Pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025, 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 the 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. 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. This meeting will be recorded. Please take care to mute your microphone unless until you have been recognized by
the chair. We will now confirm attendance of members. Please respond with present if you are on the call. Um I'm looking at the screen. I'm trying
to pick what I do here. Ron Boy. >> Uh Steven Ki >> present. Uh Surroan Krishna >> present. >> Quad Asan >> present. and then we'll go through some
where I think we're not going to get as positive an answer. Matthew Vanca, Arnold Cohen, uh, Sudep Matey Matey, I'm sorry, Sudep, I don't think you're here. Uh, Jacqueline Crowe,
Pervy Avlani, all of those right now are a no. I am Ted Barker Hook. I am present. Um and staff Aneri Patel >> present. >> Great. Um with that I think we can move and hopefully Matthew will join us and
maybe some others. Oh there's Matthew. >> Welcome. >> Hi. Sorry it kept disconnecting as soon as I put in a passcode. >> That's okay. Uh Matthew, we just took roll call. We are about to talk about the minutes. Um hopefully everyone got a chance to look over and review the
minutes. I noticed that I am no longer a TBH. I am now a full Ted Barker Hook in the minutes. Um, thank you for that, Aneri. Um, does anyone see any amendments or changes to the minutes that they'd like
to make? >> Pausing a moment. >> I don't have anything. >> Great. Could I get a motion and a second to approve the minutes of Monday, November 24th, 2025? >> Motion to approve. >> Second.
>> And a second. Which brings us to our first uh and probably only roll call vote. Oh, no. The second will be to close the meeting of the night. Matthew Verona, >> yes. >> Ron Foysy, >> yes. >> Steven Kiy, >> yes.
>> Savan Krishna, >> yes. Uh, Quad Asan, >> yes. >> And, uh, Ted Barker Hook is also a yes. That's a unanimous approval of those minutes. Fantastic. Let's move that bit of paper out of the
way. All right. Um, according to our agenda, what we'd like to do first is continue our discussion on ADU lot dimension proposal for changing our bylaws um on top of the changes that
came in February. Um I don't remember if there was any specific homework that any of us were going to do, but um without going line by line, I really appreciate uh Aneri the uh memo you put together
for us all. I wonder if you could give us some highlights to that memo um both for the benefit of committee members and also any public who may be watching. >> Sure. So basically memo summarize what Hopkinington used to issue under
accessory dwelling units. So we used to approve uh by special permit under 800 ft² or 800 ft² ADU after state adopted and from February 2025 ADU is um allowed by right. So as per the state rules and
regulation you can do 900 ft² ADU or um 50 like whatever the size of your ADU. So half your half of your principal unit basically and you need you can do attach detach above in the basement kind of ADU
but you need to have individual access to that ADU and um it's not restricted to short-term rentals or like but you cannot do Airbnb if I'm not wrong. Um but yeah it don't need to be like owner
occupied. or the main property and the BO town of Hopkin adopted in our last town meeting is allowed 900 square ft or 50% of the principal structure gross floor area you
can do smaller than whatever is smaller and um if you want a larger ADU you need to apply for variance and special variance because you are uh if you want to do bigger one whatever is allowed more than that then you you need a
variance applications. So I compare few towns surrounding Hopkin what they used to do like for ADU what is their current ADU bylaw. So you can see Hopington Ashlin uptown. I remember we discussed
um in our last meeting to see how many ADU we issued. So uh I found one excel sheet our building department um keeping record. So from 19 um 93 to 20 uh 2024
we only received somewhere around 70 to 75 applications for a special permit before I mean before 20 February 2025. Some of them were through varants for a bigger educ some through special permit
which town issued over since we adopted this bylaw from February and town accepted in town meeting we only received three application three building permit application we received few calls inquiring about ADU what kind of ADU
they can do um sometimes because of not enough space or septic related issues, they back out. They never reach out to town again. But as of now, uh there was only one application which got approved by
building department. One is under review and we might get couple of more but in this 8 n months we only received three application of the ADU. >> Great. >> So you can see the tables. Um some of
the town do allow bigger aid use by special perade some do by ride but uh rest of the towns are following state rules and regulation at the moment. >> Great. Thank you. Um um I I have a a
couple questions and then I'll um on the memo. um for the the applications that the town has gotten since February, are those applications that I guess we can't know
for sure. Um are those applications that you suspect would not have come through without the the state changes or do you have any sense of whether the state changes grease the skids for those applications? So for the one we received
yes for 24 pleasant street which uh building department approved it in September or somewhere around that time that was um if I'm not wrong detach ADU above the garage some something like that and the other one we
just received in November so it's still under preview. Okay. And I also see that you say since 1993 >> there were 70 ADUs approved which and and I'll remind everybody I'm a history
teacher not a math teacher but I think that that is three no 30 years 70. So that's like two and a third per year. Is that math right? I'm seeing some nods in the room. Um, and then we've already
gotten two within the last, uh, couple months. Okay. Um, another thing I was wondering, uh, Aneri, is if the the
our committee wanted to explore offering to planning board um, looking into allowing larger ADUs by special permit, we would have to write the wording for that or is
do we have to have wording that says this is is allowed by special permit or can anyone ask anything that is outside? Can they go to the zoning board of appeals and say I don't see anything that says I can't ask for permission to build a 1500 square foot ADU.
>> So as of now like there's no specific wording but um just like I think recently we do have one case where they want to do bigger ADUs like thousand square feet ADU um which approved by zoning board. So it's not mentioned in our zoning by but if you want you need
to go through variance process and you apply to zoning board of appeal board will review will listen if they think it's approvable they will issue the decision but um wording wise we don't
have anything specific so if committee decide to add that we can add one point like do modification on our current approved ADU ADU bylaw or we can wait for few more months and then see how
many applications and everything we are getting. I recently received couple of um questions and calls regarding ADU. One of them wanted to do ADU but they don't have enough lot to do it. >> Okay. Um if we wanted to make it and
there's a lot of ifs. I want the community to hear my ifs. I'm just looking for information. I'm not pushing for anything. If we wanted to make it easier than obtain a variance, if we had language that said you can ask for a special permit up to say 1,200 square f
feet, would that make it easier for that applicant versus getting a variance through ZBA? >> Yes. So always special permit is easier than variance application. So um but >> that wording would have to be in the
bylaws that you may ask for a special permit up to this amount. >> Yes, that is correct. You need to mention that in the bylaw. Currently it's written under um that way that whatever like bigger ADUs coming they need a variance because it's
not mentioned anywhere in the zoning bylaw and um like it also depends upon u property size and all the other >> sure I mentioned >> but yes >> so if but again if they don't have
enough setbacks then it will again go with for a variance then it will not be a special pyramid even for eager use. >> Understood. >> Um, okay. What I'd like to do, I think the last time we brought this up in a meeting, I gave a whole lot of my
thoughts in my research. Um, and I would like to go in the opposite direction. Although, al although I will say I'm happy that my research seems to agree with uh Aner's research for all the towns that we both looked into. So, I'm happy I didn't screw that up. Um, so I'm
interested in the Zach members. Um, do you have further thoughts coming out of last week's or two weeks ago's meeting and two weeks of thinking through the the issues? Um, just speak up, please, Matthew. We'll try to make it a little bit easier. Try not to talk over each other, but
>> Sure. Um, before I respond to that prompt though, I just wanted to go back to the amount of uh permits that were issued. Um, so it's just over two, right? over 30 years and we've had two basically for 2025, right? So, it sounds like there hasn't been a significant
change to date. >> Um the one other note that I was looking at through our bylaws um back on the prompt is that um there's a bylaw for conversion of units uh to rental I think which minimum has a minimum of 600
square ft allowed and and then there's also a maximum of 1,800 ft² for duplexes per unit. So, I thought those numbers might also help when we think about the sizes of what units come into play here. Um, when we think about maybe the
maximum size of a ADU, um, as well as like the minimum what the town looks as the minimum viable living unit, um, in other contexts. So, I was just going to throw that out for anybody else has any comment. And those numbers again are if
you are converting I remember discussing this one in Zach some years ago. If you are converting some of your current home, not adding on. >> Correct. >> You have to have at least 600 square ft to convert to a a a second dwelling and
up to what was it 1,800? >> Yeah. So, it's to 600 square f feet if you're going to rent out part of your your your dwelling as a as a unit. Um, and then 1,800 was the maximum for each unit size in a duplex. >> Okay.
