on the dock. He was waiting outside going, "No, they can't start early." >> Um, >> planning board meeting Thursday, November 13th. Um, can we uh stand and say the pledge of
allegiance? I alian to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Um,
we have an extensive agenda today. Um, I'm going to try to get through things as expeditiously as possible. Uh, board minutes. Um, does anyone have um comments on the
minutes? >> I have a I have a question. How are you generating them? These were the most extensive minutes I've ever seen. >> Uh, same way as I always do, but I get a transcript from a website and then I >> Okay, sure. I mean, nope. I It's great.
>> I mean, it's almost word for word. It seems like >> um >> AI do it. >> I would um based on the minutes I would notify the planning board that we will now have a planning board email address which is up
and running shortly. >> Um yeah the 15th >> which is Saturday. >> I'll send out a um news announcement on Monday. It's not individuals, but people can get communication to us through the planning staff from that. Um,
and um, the other thing I'd like to ask the board is do we really need to approve the board at meetings approve the bills? I we don't need to address it today, but I'm just planting it in your head that I
would be more than happy. I feel like if there were um some bill problem, Marin would bring it to us. I don't see why we have to pass around bills at every um >> yeah I suggest that because that's the what we did with the school committee is is we just designated that the chair
could sign the um the warrant >> the bill for the bills >> and then if they identified something that should be brought to the attention of everybody >> okay >> they were available to do it >> okay so let's marin to see what we need to do to go back to that or we just go back to it
>> well it would just be a board vote to designate one person the the chair or um their design or your design. >> Who whoever wants to be designated? Um is there any
does anyone want to do this? Okay, the chair is fine. Um can I have a vote? Uh do I have to do roll call or can I just do all in favor >> or everyone in favor please say I. >> I.
>> Anyone opposed? Okay. So, that's where we're going to handle bills. Um Cooper on uh D on the second page says public input. Um we heard from Rob Brown and then subsequently
it came out as bounce. So, so let's uh he deserves uh consideration. He's um and um before I think everyone sat down, we talked to Henry who says the new date
for the sewer is the 15th of December >> or thereabouts. I mean, >> but not November like it had been. Okay. And um Okay. Uh, anyone else have comments on the
minutes? >> Can I hear a motion to approve? >> So, so moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay, minutes are approved. >> Uh, second item is bills. Are there bills? >> Um, there are bills.
>> I'll just sign them. Don't pass them around. Uh, did people have a chance to look at the fiscal year 27 budget documents? And if so, did they have any comments? Um,
I I I would recommend that you look at what Maren puts together as her sort of annual report, which uh talks about accomplishments, what we're working on, and this and that and the other thing.
Um, and the budget in the next year or two is level as I understand it, >> but then there are some capital items in the years after that for Could you explain what you're thinking about? >> Um, yep. So, the uh budget request um
the request we got from uh the treasur's office, from the finance director's office was to prepare a level service budget. Um, so that's what we did. Um, And then the capital um we've had in the
10-year capital plan um updating the master plan in a few years. So what I've done is broken that uh cost over three years and so that would be three years of requests to town meeting for budgeting for that
>> and the earmark. Um yes there uh let's see uh in the state um current fiscal year budget there was a legislative earmark for Littleton to update our Littleton common
revitalization roadmap. Um those funds have been held up and we think that they're going to be released, but we >> don't know the timing yet, but we um would hope to have uh UMass Donahghue Center on board again um to update the
market analysis portion of that and then we'd add the uh public outreach process working with the property and business owners. >> Okay. So this is um basically an economic development effort.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um >> we heard from Henry the Northern Bank is waiting for the sewer. Um King Street Commons were having a um >> Mr. Chair, is this still part of the budget? Because I did have questions.
>> Oh, sure. Yeah. >> Uh so under document number two, it identified that there are no planning board fees. Um even though for the 2027 budget and other years 25 26 each had um
so I assume that planning board fees are income to the planning board. Is that correct? >> That's income to the general fund. Um that number has been recommended by well no the 16 uh thousand that was in the
prior year's budget was just a number that um finance department gueststimated. Um they have not done a guesstimate yet for this upcoming fiscal year. >> So there will be a number in there though. >> Um yeah
>> and those are fees generated through applications and and whatnot. >> Through applications period. >> Okay. Well, we don't have authority to spend it. >> Correct. It doesn't it doesn't become part of the planning budget. It goes to the general fund.
>> Okay. I was just curious why that >> there wasn't a figure in there where there had been in previous years. >> Um also, excuse me. Also on that one is $25,000 for professional services. >> Yep. Um so that matches uh the amount
that town meeting appropriated for the current fiscal year. Um so have it identified for either um matching uh for local match for grants that require local matches or
professional services um for uh consultants. In the fall when the community onetop grants were announced, it was became apparent that there were no grants awarded that required a local match. So,
we don't need to use that for local match this year unless we're looking at another grant round later in the season. Um, but what that does is that does free it up for um the formbbased code
training and the um traffic uh peer review of the FIR. So um you are planning a you talk let's talk about the >> the the training for town
>> staff. >> So tomorrow morning um UTI will be uh giving town staff uh training on for base code. They're using an example um uh structure uh proposed well not
proposed but >> they're doing >> theoretical a case study >> um of one of the structures um for King Street Common they'll be walking us through that >> and then I hope that we can include uh the next step to that and it's just
when we get the site plan for King Street Common have a um workshop for staff and any board members who are interested on how to um work through the four base code information on on those
you know the first few buildings. >> Now if we didn't have this budget line item, how would we go about funding this? Well, um always have the option of doing a uh request emergency fund transfer from uh finance department or
finance committee, excuse me. So, thank you for that information. Um given that uh Jeff said that we have a new email address, is that something that has to be in our budget or it comes from somebody else's budget? >> Um that's all covered by the um IT
department budget. And then one more question. So under document number five, um it talks about the hazard mitigation plan says FEMA has approved Littleton's HMP and we are waiting for final reimbursement of the cost of this update. Is that something should that
should be put in the financials if we're getting reimbursed? It's >> or come from a different bucket, if you will. >> Um I the easy answer is it comes from a different bucket. Um >> there
>> so it didn't come out of our bucket come back into our bucket. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Right. Um >> it's reimbursible to the town, not to the planning department. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um so I do want to on the record uh it
seemed like we got pretty quick movement on this email issue. I mean, pretty soon after it came up, we um you know, it was wasn't exactly what we had in mind, but it was something. Um
the uh we remember the charter commission, charter committee, >> uh and we talked about term length and term limits. And if I was to
Well, Betsy Bowling did contact me and said that they probably will recommend a three-year term going to a three-year term. Um, I think that >> the complicating thing is how we transition to that. But they don't she
doesn't think that this will come before town meeting for like a year, you know, not this coming town meeting, but the one after that. uh so we have time to think about and then in the meantime I think we were
lukewarm on term limits but we can revisit that later uh planning board schedule um we're toying with the idea of since we have a the 15th is a big meeting about King Street common uh and that was added
to our schedule we have the fourth scheduled meeting and it may be the case that we don't need it depending on what we um have to continue today. So, I'm just putting it out there. Um
>> do I have the dates wrong? But I thought that was the one we had a joint was doing joint with CBA on ADU. >> That's >> um >> misunderstood the dates. >> Yeah. Um I personally if we don't have to have a meeting I think that would be
fine. >> Um >> and so our request on um if there are any meeting dates that we have pencileled in let us know if you're going going to be absent >> so we could work around.
Now, under King Street Commons, I would like to um acknowledge Anna has brought it well wants to bring it to our attention that the comment period for the FBI ends
next week. >> Yes. >> And so, Anna, I'll just leave it to you to um >> Sure. >> concern. >> Thank you. When the de when the deer was submitted, we as a board submitted a comment
related to the hotel height being five stories and they um went ahead and changed that and now they're planning on four stories. However, based off of the bylaw that we have 173-233H,
um the hotel is not considered a residential use building containing a mixed use, which if it was, then that would be a maximum height of four stories or 50 ft. A hotel I believe is estim is considered a commercial use
building which has a maximum height of 2 and a half stories or 35 ft. So, I'd like to bring this to the board's attention again that if Lupi Company is planning a four-story hotel as identified in the fear, the final
environmental impact report, then that doesn't follow the bylaw. >> I'm of uh two minds about this. Um before we did hammer out a
uh planning board letter to um any one of us has the opportunity to issue feedback. Um, the other the other thing that I'd like
to get out on the table is that we regardless of what's in the fear, we have authority, you know, we have our authority. It does not supersede our
authority. Uh, it backs up our authority. So this issue until we see architecturals I just um and we don't even have any they're not even on the um >> oh no >> to you know they're not on the uh
current schedule for construction. We don't have any physical representations of it and they have added to the parcel which isn't isn't indicated in the overall planning document yet.
I so from my point of view I can't get agitated about this but in discussing with you Anna you made a very good point especially you know Anna's point is that especially where this building might be
forward in into almost the common it should have a formbbased code height that to me that doesn't mean the entire building would have to have that height but uh until we see some specific um
my feeling is until we see some specific architectural proposals that I can't get agitated about it, but that's my opinion. >> How did we uh approve the one at the point? That one's four stories.
>> The um different zoning district. Yeah, it's not a common >> Darl, >> I was gonna bring up the same thing about, you know, what what's the um because I can't we don't have street view, so I can't see how many stories it
because it looks like three stories from this. >> Well, it's four stories >> picture here. Four stories uh on it. the um yeah and I I tend to agree that I don't view that that document is the binding thing there. But I'm also have the same alternate concern though is is
because this project has so much state visibility that any document approved by the state may imply pressure on us for how we should be approving things. So I think I I'm torn that it does need to be accurate, but it's I also view it's not
binding. But but this project like I said has such state level visibility that I just see that being thrown in our face that the states already approve state agrees with us that it should be this uh and then we would have an implied external pressure
on us to to do things. So I would like to make sure it reflects accuracy there. Um I I just don't know about the um threetory versus fourstory um piece right now. Uh >> I don't think we can though. We don't
have a proposal. >> Right. >> Yeah. Um I'm wondering if we can thread that needle. Um so we got um back from uh Green International the traffic uh team a draft um FIR letter. um give that
to you at the end of the meeting and ask for comments back from board members um by uh next Wednesday so I can put a final letter together. Um I think if we just thread the needle on that uh zoning height question um just say it's
you know referring back to the prior comment that it doesn't appear um that it meets the standards for the district and just push off the final um zoning determination until we get enough
information to for the zoning um enforcement to to make that determination. >> So that would mean that we would not we would say >> this as presently stated it does not meet zoning and that's our that's a concern.
>> Yeah, I I could support >> the statement there. >> So that's a good point. So we'll get the traffic thing. We'll each give our comments to Marin before Wednesday. she will incorporate it into a um is is that well first of all Bartlett you have it
>> well I I I was under the impression that when we proved the very early schematics a long time ago that the formbbased code ran along King Street and didn't go down great road towards 495. >> Yeah. >> So the hotel was I thought past the 250
foot >> it's within the form base code. It's it's uh >> it is >> it's where the tuttle house is now. >> No, actually no, the tuttle house stays there. It's it connects to the tunnel house. They're moving the tunnel house. >> Um >> so I think that just clarifies that we
need a final plan from them and we have a concern that four stories may not be >> as stated in the FIR. It appears to not conform to zoning. >> Right. And um okay, that's >> so that would be good if we can go ahead
and make that statement. And then I do have a question. So if we're going to be receiving a traffic report um that we all have to independently comment on, why why aren't we talking about it as a board? >> It just came in today. >> And what's the deadline for it?
>> Next Friday. Yeah, it's a three three and a half page letter. So, >> well, that's really unfortunate because traffic has been one of the biggest issues that >> Well, why can't we have individual comments? >> Because then we don't have an opportunity to to discuss it as a board.
>> Oh, I don't know what to say. It may be unfortunate, but the letter could also say, "Oh, everything's great." which it probably doesn't. But so everyone check their email, get the
traffic report, generate any other comments you might have and give them tomorrow. Mhm. >> Um, and didn't we some of these we paid for the peerreview
traffic from this professional services item? Okay. Okay. Um, the last on our board business is public input. Is there anyone here who would like to
uh have public input? I don't uh see anyone coming forward. So, we're going to It is uh past 6:40. We're going to continue the public hearing for 64 Beaverbrook Road storm
water review after which we will um take up the ANR. Uh good evening. My name is Frank McPartland from Dillis and Roy Civil Design Group here on behalf of the applicant for uh 64 uh Beaverbrook Road.
Um I um I'm covering for Greg Roy who unfortunately couldn't make it tonight, but uh due due to some conflicts. Um I understand this is the probably I I believe the second time that this has come before the planning board. It was
originally o opened in at le June and then there was a series of comments from uh Green International as well as per permitting with the conservation commission that needed to get worked out before coming back to the planning board. Is that uh correct?
>> We've had peer review and we've had a thinkers may weigh in on this a long process with the conservation. >> Oh yes. >> Yes. which um I'm happy to report that we have a recorded order of conditions
from the conservation commission. So, we've fully sat satisfied uh what they've been looking for on the project. Um I'm also informed uh as of uh yesterday, I believe, that uh we have covered all of Green
International's comments as well. Um they had provided comments originally on 7:25 which we we've addressed and then a uh com comment letter dated um it was uh
September 26th that has also been addressed and after that there were two outstanding comments that we we received on 11-11 which we um got right back into green um and they looked at those and everything is um has and addressed as
far as they're they're concerned with the storm water permit for the project. >> So, we don't do you have the latest? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you maybe put it on >> So, as I understand it,
>> yeah, the posted >> we've um >> So, it was down down to um two things that were deferred to the board. >> Right. One was whether or not um you're okay with the uh testing the soil testing for the detention areas to be
out of season. That is a standard that and the board has approved that in the past. And the second one is I believe to have the um uh SWIP or the O andM plan signed. >> O and M. Yes. >> OM.
