Okay. July 27th, 2026 at 5 4 8 I'm opening the Grammy Planning Board meeting. First on the agenda, the administrative
minutes. the department that's that were submitted to the board for your approval. That's all I hear. It's all respect. >> Yeah, it's the first one. >> The first one probably lost. >> Okay. I will entertain a motion to approve the July
13, 2026 meeting minutes. >> We'll make a motion to approve the July 13, 2026 meeting minutes as presented. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Any further discussion?
All in favor? I >> thank you for that list. That's very helpful. a bulleted list here. Of course, >> no correspondence. >> Nope. >> No, we can see here.
>> Okay. So, we're going to jump right into the bylaw drafts that uh you pro provided for us. >> Yeah. So, I will start with the um and then I'll let Evan, you know, go from here. But um with regards to what we spoke about at the last meeting, um we
are taking the final iteration of the reorganized bylaw to the zoning bylaw update committee. Um we have a meeting with them on Wednesday. The idea is for them to say is this good? Then to the planning board. Um presumably after uh
the idea would be to then get on the select board's agenda to say we have a reformatted bylaw that we would like um the planning board to have a public hearing on. Um that might happen in addition to the conversation we have regarding the bylaws. But that's the
idea is then taking that to a public hearing. Um I don't know if we found out when the town meeting is yet. >> Okay. So I I can touch base on that the other topic. Uh right now there's nothing scheduled this fall. >> Okay. >> There's a chance that there might be a
a meeting that they have to call together for some things that are going on, but at this at this time there's nothing scheduled. >> All right. and and it doesn't sound like they're going to schedule anything until after um the budgets are finalized and
>> and so so for any other like if there was an emergency meeting or a sec a special meeting it was going to be after they determined the stock to determine whether or not they need an additional town meeting. >> Correct. So we're probably talking next
springish. >> Okay. Okay. So, we got time to to do this. Um, the other thing was I talked to town council for all the the the the uh the ad hoc
>> Yeah. >> zoning committee there. >> Mhm. >> All those changes that are being u presented. There's no bylaws changing. It's just reformatting some of it, >> restructuring. And
>> the the only thing that's changing within the text are the references. >> Mhm. >> And he was going to double check and get back to you, but it was his belief that it didn't need to be >> didn't need to go to town. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. >> I'll follow up with him later in the
week. >> Okay. Great. >> See if he see if he checked in on it. >> Yeah. If you want to follow up with them, the the the only changes that are happening are the references and where there is a presence of a bullet >> or anything like that. Um it would be to put a number or a letter, right?
>> And we just restructured so there's room to to slide in some other stuff. >> Yep. >> Um >> I did speak with another attorney about it. Um and she felt the same way then it's not required. Okay.
So once we get the >> that might be a thing now for many other >> that might be that'll definitely be useful for us to yeah look into right yeah >> be useful for us to look at >> I know I know we did that before when the the narrative didn't match the the charts >> the narrative
>> okay >> supersedes the charts the charts had to match the the narrative okay >> and we fixed that without going to town meeting >> okay >> okay >> okay >> so but we're not changing the bylaw We are not reformatting. >> There's no new language being introduced.
>> Yeah. >> So >> if you if you'd like, Jim, we can send you like a formal note of what actually >> that might be a good idea so there's no confusion with my interpretation of it. >> Yeah, sure. I'll give it to council for
a double check. >> Great. >> Okay. Yeah, sounds good. The the good news about that is we can implement it right away if in fact that's that be true and we don't have to wait until the the spring meeting and get that in place >> and then we can just concentrate on it.
>> Yeah, definitely. That would be great. >> Yeah, that would be it' be good. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Great. No. So, I mean with I mean with that being said, um I think for consideration then um it's going to be the first draft that we've I kind of
sent everyone um last week of um I think most of the um bylaw kind of uh models or drafts that the board had asked for at our last meeting. Um if there's
something that I might have missed um in terms of deliverables, please let me know. But um from my understanding, this is I think most of what we had talked about with regards to having some kind of draft examples for the areas that were noted. Um I think that you know
they're all they vary in size obviously in terms of you know the width but also the substance of them. um anywhere from, you know, a paragraph in length to, you know, you have sections like the ADU bylaw obviously or even the food truck draft. They're obviously more um
substantive with regards to content and what is in them. Um so I'm not sure, you know, how much or how many questions you folks have on them. Um but I at least thought you know like we mentioned before at the last meeting is I wanted to present to the board um a first draft
of these to kind of give the idea of you know what is from other communities what has been the best practice from those other areas and then the idea would be then to work backwards from that um to format them according to how we think would be best suited for you know the
community here in Grand. Um, so like I said, they they r they go the gamut from I have the accessory building um Matt mentioned to all the way through outdoor display goods and wares um mobile food trucks. Um I think one of the other
things that's of note is that we did um include some additional or draft language for the um the topic that you mentioned um Jim about the uses not listed in the bylaw. Um so we were able
to find um some additional language from another community that has um put that into practice with regards to you know spelling out um a procedure that can be put in place for those areas or uh you know uses that aren't in a table of use
or in a use regulation section there. Um so I don't know if you folks have questions on any of that as of now. Um, but I got a copy of that now. >> Yeah, it should be in your cop. It's not there, >> Chris. Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah, cuz when I was going through that one specifically, >> do you see it frequently that it's just mentioning the building inspector? He typically it's the zoning enforcement officer which usually is the building
inspector or commissioner in most communities. Um so that could be used interchangeably with zoning enforcement officer but it typically you know typically it is either the building inspector building commissioner. So I think one of the the procedural questions and Ev and I were talking about this image was
>> initially because there are some review processes which include the building inspector being able to send it off of a planning board for some sort of determination but that is more so in the review process a development not necessarily an interpretation by
>> I think because um one of the issues is >> the appeal process Right. So if >> which is codified um that you can appeal the decision of the zoning enforcement officer from the ZBA,
>> right? But there's nothing that says appeal the planning board. >> There's a separate appeal process or a decision made by the final board. So I >> probably some legal check into that. But um you know I think what was initially presented regarding that language was
that it provides the flexibility. I think it's not automatically stated in your um not you know the it's not explicit in your bylaw that it's like if it's not here you don't do that >> right >> but it allows for the building inspector
to have really >> a wide >> a wide >> right >> yeah I don't know if that's I don't know if I like that >> because it puts too much power into the person's hands and we've had problems with that in past >> what I if the build if I think the way
it should work is if it's if it's um if it's not in the use table and and the the building inspector denies it, it can be appealed to either zoning or planning
>> if we feel >> that would be that would typically fall under the ZDA >> because and that's codified in 40 chapter 48 you have to appeal the decision decision on the zoning enforcement officer or anything. So, if
it is an established use or if it's a the determination of nonconformance or something like that, um chapter the zoning act, the state zoning act allows for someone to appeal, but it's through the ZPA. >> Mhm. >> At that particular decision of a use
>> and that's what happened with the sheds, right, to some extent. >> Should we just put that in writing though? So this way >> unless you're it's established a >> yeah we should to your point it should
be a a process created and it and it probably probably should be a joint hearing >> because >> what would the determination of the planning board >> because ZBA doesn't like to allow something if the planning board hasn't
approved it. So if they allow it and that's the way it's that's the way it's worked in their past. It's it's been a >> is it more so >> that the PL cuz really the question is the use the use is usually determined as
as you are aware with the accessory building permit right so >> they have to go to the special they have to go for a special permit with the ZBA. The site plan includes a site uh the the planning board includes a site plan. So is it more so creating a process by
which if you're appealing it if there is a requirement for a site plan that it be brought forward at the same time maybe. I don't know. I'm trying to think of how to get the ZV8 and Pine in
the same room at the same time. Well, that's the way it's happened in the past and it speeds up the process. But a lot of times the ZBA, it's kind of like the it's kind of like the uh used car licenses. The the select board would like to approve it, but they
don't know what to approve it for. >> Okay. >> Because of site plan, I mean, you can do it in steps, but it's and and I'm okay with doing it in steps. Um but usually it's better when it's a joint a joint
>> I mean I think we can always >> we can always do it that way. >> Yes. I think yeah and I think in practice you can always just assume that they're going to do it that way. Um I think we need to be very clear if an applicant is is saying appealing the um
building inspector's decision regarding the ability to do a use. I'm thinking about an example in another community where um there was an appeal to uh a determination made by the building inspector where they said that it did
not meet fronting requirements. >> Mhm. >> Right. >> It was Yeah. It was it was it didn't meet the front requirements. So they were they appealed for um the link inspector made the decision. there was an unbuildable lot in that community and then the the appeal procedure for that
was then handled by the zoning board of appeals >> and it was strictly zoning board appeals for that one. Um but in that community they did not have well they did not have a site plan
review requirement for that one though >> because it was they were building a single family home which didn't require a site plan. Right. So this one not in direct. So if the building inspector determines
that um that the proposed use is not substantial substantially similar and denies the request, the applicant may appeal the determination to the zoning board of appeals pursuant to MGL chapter 48. The building inspector determines that there that the use may
be substantially similar. The use shall require review and approval by the plating board under a special permit or other applicable approval process established by the bylaw before a building permit or certificate of occupancy may be used.
