All right. Uh, call the meeting to order at 6:05 for the August 6, 2025 planning board meeting. Uh, my name is Stephanie Slush. I'm your chair. To my right, I have Jimmy Tar, alternate chair far Doug Finn. To my left, Lee Bell, and over
here, Bella Joerger, who's our uh, town planner. Um, as always, at the top of every meeting, we have public forum. This is an opportunity for folks who are here to speak to something that is not on the agenda. So, this is your opport opportunity to bring something forward
to the committee if you'd like to share anything. Here to speak at all or you here to listen? I don't know what's on the I was supposed to meet um Andy and Kelsey here. You're the neighbor. And yeah, I
emailed you that they were not coming this month. Um, oh, but that when you are finished with your ANR like application, that would be the perfect time to come in. I see. Yeah. So, how is that going?
I I don't know. I thought the meeting was to find out if the land was sellable, right? because they that's the last contact I had with Kelsey that the town still deciding
um if the town was sellable if the land was sellable with Kelsey. Kelsey is my neighbor Kelsey and Andy, right? Andy Marciano. This is Kelsey is his wife. Yes. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. Um I believe I sent
you an email. I hope another one of those land in the world. It's whether or not Andy is not at this meeting because since he's not selling the land, we real he had been interested in coming to a meeting because he had contacted us um and we were going to talk to him about
some other projects he has going on in his on his part B. But it because it's up to you to do the ANR application, we realize it doesn't really make sense for him to come in to talk about the buying of the land since that's from you. So you need to do the ANR application and
then you bring the ANR to us at a meeting and then we review it. Okay. I'm so sorry for the miscommunication. So that has to be done before it's decided whether or not the land is sold or Well, you'd need to have it um survey. I
mean, you need to have it surveyed. Yeah. You need to have the part surveyed that you want to sell. Yeah. Um, I can send you the instructions for the ANR are just the instructions about how to like divide your land and sell it. So, it involves like the survey having it assessed for sale
and then the actual ANR application is what you bring when you have all those pieces um like a a survey that you bring to us and then we say it's fine to divide your land this way and sell it basically. Okay. Yes. Um to be very clear,
yes, you would divide your land and that would that would involve an engineer or or a surveyor. A surveyor or an engineer. The town's role is basically looking at your plan to divide. And we look at two things. Do all the lots have frontage on a public
way or on a private road? Minimum amount of frontage. And can you access the buildable portion of the land across your frontage? There's no buildable portion. So the land is not buildable, but the portion that we would sell, it's not
doesn't have the 200 feet or whatever. So is it going to be added to a neighbor's lot? Yeah. Okay. That's what he wants to do. Then that's fine. Then that as long as that notation is on the plan. Yeah, that's all we care about. Okay. All right.
Yeah. Yeah. Um whether it's sellable is is whether you have somebody who wants to buy it really. That has nothing to do with the town, but yeah. Okay. Yeah, it's a lot easier than It sounds easier than It is easier than it sounds. Yes, it is.
I need to survey the appraisal. Yeah. Fill out the ANR, give you guys that information, and then proceed. Remember that we're going to be looking at we need to look at an engineered surveyed plan of the land. So, it's going to have to be the the
design will have to be drawn up by a surveyor or an engineer. It has to be stamped with their stamp. Um because it goes from our signature to the registry of deeds. It becomes a legally binding document. Any surveyor, any engineer is going to know the rules for an ANR plan. So yeah, because we've had people come with
like back and napkin drawings and we're like that's not like that anymore. Yeah. Okay. Sorry about that. Yeah. He was going to come in to talk to us about what he's doing on his land, but then we realized until there's an ANR, it
doesn't really make sense for him to come in and so it should all be done together basically whenever you're ready. Keep road straight through it. I know exactly what you're talking about. Okay. Yeah. And that's the buyer and he doesn't need to come to the meeting. So and Bella is here as a resource. She's
one of your hours here in the town hall um Monday, Tuesday, Thursday. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Apologies for the inconvenience and apologies for that like kind of unwieldy public forum. Um all right, moving from public forum
to the approval of the minutes from the June 4th, 2025th meeting, our last meeting. Um I had a chance to go through them and read them and they looked fine by me as well.
And noticing just Lee, you can't vote on these, right? Because you weren't here. Yes, ma'am. Unless you by sworn affidavit watched the meeting and I shall abstain. I will make a motion to accept the
minutes as read as presented. I'm sorry. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. I. June 4th meeting minutes are approved. And then um the next piece on our agenda is a continued public hearing. So this is a special permit
application for um the do the 30 336 West Street parcel ID number 206-57-0 the doggy daycare with Tara Gotautle. Um I'm going to
reopen the public hearing at 611. Um this is a continued hearing. um from our last meeting. Since that meeting, we've received an email from the applicant withdrawing their
application. Um says that I can just read it for the record. Um hi Bella, I hope you're well. I want to thank you all for your help and support preparing for the meeting earlier this month. Um, after much thought, we feel that even though if we
are approved for the special permit, opening a new business in a neighborhood of angry residents who don't want us there is not a smart decision. Unfortunately, we will not be moving forward with our business proposal in Hatfield. Brian, Irma, and I are heartbroken. We really hoping we could this would work out for us and the town.
Take good care and thank you. And again, please thank Lori as well. Best fair. I will make a motion that we close the public hearing and accept the application's withdrawal without prejudice. Second. Any further discussion?
Um, all in favor? I I All right. Really closing the public hearing at 6:13. Just a postcript on that. It's very unfortunate. it only takes two or three projects with that kind of response or
that kind of conclusion to really stigmatize the town. Um, speaking from experience in another town that I'm familiar with, it's a reputation that you get that it's very very hard to lose. Um,
it I I think that it probably wasn't necessarily a best location for the the proposed use, but it's unfortunate that there wasn't some other option for them to consider. I'll leave it at that. Thanks for mentioning that. Um, especially as we hear how we want to be
business friendly in town. Trying to be trying to be. Um, all right. With that, our next item on the agenda, drum roll, please. We have the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. We have um folks here that
they can hopefully they can introduce themselves for the record uh and giving us a presentation on our zoning bylaws and reviewing them. It was part of a I don't know if they'll touch on this. It was part of a technical assistance
um award that we got through the T um through application that Bella worked on and Andrew worked on and I worked on um in supporting of trying that part of this that also supports the comprehensive plan, a little bit of our housing production plan that Bella is
working on. And then a big chunk of it was looking at our zoning bylaws and kind of making pointing out some places we could improve, but then also touching on a couple of the good things we have going on in there. Um, and as such, this is kind of uh in motion a lot because of
Hatfield 2040 and the comprehensive plan update, which John, if you don't mind panning over to that beautiful poster over there, we have a living reminder of the priorities that came out of that. And that is um technically one of the
check boxes there that we can check off um once we finally get through updating our zoning to make it reflect more of the wants and needs that match this Hatfield 2040 vision. With that, here I'll happily pass the mic over
um to talk about and present um this part of the DTA project. Uh thank you uh members of the planning board. My name is Kyle Fenel. I'm a senior planner in the land use and environment department at the Pioneer
Valley Planning Commission. And tonight I'm joined by my colleague U Aiden Hem McMahon also a senior planner in the land use and environment department at PVPC. So uh we are collaborating with the town working on a
DTA funded uh project that's uh district local technical assistance. This is a state appropriation to all regional planning agencies. Uh Pioneer Valley Planning Commission serves both Hampton
and Hampshire counties. Um so we have uh an annual call for proposals. the town uh through the efforts of Bella and Andrew proposed uh a threephased uh project
uh advancing priority recommendations from the recently completed Hatfield 2040 comprehensive planning effort. Uh, as Stephanie mentioned, those three project or three elements of the project include a full diagnostic and technical
review of the zoning bylaw. Uh, we're also supporting with the newly formed Hatfield 2040 action committee which has met twice to date and we're hoping to provide more support as they advance the
other recommendations. And we're also conducting some uh data research and mapping for uh an update to the housing production plan. All that's part of the DTA funded project. Today we're here to discuss
uh specifically the zoning bylaw diagnostic. Uh we forwarded along our first draft of the document. Uh and upon our arrival today, we handed out some slides which I will also provide for our uh remote
viewers and um to kind of walk us through the document and also provide moments for us to pause, have a little back and forth, some dialogue um so that we can hear from you all, the town
officials, you know, what you see as priorities. uh and uh areas of concern within the document and areas for improvement. So there are some remaining tasks related to this. Uh again this is our
first draft of the document. Um so we're going to focus primarily on the diagnostic review, the technical review which will start on page nine of the document that we
forwarded along yesterday. So, um we're hoping that we can prioritize this element of the project, the BLTA funding project, uh to be completed by I'm sorry. I'm sorry. There we go.
Uh you're seeing this great. Okay. Uh so we're hoping to finalize this element of the project by October. Uh this uh DTA projects are funded on the calendar year. So we're just wanting
to try to get this element complete so that we still have a little bit of time to uh support the action committee and make sure that we've completed the remaining uh data uh support for the housing production plan.
So we will draft a final version after we have a conversation with you and uh we invite your feedback and we'll incorporate that into not only the technical review but also in shaping recommendations that you want to
prioritize um in terms of revising, updating, modernizing and streamlining the zoning bylaw. uh will also include kind of the implementation of that update. Um and
that can also include model bylaw language. If there's sections that you recognize are missing topics, we'll do the research on the back end and provide some model language that you can consider and or adopt at a future time.
So getting into the diagnostic review, um our first draft which we sent along dated to today uh includes primarily the technical review of the zoning bylaw which was um
last amended 51424. This is the most recent version that's accessible on the town's website. Um again the criteria that we look at during our technical re review
um will be the order in which we kind of discuss the work to date. We do consider before we get into the zoning bylaw trying to get a context of where the town is in their planning efforts. Uh because of the recently
adopted comprehensive plan that's really primarily where we're focusing. We're not going to go too far back uh because that was a very indepth uh two-year process uh where all zoning efforts were kind of brought together. So, we think
it's the most relevant and um pertinent source of context. Uh we do look at regional planning efforts uh to see if there's additional thoughts, patterns that the town has wanted to consider, but very minimal in
our work. Uh before we get into the technical review on pages seven and eight of the draft document we provided, um we do keep in mind the state zoning act, chapter 4A of Mass General Laws. Uh
it's an essential piece of legislation. Uh and we keep all of the excluded and pro uh prohibited um I'm sorry, protected uses that the zoning act uh
outlines. We keep all that in mind as we review the zoning bylaw. So currently it's it's presented just as a quick summary of all those topics that we keep an eye out for. Uh so far in our review, we haven't seen any glaring concerns uh
in terms of um inconsistencies or issues with uh 4A, Chapter 4A. Chapter 4A also establishes the authority of planning boards and zoning boards of appeals. So part of our general recommendation is that moving
forward um to make sure that these zoning updates uh continue uh we encourage all of our planning boards and zoning board of appeals to be in dialogue to work collaboratively to make sure that the
zoning bylaw is um you know the best type of document that it can be to support both boards. So jumping into uh the first section structure and format.