>> Okay. >> They're very standard things. everything else they addressed in in in an update to the plan. >> This was I mean as usual there's an extensive process and back and forth. >> Yes. >> Um
>> so Mark, do you have any concerns? >> I have no concerns >> there. Uh that being said, uh may I hear a motion to uh approve Close.
>> Oh, >> do I hear a motion to close the meeting? Close the hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Uh, next. Do I hear a motion to
approve the storm water permit as outlined in the decision of we'll date it today. Uh, and there aren't any other um there's just state here name here. Uh, do I hear a motion
to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Um, I will do a roll call vote. Mark, >> yes. >> Daryl, >> yes. >> Vart, >> yes. >> Anna, >> yes. >> Okay, so we're done with that step. Yep.
The next step is the ANR um which is the um the subdivision of the land the site in question. Um and do I uh Mark do you have any comments on that? >> I just want to make sure you have you
been to uh Westfits? >> We have not been to Westford yet. So we're we're we're we're here first for because the vast majority of the per permitting was through uh Littleton. So the next step on in the
A&R process would be Westford, >> but you need to have you need frontage. So you need to correct in Westford. >> Correct. So, >> and um we do have um the endorsement requirements uh for both Littleton Planning Board and Westford Planning Board on
>> this would just be our contribution to >> correct. >> So, as long as you get their endorsement as well. Okay. >> Yep. >> Which is how we've done it in the past. It doesn't happen that often. >> No. No. But but yeah, that that's that's generally we we go to the town with the
most portion of the work first and then finish up with with the other planning. >> Darl, >> yeah, I had just because I didn't I couldn't find it in the in the materials there. We have a there's a lot requirement in terms of a calculation
for um the ones that have used to be called pork chop lots. >> Yeah. Do you have the odd shaped lot? Uh yeah, we do have um >> I didn't see that that ratio in any of the >> So we have uh the shape factors called out for lots one and three. Um right on
on the plan. Uh lot one has a shape factor of 47 and lot three has a shape factor of 042 and I'm just looking for the >> shape factor for lot two is 1.0
And and correct the the the shape fat factor for lot two is is one which is a more regular shape shape one >> and our requirement is point4 okay >> I yeah I did see it I just couldn't find it when I was looking for it
>> understandable especially on on swamped with all the supporting materials for this meeting >> any comments >> comment >> okay So, uh, we this was not a hearing. Do we need to Yeah,
>> this is just a vote. So, uh, may, uh, I'm going to pull the board for support. Mark, >> I have no problem with it. >> Darl, >> no. Bartlet, >> I'm good with >> I approve. So, the NR is approved and we
will sign documents. So, um, it's usually you do have take a motion to approve the ANR as presented. >> Okay. That's not what I do. >> I would recommend we >> Well, let's do it. Let's do it. Motion to approve the ANR as presented.
>> Can I have a hear? A second. >> Second. >> Uh, Mark, >> yes. >> Carol, yes. >> Yes. >> Anna, >> yes. >> And I think that's >> Oh, one page. Are we doing this one? >> Okay.
Does the the myar >> the myar? >> Yeah, this is the one we need to >> I just signed the other one. >> And just want to make sure it's the the left block. >> Yeah, the right town. >> Yeah, that's right. Don't sign the
Westford. >> Okay. So, Brewers, congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Um, next, um, we have a 6:55
public hearing for permit extension request for the community care collection. We need to open >> Mr. Chair. Yeah. >> Um before that happens, um I need to recuse myself from
>> that particular item on the agenda as well as item number four for G6. Okay. >> I want to though distinguish you were not recusing because of a conflict of interest. >> You don't have to leave the room.
>> I spoke with the attorney basically. >> Really? Okay. Yes. >> Um, >> so if someone could just let me know when we're back on. >> Um, >> we do need to open >> Yeah, we're and it's a new public
hearing, so I'll read the hearing. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Public hearing. Adult use marijuana establishments special permit 537 Great Road. The Littleton Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Thursday, November 13, 2025 at 6:55 PM in room 103
of the Shaduk Street town offices at 37 Shaduk Street to consider an application to extend an adult use marijuana establishment special permit pursuit to Mass General Law, Chapter 48, and article 28, adult use marijuana
establishments of the Code of Littleton zoning. Property 537 Great Road, Assessor's Math R18, parcel 14-9. Owner 537 Great Road Realy Trust. Applicant Community Care Collective, Inc. The applicant is seeking to continue
operation of the existing adult use marijuana retail facility. Application can be viewed online on the planning board page of the town website or at the planning board and town clerk's offices during their business hours. Any person interested or wishing to be heard on the proposed work should provide written
comments to the planning board office by November 10th if possible or attend the PL public hearing. And then there's information on how to get hold of uh staff um with any questions signed. Bartlett Harvey clerk. >> So that being said, um David's with us.
Would you like to make a statement? Uh good evening. Sorry for uh the delay there. Um thank you for for having us this evening. Um we have put together a comprehensive application. We treated
this like it was a new application uh even though it was or is a renewal. Um so we followed the the new application procedures. Um,
we we completed uh all of the uh application documents uh included all the supplement documents. Um also included we had we've had three amendments to our special permit
throughout the years uh in 2023, 24 and 25 and uh have included the details on those. Um, and we have also recently signed a uh a new host community
agreement with um the town um based on the town's um acknowledgement of a a new regulation that the cannabis control commission has put out. Uh so that has been completed and included in this package. And we're
also uh current uh with our our license and and actually just the other day uh our license was renewed with the CCC. So it's good through December of 2026. Um so we are current in compliance. Um
and you know I'm happy to answer any any questions for this renewal. I made the mistake of just pressing the button to print out the your supporting materials and you'll be happy to know that I think I used at
least a ream of paper. I didn't pay attention to what was going on. So I you have a very thorough um presentation. Um I'll open it to the board. Any >> I I have no problems. We have I haven't heard one complaint about anything going
on down there. Have you? I don't think anyone has. >> Daryl. >> Um, no. I think I didn't really have any um issues with the thing the other I did have a question though. Is um uh and it's related to complaints is has is
there been any uh police records of complaints or incident in incidents at the uh facility there? Um, so since this is a um facility that's open to the public, I did reach out to the other boards and departments for any co
questions or comments that they might have. Police department uh wrote back and said they have no issues with um the extension of this permit. Um same similar for the fire department. Um they did a thorough um inspection of the
building's fire and life safety systems just this morning and um they have no objections to the extension of the special permit. Um but they would like um a condition uh included that says as
long as the fire protection systems within the facility are maintained, inspected and remain in compliance with applicable fire and building codes, yearly inspections should be scheduled with the fire department to ensure continued compliance and proper system
maintenance. um that those and there were no other comments from other um >> and the purpose of my question is not directed directly or uh towards there. It's more in terms of as marijuana facilities uh were being considered and
discussed at town meetings and other things there. The concern about increased police presence and incident response was always brought up by the public and now that we have several in for renewals, I'd like to just see if we have data that supports that there has or has not been a
issue with police response needed at these facilities. >> Yep. Yeah. >> And what you're basically telling me is the police chief said that there's no issue with police response to their facility. >> Correct. >> I'd just like to >> Yeah. >> I mean, these are the types of things
the public asks about. So, I just want to make sure that we address. >> Anything else? No. Bartlet? >> I'm good. Thanks. So um I have to close the I let me ask the any
comments. >> Okay then do I hear a motion to close motion to close the public hearing? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> can I hear a motion to approve the uh what do we call it? The special permit
extension for community care collective. I'll make a motion that we approve the renewal of the special permit for community care collaborative. >> Do we need to include the additional comments made? >> We'll put it in as condition >> subject subject to the condition of the
fire department. But I'm curious, wouldn't that apply to any open to the public building? We have a brand new uh fire safety officer who is uh >> willing to to share their wording on >> hearing this more. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Um Okay. Barta. >> Oh. Oh. So, uh you said >> I >> you said I with this condition. >> Yep. >> Barta. >> I And I say I. >> So,
>> Mr. Gianetta, you are approved for three more years. Five. >> Five more years. Woohoo. >> Yeah. The maximum. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> You say that's the maximum that's allowed by the by law. >> Okay. Uh next we have a similar
>> public hearing uh which we will open. My would you read the Okay. Public hearing. Adult use marijuana establishment special permit 160 air road. The Littleton Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Thursday, November 13, 2025 at 7:10 p.m.
in room 103 of the Shadic Street Town Offices at 37 Shadic Street to consider an application to extend an adult use marijuana establishment special permit to Mass General Law Chapter 48 and article 28, adult use marijuana
establishments of the code of Littleton zoning. Property is 160 Air Road, Unit 3. Assessor's map R22, parcel 1-1. Owner G7 Lab LLC. Applicant um Goldsmith Preston
and Ringwall on behalf of the owner. The LA owner is seeking to continue operation of the existing G7 marijuana testing laboratory. Application can be viewed online on the planning board page of the town website or at the planning board and town clerk's office during their business hours. Any person
interested or wishing to be heard during the proposed to heard on the proposed work should provide written comments to the planning board office by November 10th if possible or attend the public hearing and then includes information on how to contact the planning board office signed
Bartlett Harvey clerk >> Mr. Ringwall. Good evening. Chris Ringwall from GPR Golden Preston Ringwall uh representing G uh G G7 Labs for a special permit renewal. Um we have
submitted all of the documents with the key um upgrades of the new co- host community agreement uh their new cannabis control commission license. Um, I think there was a minor update in the uh drug, alcohol, and smokefree
workplace section and uh a new lease agreement um plus all the many other documents that were required as part of the um application for being submitted and also copy of the previous decision
and of the approval. Um copy of the site plan as is. Um before it was all with things proposed. Now they're all there. So in existing conditions and um made reference to the previous filing for anything that I may have overlooked.
And um with that I turn it over to the board for any questions they might have. >> Martin, you did not uh ask input from police, fire, etc. because this is not a public >> this is not a facility that's open to the public.
>> Okay. Um, >> again, we heard nothing. First of all, we never had a problem with the traffic there. I remember that was early. The owners of the building were concerned about traffic never materialized. We haven't heard anything
about any problems there. Probably don't even know it exists over there. >> That was a comment I made earlier today. >> In fairness, the traffic concerns were because of the >> the retail, which never happened. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, Darl,
>> uh, no, I I didn't have any problem with the extension and not again confirming that we haven't had any issues. I don't have I don't have any issues. >> No issues. >> That being said, Mr. Chair, >> any Yes, >> I have a question.
>> Yes. Um, since this is, you know, and I I I I think I put in somewhere or I meant to put in about possibly not having to renew, but then hence since I've read through the bylaw closer and understand that it's in the bylaw that these
facilities have to renew every 5 years. In the next five years, is it possible for the applicant to limit the documentation rather than sending a couple hundred pages to you of of all this other stuff to the host community
agreement, their updated license and their updated lease? Kind of streamline the process a little bit since they don't have so much traffic and they're pretty straightforward um facility. >> Pretty benign. Thank you. I was not
going to use that word >> in five years. I hope that I won't be >> I was hoping to get it into the record now so that we had a set >> I as I said with uh collective care I made the mistake of printing the whole
damn thing out and it was crazy um because it was all the original cannabis control commission blah blah blah less for G7 but um I think you could just try to do that and the board as constituted then can decide whether they want the whole thing
or not. >> It's a renewal. That's all it is. >> Okay. I appreciate it. >> Okay. Now, um any other comments from the public? Without that, I will u ask
for a motion to close the hearing. >> I make a motion that we close the hearing on G7. >> I want to second it, but I want to say something before. >> Sure. >> Um I'm I'm good with, you know, eventually getting to the point that if a document hasn't changed, there's no
need to resubmit it. We just just reference the previous one. However, if there's any change to it, I'd insist on a complete resubmitt of the document, not change bars to the document. Those become very confusing to keep track of. >> Yes. >> And that we always have a current
aspect. Okay, >> can I vote for you for chair and finance? >> It might be um Barta. >> Uh >> no. >> Oh, no we don't. No, we need to vote. Okay. >> Yes. >> Mark >> Bartletta.
>> Yes. >> Darl, >> yes. >> I my Yes. Okay. >> Hearing is closed. Uh, now may I have a motion to um grant the special permit extension request for um G7 Labs?
>> Okay. Second. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> All in favor? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. >> Good. >> Extension granted. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we are
>> Did we get >> not quite to no 7:25 >> still? >> No, we're not we're not >> we all a sudden caught up. >> Well, the um the accessory dwelling is just a discussion, right?
>> Well, but um we expect um members of the zoning board of appeals to join us. It's only we're told 7:40. No, >> there's only two of us here so far. >> Okay, >> I'm not sure coming. I can contact them.
>> Sherry, would you mind doing the informal discussion of 359 King to fill in the time? >> My engineer, my engineer's not here. >> Okay, >> sorry. >> No problem. >> I didn't think we'd be in this position
because we sort of had a had a jam-packed meeting. We have um 8 minutes to kill. >> Not too bad. >> Did Bruce leave? Okay. >> He'll be back for the 242. >> Well,
>> yeah, but 242's continued, right? Well, not yet. >> He wants um >> he's gonna We're gonna open the >> overview of the >> Yeah. >> project. We'll open the hearing. >> Yeah. You should be interested in that one. >> Really? >> It doesn't have my name on it. What do I
>> You were there long enough. You >> probably do the report. >> Do we have the hearing notice for the storm water hearing notice? >> Print out a fresh one today. I might Thank you. Very efficient.