>> So that last part was going down the road of my concern. >> Yeah. >> Cuz like on the contrary, if the use is approved by the building inspector, is that just the end all say all with how this reads? No, it just allows it makes
a determination on that particular use and then there would be a permitting process >> for a site plan for a special so it would proceed as >> yes it would proceed that way and so that's what the second half that >> so this is just opening the door for
that process >> I mean >> if it's would be happening at chapter 48 no matter what right so the building inspector has the breadth of um you know their decision ision making power to say that this particular use is allowed in,
you know, as the bylaws suggests. Um, with that said, if he or she says that it's allowed, there should be uh, you know, a prescribed um, permitting process, which would be either a site plan or special permit, and then they
would go to the the particular board for that. >> But I think the question here was there are some bylaws. I don't think your bylaw is ex is as explicit as many other communities where there's like where they say if there's no use
>> you have to you have prohibited right >> and that's but that's the way ours reads and that's why I want to that's what I want removed that it's so it it takes it out of ZBA's too by saying that >> I think there's a remedy there's a there's a prescript there's a there's a
remedy to it or like a a roadmap >> by removing that that the implication is that there is the building inspector to have this, you know, the building inspector can say automatically if if he read it, he or she read it the way that it could be written that was explicitly
prohibited, >> right? >> That you need to take go to the town uh town meeting to change the bylaw to allow for this use. I think you want to prevent that or you know to the extent that you can by saying okay of these
other types of uses let's see >> this falls into this umbrella or this or that umbrella >> right >> but it is I think as you mentioned Jim it is a matter of practice right so >> they're going to be a different interpretation anytime a building inspector comes in
>> right >> that >> it's appealable right now it's not appealable >> right >> that's all There should be another if it's something if there's a way of allow having it allowed under certain circumstances similar situ then there
should be a process rather than say can't do it >> right can't do this you can't do that it's not we don't have it in our bylaw and I want that's the part I want taken up and have a a remedy it it could still go the process like an appeal would
still be denied >> based on that but at least it It it gives you one more shot at the potential of being able to do something just because our bylaws aren't who knows and who knows what's what's what's
coming down the road and some and I'll tell you another one that over the years the the uh cell towers they're not under by law or weren't under by law at the time. Did you and but you permitted it and you've went through
>> Oh, because it's because the the state or the federal government, >> right? Right. >> Superseded and said that it was by right. >> Mhm. >> So, the only thing that the planning board did at that point was >> site, not a special permit, just a site.
>> Yeah. I I think so. This is the way your current bylaw states prohibited uses. So that you have a section in your bylaw that says prohibited uses and it says any use not specifically or generally listed herein or otherwise permitted in
district shall be doing this prohibited. I think removing just that sentence implies that you have the mechanisms of chapter 48 to say or you can add some language which suggests that if a use is
not there there's flexibility in that decision-m >> right >> there's a and then and then draw out the >> and then you we can add the process of if another permit is required then they would be required to go before that particular
So it's like adding that removing that section that sentence and then adding just language that suggests if there is an applicable use >> set in a similar way then that determination can be made more
easily and then go through that particular permitting process. >> Good. And the other thing I would take out the language of uh building inspector. >> Okay.
Everybody agree with that? >> Yeah. All right, speaking of we can work on some of those edits. And then I think one of the other areas that I know has been kind of something that from what Ken has told me the board
has talked about a lot has had a has had a history of talking about at least has been this um this garage this private garage staples um language right now in the bylaw. Um I kind of told me that in the past it
sounded like there was some kind of uh movement or discussion on in the past on having things like a square footage requirement um in place for those that are between like the 1,600 2400 square footage for those areas. Um, so I think
you know what we have done is and I've compiled uh previous material that Ken had created and then kind of just touched up a little bit um to include just some reformatting um business as well here. Um I think that I mean from
for the most part it's I think that there's there's definitely considerations. I think that one of the things that we talked about in there was the building footprint. um how it meets it currently I believe it reads shall not exceed 150% of the size of the
principal building um so in the case of that like I think we said an example would be if a parcel has a building or home or primary dwelling of 2,000 ft that maximum size the garage would thereby be like 3,000 square ft um so I
think that's like we said we kind of put that in the document here to maybe again have some discussion amongst the board about where they want to be on that, if it's something that they want to include for possible revision or looking at in this bylaw amendment as well. Um, and
then we also just have some additional, you know, draft language for the agricultural um, accessory buildings um, just in terms of how they just have to abide by setback requirements of the underlying zoning um, in that as well for consideration. Um
so again if folks have any questions I don't know if you want to speak more. I think um what Evan was alluding to regarding the consideration for building footprint of the or private arrival stable. I brought up this was 3 four years ago and we had this discussion with the this is a new board like this.
Yeah. So we didn't Jim is aware um with the zoning board of appeals at the time um you know I don't know if it was the the size of the building that was that caused um you know us that caused like a withdrawal of that particular request
but one of the considerations that I think I brought forward to the board to think about was do you want just um barns and these larger buildings things, you know, thrown about town with
certain size or whatever. Um, considering that they may be also, you know, in the context of a single family home, which presumably you would have there, do you want them to be very large compared to that home, do you want similar to like ADUs, if you contemplate
like a certain size? >> Um, so the the consideration there is language that suggests that it can't be more than 150% of the size of the principal dwelling unit. Uh >> yeah, I I in my opinion that should get scratched. I don't care if somebody's
got a two-bedroom ranch and wants a 1500 square foot, you know, 1,200 ft ranch and a 1500 ft barn. >> Well, that would be allowable, right? But I know what you're saying.