>> Which I I I brought up asked some questions about duplexes versus um building an ADU and and and where the differences were last time. So, I looked that up just for context. >> Can you enlighten us? Because I I hadn't thought about that until you brought it up just now. So,
>> I I I just asked in the context that we were hypothesizing about whether it made more sense to have have a build a duplex rather than ADU if you wanted additional size. Um, and there's concerns about the uh tax structure that that would impose, etc., and why somebody might want an ADU
versus moving to building a duplex setup. Um, and so the there there are a lot of restrictions on building a duplex that seems like it might actually be a lot more complicated now. um if if you can meet the um
>> if you can fit inside the ADUs, but it does allow for a maximum of 1,800 square feet per unit. So, it' be a larger size than our 900 is right now. >> Yeah. But a duplex, those regulations aren't about adding on to a building, right? >> Correct.
>> Subdividing an existing building >> or presumably building a new building into two Okay. units. Um, and there's also limits on how many duplexes we allow in town, which also takes into account the number of ADUs. So, it's interesting that it's already
coming. >> Okay. Anyone else have thoughts that that came to them since last week? >> Yes. Yes. Um, Ted. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Arnold. >> So, >> top study five amateur food critics love
>> Oh, sorry. if if um you're going to put a provision in that they can build have a bigger one uh with a special permit. Um you know I'm on the board of appeals. I'm the
board of appeals member but uh I um not sure what the zoning law says but see would it it seems to me there has to be some kind of criteria. uh and I I don't uh without checking on
it whether you know there's other contexts where you can get a um uh a special permit whether if there's some specific language in the special permit bylaw that uh you could just
refer to that and say the same thing for for the spe special permit for the for the for these structures. Um there should be some reference to the uh provision that's already in the bylaw, but I think that something that you'd
have to check and have to consider whether um there's any other criteria that we'd want to have for a special permit. You know, I just can't say, hey, you can just get a special permit. You know, there has to be some uh uh criteria for giving the special
permit. not be totally uh uh up to complete discretion. >> I I think that would certainly be true and and I don't think we're trying to nail down necessarily criteria now. I don't even know if we want to move in the direction of a special permit versus
by right. Um but some of that criteria would already be built in with setbacks and and uh septic system being able to handle it and things like that. Those criteria would stay in place. I imagine if we did move in that direction. Well, there's criteria for getting a
special permit that it's uh you know, I just um uh didn't didn't look at the zoning bylaws, you know, and the special permit provisions, but uh that um I mean one, you know, it's not more detrimental the
it's not the the it's more than you know what you're talking about is setbacks and things like that is not uh uh isn't isn't like criteria for giving a special permit. Uh those are just zoning
requirements. Uh um and the the zoning bylaws, you know, I'm a lawyer. I've had I remember having a case dealing with a special permit and uh you know you have to look at the zoning bylaw which I didn't do before
this meeting but uh it's either we and if we're going to make a recommendation or the planning board would have to include something in there. It may be that the there's a there's a section in the zoning bylaw uh
about granting special permits. And it might be that all you had to do is with if we're going to if we were to approve this uh or recommend this type of a uh provision allowing for special permit.
If if it's already in the zoning bylaw, then then the then it can just refer to the zoning bylaw. But it's something that either rest of the planning board or the town meeting would have to consider. >> Sure. I agree. Um if we moved in that direction, we would have to be careful
about wording and we'd look at other what other towns have done. Um after all, we see from an table that some towns allow larger by special permit. We could see what kind of language they put into theirs and what we like. Um but I
don't want to put that part before this horse. At least not yet. >> Maybe I'll put the cart before the horse later. [laughter] Ron, >> yeah, just um I I really like the idea in at the last meeting of subordination
of the ADU to the primary unit. Um and you know, I I would feel comfortable with a 75% rather than a 50% which would accommodate a lot of things. Um I I
still would like uh us as a town to look at that 900 foot or what some percentage. Um I I think Cotington has enough uh space in it to allow a,00 or,200
square foot unit which is you know what what the chamber is recommending we take a look at. But the proportionality I think is critical to the whole thing along with any changes to this ADU law really has to address short-term rentals
as as part of the the the new bylaw. So >> I agree. >> And even if we do nothing with the 950, and I'm not saying we're not doing nothing. If we do nothing, I still think we ought to talk about short-term rentals and and work that into what
we're doing. Um but um you're right. I I keep mentioning the square footage, but there is also that that percent of the other house that we can talk about as well um and should talk about. I don't ever like putting my students in
a classroom on the spot and I don't want to do that to committee members, but for those who haven't spoken, do you have any thoughts that came to you over the last two weeks? uh Ted uh to to to the chair. I um I you know my my main concern a couple
weeks ago it it was not um directed to for example Ron and what I believe was a virtuous uh example of an individual that's you know invested in the town for example and um
you know spent a you know great portion of his his life here and then you know wants to continue to leave, live in a way, you know, in a healthy uh environment and so forth, you know, as as as we get older. Um, so I think
that's a, you know, an excellent use of the ADU law. Um my as I said last two weeks ago, my concern is almost the contradiction that I see like you know I'm looking at the state uh
website and it's you know questions there and so forth and it talks about you know that that the ADU um is is is there to you know provide affordable housing but yet at the same
time you know we talk about well it can be used for um you know a rental unit or a um uh you know you know a you know vacation rental for you know people that come
into the town and so forth. Um you know to to basically make income. Um so you know there's a juxtaposition of two two different things you know and so that's what I'm struggling with a bit. I I like the idea of this conversation and and
making sure that we stick with the u you know basic basic uh permitting requirements. I was concerned about the parking um and you know there's a minimum of the one parking spot but you know can that you know how far can that
go? You know what's the restriction there? Um I like the idea of making sure that the you know septic systems and where we have septic systems is maintained. um and uh and so forth. So th those are my biggest issues is you
know the the position of the affordable housing or the example that Ron gave which I think is great but then at the other hand you know we could have um you know you know just an income unit you
know and so I I I haven't sorted that out in my head and by right you know you can do any one of any one of these things. The other the final thing I was going to mention is um I was listening
to the you know special town meeting. You know we got that you know tax issue back in order. You know the additional taxes and so forth. I just want to get this out. You know I've been here for 30 years. Uh I was a big proponent of
schools obviously with three kids you know born raised here. Um, but we're spending a ton of money, a ton of money on in taxes, you know, for new schools and so forth. And, you know, they're talking 90 million in borrowing now, 30
mill million more next year. Um, I'm not sure we have a plan for growth in the town. You know, the master plan hasn't been updated for quite a while to to my knowledge. So, you know, my question is where are we going? you know, in terms
of total population, uh, stress and strain on the school system, things of that nature, you know, bother me too because there's not an infinite amount of money. You know, we can't have, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of borrowing to, you know, to
support a, you know, bunch of new new children in in in the town and so forth. that just put even further stress on our great schools, you know, and you know, I was part of that, you know, with the kids I,
you know, growing up in the '9s into the 2000s, you know, we built a lot of schools and we're building more schools. So, my question is where, you know, where do we put some constraint on this outside of the great example that Ron gave, you know? So,
that's that's that's what's been going through my mind. So, let me just I I want to try to condense that that last part. I think what I'm hearing you say, Steve, [snorts] is you have concern, and please correct me if I'm wrong, because I do want to understand, you have
concern that if we find ways to make ADUs even more inviting than they are, that it could mean an increase in school age population and further strain our schools. >> Possibly. Yeah, possibly. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure I
understood and I don't think you're alone with that concern. Um >> I think >> quite honestly that if the state did not force us to change AD ADU laws, um there's no way if these proposals were
put at town meeting, my bet is our town would not have supported these changes, which is why I think the state forced them because I don't think many towns would have supported them. So, I hear what you're saying and I think there's a lot in town who would agree. I don't have any numbers in front of me, but I
have had a few conversations with John Gich. Um, and I hope I'm not misrepresenting what he was trying to say, but I think he cited for me some studies that indicate uh allowing um multif family housing,
more apartments, garden apartments, etc., or an ADUS would fit does not put anywhere near the strain on schools that I and you and a lot of people in town assume that they would right away. Um my understanding of what John was
offering me was that that is an overstated worry. Now convincing people of that at town meeting is is a is a chore if we decided that that was something we needed to do. But um anyway, I just want to say I hear what
you're saying and I understand and I think you're not alone. >> Yeah. And and I I know we can't change the state law and and the by right aspect of it. Um but again again, you know, sorry for keep bringing you up, Ron, but I I think that's a
virtu a perfect virtuous reason to have it. have uh you know especially somebody in town that's invested their lives here you know and they want to continue to live here. I think that's a great example of why we should be able to do
it. You know, especially if you know, families are getting together in the in the primary home and, you know, you have the ADU and, you know, you see that going on. You know, me myself growing up that that used to happen one way or the other. You know, they just call it ADUs
now. So, um, if if somehow we can parse this, whatever we put into the revision, um, even though we can't change the state law, that that's that that's my only comment for right now. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Ravon, go ahead.
