Hey. Hey. I'll let you get seated and then we'll start. Uh where before we start, where is the camera? Like >> everywhere. >> Yeah. Okay.
I mean, there's one, two. >> Yeah. I'll just hope I don't look like an idiot. Cool. >> The cameras are getting you guys. >> Yeah. Where should I look when I say hello to everybody? >> Just look around. >> She has control of
>> Yeah. Okay. Cool. Great. All right. Love it. >> That was my Like, normally I look out an audience. >> That's That's why we're nice to her cuz she'll get your good stuff. All right. And without further ado, I see we're on.
Good evening everyone and welcome to this uh planning board meeting off cycle on Monday, July 20th, 2026. Uh this meeting is a working session to go over um some bylaw changes we'd like
to do. So it's a little uh it's off cycle. you see us down here so we can discuss easier. Um, this meeting is still being recorded. And the other thing to note is we will accept public comment only at the end of the meeting tonight. Again, because this
is primar this is meant to be a working session. Uh, there will be ample opportunity for public comment on any bylaws we put together before they actually went to town meeting. But we're not
there yet. We're still in the process of hammering out vague ideas. So, I think that's everything I have to say to open us up. >> Okay. I'll I'll for the people at home, I'll explain the zoning amendment process that we're going to employ here.
Um the idea is that we're going to work on the bylaw language through these working sessions over the summer and hopefully by the end of summer we've come up with bylaw language.
>> Gotcha. >> Hopefully by the end of summer we come up with bylaw language that the full board can agree on. So, if that happens and it's September and we've got our bylaw language together, then at that point, we'll post
the amendments online. We'll have a public forum or two. We'll make the rounds to the other boards, commissions, and committees and departments and explain what we're doing and why we're doing it.
Going through that process will probably bring us to the end of the calendar year. At that point, we'll have everyone's feedback. We'll spend the winter revising our our draft bylaws based on what people told us.
Uh maybe one more public forum in February, our required public hearing in March, and then it's off to town meeting. Now, as we agreed upon earlier, we're
working on minor site plan review, which is something we don't have right now. Senior housing, something we don't have right now. Revisions to our cluster bylaw and revisions to our inclusionary
housing bylaw. So, I'll ask again, has everyone read through what I sent them? Everyone's good on that? >> Mhm. Let's start with the easiest one first, which is site plan, minor site
plan review. Now, this is a two-parter. If we want to do this, we've got to amend the site plan language in our zoning bylaw. And if that passes, then we've got a minor site plan review section that we'll need
to add to our site plan regulations. So, if you have your site plan bylaw in front of you, it looks like this with the yellow highlight. One of the things I asked
our uh previous consultant help me out with his name. I'm blanking. >> Uh Richard Harris. >> Richard Harris. One of the last things I asked him to do was put together some language we could adopt to get minor site plan review into
the site plan provision in our zoning bylaw. Now, Richard did that for me over in Sterling, so he was wellversed in the process. So, what you have here in yellow
highlight is what Richard drafted up for us. questions, comments, suggested edits. Let me also uh stop before we do that and talk about why we're doing this.