Uh this starts on page nine. Generally we've found so far that the structure and format of the zoning bylaw uh is logically structured. We've identified a few provisions that located
in sections that seem to break the flow of the document uh could be confusing to readers. Um and those specifically are uh the placement of the ADU provisions,
accessory dwelling units, which those provisions were amended at the most recent annual town meeting. Uh haven't been approved by the AU's office yet. the pending review uh from the attorney general general's office. Thank you, Stephanie. Um but um the
recent amendments to the state zoning act created a protected use definition of accessory dwelling units. The town of Hatfield responded accordingly. It tried to or has passed uh amended provisions for ADUs. they're still currently uh
nested in the section 34 related to non-conforming structures and uses. So just moving forward, we're identifying that that might not be the most logical placement of those provisions might be confusing for applicants who want to
execute their by their right to uh create an accessory dwelling on a accessory dwelling unit on a single family lot. Additionally, those related to uh medical marijuana
section 7A and marijuana establishments section 7B. uh large regulations um pertaining to special uses that stand out uh separate from all other special
uses and are oddly um numbered A and B of a larger section related to storm water management section seven. So just calling attention to that interesting
um kind of break of logic. Uh there are also additionally scattered provisions just related to definitions, some procedures and some special regulations that um could be consolidated uh centralized uh just for
the sake of streamlining procedure and making uh the document more clear and um user friendly. So, at this point, we'd love to hear from the planning board members your
thoughts um regarding the structure and the format of the document, the the zoning bylaw as adopted. Curious what your thoughts are in terms of the biggest structural problem uh
that you all have found with the bylaws. uh if there are issues created uh that pose a hurdle to applicants that come before the board or issues that the board members see when trying to understand particularly if there are any
new members of the board that have had a hard time kind of getting oriented to the document. Uh also curious to see if the staff have any thoughts on this topic. Would anyone like to jump in?
I'm just gonna wait to see if anybody else wants to raise your hand. You go. Um, sure. Um, first of all, thank you for doing this. Um, I not necessarily I'm new to Hatfield generally, very new to Hatfield
depending on your your measurement. Um, but not necessarily new to um, land use and planning. Um I absolutely positively agree that a single definitions section makes sense and to consolidate all definitions into that. I absolutely
positively agree that a re I'll use the term recodification i.e. maybe maneuvering some of these various sections into a slightly different order does make sense and to make sure that all um internal references are consistent and appropriate that makes perfect sense.
Um, I think that because Hatfield has been using a a chart of uses, uh, table of uses, that probably trying to, you know, lever that out, um, even though it's not my favorite thing, but to try to lever
that out of the zoning bylaw, um, replace it with something else doesn't make sense. So, there it is. Um, I do like the idea and I would love to hear your thoughts on removing procedures
from the zoning bylaw altogether. And the the reason is I want the town, the staff, the office, and the planning board to have the flexibility to establish their own procedures and to modify or change them as they see fit. Would you like to give an example? Uh, sure. the procedure for applying for
a special permit. Very simply, um if we decide that, okay, we want someone to come here and present their materials before we even begin to consider a public hearing, um which actually has been common practice. Um that's the right and privilege of the planning
board to do. Um, if we want to change that procedure so that the planning uh the the the town planner instead receives the application, reviews it with the applicant, determines whether or not it's actionable, and then proceeds forward with public notice and all that if we decide that that's the
way we'd like to do it. I don't want to have to go back and ask town meeting for approval to change the bylaw to make that. No, I just want us to be able to decide to do it because part of the other thing that I'm thinking about is how it says you need to make x number of copies in this size and it's like it's hearkening back to a
time where you couldn't just email the application, right? Um, yeah. So, anything that we gives the board the most flexibility, I'm in favor of. Um, now I don't want to get too deep because I know that you probably have some
additional notes, but um um one of my comments is related to what you just said, too. So, okay. The um I've got two other things, but I'll I'll reserve for later. Go ahead. Uh yeah, one of the thing questions I had was I think what's been most
confusing is our procedures are kind of all lumped together. So, special permit, site plan approval, and they reference each other, and it makes it confusing to someone who like might be new to zoning. So, like looking at it and being like, okay, what are actually the steps I need
to take? Um, and and like what do I need to include in an application? And so, somehow making that easier to understand. Yeah. Um, and whether that's can be done. Yeah. I'm curious to whether that could be done outside of the bylaws now that
you mentioned that. Well, something that Doug mentioned also was our our table of usage is is horribly antiquated. I mean, how do you go about updating if if that's how the if that's the methodology we want to stick with? Do you have a section that we're going to talk about with table of use too, I
think. Yeah. Uh yeah, that's you know, I mean, there's there's a lot of stuff that just isn't covered at all. Well, with the definitions specifically, too. Yeah. And we we find ourselves trying to chase definitions of certain things to to to shoehorn things into where they
might might fit. Tabled uses forces you down an avenue which basically requires you to adjudicate the use instead of the impact on the the immediate neighborhood and the and and the surrounding neighborhood and and the town as a whole, which to me is a more responsive and more forgiving
way to look at at using land. Um, which is also called like formbased uh form based or yeah, forbased zoning or which is something that's potentially recommended that as well. Yeah. Going back to the yeah structure and forms piece of it.
Yeah, I'm trying to keep it. Yeah, keep it on the structure and the format of how how it is. Any other comments on um only that we've got uh medical marijuana, marijuana establishments, we've been talking about ADUs, we've been, you know, talking
about mixed use. All of those to me feel as though those could be considered uses all under one heading in the in the structure. So, you know, you've got your your zoning areas, you have your table
of uses, you have your very basic crit, you know, uh um establishment of the zoning body, your definitions, but then under uses, um yeah, I more to say about that, but I want I want to wait until we get you talked about maybe lumping more in
one category, so to speak. Yeah. So, um, yeah, uses that require a special permit, for example, is basically what we're concerned with, right? Um, so anything that requires a special permit, a you that type of use
where we are looking for something specific, a marijuana dispensary, that's not just somebody, you know, building a porch on a slightly non-conforming lot where a special permit is needed, but it's, you know, basic. That's a use that we're going to have specific criteria. We're going to be focused on that.
So, But anyway, I would just say that um I really appreciated the mention of the need for a clear logical flow just in the basic table of contents. I don't think that the headings are intuitive in any way. I
don't think special regulations means anything to anybody um to be separated out from something like dimensional and density. What does special mean? I think it can just be a lot easier to follow um if you're going into it kind of blindly like what would be the mindset of someone? What are they
looking for and how can you lead them along with these section titles? One of my notes was balancing legal integrity with I use the term pedestrian comprehension or layman layman comprehension. Uh if
the average person off the street can't look at the bylaw, read a section, and understand what it means, then it's useless. Um, so yeah. Anyway, agreed. But that's like a big character kind of quality that we can talk about later. Anyway,
um, thank you for all those thoughts. I believe between the two of us, we've captured all of it. Uh, and you're right, you'll access this recording, too. Absolutely. Uh and thank you for not getting too far ahead of us because we we are going to touch on some of those
um some of those thoughts that you've already mentioned alluded to. So, uh, following the document, looking at the next section that we get into, um, assessing the accessibility of
the document and its ease of use, um, for the average, uh, member of the public or lay person that wants to uh, develop in town, right? Um, looking at this page, the zoning bylaw is accessible as a PDF
to the public. uh on the town's website. We're now on page 10 of the document. Four or five of the slide. Four or five of the slide. Oh yeah. Okay. Um so the the PDF version of the document
is accessible on the town's website if the public looks at the planning board page. uh it rests um not at the bottom of the page but on a a tab on the left hand side. I believe there is a
hyperlink in the diagnostic included. Um once the public accesses the bylaw several features uh aid navigation uh but there are some rooms for improvement. uh mentioned already there
is a table of contents but headers could be uh addressed make it a little bit more comprehens uh comprehendable. Um but also graphics uh and illustrations
uh could be helpful to uh convey information that's hard to explain through text. some more visual concepts such as setbacks. Uh those types of dimensional
uh details. Uh also procedural flowcharts are just another example not mentioned in the technical review but something that could be explored. Uh, additionally, cross references and hyperlinks
uh are valuable additions to help the public navigate the document both in print, you know, cross referencing, directing the reader to the appropriate um relevant section, but digitally embedding those links into
the document so that if someone is looking to open a particular business, they can click on that. It takes them to the uh the relevant provision. They know how to proceed. What a concept. So 21st century. Just to clarify, kick it back to you. I
think what I just heard is a more simplified basically a what do you want to do and options that are given in plain English. Um I'm looking to open a business in Hatfield. What kind of business? ABC. Okay. I'm picking B. Okay. that means
you're going to need to pay attention to this and this and this and here are the links to the those sections of the bylaw. That's what you were talking about something like that or so in crafting the bylaw you can uh draft your language to quickly direct
the hyperlink to the bylaw to the sections of bylaw that are relevant. You may be speaking more of to a separate document. We've prepared for communities uh permitting guides which are much more abbreviated you know 15
20page documents where it's very simple. I want to open a business. I it's this type of business. It's this type of permit. These are the people to go to. This is the time frame that I have and it's a bit more succinct. Okay. In the bylaw itself though,
properly formatting a digital PDF, you can embed a link to the ne to the appropriate page so that it's not just text. Sure. Right. So what? No, I get that. I totally get that. So that's more of what we're speaking to in this bylaw itself.
So you're not talking about like a simple kind of a a one pager executive summary sort of thing where people are provided access. So no, fair enough. Understood. And I something with that if we had a more something more than just a static uploaded PDF.
Well, and I think that's where the the procedural flowcharts you just described that I said absolutely underlined. Yes. Yes. Yes. Perfect. Because the biggest question even the the person who was here earlier talking about an ANR. She was uncertain as to the pol the practice
or or what steps to do in what order. A lot of that I think we could develop and build and put onto our website and refer people there. pering guide. He said a permitting guide. Yeah. Basically the equivalent of like an eight page that sounds like a an an extra project
that we could have Bella just work. Yeah. Well, no, it's it's right. It's but um I I think going to something that I think Bella said, which is making sure that the table of contents and the section headers are clean and clear language so that people can easily find
what they're looking for. There's nothing worse than going through the needle in the haystack to find what you're looking for when you know it's in there someplace and it could easily just be delineated properly y in the beginning so people can you know know where to look. Yeah. Right. It could be a marijuana
bylaw under under storm water drain. Right. Right. Exactly. So right. Yeah. And imagine like the definition section all active hyperlinks and you could like click and go back to like where they're referenced in the document
with the definitions. I had this as a note. Um might as well mention it right now. Um I'm assuming that you would like I uh would point to definitions in other documents in every case where compat
where u where appropriate i.e. the state defines an ADU, we should not redefine it, even if we're using the exact same language because the state definition will always prevail anyways unless we're breaking it down and
further refining in which case we can do that. Um, an attached ADU can be clear language, but ADU accessory dwelling unit should always refer to the state's definition. There's, you know, a variety of other things that I could point to.