>> Uh Bruce isn't here, but in one of the storm water um checklists, >> I think you may have miss
I think it was for G7. >> There were seem to be a lot of items checked off that didn't apply and I was wondering if it was a different >> um Yeah. >> So, just look into that. >> I have a question. >> The two pieces of the buildings next to
the house, the title house, they're not part of phone base code because they were never included in because they were residential. I mean, they were >> No, that's So the >> it's part of the village common district >> including the gas station and the
building next to it. >> We went all the way to I thought we stopped when we got there cuz >> no included because it includes the Yangty site and the doctor's office next door and it include those the parcels with the residential buildings and the
little stores etc. and includes the um service station, the gas station. >> Then why didn't it go to 410 gay road? Why didn't we keep going? >> Well, when we approved >> village common does include 14.
No, the whole thing that whole parcel >> that whole discussion about that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. and went back and looked at the maps that we used for the zoning bylaw amendment and we specifically included 410 is that was kind of this town signal
saying, you know, we really want something done with this site >> that followed the prior zoning line between industrial A and industrial B or something like that. >> Right. >> Right. Because previous zoning was industrial B at that site,
>> which is why the current uses went 225 came from. Um so I was just saying that um you know we can chat about 550 King for a minute.
I'll be very interested to see how the res you know because the residential part of this commercial part of it hasn't really been talked about much. Uh, I want to I'm curious how they're going to deal with the affordability.
Um, >> I think we all are. >> Yeah. >> I mean, originally >> because we haven't we've always been thinking about the apartment building and not the the housing there. >> So, the hope was that it was going to come here something like, >> right?
>> Well, but >> yeah. So, I'm just curious what But an Anna was showing me the latest um the latest that's from the FBI that you were
showing me. >> Uh shows a building that's unlabeled in the far right hand corner where that digital parking lot was. It's labeled residential, but it does
not have a designation. And I'm wondering if that's what they're going to get to for maybe they had to put everything in so that the state got to look at >> Yeah. >> everything whether it actually comes to fruition or not. >> Yeah.
>> I don't know. >> But it would be Well, they'll be sharing. I'm I'm wondering if you should extract that um the latest site plan from the FBI and and just send it to each of us.
>> Shows it in figure 1-3 of the year. It's page 11 of the 528 page document. All right, Bruce is back here at 5:25. 7:25. Can I read real slow? >> Can I read real slow?
>> Yes, read real slow. >> Are you ready? Okay. Um, public hearing, storm water management permit, 242 King Street. The Littleton Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Thursday, November 13, 2025 at 7:25 p.m. in room
103 of the Shadic Street Town offices at 37 Shadic Street to consider a storm water management permit application under chapter 38, article 2, storm water management and erosion control of the code of Littleton, uh, property 242 King Street, map U36, parcel 17. owner
applicant um Littleton Electric Light and Water Department Engineer Goldsmith Preston and Ringlaw. Application can be viewed online at the planning board page the town website or at the planning board and town clerk's office during their business hours. Any person interested or wishing to be heard on the
proposed work should provide written comment to the planning board office and then how to get in contact um with the planning board office. So, we're still two minutes short of our scheduled thing. We do have the town council here in the room. Can we Can we
go forward? >> Or maybe not. >> Probably wait the two minutes. >> Okay. >> I knew you were going to say one answer he could give. >> We could put the plan up on the thing. >> Yeah, that's true. We can get the plan up.
>> You do know the Patriots playing at 8:15, right? You are aware. Come on. You got a DVR. >> That's what that other TV is for. >> And just so anyone >> in the room or watching this knows, this is the uh subject the property where the
new wastewater recovery facility is. The former home of Mr. Montinari here and uh it is being proposed the site is being proposed for residential use.
Um, we're almost there. >> That clock is that clock. >> I'm just going by my phone. >> 35 seconds to count you. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that that clock is always a little fast.
I'm curious about this. >> Oh, come on. The watch pot never boils and >> Yeah. >> seconds never tick down. >> Mine says 720. >> Okay, we're there. Go ahead, Bruce. >> Good evening. Bruce Ringwall from GPR representing Littleton Electric Light
and Water Department. Um, as Chairman Yates stated, uh, not only is this proposed to be a, uh, single family residence, it has been, and it is a single family residence, just unoccupied at the moment. Um,
the, as you know, the rest of the property has been permitted for the treatment plant. It's been before the planning board and the conservation commission, etc. Um eventually we will be back before this board with uh an ANR
plan. Um the property is land court so we have to go through the land court process which is never quick and when that's done we'll be back here with an ANR to break off this lot so it can be sold as a um residential lot. Um to that
extent uh the driveway that uh used to enter onto the property is been rehabbed as you've seen driving by and is now the driveway entrance to the treatment plant and um the facility behind the property
and up adjacent to 495. This property we are proposing to have its own separate driveway. Um, it's labeled for five parking places. It's supposed to be four and one of them is a turnaround, but that's neither here nor there. Um, and I, you know, it doesn't
really have to have lines and it won't have lines because it's a residence. But, um, in the process of doing this, we will be removing the pool, removing the pool house or shed that's back there. Um they have already removed um
but it's part of this application to remove all of the pavement and parking that is in that hay build off area uh and the plan northwest of uh of the of the site there. And the reduction of
that is a um reduction of impervious area even with the new parking put in of 2,235 square ft of which the majority of that area is within the riverfront line which
is the second dash line that goes to the left of the house. uh red dash that you see up there. And the 100 foot riverfront line is the one on the kind of center of the page going through a
lot of the erosion control. And then the next line that kind of sticks out right over there is a um the flood flood plane line. And adjacent to that flood plane line is a dash yellow line which is the 50oot buffer. So, as you're well aware,
Littleton Conservation Commission has a do not disturb 50-foot buffer. Um, it is a disturbed area now in that it is lawn. It's not naturalized buffer zone. It's it's lawn. It's been lawn for a long time. Um the proposal that we have here
is um putting in a uh this new parking area, a new curb cut onto King Street. And then we have proposed a small ponding area there. And that ponding area is covering a uh an inch of flow because we are in a Oxford watershed
protection district and we are in the riverfront and the buffer zone. We're doing an inch of flow to be um captured by that little ponding area and allowed to infiltrate and be absorbed into the ground. Um it does have an overflow if
we have a much bigger storm so the water can overflow and then flow across the property. Um but that's that's really it in a nutshell relative to the erosion control. Um from doing that we get the reduction in uh TSS that's required by
the state and we also get the reduction in phosphorus that is on um many local regulations but not on the state yet. Um and it's pretty straightforward. So I know that they've put out you folks have
put out to um green for their review. Um hopefully they don't use that full amount of the uh um the estimate that was put forward because uh there's not a lot to be reviewed here from that standpoint. Um but all this the detail
is in the in the application and I turn it over to the board for any questions. I I would ask that um and you may there may be another drawing. I think you need
to show the proposed ANR on this. >> Um >> um I guess I I I can do that, but I guess my question is why? >> Well, but doesn't Well, I'd like to see
the the driveway of the um W RF located. I just it it doesn't completely describe the site and >> I don't know. That's all I know. >> We could just say it's not necessarily
what the ANR is, but I think we need the full site plan. >> Well, if if you go to the I made reference to their site plans, the CDM site plans. Now, it doesn't show it does I thought it showed over on the locust over there, but it doesn't. >> Or maybe you just show it on the, you
know, the NR. I don't know. I just think that it >> you know if especially let's say for the I mean are there any calculations that uh >> uh in involve lot coverage or whatever I mean how can you have a
>> that is that is a yes but that's an ANR thing we're here for storm water >> however how can anyone looking at this >> know what that would be if you don't have a parcel indicated >> no it's the storm water for the whole site the back of the site has already
been dealt with, >> okay, >> and addressed. They've got a detention basin. They have the the um their BMPs that they've put on for that portion of the site. We're now dealing with this portion of the site. And the changes here are reduction in imperous area. Um
>> so if you're referring to the entire site, >> Yep. >> Let's show like Daryl asked, let's show the entire site. >> This says site plan and this is not the entire site. This is just a portion of it. And I think we for for
>> us to understand it in context. We need the site plan. >> Okay. >> Not just a not just a subsection of it. >> Well, and I think I I >> because I don't I can't I took me a long time to try to figure out where's the other driveway that for the existing facility because and it's not shown on this drawing here.
>> That's correct. >> So, where's water shedding? How's it shed to the other lot? I can't tell that from this what's been submitted. >> Okay. Um, and then this is a stupid question. I assume they're connecting
the sept they're they're connecting this to the new >> this this will be connected to um the treatment plant. Okay. Um the septic system will the tanks will be there's a note to the effect but the tanks on the plan but the note the tanks will be
>> uh pumped and crushed sight and backfilled. Um and then from there you can see the force main that goes across. There will be a an E1 system put in and that'll force man will connect to the um the main that will be going down the
driveway and um it will be connected right to the sewer. So the septic system will exist in in the ground but won't be there. The tanks will be gone and replaced with an E1 and the pool will come out and the pool house will all
will come out. Um, and then once again, this is more of a graphics thing, but you know, the the goal is to reduce the impervious, >> which we have. >> I know, but it's hard to just look at the >> think you're a dummy.
>> I'm You're not a dummy. I'm a dummy. It would nice to see some graphic representation of the impervious to be removed. >> Okay. So, I we've made reference to those plans. I will bring those plans and I will get permission to adapt a portion of them onto here so that
there's an outline of of what you're looking for. >> So, in general, um you know, we will ultimately be approving the ANR. Um the we have peer review for storm water, but the conservation commission is the key
player in this. Yes. So, um, we, uh, and our, um, experience with the 64 64 Beaver Brick Road was that was quite a lengthy I don't know if it's going to be that way with this, but um,
so we will continue this hearing sub, you know, subject to peer review and conservation and all that stuff. >> Fine. I I was going to request the continuence. At any rate, um we have continued the conservation meeting because we don't have a D number yet and
um so we're just holding off on that. >> You had a comment. >> Uh well, that was actually going to be my my question. So I have a couple of them. One is peer review because we haven't seen anything even though the decision said that there was a version from July 8th. So it's good to know that
that's still in the works. um for the draft decision that was created, there isn't a section on determinations or findings. So, I think that that's critical for any decision that needs to be included. So, I think that might have been a little um early. And then,
um the last question I have is um I know that you have authorization um for acting as agent to LWD. Is Carla Aayek an employee of GRP? >> Yes. >> Anyone else?
>> Yeah. Oh, sorry. >> Um, why does this dim lately? Um, two two different um two comments. Uh, one is I look in the drawing. Um, you described it as a single family house, but the drawing is showing it as a
multif family uh house. >> Drawing. Okay. that I don't think >> I think there there was an apartment on back. I'm not sure that they're moving forward with that as an apartment or not. So, >> because it's going to tie into maybe ADUs and other things here about
um multif family housing and and other pieces there, but I want to note whether that is is that a multif family dwelling and is it permitted as a multi- family has an existing apartment and you'd have to ask the gentleman. is a multi is permitted as a multif family dwelling.
>> Multif family is three or more. >> So it's good. >> I'd like to just have clarification on that. Maybe not >> two units. >> Two units >> here because I think it ties into some of the other discussions. that actually uh ties into the parking lot count
because I was wondering why the why you had because it it is is >> at one point we were I've always known that it had an apartment in the back and so from that standpoint I was looking at it as two parking spaces for both the main unit and the apartment.
>> I haven't gotten a clear definition from um the applicant as to whether they are going to list it as that or they intend to list it as just a single family. So, >> so as it relates to storm water, >> um,
>> that's important. I mean, you've seen Well, you >> parking's important. >> Parking is important because it's impervious, etc., etc. If it was a single family, you wouldn't need as much parking and you know, whatever. So, that does need to be clarified. and the the other one and maybe it will be addressed
during either conservation or uh the you know the technical review there but u it seems that we've had more than uh more recently uh one inch plus rain events. >> Oh no, you definitely have >> and and I don't see how the what your comment your state and that's right and
I think it needed to defer to the technical review. Yes. in terms of one inch of rainfall and a retention pond that more than one inch of rainfall and a retention pond designed for one inch of rainfall. >> Right. >> So that seems not quite for me. >> Okay.
>> Um >> I'll wait until because it's it's >> the one inch of rainfall is relative to the imperous area and we've reduced the impervious area here. So we're not we're
not making something bigger and starting from scratch and and coming up with all kinds of new drainage for something that's been there. So we're we're trying to address the the new impervious area even though we've reduced the impervious area. >> It's also within the 50 foot.
>> That's true. But that doesn't that doesn't it's not within the 50oot no build. It's outside of the 50 foot line. >> Maybe I misunderstood the yellow line that you told us about just a minute ago. Then it goes >> there's two yellow lines. There's one that's the 100 foot buffer and then there's one that's the 50ft buffer. So
you want to be looking at the the one that's the dashed one that's on the right as you're looking at the plan from the basin. >> So we should line >> you know we should >> those should be keyed up for green for for >> green I'm sure is >> I'm not sure
>> I've not heard a word from >> but cons you know but the conservation commission etc. And but the you know goes back to you did the original drainage with storm water management for the entire site. We did not. Someone else did. >> Someone else did.
>> CDM did the original permitting and they've been dealing with that portion. That permit was there. So, I've got to deal with the applicant and CDM and I'll get a hold of some additional information. I don't want to revisit that world, but I'll show how that world
is working and then we're addressing this portion of that. >> So, going to the continuation because there's these other thing parts to go. Um, we have a we have a our normally scheduled meeting in December is the 4th.
>> Yep. >> We would like not to have that meeting because we have a subsequent meeting in the 15th for just 550 King. Do you think that you would have any conservation um determination by the 4th?
