and full screen. Hang one sec. One more second. >> Okay, we should be ready. >> Great. This is the July 15th. >> I'm sorry. Are we good?
>> Yes, you're all set. >> Okay. This is the July 15, 2026 meeting of the Hopkinson Zoning Advisory Committee. Pursuant to chapter 2 of the acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance
with applicable law. This means that members of the public body as well as members of the public may access this meeting via virtual means. Participants may access this meeting through the remote meeting link as posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's
online calendar. When required by law or allowed by the chair, person persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so by raising their hand or otherwise signaling their intent to speak for this meeting. The
chat feature of Zoom will be turned off as it is not a tool conducive to productive discussion for the zoning advisory committee. This meeting will be recorded. Please take care to mute your microphone unless and until you have
been recognized by the chair. We will now confirm attendance of members. Please respond with present if you are on this call. Matthew Verona >> present. >> There we go. Stephen Ki present. Waja
>> present. Uh, Sravan Krishna >> present >> and then we'll run through who I think is not present. Jacqueline Crowe, Arnold Cohen, Sudep Matey and Pervy Avlani.
I am Ted Barker Hook, chair of the zoning advisory committee and I am present. Staff Aneri Patel Hopinson's principal planner >> present. >> Fantastic. We have a short agenda itemwise. Um, I don't know if that
translates to a short meeting or not. Where did I put the agenda? There it is. Our first agenda item is to approve the minutes of May 6th, 2026.
Um, did anybody have any comments, questions, or edits to those minutes? Seeing none, I would love for a motion and a second to accept those minutes into the record. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> And we'll do a roll call vote on those minutes. Matthew Verona, >> yes. >> Steve Ki, >> yes. >> Asan, >> yes. Savvan Krishna
Savan. >> Yes. Sorry. Yes. >> Okay. And Ted Barker is a yes. That is a unanimous uh five nothing vote. Okay. So, we have um two discussion items. One that we've been working on for quite a
while. Um the other one we was introduced the last time we were able to have a meeting. Um I don't see any reason to not go in the order that we have them presented here. So our first item is the ADU
uh revisions discussion that we've been having. Um since we last spoke um Aneri sent out some examples of what other towns have done. Um they struck me as remarkably consistent. I'm looking for my notes
that I want for this. Um but there were a few things that caught my eye. We were one of the things that was um driving a lot of our discussion is if we were to move this along and if the planning board were to approve a change to by
right ADUs as large as 1,200 square feet or 75% of the principal uh dwelling um whichever is smaller, right? Smaller. Yes. um if they approve that that anything larger than that would have to
go through a special permit and it was recommended by John Gelich that we do that through the planning board and we had a lot of back and forth on that. Um Aneri gave us I think six maybe five my notes say five but I thought it was six
examples from other towns. Um, and what I saw is that Mendon, Weston, and Wayland all recommended special permits through the planning board on ADUs, Upton, and Middleton, but it seemed that
it was an old law by Middleton. I don't know if that was the up-to-date information. So there was no real push towards one or the other. But what I took from that is it is perfectly acceptable to go through the planning board which again was what John Gich
recommended. Um it is true that there might be some confusion because we have some things that go through the planning board for approval, some things that go through ZBA. Uh, one of the things that goes through ZBA with regard to ADUs is if
you are not meeting setbacks, for example, that would be through the ZBA. But if you wanted a larger ADU than would be allowed by right, that would be through the planning board as we have it at present. If you wanted a larger ADU
that did not conform to setbacks, that would send you to two different meetings is the way I read it. I am wondering um I know that Arnold was pretty loud in saying that he would like to see this go through the zoning board of appeals, but I'm wondering what the rest of the group
thinks. Just go ahead and speak. We have such a small group, you don't need to raise a hand. >> Okay. So, I I had a question and I was in some of the earlier discussions, Ted, and I was traveling out of state and I I didn't pick up the last meeting or two.
I couldn't call in. But um if if we were to go to the um to to the planning board um we still in the end when the when the build building permits are pulled, right, the the the building department
special services will still make sure that all the requirements are met in any case, right? So >> yeah, I think that's true. Yeah. >> Right. So I was I was of the opinion to I think at the time was to do to do just
that you know just you know get get the approval of the planning board particularly if it's you know non-conforming to the present situation and then um and then inspectional services will make sure that all the other factors are are covered you know
whether it be I think I I gave some examples of concerns about parking and things of that nature, you know. Um, >> right. >> So, that that was my thinking anyway. >> Okay. >> Savvon Matthew, I'm wondering especially
Matthew as current chair of the planning board if you have thoughts as as chair or as a member of the committee. Um, so we've got other things that go between boards um for for other projects
that have variances that need to be settled by the ZBA and then special permits granted by planning board and that seems to be a pattern that we're dealing with right now on a number of things. Um so if there is a coherent reason for one board to handle one versus and another board to handle other
aspects um I I think that makes that that's not out of unheard of. And if we're looking at for instance the size of a
the size of the building basically. Um I could see reasons for that to come out of planning board. I could see it either way. Um so I I I I'm in agreement with the planning department on this one.
