Right. I call the meeting to order at 6 o'clock for the December 3rd, 2025 planning board meeting. I'm your host. I am the chair. Uh >> I'm your host. >> I'm the chair, Stephanie Slush. To my right, I have alternate chair Jimmy
Carr. Following my end, I have Doug Bin. To my left, John Jeffris. To the end over here, Lee Bell. And our town planner, Bella Jagger. Um, our first item on the agenda as always is public forum. This is an opportunity for folks who are not a part of the agenda but do
have uh would like to speak and and bring something to our attention, ask us a question, um, now would be the time. But I believe everyone here is for an agenda item. Is there anyone here virtually that would like to provide any
that is not a part of our meeting? Okay. No. Great. I mean, not great. always want to have feedback and hear from the public. But um we are going to close the public forum and move to the approval of the November
5th minutes. These are extensive. Thank you. >> I have read them and find that they're just perfectly fine as far as where I'm concerned. Um I'd be happy to make a motion to approve as presented. I'll
second that motion. >> Certainly. >> Any further discussion? >> I read all but the last page, so I didn't get to that last part. Nothing big happens. >> Yeah. >> It is still weird to me that they're written in the present tense. >> Just want to keep you on your toes as
you're reading. >> Is that it? >> Yeah. >> When suddenly. >> All right. All in favor? >> I I >> All right. Minutes of the November 5th meeting are approved.
Um the first item on the agenda is uh special permit review for 1218 Elm Street Benson mini storage. >> Hello. >> Hello. Hi. >> We'll be with you momentarily, Kyle. >> Sorry you're virtual.
>> So this is an in this is an informal conversation I suppose. Yes. Okay. Great. or just input and thoughts and feedback on >> on the permitting process. >> Yeah, great to the >> um so uh just squire from virtue design
groups and mini storage. Um and um if you recall, this involved 12 and 18 u Elm Street. It included the um this was a permit that was issued back in 23 um
that included um six new storage buildings on the site. Um at time there's u there was a tenant in that um single family home at 12 Elm um that was still there and so that was going to remain as far as they knew at the
moment. there were no other plans to do anything. Um and so construction has started. Um I think they've all they've got all but two um two garages uh two storage buildings to build. The uh barn is still standing but is slated to come
down um at some point >> when we expand. >> When we expand to get it out of the way. >> Yep. When there's a demand for that. Right. Um and so this request so this project still actively under construction fully intended construct. Um, this request and discussion
primarily entails 12 Elm, which is a 18 or 18 Elm, I'm sorry. Um, which entails, um, currently it's about 11,250 or so square foot single family home, two and a half story, I think. >> 6,000. >> Um,
>> yeah, I was going to say 11,000 square foot. All right, I'm sorry. >> Um, seven bedrooms, three baths. Um, pretty good size house. Um the tent that was problematic in there prior is now gone. Um the desire would be to renovate
the um structure such that it supported six um six multi- family units um six units inside. Um it the plan wouldn't be to change um the exterior appearance of the building at all. um a student from
um >> Austin, >> yes, sorry, Austin design um is here with us who can speak more to the building, but really the intention would be to preserve its its character and and all the glory that it is and really make most of renovations on the inside to make this a much more viable project for them. Um and it also, you know, in the
interest of trying to protect and preserve, you know, some of the historic architecture in town, uh provide, um additional housing units, um you know, in a at a price point that, you know, more folks would have access to um compared to a large, you know, single
family home, um is really the desire. And so, um you know, one of the things we did is just go through some of the other requirements. And this is really understanding that this currently is a is a given this is all industrial zone land is is a is currently this residential use is a pre-existing
non-conforming use. And so what the request is is just pretty much extend that um pre-existing non-conforming use. And um under Mass General law provided that these are integrations as long as it's not more detrimental to the
neighborhood um that that is a a reasonable request. Um and just back to zoning, um just ensuring that would comply with, you know, other standards, parking, screening, you know, all of those other zoning planning questions. You know, we
did organize this a little bit more in the back. There's a large gravel area that there is there now between the back of the house and the and the existing barn. really just organizing that to to accommodate enough parking spaces for the number of units, guest spaces. Um, make sure there's, you know, emergency
access and whatnot from the site perspective. Um, but otherwise really try to leave the site um, you know, very much building and structure um, and landscape out in front very much exactly the way to
>> and then introduce yourself just for the >> This is Alejandro. I'm Alejandro. from the owner of the property along with their partners. Um I think what we're asking to do is to change the pre-existing non-conforming use to another non-conforming use rather than extend it to for example more area or
something like that. >> We do allow for one single dwelling on an industrial parcel. So that was >> so drawing. Oh yeah. No, that's no. Thanks for making that clarification. Um and that's part of the discussion just
making sure that you know we're asking for the right thing and and that you know whatever is granted or you know wherever the discussion goes is um you know to point. So, um, yeah, Stephen can speak more to the building, but, um, obviously, you know, it's a it's a, um,
um, pretty elaborate brick structure. Um, the >> I could say something about this. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> probably better than I thought. >> So, when when we started when we started this whole project, our assumption is that we would sell the house. We never wanted the house. We're in the storage
business. Uh, we thought at first we were going to subdivide the whole front of the lot. We went through that whole thing. We determined that condoizing was the way to go and that we would sell that one house off to someone. We also assumed I still sort of assume that the buyer of
that house would be someone who would want to subdivide it and make it multif family because I assume no one's going to want to raise their family in front of the storage facility. Could be wrong, but um but we're we're pursuing this project to make it easier to sell. We're not planning to actually do this
redevelopment ourselves, but to get it permitted and then to be able to hand it off to a buyer who would then turn it into condos probably um within the condo condo within a condo. >> Nobody would want to buy necessarily just the house. >> I don't think they would
>> without the land because that's how it would work. >> No, it's not that so much um because in fact the way they would buy it is just the house like a condo. it would be a single unit and then they would get a dedicated area around the house as if they owned it, but it would technically be owned by the condo association, but
it would be for their exclusive use just like any condo that has a little yard, right? Um, but the key thing here is that we're assuming we're going to sell this to someone who's going to develop it into multif family and we're trying to make it easier to do that. If we were trying to sell it in for someone like
that and then we were going to walk away and they didn't have a relationship with the town or with you or no history and so on, we're presuming it would be harder for them to navigate the process than for us. So that's why we're here and we're trying to understand exactly for two things really. One, what exactly
is the process? What is it that I'm supposed to ask Jeff to ask for? And we think it's this change of of the non-performing use to another one. Um, and then two, this is an opportunity to get any feedback from you that we might that you might have. Uh, so Jeff has
done the civil plan that he just had up on the screen. Uh, Austin Design has has done kind of an example floor plan. >> Yeah, >> I don't really see it as my job to to dictate what the the redevelopment would be, but um but I did ask Austin to mock
up here's an example of how it could go. And that's what what we're going to show next, unless you have other questions or comments. >> I have one question. You said there's parking. How many parking spaces do you feel like you have? How many parking spaces do you feel like you need?
>> I should say that. How many parking spaces do you feel are necessary for six units? Is that what you're talking about? Six units. >> How many parking spaces do you think you need for six units? Considering that not every unit is going to be a single person
>> bylaws also >> 12 are required >> I think I think the bylaws are two per unit so we've got 14 spaces >> okay honey >> and then there's still you know obviously some from a site perspective the goal would be to confine the driveway then the event that there were
you know a larger roof there or something they could park in the lawn or room >> and also assuming that whomever buys it wants to create six so this is like all hyper in a way hypothetical at the most that we could allow per our bylaws if we can find a way how to do this within our
bylaws we the way our bylaws work we're we only allow up to six units in one dwelling so that is why I think they're >> yes >> pursuing like what the most that could potentially happen again >> this is a very complicated as we all know
>> very complicated parcel >> yes it is >> in that we inherited and you inherited a kind a mess frankly that we we as not currently us of we but a planning board of past kind of created previous owner
of past created and so now we're kind of trying to slog through it >> and improve it >> right >> um you had I think wanted to go through a special permit amendment avenue
>> that was one theory I think um part of that was maybe because there was the impression that only one special permit can be active on a site at once. I actually don't think that there but that's maybe true. I think you can have
multiple on a site at once. >> Does anyone have >> I don't I don't I don't think there's any >> problem with that. >> I I think that >> from the research I've done it seems like there's nothing really prohibiting having two special permits active
currently or at once. And so, um, it might make more sense based on the increased impact not to try to wedge this into a special permit amendment, but to open a new special permit. Um, because I think to argue that it was able that it's able to
fit into a special permit amendment, it's it would have to be something fairly minor. Um, but since you can, I think have two special permits open at once, there maybe wouldn't be a problem with that approach as one possibility. So what your outcome here is to like
figure out what needs to be uh what how to square the bylaws in a way that >> to see if it's possible to do >> the six unit condo thing. >> Yeah. >> From my perspective, what document do we
need to submit to you that you can approve? >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. >> From my perspective, I'd love to see that >> for sure. you'd love to see. >> I'd love to see a house, whether it's apartmented up or condo enough >> or one giant unit.