>> No, right now the the the um the maximum size without a special permit is 1,200 square ft, right? accessory, >> right? >> I I think that needs to be bumped somewhere. And we haven't denied all the years I've been on here, we've never
denied that. So, why put the people through the >> Mhm. And I wouldn't call it a a maybe maybe we bump it to 1,500 square ft or 2,000 square ft and then a a special permit comes in
above that or or a site plan between 2,000 and 3,000 or and and then after that it's a because most of most anybody that's going to be doing that is going to be protected under the farm. >> Mhm. Yeah, >> that's kind of what you were going for here, right? With the two different
tiers. >> Mhm. >> Um, can you help me with some of these abbreviations though? >> With the RS and the or you talking about BSA? >> Yeah. >> So, SBA I believe is site plane approval planning board and is not allowed. And
then you have I believe the only one here is SP ZBA special permit through the zoning board. site plan approval for the planning board >> which is currently the process for any stables larger than 1200 square ft. >> Yeah. What is GB? >> GB is just the general business zone.
>> Yeah. So stables technically doesn't farm doesn't fall under the ability to farm >> and VC is >> if it's a stable >> village center >> then yeah I and I2 are industrial industrial too
>> and then AW two residential districts with the RS and RM I wouldn't get too too hung up on that cuz it sounds like some of that's coming away single family dwellings. >> Oh,
>> that's that's moving forward. >> Yeah. Not sure where that >> is that it >> what is that? >> So, right now the legislators in Boston are are considering eliminating single family zoning. Period. >> Wow. >> Basically, it's allowing for duplexes
>> by right. >> By right. >> Wow. >> So, you can have >> multigeneration. >> Well, isn't that kind of what they're already indirectly doing with ADUs? >> In a way. >> Essentially. In a way it's it's it's in a way. So it's it's it's somewhat of I would say that you know it's definitely you could draw the line from where they
started with the ADUs to where they are now with this proposed legislation >> as being you know a possible you know extension of you know their goals of increasing housing production and things of that nature that started with the ADU and then yeah this is probably a branch off of that. But if that goes through
then really about right then you're allowed three units, right? Because duplex plus an ADU, right? So I feel like that is kind of a big jump. >> Well, what they're saying is they're not limiting how many you can put on the lot >> at all.
>> It'll basically all be zoned essentially like as a multif family. And so >> if you've got a an acre lot and and you can put a quad on there and the septic system will support it
or be allowed to do it, >> right? So it's I would say yeah the traditional kind of single family district where it's it would just be single family allowed in certain areas that's the proposed legislation would be uh be
reversing that. So it would be duplexes would be allowed by right now. Well, multi be allowed by not just a three or four >> duplex. It could be two. I believe it's just duplexes, but we could be wrong.
>> I mean, so I think we just need to start with like what we want for square footage tiers if we're gonna do a tiered system, right? Because right now tier one is exceeding 1,600 up to 2400
and then next tier is over 2400 how this reads. >> Mhm. Right. So it' be Yeah. between the 1,600 2400 and then yeah 2400 over. >> Yeah. Cuz right now your bylaw states
that Oh. Um, and so yeah, again, again, um, your bylaw states, uh, private garages are stable not exceeding 1,200 square ft in area is allowed in each zone except for the industrial zones. >> Mhm. >> That doesn't say anything about a a site
plan approval. >> Um, the next one is private garages or stables exceeding 1,200 square ft in area. is that it requires a special permit and a site plan approval in the RSGB and VC
buildings. So they're allowed by right that through the building department if it's less than 12,200 ft but requires a permit by the ZVA and planning board if more than 1,200 square ft. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, what this is essentially
doing here is taking away SP up to 2400 ft, right? Cuz an RS, GB, >> and DC, it's just site plan approval >> is how this is read now. >> Mhm.
>> So, we kind of be So, we'd still have So, under 1,600 ft now would be >> still, right? It would be Yep. It would be the same as how it currently reads in that was 3.7.4 >> and then 1,600 to 2400 would be
>> kind of how we read now minus special permit. >> Correct. So just the planning board would see the site, >> right? Yeah. And then over 2400 ft is when the special permit kicks in, >> right? A little more scrutiny. Mhm. >> Yeah.
>> So I like I think I'm I'm good with that. But this is something I want to have a joint meeting with ZBA. Make sure we're all on the same page. Okay. >> Yeah. And it's and it's adjusted according to >> compromise if if >> so that when it goes to meeting
>> we don't have a ZDA saying we we don't agree with that. >> Yeah. I mean how do we feel about the 2400 square ft? Cuz in my opinion I think 16 >> is too 24 tight. >> It I agree. I would say 24 that I mean
that would be my re that is would be my recommendation also. >> Would you keep this? >> Well, >> I would say just 24 24 over 2400 ft would require approval. >> Oh. Whereas 16 and between 16 and 2400
>> up to 2400 site um approved by the building. >> Yeah. >> So what you're thinking is not even a two-tiered system, right? >> Just be that one. >> Just 2400 square feet, right? Anything just by Right. Yeah, keep it simple. >> So, so that being said, when we say 2400
square ft, does that mean the footprint or does that mean >> you have to call We have to call that out >> cuz that >> total area you mean? >> There was good language on that in the ADU. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> On what qualifies as square footage.
>> So, you would have to create a new body. So, this Yeah. is specific to your table of uses because that's where it's currently addressed. >> If there is consideration of how to measure that, then we would need to add um some bylaw language to determine how to measure that.
>> Are you thinking for instances like a lean to like if that's considered square footage, >> right? >> Not square footage. >> It is right now. >> Or is that open for interpretation? >> Well, it's called out. That's probably >> that'll lean to is part of the square footage.
I'm not saying it has to be, but I'm saying that's the way that's how it reads. And it and we got to be careful because that can get a little tricky too because if >> I would say overall footprint would be 2400 including
too if >> I kind of like >> yeah I kind of like part of me does like the two-tiered system where you still have site plan approval but I'm almost thinking of upping the 2400 cuz then special permit is a much more
involved process right 2400 00 ft in my opinion for a barn or a garage is a 40 by 60. Like it's not really that large. It's not >> like a lot of people want to do 40x 64 like even right if you're doing 8 foot
on center. So I think this 24 if we keep the two-tier it gives you a little bit more control still a little bit more check and balance but if we up to 24 it doesn't impose that cumbersome
special permit as much even if we up it to say 3,000 somewhere around there. >> Yeah. Because I think one of the things that you want to consider and I I don't think this has ever played into because the way where these have been located have
been in larger lots right >> is things like storm water right in the case that it is very large do does the town want to you know make sure that it's >> and I think it'd be difficult >> sure >> to condition your you know your approval
of a site plan um that suggests like no storm water, you know, another person. But >> so, so to your point, we've got neighborhoods in town that are on halfacre lots, quarter acre lots. >> Mhm. >> I think they're halfacre lots. >> Mhm.
>> With a with a,200 square foot home and they put a 3,000 ft building up there. >> Could could be detrimental to the neighbors and >> Mhm. >> and not living on top of it. >> Mhm. >> True. So that will be under special
permit >> is what we're saying. >> You could deny it based on your your review of the bylaw ensuring that you know it's not a detriment to the neighborhood that you have a 3,000 foot
3,000 square foot structure next to a home. >> You know where is this in setback to your butter. >> Mhm. um could be imposing, right? >> So that was a consideration with regards to that. Obviously, they would still need to meet the maximum impervious
surfaces, >> right? >> Right. Because that's an important thing, but maybe it's controlling the height. I don't know. >> I mean, or lot size. >> Well, I I agree with the lot size piece. It's got to be an acre of of
the building acre. 40,000. >> Yeah. Would that be on tier two? You're thinking? >> Yeah, I think that >> Well, in the district in the zones that there these are allowed, >> they're all minimum lot size 40,000.