So, Yes, those are definitely best practices. Um what we tend to recommend um also for the sake of not just state definitions but particularly um considering Hatfield's uh proximity to
the Connecticut River and large flood plane. There are federal definitions to consider as well. Yep. uh for property owners in the town to participate in the um national flood insurance program. U
so that is something to consider. It's not just state definitions that need to be uh um appropriately included but broader definitions and provisions themselves. So with the access and ease of view
section that what you've explained your discussion questions have we hit them yet? Yeah. Uh so upgrades such as hyperlink cross references or adding illustrations absolutely all three. Sounds like it seems the board is generally in support of that. Are there
additional thoughts that perhaps we haven't um voiced? Um or if there are any technical rules that you think are really most uh in need of some type of visual aid
that we can uh try to provide examples of. If I had to make one comment, I'd say we need to make these the presentation of this not scary for older people who are not necessarily
technologically sharp, we'll say. So, I I think simplicity along the way would go far for people being able to access what they're looking for. you know, they may not understand every
part of it, but at least they'll know where to, you know, know where to look. And I I think that if we give people the easiest possible way to know where to look, then if they come to us, they're going to come with some type of information ahead of time, which would
certainly make everybody's job a lot easier if we weren't fighting about things. If we're just if everybody's on the same page about what the what the the rules are. Yeah, I think procedural flowcharts would be a big help. It was something that I wasn't even
really would I think that's a brilliant idea. Yeah, I love it. So, um it's purely speaking about structure. Um Bella, correct me if I'm wrong. Is there a section in the current bylaw that shows or that details when revisions to the bylaw were made?
um that does come up later, but they there's like highlighted sections that pop in and out occasionally, but then at the end, I guess there's a list of amendments, isn't there? Yeah. So, there's two there's two locations where a history of amendments
to the bylaw exist. Uh the opening page has uh a list since the this current iteration was adopted in 2003, I believe. uh it lists all the town meetings annual and special where a zoning amendment was
adopted. A more detailed history is uh in the back of the document there's a single page. What is inconsistent in regards to noting amended uh provisions is some are noted in the
header of the provision itself when it was amended, some are not. So um for instance the I think it's the uh water protection water supply protection was amended
uh in 2019 but it's not noted on the provision it's in the history so you don't know that it's more recent than other provisions. So the suggestion I was going to make is just uh
if if an entire section was added or significantly modified I'm thinking about the ADU as a case in point at the on the header in in that section the header for that section there should be a reference to a footnote and in the footnote it should say amended by vote
of town meeting annual town meeting such and such a date to 2023 or whatever the date was um and 2024 for what happened. If it's uh something specific like if we you know went from 25 foot setbacks to 20 foot setbacks. Okay, put that in
there. Amended ATM you know May 2016 uh previously 25 ft. Um, but being able to provide a direct pathway for people particular, and this is where the attorneys and the people who are filing appeals or people who are
trying to reactivate a long dormant building lot, they're going to need to know that. Um, if you got a building lot that was created in 1930s and nothing's happened on it, regardless of the zoning changes that might have happened since
then, it still retains the status as a building lot. So understanding what that is, if we went from one acre to a half acre at a certain point for a minimum building lot size or vice versa, if a lot existed previous to it, it still retains it status as a building lot
and it's clear what they're working on. Yeah. Yeah. So that becomes a real nightmare if you're really trying to do. But anyway, I would recommend integrating dates of revisions as footnotes. The only things that I would say maybe we wouldn't need to have the
illustrative examples for because I see are like ones where someone's very obviously going to be using uh engineer for anyway that might already understand the technical language like for I'm just just trying to do like
a like for example you said illustrative examples of calculations for like parking ratios would we want no or lot coverage No, that's something like that an engineer that's doing this work
and presenting for a special town meeting or I'm sorry for a special permit, they should know that. And I don't know if the lay person would need to like have that information. I don't know what others think about that. I I agree. And I would think that most if you're
talking about anything that's a site site plan review or anything probably business related where there's a special perimeter site plan review involved that the idea of illustrating you know what lot I mean maybe a diagram which says
what is lot coverage you know maybe perhaps and then here's the lot here's a house here's a driveway we consider lot coverage to be any imperous surface so that includes the driveway includes the sidewalk includes the roof of the house Sure, but
a definition would work as well. So, um, interesting that you suggested also what a properly screened vegetative buffer looks like because that has ranged depending in the past. So, but I'm like, isn't it obvious? This isn't a Isn't it? It states very clearly that
it's supposed to be this many feet and this high and this many years and this Yeah. So, but I mean, does Hatfield define corner lot separately in terms of setbacks and in terms of frontage? Frontage? No. I don't
I'll have to refer to that table. I don't know. But it's a table which is better than a bunch of words. So, okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. Yes. Uh the next section that we would um
have some assessment of the bylaw, we look for clarity and consistency. Of course, you know, the bylaw is um kind of a living document. It's amended uh occasionally, sometimes annually as
uh development issues arise or um new opportunities emerge. So, inconsistencies are common in any zoning bylaw. A few items that we've identified that may need some addressing. Um pretty
standard, vague, and undefined terms. um conflicting or inconsistent provisions. Uh there's the lack of cross references. So just the the fact that it's it's easy to get lost in the document. Uh
inconsistent terminology. Uh for example, accessory dwelling units. There's still references in the use of accessory apartments. So it can be a source of confusion. Uh there's also instances of disapproved
provisions. So just like um it's important to note where amendments are made by town vote. Um the attorney general does have the final say on those
uh amended bylaws and on occasion disapproves amendments either in part or in whole. There are instances of um remaining numeration and disclaimer text uh
particularly related to I believe hazardous materials is a primary uh topic that has several um issues. Something to consider a general question. Um, many towns will grant authority to the
town clerk to address formatting issues that come about uh following at attorney general's decisions to amend and rectify those nonsubstantive formatting issues.
Um, curious if Hatfield has granted that authority. It's typically a general bylaw or a warrant article. There's the classic and possibly apocryphal story about there being a random comma in the Constitution of the United States. And if it is in fact a comma and not just a
blot of ink, it fundamentally changes the meaning of the uh of the language. Um I would be apocryphal or not, I would be a little nervous about allowing a town clerk to change the text of a bylaw that has been
otherwise approved by town meeting. um unless it's a clear and obvious scrivener's error like a misspelling. Um but I don't know what Hatfield does or whether Hatfield has allowed that in the past. You should look into it.
I would actually I would actually not have as much of an objection if it were the town's planner because you're looking at the language, but you're also looking at the intent of the language and its potential application. So if you say, "Oh, no, that comma actually should be there and it
shouldn't be a semicolon." Okay, fair enough. Good question. Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to derail us there. Um, I guess in your in your example, the comma would be substantive and this
calls for nonsubstantive formatting, but that would be subjective, right? Anyway, that's another discussion. I think your point about us trying to make some of the vague in the similar vein of what you just said of making
some of the stuff that could be more subjective more more objective would be helpful for us. Yes. But like I you mentioned the example on page 11 that including the phrase not detrimental to the public
convenience or welfare and not impairing quote impairing the integrity or character of the district end quote is kind of like the way workaround where you can like say no I don't want to support this special permit because my
definition of public convenience or welfare might be different than yours but like you also want some of that. Do we want some of that flexibility? And so like where's the balance in that? You know, you when I read that when I read that, I thought the same thing. This is these are the statements of us as a board a
little bit of flexibility, but it could also then turn around and bite us. But you're right. I can I can see where I mean I I think that this was written so that the board itself can make those decisions without being restricted by the by the structure of the bylaw. You
know what I mean? They need some some play. someone comes to us with a project that's distasteful to the neighbors, but it fits all the other criteria, there's no there's no recourse for us to turn it down. I think that's where later you talk
about how a great move would be to have a description of what each zone what the essence of each zone really ought to be. And then if you have a clear description of what the zone is for, then it's easier to defensively, I think, talk about what's detrimental. If you've said
the purpose of town center business is this, it has these characteristics than if you're saying it's not detrimental in our judgment, you can base it on something that you've defined elsewhere, which we don't have right now. Does that make sense? I feel like you got to tighten one or the other, right? You either need to get
like I mean, we should tighten all the other parts of our zoning bylaws. tighten all our other parts of our zoning bylaws or like fix all these other things and then we can keep kind of more some of this vague language or tighten up on this vague language and keep
kind of the mess that it is otherwise because I do agree that there's some stuff that is too subjective in our violence. I see. So, and the legal risk piece is like you brought up zoning and you know more
clearly defining your zoning areas to be able to uh and that presumes that a the zoning is going to ch stay uh or or you know be set and then be established. B that presumes that we're going to proceed at some point and maintain zones
to regulate uses. Um there are other ways to regulate uses other than just creating parts of town where certain things are allowed and where other things are not you know so that's that's another question but something I wrote earlier is talking about those uses
where there could be the potential where where they they are not otherwise allowed by right like a house like a residence or where there could be the potential for greater disruption. My thought was to establish these describe the intent of that section. That's something that you mentioned to clearly
define the intent of any given zone or the intent of any given you know set of rules for the for that use um to establish criteria. That's the rigid measurements. That's the you must have this much frontage. You must have this much setback. You must maintain a noise
level below this level. You know these things that can be measured that are objective. they're not subject to individual opinion. Um, and then third, have required findings. The required findings are in order to grant a special permit for this kind of use, the
planning board must find that ABC. And that's where statements like, you know, that the use is not detrimental to the public convenience or welfare. Maybe we need to clarify what that means, but I'm not afraid of having a subjective measure. Uh, state courts
have consistently upheld decisions of planning boards and zoning boards where the decision was based on criteria that's in the zoning bylaw, but relied on a subjective assessment by the board. They've they've stayed away from trying to second
guessess the board, uh, the decision of the planning board or the ZBA, what have you. They've only objected to decisions that were based on something that had nothing to do that was not established in the bylaw as a criteria. Um, I'm going on a ramble. I apologize for that. But basically, I'm speaking in favor of
of the possibility for subjective uh assessment of projects. Um, as long as we as a board pay attention to the criteria that we establish in the zoning bylaw. I like your framing of just like if it's tighter in one area, you're able to be a little more loose in another because you
can defend where the decision is being made based on what. Well, and similarly going back to Lee's point, we about table of uses and it's referenced here too, how there's several uses in there that are hyper specific like philanthropic or cherropical medical
facility and then there's one that the next one is general manufacturing like so we need to look at the table of use in more of like a way that's where I do want a little more vague not vague but like bigger buckets of potential
ways we can look at stuff categories category stories or like if we move towards like a formbased zoning which is more based yeah impact based which doesn't really if someone else could explain exactly what a better way that I can but it's
about what's matching the character of the neighborhood as opposed to saying this use is allowed in this zone be more yeah and I think that I think that Doug touched on that by defining the the what the the zoning the character of the zoning itself yeah
well That's where you talk about, you know, not detrimental to the public convenience or won't impair the integrity or character of the district as long as we define what the character of any given district or zone is, right? And does the does the district apply to the old town or does it apply
to different districts within the town that Yeah. Well, I mean, if we're going to basically cut if we stick with basic two-dimensional zoning where this area has a certain character has certain expectations, you know, then then yeah, then it would apply to just that. Um,
but there's no reason we couldn't we couldn't apply character to the overall town. The town believes in preserve, you know, we have already done that work. believes in supporting agriculture in maintaining, you know, historic uses in providing a healthy and safe environment to for families and and
seniors and down the line. We can do that. But anyway, helpful, more than you were expecting, more appreciated. I'll say that we don't hear our planning
boards talk about some of these concepts. So, it's it's welcome. Um, is that a good thing? It is. Um, and we're we're happy to provide some, you know, uh either reference or
guidance materials if some of these concepts uh are of greater interest. Um and we do mention form based zoning later on so we can get into that a little bit but um proceeding with the
document the technical review on pages 13 and 15 of that uh we're now on page seven of the slide deck that we're showing to the public. uh our first
assessment of districts. Um there's ample opportunity to strengthen uh how the zoning bylaw uh defines uh and distinguishes the zoning districts. Um
first by introducing a clear purpose for each district. Um and then uh ensuring that re regulations um are in place that help uh create distinct characteristics neighborhood
uh characteristics for each. So that that can come across in several ways. First by providing a purpose for each def uh district. They're listed in the zoning bylaw with no elaboration or
rationale or purpose or intent. Just a simple bulleted list. And just to to underscore what you mean by districts are what like someone's property could be zoned for. Like so I was looking at our zoning map. Zoning districts. Zoning districts. So yeah,
there are um in the zoning bylaw there's uh listed nine, but there's actually eight zoning districts and four overlay districts, two of which are not listed in the establishment of
districts section. So there's some confusion there. Um but this is your rural residential, your outlying residential, your town center, town center business, business district, industrial, light industrial,
agricultural districts. over uh di overlaying districts include your flood plane protection, um your water supply protection, your riverfront, which I'm curious to know a
little bit about. Um, me too because it's it's it it provides very little additional protection to the flood plane, uh, but includes most of the same area of town.