>> Yeah. Um I'm actually glad Steve mentioned that um the impact on schools issue because I had the same concern but I was quiet because I haven't been attending these meetings for a couple of uh um weeks now or couple of meetings now. Um at 900 square ft it might not be
as much of a concern but if you go to 18800 ft² right um would that be a concern at that time right? Um and do we have any data uh showing the impact on schools uh if you have larger ADUs?
>> Yeah, I I think the answer is no. We don't have data specifically on ADUs and schools. Um I I I'm now going through all these papers in front of me. Does anybody remember in the ADU regulations, was there a
minimum of two bedrooms or something like that? Or was it a one-bedroom? I I'm getting I see you're a very firm no from you, Ron. Um I feel like I read that, but it must have been a different sort of something I was looking at. Or maybe when I looked at other town
regulations, I saw some of those things. >> It's not in the Affordable Homes Act. >> Okay. Okay. Um, all right. Where do where do we go from here? I have a thought where we go from here,
but um >> Ted, can I just can I make one more comment about um taxes and revenue and things like >> I I think we have to be very very cautious about flooding the town with more school children. On the other hand,
I think that might be the last war that we we could have fought more effectively before Legacy Farms came in here and the whole thing blew up. Um and the the there is some concern around some real
estate people in Hopington that this the forecasted school age population is is not necessarily going to be growing at the rate that it should and we may end up with empty school rooms whereas you know
ADUs would at least get some more seats you know k kids in the in the seats in the school system. I don't know how to I mean the numbers of projecting school kids into into the school system have been so faulty over the last couple of
decades. I don't know what to believe from whom. But I I don't think that that adding a couple of more attainable housing units in town is going to drastically change the school age population. And every additional one
that we bring in is going to replace some of that additional new real estate tax revenue into town. That Legacy Farm, you know, was bringing in a million and a half to $3 million a year of net new property tax revenue. That's all gone
now. But, you know, it bring ADU in is an opportunity for us to get some additional property tax revenue as we go along. Now the question is as Steve and and uh Svana Sravana brought up you know
are we going to to be forcing increase in property taxes because we have to build additional school systems whatever >> actually the the way it's projected on the current path we are looking at more property taxes for residential
properties right just going in the with the current path over the next few years uh the property tax would have to increase for residential properties, right? So that's why the town is trying to figure out how can we diversify our revenue streams, right? How can we increase uh our tax revenue and all that
good stuff but even with the current path it's going up and to your point when when you I don't know the impact of ADUs on schools per se, but does ADU bring in that much additional revenue?
Right? Uh if you look at legacy farms, if you take out the multifamily uh dwellings, the others uh the median price is probably like somewhere close to a million dollars, right? So that's a you know uh property permit property tax perspective, right? That's about you
know $18,000 or something. I might be getting my numbers wrong. 16,000 18,000 something like that, right? Does an ADU bring in something like that, you know? >> Yeah. And and I don't want to get I think all of that is worth thinking
about. I I don't think I don't know that I want to get involved in doing the math of potential tax revenue and what the potential per student cost may change. I think it's worth us thinking about certainly, but I I don't want to go too far down that road. And it looks like Stravon agrees
with me. [laughter] >> Yes. >> Um all right. So I I am so torn on this issue. As I mentioned last meeting, um I very much
here's what I know. I was happy that in 1999 8 I was able with my new wife to buy a home in Hopington and I had no kids. And there's no way I could do that today. Even now after almost 30 years at my
school, I could not afford to buy into Hopkin. And I would love for there to be opportunities for, in my case, young teachers to be able to come to our town. And right now, if we stay where we are now, that's not happening. the homes
that are being built will never allow young teachers or police officers or, I don't know, managers of familyrun bookstores or who knows what to move into our town. Um, and I would love to
find ways to have more affordable houses. And when we've had ADU discussions with Zach in the past, that hadn't really been part of my thinking. My thinking was, how might it change neighborhoods? How might neighbors feel about lots
being divided and subdivided, even if they're not technically on the property map divided? Um, and so I'm really in in a for myself in a tough spot with wanting to achieve multiple things, wanting to make the
town more attainable either for new families or for empty nesters who want to stay in town. I really really want that to happen. I also think that the state wants that to happen too. Um and that's why we have
these new laws so that we can find more affordable housing. My inclination right now [clears throat] is a little bit it was captured in a Ner's memo. Um and I like the line although I didn't like it because now I
fear it looks like I'm just stealing. Um, point number eight in Aneri's memo reads, "The town is still early in the implementation phase of the newly adopted ADU bylaw. It may be advisable
to gather more data on ADU applications and homeowner experiences before making substantial modifications. However, Zach may begin identifying potential areas of refinement for future consideration."
That's kind of where I am. Um, I hear you, Matthew saying. So, since we've had this new law since February, although I don't know if it kicked in immediately in February, maybe it was March or April or whenever, um, that we've had two
slash3 applications. That's right in keeping with what we had for roughly 30 years. And maybe the new law has done nothing. Maybe people don't know enough about the new law to know that there is more flexibility and freedom and ability to put in ADUs. And it takes a while for
that news to get out. My own inclination, and this has been true for my years on Zach, is changing stuff to buy right sometimes scares me. Um once we make a a
something by right, it's [clears throat] hard to fix it when people start jumping in doing things that we didn't necessarily consider. Um, I absolutely my own opinion to try to
push us to next steps can see places where we could talk about by special permit trying to tweak some things, but changing things by right, especially this early in the new law, um, gives me hesitation.
So without going in into any more specifics, that's kind of where I'm sitting right now with this discussion. And I'm wondering if people are in the same place, in a different place. Um I guess I'm straddling the middle, saying I'm open to some tweaks through the
special permitting process, which is easier than varants, but I'm not really embracing changing the buy right numbers. That's where I sit at this point. What are your thoughts?
Because I'm certainly not trying to speak for anybody except myself. >> Ted, do we have any idea what the planning board thought is on just that topic? Should we let it ride for another year or >> We happen to have a planning board member with us. [laughter]
I wonder if these discussions have been happening. Matthew, >> we have not discussed it at the planning board. It was brought up here first. >> Okay. I would expect that it would also tend to be a conservative um view of the stat leave it as the status quo for the time
being and say what happens but um I wouldn't want to say that definitely without having it discussed there. >> I'm going to change one word if you'll accept it a cautious view. [laughter] >> Um and Savvon, you keep giving us the thumbs up emoji. I guess that means that
you're kind of thinking where I am thinking. >> Yeah. Absolutely. That makes sense to me. Um although I I would again I don't know what the scope of the opportunity is but if uh if you allow short-term
rentals right uh would that somehow um increase the revenue stream for the town without increasing the burden on the expenditure on the other side right is something that's um going in my head. I don't know what what the u if that
will make any difference or move the needle for the town. Um but that's that's something that I would um like to see. >> I'd love to put a pin in that term short-term rental, but let me just see if anyone else has thoughts who hasn't
spoken up on on a cautious approach versus don't move anything versus change some by right stuff. Seeing none. Um, when I hear short-term rental, and maybe it's just because my
uh landowner vocabulary is limited, I immediately jump to Airbnb, short-term rental. Um, I think that you're talking more about maybe a three-month rental, someone who has a a a shortterm >> employment opportunity,
>> right? some something like some someone is, you know, moving from out of state and needs to, you know, stay somewhere a few for a few months before they figure out what to do >> things of that nature. Um, but I'm also not averse to Airbnb if that uh creates
an additional revenue stream from some sort of tax that the town can collect from Airbnb rentals or something like that. And again, I don't know um the details of how that all works. Um but something that increases the tax revenue
is all a okay for me. >> Yeah. Uh I I I don't know how that works either. I think I think generally there is real worry about more Airbnb uh opportunities. We've had some uh and some were brought up at town meeting
even I think some uh neighbors having really really bad experience with Airbnb neighbor neighboring properties. Um I am thinking that if we introduce Airbnb verbbo stuff it would be to limit
or eliminate that opportunity for ADUs but I have no idea what the tax benefit or or loss to the town would be if if there was Airbnbs allowed in these things. I have absolutely no idea. >> Okay. Um it's quarter to 8. Um so can we
have this informal discussion? I didn't hear any voices. Although I suspect Ron you would like there to be a little bit more by right. Um but I I think that we already know that. So I'm not going to unless you want to speak. I'm not going to tell you not to speak either. But I think we already know that's your hope
is to expand some of the buy. But I'm not hearing other voices that are moving in that direction. So let me just pause one more time to see if anyone would like to argue.