Um, right now our site plan review procedure isn't all that businessfriendly and we're requiring detailed engineering plans for people who just want to start a business using an existing building in
town. Um really if a new business is coming to town and they're going to make use of an existing building and
all they're doing is some interior renovations, putting up a new sign and they don't need any more parking than what's already on site. I don't want to drag them through the site plan full site plan review process. So that's the premise of what we're
trying to do here. This will be this is a streamline permitting technique that's businessfriendly. So that's why we're doing this. Uh you have Richard's language highlighted in yellow. Questions, comments, suggested
edits. Okay. Uh I'm just double I as I go I have to double check my notes versus what this piece says and make sure I ask my questions correctly. Others feel free to jump in too. I mean I don't have any any significant
I don't have any real comments. My only question is under the suggested amendment for the exception in on page two under 2A uh bracket one. Um,
do we need to note you note later on that the board determines that something is dimminimous change? I don't know if it's worth being redundant and adding word in there exception. A public hearing is not required for minor site plan approval or approval of a
dimminous modification of an approved site plan. Um, I struggle whether to even ask that question or not cuz that's that's not including like in instances that it doesn't immediately
conform. We still have to make the determination. Is it a dimminimous change? >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I mean, dimminimous changes are outlined and defined in the regulations. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'd say more vaguely outlined than
defined, but >> no, I I'm probably being overly harsh on it for no reason. >> I mean, I'm okay with the language as it is. I just >> What's your concern, Adam? Again, >> I just want I I I I'm just asking
whether or not we need to reference that the board makes a determination that something's dimminimous. >> Let Let me try to address that language wise. A public hearing is not required for a for a minor site plan approval
or modification of an approved site plan that the board determines is dimminimous. You could even Yeah. I mean, you could even just take the language from page five where it says uh modifications which the board deems
to be dimminimous. Uh the first line of exception A. >> I'm probably being picky. I I think it's a good thing to cl it's good to be clear at every possible point given how often people only read one
section, >> misinterpret and then people don't do a deep dive into zoning law before making very big fiscal choices and that terrifies me for them
every time. And that's not being critical un Lunenburgg. That's a >> no that that's universal. >> Yeah. >> Um I So give it looking at the first suggested
amendment on uh in B6. Um you know so we require for site plan approved for any change of use except where the plane director determines that a new use will not require more parking than the previous use will not result in
many alteration and any alterations to the exterior of the building or the parking lot. Um I mean that's what we've been discussing. Is there do there exist any weird niche off cases
we haven't really thought of yet? and this wants to take >> absolutely >> like I mean so I'm just thinking and what I mean by that even more specifically are things like does our site plan review process
trigger is that like the inherent trigger for anything else that goes towards health department or somewhere else or are they all completely separate? I mean I know broadly there's supposed to be I'm just thinking through does the existence of site plan trigger
other things that we might not want to throw out but might want to also include? >> I don't believe so. Um, so a simple example would be if you had a convenience store that was switching to a hair salon
>> and it was equivalent going to be equivalent parking based on the plan that they had for the building. There are border health considerations for the hair salon either related to septic or sewer
concerns related to the disposal of whatever they're flushing down the sinks. But those are going to get triggered in those individual processes and not necessarily through the site plan. >> And our building commissioner is going to catch that when they ask for a zoning
determination. When someone asks for a zoning determination, that's where he outlines the permitting process. You're going to need this from that board. You're going to need that from this board and so on and so forth. >> Okay. No, that make that makes my worry
was things getting caught otherwise that wouldn't. But no, that makes sense. If they're going to have to go for the zoning determination, that is the building commit step number one. Yep. Nope. Makes total sense to me. Realistically, our lane on site plan is fairly narrow. It and is only going to
get narrower if there's legislation making its way through that's going to codify site plan and require a set of objective standards. >> Mhm. Um, no, that makes sense to me. Then my
question on B7, can you give me a page number? >> Oh, page one. >> Okay. >> B7. So for any child care facility and then there's an amendment to that. What what is that amendment in relation to any child care facility?
>> I don't understand chapter 48 section 3 is a listing of all the uses that are exempt from zoning throughout the state. educational in institutions,
religious institutions, uh farming operations, um solar power, um forgetting one, but you you get the gist. >> Best battery energy storage system, >> but those are considered solar power. >> They're not because there's a new push
to bring them off of solar power and just install them everywhere and trickle off the grid at low demand times. I thought the reason that became allowed was because they just took the courts took the solar p power idea and said
best counts as solar power even when it's not attached. >> May Yeah. I mean maybe >> I mean I think we're super splitting here. >> Yeah. And I and there's two different categories in that section. There's the protected uses, your farming, your religious and your exempt
educational or child care. And then there's like the solar which you can regulate to a certain degree but you can't outright prohibit. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um other questions, comments, suggested
edits. So that amendment just is replacing any child care facility with >> it. It's adding >> Yeah. It is it's it is just clarifying the if that child
care facility is exempt under chapter 5. >> Okay. And that changes it because there are certain educational uses that aren't exempt because they don't meet the standards for nonprofit and other things that you can prohibit or you can regulate more strictly.
>> Got it. Okay. I think those were my questions on this one. Anyone else? Everyone else is good with Tim's U.