There is the fourth quote unquote overlay district. I use that term loosely because it's an optional development regulation and doesn't function as a proper overlay. It's also spot-zoned
so that individual parcels or small groupings of parcels have been designated as a mixeduse overlay. And that is that leads us to kind of a general question that we have. Um how
has the mixeduse overlay been delineated or determined? Um, additionally, are any projects or have there been any projects to opt into those regulations?
Not in my time here. Was the mixeduse overlay a tail wagging the dog situation where somebody had an idea to do a certain thing at a certain location, but in order but it wouldn't work under the existing zoning. So they created an
overlay district to then bless the use that's been proposed is who knows that sounds likely given the history of our zoning map but I think any well I also have mixed feelings on over like I feel like overlay districts are encouraged or like
maybe and what I see happening too is like oh if you have this overlay district then you can qualify for this grant money or whatever and so like that's another tail wagging the dog frankly that I don't necessar necessarily a like agree with or necessarily in a way that
it makes our map nice and easy enough to understand. It complicates things with overlay districts. Y so if there are ways that we could simplify the zoning map in so far we don't hamstring us from any potential
state funds because we don't have these districts would be great or if we only have like one that were required like the flood plane one or you know what you know what I'm trying to say I don't know if others feel similarly with that and then the second point around um this I'm glad you brought up the spot
zoning There is a lot of spot zones in town that we I think all have gone on at least I have gone on record multiple times saying and I I feel like we're in general agreeance that we would like to move away from that and allow those to
be pre-existing non-conforming uses andor law like uses in that regard. Yeah, agreed. Because there's like this business parcel, literally just one parcel surrounded in this rural residential area. Like we should have when we
adopted the map the last time back in 2003 or whenever it was, we should have made that whole area rural residential and kept that pre-existing non-conforming use. I think we kind of concluded that when the zoning map was created, it was its
intent was to memorialize the uses that were on any given parcel. It wasn't intended as a way to say it wasn't intended as a statement of we the town believe this area would be good for these kinds of uses. It was, hey, guess what? Fred's had his machine shop there
forever. So, his parcel can't be just rural residential. We have to zone it as something else. You know, that's that's the that's the reasoning for a lot of little spot zones throughout town that that are questionable. I'm not sure that with the number of
different spot zones in town, there would be a way to consolidate any of them, you know, other than by by type of business. Not certainly by geography. Oh, no. You wouldn't do it by geography.
just you'd match whatever whatever that zone happens to be surrounded by this we should make that that so and and that has come up not just in our 2020 this came up this is coming up probably in this diagnostic this came up in all of the 20 40 recommendations this
also came up in previous recommendations from previous past documents in the last 20 years that we should move away from the spot zoning so that I think and A lot, frankly, a lot of the issue parcels that we've had are because it's like
industrial plopped in the middle of this residential neighborhood um a long time ago, right? And those have been some of the more like thornier things that we've had to deal with, at least in my time here on the board, is because of that legacy of the
spot zoning. That's Well, so Prospect Street's a prime example where there's a business right in the middle of uh the uh where the welding business is right in the middle of a I don't know what that's zoned. I don't know where it's zoned either, but I mean
but those things are allowed if they were there for a and they've been there forever. Yeah. Pre-existing non-conforming. Okay, there you go. And we're not trying to It wouldn't stop people current businesses that are currently operating there. It would prevent a new and more heavier use
frankly coming in in the future. So, one question we have is, do the current zoning districts, the eight base zones, are there instances where
they kind of accurately um categorize the characteristic of the neighborhood that they're they are some. Yes. Really? Yeah. I think the town biz center business and town center but like why we need two of those I don't know well and the question for asking for
clarification are you talking about simply the definition or the way the zone is described in the zoning bylaw the map or are you talking about the way the zone is applied to certain parts of town and whether that they're they correctly address the it's almost all of the above
open response so I would I would I would say that if you've got eight zones in a town as small Hatfield with this few, you know, granted there's a lot of varying use. The question is whether we need to have eight zones to delineate each kind or class of use
or whether we could simplify that. Um, yeah, we've had we've talked about whether why light industrial and industrial are two separate things. Yeah, to me that doesn't make sense. back in the back when this was initially incorpor like there was the idea of us bringing an industrial park and XY that
has not materialized and I think there might even be a shift away from that thinking I mean manufacturing is does that happen in America anymore tariffs are bring back um anyway uh it does yes and but not to like an industrial
parks are not no we're not going to get an auto manufacturer moving into Hatfield um but there are a number of businesses that where the activity on their property I would consider to be of an industrial use right do we need a light industrial and industrial right is my point probably not yeah I think that with within the zone
of industrial you could establish criteria you established a procedure a site plan review and then you put in the you know required findings yeah the other piece too another thing that came out of the Hfield 2040 comprehensive committee was uh
recommending creating like other centers or not tent centers but like villages that exist just outside of like just right here where we're sitting which is considered like town center and I think there's opportunity there to have like town centers what maybe it's reaining
that zone villages or something like that like whatever however that looks and there's we could look at doing those in a couple of different places in town I think I had a thought about that and about how that could be applied and and because if if we were to say okay uh intersection
of um West Street and depot road we're going to create a new village center there. What if the people there don't want it? What if the people there don't like the idea? Or on the other hand, what if the the historic district up on River Road and those those folks are like, "Yeah, we really want to have a little store right here, but we don't
create a village center there, which means it's harder to put one there." Perhaps village centers like uh historic districts could be nominated by the people who were there. And if a certain percentage or a certain, you know, minimum number of residents within an area say we want
to be nominated as a as a village center, then they could ask for an overlay zone to be applied, which would then be more permissive for commercial or so. Then what happens when that one person who wants to do that is
confronted by 15 neighbors who don't want that and we saw it play itself out here. then that well no it wouldn't be somebody saying I want to put a certain use on this property it would have to come from the whole the neighborhood group of the neighborhood it would be on
them to build consensus right before the zone so so what percentage what percentage equals consensus so if three people say I don't want this thing here period and there's 15 people
that say they do who says the three people are wrong. Yeah. Who's cons? Yeah. Who's voting for is it have to go to town meeting overlay? Who's determining the the efficacy of that little town center or little, you know, neighborhood thing when maybe
there's people that don't want that. Maybe there's people don't want their privacy infringed upon by it being called something different and people treating it differently. Stores and Yeah. So, I mean, we saw it play out here just the other day. We just saw it play out here when 25 people
showed up against something. The other the Yeah. And similarly giving it to the neighborhood or the community to do when yes, we want those people to have agency and like have be able to give input on that, but like they're not
they're only thinking about their neighborhood and maybe not like the best interest of the town, right? and they don't have like we're looking at the map holistically and making recommendations because then you see like this if you look at currently how five and 10 is zoned for example
a huge like a chunk of it is rural residential um one of the recommendations from 2040 is to completely relook at that and making that all at least business or like a little bit step above rural residential whatever that may be in in
the future. But it was because the the neighborhood or some of those people in the neighborhood really did not want to see it zoned a certain way and they lobbied at town meeting or whenever that map was made and they made it so that it's not and now we're kind of seeing that play out now like
with people coming here asking us to reszone their properties or like hey I want to do this on this it's zoned for residential it's on five and 10. So like right I don't I don't know how to square like I agree with everybody like how right like how do you one make it in the best interest of the
town in the best interest of the neighborhood which might be at odds with each other. Absolutely. Well, thinking about um West Street, you know, five and 10, um there are people who live there. There are people who have half houses there. And there are people, as we saw in North
Hatfield, uh people who long multigenerational families living on the same property, working the land as farmers, strongly objected to a um a new use that's coming in that was completely consistent with the established zoning, but they were still they still felt it
to be something that was completely abhorrent to everything that they felt the area should be. right or wrong, agree or not. Um I think that's kind those kind of conflicts are endemic to the concept of zoning overall. Um
you know any kind of formal zoning or any kind of formal planning procedure there will be detractors. Um I think it comes with the territory. Mhm. Um we can have have longer conversations about that idea. But anyway, and then a lot I don't know if you
noticed too though, a lot of our zoning is restricted by the environment of our of the town. Like our flood plane bylaws like the flood plane is expanding with with updated FEMA maps that rest immediately restricts like what can
happen. And that's essentially town business center. or what we would consider that. And like if there was another village up in um Brad Street area like that would be another potential like restriction because of the flood pl like and then we have wetlands basically
along the 91 corridor area. So where we would want commercial develop anyway and that's also where our drinking water supply area is on the very north part of uh of five and 10 and up in so like we're very restricted by what we can actually develop. I feel like it might
even be where where can we actually develop would be like a question and then where do we want to develop would be the next question because I think the environment in itself just automatically like creates very small pockets that would be one amendable and