No. Okay. So, what I think I'd like to do, um, I if the committee is up for it, is field some initial proposals for what might be special permit allowed that we
could then wrestle with that maybe Aneri can play some games with and see what what might happen. What we already have some um, Aneri gave us the research on what some other towns are doing. Um, I ran through some. Let me just see if
there's any that are worth noting from my research that's not a part of a ner. Um, no, I don't have any other notes. So, according to a nearer's research, um,
in Upton, you can go up to,200 square feet by special permit. their town still limits it to 50% of gross floor area. Um, and I saw Newton was one up to 1,500
square ft um for detached structures via special permit. Um, Lexington is interesting. It says up to 40% of the house's floor area. I thought the state law says it can be up to 50.
>> I think that's uh sorry to interrupt. I think for Lexington it's from their old bylaw. I can double check. >> Okay. So that that may be >> that's the only information I found. >> Yeah. In South actually now that I look max size is 25% but I don't think that
that's true anymore with the new state reg. >> I mean yeah on noon. Yes. >> Okay. All right. So let's let's have this discussion. If we were to move towards proposing to planning board some
adjustments uh again let's put Airbnb aside for now some adjustments to floor area um and as a proportion of the main house. What are
some ideas that feel cautiously acceptable? because I think that's where the majority of the committee is feeling like we might explore. >> Yeah. I I'd just throw out, you know,
1,200 square ft and 75% by special permit. >> Okay. Or 75%. >> Discussion on that. I I was just going to mention I I was when you were talking about Lexington
and I was going through the various towns around us. All the various towns around us had at least through August had like one ADU request or permit or whatever. I was looking at Lexington and is is Lexington
the one you said increased to 1500 or >> um was I think it was not wasn't it? No, but the you mentioned Lexington. >> Lexington. No, Lexington it says up to 40 square feet, which I think has got to
be wrong. >> 40% or >> Yeah, 40% of the the primary house. Upton is up to,200 square feet by special permit. >> Yeah. The reason why I mentioned Lexington and going back to the square footage and what we want to move it to
it of all the towns around this area in Middle Sex County that there was like 5 ADU applications through August had the had the highest amount and yet they had the lowest uh you know one of the lowest percentages of um I'm looking on the
state on the state site. That's kind of interesting to me. Uh I wonder though if that's a function of the sheer size of Newton. >> I would imagine the population of Newton is significantly bigger than every other town on this particular
>> Yeah. I was specifically I'm looking at Lexington right now. >> Oh, Lexington, not Newton. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I just found that interesting. But going back to the square footage otherwise I think um you know I mean if there's a I mean if
you have a larger amount of square foot requirement you got to have a larger lot right to accommodate un you only go so high. So >> there's still a restriction there you know. Um and then going back to the this
whole concept I I think it's a minimal impact. I mean, all these towns I'm looking at just this is for this year. It's just one or two for the whole year, just like what we have right now. Um, I was making more of a statement about
just just looking at where we're going as a whole, you know, this is this is like an example of something coming up. you know, and as long as it's not abused and we can get some language in there and and you laid it out very nicely, I thought um I'm I'm okay, you know, with
with adding some more square feet, you know, one way or the other, particular >> through a special permitting process >> through a special pery. Yeah. Yeah, that's that's where I'm at. I thought you laid that out kind of nicely. >> Oh, thank you. >> Yeah. So, that's that's where I'm at, you know. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Go ahead, Matthew, please. >> Yeah. This might just go back to Ner needs to look this up again, but I'm wondering if the interpretation for Lexington is that it's 900 ft by right, but an unbounded 40% of the overall house size. >> Oh, maybe >> is what the special permit is for.
>> I will take a look. I'm I'm just reading right now again if I mispronounce or miss something. But yeah. Um, and then I I misspoke when I was thinking about Newton, but Newton does, according to
Aner's research, allow up to,500 square feet for a detached structure. So, the two towns on our list that allow bigger by special permit are Upton and Newton, but maybe Lexington allows bigger. If
that 40% means if you have a 4,000 square foot house, then you can go 1,600 square feet maybe if that math is right. >> Savvon and are we still sticking to whichever is less?
>> We we can discuss anything. Um but the way most towns do it is whichever is less. Yeah. >> Gotcha. It sounds like you were hoping that that was true. >> Yeah, I was hoping that was true. 120 or 75%. Right.
>> Right. Right. Whichever is >> Yeah. 1200 is the cap, so to speak. >> Right. >> Okay. Is there anyone who thinks that 1,275 is too big even by special permit?
>> I I think we would want other criteria. um that might be more subjective in the special permit criteria based on the intents of the ADU law. >> And I think that gets to some of what Arnold was saying much earlier. Um and we could look at some of that language, but
I'm not proposing any language, but I know that for other things, it's it's things like not a detriment to the neighborhood, not a detriment to the neighbors or something like that. Um and we could find some of that kind of language if we want to.
Any other thoughts? Okay, here then is what I propose. Um, do we have a a next meeting scheduled in Neri? Right now, we do not. >> No, we need to decide when you all can. >> Okay. So, I think um as was true two
weeks ago, our biggest pressing issue is MBTA. So, let's see how the MBTA community's discussion goes, which I'm about to move us toward unless anyone thinks that I'm I'm missing something. Um, but maybe I will or Aneri will or
together we will try to work up a draft document that will have a special permit using these numbers, 1275%. and we can look around and see other kind of wording that might um help the
planning board make those decisions. Does that sound okay to the committee? And then we can make that an agenda item for our next meeting whenever it is. If that next meeting is after Christmas, I think that we have a better chance of putting I have a better chance of
putting good thought into that draft. Um, but if we need to meet, well, if we need to meet again before Christmas because of MBTA, maybe that's our only agenda item for that meeting. Um, okay. Does that sound like a working plan going forward, everybody?
>> Yes. >> Great. Great. I'm liking the timing of this meeting. It's 5 to 8 and I think it's time to move into agenda item number three, our MBTA communities revision. Um, and Aneri, before most
people got on, I said, "Aneri, could you walk us through the slides presentation?" Um, there was some wording in Aner's email that confused me a little bit, but I think Aner can clear everything up if you were similarly confused.
>> Uh, let me try to share my screen. I hope [snorts] it works this time. >> Seems to be Here it comes. >> Okay, you all can see my screen. There it is. Yes. >> Okay. Perfect.
So after our last discussion, I did a little bit research what other options zoning board and town and planning board looked for a MBTA in the past. So this one is one of the options board looked
in the past. This is upper C street and downtown. And this proposal basically do have the same downtown area. And here the preso one
which if we consider this proposal is meeting our all the conditions and when I discussed with the John he mentioned that um when he sent out email to state and they were pretty okay with
this proposal but I think during town meeting if I'm not wrong by eight votes We were not able to select it option this option. So um here
>> bringing back bad memories in I was there. [laughter] >> Yeah. So just this morning I asked him that why we did not selected this proposal because here if you can take a look at up street this area is almost
39.7 acre and the downtown is 16.9 acre something around that area and um state was okay to consider this as a contagious area like 15% 50%. So um we
met the requirement but I think during the annual town meeting residents were not in a favor of the proposal so we did not choose this one.
Here are the statistics of the proposal for option A. >> Yep. If you can see we met all the requirements. Then option B is our current MBTA proposal which we
adopted but state found that we are not meeting that 50% contigious requirement. So as of now in the current proposal we have three district preserver downtown and Walcott Valley and here is their
distribution. So as of now we have 50 54.6 acres area. So based upon that we have to have like somewhere around 27 acre as a contagious area which we do not have. >> [snorts]
>> So the other option I came which is this one that we can remove the parcels which we um design as a MBTA zoning and add here
and make this as a one district to meet our requirement. So if you can see in the green these are the downtown area parcels somewhere around 9 to 10 parcels. If we remove MBJ
zoning from that and add here between downtown and the current Walcott Valley it's again 10 10 parcels same acres and the total coming up as a 54.6 six acres
and this way we meet the requirements all for requirements basically speaking. Um yeah this is one of the idea I try to find other options but if we go with the totally new parcels we need to do all
the process again we need to reach out to residents and you all know the steps public meetings and everything. So these are the two options. Um I discussed with John this morning. He said we can
revisit our first option if committee decide and then we go again in front of planning board and see because um he mentioned that during the town meeting um the preserver resident were not in
the favor of but I [clears throat] just found that in our current MBTA bylaw we still have that zoning we still have that >> here it So we still keep this in our proposal.