So there might be it says wear those in in the smaller neighborhood like the probably pre-existing >> but right now under bylaw you require 40,000 square ft or >> but I'm saying on an existing lot that's
a half acre it probably wouldn't make sense to allow a 2400 ft building >> correct right >> without without a permit. >> No you're absolutely correct. So maybe putting in some type of >> variance then because they couldn't even meet
>> the requirements to >> cuz 40,000 is is >> 40,000 more. >> You would need to have at least 40,000 to build one of these without and meet setbacks without all of this, right? If you have an existing lot and it's less than that, you would need to meet the
current bylaw. In the case that you can't, then you'd ask for a variance to allow you to do what it is you want to do. As long as there's no language in there, too. >> And I think when we share with you last
week, there's lots of changes to the variance. >> Oh, really? >> Okay. >> There is. There is. So, but that Yeah, but the v variance the variance language is Yeah. Yeah. So the various languages has changed now where it's it's no longer it no longer would be for
topographic or um special special exemptions now with regards to the soil or that that that standard is kind of has been replaced with new language that instead simplifies it to just be is it best best what was it best
>> practically practical difficulty. >> Yes. So where there's practical difficulty in um conforming to the existing requirements of the zoning that is the new criteria that um appeal boards of appeals can go by when issuing
variances. >> Yeah. Most of that most of that is in relationship to uh pre-existing non-conforming and >> business >> Mhm. >> zones. Mhm. Mhm.
>> And housing to allow for housing. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. The smaller ones, >> right? >> Okay. >> All right. So, we'll have a joint meeting with the VBA on. Well, I think you do you want that prior
to you know >> the meeting >> provide it >> providing them with these changes like where do you think >> or be something original that >> is it something that you just want to meet with them to talk about that >> yeah I don't want to go too far and have these discussions and then have them come in and say
>> forget it >> give good give good argument why we shouldn't >> and then we just wasted a bunch of time yeah so we maybe leave this as is until after you we Yeah. Okay. >> And because we're not fighting in deadl Yeah.
>> Let's make sure we do it right. >> So when it goes to meeting him, >> everybody's backing up. >> Makes sense. >> Read. >> Oh yeah. Because you did have the maximum pvious shortness areas right here. Percentages. >> Yeah.
>> Mhm. which to your point like >> if that is going >> help regulate overall how large the garage is >> property. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. As well as with the setbacks and those requirements too. Those are all unchanged from what's currently
written in your bylaws for those. >> Okay. >> Okay. And then I think unless unless you have anything you Okay. So, I think the next one I want to get to folks to look at and maybe give my thoughts give some
thoughts on is >> and I want to preface this is a very draft first draft. Yeah. So, it's definitely not going to be, you know, the finished product because like I I told I told some folks this already, but um this is something where with food
truck bylaw, um it was it's very much, you know, this the idea is to have it as a this is a best kind of idea of how far you could really possibly go with regards to covering food trucks. Um, I think it's definitely, like I said, very comprehensive in terms of the areas that
it kind of controls with regards to food trucks and what they can and can't do. Things like the operating hours, um, in terms of procedures regarding if they're located on private property, what they have to do in that case, the certain clearances they have to go through to
apply for. So, I mean, in the utility requirements. So, it's um you know, very in-depth, but what I wanted to do is at the very least give this to folks and then like I said, if there's areas that maybe don't make sense for Graanby with regards to types of provisions within
the food truck bylaw here that maybe don't make sense because, you know, again, this this community that we that we took from Springfield, obviously very urban, different dynamics in terms of the types of lots, types of parcels that are located here. So maybe there's certain areas that maybe don't work in
this area that maybe do work for GR or maybe you know maybe don't work there but maybe do work for Grammy they want to add um or change to make it work better for Graanby. Um but again in those areas too like I highlighted as well um that I think could be
potentially you know good discuss good things to consider things you might want to consider um could also be things not only for where they're located but also the processes that they go through um in terms of obtaining a permit maybe. >> Well that's so
that's changing too. >> Okay. So, the way it works right now, you go from town to town, come to Graanby, you need you need a fire >> Mhm. >> uh uh a fire inspection. >> Yeah.
>> They're doing away with that. They're going to they're going to set up a program where you can go get your vehic your your uh food truck trailers inspected. Let's say the the big E, you know, the big and then that permit is going to be
good for you anywhere in Massachusetts. >> That's great. >> Interesting. >> Yeah, I talked to the fire chief about that a couple weeks ago. >> Is that specific to a certain type of approval that would be needed or? >> Well, it's going to give you a it's going to give you a permit to operate in
Massachusetts. So instead of getting so instead of where would be you'd get a license like you said for each individual town instead you just get one license for everywhere in the state. Yeah. >> H >> you've been inspected by the state by the by the
whatever the organization that and your so fire code is is is the same across >> right. No sure. >> I'm hoping they I'm hoping they do that with the border. If you get inspected to me, if you get inspected in any community, you should be able to go
everywhere else in Massachusetts because it's uniform across the city. >> Sure. Yeah, >> it I get it. It's maybe it's a money grab. >> Um, >> it is the same code though. >> It is. It's almost half state electric. >> I mean, I I see the ver the really the
question that the board like the town wants to answer is short. You get those permits as you do too, right? because and we've had this issue I think in the town where you know we've attempted to figure out what the costs are and they're exorbitant
>> right for going to the many different departments for these one day slash I don't have a temporary right however I think really if if it's really understanding what a policy could look like you know this is one of them but if
if it is a planning board that wants to understand and be a permitting agent for a certain aspect of like where it's located, where it's >> what are the operating hours, you know,
that is obviously one component of its operation. You can't you're not license issuers but the likelihood of those lency those licensed entities will want the approval from the planning
board that it's an allowed use here in town or you know where wherever >> should there be setbacks if it's located you know next to a residential should there be a setback >> should there be a site plan approval process that the planning board is going to want to understand where it is in in
its relation to parking lot, you know, where are people going to park, where are people going to sit, where, you know, so things like >> I think there were some good setbacks in here. >> Mhm. >> I think there's there's a there's a 500t buffer, I think, for residential
>> for 500T buffer for any brick and mortar food establishment properly permanent and regulated within the town. >> Mhm. >> 500 for a setback >> for any brick and mortar food establishment properly permitted. So like another restaurant or >> right
>> so not allowing for food truck >> and then I saw like >> so there's another restaurant >> like 100 ft within any gas diesel fuel dispenser that one >> makes sense so so take that aside
fire code supersedes they they already >> the the code is I think it's you have to be 20 ft away from the building with us. I mean the question here is and it might because it's the spring the
example of basic Springfield building haven't pointed out may not make sense here right so the idea of a 500t buffer between a food truck and an actual restaurant how many restaurants are in town you know buffer between the two so so that's where they ran into the
Springfield's a whole different you know >> right what they're doing they're inundated with food trucks they're popping up wherever they want >> without permits >> it's 50,000 people. >> Sometimes they'll put them right outside the restaurant, right? Very close by. >> Sure.
>> So that's how I have interpreted that. >> That's Yeah. But it's those part but those are particular impacts that you know I think you might foresee. I'm not saying that um restaurants would be upset if all of a sudden you had food
trucks that might be taking away business from them if you didn't have something about pop offers. But obviously in other communities, those are things that communities have adopted to say, "Oh, you're going to have a food truck. It can't be
>> a cannabis shop. It can't be near, you know, certain things." So, that's >> a consideration. You don't obviously need to take that. >> It can't be It can't be near a cannabis shop. That's an ideal place. >> I was going to say that, but I didn't want to say that cuz we're being recorded.