>> Right. >> So, >> it seems to have been since the Benson family had or didn't have any more to do with the property, it seems to have come into limbo, so to speak, >> um with nobody really having an idea
what's going on over there. uh until you guys buy it. >> It's been poorly maintained or not maintained hardly at all. >> It's been a nightmare, you know, having been in this town for 40 years. I've watched it go from a from something that was really spectacular and special for
this town to now being an >> eyesore. Haunted house vibe, if you will. >> Yeah. So, so we I think that we would relish >> something positive being done on that property with that structure.
>> Yeah. >> And yeah, we are and stuck with the bylaws we have and want to make sure whatever we do for ourselves and for your sake is legally sound. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yeah. The cool thing about the winter is that all the leaves come down from the
trees and you can actually see in between existing houses into backyards and past the backyards into what's behind the backyards. I was driving down Elm Street, the other end of Elm Street and I happened to look right right about the canteen and I happened to look past
one house into the backyard and saw something like a seven bay garage and I went I've never seen that before. There's something going on there. that sparked in me a conver just a thought process. It's a bigger zoning question. It's a bigger zoning picture that I think we
might consider to creating a new back lot zoning that would allow for non-impactful business uses that would not you know create a heavy
uh impact to residential uses that would be complimentary to or at least not disrup disruptive to um the use on this property is passive for lack of a better term. People drive to it, they put some stuff away, they go away. There's no heavy equipment, there's no daily
deliveries, there's nothing on it. And I'm talking the storage units. It's not incompatible with residential use. That being said, this is one parcel. Yes. That is zoned industrial. Light industrial, right? >> Heavy industrial.
>> It's zoned heavy industrial. Okay. Mhm. >> So whether it's light industrial or heavy industrial, a special permit can be granted for one residence by the planning board. But uh multi a single dwelling res a single unit residence, but multi-unit residences are not
allowed at all under the current zoning law. >> And grant we can through special permit, we can consider a change of use of a pre-existing non-conforming. It's the same section 3.4.4. But if the end result of that is to the change of use to something that's not allowed, we
can't we can't do that >> because >> six residences on an industrial loan. >> The the the single family residence >> is a pre-existing halfway non-conforming use that if we really wanted to be get neurotic about
it, we could issue a special permit. There it is and it blesses that. But we can't convert any use to something which is not allowed in the zone without a variance which doesn't make sense. >> I'm not saying this to stand in the way
of a project. I agree with every everything that's been said. We'd love to see the house renovated. We six units in that place doesn't scare me whatsoever. I think it'd be a good way to preserve the architectural integrity of the outside of the building whilst providing some housing options and
making it more affordable to develop. It's a good idea. >> I feel, >> but I don't. But all if we were to do that, if we were to change it to a non-conforming use, that's not allowable, then all it takes is for one disgruntled neighbor to appeal it >> and it'll get overturned because we've
done something that we can't legally do. >> It would be contrary to the bylaw, >> right? >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Right. So, so, so essentially essentially where you are is because the because we're restricted by the way the bylaws are written >> Yes. that short of a zoning change
itself >> residential. Huh. >> Yeah. >> Where were we? >> This is contrary to legal advice we've got. >> Yeah. I would just question that under the Mass General law that um section um >> 486. >> 46, right? >> 486.
>> Right. that um extension um of a pre-existing non-conforming use would, you know, if the use is not allowed, it would require variance to begin with. And so if it's an extension or expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use and it's
non-detrimental to the neighborhood as, you know, minimal, you know, impacts, etc. Um there is, you know, there is mass general law does allow for some expansion of those those uses that otherwise wouldn't be allowed. the word
the words right. So this is a change of use extension >> or expansion or of the footprint just so we're all clear. >> Um >> it's not an expansion of the footprint. You're going to stay within the the footprint of the structure. You're not planning on changing the structure significantly to multi family.
>> To me the way that our bylaw is written it wouldn't make any sense for the meaning to be that we need to issue a special permit to allow a conforming use. Well, again, >> we would need to issue a special permit to allow a different non-conforming use.
Does that make sense? >> Otherwise, we wouldn't need to issue a special permit. >> My mind is twisting. I know it's >> the the the difficulty is that the difficulty is that for example in in in the industrial I'm going to pick something a gas station. I I don't know if that's allowed in heavy industrial or
not. Maybe it is. Let's say it's not just for ar for argument sake. the the single family house is permissible in heavy industrial but it's it's by conditionally permittable. >> Mhm.
>> It requires a special permit but it is conditionally permittable in that zone. The fact that it existed before the zoning changed on that land turns it into a pre-existing use >> and it blesses it. it it gives it the
status of a specially permitted or conditionally permitted use. We're now saying that we want to change that conditionally permitted use into something that is not allowable under the zoning. That if if that were a blank piece of land, we could not uh give a
special permit for a a fiveunit structure. It's just simply not allowable because of the zoning and because the zoning is different from everything else around it. Um, I mean, if we want to go forward and
say, "Sure, we'll do a public hearing, we'll do the special permit, we'll change the use to six unit." Again, I think all it takes is for one person to appeal that and you we risk the the decision being overturned, which nobody wants to have to go through that. Um,
>> um, >> so, so are we between a rock and a hard place here? >> I think so. I think what we should do I would actually say that even though it cost money, I would say I'd want to see towns council. >> That's what I was going to say on that. >> I think we should speak to town council
again about um whether the word change in our bylaw would allow for a change from one pre-existing non-conforming use to another in this instance. >> Um and then the alternative just to be clear to you I think amended site plan
amended special permit is I don't think possible. Can we clarify? Is that >> We can't >> I don't think that's what we want to do, >> right? >> No. >> So, that's probably not the approach. >> Well, in is the idea is the long-term goal to actually separate this land off and sell it separately from the storage units? >> No, we can't do that.
>> We figured out we couldn't do that >> because you lose your um >> that was the last year. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, we're working within that constraint. Why don't you just move in the house, Alejandro? That's just >> I hadn't thought of that. I would love
to live in a haunted house. >> Um, so amending a special permit, I I don't think I think this is too great of a change to fit into an amended special permit. I think the avenues would either be if we can clarify with town council
whether it's possible to consider this a change or whether it's allowed under a bylaw to do a change from one pre-existing on use to another in this case or the third option would be what you were saying which is that you could change it to rural residential >> which is what we tried to do
>> which would allow you to continue the storage unit work >> and then you would have effectively a by right ability to do six units >> not not by Right. It would have still have to apply for a special permit the way our process is for a six unit. But it would be
>> Is it still special permit or is it >> Yeah. SPB for if it was rural residential conversion into >> SDA site plan approval. >> Site plan approval. >> Special permit was site plan approval. >> Approval. Okay. >> Really? >> Mhm. That seems okay.
>> We should change that. on legal counsel. Um my understanding of what his opinion was is that as long as the new non-conforming use is not more detrimental to the neighborhood that it
can't be denied, >> but the the nuance that we're saying >> not true. >> No, it's it's it's not a by right thing. >> Okay. So that's so this is where also where like I'm being a little protective in that we have spent a lot of time on this parcel which is like obviously we
want to help you out and stuff too but also like I would like to see what is the question that your council wants to ask us and then we can talk to our council about it instead of us trying to like workshop around like what the right question is because I would like to see you come to us with what you're looking
for and then we can see if it's possible as opposed to us trying to work around like I want obviously we want to be accommodating to you and like >> they've stated they've stated it pretty clearly they stated it pretty clearly we need to make >> they think they've they've gotten advice that says this can be done we're not
sure yet see the writing see in writing from them as opposed to us we're doing the writing and doing that leg work you know what I'm saying like that's more my my request is that I want to see what the request >> it does feel well more impactful I guess maybe that's the trigger is something that's not more impactful than the
existing use on the site um >> detrimental >> detrimental not detrimental >> negatively impactful. Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. But >> so the reason that the language it can't be denied is not quite right is because the um determining detriment is
>> is subjective. >> Subjective. >> So you can't it's not like something that has to be accepted if you check certain boxes. There's a consideration process. Exactly. Yeah. >> I think the one caveat we have here though is what Doug just said. If we
don't go about this in a completely proper and straightforward and outfront way, then we could get in. You guys could get into the middle of this project and then a neighbor can say, "Uh-uh, I don't want that." >> Yeah. I mean, the neighbor would have a
certain amount of time to object or to appeal the decision. >> Um, >> which is I understand if they're trying to sell this, they don't want that's why the seller doesn't want that risk or the buyer doesn't want that risk, >> right? If we if we get legal advice from council that says yes, you can change
this to a multif family unit with a special permit that's considered a change of use, you must make certain findings to to to you know allow that to proceed. If council says that we can do that, then I don't have a problem moving forward as it is. >> Right. >> Um
>> so that's our question. >> Just on on the face it it it jars. It's like walking across glass for me. Um, sorry. I I mean to be very careful because as you said, the presentation, the proposal is not something I think that's at all bad. I think it's a great
idea. Please, I don't mean to, you know, dismiss the the proposal itself. >> It's trying to find the right legal way. And we were, we've been talking about this for six months, the fact that our zoning is >> cafuy >> and we really need to examine it. We need to look at not only the allowed
uses in each zone, but also the zoning itself. where they are, how they're laid out, >> all of these sticky situations are related to these parcels that are plopped in the middle of these other zones. So, >> well, I think the other the other thing that kind of touches on what you said is we also have to consider
what detrimental things may occur if we give them the endound. You know, who comes in later and gets that end around on a on a project that's not as that's not as pretty as And I don't have a specific example. I'm just saying I think we need time to chew on that,
>> too. I think the first step is for me to double check with council about this word change and what he thinks. >> And I want like I said too, like I want like legal if there's any way to like you to get the lang some of the language
that the argument because we're not we're not council. I don't want us to spend a lot of like more time and money going back and forth with the nuances with council if like they can provide legal language from their attorneys. Do you understand what I'm saying? >> Sure. If you have something that they have, I'm just trying to send it our
way. >> We've just I think what you're saying is you want you want a letter that says what our attorney thinks the legal theory >> advice the advice they've given you >> that gives that gives council a starting point. That way we're not trying to
write, >> right? And we're trying to see it basically >> because you know how like lawy I mean at least like lawyers can be like you ask them one question and it's like not the right exact right question and they go into this rabbit hole and you end up with like but I didn't >> right >> I mean right
>> the point you don't understand why they went in that direction then you didn't get the answer you wanted like one wrong word in like your casual email to them. Right. So like this is more where I'm trying to like make sure that we both >> Thank you. >> in regard to the kinds of things that
I'd be looking at in terms of the proposal >> um >> after the fact like >> no let's let's let's assume that we can move forward and we can consider the proposal. The kinds of things that I would be looking for would be uh a we don't have the right to regulate the interior of the structure. That's not a concern for me.