So I don't see that it will create a problem again. Now coming to this option number C. Um when I was looking here, let me zoom in. So this few parcels are already in the
business um downtown business district. So this all tiny tiny wand and this one. So this parcel is Yes. So we have one owner for this parcel. So the parcel next to our town office and this let me
try to basically this one this one and this parcel. Oh god. that's owned by one owner and just this morning they reach out to us asking that
is their parcel comes under MBTA zoning because they are or they might be planning to do multif family over there. So at that time this thought came up that why don't we just add this parcel and
create a one big district that way we meet the requirement and if I do the total it will be around very close yep 3172 acres and we make as a
district. So, >> and the total acres, it looks like what you're saying there with the purple but not the hash marks is roughly the same size as the green outline. >> Yes. So, we going to remove the green
outline parcels and add here basically >> and then Right. So, our total acreage wouldn't change very much at all. >> Yes. Nearly we would have a a parcel >> well over 50%
>> of our total zoned in town. >> Yep. >> Okay. And just so that I fully understand again and maybe for the benefit of others um that I don't know the name of the road but I think it was just in front of the planning board for
a different development I think. Um that little road that shoots to the east with the 1 2 3 4 5 properties on the north of it. All of that's already zone downtown business >> here. Um yes, this one two three four
five. This let me >> What street is that? >> Claflin. >> Claflin. >> One of the many Claflins. That's [laughter] >> so this is already zoned as a business district. >> This big parcel and this two are
residential a >> okay >> zoning district. So, >> all right. And for the benefit, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but for the benefit of everyone here, the downtown business district zoning
is more permissive of dense housing than the MBTA communities requires. So, anytime we talk about moving something into an MBA MBTA community that is already downtown business, we're actually not
uh uh inviting uh dense housing any more than is already being invited. And I I see Matthew is nodding. Yes, I I have that correct. So, could you zoom in on that map, please? Again, >> just give us a little zoom. I think
that's our most helpful image right now. So, if that were true, uh the big question with this proposal besides will the town vote for it, that's obviously a big question, but is
really those parcels between Walcott Valley and the Clafen Street parcels. Um, so when I drove through that neighborhood earlier today and then looked at the town zoning map, um, that
largest partial parcel there, uh, was of interest to me. Um, >> because I don't know what's there tree-wise. I don't know what's there wetlands wise. Uh, one of the things I don't imagine we have many wetlands concerns in this neighborhood because
it's so developed already. But we do have to think about what is truly developable in quotes uh so that wetlands don't don't get in the way because if it was judged that we are only zoning wetlands areas the state doesn't accept that but I don't think
that's an issue. One of our goals for both rounds of this on the zoning advisory committee and then my sense was it was a goal of the planning board as well was we were not we were looking to not find properties
that would virtually immediately be bought up by developers and converted. Um, that was a concern of ours. And that largest lot there, um, when I looked at the town map that has the the little
pictures of houses on it, seemed largely undeveloped. So, my worry is if we were to expand the map that way, including especially do you could you just circle or outline the parcel I'm talking about?
>> Hopefully, you're following me. Hopefully, everyone is. You're talking about this one. I'm >> talking about Yeah, that big large one. Could you give that a little circle or an outline? >> Didn't we just merge a few of those? >> I don't know. Maybe you can. That sounds like it's planning board stuff.
So, what what what do you know, Matthew? Cuz that's the piece that is giving me hesitation on this plan. >> Believe the one that's right on Walcott, the the two that are joining it on Walcott also got merged in with it. And Arie probably remembers, knows better what we just approved.
>> Yeah. So those are this uh this one. So let me change the color. So that's just right next to our town hall. So this is the parcel. Um I hope you can see in the red color
>> and here is the that >> and that is now one parcel. >> Yes. >> The owner who you said was asking about >> Yes. And we I'm going to find out tomorrow what exactly their proposal is. >> And what is what if I were walking on
Main Street, what building is that on the main street side? >> So just next to our town building, you see the parking lot and that pizza. >> That's the parcel. >> Yeah, >> that's the Bill's Pizza parcel.
>> I think like next to it the where our parking is currently. >> Oh, so there's no building on that parcel. Let's say parking parcel. >> Yeah. >> Yes. And I think Bman is on that parcel if I'm not wrong. But >> okay. >> There's a two structure. So I think the
pizza place is on the parcel. >> Oh, okay. >> And there's I think bank next to it. So that's on a separate parcel. But this is the one the walker 10 Walker Street and 14 Main Street. Zero Main Street which >> Main is closer to Main Street though. So
>> yes. So um >> don't you think it will be around here where the W is written for the town of Hopkinington? >> No, it's um let me see >> where the W is is I believe the church on the north side of Main Street.
>> Then Bowman will be like dub O. >> Where the to is is I believe the Mason's Lodge. Hold on. Let me zoom in. >> [laughter] >> The colored area fronting Main Street is where you're saying Bowman is.
>> No. >> Oh, now the scribbles don't work. >> Now it's Yep. [laughter] So here is the Bman. So this is the town building. This slot we merge. >> Okay. >> So let me circle.
>> Can you erase the the old orange and red scribble? >> Yep. [laughter] >> Just to eliminate that confusion. Let me do it in a So this is the parcel which planning board approved as a ANR and now
it's one lot >> and then I think just to the west left of that is town hall. >> Yes, here is a town hall. >> Okay. All right, Matthew, on on the bigger piece I was
talking about, were you thinking that there was some property merge? >> No, I was I was confused. Yeah. No, I was I pulled up the wrong graph. Yep. >> Sorry. >> So, Aneri, if you could again do an orange the the parcel that was concerning me in this proposal. Just
fill that in in orange again. >> Let me do any of those. >> You did do the one that I was thinking of, but apparently I wasn't very clear in describing it. Here's the one right if I'm not >> right. So obviously that one is key to having
our contiguous unit but that one also is the one that gave me the most hesitation as far as being inviting to development. >> All right with that I do see your hand Sarah and I promise you we will come to you to hear your thoughts but let me hear a little more from the committee.
Savvan >> I have a question. So is town hall part of the um MBTA community as per this map? Yes, the one that has been approved that is in existence right now includes town hall
>> and and one one more question sorry and when we say that know this MBT community so can a builder just take one piece of it and start developing without the other pieces falling in place >> well they can't take anything they can
look to buy something if somebody wants to sell it and then of course there's all the other setbacks regulations that are built within the the bylaw. >> Okay. So, it's independent builders developing
uh you know components of this shaded area. Is that right? >> Yes. What this what the overlay allows is within that zone and and I'd have to go back for all of the language, but within that zone, if a developer was able to uh get ownership of property,
they could by rights develop um uh multif family denser housing as per the MBTA communities bylaw. They do have to meet I I keep going to setbacks, but there are other requirements. setbacks, parking, um height of the buildings
requirement, all these things still have to be met, but they don't have to go in front of any board at all to build uh multifamily housing within that zone. And again, within the downtown business zone, the MBTA requirements are actually
stricter than our our current downtown business zone. So in reality all of the downtown business zone that we have also put in the MBTA really changes nothing does not make it any
more inviting to developers in that area. >> Yeah. So when when you express this concern that uh which I also share that this large lot might be inviting to a developer right start building. Um, so
would that mean that MBTA um bylaws or whatever is if it's not more welcoming than what we already have, then why wouldn't somebody have already >> because that's not currently in our downtown business zone. >> Gotcha. Okay. Okay.
>> That is the property that abuts those properties on Claflin Street that are downtown business. >> Got it. Thank you. At least that's my understanding of the map and and I think Aneri's giving me a nod. Yes, that I'm reading that correctly. >> By the way, just just for context as
well, just to make sure people know what we're seeing on the map, the area in green um which is currently part of our MBTA community, that is um the CVS uh and Marty's Liquors and Hillers and
I believe the fire station is included in there. the barber shops included in there. That's what those buildings are. Um, and Aner's proposal to eliminate that section is not because those are not necessarily
good to include, but it has to do with the math about 50% of a zone. If we if we simply add property to our zone, we're also adding to our total. And that means it gets harder to hit that 50% for one zone. But this zone would be well
over 50%, because we'd be joining the two zones. >> It would be. Yes. If we kept the green in, we're just cutting that clo. Well, actually, it would still be huge. Um >> Yeah. >> Um so we could keep the green in and we'd still meet requirements or we could
eliminate it if we didn't want as much acreage as part of the MBTA. So uh just to add on that chair yeah we if we want we can keep the green but it will again if we do a bigger parcel then you have to follow more than 27 acres as
a contiguous area but if we are combining the whole thing as one district then it will solve problem that way too. Um but we need a big parcel or big district. Y
>> which is around 27 acres. [sighs and gasps] >> So this is the one option which committee can consider and >> we can move forward >> and the other one is option A. The only the main reason for me to stick with
these two options are like it will be a less hurdle and trouble for the town. >> That's the only purpose. We can come up with a new district or new options, but I think these two are more
>> good options. I would say [clears throat] >> um to to give for those and I I think we reviewed this last time a month ago. Um the original proposal included um I forgotten the name of the restaurant.