>> Okay. Um, I wonder if in the upcoming years we want to take a broader look through the bylaws just to see where there might be inconsistencies, where we might be sending people back and forth unnecessarily. But I don't know that this would be one specific case that
would really incur need people to go back and forth for common projects >> and and we would still have the same inconsistencies with everything else if we move this to ZBA. So, >> right. >> My own take um
as I remind people probably far too often, I'm a high school teacher. I'm not a developer. I am not a lawyer. I'm not any of these things. And so, I take seriously the advice of those we have hired in town to help us with these
volunteer committees. Uh, I've worked with John Galsuch for a number of years in my my role here with the zoning advisory committee. And if John recommends the planning board, I take that recommendation pretty seriously myself, especially as Aniri's research indicates plenty of other tenants are
doing the special permitting through the planning board. Um, those not Anzac, do you have thoughts on that particular part? I I want our committee to be open to anyone who's willing to participate. So Lucia or
Chuck on that specific thing, special permitting going through the planning board. >> Okay. So, whatever we come up with at the end when we decide to vote, we are right now doing special permitting for larger than,200 square feet or 75% of the I
can't remember the language, but the primary uh dwelling. Okay. Um, our proposal right now is to change the bylaw to allow right now it's at 900
square feet of the materials that Aneri gave us. I think everyone has stayed with 900 square feet except one town went to a,000 square feet. Um, but we are kicking around the idea of going to,200 square feet. We've we've gone
there after initially I think um Ron proposed I think 1,500 square f feet something larger and through discussion we got it down to 1,200 and then or 75% of the primary
dwelling. So if it were a 2,000 foot house you could build one by right up to 1750. Is that right? If that were No. What's 75? >> 1500. Was it the >> lesser? Yeah, that was the math I did at
first and then I erased myself. But it's whatever is smaller. So >> So be the 1200 again, >> right? So it'd be back at 1200. Um do we those who are here tonight, you got to be in it to win it. You got to attend to have a say. Do those on the
committee still like those numbers as a adjustment upward for by right or does anyone have significant hesitation? Now, I know Chuck, you and I talked about those numbers a little bit, too. So, Lucia and Chuck, if you would like
to weigh in, um, I I would welcome your comments. >> Sure. Um, if I may, Chuck Joseph, um, I think 1,200 is is a really good idea. I think the 900 is going to get limited use for ADUs. 900's, it's tight. Um, in
the in the real estate world, we're seeing um multigenerational uses of this with um downsizing parents on large, you know, 1acre lots being able to put a cottage for themselves to live near
their their children on their grandchildren often. But that's not a use anymore. It's like it can be anybody. All right. But it's 1,200 square feet is to me it it would increase the effectiveness of this law. If the town
wants to see some additional housing, I think 900 is a challenge. I know from a design standpoint, we've been through it a bunch of times. It's a challenge. 1,200 is still a challenge. The data says two people really live in about 15 to,600, but 1,200 works. You can make it
work. Great. Thanks, >> Lucia. Do you have any I I'm not sure, Lucia, if you're just here to listen if you had a particular item, but I just want to make sure you feel included. Um, so Lucia Lopez for Marshall AM. Uh, I
was looking at the sales in the last year in town. And if you are looking for homes, these are primary dwellings that are 1,200 ft is the max. Um, there were five that sold in the last year that I can see. The least expensive was
$435,000. the most expensive was 645,500. So, I think that's an interesting way of looking at changing the ADU law uh in terms of what
is currently available in town and what it's worth on the open market. >> Thanks. When I bought my house, and that was almost 30 years ago now, I believe it was,00
square feet um on Grove Street. We did add an L to it. Uh we created one more room and a larger bedroom upstairs. So I I've lost track of where we are now, but originally my wife and I moved into a smaller than 12,200 square foot. Um, my
mother-in-law lives in the senior housing and my guesstimate of that is that is 7 or 800 square feet. I haven't gone back to reme-measure it since those those units and the senior housing. So, that's my way to kind of think about these numbers, too, is what my house on
Grove Street once was. Um, and what that looked like. Um, so I'm not hearing any push back for going to this would be, as far as we know, um, new to this area. Ani's research and
my research didn't bring up any town that has acted this swiftly on the new law to expand it. And that's always uh when we started this, my one hesitation is, have we given enough time for the new law to evaluate it? Um, that's not
me saying I'm against it, but that's been my kind of cautionary approach and one of the reasons I was a voice that pushed back on going as much as 1500 square feet or 100% of dwelling size by
right. Um, okay. So, those seem to be the biggest issues that we debated back and forth is those numbers. And we've been kind of set on them for a while and whether special permitting goes through the planning board. Um, the last thing I
didn't see that we've talked about, but maybe I just didn't see it in Erie, is language about short-term rental that I know other towns have put in. And I reread our draft article, but maybe I missed it. >> Uh, so the reason I did not Oh, sorry.
the through the chair. The only reason I did not add it uh because I wanted board to take a look into the examples pretty much all the town using what uh state provided the same way they did not modify anything like even if you look at
the Mandon Wayland or other towns they are pretty much doing like 31 consecutive days uh we discussed in the last meeting that how we want to frame that that's the reason I did not add it like do we want to use the same what
other towns and state is using. Then we can add that bullet point on our ADU um current ADU bylaw and just to give clarification on the previous discussion about the special permit. So current
currently as per the bylaw zoning I mean board of appeal is the authority to allow um larger ADU by special permit or variance based upon the design of the ADU. Just want to clarify
that for the record. >> Okay. Thanks. Um, when it came to short-term rental, my memory of the discussion is yes, it sounded like a the state's definition of 31 days works just fine. And my sense was that the
committee felt 31 days fit in that there aren't too many people renting Airbnbs for 32 days. That that it's going to avoid the kind of issues that a neighborhood right near mine dealt with with a a short-term Airbnb rental. So,
if we could get that language, even I I don't remember if it's in the state wording or not, but even if it is redundant, I would like to see it in the town uh rewarding. If we could get that language put in, I think where we are is if we could get a
clean, newish, all-inclusive proposal, we can vote on that. We can read it ahead of time and vote on that next time. Uh and and if we're able to pull off a meeting in August, that feels like a nice way to finally end the term if we
can have something that we move along if we vote to approve it. >> Uh Zach, members, does that sound workable to you that we get a final draft that includes, among other things, the the short-term rental language?