>> Now, Dominimus would still be a separate process from minor site plan. Correct. >> Well, we're going to move on to that in the minor site plan language for the regulations. >> Yeah, that okay, that's fine. That's where I actually had that question written. So, just kind of triggered now.
>> So, if we're good with the suggested zoning language for Mr. Harris, we can move on to the minor site plan review provision that we would need to adopt
into our site plan regs once the bylaw passes. And that's the uh the last two pages attached to the site plan thing I gave you.
And the procedures are outlined in in item D on page two. Mhm. Adam, I got your comment on item B. >> Yeah. And I do go back and B3. >> Well, uh B2 and B3. Yeah. You want to
tie that to the existing parking standards in our zoning bylaw? >> Yeah. And I I this was the first thing I read before I read the site plan, uh the bylaw amendment. So that does sort of address it because it gives you that power.
If if it does require more parking, you're automatically kicking it this way because the exemption for you is only if it's equivalent or less parking, >> right? >> So that's I I should have gone back and amended it, but I didn't. So that's okay.
>> I'm okay with that. Um, I was wondering, so I was looking at on on page one, um, C2, um,
it about the, uh, if the property abut's residentially developed his own property. um unless the project's at least 350 or 300 ft away um from the nearest dwelling
unit. I was like I can understand why if it's close to residential B1 and B2 make sense because those are kind of exterior changes that would need to be considered. Um, I was wondering
about B3 if it's super relevant. And I just wanted again that was I think it probably still makes sense to include but I was wondering if a a simple change of use to something that can slush easily enough and it already meets the
requirements for I mean I guess that could cause an office to become a retail shop and >> but it's only if it's involving the alteration of one or more of those conditions. So if the conditions remained
in force or or they weren't changing anything that were in those conditions, it it would be it would qualify. Okay. Okay. Do I I might misunder my understanding was that we're saying you can do minor site
plan review but if you're adjacent to a residential property like here B says here's the things that you can do with a minor site plan review. C2 says, "Hey, but if you're
next to a residential property, you still need to do site plan review." >> Correct. >> And that's simply to give the neighbors a chance to weigh in. Um I don't It's up to you if you want to keep it or not. >> Oh, I see. I thought you were talking
about three, not two. >> Uh no, I was talking about two. And my wonder was I can understand neighbors. Uh, it for sure makes sense if they're going to make a building bigger, if they're going to change the parking lot. I I can see why neighbors, residential
neighbors would absolutely have a say. Like, I can wrap my mind around that. I was wondering about a change in use and I was less sure, but then I think >> all they're doing is putting up a new sign and maybe painting the building. >> But, and that's why I'm like, does it
really matter? Maybe we don't include B3 in that. On the other hand, you could turn an office into a retail shop if the office had enough parking, blah blah blah. >> Yeah. >> And maybe, but then again, it's already
set up to tolerate that, so I don't know how much it matters. I was wondering I was wondering about that and >> so go ahead, Tony. >> Something like this came up before. remember the um the uh marijuana the dispensary that wanted to go in down
where the old uh >> the chiropractor's office was. Oh, the >> across from the the liquor store now. >> Yeah. Right in there. Remember that? >> That used to be Mackie. >> And it Yeah. And it was first it was it was too close to the house next door and
it was a bunch of other things. It was too close to the house across the street, which wasn't, I don't believe, actively or hadn't been. It was an abandoned use of a house. It was So, it probably should have been able to go there. >> Um, >> but that was under the
cannabis, the adult use cannabis bylaw. >> Yeah, that's a whole another >> Yeah, I'm wondering if I I think >> depending what they want to do there. I think it should I think it should. I mean, it's worthwhile what they're going to do there, right? I like the intent of
it. I wonder if 300 is too much. >> I could see that >> that isn't 300 ft the standard for applying a butter. >> It is. It is. Is that so? But I mean I I think that a change in
use is generally going to have any any dilitterious effects are going to be more felt by people within the direct abuing or you know within 100 ft in most cases and so much of our
commercial is jammed in adjacent to residential. I wonder how how how many parcels are going to qualify for >> Yeah, that's true, too. >> Yeah, >> that 300 might just net just about
everything. >> That's kind of what I was Yeah. >> Um >> I'm okay with losing C2. >> I mean, I guess my feeling is these are our regs. They're way easier to change. >> Mhm.