>> I don't need to see floor plans. I don't care how many bedrooms, all of that. As long as you have the uh water and wastewater permits to do the number of bedrooms you're talking about, that's all that matters. And that's outside of our scope. >> Um >> the floor plans are here for the public meeting that's going to come later. We
have one not for your benefit, >> right? Yeah. No, we don't. Right. But my point is that we don't care. >> We don't we don't regulate the interior of habitable dwellings. So there's that. What I would be interested in is, you know, and having the floor plans is good because you're going to need to
understand what kind of egress you need from the building. Whether if you're having multiple units on multiple floors, each are going to need out two means of exterior egress. That's often times that can come through an interior common hallway, but a lot of times it has to be an exterior. Now, you're
putting stairways on the outside of the building. What's that going to look like? Is that going to, you know, is that going to violate the integrity of the structure? Those would be the things I would be looking for. Um, maintaining as much as possible the original exterior architectural integrity of the building. >> Show you that tonight.
>> No, I'm I'm simply saying this is the kind of things that once we get into the special special permit public hearing, those are the kinds of things I'd like >> wasn't advertised. We don't want to Yeah. do too much in the way of deliberation. >> Okay. um landscape design, landscape. Uh
>> so to cut to the chase, I think we need a letter >> from your attorney stating why it's okay to do this. >> And and and we could we could beat this back and forth for hours, but that's the
next step has to be that. >> Yeah. >> Yep. and making sure that Bell's asking the right thing that we're leaning for that we are like >> we're gonna basically give our attorney the letter and say are they right >> right >> right
>> do for me is this an extension of anform >> and we do not >> special permit >> look badly on this project >> we would we would love to see that facility have six units of housing in this town which we desperately need
>> or even just one that's Right, right, right, right, right. Whatever. But we're not looking unfavorably at this. We would love to see that property do something more than it's doing sitting there looking ugly right now. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Yeah, that's it really. I mean, it's a
legal thing. We get the legal thing out of the way. >> We're good. Yeah, we we've charged forward on this property once and gotten ourselves hung up. So, let's make sure we we we get it in order. So, one thing I came in this evening with was an expectation that we would show you what
we're thinking in terms of the >> redesign of the exterior to have an opportunity to get any input from you informally before the next meeting that that would be more formal uh public meeting. Are you suggesting we would have to do
that? >> Trouble doing that. We just can't be like, I'd rather see this or that. Like, >> just be like, yeah, >> and I'm not talking about the interior floor plan, but the kind of issues you raised like, how are we planning to change the exterior? >> Yeah, I think that's fair to to look at.
>> Okay. >> But I I don't think we can comment specifically on it. We can >> I think Doug has given you the concerns that we would have, but we we're certainly interested. >> More opportunities to tell the to show the public the better.
>> So, sidebar note, internal the kinds of questions that we ask, the kinds of things that we want to see, these are the kinds of things that should actually be in the bylaw. >> Yep. >> You know, if you're coming with a presentation, the planning board wants to see this and this and this and this. If it involves a historic structure, they want to know that the structure is
being maintained and the exterior. You know, these are the kinds of things that we if we can put it in our bylaw >> section, >> then it makes this process a lot easier, I would think. >> Or outside of the bylaw is the administrative pieces. >> Yes.
>> Indeed. The dream. The dream. Kyle's still there. >> Sorry, Kyle. >> Oh, >> he's still there. >> He's still there. Hi, Kyle. >> He's still being patient. >> Couple more minutes. >> Good evening, everybody. >> Hi.
>> Hi, Kyle. Just a couple more minutes. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, turns out we don't have >> Okay. That is not >> even better. Here we go. >> Oh, you got here. >> Yeah.
>> On the side view. That house is huge. >> Yeah. So, here's the >> Yeah. Really? >> Historical integrity, consistency, architectural consistency. >> You're not going to turn a cake roof into a gamrell roof. Something like that.
>> Hello. So, um everything on the exterior remains exactly the same except obviously you brought up the fact you're going to need to set egress and that's going to be um this area here um matching the very similar in way
brick pattern color and everything so it all blends in. We're going to have this little area here which is going to be currently exterior to the building. It will be an interior stairway when we're finished. >> M >> and uh and it's also tucked around the
back, so it won't be seen from the main road, so it's not going to affect the the historical character of the building. >> And then as you come around the side, it's still going to be it's going to have still gable with all the um >> So this piece on the side, which way is that going to face? >> The street is this way.
>> The street sticks out proud this way. Okay. >> It's kind of tucked behind. >> Okay. >> So you can't see it from the front. >> Yeah. regular 3D. So you got many mini drawings. So this is the
>> that's the side view. >> Yep. What it's replacing is >> that's this is the very back looking toward the street >> and this is tucked in behind this. >> Got and it's taking the place of there is already an existing door and a >> a porch
>> and but the porch itself like that. >> What's the question that just the way it's designed this this comes off as a separate slope off of this back >> roof. Does it merge with the main?
I'm just having a harder time reading the >> I don't have I don't >> It's fine. I don't really It's not that important. >> The water does run off. Is that >> That's pretty much what I'm thinking of run off. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. >> You good here? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yep. You're welcome.
>> Thank you. >> And the the I'm sorry, the back building. Is there a back building on the property that would act as a garage? Is that the idea? No, there's Well, there's a barn there now. >> Barn. >> Okay. Okay. And you would just make open parking areas out back. Okay. >> Um
>> barn is one year demo delay >> is ready to go. >> What really >> speaking to the demolition expert >> and also has screening for whatever the after >> that was approved too. So there would be
house parking screening of vegetative screening and then >> storage units when the >> hate to bring it up but maybe some consideration for um EV chargers if it's
going to be open parking and it's going to be condo units >> doesn't they the facility to be able to do it in other words electric out towards the parking lot terminating in a box that could provide 100 amp service for a couple of chargers
>> possibly. I don't know. >> Something to think about. >> The condo fees can pay for that. >> Yeah. >> Do they have charges reer across the way? Old school? >> I don't know. >> No chargers at the school. >> Old school across the street. >> Oh, I don't know. I don't know.
>> What? On Main Street? >> No, but they have separate garages. >> Have any other questions? Yeah. >> Okay. Great. >> We'll confer in the meantime. >> Great. >> Yep. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you. >> Talk to you soon.
>> And I have your order conditions. I just had to run it by Mark and I will get it to you. >> Oh, great. >> ASAP. Probably Thursday. >> Okay. What's next? Yeah, >> please leave with the feeling that we are supporting this project within the
realm of all the rules and regulations that we have to follow. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Because we need housing in the in in this town >> and denser housing. >> Denser housing. Absolutely. So, >> thanks for coming with us.
>> Thank you. If my lawyers do believe it's >> right >> that was his first mistake, your honor. >> Thanks. >> Talk to you soon. >> All right. Next item on the agenda,
which >> we're gonna We're gonna go to Kyle. >> Kyle, you man. >> I hope you're eating dinner. I'm hungry. We were talking about eating dinner. Hello. Pretty good.
>> Oh, hi. All right. Um, thanks and thank you, Andrew, for joining us. >> My pleasure. >> Um, we have a few items in to discuss. It looks like What do we want to talk tackle first? Because it looks like Kyle's a part of few of them.