>> Okay, that >> Yeah, I'm good. I'm I'm good with that. But I have a I have a quick question. Okay, please. >> Yeah, and I forgive me if this this has been discussed before, but so this 1,200 square feet, this is
uh limited in its nature to occupiable usable um space, right? In other words, let's say you're adding the ADU to a house that has uh its first floor, its first,
you know, uh usable floor, say 8 ft above the grade in the back. Um so you have a you know, but by design you'll have a basement. Is is that unit restricted from fitting out the basement
into usable space? Because if it's, let's say, >> yeah, let's say it was a, you know, one story, 1,200 square feet or twotory. Let's say there was a 600 square foot uh foundation put in, right? And it was
two stories. But if it was right, backing the primary house, you know, would have a basement. Or maybe it would have a basement anyway. I I don't know. But is this all restricted? If there is a basement, I assume it would be. It's It's New England. It's Massachusetts. Um,
is is the way this is set up, is that is that space prohibited from being fitted out? >> I'm scrambling trying to find our definition of ADU as it exists right now because that might help us. Uh, oh, here
it is. Definition. Uh, accessory dwelling unit shall mean a self-contained housing unit inclusive of sleeping, cooking, sanitary facilities on the same lot as the principal dwelling. Um, and then somewhere else it says they can be attached, oh, there it
is. Uh, the ADU may be attached to the principal dwelling unit or contained within a separate structure on the same lot. Um, so I think your question is, can you take some of a previous house
that is existing and add to it and call that the ADU? >> Right. Well, >> that's part of it. I'm I'm sitting at a spot right now in my office that's 8 feet above the the grade, right? and
looking at my backyard and if I would add a ADU, which I'm not, um, I'd end up with a foundation wall down there and I'd have a basement, right? And so I build this twotory, 1200 foot unit on
the new law. Can I then sometime in the future sit out the basement? >> I would I was going to say I think not, but is is it clear? >> Um, So, I don't think I have an immediate
answer. It looks like Chuck might. Um, I I've kind of we have discussed ADUs over the years. It seems like every third year. So, I've kind of gotten lost what used to be rules and what is no longer rules. But maybe Chuck can give some clarity. >> But you're not alone on that, Ted. I'll
tell you. Um, the uh um my my understanding is it's uh conditioned space, heated and cooled space. So if you had 1,200 above ground that was heated and cooled and that was your ADU, you couldn't add another 600 in the basement to the ADU. The ADU is capped
at 1200. >> I can't make that occupiable is what you're saying, Chuck. Down >> you could make it occupiable and accessible from the main house but not from the ADU. >> Not from the ADU. Oh, that's interesting. >> And is that clear? Does everybody feel
that's clear or does anybody keep >> I think that would be made clear if you put in your proposal for an ADU and went through all of the the building planning board all of that stuff. >> Okay. >> I don't know that that needs to be but
maybe it does if if we do push along a proposal for amending this part of the bylaw. I don't know if that needs to be made clear there or not. Um Chuck seems to think though. I'm looking at Matthew too who does a lot more with these kind of things.
>> I don't know if that's true, but I don't think that it it's any different than we have right now. And so I'd assume that the building inspector would address that if there was a plan that didn't comply. >> Right. Okay. Did you have a second question, Steve,
or was that it? >> Um, no, that was it. I I was just concerned and that's why I said I was comfortable with this because in the end it's going to go to inspectional services, >> right? >> And all these all these things have to come together. So I I I just didn't want
a a loophole in it. You know, you put a lot of time everybody's put a lot of time into this 1,200 and you know theoretically you could end up with 1,800 if if you know based on what Chuck is saying. I mean that could happen. you know, if I if I could get to that
basement, which I probably could could easily design it that way from the ma from the main house. So, as long as everybody's comfortable with that and it meets our code, you know, so be it, I guess, right? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh, Savon, do you have a question or
>> I have a I have a quick question on that. So, when you say uh the building inspector will take care of that um for to u Steve's point. So, if you build 1,200 square ft above ground and then
later on you go and finish the basement, does that require a building inspector inspecting to finish the basement? Do you need to pull permit and all that? >> Yeah. To the chair. Yes. >> That's going to be a two separate thing
like finishing the basement and the ADU work. So, >> any work you planning to do, you need a building permit. The the reason I ask is because u when I look at the assessment data um several houses which have finished basement that square footage
does not show up in their assessment but when they go to sell the house they put it on right that's why the question but the other question I had is do we have any data so basically we're changing it from 900
square ft to 1200 square ft as um you know adus that would not require special permit. Is that correct? >> Let me just let me just interrupt really quickly. This is especially if there's members of the public watching. We are contemplating a vote next time we meet
on sending to the planning board to discuss whether they would like to see these changes. If the planning board does like them or amends them a bit, it would then go to town meeting. uh for any members of the public. I want to make sure everyone's clear on how many
steps away from any real changes we are. >> Okay. Sorry about that if I misspoke. >> No, no, that's okay. I just it gave me a chance to make that clear. >> Um so that's what that's uh so they're sending the proposal from uh um to
increase the square footage from 900 to,200 to require a special permit. Not to require special permit. Sorry. >> Right. by right up to,200 square ft. >> Okay. Do we have any data on currently how many
uh you know applications for permits come up for this between this 900 to,200 square f feet. >> Uh I know sent us a bunch of data. Can you summarize what you saw on Miriam? >> So, um let me I think in one of the uh
last I mean couple of meetings back we discussed how many ADU permits we received and uh I think we barely four or five application we received for ADU some of the inquiries um and eventually because of the lot
size and all the other >> infrastructure on the property they were not able to file it. But if I just talk about the larger radios, we only had one application that went through board of appeal for variance and there are a
couple of more uh might come might not come. We just had one of the discussion yesterday where uh building official uh discuss with the applicant. So we don't know if they're going to file it or not. But I will say not more than 9 to 10
application for ADU we received in last like since we approved this bylaw as of right. >> Okay. So quick clarification is it uh more than 900 and less than 1200 for all those applications or is it
>> just a couple of um more than 900 square ft rest are as of right >> okay more than 100 but it's not um so I guess let me re refresh my question so by increasing this to 1200
are we solving a problem that exists currently where we have you know where there are permit applications that come about when they don't need to >> um through the chair I will just answer like it's again based upon the property
size and locations sometimes if they want and they have a larger existing house structure footprint and they want to do but some other factors like their septic is not supportive or some other >> they have wetlands or something. So this
all factors >> come play >> basically. So um I can I don't have like exact answer why >> that's fine. That's right. >> No, I was just wondering if there was some data points that we're working on.