>> They don't require tell me >> Yeah. they require a a public hearing. So, I would rather lose it >> and if we find that it becomes a problem, we can add it back in because I think like you said, it's going to catch almost every every parcel. >> Yeah. I'm I was when I thought of it, I
wanted to be sensitive to the fact that our go if our goal is to be is to make this process more businessfriendly, I want us to be thoughtful about if we're >> putting a a roadblock might not be needed. So, I think I land in the same place.
>> Okay. Well, um, Mr. Harris might have pulled this directly from Sterling, which is a different case. So, >> can we Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Are we in favor of scratching C2? >> I
>> Yep. No objections. >> Nope. >> Okay. >> Going back to the thresholds. >> Yep. as we talked about it change in use but do not involve any new construction and the new use will not require more than 4500 square ft of additional
parking area. How is that different than two new parking areas expansion of existing parking areas not more? It's just adding change of use.
>> That does not involve new construction. >> Okay. >> So, so if that two is just you need to ex like you're >> you're just expanding parking. >> Yeah. >> And then do we should we include
>> I guess we shouldn't because the bylaw does it. I'm just change in use that doesn't involve more than 4500 of additional parking could be a change in use that is equivalent parking, but that wouldn't get here because it wouldn't trip it based on the bylaw.
>> No. >> Okay. I just need to say it out loud. >> Okay. >> Um I think that >> answering the question on C5. >> Yep. Uh yes, I I do think that we should
require uh uh traffic and environmental and like infrastructure and school assessments. >> Okay. >> Um we put that in the Sterling site plan regulations. Yeah. >> And um I have language to that effect
and um certain thresholds of development would trigger when you ask for such things. So, it's not just >> will it? >> No, we we kind of think we want a full-blown uh tax impact analysis or traffic study.
No, there actually triggers. >> Yeah. >> Like I'd see for like when we're doing the in the senior housing where you've got the larger ones or the cluster housing like those are more applicable of when we would want those. Okay. I because there's times we've required
um environmental or traffic impact assessments. >> Um and that was kind of my question was I I know we've done them. >> Uh so is the idea here language to to to hang your hat on. >> I think there is language in the filing
requirements >> for site plan regs >> in the site plan rags that that note that impact reports Okay. Um, I didn't see it and I didn't see any thresholds that would
>> I don't think there are thresholds. I think it just requires them and then the board can wave them upon >> Okay. Well, we can nail that that down. >> Yeah. I'm not >> And this we have a little bit of extra time because >> Yeah, we do.
>> Yeah. I I like being able to require them. I also like being able to wave them. Um because there's and I'd rather requirements were a little more strict with an ability to wave myself because I I I I think there's plenty of times
we're willing to say, "Yeah, this looks fine." Like you can look if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. >> Sure. But there's other times that I I don't want us to make the restrictions um
too lenient and then we don't have the ability to request something when it seems like it could be a problem. >> Sure. Would somewhere like Parmentor would that trigger our >> No, because it's not a site plan, it's an ANR development. >> Oh, sure. Okay. Sure.
The site plan generally hits commercial and industrial more >> and major multif family. >> Yeah. >> But if you're looking out into the audience and you've got 10 of butter saying, "Hey, uh what what's this going to do to the traffic?" You know, like if you're putting 20 to 30 houses in one
space, like it is going to have an impact. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> I mean, Reservoir Road Yeah. >> All of that, that bridge is going to get >> Yeah. hairy. >> Okay. >> Anything else on site plan review?
>> No. >> Can't get anything internets. >> So, what's next on our list? What do we got? What are we going to do? >> Let's do uh inclusionary. >> Okay.
So, I wrote inclusionary zoning bylaw. For the people at home, let's explain the concept. um inclusionary bylaw, inclusionary housing bylaw, you have a provision on the books for it right now.
Uh it hasn't been utilized very often. I doubt ever. Um, inclusionary zoning is an attempt to require new housing developments to set aside a certain percentage of units as
affordable is defined by the state so that they get counted on Lunenburgg's subsidized housing list. uh Massachusetts general law chapter 40b
requires 10% of every mass Massachusetts municipality to have at least 10% of its housing stock deemed affordable and right now Lunberg is at 8.2%. So we're not quite at our 10%. >> We went up.