two doable well it's you have to ask yourself you know what kind of development are we soliciting what kind of development do we want to encourage all development is not equal all development doesn't have the same physical impacts or the same uh neighborhood impacts And that's where,
you know, we have to have bigger conversations about that. But yeah, like I think, you know, we're all pretty much in agreeance too that our 200 foot uh frontage requirement and basically like an acre give or take of land to
build a single family home. Y is is is much too much. And we don't want to just take a oneoff approach to town meeting. We want to look at it holistically and like how that could then impact other things and calculations and things that get put
into it. Like our open space development bylaw, we have zero frontage requirements for that. now um for for those lots um in order to try to create more affordable ho housing. I don't think we would want to go to that extreme for an
update, but what I'm saying is we we are open to being more relaxed to creating more affordable lowercase a homes and also affordable homes capital A. Yeah. Minimum lot size and setbacks are a a blunt instrument when it comes to
zoning. Yeah. and we're open to um changing those. But in the spirit of looking at all the how that impacts other calculations and things that that that come with that looking at the rest of the zoning. Anyway, got a little off topic. The
zoning map is my is is where I like would like to see some help with that. So, thank you. So, just the last question and I think we you spoke to some details of it, but just as as the zoning bylaw section pertaining
to districts is rather limited and there's a desire for kind of an examination of the zoning map. What types of analysis are you looking for specifically beyond general types of data points like
land coverage or number of parcels per district? Are you looking for those instances of, you know, how many outlying spot zones are there? Let me ask you a question. Um, because
zoning I always felt and especially if you look at our zoning map, if you look at it very closely, there's lots of different colors mixed in in a variety of ways. We've been talking about parcels being individually zoned separate from their from the abuing or the abuing to the abuing parcels. Um, I
always felt that if you took that map and then put it at the far end of the room, so you can't see those details, that's what the zoning map should look like. Those tiny little dots of color should simply go away. Um, to me, that would be the first thing that I'd like to do is to make the
zoning more consistent and more uh congruous. Is that the right word? Probably not, but just internally consistent. So each zone contains only one type of use generally. But is there um an established practice
somewhere where you would have I guess you'd call it a neutral zone between zones uh where it's given that with you know you define the boundary between one zone and the next but any property within let's say 300 ft of that boundary may be used for
any purpose allowed in either zone. Oo. So you get you you open up a can of worms. Is 300 feet right? Is 100 feet right? Is a thousand ft. Maybe the diagram that shows how we measure from door to door or whatever
that going to impact me by doing that. And if so, if it's going to impact me, I don't want it. And you're going to hear that. You're going to hear that loud and clear here when you start doing stuff like this. You know, I I just foresee that's a can of worms that
But that's how you that's an easier thing pill to swallow potentially than having well, I want this to stop at my property line versus the next person's property line by like giving this buffer zone if you will, right? Could be interesting. Who decides the buffer zone and where
it's applied? Well, that's the whole point of updating a map in general, right? So, so then maybe you spin it around and you basically say, so if if this is your line between one zone and the next and over here factories are allowed and over here they aren't, then that means within 300 ft of that line, it's not an allowed
use. The factory isn't allowed by right, you have to get a special permit because you want to take these people, these boundary owners opinions into consideration. But at the same time now you risk obstructing potential development that
wants to go in the correct zone. Absolutely. Why is it right for him and not for me? You're going to hear that somewhat arbitrary, right? But you have to argue that it's not arbitrary. Like for example, again going back to our zoned industrial night
industrial land, most of it it could never be developed just due to the wetlands that are on the parcel. Um, and I don't know why that was like was that something that So that's why you have to look at like all of the things when we consider because because prior to what the 1980s wetlands weren't a thing people would
fill in swamps. I need some dry land. Okay, I'm going to dig some trenches. I'm going to fill in the center area. Now I can build on it, right? And so in 2003ish when we adopted this new map and these new zoning bylaws, I don't know, was that a consideration of hey, let's look and see where the wetlands are. Does this make
sense? Like so when when you're asking about like analys looking at an analysis of the zoning map I would like to keep that in mind because like like I mentioned like even some of our watershed or protection area exists in the north end of five and 10. So we
couldn't even develop five that part anyway. Okay. So, maybe I'm going to say exactly what you just said, talking about the analysis of our current zoning map and how it might be modified. Taking into consideration the underlying quality of the land,
treating loan uh land that's zoned industrial, but that's also wetland. That's not industrial land. That's crap. That's unusable land because there's no feasible way for it to be developed. And sim on the flip side too, we need to know that. And the flip side, I would like to see um prime
agricultural soils and locally important soils. Yeah. Uh which is a new designation that Hatfield was the first community to have locally designated soils. What does that refer to? So like for example, prime farmland, prime farmland, like
prime agricultural soils, right? So that is just looking at the quality of the soil. It doesn't take into account like this has been a blueberry farm for generations. that might not have prime agricultural soil, but it's been a it's been blueberry farms. I'm just making an example. Oh, okay. Fair. So, a part of that was on North Hatfield
Road in Straits Road area. There's it's not prime agricultural soil, but it's locally important soil and that it's been farmed for generations. that designation has um our previous chair of the planning board who was also have worked for American farmland trust um
had brought that and got that a certain type of soil I forget the name of it that exists in North Hatfield in parts of North Hatfield Franklin North Hatfield Road Straits Road has it designated as soil of local importance which then opens up opportunities for
preservation so those are the other pieces that you'd want to look at those are probably arguably the parcels people would say, "Oh, look at that's to to develop." But then other people would be like, "No, that's what we should conserve and that's the tension I think we're going to get at and we should be thinking about some of the zoning is where should
we be promoting some of this development slpromoting conservation and what is restricted completely by the flood plane by this that we should that is deacto preserved and that kind of thing, right? the the the uh the twopronged
or the two kind of primary motivations to increase housing stock, make housing more affordable, and also to preserve uh important land for agricultural or natural conservation. Somewhat of an oxymoron. Well, it they're in conflict with each other. Yeah. Yeah, definitely.
Basically, it's it's it's a tug of war. You can't do both at the same time in the same place. But that's and that's that's a long conversation to have and that's a big part of our comprehensive plan saying that we want we want both, right? And having tough conversations about where do you
I want a pony. I want a boat. I want a pony on a boat. I mean, okay. How how much? Yeah. Um and so those are going to be I think the sticky parts of the of the zoning map and what we Yeah. whatever we've pass back to what you're
looking for. Our overlay districts, wetlands, prime agricultural soils, locally important soils, uh riverfront or flood plane, looking at our current zoning map, the blurry current zoning map with all of
those things taken into consideration and also that would be a good analysis and us open to simplifying. Yeah. But and then the number of zones. Yeah. Yeah. simplifying the type of zoning, understanding, you know, creating zones where there's a little bit more allowed
in each little bit more flexibility for uses. Yeah. Um I know that there's like a lawsuit going on in Shootsbury I think right now with the Kohl's um lumber property because still maybe not still but there um around the
sort of like the solar project that Kohl's was arguing was in compliance with basically like state rules around not restricting solar development and then Shbury was pushing back against this because it required like mass clearing of forests And obviously all of
our drinking water, most of it comes from surface water. So I'm wondering if there's a way to analyze in the same way. Um maybe expanding like a watershed protection zone in West Hatfield that could help us with maybe something like that in the future where it's like, oh,
you're mandated to allow forest clearing in this area to make way for solar. Um does that make sense? Yeah. Maybe I'm not describing what the lawsuit was really like accurately, but I know that that was the tension there was that Kohl's was able to argue that it's in compliance with like state energy goals
and the town was really reticent to allow for that amount of clearing. Does the town rely on an open reservoir? Uh surface water in the west. Yeah. Really? Yeah. Really? That's what it
we do have wells, but there are a couple wells and then we also have two wells. We do actually have a reservoir. Oh, we do. There's no question. Up in a mountain. So, clearing in the west is also a problem. How we doing? We're doing great. Uh, you still have a
bit to get through. Maybe speed through. Okay. Um, this this next one, administration procedures. This one is, I think, fairly straightforward. Um really the the identified issue here is that there are
there are two sections that both deal with procedures in different ways. Um the first is section five titled special regulations um which is focused on development review procedures primarily and it also includes some um non like procedure focused sections um regul regulations
around parking and signs and then section 8 focuses on enforcement related procedures so enforcement by the building inspector etc. Um and the the overall suggestion for this section is just to consolidate those into one administration section so that you don't
have to go between those two sections to understand the full procedural scope of development process. My thoughts are anything that has to do with the procedure by which a person applies for an a permit or applies for some relief uh by which that uh
application is processed, by which it's reviewed, by which it's in my opinion that should be out of the bylaw. That should be a separate procedure document that the planning board can review on its own from time to time because it really is just their rules for how they
do business. Um, regarding enforcement, I would want to coordinate with the town administrator to make sure that um, noncriminal disposition, which I think has to be encoded in the general bylaw,
right? Am I wrong about that? Noncriminal ticketing, noncriminal, in other words, fines for penalties where I mean, that has to be kind of comprehensive townwide. Uh, we'd want to make sure that that's in the general bylaw as well as referred to in the zoning bylaw.