That's fine. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. >> Um I I will say and I've said in earlier meetings that um I'm not looking to buy a house right now. I'm not looking for a mortgage. I'm not looking for a loan, but um everything points to interest
rates being higher right now and it doesn't look like they're coming down um anytime very soon. Um we might see a lot more activity if we expand by right size of ADUs, but we also might see a lot more activity if interest rates become more favorable with this kind of thing.
Um, that's what's part of my my own caution is if this law hasn't been in place very long long enough for interest rates to get to where they were 10 years ago, maybe we're jumping the gun. But I don't
know. Lucia. >> Um, I had a question regarding the shortterm rental aspect of what you're considering. I haven't watched the meetings, but I I did read um I want to
say probably a summary in the independent and I was curious about that topic coming up because the first thing that it brought to mind was the 2023 annual town meeting where the residents voted on um a proposed
shortterm rental bylaw and it failed by a v voice vote. Um, so I'm curious about that aspect of it in terms of what the thought is in including that if it seems that, you know, three years ago the
residents were very much against limiting short-term rentals. >> So, I have not gone back to look at that. Um, I I guess I have two a two-part answer and then I'm open to anyone else. This is just my memory and my thoughts. My memory of that was that
it was kind of a hastily put together bylaw and it was a citizens petition and citizens petitions always struggle. Um it was not my sense in the meeting that people were pushing for lots of Airbnbs and verbos in town. It was more that the
way it was written was not uh people weren't ready to dive in. I think my bigger and better answer is the point of expanding this is to create more affordable housing, not create profit
opportunities for homeowners who have a chance to rent to people for a week. Um, creating ADUs that then become money makers for a family renting them out for a week defeats the purpose of what we're trying to do here. So for that reason as
well, I myself feel pretty strongly that we want to have a uh occupancy must be for 31 days or more. Um otherwise we're not generating any new housing at all. >> Anyone else have
>> Go ahead, Lucia. >> Um so in reading it, I did see that it was sponsored by the select board. So I don't know if it was a citizens petition. Um, >> oh, okay. >> Yeah, I I'd have to go back and see, but it it did say that it was sponsored. The warrant that I saw said that it was sponsored by the Blackboard.
>> And in terms of um opportunities for residents to make money off of um potentially, you know, an ADU. One of the issues that keeps coming up is affordability in town. And when I think specifically
about an ADU and I think about potentially having say older um you know like the the grandparents living there uh I also think you know to my husband's family where before his uh grandparents
moved to Florida they would winter in Florida and um spend their summers up in New England. And I think that would potentially open up an opportunity for people to stay in
town. Like we keep saying, we want people to stay in town. We want to provide that opportunity. Um but then still give people some flexibility in terms of, you know, what they can do with a a property that isn't being used
to the full extent. It's it's just a consideration. Um I I see both sides of the argument. I agree that, you know, it's not necessarily that we want people just building large ADUs in order to make a profit.
Um, but I do see a potential to help residents stay in town um and stay close to their families. >> Yeah. Well, if the parents summer and that's two and
a half months, say, and then they can find someone who wants to winter for two and a half months, they can do that. I think if we open the door to much shorter term rentals, I think it runs a foul of what we're trying to do that granting too much flexibility than at
least what I think we're trying to do. I don't want to speak for everybody else. Um, you know, we're not saying rentals must be three months. Uh, the 31 days is kind of a state guideline. That felt kind of appropriate to me to prevent too much.
I don't know if the word abuse is what I'm looking for, but I could see abuse of what we're trying to achieve if we had shorter term rentals available. >> Chuck, did I see your hand pop up? >> Yeah. I I just want to mention a couple things. As somebody who's involved in this every day, you can't even imagine
the number of variations of people who would build ADUs, brothers and sisters, people who are locked out of the market right now. Um, you know, you can build an ADU for $400,000. You can't buy a house in Hopkinson for $400,000. So, I think it opens up we we keep
thinking of it and and I do think there will be people who will look at it from an income basis. So, I'm in favor of getting rid of the Airbnb, you know, including the 31day language in there. I think that's really important. Um, but as someone who's out there, we tend to
think in terms of traditional families, and there are many different forms of social units that are buying houses together now. And this would open up opportunities for that that we're not even thinking of. >> And I guess I I'll amend my language.
Um, yes, obviously this is now allowing ADUs, not just for family, which is what we used to think of them for. And so, yeah, that you get a chance to be a landlord. I I guess I meant kind of short-term handover fist. Here's another renter, here's another renter. Um,
Savvon, >> yeah, I have a quick question for Chuck if you know. So how does it impact the assessment values and uh property tax revenues as well as uh impact on the services that need to be provided?
I have no expertise with regard to the services. All right. But I can tell you that I believe it would be assessed as any other real estate. It there would be a value that would be placed upon it by the town assessor. And from a town revenue standpoint, you're probably generating more revenue out of the same
lot that you had only one house on before. >> I think, however, it doesn't become two separate lots. It's just that the value of that one lot increases because of the >> Oops, you're still on mute.