>> What's that? We went up. >> You did go up. Um for towns that don't meet 10% they can be hit by projects known as um
proposed under the comprehensive permit meaning they can build anywhere in town at any density. They can take a piece of your prime industrial land and build
sixstory buildings with 100 units and uh the town has little control over that. >> And the worst part of it is the planning board doesn't even get a say and we have to leave it up to those nefarious folks over at the ZBA. >> Really? You planning boards have a say
in that? We get an advisory opinion, but all the power is given to the zoning board. >> Yeah. The zoning board runs that process by by statute. >> So, um it would behoove us to try to get a little closer to our 10% requirement.
And I'm trying to do that through both the senior housing bylaw that we're that's coming up and inclusionary housing bylaw that you have before. However, Adam and I went to a housing forum a couple weeks ago and we got a reality
check from um some experts that um deal with inclusionary zoning bylaws and exclusively um and that they don't work very well
for small communities like ours. And I know this to be true because I wrote an inclusionary housing bylaw for Berlin and for the town of Charlton back in 2005. 10 years later when I was thinking about
inclusionary zoning for Westminster, I gave both towns a call and said, "Hey, so how many uh affordable housing units did you uh get out of your inclusionary housing bylaw?" The answer was zero.
And that's because whatever the threshold was that triggered the bylaw, developers were coming in one unit below. that didn't hit the um the Sawyer Hill Eco Village development
in Berlin cuz they I when did that come in? >> Uh that was the first families moved in in 2008 and by 2012 they were done and
completely sold and built. Uh, according to the town clerk when I called her in 2015, >> some of my friends were involved in bu in in in that develop in that co-housing development and they um I mean I know
for a fact that they had to follow the that they had to develop um affordable units within that development. >> Okay. So, um, at least on the Camelot side, I assume Sawyer Hill Coh Eco Village is two
separate co-housing groups, neither of which was quite big enough to fiscally make their own co-housing development. So, they bought in together and have two co-housing on the same property. Um cuz I I know at least the
Camelot side by was required to put in affordable units. >> You didn't mention that. >> Well, that isn't uh paperwork and uh housekeeping that we have to do at least. I was just processing that. I'm like, wait, I can look up those. So,
what I took away from the housing seminar that we went to is that inclusionary housing bylaws are going to work best in those communities where they're going to build housing regardless, the Metro West communities,
and it works best for multifamily housing developments. Um, if we think we're going to get a significant amount of affordable units out of the bylaw as written,
I think we're mistaken. Um, even with the density bonus, which I think is fairly generous, I don't know that we're going to get very many affordable housing units as
is. Now, so please, so now I want to talk about senior housing because it does dubtail into this inclusionary bylaw a little bit.
In my experience, senior housing is typically built uh in one of two ways. Um if you're looking for affordable senior housing, your best bet is to have it built on town land and have it be a
town sponsored project. If the town has an appropriate piece of land for senior housing, they can put it out to bid an RFP request for proposal and get someone to design, build, and manage the affordable
housing project. That developer applies for all of the state grants that are necessary to create that affordable senior housing development. We did that in Westminster. We had a big patch of land in back of our senior
center and it took us about seven years, but the state finally funded 50 units of affordable senior housing units. >> Did you get anything for the land or was the
development of the affordable units? The >> the land was our contribution to the project. >> Okay. I just wanted to be clear$undred,000 in ARPA funds. Okay. >> Now, I've looked at what the town has for available properties, and none of
them are suitable for senior housing. They're either landlocked or they're too small, or they're too wet, or they're way out in the boonies. Um, so now I'm going to look at the
properties on your tax delinquent list, >> Pasio School. >> And what's that? Uh there's a school in the center of town that might be a good site. >> Don't think it wasn't that idea number one for me. And I was told that there
were other plans for that building. There's been other plans for that building for 25 years. >> Everyone wants Pacios. >> Why would it Why would you want to have senior housing next to >> next to your senior center? That wouldn't make any sense. Well, they'd be on the school campus and you know all
those senior sex offenders. Everyone I've talked to has a better idea for TC Pasos. I still think it would be ideal for senior housing, but um nobody elected me to anything. You had a building at 1.2
torn down. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, I'm going to start looking at the the properties on your tax delinquent list. hopefully spot one up and we can see if we can take that through the tax
title process. So that's the ideal way of building affordable senior housing units. The other way is incentivizing the private sector to build senior housing units.