>> One one of them. Two of them. >> Well, >> he's here mostly to speak about. >> He's here for number three. He might have things to say about number two, but three is the reason he's with us this evening. >> All right. Um, Valley Planning
Commission completed their comprehensive zoning review, uh, which was he gave the presentation at our last meeting. We've had time to digest the very comprehensive comprehensive zone interview document and we're here mostly
for um any sort of questions or followup and any we could talk about a little bit about what we're thinking about as next steps or any takeaways. >> And also just so you know, Kyle, um we didn't get to print the one that you sent at 3 because I wasn't in the office and Lori wasn't in the office. So we
have the one from last time that she printed out. there's anything significantly different. I printed out the best bylaw for folks. So, just flag anything that's different um if you're going through it. >> Yeah. Um I'm
the most significant change there's really minor edits just based on some feedback from Stephanie um uh particularly uh related to the the ongoing discussion about reszoning some of those spot zone parcels or the split zoning instances of
split zoning across the town. So there's no real significant changes or substantial changes to the comprehensive review document itself. We added those state model bylaws for both solar and
battery energy storage systems. Um that's why the new version is substantially longer because of those inclusions. Um but um we recognize that it's it's really the best guidance that we can provide at this time. So we're
happy to add that uh into the document. Um and yeah, I don't I don't think we have really much more to add at this point. Uh but just wanted to double check make sure that there weren't any any any outstanding uh issues or concerns that that came up
as you all have been reviewing kind of our final draft. um regarding the battery energy storage system model bylaw and I'm only just looking at it um but I'm I'm on page two the definitions the three tiers are
those consistent with state law >> uh I would presume so given that the model is is brought >> oh this is from the state I'm sorry okay never mind >> uh I'm gonna want to look that more thank you >> didn't even realize this instead.
>> And I know the primary reason for you to come to this meeting is for us to address any clarifying questions or ask any more. Is there anything else that you wanted to speak on tonight with us? >> Um, no. I think, you know, I think
the town is in a really good position right now given the um the recent one-stop grant award to really approach a a real comprehensive zoning overhaul.
>> I would like to take a moment and mention that because I don't think we said that yet. Did we said that share that at the meeting? Didn't it happen like the day after our last meeting? Cool. >> Yeah, >> that go >> I don't know. I don't know the exact number. So you >> $97,000
>> 96 is what came to mind. So let's let's call 96 so we don't get our hopes up. >> Be safe. Um we received >> for that extra thousand >> $96,000 from um community one stop for growth grant or the comprehensive zoning revision work to follow this set of
recommendations. So that is very exciting. Y I think we like it was embargoed until like the day after our last meeting, so we couldn't say anything until then. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> Sorry to steal the thunder there.
>> Oh, no problem. Uh I I will say that just in terms of this endeavor and the amount of funding that Hatfield has received, you are getting significant uh amount of money above and beyond what
other communities have gotten to do this type of work. >> That's great. >> So I'm I'm >> That's great. been encouraging Bella to consider um you know really going deep on zoning map analysis, really thinking about your
districts, really thinking about you know going outside the box uh in terms of what you want to do. Um thinking about developing a very robust engagement program to get more people involved, to get more people thinking
about it. Um because you you have a lot more money than other communities that are doing very similar work. >> Wow. That is not something you hear often. So, that is exciting. Thank you for for highlighting that. >> Kyle, are are there elements of that
that come to mind of things you'd want us to consider like like a form-based code or something? Are there things that that you you like that you might recommend? >> Absolutely. I mean, that that's a direction. you know, I think um I can't remember if it was written into the
original grant proposal, but I remember coming out of the comprehensive plan, you the the comprehensive planning effort identified state programs like 40R smart growth zoning or the peer
program 40y starter home zoning. You know, th those are options. Those are very um I think appealing options to consider if you're going to think about resoning to align any new resoning
efforts to those state programs so that the town is then eligible for incentive payments and bonus payments for any housing development that comes online in those districts. Um,
and you have a timeline that I think could afford the engagement that's necessary to explore that. Um, and you have the budget to do the additional work because those elements typically have, you know, additional
mapping that's included um, to kind of calculate what the real benefit is of pursuing those programs. So form-based code state incentive zoning programs like 40R 40Y
uh I think are really exciting and um I just think also a more a real a more nuanced kind of analysis of zoning and the real constraints to development that you face as a community with unique
geography including your hydraology and your soils and your slopes. Um, yeah. So, it's it's I think it's the additional funding I think is is going to help really allow you as a community
to uh really pursue this endeavor of a zoning overhaul, reorganization, and kind of reimagining um fully. And that's really exciting. So,
>> I wish you all the best in that. It's a big task. >> It is. >> It's been a controversial one already. >> It's always controversial when you're changing things. >> Yeah. Yeah.
Um, >> questions from anyone who's on the floor? >> No, this is a lot to digest. Definitely want some more time to dig into it. >> Yeah, no kidding. But, I mean, everything I've seen so far shows that it's it, you know, it uh meets its name. It's
comprehensive and that's good. Um uh looking at the the short-term recommendations, I think on page 22, >> u no objections to any of those. Uh I might be wanting to further consult to get unless it's in here somewhere a
little bit more detail as to any specific changes that might be recommended. Um particularly when it says revise and update outdating provisions. Um, I know it sort of touches on a few of those, but it'd be nice to have them in more detailed
bullet points. Um, when it comes time to do that work, I'm sure those resources will be available. >> Would that be what the consultant that we would presumably hire for the actual revision, would they run with this and apply it and pull >> I would assume
>> those specifics. Yeah. Um, I also really I would tend to agree with uh Kyle that I think if we've got the time and we've got the resources to do it, I'd love to look at everything almost with a a fresh clean slate in front of us. Um, the
project we just sort of got a glance at earlier. Um, and what I was mentioning where we have a lot of back lot development that doesn't match the front street side, you know, impression of the neighborhood, but it's not a conflict. that's not a problem. How do we encode
that into zoning to make it work and to make it still protect the residential nature of the neighborhood? Um, we see it everywhere, all kinds of streets, up and down streets throughout town. How do we make that work? Or is there a way to make that work? If we can really look at
things with a fresh set of eyes and get some objective, you know, opinions on it, I think it might be to our benefit. >> Totally. So, >> um, >> yeah, I if if I may, Bella, I >> please like to add I I think I caught
most of that and forgive me if I didn't, but uh I would just speak to the a more detailed or a bit fuller list of those incomplete or outdated provisions. >> Yep. >> Um, they are they do start on page 15.
Oh, >> I know in the recommendations we kind of point to one or two, >> but there there is a bulleted list. >> Very good. >> Um, and then in terms of using this product as
um, uh, a real starting line for the comprehensive like full comprehensive zoning reorg organization and update. That's typically how we approach it when we've taken on that the type of work. Um
when when a community has this type of a document, you know, it may be that we just start with a simple we start moving the existing zoning into the new format and we start reading through that line by line. Uh start making annotations. Uh I will add the caveat as well that when
we've done this work, we've usually set aside a portion of the budget for legal consultation. um that is with a firm that is not the town council. So to get another uh land use
uh legal um uh kind of review of issues that we flag as potential compliance issues with the state law. Um, we always advise the town to to request their legal counsel to have
another review of it, but we we always try to set aside a budget for some uh legal uh consultation services. >> Makes sense, right? Um related to that piece though, Doug, you're like, "Oh, look at the recommendations." And then like what are the specific
recommendations? And you go back in that and there's but then there's like so much there. So there's like mile, you know, as I always often talk about like, okay, so what's the order of operations here and coupled it with grant funding opportunities and
town meeting and like what is how do we back ourselves into moving on some of this in a way that makes sense? >> And then also I know that we have the opportunity for >> what do you call it? E3 code 360
into that um because if you could help us understand a little bit about the sequencing of that. I went through this document and kind of flagged things that I thought might be covered by EC code 360 and then things that might be perfect for a consultant to work on during the you know um
>> as a refresh. What is ecode ecode 360? It is >> Ecode 360 is is a it's a company that um that specializes in taking towns municipal codes and basically digitizing them and codifying them helping them
recodify them in a way that's better organized uh easier to to read for multiple audiences um and is more of a living document more easy to to update as you make changes and also does a really good job of tracking what changes were made when. So, you can go online. A
lot of different towns have have used this system. Uh, it's very helpful. Um, town of Hadley has their uh their uh both their zoning and their general ordinances there. Um, and it's it's a pretty good system. Um, so our plan is
we have a few things going on all at the same time. We have a more general review of our bylaws that's happening apart from our zoning bylaws or general bylaws. uh when we've been talking to different departments, boards, commissions about changes they'd like to see made, uh updates we'd like to make
to make it more modern and also just capture things that have changed in state law and everything else. What ECode 360 is good at is helping you reorganize everything and make sure it's in a more readable, easy to follow format. What they'll also do is they'll do a comprehensive review to make sure
that things comply with the state law that uh you're keeping up with your peers and as far as things that probably should be changed, modernized, everything else. Um so we are planning to engage them for our general bylaws and they would also the same package
work with our zoning bylaws. Obviously we have a lot going on with our zoning right now as we want to do this comprehensive uh review as well. I think we can be very specific with them about what we do and what we don't want them to do. I think the organizing, I think the the comparisons across other towns,
uh I think the um uh compliance with state law, all of that we want to see happen. Uh and I think it would be a good thing to to do with our um zoning bylaws. And then as far as content, all of that would come from changes that this board and the consultant that we're
hiring for the uh conference review would do. >> What are we talking about for money? uh about $12,000 total >> for both the town bylaws and the planning board bylaws. >> And they would also uh codify and and digitize uh any other policies that
exist from any other boards. >> And then do we have access to you say it's easy to then update going forward? Do we have control of doing that or is that >> anytime it passes, you know, town meeting and the the town clerk is updating it, they would also send it to Ecode 360 who makes those updates.