It's not Camella's >> Carbones. >> Carbon, right? included carbonis and a couple of other properties. And while we heard at that town meeting a large outcry from the folks in the preserve and Aneri is right in the our current
accepted the preserve was voted in there was a a significant voice saying that their main concern was carbonis not the preserve. Um the discussion at the time that was
two Mays ago um was some of us didn't think it was developable the Carbon's property because there was no water flowing to it. Um others in town who [snorts] honestly have a pretty good history of being on the planning board and know some things said that is e
easily overcome by an eager developer. and they made a case that that is much more developable than Zach and the planning board at the time thought it could be. Um, that may still be up to discussion if people want to have that discussion.
My own feeling is uh that got shot down at town meeting that also didn't pass muster when it was presented to the planning board for a second time. The planning board didn't like it. Um, [clears throat] my own inclination is to move away from option A, which is to go
back to the first plan. And I'll say again, I thought it was a good plan, but not enough people agreed with me. And I think that that my advice is let's not go in that direction again because I don't think it's going to work out well. Um, but I'm just one voice again, just
like I was before. Sarah, you've been very patient. Um, if you could give us your name and address, please. And then we'd love to hear what you have to say. >> Sure. So, I'm Sarah Broofphy. I live at 9 Claflin Street. So, I'm at the very last of that purple area. Um, that
>> Could I interrupt you just to ask Aner to go back to that map for us? >> You can see that section >> again? >> Yep. >> Okay. While she's doing that, go ahead, Sarah. >> Yeah. So I so I'm at nine I'm at nine claflin and at the very end of that you know that new purple property that you've got highlighted there. I will say
that the that I abut the large property that you're talking about and being opened or being concerned about being overdeveloped and I can say that yeah it's completely you know treed and there's no development back there. There's the house that you see up on Walcott you know up front and then the
rest of it is all wooded in the back. So, I would also be very concerned about the potential of that area being, you know, overdeveloped, you know, quite quickly. Um, and I also wanted to pick up on the fact of what you mentioned about Carbones and that also being, uh,
you know, having a loud outcry. There's a lot of us neighbors here that live on Claflin that have gone through a lot of um conversations about overdevelopment, especially of the new parcel that was all combined together and wanting to con, you know, convert that into a parking lot for the last handful of town
meetings that have come through. Lots of things in that space, too. So, there's really a concern about that specific area being overdeveloped. We've just had two pieces uh you know, and Matthew is aware of this. We just had a a lot on C on uh on three Claflin that's now being
converted and getting multif family built in there. So, it's becoming denser and denser, especially with more traffic. So, I I'm highly concerned about seeing this as potentially being part of that MBTA community when we're already very dense in a very tight narrow area. >> Yeah.
Um thank you for that. You're welcome. Um um I don't know how to proceed. Other committee members. Um so Sarah, thank you for telling me a little more about that lot and it sounds like my concerns you agree with that it seems really
really inviting. >> Yes, I would agree with that. >> Something that we have tried to avoid in going through this for the last year and a half. Um >> other committee members, what do you think of the proposal you see in front of you?
Can I just ask what is the deadline for getting this approved? >> So, oh go ahead and you'll have a better answer than I >> Sorry. [sighs and gasps] So, if we want to go in upcoming town meeting, we have to provide article or
at least a draft to select Bur by end of the January. So 1st February and before that we need to check with planning board public meetings if it's required if we decide to go with totally different options
then yeah and um if we are not able to come up with anything then I can request state to give us a few more months. Um, I think if I may,
it it's it's kind of a a complicated answer a little bit and I think Aneri hit on some of the complication which is at what point do we have to get something to the planning board so that they can discuss and vote on it to make sure it gets to the select board to get on the town warrant. I think from the
state we have until and I'm not seeing it but I seem to remember July, August, maybe even October but >> no a year from the letter in May. >> Oh, so we have until May 29th. >> Y >> okay. All right.
>> So we >> I was I was looking at the letter trying to find that date and I couldn't find it. >> So chair I'm just going to add on that. So yeah, we have time till May um I think 26. So you can consider May end of the May 2026. So we
have to request extension a month or two ahead if we don't make it the spring town meeting. >> Right. And that would also mean then we'd have to ask for a special town meeting if we can't get it in the spring. Mhm. [clears throat]
>> And I would I' I'd like to support this option C as Aneri presented it just from the standpoint of the the concerns that that you and Sarah raised are valid concerns. On the other hand, complying with the MBTA
uh thing is something that I I would like the town to do and I think it's it's worthy of throwing this into the planning board's lap and let them take a look at it because going back to the drawing boards and coming up with something different that doesn't include
this that meets all the other things. Um it it's going to take us a lot of time. >> Yep. I agree with the it will take a lot of time. I agree with that. What's the reason what's the reason for not go what's the reason for not going up um Walcott on the western side of the
street? >> That was the question I was going to raise but um you did it for me. >> Sorry. You mean like go >> here? >> No. So if we left in the green zone I'll call
>> and we went up the west side of Walcott. So starting from the downtown district. Can you put your cursor and walk up the west side until we hit the purple >> here? >> Nope. That's way too far north. >> It's It's like seven seven properties
going north on Walcott. >> I'm looking streets, I think. >> Nope. Lower. >> Okay. Uh, come on. I need to >> starting at a street >> here.
Yeah, but but just along Walcott those right where your cursor is. Draw a line. Nope. To the right even a little bit. >> Okay. Let me >> It's okay. We'll get it sorted out. I wish that I could do the pointing for you.
>> You mean to say >> directly across the street from your shaded purple. >> Okay. >> There. Those houses there. Not even that whole block. Just the houses along Walcott. >> Yeah. So, going up to either 33 Walcott
or maybe even uh what is it? >> That's the first row >> 11 might work, >> right? >> I think you need to go a couple more higher, but yeah, basically that block >> like maybe the house on the other side of B Street. >> Yeah.
>> You you mean this side? >> Nope. So, okay. Do me a favor, Aneri. Um, >> put your cursor between the purple and the the yellow that you just drew. Right there. Wh >> Oh, here. >> Okay. So, that's >> Walcott.
>> Only the houses along Walcott. >> Up. Yep. There. Up there. Nope. Don't even go that far. >> Here. >> Maybe even one lower. >> Okay. Here. >> Right there. And draw a line straight down along that street.
>> Okay. Just That now is that what you were saying, Matthew? >> Yeah. So that was the other thing I was thinking because not even that whole box just those properties along the street
>> but we need to make sure that it's adjacent to either one of the district downtown or >> but if we just did along Walcott not even that whole square isn't that uniting it into one district.
>> It will make the hatched position uh contiguous if you just have this block. >> That's what I'm saying. >> We are giddy man. >> Take that yellow box. >> That's what I learned in grammar school in this state. >> Take that yellow box you just drew in
and look only at the line on the right hand side there. Can you make that bigger and darker? >> Just that line. Okay, >> like this >> that if we zoned those, we now have one
big zone. >> But we also have a whole bunch of different property owners, all of whom would have to agree to sell to a developer for those properties to be developed.
But that would create, I think, one zone and then we don't have to worry about Claflin Street and especially that really enticing property. Would that work? Would that satisfy the state is my question.
Um, I can take a look into their lot sizes and again zoning and what is existing on the side. >> Okay. And if need be, we can keep the green zone. If that helps, great.
[laughter] If we if we feel like we need to eliminate the green zone, I don't think that the green zone is contentious one way or the other. But if we do that, then my biggest concern and
part of I'm afraid I've forgotten her name. Sarah's concern. Part of Sarah's concern anyway was that very large wooded lot. The what looks scary about shading that is that is a lot of
homeowners who if they take the same attitude of the folks at the preserve that being included in this zone is detrimental to them, we've just created a pool of people who might immediately
say, "I do not want to be zoned into this." Um, but as far as the developer, for any of that to be developable, they would have to get multiple uh adjacent homeowners to agree to sell their homes to the developer before any
of that could be developed. Um, because there is no uh uh eminent domain going on. There is no uh state provision that makes it cheaper to buy properties. It's purely a current owner and a potential
developer talking about a sale. >> So Ted, can I can I address something too? >> Yes, please. >> So I I I had I actually added kind of a different perspective. Maybe Matthew or Ner can uh support or not support what
I'm about to say, but if if you know that's a large piece of property, it's not going to be cheap, right? >> Wait, which one are we talking about? The this is the one across from the yellow where the one >> Yeah. So p picture p picture p picture p picture p picture p picture p picture p picture p picture p picture pitcher you're a developer it's basically you
know there trees on it and it's a large piece of property it's not gonna be cheap and to make it work they got to pay for all the utility infrastructure that has to go in there and you know I'm question Matthew you would know better than I uh and you would know uh
potentially that um that infrastructure may may not even exist right now to to support the amount of units that that that they would need uh along with the utility costs to even develop it.