and if left to their own devices, they're more than willing to build market rate senior housing unless you have your inclusionary bylaw apply to senior housing. So, um I've concocted our senior housing
bylaw, which we'll talk about next to, um apply to senior senior housing. >> So, by I want to make sure I understand this. So by itself, our inclusionary zoning bylaw is not likely to produce
much if any. as written right now. Remember how when I first mentioned inclusionary housing bylaw, I did not want to have a payment in loo option for developers allowing them to
buy their way out of providing affordable housing. Based on what I heard at the seminar, I'm turned around on that notion and thinking that if we did have an affordable housing trust and we did take
a contribution of money from these people who wanted to buy their way out of including it in their developments that we could take that money, buy one of those tax delinquent properties and pursue our own affordable housing.
housing project senior or otherwise. So now I'd like to go back and put in that payment in lie of a provision. Um that means we would have to establish an affordable housing trust.
Um, I'm going to be sitting down with town council and the town manager to discuss how to compose such a trust and who would be on it. Um, Adam, I think you're right
that it shouldn't just be the select board serving as the trust overseers. They've got enough to do. And it's to me it it's a very specific and it's a a group of advocates and
um this isn't personal against any member of our select board but I don't think collectively advocating for affordable housing has been a historic uh landmark or historic point of
what that board has done. Um, you know, Stephen and I have talked about this a little bit um offline and I I like the idea of a payment in lie of um I think that we should bring the bar for that
payment in lie of way down and it should be a percentage and it should ramp up to full production. Um, I don't think that I I I have mixed feelings about letting
people who trigger the necessity for a full unit to get out of either full payment or creation of a unit. Um, because sometimes that it then that money just goes and sits until the town
has the ability or the will to do it. And if we force the creation of the unit, we get that. But I think at like three units, if we're getting a payment of $100,000 to the housing trust, at six units, if we're getting a payment of 300,000,
>> ramp it up. >> Correct. >> Correct. And then when we hit eight, it's you're creating a an affordable housing unit. Uh I'm also not opposed to uh having an offsite allowance. So if
somebody triggers some like so let's it says eight in the draft bylaw. If we keep that someone's creating eight units and they're building 45 or 5 400 or 5,000 ft houses that's an absurd affordable housing unit. You get an
incomequalified family in there. They're not going to maintain that. It's not going to be appropriate. >> And it's not going to look if if they build something smaller. >> It's going to it's going to be like hey look look at that. Look at the poor people's house. >> Um, so what the offsite would do would
allow them to purchase a building somewhere else in town, convert it to a perpetual deed restriction. They would need to have certain inspections and qualifications that the systems and the house itself is in a state that will so
like the heating system needs to be able to operate for 15 more years of life or they need to replace it and things like that. So, we continue to create affordable units in line with the bylaw, but they aren't necessarily these
McMansions and these stupid houses that people pull out of a plan drawer and you get garage left or garage right and we'll throw it up. Uh, but it does get another affordable house. it blend that house is almost guaranteed to blend in with the neighborhood because it's an
established existing home and you just kind of move that way. Okay. So, I'm thinking that we put back in the payment and loo option and the option of building those affordable
units offsite if they can find suitable land for it. Um, this bylaw is going to take a bit of work and I don't want us to rush it. I want us to this if it's not ready for
next May, then we're not bring it to next May. I want us to do it right. Um, the folks at the Massachusetts Housing Partnership have agreed to help us sort out the financials as in how much
you would charge for um a developer for um providing money in lie of building the units and we can tear it. Uh if if you're up to three, it it it's a smaller
amount. If it's three to six, it's it's a little bit more. If you're up to eight, then you're going to give us the amount of a of a full unit. Um, but we we can work on those numbers. When you talk to them about crafting
those numbers, can you inquire about potentially doing it in a formulaic way so that as uh building materials increase in cost, labor materials increase in cost, and
the long-term cost of housing just continues to grow for the construction phase. We're not having to constantly go back and reassess the numbers. the number will grow with >> what I found for those towns that do charge a fee in lie of
>> it's based on uh the area >> the AMI >> median family income for a family of four. >> Okay, >> then I like that. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's I haven't found any that base it on the
cost of building supplies. Well, but um but but I think just doing it on the AMI gives an escalation along with >> right that those figures change every year. Correct. >> It it helps futureproof the bylaw so we don't have to come before the town every
5 years with numerical edits. >> Right. Otherwise, or if we don't, we then have a bylaw that can potentially be leveraged to >> kind of unfortunate effect by developers.