>> Cool. Yeah. >> And where does the money come from? >> Uh, I believe there's room in our general budget for this year, >> believe it or not. >> Wow. >> Yeah, I know. I made sure not to cut those lines. We'll talk about special later, but yeah, we have we have some
room. >> In terms of timing, so what we've talked about maybe is that so it's over the course of 2026 they're doing. >> Yep. Oh, sorry. This is fine. >> Uh, think about it as around 18 months of of timing. So, and we're maybe you
had said we're not trying to do the format changes that EC code 360 will be working on. We're not trying to take those to a town meeting for a vote at the same time as a bunch of substantive changes to the zoning because that would might be overwhelming. >> In reality, it's probably going to have it's probably going to all have to be at the same time.
>> So, we're talking about significant changes to the zoning bylaw plus recontification. Yes. Reorganizing the sections, moving them around, changing the numbering, that sort of It's going to take a lot of explanation and handholding to show people here's where this was and here's where it is now. But at the end of the day, you have much
better zoning and much better bylaws. >> So, we're talking about 2027 >> town meeting. >> Okay. So, for TW, so part of what we are going to be talking about tonight is what to try to bring >> obviously to 2026 town meeting. >> Um, so that and if we pass something for
2026 town meeting, will it be included? Yes. >> In the east? Yeah. So we any like >> things that we need to do for 2026 bylaws, it will still be updated and I would encourage you to still make those changes because it would be things that >> if anything like encourage us to
>> yeah to like put some some changes in there that >> can't if there's anything that needs to be done, we can't wait for that to happen. So we would just want to do that and then it would also be incorporated into the E code 360. 360 is flexible. take the old one and it takes the new one and it keeps the
>> recommended things that Kyle's provided like >> the best energy storage system or like >> we want to update and put in a homebased business bylaw or we'd like some of these other extra things that we should
think about adding and then so the idea is that we add them even if they're not like even though our current bylaws are not c perfectly formatted but then they'll take them because now they have the meat of what we want and they will reformat them. Even though if then a
year or two from then we completely update our map and move to form based or whatever which is probably what would be likely. >> And in terms of their legal review, would that go into stuff like exclusionary zoning?
>> They find anything violation of the fair housing if we can. They would >> Kyle, what were you gonna say? >> I I would presume so. I've I've had a little bit of interaction with General Code, the company that offers the um the service, and I would presume that they
would they would definitely check for compliance with federal uh laws like fair housing and such. >> Okay. >> So, at the latest, like if we did nothing in terms of like exclusionary zoning separately, that would be something that they would have recommendations or changes for by 2027.
Yes, they would have recommendations on. Okay. Yeah. If they find anything that that they believe is inconsistent with state or federal law, >> but it's the same kind of recommendations that >> it's in here. It's just that >> they would be recommending new language. That would be the next step to this. >> Oh, they would be recommending the
actual language. >> They may be Yes. If they if they have language that comes from other towns >> because some of the language obviously Kyle's provided, but some of it is flag flagged as stuff that we need to do ourselves. But >> between and and I think where the devils in the details is just figuring out what
is done by EC code 360 and what's done by our our zoning consultant that we bring on. But I think we can make sure that they're clear about what lanes they're in. >> Right. >> And zoning consultant you mean the money the pot of money that we just received the 97,000 that would be conceivably
working on >> looking doing kind of the deeper dive to like the map >> and like >> starting fresh. We would also engage them to support in the e-code 360 work as well as ne as needed.
>> They would need to know what's going on and just make sure they're not duplicating efforts. They just know who's in what lane on that. That's what I would think. >> Okay. Helpful. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Just reading through this document like the section that's like access and ease of use like almost all of that I think is something that EOD 360 would
take care of. It's like hyperlinking. It recommends making it more navigable, headers and footers, numbering system being consistent. >> Um, also on page nine above access and ease of use, it talks about scattering definitions throughout the document. >> Um, centralizing all definitions is a
recommended version. That's I assume that's something that Eco 360. >> That's like the whole point of what they're doing. >> Yes. >> So then later in this document, they'll talk about things like you could add illustrations for dimensional setbacks. That seems like the type of thing that a
consultant would do, >> right? >> Right. Not Eco3. Okay. >> But we would use a consultant to kind of create >> to develop the graphic to develop the illustration. >> Things like that. >> But then you just have a digital version. You'd give it to E code 360. They put it online. >> Exactly.
>> Yeah. >> So we could kind of go through this and just take a stab or I can, you know, I can do that at like what probably is covered by code 360 and then what is later in the process. The only downside about ecode that I've ever found is the fact that you're disconnected from your
data that to submit a change. It has to get submitted to the company. They're the ones managing >> and you know the information and so you're paying an annual fee to them to do that. >> It's that you know the one handoff kind of >> the tiller.
>> Um >> and then also my experience working and having our update like where's the right document? Is this the document we should just based on some of the turnover we've I've seen just in my >> fairly short amount of time here like the having that like be the source of
truth. I think >> I agree is that that's >> whatever is in I mean that the town clerk would still be obligated to have the true document. They'd have to know what it is and then Eco3 is updating that on their platform. Um, I would say I I came from a city form of government
where I think it was less great about it wasn't Eco36, it was another another firm. Um, they were less good about updating all the time because laws were changing a little more quickly there. The city council that was changing laws often, which I don't recommend, but um, in the town, if we're doing it once a
year, twice a year, town meeting, it should be easier to keep track of everything. >> Works without a doubt. >> Okay. Were you gonna say something, Kyle? Um, no I don't think so. You spoke to it. I think uh one one just
consideration I would offer um a a way to uh better uh one use of the consultant zoning consultant funds that might be worthwhile. uh would be assistance in
writing the warrants necessary to advance the uh zoning amendments. Uh given that thanks to inconsistencies in Mass General law, zoning amendments related to housing
require simple majorities and others that require supermajorities. those warrants, those amendments can't be combined, >> otherwise they're nullified. Uh so, so there there's a lot of thinking that needs to be put into just
how you frame the warrants so that the attorney general will uh receive those uh kind of positively from the from the offset. >> That's a good flag. Yeah, just something to think about because
it'd be a horrible reason to to not have, you know, all that effort uh officially adopted >> because right now it's just council reviewing them at on the end on the back end as opposed to us having more professional support on the front end of
the drafting of the warrant articles. >> Right. Yeah. Right. What is the next step with this document? What do we what do we do next? Do we make decisions about what we want to tackle first? >> I think actually yeah, we might talk about that. >> Okay.
>> Do we need slash I just want to be conscious of Kyle's time and appreciate and want to thank you Kyle for all the work that you and Aiden Aiden right put into this. Um, it's definitely helpful, especially with the model bylaws because
that's really like the place we're at. We kind of need the here's the model here so we have something to work with because we'd like to move. I think some of the the next step I think Bella wants to talk about is like all right, the clock is ticking to town, meeting time, like what are the things that we should
>> what can we do? what can we do knowing that there's going to be going through this like process >> after in 2026 heading into 2026. The other thing we can start doing is thinking about what from here is turned
into the scope of work for the zoning consultant and start putting an RFP together because we have enough funding that we do need to go to an RFP unless we pick somebody off a state contract. >> Uh which there might be someone good, >> but uh it probably be wise for us to start thinking about what work we want the consultant to do and and start
drafting that so we can get started soon uh and get that out there. >> Cool. And what how long or like how what do those funds have to be used by the one stop for >> I think we have until the end of next fiscal year not this one. >> Oh wow. So >> I believe so. >> Yeah.
>> Wow. >> June of 27. >> Yes I believe so. Yeah. >> It'll be here before. >> I know. But a lot of times like okay here's a year and like the RFP takes process takes like three months. You know what I mean? So >> yeah. >> Okay. >> That's right. >> Okay.
>> Great. >> Yeah. Thank you so much, Kyle. Also, I'm not sure if you all know this, but Kyle is leaving PBPC >> and is moving to a new exciting position, a new town. >> Sure. >> I am. Yes. Um uh yes, this is my last
week with PBPC. Um unfortunately, I won't be um able to support >> institutional knowledge. >> I know. >> I I know I've I've gained a lot in just a short amount of time working with Hatfield. I do uh have
uh a fondness for your community and um I do wish you all the best. I think you're you're taking really positive strides to uh not only address um real constraints and concerns that you have in terms of the development and uh
settlement of your town, but also uh I commend you for thinking a bit more creatively considering topics like form-based code or u uh other types of zoning uh and different mechanisms to to
think about how um folks can uh uh use their property to not just their personal gain but also to you know the public good. So uh I wish you all the best and um yeah uh Bella I'll be in
touch. I do have um a nice improved zoning map uh drafted for you all. I just need to get a nice title put on it and print it out. Uh, but I'll have that delivered to the town uh in a short while. >> That's the last thing that they were working on with the grant money was they
put together two large setting maps for us that have street names and correct overlays. >> Excellent. >> Amazing. >> You worked really hard on these. So, >> great. Thanks for all your hard work. Kyle, good luck to you. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, K. >> Do you have to learn all about New Hampshire zoning now? Gosh. Lord,
>> I know that says you can do what you want. >> Yeah. Right. Uh, thank you all. Have a great night. Talk to you later. >> Good night. >> Um, should I end this, John, or does it
matter? >> Did I end the go to? Okay, >> there's nobody on it. >> Okay, >> where we at? >> Storm water.