>> I assume that's that's on all town facilities. I I think that would scale pretty well, but I mean Aner probably knows better. I think it's running down. >> Yeah. You you you think the utilities are available without uh significant investment? >> Without significant investment, I'd
assume so. Yeah. I assume anywhere in that downtown area is reasonably easy to connect to. >> But they they couldn't just do it on that that street that's in yellow right now. They probably have to come to Main Street, right?
Um or you you're saying they can connect right on that street right now where the yellow is and get >> I would I I assume that's I mean maybe Sarah could actually answer what they've got there if they've got town water and sewer. Um, but I I assume that's accessible to that area.
>> Yeah, I have town I have town water and sewer. >> Yeah. >> So, I would assume that everyone else does as well. >> Yeah. >> Including Walcott Valley, I assume. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I just was thinking the capacity of that infrastructure.
>> It looks like it's 2.2 acres according to GIS. So, >> Oh, it's only 2.2 acres. Okay. >> Only 2.2. >> Yeah. All the properties there are relatively small, but I mean still it's a unique two solid two acres with one owner um that's not heavily developed.
>> Okay. >> I if I can throw my two cents in, I would be concerned that I'm sure someone would be would be willing to take the appetite if we put it out there. It might be far too enticing in far as my from my from my perspective. >> What may I ask Sarah? What is the it
when you say it may be too enticing? the property itself, the 2.2 acres to want it to develop to take that and develop it, no matter what the cost it would take, knowing that they could get the profit they would make on top of the the the cost to develop it. >> Yeah, that's exactly my concern. I I'm
I'm feeling I'm feeling supported by you, Sarah. Thank you. [laughter] >> Yeah, I just I just wanted to ask because I I didn't realize only two 2.2 too. Um, and the utilities already exist for the most part obviously where the
yellow is >> and I carbon by contrast I think >> yeah say carbon by contrast I think was about 10 acres and didn't have uh didn't have utilities running to it like water and septic water and sewer I think were
the two things that needed to be run there. >> Yeah. Um but that had already a large pavement so there was less concern about um impervious coverage changing for instance. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> Um Sarah, I'm going to if you're feeling comfortable in a moment going to ask for your thoughts on the yellow shading. Um, but I I'd love to hear from more committee members on what they think of the yellow and and Erie hopefully will look into it and give us some more
uh detail on what that would entail and what the numbers would would be at the end of that. But committee members thoughts on the yellow shading versus the what did the call it option A which is the purple shading including the problematic red one.
If if if we can make Walcott work as connecting the two parts of that downtown zone, I think that's a win. >> The yellow is a win or either one. >> The yellow is a win. >> Okay. So, you would prefer yellow to purple if it was acceptable to the
state. >> Correct. >> Other committee members? >> Sorry. Sorry. Go ahead. >> Sorry. makes more sense. Fewer people will be affected. >> Yellow makes more sense.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yellow makes more sense to me, too. But it's not fewer people. It doesn't look like, right, because those property owners would now be opposing it. So, I mean, if it's going back to the town meeting for a vote, we're going to have
a problem regardless, right? >> Oh, yes. And I think there's plenty of town fatigue just period with this whole thing. Right. >> Um, simply bringing it back up is going to >> Yeah. >> boil some people's blood no matter what is part of the proposal.
>> Right. >> Um, my take has always been this. If my house were zoned MBTA communities, I would be overjoyed because it means it
gives me more freedom to sell to more people. Um, if I were purely interested in my own family's financials, if however my neighbors house were zoned, and I was not, I would be alarmed. What threw me for a loop at the town meeting
when we first proposed is that people's whose homes were zoned felt like they were on the short end of the stick. And I still haven't wrapped my head around that. Um, so as we look at this map, um, just as a
discussion point, it is possible the people in the yellow will be angry. If I were in the yellow, I'd be overjoyed, but those people might be angry. It's also very possible that Sarah, who's
across the street, would be unhappy. But we need to find some solution somehow. And our best bet, I think, is trying to find some way to work with the area of town that's on the map now. And
I know Sarah, your house is in that zone. So, with all of that preamble, I wonder Sarah, if you would be willing to share your thoughts on yellow versus purple versus some other solution that helps our town finally get over this
hurdle. >> Yeah, I mean, it's it's an interesting question. And I and I think partly the confu is more confusing I think than anything else. And I think that's probably why you're hearing from different homeowners about being angry or being upset about this is it's a confusing topic in
general. So I don't know if I'm angry that I'd be included or I'd be angry that I'm not included. I I and I'm being completely transparent with you guys. Um it's it's a confusing topic when you think about this whole MBTA overlay. What does it mean? In my mind I look at the MBT overlay. I'm like, well, this is
probably is, you know, is pretty far away from MBTA, and if we want to actually have, you know, people who can get to MBTA, you're still talking about a two-mile drive or two-m walk from here to the MBTA station. Um, I think I I am
appreciate the thoughtful nature of this conversation and I like the fact that we're talking about parcels of property that are less likely to be overdeveloped with that, you know, this the space in the in the yellow versus the space in purple. Um, so that is encouraging to
me. Again, I I don't know if I should be upset that I'm not part of it or if I am part of it. you know, ultimately I think in general this whole area is becoming very dense to start with. Um, and so again, that big part that big parcel is a concern for me of of that turning
over. And then if you had, you know, the fact that you've got the other partner, you know, other properties on Claflin, should any of those sell up, I should sell. You've got all that combined and it's gonna box my neighbors out. >> Yep. So if if if if I had to say I'd say yes,
I'd be I'd be more inclined about the the the lower probability of the properties on the in the yellow being developed and being put into that space and being overdeveloped because it's they are smaller in that sense. Again, if if the math works >> and I also looking at it now and and I
don't have in front of me the setback requirements, but all of those are pretty narrow properties. So if we were talking about setbacks to fit on that long thin strip, let's say someone bought all of those houses,
>> I still think it would be difficult to put multifamily housing of any size within that strip. Um, but I can be wrong and maybe Aneri can help us with that when if if she works up some numbers on that proposal. >> Yes and no. Because on Claflin, if you
look at Claflin, the second parcel in on Claflin, it was just approved to be multif family. So now we'll have three homes on that second property in on Claflin. >> And that's about as deep as the ones we have in yellow. So maybe you're right. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Um just you gave me an an opening.
Um Sarah, um I've been wrestling with this and then Matthew on the planning board has been wrestling, Ron has been wrestling with this for a year and a half. Um the original proposal, part of what we liked about it is how much of it
was close to the MBTA station. Um we are an MBTA communities uh adjacent community, which means we're not required to have stuff within a half mile. When we put together the downtown section, um one of the things we had
heard and I think has come true is now the MWRTA >> Metro West Rapid. Yeah. MWRTA buses do run to the South Burough station and beyond. So, you don't have to drive to get to the MBA station. You can take the
bus, which was part of our thinking with the downtown area as well. That no, it's not close to the train, but we are now those residents would have the option of taking mass transit, not having a car, and being able to get to the train. I
don't know how often those buses run. Um, I grew up outside of New York City and the trains went by every 12 minutes. So, none of it is the way that I remember commuter trains working. Um, Sarah, thank you very much for that.
Thank you for being honest with us. Um, it's helpful to us and I certainly don't think you speak for all your neighbors. Um, but it's helpful to me to hear your thoughts. >> You're welcome. Thank you for Thank you for listening. >> Oh, you're welcome. Um, so here's Well,
does anyone else have thoughts on asking Anerita to put together some numbers on the yellow to see what that would do and whether we keep the green zone or not? Did anyone come up with a whole different plan that would get us out of
this jam? Does anyone think we ought to go back to the original plan and include carbonis? Okay. So, it looks like what we're wrestling with, and this again [clears throat] Sarah may or may not make you happy, what we're wrestling with is trying to figure out how to
combine those two zones to get over 50%. Um, and given our time frame, um, I am proposing, let's see, right, today is the 8th. A week is the 15th. The 22nd's awfully close to Christmas,
but I know I'm not going anywhere. Um, can we do a meeting in two weeks or is that likely to fail? >> Chair, I might not able to join myself. >> You might not be able to join. [laughter] Um, what about
I'm trying to count calendar days. That would be the 22nd, 21st, 20th. is Wednesday the 17th. Is that is that a real date on the calendar? Is is Wednesday the 17th? And if so, is that available for a meeting? If we and
again, I only want to put MBTA on the agenda. We can try to make it short and focused and we'll move ADUs to the next meeting after Christmas New Year's. >> Yeah. to the chair. I if if we're going to meet again, I I feel like I I don't have
enough information to propose, you know, another option. You know, I I don't know is it did we exhaust I I don't I wasn't involved. I was just getting involved or coming on board when Carbone was being looked at and all that. Is there is an
area is there um you know a broader swath of um you know that was examined you know during that time of carbon was was there were were there other areas that were considered that that you could share with us?