>> Um, our meeting is scheduled for the second. >> Okay. And hopefully we'll have stuff addressed then, >> you know, whenever we have. And your your fif your next meeting is uh >> um >> Monday the 15th. >> Monday the 15th. However, >> on Monday,
>> it's well, it's a non it's for a specific purpose. I guess if you thought we could continue to the 15th if you thought that you had everything, you know, your ducks in a row. >> I don't want to come in after 5:50. That's going to be late at night. Well, it would be we'd probably have to do it
before. Yeah. >> Yeah. We can we can communicate with Cooper and in the interim and set >> Well, no, we have to set it up now. >> We have to set it up now. >> Well, how about if we continue to before now and if uh everything isn't resolved,
we'll ask for the next meeting. >> M >> and we continue it to the 15th. We would like to avoid the fourth because there's no other work. So, we'll let's do it to the first item in the 15th. >> I mean, is that okay? >> Fine with me, but I think
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that works out the best because if the cons meeting is until Tuesday night, December 2nd, >> that is not within the 48 hour time frame for us to >> Well, I I'm skeptical even you're going to be by I know it's your job to push things along, but
So, anyway, and and just keep us posted. You know, we'll give them 10 minutes so that we don't have to twiddle our thumbs. >> Sounds good. >> Uh, can I do I need a motion for that? >> Can I have a mo motion to continue this
application to um a time do you want to say 6:40? >> 640. >> If we do first at 6:30. >> Okay. 6:30 we'll skip the board business. Okay. 6:30. um December 15th
and we we are in just so you know I think we're in the Chadic Center >> in the senior center. >> Oh >> senior center. >> Yeah. >> I haven't even been in there yet. >> No here it'll be >> well spend a half an hour just looking
around. Um so uh so so move can I have a second? >> All in favor? >> I I Okay, great. >> Thank you very much for your time this evening. Everybody. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Nice. Thanks. Next, um do you want to open while we're having a discussion
with a joint meeting of the um planning board and the board of appeals about the um ADU uh
zoning a potential zoning bylaw amendment for accessory dwelling units uh working toward a May 2026 town meeting. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> So Maren, I'm going to give it over to
you orchestrate this. >> There we go. So um first off, thank you very much. um accessory dwelling units. Um >> why why do we need to do them? Um go
ahead. >> Okay. So um tonight hopefully is um evident why we need to meet. Um purpose um the meeting is to gather your input on updating the accessory dwelling unit
bylaw. Um, we'll go review what the process is to update the bylaw, give you some baseline information or share the draft with you. Um, ask for the policy input and then outline what the step next steps are uh to get this to town meeting um the purpose of the meeting,
get your input um process to update the bylaw rather than uh print out the 14 steps that we need to go through. Um, it's I I love Cooper's approach. It requires a simple majority vote at town meeting.
Um according to uh the legislation uh process to date um MAPC um has been working with staff on um their model on the state's model ADU bylaw and helping
to tailor it for um Littleton's needs. Um we uh now we're here today at the joint meeting to planning board and appeals board um town council um was
nice enough to uh review the initial draft um provided some guidance on that and the uh draft that you see in front of you is the recommended draft uh from MAPC and town council. Um so next steps um we'll receive the
policy input, we'll update the bylaw and um bring it back for a public hearing. Um we perhaps um as early as the March uh planning board meeting uh depending on
how the discussions go and uh depending on your direction. So why do we need to change the accessory apartment bylaw that we have? um because of new legislation called the affordable homes act um which requires all communities to
allow accessory dwelling units by right in every district the where single family homes are allowed. Uh state um sets the maximum for ADUs at 900 ft but gives 900 square feet but gives
communities um the option to um have a larger um ADU if we so desire. Littleton's current accessory apartment bylaw allows units of up to 1,200 square feet. So our presumption in this
presentation or in the draft bylaw is that you want to keep the 1,200 square feet, but of course we're here to get input on that. Um we uh so Cooper adapted this um chart from
uh the HLC put out about things that communities can and cannot do in your AD move bylaws and we'll be looking for a policy direction on self several of these issues definition of an ad.
>> Go back to that and just go through item by item about M municipalities can regulate and require. >> Okay. Um so for municipalities that require site plan review for all single
family homes, you can require site plan review for ADUs. Littleton does not require site plan review for single family homes. So you would have to require site if you want
to have site plan review for ADUs, you would have to do it for all single family homes. >> What about storm water regulations? >> Storm water regulations are triggered if a disturbance is 40,000 square feet or
more. So it's hard to imagine an ADU that would meet the bylaw that would require storm water review. Um, so the town, the next one down, the town can impose a prohibit prohibition on the use of ADUs as short-term
rentals. Um, think Airbnb um and similar. Um, and the town can uh stipulate the maximum number of ADUs that you want to allow on a lot. The draft um presumes that you want to ask for one, but that was just our throw something out there
and hope to get the feedback from you on it. Um, so those are the items that the >> And can you refer to um the survey we did on short-term rentals >> or just mention it so people can
>> Okay. Okay. >> Yep. Yep. On on the ADU page, um we do have all the results of the um survey that Cooper put together on short-term rentals. Um it was a a mixed bag on on the response. We didn't ask specifically
about ADUs and short-term rentals. We just asked about short-term rentals to see if we could get a flavor of what the town was looking for. Um I like I said, it was it was there was some that were in favor of it and some
that were opposed. I've heard um some say that you if you don't if you restrict if you don't allow short-term rentals and ADUs, then all ADUs that are created
will create the needed housing. And I've heard the other side of that, well, if you don't allow them to be used for short-term rentals, then they may never get created. So over time some yeah
might you might see more uh fewer ADUs created if you do restrict them. So I think it's a we'll be looking for your policy input on that. Okay. So, some a little bit of history
on uh Littleton's accessory apartment bylaw. Last was updated in 2018 when we worked together on it. Um, right now attached ADUs are allowed by right. Detached ADUs by special permit from the zoning board of appeals. That's very
simplificate big simplification of um what's allowed. Um we require two off- streetet parking spaces for each ADU. requires owner occupancy of either the main unit or the ADU. Maximum site is no more than 1,200 square feet and ADUs are
not considered multif family. Um but a lot of our um current bylaw cannot be enforced um and it doesn't meet the requirements of the affordable um housing. So let's see. So, we have a draft
discussion was guided by MAPC, reviewed by town council. And then, so the policy questions that we know we need to ask for are, you know, do you want to require site plan review? Do you want to allow short-term rentals? Um, what's the
number of protected ADUs per lot that you wish to allow? And the maximum size of ADUs. Um and then after we done with that then we can go over what what the next steps are. So
>> okay um so of the people um here Sherry's like me just one quick question on the presentation. >> Yes. >> You said our bylaw is not now enforcable. Can you just say why?
>> A lot of it is not enforceable um because it doesn't meet um the Affordable Homes Act legislation and that specifically says um that um you can't enforce the requirement for owner
occupancy and for the number of parking spaces and for um anything that doesn't meet the uh uh new legislation. Isn't the ownership pretty much the only biggest thing and and number of parking spaces? It doesn't seem like other than
the ownership issue, we're not that far off >> and and that'll be your policy direction on what is a big issue to you. >> Okay. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Can we talk? >> Let's
Yes, Cheryl. >> I think I don't know if everybody knows Chris. Oh, sorry. >> Let's introduce attorney Heap, who is one of our town councils, who's here to um monitor our decision. >> Um
>> hello everyone. Nice to meet those of you who >> um have you been dealing with this with other towns? >> Yes. >> And what is the range of um responses to these policy questions?
>> So, I don't want to be uh overly sort of negative, but I guess my the advice that I am typically giving towns who are looking to adopt a new bylaw is that there is um you know, I
think it's Marin's slide, one of Marin slides demonstrates there is very little regulation that can be applied to ADUs at this point now that we have the regulations in place. Um I can you know as the discussion progresses I can sort
of attempt to you know point out things we can do and things we cannot do but the things that we cannot do relative to ads vastly outnumber the things that we can do. Um so it to me um the safest
bylaw new bylaw that you can adopt regulating it to use does you know not much. The use has to be allowed by right. You have to allow one per lot. The conventional regulations that you can apply to ADUs are set in the state
regulations. So there is not much tinkering you can do with where an ADU can go on a lot. The state regulates that. Um and although it is possible to apply site plan review
to ADUs, um you as I said before, the dimensional tolerances of where they can go are established in the regulations and you can't apply any design guidelines to an ADU that you don't apply to single family homes. And assuming you don't apply site plan
review type design review to single family homes, um, you really can't do it to just use. So I think what I've done there is point out a long, you know, shorter or long list of things that we can't regulate. So
>> So that's um, so to answer your question, Mr. here. Um, most of one of the most important tasks when coming up with a new bylaw in any town is coming up with a new bylaw that
doesn't um exceed the scope of what we're allowed to do under the state regulations >> that won't be approved. And to that point, I will say that the uh I have, you know, in in the materials I I sort of printed up to bring out to
get ready for the meeting tonight a 20page uh approval/disapproval letter from the municipal law unit of the attorney general's office for a town that adopted NDU bylaw. And there was a 20page single spaced letter picking
apart what they had done. I have never seen anything like the level of review the AG is applying to ADU bylaws. Um they are, you know, crossing out and deleting anything that comes close to
exceeding the scope of permissible regulation. And I think they're doing that because they perceive the policy purpose of this new legislation to be, you know, allowing to use and allow them by right without over much regulation by
cities and towns. So yes, we have to be very careful um in terms of what the bylaw eventually includes because if there's anything that runs foul of the EOHLC's new regulations, it will be struck. So, um I think Darl and I both
attended a uh state um a conference with the state group that promoted this. And one thing they said that was interesting to me was that well we have the regulations but that that's just the first step. the
next step is the land use, the land court, this lawsuit, that lawsuit, you know, that will go on and on as we've seen over the years in board of appeals. Um, how what's your perspective on that? >> There will certainly be litigation um
over that will I guess provide there will be litigation about ADUs. That litigation will result in case law that will, you know, answer questions. um to to the extent reg either the statute
or the regulations are unclear, the case law will answer the questions about >> and they they definitely will I mean because there are infinite number of property configurations that may or may not be addressed by you know these statutes.
>> So I I'd say yes and no. I think um someone could uh attempt to challenge EOHLC's regulations wholesale and say that they somehow >> and that's not really what I >> the scope of the statute,
>> but I'm getting at like uh >> well anyway there's I'm there as the you know the architect in me I'm thinking you know this that the other thing all these weirdo properties that you know um that don't conform the board of appeals makes its living off of things that are non-conforming.
So, so there's I guess >> what I'd say is there's a lot of um there was a lot when the statute first became effective that I think we regarded as unclear. The regulations which followed put a much finer point on
what the state says the rules are and the attorney general's approval disapproval letters that have been issuing you know for the past several months provide some additional information too about what at least what will or will not get through the attorney general's review. So, I think
as we talk about the bylaw, I think I've got a pretty good handle on what the sort of gray area is and and what is established thus far and if I can call them out separately as as we go through them. Um,
in my view from the beginning, it was a um, you know, this is essentially, and tell me if I'm wrong, zoning every single parcel as a two family as a two family. And um and the the key as Cheryl
mentioned difference in this is the ownership issue where there had to I mean our our bylaws started out with having a family or a you know dependent relationship that went away and then you know what whatever. So um
and it's just something to think about. And the other thing is it will be something to think about with new homes being built with ADUs. One of the question that uh that comes up is why can't we uh
ask for site plan review for new homes with ADUs and but not for existing homes. Um, and I would say with the, and this is something for us to think about, is that
one of the great things about the special permit process for ADUs in the past is that, um, neighborhoods could weigh in, neighbors could weigh in, you know, um, and, uh, the whole this whole
system is based on public hearings. And uh this is you know not not to preclude them but to acknowledge that there may be a uh it's less so in our town because we have large parcels
but anyway so um so one of our things should be do we want to institute site plan review for single family homes or could we just do it for homes being built with ADUs? So I don't know that you need to do site plan review for single family homes in order to do them
for ADUs. But you cannot apply design guidelines to an ADU. You don't apply to um single. So stated differently it >> Yeah, I don't see the difference. >> Yeah, I guess I'm I'm not I didn't
explain that very well. Um what is I'll I guess I'll throw the question back. If you were to do site plan review of an ADU, what would you be looking to regulate?
>> Setback, height, parking location, screening. >> So, this an ADU can be located on a lot to the setback that is applicable to either the single family dwelling or to an accessory structure, whichever is
more permissive. >> See, our accessory structure by law is very permissive. that goes down to I think eight feet. >> Yeah. >> The same that you would have for a shed and an ADU is a different. What I'm trying to get at is what would do we
need to look at in our basically zoning bylaw that we might have to change as part of this to get our, you know, idea about how this ADU thing should work. If you didn't want to
allow ADUs 8 or 10 ft from the property line, which where you could put a shed or a accessory structure, you would need to increase that setback to all accessory structures.
>> So, it's not the site plan shed anymore. >> No, you could put a shed not 8 ft from the park. It' have to be 15 ft of it. 10 15 10 anu gets the benefit of the house. >> An ADU gets the benefit of the more
forgiving setback that we apply to accessory structures. So you can't get around that by trying to distinguish an ADU from a shed. >> You could only >> make the shed conform >> make the shed make all sheds subject to
an increased setback. And therefore by doing that you would effectively increase the setback >> and you don't need site plan review to enforce that that would be just done through the >> that could be done as a baseline dimensional objective. >> But two questions on that mind. One
question is if it's an attached uh garage or shed or breezeway it's 15 ft. So if it's an attached ADU do we have the 15 ft privilege? And then if it's a detached garage or shed, it's 10 feet.
And and that I understand would be out the same if it's a detached ADU. But then the question is the board has been asked on several occasions to give a variance of a lesser setback on especially small lots where it's warranted and do we have the privilege
of giving a lesser setback for detached AU ADU by variance? by variance you you can always grant it dimensional variance. >> Okay. So >> subject of course to the
>> so one of the problems that CPA has all the time is sometimes people where a garage should obviously be attached. There's room for it to be attached. It could be attached. They want to put it a little closer or make it a little
bigger. They leave a foot between the buildings to be able to use the 10-ft set back rather than the 15oot setback. If we lose that ability to by right to have things at the 10-ft setback rather
than a 15 foot setback, I don't see the loss to our town. >> Did I say that right? >> No. Um, >> well, are are you saying that it wouldn't be a loss to make sheds 15 feet? Yeah. >> Yes, that's what I'm trying to say.