>> Storm water. This is related to the town meeting bylaw that kind of came up last minute last year. >> That's exactly right. So this >> earlier this year. >> That's correct. So this begins with the notice that we received last year in uh
January, February. >> Oh, from FEMA. >> Uh worse. Uh >> I don't mean that. Uh from the EPA. Um I'm not making a value judgment. just making a severity judgment, but that's
it is what it is. Um, we uh EPA has been great to work with. So, there you go. Uh, so the EPA uh came in with a um an order for compliance uh saying that our uh current uh storm water regulations were missing um items uh from the that
were required by the Clean Water Act. Uh specifically they were looking for us to uh pass a uh storm water and post construction sorry a construction and post construction storm water bylaw uh consistent with their their regulations uh especially on uh the requirement of
best management practices and other items uh for the specific um uh pollutant uh requirements that they have. So, there were two different ways we could have gone about this because we do have a zoning bylaw that addresses many of the things that that they were
looking for. Um, and it was close to compliance. There are a few items that were missing. Um, we could have approved of that or we we could have made changes to that zoning bylaw or we could have uh passed the general bylaw to instead kind of create a structure as well for this
storm water uh management. um that would then create a program that uh the planning board would have to pass regulations on. So we went with the second option of passing this general bylaw. We had it drafted. We had it already kind of ready to go. So we went in that direction. Um town council and
felt like that was basically a belt and suspenders approach and it would work for you having this overall uh permit that would apply to a number of different um uh scenarios. and we'd also have the the guidelines that are in our zoning bylaws as it exists. So that's
kind of part one of compliance with the EPA was passing this bylaw. The second thing we need to do is then fill that bylaw with the actual program, the actual regulations. And there's a couple ways we can go about that. Uh we are receiving assistance on this from the
engineering firm that we often work with, uh DPC engineers. Uh they're also helping us with uh catching up with our reporting and and uh compliance on the MS4 program in general. >> MS4 meaning >> um I don't want to say that the whole thing >> municipal storm sewer something
something. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Separate storm sewer systems. >> Got it. Separate storm sewer systems. >> Fours is in that. >> It's funny because it starts with like small municipal small isn't part of the the the S4 but yeah municipal storm separate storm water systems.
So, um, where we're at now is that, um, they are helping us with these these program regulations, but I want to make sure to check in with everyone here because time is really ticking on this. The EPA wanted us to to have, uh, this compliance by February, early February
next year, >> 2026. >> 2026. That really only gives us one meeting to then pass anything that that comes if we get that. Now, I plan to tell EPA that we have the bylaw passed. We have our um storm water regulations already in the in the zoning and we're
pretty close to compliance at that point. Um if we have a program that's, you know, being drafted, then we should be pretty close to compliance. Um but if they do want to see something sooner, then I I want to try to see if there's a path to to having that program
regulations up and running. So, I feel like that's too much to accomplish in one meeting in January. >> I want to know if there's some interest in um anyone from this group kind of working in a small subcommittee and trying to work with our engineers, me and and others to to draft some
potential, you know, regulations here. We have sample regulations to work with that they've given us. We have, in my mind, we want to make this as simple as possible. you already have regulations that are written in the in the planning in the in the zoning uh bylaws.
We want to just incorporate the few lines that are missing based on what the EPA is looking for. We want to kind of tie back otherwise into the regulations that already exist and try to keep it as simple as possible is what I'm I would be looking at.
But you're talking about still talking about lifting and loading it out of zoning into a >> I think I think we would refer to the program guidelines and the the standards that already exist in the in the zoning. >> And is this something Eco3 would be like
this is redundant. It should lift in one or the other or like potentially and and I'd be on board with that. But regardless, the EPA wants us to. >> I think after we show compliance, then once we do the zoning reviewed, we can put put it in one place or the other. Or >> if there's a reason to have them in
both, then we'll keep them in both. But I think it's something we can >> clean up once we're in compliance. >> So, forgive me for sounding pedantic here. Go for it. We passed the bylaw, the general bylaw that's in place now. We're now talking about amending the zoning bylaw to fix it so it is in
compliance with the new standards. um less amending the zoning bylaw and more of um the the the bylaw that was passed, the general bylaw that was passed says that the um planning board can create uh the
regulations, the rules and regulations for storm water management that are referred to in the zoning plan. >> Okay. So, >> so we kind of need those rules and regulations. >> No, that's fine. And these rules and regulations we can review, adopt and pass ourselves. That's correct. We don't need county. Fair enough. Okay. So then the only other question is if the
general bylaw language is going to stay basically where it is if that's its permanent home then we can strip it out of the zoning by right >> you can >> or we can simply say storm water management is managed under Hatfield general bylaw XYZ and point there. >> You can certainly do that. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> But that's not the point. >> That's not the point. No, but it's it's a it's an important clarification. >> No. And that's fine. I think for clarity, it's something to just to put a a pin on that and, you know, might be something really easy to do. Um, in terms of the rules and regs. >> Yeah. Okay. So, what do we need to do?
If nobody else has an interest, I'd be happy to help. >> It sounds like the most boring thing to >> So, you're not So, you're desperate to do it. Obviously, >> I'll do it for another set of eyes, but I don't really want to be like I don't know if I would be excited, not excited,
but giving >> We have resources that already exist. And in my mind, it's kind of an exercise first and looking at what the qual what the requirements are. What's in the the sample bylaws that they have? Sorry. Sample rules and regulations have. >> Yeah, Lincoln. Yeah, that's the one that was passed out to you. That those are
that's a sample. >> We're thinking Lincoln passes muster. I >> mean, Lincoln passes muster. This is going to basically be like a mad libs where we have to figure out where the blanks are, what we need to change, >> where the blanks are and then, you know, as much as possible, I'd just like to
take the uh definitions, the the standards that already exist in the zoning bylaw >> and then find what's missing, put it in there, and then we're done. >> Fair enough. >> That's I think the simplest way to to approach it. >> Creating basically finding correspondence between the multiple documents. Sure. >> Yeah.
>> Okay, that's fine. Can we build a work session where we sit down and just work on it for a few hours? >> I'd love to. Yeah. >> Okay, great. >> Let's do that. >> Great. >> The storm water working group. >> So, uh, is there anyone else? >> Thanks, Doug. >> Doug, thanks. As long as it's not
another meeting. >> I will be happy to like help review or be in like another set of eyes if that makes sense. >> And Bella and I can take a first stab at it and hopefully with some help from our engineering firm. >> Sometimes like not being in it some reading and being like, "What the heck?" I'm gonna say what the heck because it's storm water, but
>> yeah, we'll get there. >> So, we have two months or do we have less than two? Like, does it need to be done before February 2nd or is that like literally February 2nd? >> We turn it in. We vote on it before that at a hearing. >> I think it's possible to receive an extension if we've already done the hard
part, which is the the um >> if we have a draft. >> Yeah. If we have a draft and if we already have a Bible, >> you're saying it doesn't need to go to town meeting. >> Wouldn't have to go to town. >> Doesn't have to go to town meeting, but does it need a public hearing? Do we do it? >> Do you need a public hearing to pass regulations for the rules and regulations?
>> I think uh well rules and regulations for subdivisions you do. >> Yeah. To pass rules and regulations. Um it's >> I mean there's nothing in the bylaw we passed that says that you are subject to that I think in passing rules. >> Then as long as we can
>> and I prepare that maybe by January >> there's um I mean February meeting >> definitely by February. I mean, we should be able to have a final document, but maybe a first draft >> for folks to look at >> in January.
>> Let's Yeah, later in January. Later in January. >> Yeah. We're going to aim for the January meeting for you to have a solid draft. >> Oh, okay. I mean, or final. I'd like that. >> No, no, no. He's saying final draft or first draft in February or No. >> Understanding that the next three to
four weeks are going to be busy for a lot of fans. >> Yeah. Um, >> not Jimmy. >> Yeah, Jimmy. >> I'll have a few extra days off between the holidays. So, maybe that might be a time to do it. >> Perfect time to
>> I'll uh curl up in front of a roaring fire and and >> I'll check in with you. >> Read rules and regulations to all the children. There you go. >> Sure. >> Put them right. >> Yeah. >> I tried reading to my my daughter today. It just didn't catch her attention.
>> Didn't do it. So threeyear-olds man. >> Um was there anything else I wanted? >> So thank you. I think that's a path forward and also >> a story about the municipal separate storm water and sewer systems kids. >> Here comes the EPA. Oh no.
>> Oh no. >> It's like Ghostbusters all over here. >> All right. >> Moving on. >> Please. Please. Moving on. >> I don't know. parent. >> That's our Oh, that's on the bylaw we just passed last year. >> For me, >> I like how he's >> I can stick around.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I printed out that best thing for you to take home because >> it's very long and we're going to want to talk about whether we like it or not. Not tonight. Um, so read it. >> Which one are we talking about? This one.