I >> I think that's the whole point is it's not two lots, it's one lot. >> Right. Right. I I was I was going to say, Ted, on the on the utilities, I think I brought this up several meetings ago and I was concerned about this. That's why as long as the uh building
department's involved, you know, if you're in a four bedroomedroom house right now and you got a septic system that was built, you know, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, um meets the present code and now you add this 1,200 square f feet that all
has to be looked at, you know, during the peritting process. So, so that septic system for at least where I am, I'm not connected to so um would have to be changed over or you know the outflow from the house maybe maybe there's two
outflows. I I don't know how they would handle that. Maybe they'd make it do one but um all those utilities you know would have to be addressed uh to meet code. So, >> right. >> Yeah. And at the risk of opening up
another branch of discussion, other services are police, fire, schools, things like that may or may not be strained. Does that have a handy? >> Uh just to uh mention on Steu's point, yes, the health department and building
commissioner usually look and coordinate with other department as well as DPW for water and drainage. um before issuing ADU and we are uh going to discuss this matter in upcoming weeks
just regarding ADUs with health and drainage department with the building commissioner how we want to process as uh DPW do have couple of questions regarding that. So maybe in the next meeting I will update board on that but uh currently yes if the septic is not
supporting and if they need to update or build a new one health department already direct them that's why I said like uh because of all these reasons sometimes applicant decide not to do a ADU because doing those facilities and
utilities is more expensive than building a ADU sometimes. So yeah, >> the septic can't handle it, it'll tell you right away. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um, okay. Any other thoughts on this? I I was close to us moving along, but I do want to entertain any comments people have. So, I guess my ask then is Aneri one more version uh to be sent out before our next meeting that would include the
short-term rental language that we can then uh kick around next time. And hopefully in August, we are not done. We have another agenda item, but hopefully in August we will have a quorum and we can make a final decision on whether to
pass this up to the planning board or not. Anything else on this? Okay. Um, so we're going to move to our next agenda item, which is the starter home program, Charter 40Y.
Um, a month ago, Ineri, you um agreed that you would walk us through a presentation that I think the state put together, but you forwarded to us. Um, while you do that, I'm going to switch to a different Wi-Fi in my house because
it seemed like maybe I'm not on the best one right now. So, I might be out of commission for a couple moments, but I'll be right back. Are you open to sharing that slideshow? >> Uh, yes. >> Okay, great. I will be right back, everybody.
Okay. Oops. I think I'm back already. >> Can you see my screen? I can see it says start >> now. It looks like something's about to come up. >> Okay,
>> right now it's only kind of gray. >> Yeah, I am not. What is going on? >> Still gray screen. >> It looks like you're trying to share because a window opened up. >> Yeah, some Can you see now?
>> I see your cursor moving there. Now I see it. >> Okay, that's that's great >> progress. >> Okay, maybe I will not able to see you guys but at least you can see the screen. Okay, so uh let me just brief
you out on chapter 4. This is present this presentation um done and presented by executive office of housing and liable uh livable communities. During one of uh the meeting
we do have um every month with other towns. Um during that time state presented that it's just basically going to be like overview of the chapter 45. Um here is the brief desript uh
description of 40. So basically it's like a voluntary program to encourage cities and town to adopt and implement zoning that's allowed by right development of modest size of single family home at the dens consistent with
the traditional neighborhood design. Uh once again this is the volunteer program. So if any town and cities wants to take a part they can do it. It's not like um every towns and city needs to adopt just like how everybody did ADU. This is a voluntary
program totally up to towns and cities. Uh where you can do this program basically any residential development in residential development area where the standard home zoning would increase the allowable residential density for single family home. Um why and how this
is important is basically to increase the supply and reduce the cost of the new single family home in each individual town and by offering this zoning bylaw like uh town get the financial initiatives from incentives
sorry from um state. What are the basic requirement? Basically uh starter home allows 18,850 square ft heated living area for the single family and by right ADU allow
like 900 square ft as per the state and uh must allow starter home by right at the minimum density of four units per acre of the developable land area and must require 10% of the starter home in
the project containing 13 or more starter homes are income restricted to affordable housing and no more than 110% of the area medium income and it also require 50% of the starter homes in the uh starter home
zoning district contains three or more bedroom. These are the other basic requirements like as of right requirements and site plan review and design standards. uh what are the
uh like basic stuff and regarding density and cannot require like age restriction or may not be subject to additional municipal standards that would uh render development infeable.
Uh these are the incentive states providing. Uh as I I think also mentioned in the last meeting, this is a pretty new um bylaw chapter 4, none of the town adopted. There there are some
discussion going on if the town wants to adopt this or not, but as I said like this just got finalized and approved back in March or April this year 2026. So this is pretty new um bylaw. If town
decide and uh wants to work or think about this bylaw, we can reach out to state for any help uh we want. But these are the incentives uh state providing and yeah and basically this is the process that
initial consultation with the EO HLC and then municipality prepares and submit eligibility act application. This is similar to how we did for ADU or MBTA communities. Um it's the same process
each town needs to follow if they decide and yeah I think last year uh state from different towns and cities on this new chapter and new bylaw and that was ended back in
July. So um yeah >> great thanks. Um so a couple of the highle things I think then are uh if we wanted to propose going in this
direction a um starter home zoning district would be greater than or equal to four homes per acre and we did have a discussion on that and I was worried that was densely packed but then I remembered that my lot is significantly smaller than a quarter
acre and my home fits fine. Um 50% of the starter homes um must contain three or more bedrooms. Um no less than 10% um shall be affordable and there's uh
numbers that dictate what affordable means. Um all incomerestricted units are equitably integrated and dispersed and have the same basic look to them. There's terminology for that and I don't remember what it was. The other thing to
keep in mind I think is that while the state in that slideshow says that the state provides financial assistance, it's really really small versus town budget type stuff. Um if there is um a thought towards moving in this
direction, it's not because of financial gain gifts from the state. It would be very clearly as as it's titled a goal to create more starter home more attainable housing. Um and again I
think of myself a teacher. Um I could not even now 25 years into my teaching career buy a house in Hopkin. Um let alone when I started my teaching career almost 30 years ago. Um, I don't know that our police, our firemen, town
employees, I don't know that they can afford to live in our town. Um, which I think is a shame, maybe an embarrassment in my own opinion. Um, so this would clearly be a goal to find another way besides
ADUs to create more affordable housing. I did ask Chuck to join us because, as I said before, I'm not a developer. I'm not in real estate and I didn't know if the 40y wording, the 40y numbers would ever
be appealing to a developer. Chuck and I spoke offline a bit ago. Um, and he was willing to join us. So, as long as the rest of the committee is okay with it, I wonder if I could give Chuck the stage for a little bit to kind of build off of that first presentation that Aneri gave
us from a developer point of view. What do you think? and a Hopkinson resident. What do you think of this, Chuck? >> Thanks, Ted. Um, I want to make sure that I'm understanding the the proposed bylaw as well. As I understand it, it's
a minimum of four per acre, but I did not see a maximum density. Is that correct? Okay. So, that would be >> That is correct. >> That would be up to So, a developer would Let's just say a developer proposed six houses on an acre.