But um so that's one component I think you know obviously we've done this permitting before to some extent I you know I tried to recall for that particular food truck um you know that the planning board reviewed the site plan and ensured that it was safe ensure
that you know the places where people could sit um you know were protected from lines of traffic things like Uh so maybe is it as simple as that? Maybe >> but I think you know as as presented here there are other considerations for
the board to contemplate with regards to like the hours of operation. Is this >> he's looking at private property versus a right of way, >> right? >> So those are big considerations. >> Mhm. And if you think too like the the paving
like the stipulation about like it needs to be a paved roadway with the town right away otherwise blue by the building commissioner like >> parking ample parking >> paving might be a little tougher here in Springfield right like there's a lot of
areas we have third park lots gra parking >> right exactly >> yeah I just think that uh more than anything just ample parking and not park pulling pulling over on the side of the road >> where it could deter traffic. >> Mhm. >> We've we've looked at those before
and approved after me after circulating the information with the the other department heads. >> I think it was down towards Dress. Somebody wanted to put one there and was concerned where are people going to
park? We don't want people, you know, >> on street parking on 202. >> Mhm. So, so yes, those types of things would be um >> yeah,
>> but on private property, you know, you got to >> my thought process for private property like what about graduation park? >> Right. >> It's not just that correct that plus it's it's um what's the difference between that and catering?
>> Yeah, exactly. Mhm. >> So, you got to be careful on on the private stuff. It's not And we don't usually get into residential stuff other than like, you know, these uh accessory buildings and stuff like that. >> We don't. >> Yeah. My Yeah. I mean, the thing with,
you know, cuz I'm thinking about it, too. We're planning an event with my mother and my family wants to put a food truck like someone to make food and we're going out to the >> the street, right? So >> what is the impact
>> to your virus >> on that one day, right? Cuz that's what ends up happening. >> Uh and yeah, maybe it's just negligible. You hear a couple of complaints and then it's taken down the next day. They can deal with it. >> And I I would I would point out that at
least in for this um bylaw trap that you you folks are seeing is that this is really pertaining to those permanent food trucks, >> right? It's not the temporary process would be probably something that again even even in this case is is not really addressed in this. It's really
addressing this bio is really addressing those permanent areas that are staying here longer than 24 hours that aren't for special events. Um so I think that's kind of something to like again if it's something where the board didn't want to touch those temporary ones like you mentioned with graduation parties that
that kind of area again I think yeah. So, would we tweak the language here where like because there's language in here about um provisions of this article shall not apply to canteen, coffee or ice cream trucks that move from place to place and are stationary in the same location for
no more than 30 minutes at a time. >> Right. >> So, is that something we would maybe look to kind of extend? >> Yeah. Or like the Yeah. Well, or like again even then below that you have the they will not apply to the temporary onetime event once. So it's like is it
something where we could just make it more clear that this is not for those temporary. >> So and there's there's got to be some verbiage in here. If if you hire that food truck and it's for a private party
you're paying for it >> Mhm. >> it's catered basically it's a catering event. Yeah. Yeah. >> End the story >> and and that's the end of it. >> Sure. >> If it's set up where um in a location
on a regular that same truck on a regular basis maybe you know again private versus public and you know that sort of thing. >> Yeah. It needs to be which means on a street corner, >> right? Means public. >> Yeah, >> sure.
>> It's in the public way. It's within the the >> and some sort of considerations need to be made on >> I I guess if someone said I want to I want a permit to park my vehicle here all year on the corner of Ammer Street
and Tulleton. Mhm. >> Let's just say >> then they need a site plan, >> right? >> Because it's going to it's another business on that same >> Y right similar to what uh Chef Hill the people down here are trying. >> Oh, okay. >> We looked at that and said, "Well, you
can have picnic. I think you can have seating there." That sort of. >> Yeah. >> Did they end up doing anything with that? >> Well, >> not yet. I guess a question here too is you know as the board looks at this and are there other conversations that are happening at the town level with regards to the
trucks because there are multiple entities that are going to be involved with this. So the planning board is obviously thinking about it because they thought about it in the past. Um like how involved are other entities
thinking about permanently boom trucks? >> I don't know. Well, I've so I know I know um the acting county administrator had come up with a a form. >> Okay.
>> So then when they came to town, they knew they just didn't need board of health. They needed the VIC license and they needed the fire inspection. Yeah. They didn't need they didn't know that. >> Mhm. >> Um so he put a process around that. Um, which I think is a good idea.
>> For us, I'd like to stick with just zoning and and let them worry about the rest of it themselves. >> Okay. >> Step on their toes. That's their game, not ours. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> To get them to think the same way.
>> So, usually that has uses where it's allowed. Um where site plan review site plan review and again stating you know on the site B review
the there's code that dictates setbacks. Sure. And that's one of the things one of the things that the fire department's giving up because once they permit them, they go anywhere
in the state. >> The way it works right now, they come out and inspect or not just the in the the >> is set from what with the with the from another building or is it from the right of way? Depends on what type of food
truck it is, but not not the right away they wouldn't have anything too much to do as long as it's not blocking. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Or from a bill. >> But from the building there's some codes. >> Sure. >> And we're talking then during CO when
the Legion they were threatening to shut the Legion down because they didn't they weren't serving food. Their kitchen was closed because of the board out. They wanted to bring in a food truck. >> Mhm. and the board approved it. I knew you you knew this thing when that
happened. Uh it was basically the concern of the exhaust. Make sure it's not too close to the building's not sucking in. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. I'm going to have to leave for concert. All right.
>> Thanks, Nita. >> See you guys. We'll take another stab of >> I'll bring you We could bring We'll bring a We could bring a lighter version with that. >> Yeah. I think I think especially
Yeah. knowing that the that board is going to be sticking, you know, immediately to think about code zoning related things. I think that'll this will probably trim us a lot where we are now. Yeah. >> Um, >> and I think >> we could share this with
our administrator, but >> Oh, sorry. >> I don't want I don't want I don't want to be injecting that kind of stuff into the zoning. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> That might be more of like a general vibe.
>> I hear you. One thing that um we could add also to where hours of operation I think um we just add unless special permit like there's a special permit for uh 1 day or longer because this is just
you know must break down um one 1 hour prior and um 1 hour after. So, I think we should just state something about if this food truck is going to be there for multiple days. >> Would that already be covered by I don't
know if it would be, but part C on the first page where it just says like the provisions of this article shall not apply to mobile food operations that receive a temporary one-time event permit issued by the board of health or any other department within the town. Is that kind of like what you guys are
talking about where if you get that onetime permit, it's >> that it's not this doesn't even pertain to that. >> Well, it wouldn't either. So, I don't know what the exact numbers are, but let's just say it's $100 for a one-day
permit. >> Mhm. >> For $200, you can have it for the whole year for the town. >> Mhm. And if you plan on going to several different places, then that provision >> does it apply? >> Yeah.
>> It would have to any location that uh that that you're going to do business there in three consecutive days and five consecutive days >> should have a special permit, right? >> Should have special permit or a site plan. >> Well, this says just to receive a
temporary one-time event permit. So, what happens if a one-time event is a Friday through Sunday event? Is that considered a onetime event? >> No, it's cuz it's continual one-time event would be during the hours of operation. I would say from 6:00 to 11:00, right?