Um, but and I know you have those have to be in the bylaw. Penalties for violations. Fair enough. Um, anything that has to do with a building inspector I as zoning enforcement officer I get, but
we don't regulate his actions or his work. Right. Yeah. The way our bylaws are currently set up, it's like we approve the generally special permits and site plan approve and it's up to the zoning enforcement officer to enforce our
bylaws. Right. Sure. I the less well I don't know. I don't want to look at that more before I say much more. Those are just my thoughts on that. And I would just like look to like what
do other communities do or that kind of thing. That'd be interesting to me. Um, and also just to name it, all of the suggestions you put in the district section I agree with. Um,
okay. Are there other thoughts on the administration section? Okay. If not, we can move on uh to the incomplete or outdated provisions. Uh this is a fairly lengthy section so I will kind of go over it at a relatively
high level here. Um so there are some provisions that have are deemed potentially incomplete um or maybe just could could be flushed out a little further. Um they relate to topics um like special permit procedures and criteria
um table of uses, mobile homes and recreational vehicles. I mean, with that one in particular, um, the the identified issue is is that they are explicitly prohibited across all districts, which is again kind of alluded to or maybe explicitly stated in
the exclusionary um, zoning section. Um, but also kind of restated here. Um, various procedures and criteria are just at a fairly high level. Um, they they don't go into a lot of detail. Um accessory uses and structures could be
defined further um with you know just um just potenti just addressing all potential accessory uses and structures um making that a little bit clearer for folks as they read through the document. Um similarly for non-conforming uses and
structures um they could be they could define uh the different types of non-conformities specify the allowed continuation alteration expansion of each type set clear standards etc etc as as listed in the review here. um for
solar energy systems. Um yeah, it could it it the provisions u need to be or could be updated need to be updated to reflect the recent changes um in Massachusetts general law. Uh the zoning cannot prohibit or unreasonably
regulate uh solar energy systems except for necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare. Um and then there are just some some suggestions about specific updates that could be made um such as uh defining different scales and configurations um allowing different
refining special permit criteria and establishing some clear design and landscaping standards and decommissioning standards. Um regarding signs, uh there is a dedicated sign bylaw as I mentioned earlier that's in section uh 5.9.
Um those the regulations could be um um improved slightly or or just you know um given more specificity by defining the different types and configurations of signs, setting you know um stronger standards or or more objective standards
for um specifics around signs. Um uh and providing a a more contentneutral definition of what a sign is as well. Um and then there are some general suggestions. Uh
so I can read through those quickly. Um comparing uh use and dimensional right requirements with what exists on the ground to identify potential mismatches and pre-existing nonconformities. Reviewing definitions for consistency with state law and court rulings. That's very general suggestion. I'm reviewing
parking, landscaping, and lighting provisions for consistency with current industry standards. ensuring that grandfathering provisions are consistent with mass use in general law and considering removing or updating any outdated or uninforceable provisions such as vague performance standards and
overly restrictive uses. There was a lot there. Yeah, there's a lot there. So, um do you know off top of your head the um the minimum array size that the state's um renewable energy
site sighting committee would start to take effect? I do not honestly. That's going to be something when we go to rewrite that whole solar energy system. We're going to need to know that. Yeah. We're also going to really need some education on exactly what the state does, right? Because they've basically upended the
apple cart when it comes to what they call small scale. But certain arrays up to 25 megawatt. I think that's accurate. But which I think I I did the math once that's something like 40 acres of solar. It's large. It's massive. Yes. It's it's one that's where there's
a lot of development at the state level. We're still wrapping our head Yeah. around the new regulations. Yeah. We are being consulted in terms of some model bylaw language from uh which department do yeah
department of energy resources. There we go. Um so we are keeping that in mind as we present some recommendations moving forward. But unfortunately Hapfield and all communities
in Western Mass particularly are really scratching their heads and muttering some expletives I think at the the new solar sighting regulations. Um so we will provide best guidance as we
have it available. So the question like what what would be most helpful for you is out of these identified which two or three topics are highest priorities of us out of these incomplete or ideated provisions. So,
well, it's funny because like it like all of this um Yeah, because it kind of talked like our table of use which kind of goes coincides with the zoning map and what we cons what zones we consider. I think that'll all be that will have to be
touched. Um special permit criteria is something that like we could do if we wanted to do that on our own. that doesn't seem like it could be that contentious if we wanted to do it as a one-off. So that's again going back to my earlier
notes, the idea of for any given use or for any given relief or action, we should establish the intent, we should establish the baseline criteria and then we should establish the um um the necessary findings. And I think for just a special permit, there's going to be a
baseline of criteria and that's the is consistent with the general provisions of the zoning bylaw and is not disruptive to the immediate or neighborhood or the town as a whole. You those are basically the only criteria really or necessary findings. Yeah. But then like the point about
flood plane overlay requires a finding of exceptional hardship. Yeah. There's certain things there. Um I No. Right. No. Right. Absolutely. as as you get deeper and as as it gets more specific, you come up with additional criteria and additional findings. I appreciate you calling out the mobile homes piece because it is pretty
classist and Yep. Um, frankly, you know, it is an affordable way for people to live uh and is something that I think we should be open to thinking about. Um, but also again that exists within the table of use I think mo a lot of also.
So, it's something we could look at related to that. Is is there is there any activity at the state level in regard to manufactured homes? There's a new law that you're aware of like last year follow that but I know that um
in the ADU protected use there's some provisions about um manufactured ADUs. Um, okay. And I I think it's it's something that building technologies have evolved to the point where it's it needs to be
revisited by all communities. So, sure. Agreed. Um, one question I did want to pause and include at this point is I know that there was a general bylaw passed at annual town meeting this year regarding
storm water management. So I was just curious about how does that impact the existing section 7 if that has now created some incompleteness or outdatedness that we want to
follow up on and or uh offer guidance at this point or is it still undetermined? Uh I'm think we're moving towards page 19 or 20. Um,
so it was okay. We were wondering about it when it was presented to us. It was out of compliance because we didn't regulate sedimentation. I think we only regulated flow rates. So it was something like pretty granular about because we do have like pretty thorough as we've talked about, pretty thorough storm water regulations, but it was like
something very specific. So now I think we have the funding is available to modify that storm water bylaw. Um, and we're supposed to have the funding to have legal assistance with that. So, I'm not really sure how that fits into your work. Um, but I think
does that seem accurate to what you recall? My recollection of that by the general bylaw regarding storm water is that it became a necessity to pass or at least uh in terms of the select board.
It became a necessity to pass that sometime mid to late April FEMA was and have it ready to go for June town meeting because it was yeah it was a response to a FEMA letter saying oh your storm water bylaw doesn't do this. uh the select board took it on themselves to jam through a whole new
section of general bylaw to make the corrections. Um it was only we only had cursory review within maybe two or three weeks of town meeting. Um I did not like the process whatsoever. Um I don't think
storm water bylaws belong in the general bylaw. I think it's still a land use regulation and that's where it belongs. Um, if we can just simply modify or amend what we have to make it consistent with current FEMA requirements, then
we're better off. Um, but either that or the planning board could pass some rules about speeding, see how folks like it. But anyway, anyway, it would be good to, I think, be in touch about this when we have more
clarity because I think it was kind of, as he said, it was very rapid. we had to um adopt it pretty quickly and I think we should talk to Andrew about what supposedly the next steps are for now that we have adopted it. What does it mean? Another topic
that I think is helpful in that we've been using a lot of our town council's time and so if we could clear this up with our zoning bylaws that would be great on accessory uses and structures clarifying some of that I think would be helpful because it is
very not it's very small section as you mentioned um I think also making it the home occupation piece is something that's been um we have something we have the appetite for in being more permissive or generous in
allowing some of those things to happen because right now it's like a special permit process. I've never had since I've been on the board since late 2018, never had anyone come before us to for home occupation business. I know they exist. Um so if we could get people, you
know, make it easier and not have to go through a special permit to do that, that would be helpful. And helping it be clear in that regard, I think that would also be helpful. Bella and I have actually talked about having like a an event. Yeah. Yeah. Do you qualify? Do you operate in
these things? Like come get your own business out of a gray area. Come and Yeah. So I think there's appetite to allow for some of that in some potentially like rural residential areas. I I I think that you might have
people be hesitant to come forward when they're not sure their business is going to be able to be be able to be approved. So, they're not going to rock the boat and say, "Can you come approve my business?" I'm just going to keep doing it without saying anything. Right. Well, that's why it's going to be
like, "Do you meet these X criteria?" Come. And hopefully that's that'll be it. As long as it's a no faults process, you know? Yeah. We just want, you know, come in. It's a simple visit. You will be granted a permit for your business, right?
As long as we're not promising to if Well, either way that they're going to do it, they've been doing it, they're going to keep doing it, we might as well know about it, so at least we can put them on the assessor's list, right? Yeah. You know, anyway, anyway, and then also, yeah, questions about the
accessory uses versus accessory structures is referenced in our bylaws, which makes things complicated. Okay. Any other thoughts on this one? And we'll move on to missing topics. People have strong feelings about signs. So, yeah.
I don't I've only had it come up once as a potential issue. So, like where people wanted more signage. Sure. But definitely I'd love to see what other towns are doing and what works, what doesn't regarding signs,
but I don't know if that would be like a priority out of all these. Definitely. Okay, that's good to know. Okay, moving on to missing topics. Um so these are are really suggestions for things that the town might want to consider um including or at least
thinking about including um in the zoning bylaw. So the first one is inclusionary zoning. Um as you know this uh requires that new market rate residential developments include a percentage of affordable units um as they construct the development. Um so
currently the zoning bylaw does encourage creation of affordable housing through an optional density bonus and within the open space development mixeduse development bylaws but inclusionary zoning would be a step a step beyond that um to to have a mandatory requirement for set aides of
affordable units. Um the next uh that is I'm just that is outside of like sac development correct which is outside of our zoning bylaws a separate thing. Is there ways that we can decentivize a traditional subdivision bylaw and
incentivize something like an open space development bylaw and or inclusionary zoning which is one thing too we just change the regulations for the we've talked about that but like yeah how can we do that you're saying have like more of a stick as well as a carrot carrot now
basically doing okay um yeah the next the next uh I would love to see the open space development bylaw happen density and iterate preservation at the same time. Yeah. Okay. So again, we just take the requirements
from the open space development make that our subdivision regulation. Can we do that? Sure, why not? I would love to be able to do that, but I feel like that we were guided not that wasn't the case. You could do that without going to that meeting, right? Because it's just a sub we the
subdivision vlas can just come to us once it h once it's approved. It simply has to be uh public hearing public hearing it gets approved then it has to go to the registry of deeds has to be recorded or something I think subdivision regulations I think but yeah let's look into
all right okay uh the next um suggestion is to um provide just a more comprehensive regulatory framework around short-term um residential units like Airbnb for example um so the bylaw currently
defines short-term rental is a rental uh for a term of less than 28 consecutive days. But that's in the context of prohibiting the use for accessory dwelling units. So that leaves a bit of a gap um around conditions where this kind of commercial use could be permitted in principal dwellings um and
just could be could be just um defined a little further and made a little clearer for folks. We've like said I mean I've said before that it hasn't been an issue yet. Like if you look at there's not like a ton of properties in Hatfield being Airbnb. Yeah. But it's something we would keep an eye on and if it became an issue, it's
something we would want to do. But like I also don't really want to take the reactive approach. So I don't know if anyone feels strongly. Um I'd want to talk with the administration because if we're putting in regulations for short-term rentals, I'd want to make sure that the administration is talking about, you
know, assessing the the local option tax, you know, that sort of thing. And who's enforcing it? Who's enforcing it? You got to have board of health as well as fire department inspections on an annual basis or a number of things which it's it's a big bigger than just whether we allow it or not there. So
yeah, is that something then that we want them to explore currently? No, priority. Low priority. Yeah, we've got to have the conversations locally first. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for that. Um so the next
the next suggestion is to have what has been brought up a few times already. um village centerformbased zoning. Um so currently the bylaw as you all know lacks formbbased um zoning and the sort of dedicated village center district that is really pedestrian oriented in
design. Um there are some um some existing overlay zones and zones that that kind of start to approach this concept but don't don't quite meet it. Um so the suggestion is really just to um consider um focusing on that to to
allow for village center districts that are pedestrian oriented and potentially forbased zoning, moving away from the sort of uklidian usebased zoning model in some cases at least. What you just touched on in the end definitely I like the idea of moving away from just dimensional regulations
as as ways to regulate uses. I think that if we're talking about creating an overlay or a form-based zone that creates walkable little village centers, I'd want to make sure that we're doing it in coordination with the um public works and and the administration. Uh because they're talking about moving
into complete streets, they're talking about, you know, establishing a plan for that. We'd want to make sure the two are consistent. So, if we establish a village center in the depot road area, for example, we'd want to make sure it's also listed in the complete streets uh implementation plan as being an area
where, okay, anytime we do anything there, we're putting in sidewalks, we're going to integrate crosswalks, we're going to make sure folks can get to the bus line, that kind of thing. So, again, coordination, but yeah, I'd like the idea. Yeah. And it also achieves what the comprehensive plan is pushing us
towards. And so I think that would be one of the prior something to look at when we're looking at the zoning map and table of use and where that would fit in. Yep. Yep. So yes to that one. Great. Um the next is battery energy storage
systems. I mean essentially the issue here is that there aren't provisions to define or regulate the sighting of battery energy storage systems as of right now in the zoning bylaw. Um and um that just leaves the town open or unprepared to review those um projects.