This bylaw would allow it if the zone if the overlay zone was put on that parcel, the starter home overlay zone. If I if I understand it correctly, >> no less than four homes per acre. >> No less than. >> Right.
>> Doesn't say what the maximum is. >> Right. >> Right. And no house can be bigger than 1850. Is that correct? That's a maximum size >> up to 1850 square ft. >> Yeah. All right. And >> that is correct.
>> And uh 50% of them have to be three bedrooms or more. >> Uh yes. >> Yes. >> That's in my green highlighting. Thanks, Andy. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to I'm just trying to understand all this. Okay. Um 10% of
them have to be affordable, which I think is consistent with our other zoning bylaws on our inclusionary zone. I think that's pretty pretty I think it's the same. It's close. The wording for the inclusionary is a little bit different and a little more but it's it's close. It's in the same
>> similar concept I think. Yeah. >> So my so my question is this. If 10% of them like other developments in Hopkin have to be affordable, are the others at market rate?
I'm speaking as a a person who's going to develop land. I understand 10% of them. I understand what the limits are going to be on that. But are my other 1500 to,850 square foot homes sold at a market rate?
I think >> that's the way I read it. An area. >> Yeah. >> I think the things for this group to think about would be um so I'm trying to think of where this is actually.
I've been involved in so many studies in this town over the years and you know sometimes you go through a lot of stuff and you just come to the conclusion that this could never work. I think this could work. Um I'm not sure I've gotten deep enough into it to really know. The
challenge is here. Here's the big thing. Construction costs. We know what they are. They're going to be expensive. They're going to be what they are. But $1850 as a cap says I'm building a pretty middle class modest home. Okay. and and half of them have to have three bedrooms, at least half of them. Maybe
all of them do, but that's the choice of the developer. The real costs are in the land acquisition and in the road. And roads right now, a a town approved road is almost in the commercial market right
now is almost $1,800 a foot. So, when you start building a 500 foot road, you're running some serious money. So what I'm trying to convey to you is that the frontage requirements are what drive how long your road is.
So I guess what I'm asking you is do you do you understand this proposed zoning to say that you could build town houses attached town houses that could not be more than 1,850 square
ft? I'm trying to find out in my head. I'm trying to picture what's the density that we're we're really talking about here because density is how you get affordability. If I have to buy an acre lot for every house I build, it's expensive.
But if they're telling me you at least have to put four on an acre, it doesn't tell me what my road frontage has to be. Other zoning says your frontage has to be X, Y, or Z. This is not saying that.
>> So the presumption is the frontage requirements would be whatever current zoning says for that district. >> No, >> this is an overlay. >> Yeah. >> I don't think that applies at all. I don't think they're telling the town
what the frontage has to be. The way I I read this, I don't think they're saying you must have 50 feet of frontage, you must have 75. I don't think they're saying that. Do you know Aneri is this an over a zoning overlay or is this a brand new
zone that supersedes whatever used to be there? >> As per my understanding, it's going to be just as a zoning overlay how we did for MBTA. I'm just trying I'm just summarizing the actual design standards.
So just give me a second. >> Was it 6902 continued underlying zoning? The underlying zoning shall include all zoning including existing overlays applicable to to such geographic areas and shall not be limited to the base zoning layer. I haven't scanned the rest
of it recently. >> What is the title of that section, Matthew? 69. No, it's the Yeah. 6002 continued. It's page five of the executive office of housing livable communities. Right.
>> Right. Up from March 13th. I don't know if >> No. Right. But what is the underlying >> uh 760 CMR69? It's under 69.02 definitions. >> So it's the 40y definition. Uh
>> I'm being unclear. I am in 6902 definitions. What are we defining? >> What? >> Uh underlying zoning. >> Underlying z Oh, okay. Thank you. >> That's what I was looking for. >> For the chair, can you see my screen? I
just pulled that. Uh >> no, I thought it jumped up for a second and then disappeared. >> Can you see now? >> Not yet. No. >> Okay, hold on. What about now? >> No.
>> Nope. >> Do you do you have the document open? >> Are you talking to a >> Yes, you have it open. The other the other way you can do it is just share your your screen totally and then just find that document. You can do two two
ways, right? >> Yes, I'm doing both ways. Um it's my um always my zoom somehow not allowing that. >> That is >> Ted, if I may. Um, what I what I was trying to get at was
>> you're you're going to make a recommendation to the planning board and planning board's going to discuss the same thing. And my question is everything in Massachusetts that is trying to be done is trying to increase density to to because that is correlated
with affordability. >> When I read this, I thought, you know what? This has got a shot. This might this could work. All right. But and especially because you're limiting it to 1850, nobody's going to build a big house. They're all going to be modestized homes. >> Right. Right. Right. Which I've been
hoping to find a way to do for a long time. >> Yeah. That that would be fantastic. Um it doesn't say you need garages. So that means you can get better density without garages. Um you could build garages, too. Those
are just options. But I think the challenge that I'm having is if you walked into a neighborhood and said, "We're going to overlay this," it would be a tough political battle. But if you had a 4 acre open parcel somewhere,
that would be a natural. >> Yeah. No, I >> Go ahead. >> I think you're looking for 6903 J. 6903 JFH >> starter home zoning to be all inclusive.