>> And it would make it would make >> I I think that's probably going to be one of the most contentious issues in town meeting about that. >> Yeah. >> But on the other hand, I'd invite, you know, people who want their sheds to think about, well, if your neighbor puts a big ADU
>> um 10 feet away. Yeah. Yeah. The other um couple things I want to talk about. Should I wait till that particular subject? >> Well, we we we miss attorney Heap. Now, Sherry is telling me attorney Gold is chastising
me for not referring to you as attorney heap. Um so I will say attorney >> Well, I I that would what I'd normally say. Anyway, >> Mr. chair. While we're while we're sort of on this topic though, I had I did have two things that were related directly to to this
>> uh here. So, in this little draft that we have under non-conformance, if it's a non-conforming lot and they want to build an ADU, it looks like there's no there's no no rules. >> If there's a non-conforming lot and they
want to build an ADU, they can. >> Yes. However, there's no rules. like does the ADU have to meet any of the setbacks relative to the existing nonconformities or I it looks like there needs to be some more language in this section here a little bit to say that
like if you're going to build an ad I don't have a problem building an ADU on a non-conforming lot or a non-conforming house uh there but I don't want it to be non-conforming like it should meet the setbacks >> if it can
>> well it should meet the setbacks >> but if it can't then it shouldn't be built. >> No, if it can't then it should come to the CBA to see. >> But that's not what this says. >> There's a hardship. >> That's not what this says. >> Except the overriding statute says that
it's I I read somewhere it says CADUs have to conform to the dimensional requirements. >> Right. >> Right. So, >> but our the way this >> section in here is worded. It doesn't say that. It it actually exempts it. Uh >> because we can make the exemptions. we
need you to put it in the bylaw. >> And then there's always the issue of um I'm agreeing with you, but right now the way it's worded in the draft that we have doesn't require ZBA to approve anything for an ADU and a non-conforming
lot. It could be even more non-conforming, which is what my objection would be. >> Non-conforming. >> I I know, but it's it's the whole point of the regula what the regulation is. Then then there's the whole issue of
adding to your building single family to create an ADU. >> Um >> so we have to allow by rights separate. We can't >> we're not talking about just separate ADUs. We're talking about ADUs being created in an existing structure. And we
did this when I was on the board of appeals. We had an issue where they were adding onto a uh bill a house and then they were able that was back when we had the restrictions on size and they were
able to have a bigger size for the ADU because they were adding on and some people felt that was unfair. But the point is is that there's a the ADUs there's a variety of ways of achieving an ADU. Um, we're all thinking of these little because all the images are these
little buildings, but it may just literally be in addition to a house that's got another door. >> Miss pointed out to me the other day that my house that was built at the turn of the century and is quite large could have eight ADUs in it. >> Well, if we allowed it. Right.
>> Well, that just raises a question that I've had nagging at me, and that is we have a bylaw that says everything built before zoning, any house built before zoning can be by special permit made into a two family home. The question is, if you make it into a
two family home by right and then that owner condominiumizes it, so now you have two separate structures, >> well, two separate ownership, >> two separate ownerships, two separate units. >> Yeah. Can each of them establish an ADU? So now you end up with four on one lot.
>> So what you had said is that it's related to this the structure not >> necessarily >> that I might have that I misspoke and you get one ADU per lot >> per lot. >> Okay.
>> Now the nuance there is that if you have a two family on a lot you can have an ADU. If you have a 10unit multif family building, you could have an ADU. >> One ADU. >> One ADU >> for the whole I think >> I think the draft should be very clear
about that. >> Yeah, frankly. >> Yeah. >> And I don't think it is. >> And is it one quote protected ADU? Is that what are you using one ADU to say a protected? >> You get one? Yeah. Pro protected use ADU is the language of the state regulations
and it says you get one per lot but you get one for either a single family dwelling or a principal dwelling and principal dwelling is defined in the regulations as anything anything other than a single family. So two family up to a 100 unit
multif family can have an ADU but they you only get one. But for clarity, we could put explicitly one per lot that >> even though that is in what the state regulation is, our regulation could just reiterate that explicitly.
>> Well, we need to because the state we can allow more than what the state does. We just can't allow less. Yeah. So that is it's I'm more than happy to concede that we can make that clearer, but that's currently captured in the definition of protected use ADU, which
has an attached or detached ADU that is located or proposed to be located on a lot in a single family residential. So the idea that it's you get one per lot is embedded in the definition of protected accessory protected use accessory. And if it's a condominium
form of ownership and it's four units and each has an exclusive use designated area, is that still one lot? >> That's one lot. >> So, >> and one thing like a tax lot or whatever >> you would have to designate in the condo
documents who gets the ADU, I guess, or >> and just to anticipate a question that is I I I figure is probably coming later on. One thing you can do is prohibit prohibit the condominiumization of the
principal dwelling and the ADU. Now, >> can you do that? Will that stand in the >> That was a that was one of the sort of mysteries open questions when the statute first >> Yeah. >> dropped. But the MLU is approving bylaws
um that do that. >> So, so the ADU would have to stay in within the ownership of the principal dwelling. the ADU and the principal dwelling need to remain in single ownership. >> I don't understand that because >> we're essentially making two family
homes. Oh, you just can't have a split. You just can't condominium the two. The theory be the theory behind >> the theory behind saying you can do regulate in that way like prohibiting that >> is that the ADU fundamentally an ADU
needs to be accessory to a principal principal dwelling that is true if you've got a larger principal dwelling in a 900 or 1200 foot ADU they're one's accessory to the other by just nature of the structures
they that could be lost that relationship between the two structures could be lost if they're on two lots and two separate in separate owners and or in separate ownership. >> Okay, this is a question you had um about how do you tell what's the ADU and what's not. Now, what about the case
where you have a small structure and you want and say we allowed a big ADU? I mean, could you flip? >> No. Um >> could you build a new house and then designate the existing small structure if it conformed as an ADU?
>> No. ADU is capped by size. So, you know, under the under state law, we are only obligated to allow an ADU up to a maximum of 900 ft. >> So, the three-bedroom ranch that I was my first house in Westford was
>> uh less than 1,000 square feet. >> So, I mean, that's a >> still a size home. >> Yeah. >> But you could keep you could keep that as the ADU and build a bigger house. >> This is my question, >> right? I think that's what we're trying to drive. >> Sorry. The definition is um
an ADU is not larger >> than half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or 900 square ft, whichever is smaller. >> But >> but I think we're flipping it around. I I I I have my I have my three-bedroom ranch. >> Yeah.
>> And on the back half acre, I'm going to build a 3,000 foot house and then call that house the house. and then my existing three-bedroom ranch and ADU. Right? That's what we're scenario we're kind of talking about here. >> So, doesn't the house have to preede the ADU?
>> Why? >> Well, that's what I'm asking. >> Because you but I think house with a new ADU, >> you know, what what possible reason is there to do that to have one precinct? >> Well, you can't. >> I'd want to think about that, but >> can you think about that one?
>> No. I mean, you the I think the principal dwelling has to be there first. I do think that's fair. Um because if >> asking pulling that build building permit for the for the larger house on the back of the parcel would result in I
think two single family houses on the property which the zon doesn't allow for. Um >> but if what if I declared it when I pulled the building permit that the new one is going to be the ADU? >> I don't know. That's what I mean. I think that's because you know I saw it
>> recently in Bedford is the man McMansioning of all the lots. uh there. But this is a way of making a mansion and keeping the existing house and getting the best of both worlds from a builder perspect. >> And I have to get on this size restriction. There's an the state law
has an a size restriction. >> Yes. >> Okay. Even if it's a big giant house, it still can't be more than 900. >> It can never be larger than 900 ft. >> I see. >> Unless >> I thought that was one of the things >> unless we say we can be bigger. We can
right now we say 1,200's. I'd like us to see us go back with the prolifer proliferation of these. I'd like us to see us go to the state minimum. >> What I had understood was that we can't make it less than n I mean >> right can't make it less than
>> you can't make it less than 900. >> So >> you have to allow up to 900 and then you have the option of allowing more. >> Is that the case or >> I mean your proposed bylaw allows up to 1,200. because >> because that's what our current one says. You can do that. You don't need to
do that. >> So, we could go down. >> We could go down to 900. >> Gwen from MAPC is here and has her hand raised. >> Okay. So, we're joined by You want to introduce? >> Um Gwen Helen Sans from MAPC. She helped
us uh draft the original Bible. >> Helen, >> thanks Marin. Um, yeah. Hi, I'mWendalyn. I just wanted to jump in and say a few things with that discussion. Um, I think I'm I'm not a lawyer, so I just want to caveat that, but I've been working I
worked with the state on um the regulations and I've been working on them since then. I think that you in my interpretation could not build a a building and then consider that to be um the principal dwelling because an ADU
must be built on a lot that already has a principal dwelling unit. So to be permitted you must have an existing principal dwelling. So in that sense that whatever building is there by definition will be the principal dwelling and will stay the principal dwelling. and the state has been pretty
clear that um an ADU should always be accessory and like tertiary to the that existing building. So I think that um you could prevent flipping it the other way. Um, >> so what kind of language would we need
to codify that? >> Or we could say just >> um I mean I think that it it's in the definition um if you look at the protected use ADU definition by saying um that it's on a lot in a single family
residential zoning district has a principal dwelling unit. Um, >> I think if we really wanted to call that out, we could that like you must have the principal dwelling unit and make that more specific. Um, >> but technically I think it's already
there in the language. >> The other thing I wanted to mention was there was the discussion of um some municipalities are limiting condoization. That's something that we did put into the Littleton bylaw. It's in um the regulations applicable to ADUs
section section E um where it says ADUs shall remain accessory to a principal dwelling and therefore both must be cited on a single lot and the ADU must remain in common ownership with the associated principal dwelling. So that's the section where we're limiting the ADU
from being sold separately. Um so I just wanted to note that that is in there in Littleton's. >> Thank you for putting that in. Um, >> can we can we cl can we add language that makes it clear that you can't just
buy a small house and then plop a great big house behind it and call the propert. >> But do we need to make it a little bit more clear? >> Well, that or do you want do you care to identify a permitting process that would allow that? I mean, this is these are
the policy questions that are in front of you. This is a board of appeals. >> They come up at the lake area. There are small cabin lighouses down at the lake area as you mentioned in Westford that
people have said, "I have this extra land and I have a good septic system. Why don't I use the cabin as my accessory dwelling for an elder relative or something and build a big house behind?" I don't have any problem with that. I do because what happens is that
accessory small cabin becomes an Airbnb. They build a big house. That Airbnb becomes a huge nuisance to the other people who are down on the lake. >> But that's the issue said about whether you Airbnbs or not, whether you allow short-term rentals or
>> Yeah, you're allowed to completely limit short-term rentals. So, that's something you can consider in ADU specifically. Real quick, going back to the policy question we're addressing around the site plan review. So, if a site plan
review isn't done, what happens then with the application? Does it >> Well, the same thing that happens with any new single family home, um a detailed building permit application goes um through the building permit process and it gets um zoning review. um
he does you know both the structural review and the zoning review in that process. >> So any any setbacks that you require do get that review. >> Let me let me just I have another note here because I you know it's about the
50 foot buffer zones there. Where does that get enforced with an if an ADU is proposed to get plopped into a 50- foot protected zone >> conservation, >> right? This does not affect any um >> Yeah, but the process you don't go to conservation for an ADU approval. You go
to the there and you're review you need you would need both. You would need three. You still to pull a building permit. You still need board of health and conservation in order to get the building permit. They they would bring the application to us and at that point there we would look
at the plot plan, review it if it automatically showed that it was near any wet. >> Okay. It just you didn't when you said you just said you did the setbacks. you didn't talk >> if you as long as somewhere in that process those are done that there's no
>> I I don't want to build a loophole into this uh here that I don't need you know all the appropriate approvals that we typically require and >> right so so this is the zoning bylaw only um this legislation doesn't impact
the authority of the um conservation commission and and the board of health >> so is there a way through definitions we're having a problem with. Our bylaw allows reduced setbacks for accessory
structures which are usually thought of as garages and sheds, not 900 square ft structures. So, but yet you we're using the accessory structure
definition in this proposed bylaw. Can we separate out by definition you know a shed garage is one thing >> by size? Could we say anything that's
less than 100 square ft or 150 square ft doesn't is there a way to do that? Is there a way to say that if the structure is more than be it a shed, be it a garage, be it whatever, if it's more than x number of
square feet, then it has to fit the setbacks. >> Well, we'd have to do that as part of the our zoning bylaw, not as part of this bylaw. >> I guess we need to identify anything else in the zoning existing zoning bylaw
that we might need to change to accommodate this. Here is another thing and maybe you can speak to that. If you already have a non-conforming pre-existing structure uh by definition it is uh deficient on one side let's say
for setbacks you are entitled to extend that line with the same setback. Um, so you could conceivably have one that's already pre-existing with a hypothetically five foot setback >> and throw an accessory dwelling unit on
that same side at the same five ft without needing a variance. >> Well, isn't the state-of-the-art um that you have to get a special permit to >> there's a difference? There's a split of
opinion, but Littleton has followed that they have to come to the zoning board for special permit because we like the weigh in judge whether Yeah. >> So, can you um uh in terms of setback I mean I think
the setback issue is going to be a big issue for the town in general. Um because what we are right now we have a uh process where neighbors can weigh in on how adjacent structures impact them
if they're asking for something. >> The legislation is quite clear on what the intent is is to um the legislation has taken that out of the town's hands. What do you say? >> I was just talking to a municipality
this morning and they're they're having similar issues of these the setbacks coming into play. And just to clarify, the state does say that um what should be applied to the ADU is um whatever
results in the most permissive regulation of um the any residential dwelling or accessory structure regulations in the zoning district where the ADU is. So basically, whatever is the most pissmissive for any of your accessory
structures is going to be what's applied to the ADUs. So there were some municipalities who, for example, had sheds that were an accessory structure that were allowing really small setbacks. And so what they did was they
changed the definition of the shed to not be an accessory structure anymore, but in a different category. So that's like one way around this is you could think about your accessory structures. Think about what setbacks you would want for your ADUs. And if there are things
that are smaller that you feel are too small setbacks for an ADU, you want to not define that as an accessory structure anymore, but make a different category. If that makes sense. >> Yeah, it does. >> It does make sense. And then the other issue was nonconforming structures.