>> I would say yeah, I mean, I think that that's however however they Yeah, that that would probably be a case of what does the one time event in town, what does that permit look like in terms of how long you can go for that? >> Mhm. Is it something where it's just a day or it's something
>> and it's a 24-hour time period, let's say. >> Yeah. >> Like charter days, right? So, if you have a food truck that's there for the duration of that event, is that a one time event >> or is that >> Yeah, cuz that would be like a multiple,
>> right? That is a multip. >> So, is that a $200? >> That means you would have to abide by everything in here, >> right? Oh, so so a onetime event not exceeding >> 3 days.
>> Yeah. So it's the finding. >> I'm just throwing that. >> You could say. >> Yeah. >> So yeah, 72 hours. >> Yeah, you could include that. >> And who would who might be that? Would it Tom? It's a Tom event or is it a Tom
event? I'm not sure. Or would each get >> would each vendor have to pull apart? >> They do for due frames, but we're not we're not part of that piece of it. >> Okay. >> We're talking about if it's So So in other words, >> well, cuz would that be considered
private? >> Um, >> well, it's municipal. So it's it's >> And we don't want to get involved in that. That'll snip. Trust me. No. the the
So the permit, right, to to we're talking about a permit to for a site, >> right? >> Operate. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Would be would cover that, right? It's in our bylaws. You could have a a one-time event permit not to exceed 3 days, right?
>> Or four days. That's how that's how the language could could read. Mhm. >> Anything beyond that. >> Mhm. >> And and it might also it you might want it also to read or
more than more than six individual. >> In other words, you could show up >> once a week. >> Yep. >> So, we'd have to put some language that any more than >> uh >> within a 90-day period or a 60-day period.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Well, so taking a step back, are we still talking this is not private property? >> Not private property >> would not apply to anything in here, right? Private property,
>> would they still need private property? Would they still need the temporary one time per >> temporary one time? Right. >> Is that what we're we're thinking? Because private property necessarily would not have 3 days of
unless >> I mean maybe maybe 48 hours like if they you know >> I don't know Portuguese weddings three days. >> True true story. True story. >> So >> speaking from experience. >> He's speaking from experience.
>> Yeah. So we need to we need to digest this a little bit. >> Okay. Yeah. So maybe >> maybe it's even distilling further like what type of permit >> could >> I think the Yeah. I think yeah. Would this be an annual permit or would it be
something where Yeah. We're talking about both a temporary and an annual permit for this bylaw. I think that's kind of it that sounds like that's the that's the discussion. And I think I shared with you what is happening in East Hampton where they had
a food truck park, >> right? >> And that's something else. >> They have that in Sugar Bee. Also >> in Chickab. >> Um, >> so what does that permitting look like? Are they like do they need to go to the
planning board for their approvals? >> Right. Um, so, so >> is that a one private piece of property? >> I was going to ask is that >> I think that's a private inabe it is. I believe Springfield it is. Yeah. And
Springfield face a similar thing too where it was. Yeah. Private. So, and again, you know, that's where like this, you see the emphasis in this, you know, the private property piece in places, and Jim mentioned this too, is in that area that saw that influx of those areas
>> where all of a sudden this huge lot got inundated with food trucks in some ways. And so, >> it was it was it was their way of kind of answering that. Um, but again, you know, this could twice. this could I mean and I think that's why I want to give you guys this first iteration
because again this can give you guys an idea of saying okay how far can we really go >> with regards to or potentially go with regards to the level of scrutiny and maybe not or maybe not you want to go with regards to food trucks um so I mean
again it's something where you want to have buffers in place for areas that's a consideration um site cleaner view like we mentioned before where maybe that's a level of control the folks wanted have over those permanent food trucks. That's I think certainly a piece that can be,
you know, like we said, addressed in the model bylaw as well. Um or maybe a special permit. I think that those those are definitely some important considerations. Yeah, cuz I know like someone has a vacant lot next to them. I highly doubt
they're going to want a whole abundance of fruit trucks popping up for >> an extended duration of time. >> Imagine 187 West Stage Street. Remember that or that possible permit that we're going to come in? This is outdoor goods and
wares. It's another combination, but that particular parcel, there's nothing there. What if that became a fluid truck part? >> Yeah. >> Would there be any consideration for the plan? >> So, >> yeah, if there if it's if it's going to be multiple, yeah, we need a site plan.
It's been approved for a single >> and you know, >> yeah, owner operated. That's >> so we have to include language then on quantity >> from trucks. I would say depending on the parcel has to have proper amount of
parking. >> I would like to see how that operated in and so the the the issue in East Hampton was there was one there's a food truck park that was established that I think is owned by a private entity. Um but the
planning board was approving the singular food truck. So I don't know if they were approving multiple food trucks. Oh, cuz the food truck itself has to come for the approval. Correct. >> Right. So now what's the stop? Say
>> what if the language it says private property >> and each person individually gets their permit? What stops 15 people from doing that each individually for the same?
Absolutely. So that that that should should require a special permit >> because it's it's a site plan that's going to require access, emergency access >> parking. >> Mhm. >> It >> But now who does that fall onto though?
Cuz what happens when the first person goes for that lot? >> I think I think to Jim's point, if it's a special permit, you can condition up to six food trucks >> in a certain amount of parking. >> Yeah. You would have to spell out on the site plan where those food trucks could
be moting that permit though. Is it the >> the owner? Not the not the not the >> not the food truck the owner. >> The owner is swinging. >> And in that and in that case the body would not really see six individual food
trucks. >> You're seeing the per special permit to allow for that >> the six. Yeah, I contemplate food truck like having some sort of addressing in your bylaw something related to a food truck partner if there's multiple food trucks.
>> Cuz under the other situations that we were talking about, >> were we talking about the owner of the food truck pulling the permit or the property owner pulling the permit? >> Property owner has always goes back to >> it would always be the property. It would always be the property unless the
food truck got the permission from the create >> then that would be on public property. That would be not on private >> that would be public. >> Yes. >> Mhm. >> So So >> but public then the vendor the food truck has to get permanent. >> Correct.
>> Correct. So typically what would happen there is they'd apply for a permit a VIC license and it would have to state where it is and then whoever's issuing the Vic license would say >> where you putting this.
>> Mhm. >> Oh we were going to do it on the corner of >> Yeah. You need we need silver. >> So, do we make it as simple as >> still split into private, public? >> Correct. >> Right. To start.
>> Mhm. >> And then >> go from there. >> Talking private. Yeah. Kind of. we would need to go down each one individually, which this does a little bit, but I noticed it does bounce back and forth a bit. >> So, I was getting kind of confused with
how bouncing back and forth. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. And I think, you know, I think to some extent this is something that should be shared with the other town staff because some of this is in their jurisdiction. >> So, this is more about town policy for
food trucks. Mhm. >> into the point that >> we we focus on the site. >> Yes. >> And what a site plan consists of, >> right? >> Um probably there's going to be a little bit of overlap with other town departments, but
>> I think spelling out in the process and what >> other town staff are know what their responsibilities are for that particular thing. >> I think it's just important. >> Yeah. Let me in touch base with folks. Thank you. >> So, let's let's let's just use the
chatau as a example. Let's say they're doing a grand opening, some new store is coming, right? They want to bring a food truck, one day event or a weekend on their then that wouldn't require a special permit.
Um >> cuz it's a one time event on >> whatever private property. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I mean, they probably would get other need to get other events. I was going to say for a perception that's all outside your zone, >> right? >> I would have Yeah, I would see that.