>> Okay. And it looks like Aneri is still trying to get it up there. >> Yeah, somehow u through the chair I will not able to share my screen. It's just throwing me error. shall be governed solely by starter home zoning
without any reference to the standards or procedures of the underlying zoning. So then does the starter home zoning in here somewhere give frontage and setback requirements >> or do we have to set that? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
>> Do that on our own >> through the chair. We have a section site plan review and design standard. It's mentioning um composition of site plans and all that stuff and the design standard consistent with chapter 40 by
760 CMR69. Municipality may adopt design standard to uh ensure that to the extent desired and physical character of the project within the district. So what I am understanding based on this
it is going to be like a overlay district like how we have m mixuse district when I if I can to the chair when I read it it came it came I came away thinking
You have a parcel, it's in this zone, you propose something to the planning board, and the planning board has kind of full clearance to approve or not approve as they see fit. >> Right. Um, my head's spinning,
so I apologize if I can't focus. Um, here's the question I'm wrestling with, Chuck. This is why I'm happy you're here. I've never done a development. I've never had to make roads. Um, and in fact, when this first came across, I never thought of building a road. I just
thought of a parcel of land where like four houses fit nicely in a square and the roads were already there. Um, so just for my notes, did you say it's 1,800 feet per or dollars per foot of road >> generally right now if you're costing out a road?
>> Yeah. You're saying Okay. And honestly, that was like $1,200 a foot not that long ago. >> Okay. >> Cost of roads has gone up because the specs for storm water's drainage has gone up. Every So bottom line is that's about what it is, >> right? It just gives me something to
work. If you were if you were interested as a hypothetical, not you, Chuck Joseph, trying to to If you were interested as a developer in building some 18,800 square foot homes with three
bedrooms, etc., >> what would be the maximum, how do I phrase it? What would be too much frontage for that to work out? Like if you had to have I don't know a thousand feet of frontage is that that's too big.
Now it's too much yard not enough house. >> How many houses am I dealing with? You see it comes down to the per unit. It's a per unit cost because let me give you an example. If I build 50 feet of road and I have 50 feet of frontage. If I can only get a house on one side of that road
single load, all right, then that house has to absorb the cost for that 50t of road. If I can get houses on both sides, they each pay for 25 ft. >> Okay. >> All right. So, every subdivision design is different the way it works out, but
it is a math problem. And that's why I was getting to this before everybody spins their wheels a lot. I wanted to say, does the math work and is it really worth going into this to make it go? And it it kind of seems like it is because I think it leaves a lot of discretion to
the planning board as to what density they are going to approve on what specific project. >> Right. And it for me and I don't know if Aneri you're coming up with more answers and
thank you Matthew for finding other sections of this law but for me to go look at that whole section J starter home zoning all-incclusive all of that stuff I think it requires more research on my part for me to know for sure
what's really involved with this law. Um, what I like is hearing that Chuck thinks this is worth looking into more. U, well, maybe I don't like it. Maybe if Chuck said this is a waste of time, it gives us
more life. But if our goal, and it is my goal to try to make our town more welcoming to lower income folks than it currently seems to be, um then I hear Chuck's green light to say yes, this
seems worth diving into more deeply. >> Is that am I hearing you correctly, Chuck? Yeah, I I think the biggest question you as planning as advisors to the planning board should be coming to grips with what is
the density allowed and is it solely at the discretion of the planning board. I think that's a very important question moving forward. >> I'm writing those down. through the chair.
>> Yes. Um the comment I'm seeing on the state website under this bylaw it I mean the density has to be like four starter home per acre minimum at the setback and um
I'm seeing there are a couple of question asked by other that um it's going to be a town uh if they want to or as MBTA just like how we have different setbacks and frontage standards for that
town can work on that and then up to up to the state if they approve that or not. >> Okay. >> Based on what I'm seeing right now, >> but >> to to the chair. >> Yes,
>> Steve. So, I'm just reading a a summary on co-pilot and I think Chuck brought up a couple of good points, which is the way I was looking at it, I think, myself. So in this summary, you know, which I'm concerned about, it says as of
right zoning, starter homes may be built without special permit, which we all agree, subject only, this is the word that I have in co-class, subject only to limited site plan review. You know, I'd like to just think about that for a
minute relative everything we just saying and local design standards. So, I feel like in the end, every one of these cases is going to be unique. It's ultimately being presented to the planning board by some developer. Um,
you know, there's no unique uh lot size to do this. Um, it they'll vary from, you know, whoever has the lot. The accessibility, the curb cuts, how many curb cuts going to be is is all going to vary, you know, again, to to Chuck's
point. And in the end, it's just sort of like this uh amorphous process that's going to occur, lack of better words, you know, with a specific piece of land with a specific developers, you know, meeting the general density requirements, all that good stuff.