>> January. Yeah, that's model by law. >> Uhhuh. Instead of an update, I thought it would be productive to use this time to talk about what we want to put on the warrant. So, a very brief, this is literally almost just a list of the model bylaws that are in those appendices and a couple of other things
that we could consider. And then I thought we should just our menu of options to talk about. >> What do we want to work on for the next several months? >> Yes. >> Putting it all on there. There's a very short backside but >> possibilities. I love this. Okay. Thank
you for doing this. >> Sure. It's really >> This is related to, as you said, pulling out from what Kyle just produced with the comprehensive zoning review, >> right? >> Was there anything additional to what was pulled out of there? >> Um, just a couple things. Yeah.
>> So, um, like I just threw the mobile homes thing on at the very last minute because you were talking about it at the top. >> Yeah. Um, some of so some of the housing things like Kyle said, it could be a whole a Warren article about taking the exclusionary house zoning h related to
housing as a war article. So it would be like >> our definition of single family home, mobile home. >> Interesting. Okay. >> Um, one thing I'm thinking about and
it's based and it's prompted by item 2A on your list. Can we do a moratorum on any uh industrial scale energy uh generation until we actually get something in our zoning bylaw? >> I think you asked Kyle this last time and he said at least about um solar. You
said >> I asked about battery energy storage and I know that that's not possible. Two towns have tried to do it and they got thrown out. >> Okay. >> Um >> it would be whether the state is mandating any kind of thing or not. >> Yeah. I'm thinking about if somebody wants to come along and and put up a 50
megawatt biomass burning plant. I mean, they've got far higher hills to climb than getting past the planning board, but still. >> So, >> wasn't there talk at some point of somebody coming in to burn stuff in the
end of Straits Road? >> Yeah. So, the question is, is there a way to do a moratorium until >> Yeah. We do a mortorium on on >> nonrenewal or nonsolar non-electric >> energy generation. >> I'm going to want to say no based on
other states based on state stuff potentially. But we'll see. >> That's the question we'll ask. >> That's a good question. >> Just curious. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Um 1 a Roman numeral one, two, and three.
>> Review. This is >> A123. Yeah. Okay. >> Um, totally in favor of that. I think that's an easy thing, especially if we can just point to state language, >> state definitions, and get rid of some of it from our >> um, >> yeah, this is a kind of a little thing
about our >> and it's stuff that Eco 360 would probably flag anyway, but we're just going to get ahead of it because it seems >> it's like we're out of do. >> Yeah. And it's just doing this now as opposed to doing this two town meetings or three
town meetings from now based on the recommendations E code 360 would also have. So it's just kind of like >> clean doing a little lighter house heat cleaning now. >> Yeah. >> And it would be obviously really easy to justify if like there's something >> I think it would make sense to Kyle's point bucket the housing stuff together
because that only needs simple majority right >> that would be >> what what do people feel about mobile homes? Oh that's legally right. Legally, we have to allow them based on HUD. >> From what I understand, it's exclusionary to not allow them in residential zones. Um, I don't really
know. I think what happens is a developer could say that you're prohibiting them from something that they should be able to do, right? >> Yeah, we have a general bylaw on that, too. So, that also needs to change. >> That's so I mean, >> yeah. >> Yeah.
>> I'm not sure how we have a general bylaw saying no mobile homes than we have mobile homes. >> That's I can't see how that's enforceable. grandfathered in. >> They locked him down. >> So, okay. So, that would involve um you're saying you're in favor of maybe requesting a a review by our town
council of exclusionary language and any revisions that we could bring. Is that what you're saying? Number one, >> what do other people feel? I don't want to be like >> because these are like eight options. Which ones? Let's keep Okay, so that's the first one. for number one. I'm I'm
just making sure that that because that would involve like talking to town council and getting him to look through >> the things that were flagged from from Kyle and PVPC. >> Item six, I feel like we want to put that off. That's a big lift.
>> Um >> and I think the consultant could take it on. >> Item seven is a big lift. That's a lot of conversation and we're going to need some >> some time to think about that. I don't that doesn't need it for town meeting though. Correct.
>> The open space question. Can we pass that ourselves? >> Subdivisions. >> Can we pass that ourselves? >> That's subdivision bylaws. >> If that's that's for subdivisions, then yeah, we can pass that. >> I think it's something we should put on like the medium priority like it should be. I think that's something that's we can do the next year. Not on a time
without >> Yes, >> we can do it. Do it. Yeah. >> Um >> number seven. >> Yeah, >> because we can do it ourselves without tell >> because it's rolls and rides, not >> Y. Yeah, >> I like that. >> I would like us to do that. I would like to prioritize that. It seems like it'd be pretty easy to do.
>> Right now, that's >> um >> I have uh in terms of number six, I don't have any problem with removing the procedure >> umizing it from the on number six. >> Y >> removing procedure from the zoning bylaw as long as we put it directly into a manual. >> For sure. Exactly.
>> And then and then we're we're going to town meeting and we're saying this is being removed. It's in a separate procedures manual. It's available for public review. Is there a pro to having e-code 360 taking a review look at what we currently have in the bylaws to recommend what that
>> even though we're going to take it out of a manual put it >> take it out and put it in a manual I would rather have Eco3 recommend like what we would change even if we're just going to put a manual and then >> what would be the turnaround on that >> Andrew what's our time frame on first load of data into >> again that's probably the 18 it's it's
>> yeah it's going to take a little while I think I'm not sure >> not sure they're the vehicle This feels like too specific uh for them in my mind, but I'm not sure. >> This feels >> it could also be something like to your point the consultant could do too.
>> That seems like a better fit for me. You could ask them to do that >> sooner rather than later. >> But then that's just that's then something that would then go to 2027 town meeting potentially >> or after. the only other sooner from the the consultant could get on that first
be one of their first items if you want it. >> If we we think we're going to have a consultant by February to do this >> and so fast we write the uh >> I will help you with I will help you with RFP. >> So if we're having if we were to have a special town meeting for any reason next year separating out something like that
might be something to bring to special town meeting >> when it's just when it's like you're not changing anything substantial. We're just taking this and here, >> right? Um, >> the homebased business model bylaw.
>> Mhm. >> I think it'd be cool if we could bring it and if it doesn't pass doesn't pass. And if it does, great. >> What What number you on? >> Uh, number three. >> Up to three. >> Boy, I just see a lot. >> People will be like, >> could be contentious. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Like I think it's something >> I'm already doing. If we could define
what in general terms what a homebased business looks like, smells like, sounds like, >> might be worth looking very quickly at the model just provided because it >> it's actually more lenient by far than what we have now. >> Allows for a much wider variety of
impacts. And >> that's nice. >> Better, >> right? So, I don't know how that would fly with people. People might actually hate that. I don't know >> because right now it's pretty restrictive. weirdly restricted. >> But but but that's my point is that if we if we can define the criteria and put
the criteria in the in the zoning bylaw, what we think is acceptable. >> Yeah. >> Then at the bottom it says if your business meets this criteria, no special permit is needed. >> Right. Right. >> On page 25, >> you know, productive. So, where would this be for the business
that I used to have, my catering business? My home at the business was run out of my home and um but not functional out of my home. I had to have a commercial kitchen upright. Wow. >> So, you got a commercial kitchen offsite. >> Yeah. Had to buy rent a commercial
kitchen off site. So, so again it depends on what criteria we define that you know >> that creates if you will the bucket in which your business would need to fit. So you know let me use a different example. Someone
wants to run a little uh a little mechanicing shop and they have lawnmowers and they repair lawnmowers. Okay, fine. >> Small amount of noise. Everything's contained in a garage. No worry. Okay. Do they have outside storage? Maybe that's not that big of a problem if it's not visible from the public way. No
worry. Now they're doing painting and things like that, but they have a fume uh you know collection system and there's going to be no vapors in the outside area. Again, no worry. But now they've got a compressor and it's outside and it's creating noise. You know, >> they've got multiple >> multiple employees who are bringing the
or they've got there was work going on outside the business about outside the garage in full view of the public way. It's like maybe that's outside the bucket >> that we define, >> right? >> We have to think about what it looks like, what it sounds like, literally
what it smells like. >> And if we can define some limits on that, >> I don't care what the person's doing if it's not causing a major disruption to their immediate neighbors. >> And if it provably can be said that that's >> I guess the question would be, do we like the model that they provided
because that would be the easiest approach. >> Yep. I think clicking that and then editing it versus to fit our needs. >> It's on page 25 of their appendices. >> Yep. And I also think that it is valuable in getting this passed and h putting through ECO3 so that it's formatted because this model bylaw isn't
formatted in a way that currently exists. So >> yeah, it's appendex B >> page 25. >> And it's great. I think it's great. I think it's there'd be some choice points that we would need to make. >> Yep. Um, but is it on par? And we can
even say like take what we currently have in our bylaws and just put it in there because there is some guidance around we don't call it homebased business. We call it something else or >> whatever. >> Um, and and then yes, to your point, in some ways it's more restrictive and in some other ways it's not. I'd say we
could just be more. >> Yeah, >> even this feels like it >> like you can have up this the bylaw says you can have up to two employees that don't live there like that can come and you know and there's different on page 26 there's um six different well five
different styles of homebased business. It could be a cottage industry, it could be home occupation, could be a major cottage that's all have different like numbers of employees, different scales of impact. Um, and then they define like non-resident employees, um, and how that's
>> the percentage of the home or the percentage of the dwelling that it takes up, etc., etc. >> Yeah. >> And I'm Yeah. Our current bylaws, I think, say something like can't take more than 50% of the >> space. Yeah. >> The dwelling. >> I think our only have like Yep.