If it's not there, is it like, oh, we can't do it or Well, again, my question is going to be what's the state going to take on themselves directly? Yeah, the state now does require some percentage of battery energy storage
capacity at new solar installations. So, they're going to be present. Yeah. Yeah. Is that something you incorporate in solar or make something completely separate? Uh, it can be done both ways. Yeah, I've I've seen it as, you know, a subset
of a broader solar installation bylaw and then some communities have just put it separately because there is potential to just have a strictly battery storage facility. Um, ran into a little problem in Springfield.
Yeah, Westfield. Well, is facing many many applications. Landfford is Yeah, they have Well, actually, no, that makes sense because there's a Eversource node there. Yeah. Yeah.
And it's caused turmoil amongst the planning boards and town. I would, speaking as the guy who's sitting in the office in Westampton, I'd love a battery energy storage system come to come to my town for the tax benefit, right? But the fact that there could be
a fire at one of them that could poison the aquafer scares the hell out of myself and a lot of people. And I think that again it might be out of our hands if the state takes over the licensing and sighting of those things. They're going to basically disregard local zoning. Uh
we won't have a say in it. So knowing what the state is doing to me that's what's necessary for actually both of those items the battery energy storage system and the comprehensive renewable energy the next item
understanding what the state is planning on doing is going to drive whether or not we you know how we approach those. Yeah. Because otherwise we'll be in the same boat you know updating our ADU lodge and then update it again the next year. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.
Yep. That makes a lot of sense. Well, the other the only other remaining item is the one you touched on comprehensive renew renewable energy um essentially addressing um alternative sort of anticipated uh energy production
beyond just solar. So geothermal, wind etc. But yeah, as you noted, yeah, that should be done sort of collaboration with understanding what the state is doing. Um, okay. So, that's those are the missing topics. So, it's I'd like to hear just I think we've got a sense, but
maybe to just be explicit which of those topics seem like the most pressing, the most interesting to the board. The I from what I think we said, village center form based and inclusionary. Correct. Yeah, those are first. Those two. Okay. Great. Yeah.
Great. Great. And yeah, and that kind of oh that answers the second question too. Perfect. All right. Um so we can move on unless anybody has any thoughts at the end uh
for missing topics to uh a review of exclusionary zoning language. um almost so uh the I don't this is a lot to to to run through as well but um to keep it at
a high level um some of the the issues that were identified where one one of one of the primary ones is a limited um housing diversity by rights um essentially there are some significant hurdles placed on the development of multif family housing um
So multif family housing which is defined in the bylaw as 3 to six dwelling units requires a special permit with site plan approval in all districts where it's permitted. Um that just of course adds a lot of you know time and difficulty to that sort of development and makes it more uncertain whether or
not it will even be possible. So that can just of course discourage the production heavily discourage the production of multif family housing. Um so that's something to keep in mind. Um there are very sort of large lot sizes as a minimum lot area. Um
it is 45,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet for single family homes in most districts. Um that just requires a substantial portion of land for a single family home which you know of course just raises the cost of um building those properties um raises the cost of
of purchasing them. um makes them more exclusionary, harder to afford for the average person, and frankly makes more farmland. Uh mobile lawn. Yeah, that too. Yep. Yeah, absolutely. Um
a mobile. Moable lawn. Moable like grass. Oh, mable. Sorry. Turf. I'm thinking of two two syllables. You were using three. Yeah. Moable lawn. Great. Um this next one we we have already
really touched on that there are some optional bonuses for um affordable housing but there is not an inclusionary um zoning requirement. So I I won't dig into that again but just to note that again. Um next there are some potential barriers to for group homes. Um this
really uh is focused on the bylaw's definition of a family which is um not more than three persons who not related. So you can't do Yeah. Yeah. So that that is that is a
concern for a number of reasons but one of those reasons is that it creates a barrier to um group homes. Um so yeah it's not not not ideal I would say. Um there's again also as mentioned earlier a restriction on mobile homes a complete
prohibition actually um which which should be addressed or could be addressed um because as we all know mobile homes provide um really important resource for affordable housing um and then some some general suggestions here at the bottom which I believe are really
just kind of digging into more detail about things that I've mentioned just reviewing those dimensional standards making permitting requirements for different types of housing um a little a little easier. Um eliminating any provisions that treat housing differently based on the type of
occupant. Um monitoring housing production and demographic data to ensure zoning is not creating disperate impacts and um promoting affordable housing options through a range of strategies. So that that is that section. Um,
so it sounds like at this point we I feel like we have a pretty good understanding of the board's sort of thoughts on this, but I just I guess I would just open it up to answer these prompt questions or just your thoughts on on that section. My answer is no and yes. No and yes.
Trying to be succinct. I know it's no. Yes. Yes. No and yes. Got it. Um, I think for each of the five bullet points that you listed in the PowerPoint, um, I think there's work to do on all of them. Um, and I think that if we're going to try to achieve housing goals, especially
affordable housing goals, we need to reexamine everything. um that is going to be an uphill climb socially um or locally because there's going to be a lot of folks who are going to be resistant to the idea of different types
of housing solutions. But I don't see any way around it and I think it's on us to pursue it if we can. Yeah. Yep. And yes. Yeah. making it looser for um the houses
allowing multif family houses would be would is like duh we should be doing I think um I think that the spirit of it was not to have some giant big old complex come in which I understand why we only have allow up to six dwellings
in one unit and we don't allow for the big you know apartment complex complex to come in to town Um, I don't I wouldn't go so far to say that that's something that the town would want, but taking our I don't know,
depending. Um, but I think loosening what we currently allow is is the way forward right now, and reducing lot size requirements, frontage requirements, that kind of thing. But like I said, I I want to look at it holistically and like how that
impacts other calculations and and things around what then could you know other other pieces of zoning. I don't see we're getting anywhere without it. Yeah. Reducing lot sizes could also be part of of the of getting back to the character of the different districts and
the simplification there. Yeah. Because most homes in Hatfield are do not have that frontage requirement and andor the lot size requirements. So, a question to run by the legal people. I don't expect that you know the answer.
Can or can there be a provision in a zoning that would allow for multi-dwelling structures and I'm thinking more than four or five units 20 30 units multi-unit structures
if ownership if they were if they were separately owned like a condo I'm thinking I'm thinking about the school across the street y um those are all condos there eight eight apartments 10 12 apartments, but they're all condos. Six because that's what we allow. Yeah,
that's all we allow. So, wow. Okay. Uh it's a big building for only six. That that was the rules, right? But if if someone came up and said, I've got these this plan for 16 units of housing. They're all going to be within one structure, but they're all
going to be conduitized to need ownership. And we've talked about this before. Ownership creates an incentive for that person to get involved in the community. it results in a longer term, more invested resident. Um, and there's a value to that. So, the question is,
could a zoning bylaw allow greater numbers of dwelling units in a structure depending on ownership? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'd like to find and a structure and on a parcel. I also feel like the housing production plan
aspect of this like they might recommend in typical housing production plans that you like try to encourage the full range of housing options including rentals and that you're not like biasing towards ownership and like a really blatant way when like access is an issue. So maybe we could incentivize or have
like mixed like summer rentals, summer ownership or like a mixed a blend if they're a blend. Yeah. If if a minimum number are intended to be owned, separately owned. Yeah. Um yeah, I mean I'm open to all kinds of ideas. Um that's best practice too is to have
mixed and I don't mean mixed use. I mean affordable units mixed with market rate mixed with high like the best practice for like a community is to have all of those together and not put all the affordable units in this lot way over here around but nothing but like having
a mixed right use mixed affordability and access all near each other. I guess um I would ask like as we're doing the housing production plan along you know parallel this timeline with you wrapping this up like how what would be the most
productive way for us to like consult with you about how this should steer the housing production plan or vice versa. Yeah, that's a good question. We might have to circle back to that. We could have a meeting about that actually. Yeah. Obviously, they want to
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Overall, we're open to all this as long as it ma matches the character of the neighbor, like the community and that kind of thing, right? Another thing I heard in a I was in a um meeting or I was just listening in on a housing meeting in East Hampton and they
were focusing on like any appearance of the phrase rural character that they felt wasn't like super clearly defined. they were trying to come up with like a better way of saying that instead of overly using it's kind of like they were also talking about family in that discussion and I just I thought
that was really compelling so especially world character in my experience and and typically people don't really even know or they don't have a shared definition of what that even is yeah exactly it's like the more subjective stuff yeah but that you can define it it t
it's a lot harder lot sizes Well, yeah, but it can be defined in ways other than that. I mean, it could be legitimate a majority of the the you know, a certain percentage majority of the land being left to be natural or undisturbed or open space.