That's something that you need to see. >> But if the owners requested to put a food truck down there permanently, different story, then you know >> Yes. >> that needs it. >> Yeah. I do like this one time exemption here, this bullet point, but we maybe
need to >> Yeah. >> add a little bit to that like defining what a one time event >> Yes. looks like >> or as we cond or because we're going to you know I think because we're sticking to it being uh real zoning saturated kind of piece now it could be just as
simple as as we condense it before that before we go into our listing out of procedures and things of that nature just then put a disclaimer saying that this doesn't apply to those one time event um based based trucks. Um, so that could be, you know, something that we
could address too and just spell out how for those they'd have to go through the whatever the process would be on the town side of things. >> Yeah. Just stay focused on the zone. >> Mhm. So you can
>> Yeah. Hours of operation if we want part of the zone. Yeah. Okay. But I think correct me if I'm wrong, but would would Jim too, but would would hours of operation would that be under the burden type interview? Would that be something that would be a
special permit though? I believe that would be special. >> I mean, the thing is you could do it either way. Um, but you would probably want to stay outright because for some other other uses, you might have already an operation that you say unless you
want to go against this, then you have to ask for this in the special pro. >> Yeah. If it's going to require a site plan approval, that's when that's when you >> you dictate the hour. Yeah.
Not just a special permit but say that >> special permit someone will go a blast >> I want to open an hour later. >> Mhm. >> Right. So, we will we'll get you that
condensed um version for the food truck um um and we can >> and and the thing is too we don't want to make it too complicated. >> Yeah. >> And as time goes on for need to adjust it, but we'll >> Yeah. documents I think >> that all the time.
>> Yeah. I think Springfield had a lot of problems already that they were addressing here. >> Mhm. >> I'm not sure we're necessarily trying to solve any existing problems. >> Right. >> Yeah. They're unable. >> We're going to be up against a different >> The reason why we're looking at it is
because it's one of those uses that's not listed in our you are out of use. >> That's why we're trying to >> Mhm. >> Yeah. still be proactive. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. So I'll I'll reach out to ZBA
about the accessory >> a joint no for a joint >> a joint meeting discuss all this stuff this >> so we'll all work as a unit >> we should probably do the same with um ADUs but
>> I mean we didn't change any of the bylaws for the adh >> we we said states mandating that you have to allow them Mhm. >> And the and because it's residential, the only the only issues we had was to make sure that they maintain the same setbacks.
>> So where did you >> that's based off of the model AD violently. >> Yes. I was >> so I mean you know and and Jim is correct in that the planning board at the time um decided not to put anything into the bylaw regarding ADUs because
they're use and it'll just be handled by the building department. I think you know best practice is because it's a use similar to other pra similar to other uses you have in your table of uses that just have yeses across the board putting
an ADU in your table of uses at the very least is probably all you need to do >> and we definitely want to do that so it's call you're looking for it's call >> whether or not you include language I mean that's >> but >> just go by the
>> if you're buying the building department to review them. >> Yeah, I mean >> there could be there could be something though if the planning board wants to issue another permit to allow for an additional ADU >> or multiple or non >> that can happen and that would be
through a special permit typically or an ADU of certain size. >> Uh that's another thing. build our considerations >> or also if you folks want to address short-term rentals and maybe >> I was going to say cuz that's like I feel like that's the only thing that has
a little bit of leeway here you provide us was like shortterm cuz everything else like >> feel like we're just kind of locked in unless we want it to >> be a little bit like go past the >> let's wait and see >> approve first. When is that due for
>> so for now I think >> for we're talking about the the duplex >> for the vonville. Yeah. >> So I mean yeah I I have I mean in terms of >> let's not do something that that's going to be super >> I know what you mean. Yeah I hear what
you mean. Well the duplex is that something completely different from ADU stuff? >> Yes. >> Mhm. M >> because they'll allow duplex they'll allow uh >> they're adus on top of a duplex >> or multi-unit.
>> So a duplex right now in Grand would require zoning board appeals. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Now it's a it's an allowed use whether it's a duplex or tri whatever whatever whatever the legislation's going to be.
>> Yeah. whatever it ends up being. So where you have a single family home across the street >> if the law passes and that person wanted to convert to two family >> decides it meets the set. >> Mhm. >> Need to come before the board. >> Sure.
>> Right. >> And and there's plenty of them in this town that were built prior to the bylaws. Right. >> Um so I I don't think I don't think the board should get
involved in a cyclone review for for that. I don't think we want to do that. Okay. >> There's already setbacks to buildings. >> No, I mean, if you're treating ADUs as you are with not requiring a site plan, why would you require a site plan for
>> the duplic? >> You know, something that's allowed as a right. >> Yeah. >> Supposed to be treated like another Sen Valley. I understand. Well, cuz really it's just a it's an attached >> some >> well like without square footage. I mean, I don't know what they're going to
have for square footage and >> limitations and stuff, but >> it's like how this reads is 900 ft >> or half >> Mhm. >> the gross floor area of the principal building, whichever smaller. Mhm. >> And they're coming across some some
issues with the ADUs too because >> you give an inch and uh some of them are looking to so in other words an ADU >> 900 square ft I put it on top of a 900 foot or 1200 square foot garage. >> Mhm. Mhm. You had just a garage kind of
square footage. >> No. We just went through this in another community where they were permitted it. It's the bylaw permitted an ADU with a special permit
if it was a new structure. So, it was a garage >> that was more than 900 square ft, >> but the living space was 900 square ft because So, but it required a lot of fun. So I don't know like >> if it but
>> there was a lot of gray there. A lot of gray. >> Special. >> Yeah. >> Even though the living area was only 900. >> The GLA. Yeah. Was it was 900. >> That wasn't approved by the AG. >> Yeah. >> Was not administered correctly. It's
another question. So there's there's always >> there's so there's so many weird like >> Yeah. A lot of people stretching the the idea into something that's >> that works a little better and different. >> Yeah. >> I think to your point though, like for
short-term rentals, everything else in here we're kind of wrapped into, right? But for short-term rentals, >> that's a whole another that could be something that you >> because like I do know people who would want to build an ADU for a short-term rental.
>> Sure. We do have we did have an ADU that was used as shortterm I think right here on Emer Street. >> So how it doesn't mean it was it was legal. >> Well it doesn't mean it was legal but that right now >> I don't know if they I don't know but
that's current that they're doing. >> Yes. Right. Yeah. Currently. Yeah. >> Because like one we don't even have it as a use >> again. >> Right. >> We don't believe so. No. Yeah, >> the Airbnb thing too. That's
>> shortterm. Yeah, that's the short that's what they're that's what they're >> calling. So that is something that other communities >> you could prohibit. >> People are eliminating STRs. I mean, that's just kind of what's happening. >> And that and that's something that the
state has given the localities leeway on in terms of being able to restrict and control. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. Yeah. Cuz like you mentioned, >> I think everything else in here. >> What? >> You could call it a bed and breakfast.