Um, you know, if if you're going to overlay one of these zones, I mean, I think there's a lot to think about and and I I appreciate you what you were saying, Ted, and and digging into it deeper and just, you know, highlighting those open issues, those is
those issues that we might have. >> The uh the good news for me is I'm a teacher in the summertime. So, I right now, unlike in May or other parts of the year where I'm especially swamped for school work, um I myself have time to do a little more digging. It's just the
discipline I need, but if it gives me a reason to not go to Planet Fitness, maybe that's all I need. Um, the other thing and and this is not for discussion tonight, but if we did decide
there's something here that we like and if we were able to get some definitions and some answers to these questions, how much is that planning board discretion? How much do we get to choose when it comes to setbacks and frontage, etc., etc. Let's say we got to a place that we
moved something to the planning board and let's say the planning board liked it. Town meeting is going to be a really hard cell regardless. We are right now in a situation where the idea of offering more housing
scares lots and lots of people a whole lot. So that's a very realistic it's a bridge that's down there that we might not ever have to come to if we decide there's just too much going on here or we can't wrap our heads around it. But that is something worth keeping in mind. And if there are members of the public
watching right now, I imagine at least a few of them are pulling out their hair or saying what do you we just had a whole fight about MBTA about finding ways to not expand our housing base very quickly. Um but I don't think that's a
worry for us right now. I think that I think that part of zoning and planning in my opinion ought to be finding socioeconomic equity and ways for more socioeconomic diversity in our town. And
this it seems from what Chuck is saying is a potential route for that. Um, and that by itself gives me reason to say, at least in Zach, where we don't get to finally decide just about anything, let's kick it around if people are up
for it. >> Yeah, Lucia. Um I think this is very interesting discussion because when I look at the 40y overlay um district I thought of it very much as the same as MBTA where
um the town whether it's you know Zach planning board town meeting is choosing where the overlay is for 40y versus saying we will allow 40y anywhere in you
know some large random area. Um, so I was thinking of it more in those terms. And in terms of town meeting, I was thinking that we'd have probably the same arguments against it if you put that overlay over
undeveloped land. Um, because that was the biggest argument against carbonis and people wanting development to be slower than what it was uh in the last decade. So, I guess I hadn't considered it as
kind of a an open-ended or even just thinking that the the residents would be in favor of putting this on undeveloped land. >> Yeah. I mean, again, if we keep going, part of what we would think is where does this zoning make sense? when we
discussed it briefly the first time, I think as a for example, we were looking kind of downtown, some of the same place that we looked at for NBTA. Um, I do know and and for members of the public watching, we are proposing nothing right
now. This is just a discussion. It's no proposal. But I do know that a a newer discussion is what are we going to do with the Elwood School property and what is that going to become? Um, so yeah, I think that in my mind, what
makes this what makes this the same as MBTA is it's a state effort to try to generate more affordable attainable housing. When I think about what this looks like, although Chuck points out there is no uh
maximum density. You can make it as dense as you want, but when I think about it does say that you have to have three bedrooms. It does say it's 1,800 square foot houses. Whereas MBTA makes me think more of of town homes and condos. This makes me think of
standalone homes. Um whether it comes out that way, I don't know for sure, but I think some of the expectations make it a different type affordable attainable neighborhood than VTA might create. But as far as town push back, I think we're going to run into lots of the same
stuff. I agree with you. if we keep going and if planning board likes it and if it proposes, I agree with you. Um, and then a whole different set of arguments and analyses would have to be brought forth to wrestle with that piece
of it if we ever get to that point. Any other thoughts on this one? It sounds like we ought to keep this on the agenda and I myself will try to get some work done over the next month. Um, but are there any other thoughts on 40 Y before we call it a night on this?
I see none. Um, and Chuck, I'm finding you a fabulous resource. Um, you may get an email or a text from me as I do more homework to try to get clarification on a lot of stuff. Um, >> thanks for inviting me. I appreciate it. >> You are always, Lucia, you're always
welcome. everybody who's listening on YouTube, you're always welcome, but it's really really helpful um to get both Lucia and Chuck's point of view on this stuff. And I thank you so much for coming. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay, if there is nothing else, we're at
the end of our agenda except to adjourn the meeting. So, let me just pause for Oh, no. I would like to talk about another meeting date. I would like to do that. Um I'm thinking roughly a month from now. Um, let me see if I can pull up my own calendar to make sure I
haven't booked anything. Uh, and maybe other folks can do the same. July, August. Yeah, I my August. If I could show you guys my calendar, you'd be blown away by
how open it is. Um, so Eneri, you have the town calendar in front of you probably. Um, I don't know what Wednesday the 15th of August is. If that's the 16th, the 14th, but
>> Wednesday the 12th. >> Is that the 12? Is that a Wednesday? >> 12th or the 19th? You're halfway between the two. >> So, from your end, how do those two dates look in Erie? >> Uh, can we do 19th? I might gonna be out
on 12. >> Okay. Those who are in the room, do you see any trouble with the night? And that's a Wednesday. >> Yes. >> Okay. It is vacation season and people are allowed to go on family vacations. Um I
myself will not be on the 19th. Do other folks think they're available that day? >> It's so hard to get a plan. >> It looks like Steve says he's okay. Stravon says he's okay. All right, it looks like why don't we
give that a go? >> Uh, August 18th and I think that'll be the last meeting of this term >> and then we'll have to reshuffle the deck and see who's back for Zach uh in mid late September meeting or something
like that. Our agenda for that next meeting will be Oh, wait. I see your hand. will be a final discussion of ADU proposed changes and a vote to see whether we want to pass it along and continue this
discussion. Your hand popped up in your >> Yeah. So the chair, you said 18th, sorry, 19th August, right? When >> I think so. I'm not looking at a calendar anymore, but I think that's what people were saying. See >> yep. And um
>> as far as you can tell, you're okay on that 19th for attending. >> Yeah, I mean I would rather not, but my calendar is open. >> Okay. >> You could always go to Planet Fitness instead. >> Okay.
>> You can always sign up, but you can never leave. >> Now I'm looking at my watch. No, it's too late to go. I can't fit one in tonight. Okay. So, let's hope for the 19th and Erie, if you could send out if you would be nice enough to send out word quite
early to the committee members um so maybe they can think about it way ahead of time besides just the regular announcement and reminder when we get much closer. >> Okay, >> that would be great. >> And yeah, uh I will also send reminder email if any board members wants to
renew their term. >> Okay. >> Um I think pretty much everybody's term ending on 31st August. Only Tuesday's term is going to end August 27. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. >> And then I don't know exactly when
Concom does their reshuffle and committee liaison, but >> uh for that I will check with Judy on that matter. Okay. >> But yeah. Um, so we might not be able to have a meeting until October, but
whatever besides the August meeting once we start the new thing. Okay, with all of that then, thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming and giving us a quorum and keeping me from the elliptical machine. Um, can I get a motion and a second to adjurnn for the
evening? >> So moved. >> I second. >> Great. Here comes our roll call vote. Matthew Brona, >> yes. >> Steve Ki, >> yes. >> Asan, >> yes.
>> Savan Krishna, >> yes. >> And Ted Barker Hook is a yes. Making it unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Aneri, for everything you do to support us. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, everyone. Thanks, Ted. Good night, everybody.
Night.