Looking into like the scenic roads, access to sky, access to open air, um you know, there's there's ways to create the sense of a rural community without it being exposure without calling it a rural community or rural character of Exactly. I think that's what they were
trying to drill down. And then it's like, well, if people mean like rolling open fields, can we get like a scenic byway designation and then have that be protected road rather than limiting like lot sizes, right? Things like this that right rural character to me means less lot
sizes, more the character of the homes and the community. But anyway, yeah, each is each their own. There was there was there's one road. I don't know if it's Hatfield or if it's Weightley, but you go along you go along there's fields on both sides. There's fields on
both sides and then there's a side road and on that side road there are a number of houses but if you're traveling along the along river road you look out you see fields for the most part. You don't see the you don't focus on the houses that are on the side road. that might be a zoning mechanism to allow for a higher density
uh residential zoning while maintaining the rural character for like a lot of those um the co-op housing that you see in like Northampton and then Ammerst. It's like the way that the houses are situated in the layout. It's like they often don't have views of
each other like you can't see it from the road. It maintains like this screened vibe that maybe allows for real character even if it's densely developed. That's going to be okay. Can I interject? Are we done with you guys?
I think there's one last just to discuss next steps there. Great. There will be recommendations that come out of the diagn uh diagnostic. Um sounds like there might be a lot of recommendations. There might be a lot. we've started to populate it just based on kind of
standard um recommendations and what we've already identified. I don't think any of those have been um removed from the list from our initial conversation. Um and there may be additional uh
recommendations to include. Typically we put it into two categories. Kind of the short term which is really related to the document itself. things that the planning board can take on and bring to town meeting um to make it more
consistent, more user friendly, kind of um modernize the document itself. The longer term suggestions are some of those new topics or big amendments that require some engagement uh with the public uh maybe you know a year or two
to educate and build consensus amongst neighbors. Um, so that's just kind of what we'll be working on. We welcome feedback. Feel free to reach out directly or uh direct your feedback to Bella who can forward it along. Um,
again, we're hoping to get this element of the DTA project done by October. So, we're happy to come back in September. We're happy to push that and come back 1 of October.
uh if need be, but just to get the project this element done so that we can proceed to support other tasks. Uh yes, thank you. And not to make this meeting longer than it has to be. I apologize for but like the short-term
priorities versus long-term priorities like what is the point of us for example uh reorganizing reformatting or changing this that other thing if we're going to then change our zoning map and then change our which then would impact the table of use which would then I don't know like I would love recommendations
on like what to do first like an order would be helpful because ideally like all the stuff we're talking about is like one big overhaul. Do we recommend doing it all at once and like taking the two or three years not touching keeping the zone zoning bes are as is and like or do you do a little bit
at a time like I that's where I've scratched my head. Uh we typically include some discussion on implementation of these recommendations. So based on your feedback and kind of a more comprehensive list of all the things you
have identified as priority issues to address, we'll explore what could be the most productive sequencing of and then al similarly with like grant funding for us to work on that would also be another consideration in the
sequencing too which is another puzzle piece. Yeah. Uh I will share that the um community one stop for growth. We've PBPC is found success with other member communities uh
finding planning grants to do full recontification of zoning bylaw. We're working with three communities currently who all receive funding through OneTop, which I learned this morning was not funded for FY26,
the the OneTop for growth grants. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. No, I'm sorry. It was a community compact grant program that was not funded. I apologize for that. I have not heard that. Yeah, I only heard it this morning. So, yeah.
So, quick apply before that one goes. Yeah, it's gone. Yeah. Great. Thank you so much. Really fantastic. Seeing the next steps. I for one of was really excited about this. So, thank you and thanks for bearing with us the public.
I make a motion. We adjourn. Nobody's still watching. I hear from a couple people that say they watch them. Okay. Oh, see. Really? We have uh two other things left on the agenda. Are we going to I will move through these as quickly as
possible. Um, okay. This is a very long email thread. I think maybe we can stick to just the top page. Um, this is about Give us the two long the difference between reestablishing.
It's about the house that burned down. Yes. Okay. The property the house that burned down on North Street that went to auction. So then various um folks came to me to you into town hall generally wandering around looking for advice about whether
this is a buildable lot because it's um non-conforming. The frontage is too small. So when it was going to auction, people were wondering if the person who bought it could build on it because our bylaws say that you have to rebuild within two years of the catastrophic event if it's on Yes. Exactly.
And it has been more than two years. And it has been more than two years. So the beginning of the email thread, which is at the back, is about whether Thank you guys. It's about whether or not there's anything in state law that
dictates um that the two-year date starts, because this is a question people had. Does the two-year date start when the house burns down or does it start when it's demolished? So, we answered that with the attorney. He said, um, basically, we're free to be as generous as we wish towards owners who
may want to rebuild after a fire. Um what's the what's the relief that we would grant to to allow the person to rebuild uh what's the rel what's the re relief that we would grant a special permit special permit so we can to reestablish the non-conforming the text to reestablish the
non-conforming use lot we could have we could issue a special permit special permit so that was the original question okay then we established that there's no state law that's stricter than our law that's the beginning of this conversation after that Stephanie wanted note, can the
footprint of the building be expanded? So, we asked attorney Mullen this question. I wanted to build a much bigger house than what was currently that was had been there before. He said you can intensify the existing non-conformity. You can't create another nonconformity.
That's helpful to know in the future going forward. Yes. Then we could go over this in much more detail, I'm sure, because this is kind I mean it kind of ties into like the clarity that they're raising here. But the last question um which the attorney said was very vague in our zoning is that section A so
if you're on the second page of this little packet I gave you you'll see 3.4.2 section A basically implies that we can allow by special permit the reestablishment of a non-conforming use. Section B says that they have to rebuild
following destruction. It does not say we can allow by special permit any reconstruction of the non-conforming use. So I asked attorney Mullen if those two are different and he says that because of how vaguely it's worded, it's not a non-conforming use. It's a non-conforming lot. Sure. Right. Right.
So he said, so let's just be really clear about that. It's not a non-conforming use. It's a residential district and they're looking to rebuild a residence. Right. So that's about a heading issue. What's that? That's a heading issue because it says it's under 3.4 by2 uses. Right. Okay.
This is kind of just a chat about and it's meant to be an answer if anybody asks you about what can happen about what can happen on that property. Um this is meant to be something of an answer to that question even though the attorney ultimately weighed in and said that um he said the planning board could
construe the bylaw um to say could he rebuild up with could he rebuild with a special permit even though more than two years has gone by. Um, the planning board could read the bylaw to say no since there's nothing in that section B about allowing reconstruction with a special permit or
but 3.4.2 is speaking about non-conforming uses. It's related to the removal of a building that was dedicated to a non-conforming use, but it's not about conforming uses on a non-conforming lot.
So maybe non-conform Yeah, the non-conformity has nothing to do with the use. Sure. So that's just a problem with her bylaw entirely. Like there is no answer to this question maybe because this is the only place that it talks about destruction by fire in the entire bylaw. So if we crammed the fire part into this
use part that's part of our problem. So, so he's saying that we So, bottom line, what can we have? What? So, on the front page, he says, uh, I say the planning board could construe
the bylaw to say, "No, we can't grant permission through special permit." Um, because it is ambiguously drafted. However, the foregoing construction is the only one that I can think of that gives meaning to both sections A and B without reading the letters. Mere surplusage. So I think he's saying we
need I mean I think ultimately we need to discuss this in a little more detail to really interpret this if there's like a difference between use and all these things. But like the top line is it's it is ambiguous. It's been confirmed by the attorney that we don't have clear
direction on this. Um and maybe we should talk about this at another meeting if we want an answer to this question. But if anybody asks a member of the planning board about this lot, I don't think anyone should be saying a hard yes or no until we understand better what our
zoning is telling us. But if if it if we if it were allowed, it would have to be special permit. It's not by right. That's the closest I think we can get to what do we have an application yet or is this just a casual conversation? Somebody bought the property and they're looking to see if they can rebuild. Have they filed for a building permit
yet? No, it's just that a butters are asking the question. Okay, in the interest of time, let's put this on the next agenda or at least my recommendation is um that gives us all. Can I ask really quickly? Are the letters for or against it? I they didn't say, but I get the
impression maybe they would love for it to be an empty lot. You get the impression what? That maybe they would love for it to remain an empty lot. Oh. Um I think just the opposite. I think it might depend on who you're talking to, but there have been multiple of Okay. Um, I will wrap this up. The ADU
bylaw, I asked the attorney as well if we should qualify recommending to people that they follow the new ADU bylaw or the previous ADU bylaw until it's formally. This is also something we should probably put on the next agenda because the point is we need to in some
way qualify that it's on that there's liability in following the new one without discouraging that. He said technically, you know, it is at the peril of the builder is the words that if they're following the new one.
The new one until it's until it's signed off on by the AG. But he also said there's like almost no chance that the AG will reject what we passed or if they will, it'll be pieces off on it, it is effective back to the date of town meeting. Correct. Yes.
Okay. So that's something I think also maybe we should talk about at our next meeting about how to frame that or we should get further advice from the attorney about what because we don't want to descri I don't want to use the word peril maybe and have there been requests to move on
an adus right I don't we wouldn't hear about it necessarily I think maybe we should be getting that from the building inspector if he's getting applications it' be nice to know about them and on that note So the sign offs for planning board are live on
the permitize. What does that mean? It means that we now and what is permitiz? Permitize is the website it's called permit eyes. Um it's where we take a look at all the building permit applications that come in and have
sometimes interdep departmental sign off on them. So, it came up before because someone hadn't filed an ANR that was mandated in their special permit that they needed to file before building could begin. And so, we realized that if we had some oversight of that, we would
be able to prevent things like that from falling through the cracks. So, now um planning gets a notification whenever there's a building building permit application coming in and we can look over it. We're not looking over it for zoning compliance. That's the building inspector. We're looking at it to see if
there is a planning related permit and then we can flag or make a note or approve. And that doesn't um the building inspector then checks for compliance with if there's a special permit, checks for compliance during the building process and won't issue a
certificate of occupancy unless the special permit has been satisfied. Great. So, just like housekeeping. Yes, housekeeping. Exactly. Great. Um, I wrote some new copy for the website, which I'll show you later, and the housing production plan. There's an
outline. I'll show it to you later. Is that something? Are those two things that you would like to discuss at our next meeting? Yes. Okay. So, it sounds like we're going to have another long next meeting. Yeah. So, okay. Potentially. Potentially. And make a motion we adjourn this
meeting. Um before we do that, I would like to discuss our next scheduled meeting only because it's right after Labor Day and I don't know if people have particular um Lori, normally we meet that Wednesday right after Labor Day, but I don't know if there's any reason why people would want to meet the week after or how
people feel about that. Wednesday, that Wednesday is fine. That's the Wednesday is fine with me. Not aware of any conflicts. Okay. Just like start school usually blah blah blah blah blah. I have no life. That's fine. Actually, school starts the week before, doesn't it? Yeah, probably Friday before something like that.
Oh, my youngest starts daycare the day before. Sad. Anyway, um so Wednesday, September 3rd, y is our next meeting. And I'll second his motion to adjourn. Any further discussion? All in favor? I
I. The meeting is adjourned at 8:18 p.m.