>> I might be able to answer that a little bit. Um, so after our initial proposal, so as we went into the initial proposal, we considered a lot of other areas, we considered um I keep forgetting what the new name is,
but the the area over by the Spoon, all of those apartments over there, we considered turning some South Street into residential. We considered the sportsman's club. Um and ultimately we landed at the proposal that Aeri
presented to us as our initial that loss primarily in my estimation by those eight votes because of a loud voice from the folks in the preserve and that additional voice that said I'm fine with a preserve but carbon is very very
developable. So when we reproposed to the planning board, I think we gave them I think Matthew three proposals to chew on. And even that I wasn't comfortable. I felt like it was our job to whittle it down more. But that's what we ended up with. The one that we currently have was
actually not one of our proposals. It was put together by the planning board in discussions. We proposed the original again. We proposed a version that was kind of close to what we have now. Um, but we also looked at, and now I'm forgetting the name of it, but the um
the condo over by Elmwood School, >> Indian Brook. >> Indian Brook. >> Indian Brook. Yeah, I remember. >> So, we considered Indian Brook and that was one of our proposals. >> Um, ultimately the planning board uh pulled the preserve back in in
addition to a downtown proposal and Walcott. Um there was talk about some other land uh in one or both of those discussions across from um Hopington State Park and the lake. Um
the one thing I was looking at earlier tonight before we started because I misunderstood Aner's title where she called plan C I think I think preserve was in the title. So, there are three
properties directly south of the preserve that are current individual homeowners and I did some quick math on the acreage of those properties and I don't think including those to the preserve solves our problems.
And Aneria is shaking her head know that she looked at those as well. >> So, I think that those are what we've tried to do, Steve. and I'm at wit's end to try to find anything else out besides the direction that we are heading right now.
>> So, so in summary, if if we were to reconsider Carbone, just so I understand, because it seems like a low impact, I mean, it might be desirable, but it's right it's in the spirit of the the law as it was generated. It's right, you know, walking almost walking distance to the trains and all that. Do
do you have to include to make the formula work? Do we have to include the preserve and carbonis? Yes. >> Okay. >> We can't eliminate one for the other and solve this problem. >> Right. Right. Okay. >> I mean to me to me it sounds worthwhile
still to throw it in the mix. I don't know. >> We can discuss it a little more next meeting. I don't mind that if our only agenda item is MBTA. >> Yeah. >> We don't have to think that we're focusing in on yellow versus purple downtown. >> Yeah. That's that's where I was heading with this that if every everybody's in
or most of us are in agreement that's that's what I was thinking. >> Savan your hand popped up again and then I see you Ron too. >> No I I honestly think uh that would be a larger hill to climb. Uh >> which is that? >> Yeah including carbones again and going
back. >> Uh I think our path path of least resistance might just be adding those seven properties and making them contiguous. you know, sevenish. I don't know if that's an exact number, >> right? If if the if the you know, if a need looks at that and says, "Okay, this
this might work with within the framework." That might be the p our path of lease. >> Um, my one worry, and I have no idea if it's a state concern, is is it really one property if it's joined by such a thin little stretch of land? They might
say that's not real. Um, but I don't know. Hopefully, Aneri can help us with that. Ron, your your hand went up a little bit ago. >> Yeah. Just I I would like to avoid any proposals that include carbon because it just it gives anti-development people in
town a a cause celeb to be opposed to anything that we're putting up there. >> I I agree with you. I don't think I have the ammunition to fight those who say it is developable. I have no idea. But it's a fight I don't want to have anyway. We've tried twice and I think that means
it's time to stop. But Ron and I don't speak for the committee. We're just two individual voices. >> Yeah, Matthew. >> So, yeah, I mean, there's a third voice when it got shot down in town in annual town meeting, which was just we don't want to pass anything for MBTA or let's
we need to come up with more plans. Um, but >> that's true, too. >> Whether it passes town committee or not, I don't think it passes the planning board. Um, because it's a lot of the same people that just refused to accept kerbon last time. Yeah, >> I don't see it being >> I agree.
Okay. So, go ahead, please. Uh, Aneri, what's up? >> Um, sorry to interrupt, but my only reason adding option A was because it was the perfect option among what I reviewed and what Hopkin worked on the
past. U, one of the main reason was it's next to MBTA. I understand like people residents were in thinking that it will develop right away. I don't think so that will happen that somebody going to come [clears throat]
and build a multif family zoning there. The other reason was adding that option a in today's presentation was we are also talking about adding new housing and other housing opportunities in the Hopkin. So multif family can also help
if you are thinking about adding or changing ad sizes. That's my personal thought. Um >> and that was the one of the reason and also like when we first eventually sent this proposal to state they were okay
with that or in a favor of that proposal. That was the reason. In fact, I um for the town meeting where that proposal got shot down, um I believe I mentioned out loud that an organization working with the state held that map up
as a model of what town should be looking to do because it was in the spirit. It also didn't invite immediate development. Um but the town didn't agree. So, [laughter] I do appreciate though, Haneeri, that you also like that model
because I think the zoning advisory committee at the time felt really good about where we landed at the end of that one, but it didn't work out for us. So, [laughter] all right. Um, Aneri, if you look at the town calendar, does it look like Wednesday the 17th? If I if I counted
calendar days in my head accurately, does that work as far as your calendar and the town? me. Let me just >> We have enough time to announce that meeting. >> Um yes, we have enough time. Um we have board of appeal that night. So I
don't think the member who attend Zoning Board of Appeal will be able to join us. I'm sure Ron needs to attend zoning board. So on 17 I don't think so. >> Well, I think Arnold is our CBA. >> Yeah. So then we not going to have
enough people to join us. >> Um well uh if everyone else in this room besides Arnold can make it on the 17th then we do have enough right and who knows we might get some other
folks who we haven't seen at all yet. >> [clears throat] >> Um, so Arnold, I don't want to put you on the spot with double booking you, but all the other Zach members, can you commit as best as possible, we don't know about illness or family surprises,
that Wednesday the 17th works? >> Works for me. >> Okay. So, what I'd love to do, Aner, is schedule our next Zach meeting for Wednesday the 17th. Um, if you could um and and you have so much stuff that
you have to do, but if you could get materials a couple days out early so that we have a chance to give them a look before then >> um then hopefully we can have a productive but not necessarily terribly long meeting. >> Yep. No, I will try. It's just last week
we had a vacation. >> No, that's fine. There was nothing I don't want you to feel defensive at all. There was nothing intended there. >> Perfect. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Ted, is the plan to come up with a final proposals to send a planning board out
of that meeting? >> I I would say if we can get real close to maybe a vote, that would be great. But I don't know if we have to have to do that. >> Okay. And for an area for planning board, we just need to get the get it on the warrant in early January, right? And
we can finalize the text to that throughout. How long do we have to finalize that? >> We have time till the end of the January and then um once we just send a request, we can still um edit update. Okay. >> Um till March, I think.
>> And I think the planning board can always put a placeholder and remove it, right? Advisory Committee doesn't get it done in time enough for a planning board to consider it. >> Yep. >> Yeah. I know. Ideally, we'd want town C Well, this is a lot simpler than the last one. Hopefully. So,
>> hopefully. Fingers crossed [laughter] >> and if we once we come up with the options I can still reach out to state for their opinion on that proposal side by side while planning board reviews that if that
>> if there's any way to get any feedback on the yellow strip of houses before next meeting that would be really helpful because again my only concern is they're going to say that's a thread and that's not a real one uh uh area.
>> Hey, it it works for the congressional elections. [laughter] >> It works in Texas. [laughter] Um, okay. So, I think that we have a plan for 10 days from now. Excellent. And who knows, again, maybe
we'll get a couple other zoning advisory committee members. And Sarah, if you're available, hopefully you'll come back and chat with us some more. >> I will try to be here. >> Great. I'd love to get a motion and a second to adjurnn for the nights. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Okay, we got both. Are you good with that in your ear or not? >> Who moved and who second? I hear two voices. >> Let's try it again. Who would like to move? >> So move. >> So move. >> Sounds like Ron is making the motion. >> Second.
>> And there's a second from Matthew. All right, let's take a roll call vote on the motion to adjurnn. Matthew, >> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. >> Steven, >> yes. >> Arnold, >> yes. >> Thravan, >> yes.
>> Yes. >> And Ted Barker Hook is a yes. We are done at seven minutes before 9ine. So, we are meeting the casino rule. Thank you everybody. I think that we did make some progress on both issues tonight. >> Good job.
>> Thank you. >> Good night everybody. Good night. Thanks.