>> And I think our because you, you know, you want it to be an accessory use. You want it to be the primary use. And so that's the whole percentage points. And these are a little more restrictive in that regarding. Yeah. >> Um and also I noticed too like I can you know it doesn't allow for stuff in garages
detached. >> So that's like another >> our current zoning doesn't >> No, our current does but this would this doesn't. So there's question those are choice points, right? >> Yeah. Right. >> I would take the more flexible pieces of each of them. >> Yeah. >> But yes, I think we should pursue
something like this. And like to your point, it's going to be sticky to people. I'm sure people are going to have because everyone's has their own personal opinions on it. And it's like >> but but doing it right, doing it well has a chance to change what is right now a number of non-conforming uses into
conforming uses by virtue of what they're doing, the scope of work that they're currently. >> And then and also the amount of times you get a phone call saying, "Can I have a massage like place in my garage? Can I have that?" And it's like, >> why not? >> The way our current bylaws are, it's
like, you know, we can't sell. And this way, we could be like, yes, go look at this and this and tell me if your business is. Yeah. >> It's right. So, how did the tattoo place that we permitted that doesn't fly in the face? >> It's not in a home. Right. Right. So
since we have this um and with best too, >> do we I guess my thought would be, you know, >> we meet I think it might be worth meeting more than once a month. >> Um between now and then um either in
January when we need something for February for a hearing. >> Yeah. >> So um I think it'd be useful to have a working group at least one working group in January. >> Yeah. Yep. Yep, >> that sounds great. >> Um, >> looking back, >> yeah.
>> Do we want to like circle around some of these that we do want to move forward with then? >> Yeah. >> So, we said yes to the exclusionary zoning piece if we can, right? Yes. >> Is that true? >> The best model by we probably should. >> But that we want to do as the working group that you just mentioned.
>> Yep. >> Yes. >> The homebased business, I think. Yes. >> Same thing. Yes. Short-term rental. I don't think it's a big issue, but I don't know. That's just me. >> That's a hot. >> Is there a general bylaw about short-term rentals? You got nothing.
>> We have nothing just for ADUs. >> The your to your point 4B it's not a huge issue at the time in Hatfield, but we'd have no way of regulating it if we receive complaints for butters for example. >> I mean, if there's complaints like they threw a loud party, then just enforce your noise regulations,
>> right? >> We don't have noise. The enforcing agent for the zoning bylaw is the building inspector. Right now, the enforcement agent for the general bylaw is the police department. >> Um, what a lot of counts do is they do put in zoning bylaws to say where and
when you can do ADUs generally, but they also put in a general bylaw which says you have to be licensed annually, you have to be inspected annually, and any problems or complaints, it would affect your licensing later on. So, it gives you a little bit of a stick to be able to work with. Um, and it also allows the
town to track who's renting them. You can adopt the the local option tax, so on and so forth down the line. >> Now, what you you do have is it's not doesn't show up anywhere in your table of uses to have short-term rent. >> No, it doesn't. >> So, if it's not a permitted use, if
someone were to be operating one, you could just say it's not a permitted use, it can be shut down. >> Believe it's an option for you, >> right? And and it is legally a commercial use. >> It would fall under cottage industry. Well, no, it wouldn't because it'd be
like more than >> 50% of Yeah. >> animal. >> That's on page 38 of their thing. If you >> I'm like I'm a one that's like >> I know I'm always person that's like let's be more proactive than reactive, but this doesn't I don't know. >> How many do you How many you think you
have in town? >> The last time I looked like a year ago, like three. >> Yeah. >> What adus? >> Yeah. short videos like Airbnb >> short-term rentals. >> I have one. >> Yeah. But like I don't Yeah. But like I go online and you look and there's not more there's it's not like we're flooded with Airbnb options, right?
>> There's two on Prospect Street. >> I don't know another one. >> Well, and the um Yeah, the model bylaws provided is listed under general bylaws. So >> they did it on the general side so they can create a licensing structure for it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um,
and honestly, I think that if we were to to do something, ADUs are uh allowable and require allowable as a use in in residential zones and require permitting uh licensing from the select board or other licensing authority, please refer to the
general bylaw section XYZ. I mean, unless we really want to wade into accessory dwelling or uh short-term rentals, >> I don't think we need to yet. >> I don't know. That's my opinion. >> Yeah. >> I don't know how other >> I don't see it as a big
>> all the other things that you do have that would make a big difference. >> Yeah. >> The short term, I would leave that one out for now, >> right? It doesn't really impact. >> We could soon be in conflict with Boston if it we try to do something. You know, I mean, it's getting too >> What do you mean? >> It's getting too popular. All the all
the short-term rentals from Boston would come out to hat local mass general use restrictions and then we're stuck with what? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, >> they've mostly left it to the locals to figure out >> expanding Spanish. >> He wants the cats out. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Uh, five mixed use center. Yeah, I agree that that we're not going to be ready for that. Creating a >> super >> mixeduse village center. >> We want the consultant to do that. >> Consultant work. >> That's a tricky one. M >> um separating out the criteria. Yeah. December six, we said consultant. Seven,
I think we should do, but like on our own time, sometime next year. >> Yep. >> Uh eight, adopting more robust outlines for pre-existing non-conforming use alterations, extensions, pre-existing non-conforming uses. I think there's value in doing that again because EOD
360 will then look at that and be like, "This is good, this is not good." Because you provided what Northampton uses, right? Yeah, to print that out. >> It's like a gazillion pages. >> It's like pages. >> I'd like to take a look at that. >> Yeah, that's great. >> And I'd say like if we can do that too,
that would be great. But that feels like a lot of work. One, two, three, four. >> Some of some of what we're doing in one, two, and three. And then later on the village center bylaw is going to almost negate the the it's going or at least relieve a lot of pressure on the pre-existing non-conforming use question
because we're going to clean a lot of things up and make it easier for people to understand what works within an area that doesn't >> and one thing that's nice about the Northampton example is that they have all these graphics and illustrations of setbacks and dimensional stuff which would be consultant. So
>> so eight consultant or eight >> eight consultant I think but >> okay >> um >> and just hope that nothing >> no pre no more pre-existing non-conforming BS comes our way
>> unless there's some easy thing that the that attorney Mullen can suggest that we say instead of substantially more detrimental but I don't don't know how easy that is to just substitute >> I'm not afraid of a subjective determination. I'm really not.
>> Yeah. >> I'm not afraid of making a subjective decision on on >> I am when it's controversial. >> But that's the job. >> That's what we're here for. >> That's the job. When you have to balance the the applicant's desire to do a
thing, the neighborhood's, you know, opinions about it, you have to balance that out. it it's shouldn't necessarily be the only factor that that swings your decision. I'm just saying from a legal perspective that seems to put us into a grayer >> as long as you can point to something in
the bylaw that they're doing wrong >> that is less detrimentally whatever that term that really vague subjective term is >> substantially detrimental >> and >> less substantial >> case law and appeals have generally not questioned the opinions of boards when
they say this is a more detrimental to the neighborhood than we're willing to allow. Okay. >> They're willing to accept the the opinions of of boards and not commission. So, >> okay. So, we're shooting for one, two, and three. Yep. >> And we're meeting an extra time in January. >> Alto together. >> Al together.
>> That would be good. >> And then we're also going to talk about storm water. >> And then we also have the storm water thing >> at both those meetings. >> Yeah. >> So, storm water will also be another Warren article. >> Uh, no. Those are just regulations that you vote on because it will just adopt.
those that's just >> rules and regulations that can be adopted by this board. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, if it's just a matter of a vote, great. Let's do that. But if we need a public hearing or some other kind of >> We'll have to figure out >> public engagement, we need to figure that out. Yeah. >> And then one and then section one might need to be two different ones if there's
housing related ones versus non-housing related ones. Correct. The exclusionary zone. >> Warrants, you mean? >> Yeah. >> Uh articles. Yeah. Yeah. >> You want you want to break those things apart anyways. >> Yeah. to ease of understanding so people
>> and also like so you don't lose all all of these potential changes. It's like >> Right. Right. >> bucketed. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> And maybe there's be strategic ways to bucket out other pieces of it once we look at all of it. >> Yeah. >> Oh, on that note, productive.
>> Feeling good. >> Thank you. >> I still have time to go order dinner. This is good. >> Where are you going? What? >> Dinner. Order. >> I'm going to go over to Mil River Tavern. Order a pizza to take home. >> I have cantina waiting for me. >> Oh, you lucky.
>> Well, it was Buzz marketing. I love it. >> No local business. It's great. >> Turkey soup from last Thursday. Anyway, >> anyway, >> um, anything else from anyone else? Otherwise, >> make a motion we adjourn.
>> Any discussion or a second? I mean, >> I'll second that then a motion. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I meeting at 7:40. See you at the next meeting, January 7th, 2026. >> See you next year. Stephanie, I'm going
to put it out.