Uh does the legislation require uh an ADU to be built within the nonconformity or should it just uh be you know regulated by the 10 or 15 ft?
>> It doesn't require to be built in the nonconforming structure but it allows it but it certainly allows it to happen. So, if there's a non-conforming detached garage that currently exists on a lot and it's, you know, two feet from
the side lot line and someone could in accordance with building code build in an ADU. They can do that by right understand garage into an ADU, but can they build
another extension off the garage to that would increase the nonconformity that would be behind the garage that's all two feet off it. So suddenly the garage goes from being a two-car garage to a twocar garage plus a 900 square foot building.
>> I'd have to think about that one. >> That goes to the the line uh there. And then is that line contiguous with the existing building or can it be gapped? Again, think of a >> the garage is two feet off the lot >> and then but I got a half acre in back.
I go 2 feet off the lot all the way in the back which >> oh with a big space in between. So >> with a big space in between, but it's still the two feet off the lot line of the existing structure. >> Those are the nuances I think that start messing this up.
>> I don't think that would apply. I don't think you can say that that's not >> that's not just increasing a nonconformity that is creating a new nonconformity because it's a totally separate building. >> Let the building inspector speak to that becomes construction at that point if you separate them.
>> Right. >> Yeah. >> So that would be >> so the non-conformity doesn't extend to the to the second thing. >> Although setback see but I'm seeing a slight difference in nodding of heads here. But some jurisdictions say that if you have a pre-existing non-conforming
setback, you're allowed to build to the same dimensional setback as existed when that structure was built. Meaning the there wasn't a 15oot setback in 1940 or yeah 40 when the structure was built.
>> At the time it was >> many jurisdictions do, but we haven't had it come up. We've what we've decided is if it's more lineal distance of the same uh setback, we have it come to special permit and come to >> and sometimes we approve it and sometimes we ask them to reduce it.
>> And he's talking about a structure a brand new structure, right? >> You don't think that structure has to be you think that structure has to be to current setbacks. if it's separate, but if they were adding the ADU to an the
existing structure, it seems like you could continue the non-conformity. >> Well, that's a question I think for Miss >> My understanding is that an ADU is allowed on a non-conforming lot or on a lot with a non-conforming structure, but
that doesn't mean the ADU can be non-conforming to dimensional standards. Um I have a example of a bylaw where you know it says the definition of the protected use ADU shall be approved by right um sort
of all these qualifications even if it's a pre-existing non-conforming structure or lot if the following conditions are met and then there's a list of conditions and one of those is meeting the dimensional standards. So I think that's one way to do that. You could
say, "We will approve non-conforming. We will approve ADUs on non-conforming lots with non-conforming or with non-conforming principal dwellings, but you still must meet the exact same dimensional standards as everyone else. Um, in my
understanding, that that's legal and doable. Um and so if you were attaching to a non-conforming structure for example that had a smaller setback um the ADU could not be on the you know within that that setback. would have to
go somewhere else on structure, >> but they could come to the ZBA >> for >> and get a variance to allow, you know, >> we want people that need help to be able to get it. >> Right. >> We just don't want people to be trying
to profit wholesale by >> we I think we want things that make sense, right? >> Right. You know, because when I was on there, we there was a couple of things there, but anyway, we won't go to there. So I would be in favor that we adopt some kind of language like that into our into our thing
>> you know >> uh on it in terms of what we'd like to see in the next draft. Uh so let's um we have we have can I get board com I'm going to organize this by board comments
uh board of appeals comments and then general public comments because we have an anxious person about the Patriots game. Um >> anyway first Anna do you have any comments?
Um, you know, I I actually think that um there are so many questions that we just covered that ultimately we're going to need to put this into very clear terms in a table of some kind of if this then that because that will be helpful to the residents who want to consider this. I
also do think that that picture that Maren had up earlier is really helpful so that folks can see what an ADU could be. Um, and then my perspective is that if I don't know that we need a site plan review, I think that that that actually
adds complexity. If the whole purpose of this is to actually create more um housing, then then that's where I come out from that. And then we don't have a short-term rental. >> No, by law.
>> So, we actually would need one. >> Well, it would be part of this zoning. Right. Two different ways you could do it. One would be um for the entire town or the if you want to prohibit it only for ADUs, you put it in here or you do
that now and then if you so choose, you could work on a short-term rental. >> Yeah. >> Current draft contains prohibition rentals. >> Yeah. And and >> and then we could choose to allow it in the future or >> if if I may, I would strongly support not requiring site plan review for all
residents. No. If if we can redefine garages and sheds, then that's a way around it. That would be the only There was this parking thing, though. Why can't we require parking for an ADU? >> You can require >> parking. >> You can require one parking space and
only one parking space for an ADU that is more than half a mile from a transit station. You cannot require any additional parking spaces for anything within a half mile radius of >> train station. >> Of course, there's just fields. So,
>> okay. Anything else, Hannah Bartlet? >> Well, I I'm in favor of having ADUs. I think there's a lot of stuff to work out. I think in the non-conforming garage, I think, you know, going up above it makes sense. I don't know if that would require a special permit or
not. Um >> that is a special permit that we've granted many times that because that's an extension of a nonconformity >> as opposed to creating a new nonconformity. >> So um >> we have sometimes watched where the
overhangs go or if it goes out beyond or how you know try to be cognizant of the neighbors especially the ones that come in to talk to us. >> Right. Um I also when I was reading the bylaw I had a question about the number. Um I
mean a lot of Littleton is oneacre lots or smaller but there are properties that are considerably bigger. I was thinking about the 4 acre property that I had a couple years ago. I could I mean I would really have liked to put two ADUs in the barn there. And
could we make an ex, you know, say for a lots of a certain size, you know, more than four, more than five, more than 10, something like that, we could allow more than one ADU. I just put that out there, too. >> Um, that's that's But there are other
ways you could have done that. You could have built an ADU. You could have made the barn another unit, >> you know, >> because you would you was an antique house. You could have put two units in the house. There's all kinds of different >> Okay, Darl.
>> So, I I got a sort of a tick list. I'll go through them real quick. So, I I like the no ADUs as short-term rentals. Um the non-split ownership, I think, is is another key piece there. Uh there's some clarifications to the non-conformance
section that we want to have in here in terms of um can't do the condo conversions. the ADUs must be conforming to uh all all zoning and setbacks. Um
I think we talked about going from 1,200 down to 900 uh square feet uh there. Um I have a note about cannot do condo conversions with the ADU. They have to remain in common ownership. I think that might be in there sort of but it looked
like it needed just a little clarification. So those were the items I ticked off from our discussion. >> So just to be clear, you said the state will allow us to do that to the the accessory
structure would have common ownership with the principal dwelling. >> That's a requirement. >> Okay. >> Anybody can live in either unit but they must remain in common ownership. Okay. >> And but and we can conversion of the ADU.
Yes. >> And what I've heard is it does not need to be owner occupied. >> Correct. >> Right. Yeah. That's in the state the state law part there. Right. So those are the things that I ticked off from things that we'd like to see prepped in the next draft for
discussion. Uh there I don't I don't know if I caught yours or not in my list here. >> Yes, I'm acknowledging that you did. >> Okay. Mark, >> the only thing I want to make sure is that our our accessory dling bylaw and the AD unit are the same.
>> If we're going to go to 1,200, they should both be replacing a full replacement. >> So, so that's the policy question. So, I'm hearing that you would prefer it stay at 1200. >> No, we're talking about No, I think >> No, I I don't care if it's 900. I just
want them both to be the same. >> I want it to do away with one. >> Right. This this would completely price the accessory apartment bylaw. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Uh and in terms of the 900 versus higher, I mean the goal of this is to
create affordable housing and with the 900 and there are a lot of single family homes in Littleton that are between 900 and 1,000 ft. A lot of them. >> So it's not like we're creating denzian conditions with the ADUs. And the other
thing I I'm just thinking about town meeting. The other thing is that the larger units you create, the more questions there are about schools and you know this and that and the other thing and with on septic uh you know 1,200 square feet can be three bedrooms.
Um it would just be more difficult to build. So I don't know. I'm I'm interested in the 900 you know limitation. Um anyway, okay chair I know I'm going to do the chairman >> and she can pull her um members
>> always do me best. So >> how how about >> Sure. Um I I wonder if the the simple solution to the you know the shed close to the property line is perhaps just to simply make everything 15 ft you know
from side and back and you know someone really wants to have their shed 12 feet from the line or 10 ft from the line just like now if they need to have it six feet they have to go get ZBA and get and show a reason for why it needs to be there. In a lot of cases, the only way you get it closer than Tennessee is
because there's no other place on the lot to put it. It's either rocky, hilly, you know, wet land, whatever. There's all kinds of reasons and and it's usually, you know, the issues are on the lots like down near the the lake where they're all little potion stamps and um so I see,
you know, that seems to be I like the idea of not having not allowing short-term rentals. The idea here is not to build something so someone can make a bunch of money off vacation rentals, but to allow small units where, you know,
single people or a couple only have a place that can rent at a reasonable price um and still stay in town for a lot, you know, for a big part of what's going on. Um that's my thoughts,
>> right? Yeah. I think the zoning board should still retain control answers and special permits, but your last paragraph says that the building inspector commissioner will have authority to wade zoning. >> So, I'm not kind of happy with that.
>> So, what does the state say? Okay. >> So, the state regulations list uh a number of specific types of things regulations categorically cannot do. And then they go on to say that in addition to all the things that you absolutely cannot do,
you cannot unreasonably regulate an ADU. So there may be some cases in on specific laws where a regulation would be unreasonable as applied to that a
proposed ADU on that specific law. So, it's sort of like a almost over amendment type analysis where you've got a um you know, you need to build in a little bit of flexibility for someone to make the call that a regulation is
unreasonable as applied to a specific example. um that I think under state regs is sort of best done by a building official who's going to make the call at the administrative level as opposed to by a
board who's going to review it on a discretionary basis in a public hearing. Um, but that's why it's there is because there's this sort of catch-all provision that says we can't in addition to all the specific things we can't do, we can't unreasonably regulate an ADU and
that will require there to be a judgment call made in some specific cases. >> We could retain that for the board of appeals, which is what we do now. I mean, Henry isn't able to say, "Okay, yeah, you can
do that. That looks good." You know, you have to go to the board of appeals. I can think about that as we move. >> But we require fees to go to the board of appeals. >> Well, I'm less worried about the application fees >> for ads.
>> It's just all the things that need to start coming into play. >> These are these are these are uh asking for special you know only with someone only when someone is asking for special consideration. The thing is we have a very sensible
building inspector right now. We have someone who airs on the side of caution and is careful not to make determinations that are arbitrary >> arbitrary. Um that's not always been the
case and so and that may not be always the case in the future. and if there's a way to to get this into the ZBA's hands, we're pretty much the board of yes. Um, as long as you make sense, we grant we
grant right and left if we can, you know, sometimes we say, okay, you really don't need a 36 foot two wide twocar garage. You know, we we say and that's only two feet off your neighbor's line. We sometimes ask, can you pull it back?
But other than that, we're pretty reasonable. So, can't we I mean, I I think you're probably talking about the case where a lot is maybe 5,000 square feet total and there's no place to put an ADU of any kind that falls within the
set the normal setbacks. Is that that kind of case? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, >> but there but by right they can have one. So that's but so requiring them to go to the ZBA seems to conflict with what
>> it's only for dimensional. Well, I think that's the point we're trying that you're trying to >> deciding the decision as to whether something is allowed by right or not allowed by right is I I would say in most cases best made by an administrative at the administrative
level by the building official as opposed to a board who is more accustomed to making discretionary special permit type decisions and is subjecting the applicant to a public process over uh what
potentially a by use in the first place. >> But Cheryl's point is that Henry's finds occasion, our building official finds occasion to refer to the board of appeals. Now, why wouldn't that continue? >> It would.
>> I I'm I'm offering to think about this. I think category one. >> We need some guidance >> where we need to tread lightly >> and >> and to to me the key on that section is anything that constitutes an unreasonable regulation.
>> Then only in that case would the building commissioner have the authority to to wave a setback. >> Unreasonable. So so >> well it's defined in it's defined in the legislation. >> I think you do the same thing you're doing now. If it's a continuation of a
pre-existing non-conforming dimensional sideline and it's reasonable to say yes, continue it. And we would do that. And if it's not reasonable to say yes because the abuts are close or because the topography is such that it's not reasonable, then he would send it to CBA. I don't think that would change.
>> Henry would do that, but we haven't always had those inspectors that feel that way. >> This this is what's outlined in the regulations in the state regulations. The other issue and uh Chris you can there's no like
u absolute right to build a 900 foot ADU if you have a property that can only accommodate a 450T one that's what it is you know >> oh really >> you're talking about septic though >> you can't build less than 900 square ft
>> you can choose to >> you can build >> I mean the sites may not support u a 900 square foot. >> We'll have to tackle those situations as they come. But someone if it's if it's if it's a residential lot and it has a
single family house on it, someone under zoning can put an ADU on that lot. Period. >> Somewhere. >> Yeah. But 900 square the ADU isn't specifically >> if if separate >> if it's 893. It can't be.
