that's just yeah a tough mon so we need a motion to can you read that to go into executive session yeah uh executive session under mgl chapter 30A section 21 A3 for the following purposes to discuss strategy with respect to the pending litigation East Long Meadow redevelopers LLC versus town of Ean Meadow Land court cases number 23 m mis- 000033 3 6 regarding the planning board denial of the plaintiff site plan application if the chair declares this is an that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect to the to on the board's or Town's litigation position which I so declare R yes I'll be gone all of March oh yeah we yeah so the the open meeting is concluded we're just the executive session to adjourn so moved second all in favor I I okay