>> You sure can. You sure can. >> Right. That's stretching it. >> Then breakfast. You put some fruit out like in the main box of Cheerios in your >> Oh, some muffin. >> Breakfast by Jim. Um,
>> so I wonder like if the board I don't know does the board want to talk about these other do you want either >> I think since it it's not going to be till spring. Let's maybe I mean it's up to you guys but >> I think the short-term rentals is going to be updated same
>> so that's separate than this >> and that yeah we could treat that as a separate Yeah. So, we would just pull that out of ENU L bylaw language. >> No, I think what you can do is you can prohibit short-term rentals, but you have to create a bylaw to establish a
short, >> right? >> You would have to define it here. >> Well, you'd have to defi you or you you like Ken mentioned, you'd have a bylaw, a specific bylaw section that would be for short-term rentals. And then after that then you could
>> but short-term rentals though could also encompass primary residences because I know a lot of people who will do short-term rentals on their primary residence. >> Right. This is just saying >> but this is just attacking short-term rentals you correct which I think would
be a lot more popular in the town than people >> Yeah. You have to be careful how you how you how you do that, too, because >> um you would probably want to say no more than
>> three tenants per year. >> Mhm. >> Something along that line because >> yeah, usually >> you could have somebody in >> you could have somebody in there that doesn't stay. >> That's a short term, right? >> You wouldn't you don't want transient people in there every time.
>> But but sometimes you can't avoid it. someone leaves or or >> defaults you can >> there's definitely short-term language that the state has adopted that >> and communities are using to prohibit to
restrict to permit some context for boards to approve these particular homes to be used for short-term rentals >> those ADUs and primary >> maybe either or either or yeah whatever >> again yeah it would just be I think you
know where we mentioned where with the ADU specifically, you could that's where you could control the usage of that that specific short-term rental procedure. And then like Ken mentioned, we would have probably have to do a separate bylaw section. That would just be touching
short-term rentals as a whole though. We wouldn't be able to do just short-term rental just short on the ADU. >> Yeah, we would have to have an overall short-term rental, right? >> Okay. So there's models out there. We couldn't bring that. >> Yeah, that could be for to think about.
>> Mhm. >> The board is not there's no development application. So it's like these next couple of meetings, you know, could be for zoning like >> Yeah. Let's just let's get all that. >> It's a good it's a good opportunity. >> Stick with this, get it through. We've got other stuff we want to work on
>> along with with signage. >> Uhhuh. Mhm. >> And some of the others I I think the signage thing we scrapped was there. >> I guess that >> and just giving you a brand new one. >> Okay. >> I think too I >> I don't disagree.
>> I think it'd be too hard to try and clean that mess up. >> Sure. >> All right. >> And use some best practices. Not out at the cape, not in a long metal, but you know, something that fits. All right. This was awesome. Great.
>> All right. Perfect. >> Well, thank you, folks. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Um, so yeah, apart from that, I don't know what uh how we'd be doing the CBA info. Do we still want to do we want to go over these next two thing the next
meeting and then do a ZBA and maybe go over the sign and then go over the sign? >> Yeah, I think I think one of the things too is we'll meet with the zoning board committee and hopefully that'll be our last meeting. Um basically it's package up the reorganization of the bylaw. I
think the idea is then to have it, you know, be the final document before we go to the town select what to say. Planning for should have its public hearing, but I think as you know, you can't have it needs to be within 6 months >> of the town meeting. So, if we don't
have a town meeting date, you probably want to just hold off on we'll have a nice >> repackage by whether or not we need to take it to town meeting based on Jim's buying date someday. >> All the other stuff will be clean, ready to go. Y as soon as we let know when the
town meeting is then we can start the hearings. >> Yeah. Yeah. I wonder though Jim to to the extent of the conversations whether or not you know having some engagement with the community on certain
things could be helpful just to you know >> with this >> maybe we'll do that with the hearings. >> Okay. Well, I you know because I know we had that trouble with regards to the reszoning, right? And we that was we
obviously had the opportunity to review that during regular planning board meetings, >> but maybe in retrospect maybe it is something where if it is a big ticket thing, then we either have like make sure that people are aware of either a
workshop date that the planning board is having and just make make it more widely like noticed. >> Mhm. not necessarily um having a special one-off event, but saying like in a regularly scheduled planning board meeting, the planning board would be
talking about this >> in anticipation of the public hearing. >> That's there's a process in place, >> okay? >> And I I'm not going to sit here with 20 people on our own and and spitball stuff. It's just
>> they can come. It's it could be advertised, but you're not going to get anything done if if you've got everybody checked in. >> I do think once we get everything button more buttoned up like that would probably be a better idea, but I think until then
>> Well, that's when we have our hearing. >> Yeah, great. >> And then we can massage with with any input from then we can make >> Well, I thought we weren't going to massage it. >> We don't have a choice. Once we have a hearing, >> we have to take we have to take >> into consideration. Yeah, in there
>> which that's the purpose of the hearing. >> Thank >> but the outreach um hearing needs to be far outreach. >> Pardon me. >> So like the outreach for that public hearing like I think that's a a pretty popular like gripe that a lot of people
have is that they don't even hear about the >> show up anyway. We've done we're going to advertise it's going to go on Facebook. It's going to go on our the town website. What else did we say? We >> um >> Well, we can Well, >> the normal postings,
>> normal postings, we'd have Facebook um >> communication committee. >> Communication committee. >> Mhm. >> So, there's ways to get the word out more so than maybe in the past. So, we'll you know, and maybe you word the communication like this is important.
>> This is going to be voted in Tom meeting. That's a fact. >> That's and I keep saying that when it goes to town meeting, it's going to town meeting and >> we're either going to vote it vote it up or down or kick it back to >> I mean >> no no no major changes because we don't
know what the unintended consequences are. So if you >> if you want some input on what we're these aren't major these are not major no >> zoning changes. >> No and a lot of them are for the better of the community. There's nothing that we're trying like this is all for the
better of the community. >> Mhm. >> I think everyone's pretty open to that. >> It's it's updating and introducing some things that we're out of date on. >> Yeah, that's it. >> Yeah. And I think, you know, we especially when now that we've gone
through, you know, this, you know, obviously the process we folks before that having the zoning bylaw committee process too. Um, I think we we recognized that, you know, doing that more expanded outreach, not just having a dedicated event, but doing like the
survey, um, as well and expanding it out to more folks like with the school department, having their mailing people send things out to their staff and students as well. That I think really did a lot to drive up, at least for the survey, drive up a lot of participation numbers on that end, too.
>> So, I mean, but it was all minors, wasn't it? majority but I get but again I think a good a good chunk of them were also faculty um that were participating in it >> and parents >> and parents so I mean I think you know >> faculty aren't necessarily residents
>> but again I think that if we're talking about like maybe doing expanded outreach that could be maybe a consideration but >> we'll get the word out the best way you know any way anyway anybody sees that they feels fit to do it the more the better but >> yeah you said what you sure >> favoring Mhm.
>> The normal >> Facebook web page. >> Communications committee >> and the communications committee that >> Mhm. >> and whatever their sources are. I get the word. >> Sure. >> Oh, didn't we talk about like a town text? >> Oh, I actually I think I do remember
that, Chris. It was something about I think someone mentioned there was a uh either a town text or town messaging system for people's phone they were getting. >> So, >> I haven't seen a town text. I I think the police chief handles that. >> Okay. >> I think >> Okay.
>> And they may be selective on what they use that for. So it doesn't it doesn't >> it doesn't dilute the importance of the message. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Right. Right. >> Mhm. >> We can ask. Doesn't hurt to ask. >> Okay. Um
>> All right. Perfect. >> So we'll have Yeah. We'll have those revised sections for you folks at the next meeting and then you will vote from there. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I make a motion to adjourn
tonight's planning board meeting July 27th. I don't know what time it is. What time is it? >> It's 7:20. >> 7:20 p.m. >> Second. >> I'll second the motion. >> Any further discussion? No. >> All in favor? Hi. Um,
>> okay. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you.