>> If septic blocks it out, you can't build it. If wetlands block it out, you can't build it. But I'm I would be hardressed to describe for you a hypothetical scenario where someone couldn't put >> or zoning you know >> an inch from the property line.
>> The other thing is you can um you know encroach on the existing building. I mean I I just don't agree with that. They can be attached or they can be detached and we can have no say in which of the two. So we can't attached or detached. We can't
>> Absolutely. >> No, but if if if an attached set has the setbacks and it can fit 900 square feet, but detaching it makes them go to Henry and say I need, you know, 5T. That's baloney that we can't say no.
As we said at the at the beginning, you we can apply setbacks, but the property owner gets to choose which setback they want to comply with. The setback applicable to the single family dwelling or the setback applicable to accessory structures.
>> Well, we're changing the definition of accessory structures >> but that's a separate >> it's but it's part of this. >> It's not in this bylaw. It's in it's in a different zoning regulation. an amendment to some other section by the thing is is once I started researching
ADUs start what starts scrolling across you know my Facebook feed is all of these tiny house things and some of them are pretty absurd personally I view absurd but they could all be called ADUs and dropped all over town
>> well that's what this bylaw says you can do right what's the difference between buying a tiny house you drop on the lot and building one from scratch >> right no and and And some of them are >> well tiny tiny. >> No, but it's it's it's the same thing. Whether it's 400 feet tiny house, sorry.
Uh there or a 900 foot ranch, >> they both meet the definition of a >> anu regulate short-term rentals. >> Yeah. >> Um I don't see the difference between a tiny house and >> No, I just use that because that's what
just started showing up. You know, and >> they're they're Is it my turn yet? >> No. Right. You got interrupted. >> No, they stimulated a discussion. >> Yeah, >> that's all I have. >> Okay, go pocket house
there. The issues are I'd like to because of the proliferation that this bylaw allows, I'd like to see it limited tonight and the fact it allows non completely nonowner occupants. So, we're
not in a situation where I mean, this to me, what tugs at my heartstrings and what I want to make sure people can do is build a a you know, be able to build a a one-bedroom ADU while their kids move into the main house and be next to
their grandchildren. That's what I want to see be able to continue to do. And that's important. And or build a building for your child who has autism or something like that. to me that these are these are really important issues that we need to allow. But for someone
to come along and build a house and an ADU at the same time and just use them both as rentals, then I have I want to I want to be able to regulate that and protect the neighbors. Um especially from short-term rentals, especially on lakefront kind of
situations. We had we had I had a tenant who was doing Airbnb basically out of his shed and it was causing a huge disruption to the neighborhood. Um I want to see that if we can possibly limit that. So limiting the size. If they need bigger they can
come to ZBA because if they can make a case where they need more than 900 square feet we're going to give it to them. if they can make a case where you know am I saying this badly said
>> no the only the only question I would have is that we you know the the two units have to be in common ownership >> yes >> they don't have to be um >> owner occupant >> an owner occupant
>> both units could be long-term rentals right be perfectly fine >> you have to define what a long-term rental Anything over 31 days, >> 31 days or more, >> we can prohibit >> make that longer if we wanted or is that that?
>> No, that's identifi that's in the regulation, the state regulations. >> They have that definition. >> 31 days is going to keep the Airbnb down. I still hear >> just >> and and I invite everyone to look at that survey because people in general weren't that exercised about short-term
rentals that responded to the survey. I was surprised. >> That's because there aren't a whole lot experience. >> Yeah. >> And I'm not necessarily opposed to short-term rentals. The purpose of this law was to create housing. Short-term rental is not housing. >> That's the other reason. Yes. trying to we're trying to increase small housing
in town so that you know elderly singles and and young kids have a place to to live without having to move out to Westminster or something >> or an augmented rental income. >> So Sher, can we hear from you? >> My only comment and everybody said everything I would say. My only comment
is I think Henry will agree that we have an awful lot of situations in town where we have barn structures and it's really neat to let somebody put that ADU inside the barn but that's going to be more than 900 ft we've found right we've
talked about a couple of uh examples so I I would hope that the 900 if you reduce to 900 there's the opportunity for someone to seek larger >> through the CBA >> through the CBA that's the only thing extract, >> but it would it would be nice if um if
if we do and I think we end up going down that route that if you want to do a barn conversion to ADU, it'd be nice if the between the ZBA and the planning board or I think it actually becomes a ZBA thing is is like what are the typical things that would be allowable, right?
barn conversion into an ADU. Is that something that you know do you have a list of things there? But you're not looking for a barn unit to be a barn to be converted into 14 apartments. >> No. Right. >> Right. You know, so that there's some information for people to know that
>> we could say is is the ZVA method is available to convert your barn. It's one of the things, you know, you sort of publish what you typically uh >> so if the barn is bigger, if the barn is bigger than the primary dwelling, what happens then? Can they just convert part of the barn?
>> I think you could say that. Yeah. Well, you could say that you could build a 900 foot ADU in the barn, >> regardless of you did that already, Gerald. >> Yeah. on on King Street where they renovate took a barn, renovated the
second floor into a ADU and the first floor is still a barn. >> Yeah, I know. >> I just wanted them to answer the question >> because I mean >> I just >> Yes. >> Sorry to jump in. I just wanted to note that if you're allowing if you want to
allow 900 square feet by right, but you want to allow more um by special permit or by zoning variance, you can do that. But then when you do that, you have to allow um two ADUs per lot essentially because the 900 ft ADU is always going
to be by right and that's going to be the first one allowed. And so then if you allowed someone to build the 12,200 ft ADU for example by special permit, they would be allowed to come back again and build a 900 ft ADU by right. So I
just want to note that I think there was interest in limiting to one per lot. >> Cooper 900. >> So we have to drill in on one item. If you let someone build a 1200 now, they can come back and put a 900 on the same lot.
>> Yep. Unless you want to allow the 1,200 by right without the zoning board review, then they then that's fine. You could just have one. >> Okay. >> But if you want to do the special review, you have to allow to this needs to go this needs to go to next meeting.
>> So now let's open it to any other one here that wants to speak on this issue. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman Joe Pataldo Robinson Road few things I think you need to think about. You need you got to think about lot ratio. I don't know if that's
a consideration or not. I as a person that's built small units. I really think you may want to adopt the 1,200 because if you think about it, somebody wants to build an ADU generally has a grandchild. They possibly could be handicapped. They
need bigger space. You just do the math and you take two bedrooms of 12 by 16. You're almost at 400 square feet right there. If they want to put a kitchen in, a little bit of an area for a living room, 900's tight. >> What What about 10 x 12 bedrooms? What
What are these giant bedrooms? >> 12 by 16. I mean, it's >> you know, when you get rid of this, you get into judgment. >> I was going to say go drive through the Navnasset section of Westford. It is all 800 to,000 square foot ranches.
>> I'm just making >> built in the 50s in 60s. >> But you mentioned lot ratio and the the the the which is a lot of communities use that for their general site uh planning. We do not have that and we would have to institute it over our
single family zoning. Um we would have to incorporate that into our single family zoning. I just texted my friend who's in the ZBA in Westford to see what they adopted and they adopted they adopted up to 1,200 square feet but he said the caveat is if you've got a 1,200
square foot ranch or 1100T ranch they're not going to let you put in a 1200 foot ADU. So I think some ratio factor consideration >> half the size of the >> the our existing did our existing bylaw have that
>> you had at one point it had that I think >> it's in the state >> but right the state has um not larger than half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or >> 1,200 square feet in our draft whichever is smaller
>> we could do we could do >> I don't I don't want to create more havoc. But I just think it's going to be if you go 1,200, the ZBA is going to get I'm sorry, if you go 900, the ZBA is going to get inundated with people don't want to do 1,200. Maybe you set an upset
limit of 1,200 and work work based on what lot what lot size, house size and those types of considerations. Just just some ideas. >> Anyone else? >> Mark. So, um I think the purpose of this law from the state's perspective is to
create more housing. And I think by limiting it to requiring common ownership kind of defeats a lot of that purpose because now what you're saying is anyone that wants to build an ADU has to have enough money to build the ADU that to find the rental rather than
allowing someone to um effectively own the ADU separately. you're putting a lot of burden on people that are potentially lower to middle income to be able to um afford this if you're trying to actually build more housing. So, I'm would be in
favor of not requiring common ownership. I think you're going to get you can get a better mix of people and more ADUs, which is I think is the intent. I think the issue and you can weigh in is that
if you have separate ownership then they are allowed then to build their own. >> No, they're not. It's one per lot. >> It would remain >> allowed separate ownership. It would be I would have to be in the form of a condominium and the condominium would
own the lot that housed both. Okay? and different people would own each of the two exclusive user. >> Yes, >> we voted for a master plan. I voted for it that concentrates that kind of
housing and concentrates just housing growth in the common area and we are experiencing a large expecting a large amount of housing. Um, I think M Littleton is a model town for increasing
housing in the town. So for us to limit I mean the idea the reason we voted for the zoning changes that we voted for in the common was so the rest of the town could stay somewhat rural. We could maintain our farms. We could maintain
our yards and maintain our neighborhoods. Um. >> Wow. while um creating more housing. >> While creating more housing, if we allow separate ownerships across the town,
then we defeated the purpose of the master plan. >> I I disagree entirely. The the laws the ADU law allows people to to build these. the the ownership is irrelevant to whether or not you have
>> I think the ownership is very relevant because it will make a huge difference to a neighborhood being someone who I mean I'm sorry that >> what if I own >> we can't allow to we aren't allowed to require owner occupancy at one of the units anymore because rental units
are different from homeowner units. they they have, you know, they take different care of their properties most of the time and, you know, it's it's >> so the fact that you can't require owner occupancy of either side doesn't kind of
defeat your argument of saying that they have to be in common ownership, right? Because they can already be rented out. >> I disagree. I think that it's important that they remain in in ownership. Otherwise, we might as well just be >> I disagree. I think that's a very nudity
attitude. >> I don't >> So the condo ownership is a important one. I I thought I just assumed that they would allow condo ownership. >> I I assume that we would be precluded from not allowing condo ownership.
>> I could take the counter position and make the argument that it's prohibited. condoization is prohibited even if we don't do anything at the bylaw because it would just by default >> make it non >> make it nonacory to the principal dwelling.
>> Okay. >> But that's >> I I'd like I'd like you to >> write something down about that because that's that's a key issue. >> I I'm not making that argument. I'm just saying I could make >> you could you could make that argument. >> Um so in and the attorney general has
approved bylaws that prohibit condominiumization of the princip they've said in the in in but they've said you know we're approving that but it's it's an interesting question we just can't say that that prohibition
violates state law clearly >> because what we're I think from zoning point of view what we're mainly concerned with is the physical attributes of these properties with and whether they're condoed or owned or whatever it doesn't really matter.
>> In no other zoning context would you two families can be condoed, you know, all that kind of thing. It's form of ownership, not a property characteristic. So, >> right. >> I mean, I'm open to talking about that. I But we'd have to get the support from >> Yeah, I I think at some point because I
think what I wanted to touch on with the the not pointing, you know, was the multif family piece there. There's a multif family aspect in the other proposal that was going to talk about the informal discussion showed a multif
family uh house. During our walk, we see houses that clearly have two front doors for things there. We saw one that said duplex in-law apartment. So I think we have to some point visit the multif family thing and formalize what we really are trying to accomplish with
that relative to townwide versus the spot instances that that are existing uh there because I think people will be looking for consistency in how we apply these rules and what is their right and what are what things that they have to do special and I'll also bring it around
to the um the affordable unit that they're trying to build there that brings in is this question also >> when what are most towns doing with this? Are they prohibiting code the condo thing? >> Most of the bylaws that I've worked on contain that early.
>> Thank you. And since you raised the affordable unit, which is my next door across the street neighbor, um I question whether deciding to change our bylaw to allow two family dwellings in
residential zones ought not to be brought to town meeting and not done by a four or five member board. >> That's that's what I mean. I think at some point we should look at that whole aspect of our zoning and clarify it and bring it to
>> a crisper point. I guess agree. >> Are you really considering not making that? >> No, I just said that. I didn't say we were considering it. I said we ought to be thinking about what we should do about it. >> Me, the board didn't say that. >> Can I
since you brought up this this law, can I give you folks some history on it? >> No. Let let's um but but you could think about or the proponents of this project could think about how the ADU this revised ADU bylaw could work.
>> I think it would work beautifully there. There are a number of elders in this town who cannot afford to sell their house to their children and yet can't really afford to stay where they are and need help. I mean, a Habitat for
Humanity house that has an ADU with it, I can I could populate that 12 times over, you know, with with people who fit that category where they're >> that's not the discussion I want to have tonight, though. I don't want to go down
that. And I think that um let's take advantage of our MAPC planner to weigh in to maybe uh comment on our discussion and what we might we might be going off track or or whatever.
>> When I think um most of what you're saying are fair things to discuss legally from my understanding. I think, you know, as MEPC, we're also very pro supporting housing. I think a couple people have brought up that this bylaw
really is meant to support housing production and affordable housing. I think that's an interesting point about condoization making it less affordable. But I also think um
I think another um as your general counsel brought up that it may be it might already be in the law that you can't condoise. It is a little bit unclear from the state but I think um you know personally we would encourage
just like as NATC we encourage making it more allowable than the state already does. So, like allowing up to 1,200 square f feet um we think is is generally good. Um I I also kind of like the idea of maybe you allow more than
one ADU on larger lots, especially if that's something you have. And again, that the second ADU has to be by special permit anyways, so you have more review of a of a second ADU. I think that's an interesting idea. Um
yeah, those are sort of my thoughts. If you have specific questions, happy to happy to answer them. >> Um, I think we need town council to weigh in on this condo thing >> on the condo issue. >> I have nothing. You you in your
experience, it's not a typical thing. Um, I I would question I think Mark your point was that allowing conduitization would actually make it more affordable for this housing to be created, >> right?
>> Um, because the people who were investing in it can then sell it and recruit their money and, you know, whatever rather than renting it. >> Anyway, so we've had a good discussion. Um, and we're going to have to wrestle with it. We also have to think about
what our town of constituents want. We should start talking among ourselves. Uh the the size is a big issue. Um and uh but in general, you know, we um and I think I glad the board of appeals was
here tonight because you were the ones who were dealing with these weirdo lots that are non-conforming and different, you know, situations. And you know, I was on it for a dozen years and you are the um trained to be the board of Yes. But >> I miss you.
>> Well, um I I do not miss writing legal decisions. >> But um anyway, so um what is you showed us what the timeline was? Um, so we'll
take a look at the agendas for January and February and see where it makes most sense to pencil this in January. >> So the process is we will eventually have we will eventually wrestle with this for the bylaw and up until the time
of a um of issuing that and having a hearing which will be in March. Any one of you can weigh in uh you know through the planning board. There's going to be a new planning board uh email address that will go a single
address for all of us, but it will go to Mar and Cooper and they'll distribute if you have any comments. Um and um Chris, it's just like cannabis. It's just like a gold mine for you attorneys. I mean,
>> just say yes. >> Yes. No, but yes, but um you know, every town has is is adopting a new bylaw to address this, >> but you know, there's, as I think I tried to say at the outset, there's
we're so confined in what we can do. The bylaws tend to be >> and and we're trying to number one, identify what we can, what we can weigh in on, and number two, identify any other parts of our bylaw we might need to change to support, you know, this effort.
Uh with that uh can I have a motion to close this meeting? We This was not a hearing, right? >> Right. This was not a hearing and you have one more. >> We do. What is it, >> Mr. Chair? And Gwen is still on if you want. Thank you.
>> Oh, yes. And thank you for your time. We really appreciate it. >> Thank you for for having me. It's 79. That's why >> Oh, 350 and a king. I forgot. Okay, let's do it. >> Uh, Attorney Gold, would you like to uh
have an informal discussion about >> and in case anybody needs a little sugar at this hour, we'll try to make it quick though. Um, let me introduce you. And do you have these on an overhead? >> So, I'm here on behalf of Dwight Long.
He's the owner of 359 King Street. If you recall, that was Rich Crowley's address with the Bunny Barn. And it's a long narrow relatively narrow lot that goes back >> with a great deal of
>> pasture area and backlands. >> Dwight Long's uh >> bride is uh afflicted with MS and they're looking to have a property they can be on one floor and she can get in and out with a wheelchair. and he has a
brother and a brother's daughter and family and they want to kind of make this into a family compound. The daughter has the granddaughter, the niece, wife's niece has some horse uh involvement and would like to have this for sort of a past p pasture area and
keep it as farmland. The interesting thing is that much of the backland abuts the Morgan property and while it's not easily accessible from one to the other it is a beautiful open space that would be maintained with this proposal. So I'm going to turn it over to the engineer
who is Sean from OC >> G and he's going to walk you through the plan. >> Sure. Thanks. Uh for the record I'm Sean Malone from O Consulting Group. I'm a professional civil engineer in Massachusetts. Um, and I have actually
done some work in town here. I remember some of the >> The name was familiar and your face is familiar. What project? >> Northern Bank. >> Oh, that's okay. >> Um, so, um, just quick overview. You may or may not be familiar with the property. Uh, it's about 6 and a half
acres. Um, it's the development of the site is predominantly on the northern side along King Street. Uh it's developed with a uh single family residence and then a a second structure large how would you classify that kind of a
>> existing barnish newish barn type building >> the bunny barn we call it >> and then there's a small uh stable with a uh a room up above that as well. Um the site uh also has a drainage channel
cutting through the middle of it and you can see just on that plan just on the right hand side. Um, and what that is, that's taking storm water runoff from King Street as well as, uh, I believe it's Edel Drive, uh, to the west. And
that water comes onto the site and flows down and basically bisects the site, um, and then discharges to the wetlands to the south. So, the area to the south of that or southwest, the page right,
that's all just open land. uh basically pasture and uh some wetlands on the edge. So the plan is to leave that completely untouched about 4 acres or so three and a half acres and that would be
put into a conservation restriction on the front on the front side of the site. We want to take the um existing house that fronts on King Street, convert that into a two family, convert convert the
barn structure um next to Dwight's property uh into a single family residence, and then construct two other single family residents uh on the property. So, there would be a total of five single family residents. This would
be proposed under the I believe it's open space uh conservation bylaw. Is that the name of the bylaw? Um and we would have uh an access come in approximately where the existing drive
comes in just uh to the west of the existing house. Um create a culdeac, have a 22 foot wide drive, which I think is your requirement for a lane. um have a culde-sac that's suitable for turning
uh fire department vehicles and then with that it would also be Amazon and and so forth and have the uh parking for the structures come off of that culde-sac. Uh we'd have two parking spaces minimum for each structure. We're
probably looking at having a uh a shared parking of six spaces for the converted buildings. Uh that would be over in between the uh the two buildings. Um we'd have an allnew septic system
designed for this. Um and then also storm water management. So is uh you know meet all the current regulations. A portion of this development kind of towards the back will be within the 100 foot buffer
to those wetlands. That drainage ditch is classified as a wetland. It's not a rivers. >> Not a river. Nope. Nope. Just uh bordering vegetated wetlands. So we have the 100 foot setback. Um so we will have a uh a conservation component with this
as well. Um and that that pretty much sums up what we're trying to do here. Did you want to add anything? >> Um only that I currently live next door. So I live at 363 which is that top leftand corner. So, u I would just be moving
next door and then I would be selling my house. But once we uh if we can get this done, >> Cooper, this plan will show the large area of back land that would be left available. >> You also had submitted a proof plan
showing, you know, five. >> That's a good one. >> Yeah. So, okay. So this this is the example that shows that that hatched area in the back that would all be put into a conservation restriction. Um so it could never be developed uh for anything like this
>> to the GIS to look at how it fit into the Morgan land and it's really nice. >> Yeah. >> And then if you just flip to the proof plan just to show that um potential is there to get five lots. >> Yeah. >> Conventionally with a full subdivision
road, but then we're at the back. Yes. So, what we did here is we uh basically put a conventional subdivision on here. This meets all of your zoning requirements. I believe it's about a 600 foot long culde-sac. Um so, you know, we
we could build a five lot subdivision meeting all the rules and regs uh on this lot. Um but as Dwight would say, he'd rather do the other thing. >> I just had one aside. What is that little train? Who owns a little
triangular piece that's to the >> I don't know >> shown on the town map is a separate parcel >> and it's this one here just to the uh the west of you right beside you
>> talking about this one here. >> Oh that's uh right that's a badger. Who wants that one? That's that's that's the uh not not bad funeral home. Bad your funeral home is left of that, but it's a two uh it's a
rental right now. It's a two family rental. >> I'm just curious. I just didn't it didn't look like it was sort of buildable. >> Is that that little two family? >> They have a decent backyard. I mean, >> and when I was there, everything on the
northerly lot line would be the back of the houses on Epsil, >> right? So, it just seemed to me it would leave them undisturbed with what they are used to seeing. >> Definitely open past. >> For anyone who's watching this, um
people might be familiar with the property, previous tenant. >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, because a lot of us went to the the trucks and wandered the So, um, you know, I think that those of us who are familiar with it are very excited
that it could potentially be open land. You know, >> that's that's I mean I think I've done a good job at 363 for anybody who's been here for for 40 years has seen >> and I was going to say for those of us who've been in the board of appeals, we went you went through a process for the
wall in the back when you pool. >> Yeah. And that I think >> we did a good job there. It's a beautiful wall and >> I think it's beautiful. I it said yeah it was expensive but I think it's a it's like a nice gateway to Littleton Center
and I think those and to be able to keep Richie's house at old and I want to maintain you know the exact same look >> uh from the road you know going down King Street. >> So since this is just a this is what I
want to do uh I'm going to open it to the board and >> you want to start with Hannah. So, this is a proposal for the open space development bylaw. I thought we had to have a minimum of 10 acres to consider that.
>> I think it was that if there's 10 acres, you must present it as an open space. I don't think it says you need a minimum of 10. I could be wrong. That's what I thought. Take a look. >> Um, I like the idea of keeping the back
of that lot open space. I think um, first drawing that was up >> makes sense. I mean, given that there's going to be development. >> Darl. >> Yeah. I mean, in general, I think, you know, moving the development towards the
front against the road is better than making it go all the way out in the back. Just one question. Um, why not a more straightforward shared driveway instead of a lollipop and maybe you can recover a bunch of land that
might be better used? >> Um, a couple things. I mean, we're going to be serving five units on there. I think fire department would probably want easy access. So, we'd want something um that they can kind of circulate. Uh secondly, again, with the
the five units, Amazon, things like that, we just think it would be better. >> Not that picture, but >> the other picture only shows two houses off of the lollipop. >> They're probably two units, >> five residential units. >> Yeah. All of the units would come off of that lollipop.
>> There's three existing units. Oh, see that's what I can't I can't find them in these drawings. It's just >> it's the second drawing on the list. >> Yeah. >> Way up at the top. >> Yeah, there's one right here. >> Can you point? >> This is the bunny barn right there. And this is the house that
>> Yeah. I It would have been nice if maybe those were shaded so that >> find them on the drawing. >> I just wanted to get before you. >> Yeah. No, I I I didn't realize that there was other units along inside of that because I as I'm looking for, you know, trying to find it in the drawing here. So, this shaded part is going to
get sold off. >> This is a colored one that's a little bit better. I think this would be better. >> These are the existing buildings. These are the two new ones. >> And so, this would be the shared. >> Okay. So, you're servicing them all off of the lollipop here. Okay. I couldn't get that from the drawing that was
there. I thought you was only servicing those two. >> I think another uh advantage and >> this this is where he lives now. And that's going to get sold >> existing house. >> Okay. >> And you will be No, you're good. >> You might want to touch base with the
historic >> right now. >> We already have. >> Okay, good. >> And the state >> and the town >> because it's a listed property and Yeah. >> So, just to confirm, so it's five new units on top of the existing house that's going to be
>> No, two. >> So, it's an existing house right now. So, that one unit is going to be converted to two. >> Two. Yeah. Then the barn structure is going to be converted to a single family. So a total of three >> and then two new single family buildings. So >> Okay. So it's two
>> the two orange ones. >> So new units on the site would be four total that that aren't residents right now. >> You're sort of confusing. >> Yeah. >> All right. Two structur
two orange ones are new buildings. The existing buildings are going to be reconfigured somehow. maybe do some graphic, you know, um >> to make it really crystal clear. >> And I'm assuming that the house that you're going to build where the barn is is maybe is going to be in a bigger
footprint or >> No. And I think they're all going to be relatively I mean like 20 less than 3,000 square feet. They're not going to be >> it's going to be nice from you know drive when >> good curb appeal when you drive by. When
you look back there, it looks nice. Now, I want it to still look nice. >> Were we listening to the, as General says, we're listening to the ADU discussion? You know, there's all kinds of different ways of slicing things. >> So, you said, >> I think I I I think Dan is right about
the 10 acres, but I don't think that's a real issue here. I think >> No, I I stand corrected. Sherry is correct. >> I think the adding the two units to the three that are already here. There's already a structure there that's going to be renovated from a bunny barn or whatever the thing is. And for a house
is fine. The two the two units is fine. The open space that you're getting in the back. I would rather see the smaller lot the small little culdeac coming right up the road. Um and I do think you need to have something of that size. You can't do a shared drive especially with
five units coming off of it. But I think it works good for that. Well, and if you landscape it nicely, it could be a sort of center of focus for the little community. >> Yeah, my my comment was because I didn't realize that there was other buildings in the drawing. >> I think it makes sense for that, especially with the open space in the
back. So, the next question that would come up, and I'm curious more than how it would influence, you know, my feeling about it, but would this be a a condominium form of ownership with exclusive use areas or or >> That's what I was thinking
>> because you can't really subdivide. >> That's what I I I want to be able to take my wife to Florida in the winter and just have somebody else. Well, when I say condiment, I mean I'm saying the form of ownership where that would be a single parcel with exclusive use areas
for each of these. >> Okay. >> Okay. Mr. >> Ch speak to it. So, I've been working with Dwight for the last 18 months trying to plan this. And the plan is is to take the present
two well it is also the barn right now the old Crowley property renovate that. The barn itself is not habitable and has to be taken down very similar what we did on Robinson Road renovation like that style making two units there that
are relatively moderately priced. We don't have a price point at this point in time. Those two orange units would be using a kind of a model of a ranch style so that Dwight's wife Mary Lou can navigate the house. And then obviously
the benefit of the the the visttor in the back is so that the basement he can finish that as he chooses or uh develop the back with a nice deck so he can overlook that. He's very very passionate about his property. He's called it was
it Blueird Bluebird Farm >> Bluebird Ranch >> Blueird Bluebird Ranch. So he wants to really invite very uh a lot of different wildlife there and so forth trying to grow native plants that are um good for
uh all kinds of wildlife. So it's u I think it's going to be a really exciting property and certainly will look beautiful when it's all done. Thank you. Um, >> well, Joe, you have credibility working
with antique structures. >> Thank you. >> Um, >> the passion, I guess. >> Yeah, I guess. Grubble, grubble. Um, anyway, so have you gotten out of this meeting what you >> Yeah. I mean, I've already spent a lot
of money and I'm just the positive feedback is is good and we'll just keep going, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Just wanted to be sure we're going with an open space plan in the right direction and the board is all in favor of >> preserving that backland the way Dwight wants to. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your time very much. >> Now, now you can watch. >> It's too late now. >> Now, can I Okay. Can I hear a second? All in favor? Okay. Flip the switch.