Um, now it just this is more for my own edification somewhat. Does I know there's that grant access that grant program or like ability to get grants program that >> housing choice program.
>> Yes, that's it. Thank you. Um I don't remember if our incl if our current inclusionary zoning bylaw meets their requirements. It does. Will this one meet their requirements? Great. That was also there's a you have to be creating a significant amount of housing units or
you have to do like everything on the list. >> Uh yes. Yeah. Um I did take a look at the number of tools that we're supposed to have to qualify and this would get us closer. Yeah.
>> Um I mean I think when I looked last year at work it was I think we because of how slow our housing growth is now >> we needed to have like 15 and it's like >> Yeah. And you know, the building
commissioners told me he's issued building permits for new houses more this year than he has the last three years. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We were s when I was unskilledly sitting in that seat. Um
Brian and I, the building commissioner and I did look at uh the the mass mass choice, whatever it is. Um, we were s for the growth that year. We were surprisingly close to getting it to being able to qu like Bri. It was one of
those that there was a couple we were sketchy on and we knew we probably weren't going to get it, but we at least had a sketchy way of saying maybe this qualifies and they said no and we weren't surprised. >> But, >> but it never hurts to try. But my point is, if we're going through a good growth
year, yes, we're going to be surprisingly closer in this town to qualifying than we might think. >> We're going to get closer if we have the inclusionary bylaw on the books. >> If we get that grant from the state to update our housing production plan, that's another
>> check mark we can put. >> Are we not using uh MRPC? MRPC would couldn't fund it through their DTA program, so they've applied for a um one-stop growth. >> Okay. >> To to fund our housing production plan
update. One more thing that Stephen and I talked about is whether or not this should apply to the occlusionary housing should apply to ANR lots because it can sometimes if someone has eight ANR lots they'll only divide it into seven so
that they don't have to do an inclusionary unit and I understand that but also there are a number of privately held large parcels. Um, I would contend that our current bylaw may apply to ANR
lots and continuing to have that would capture those because otherwise I don't think the ANR lots, you know, building 20 units at a time is is a sustainable way to not include not have inclusionary
units. On the flip side, to play devil's advocate, for that large parcel of land that they would have turned into 20 housing units, they may just say, "Well, >> do five large lots. >> Let's let's do seven state lots."
>> Fair. So I I've been wondering and I don't it probably isn't doable for multi multiple reasons, but I'd love it if I were wrong.
Part of the issue with inclusionary zoning to me is that seems to be that whole, well, I'll do seven lots here and now I'm going to do seven lots here. Can we establish a
running ticker for developers of total of total lots produced and you have to like at certain thresholds you have to only if they're talking about the same property. >> Well, that's what I was wondering if there's a
>> or contiguous properties that were in common ownership or >> I didn't know if there was a way to do it differently so that it could just be >> it could be perfect. You're building enough houses. Your ticker hit eight. Guess what? >> You're making you have to make in or pay
into the fund to keep. >> Take a look at the bottom of page two of the bylaw segmentation. >> That's what that's supposed to be getting at. But I I think his point is if Bob Jones construction came in and
built seven units on Reservoir Road and then went up to New West Towns and Road and built seven units and then went over to Wham and built seven. What the the issue is going to be is then you get into the the development shell game where Reservoir LLC builds those and New
West Townsen LLC builds that >> and you're then chasing back and they have their sister be the, you know, fiduciary over there and it's still all the same. >> Yeah. I don't >> That's why I was assuming it wasn't
doable is the whole Oh, no. I'm not we're I keep wanting to use names of developers that I encountered outside of Lunberg that I know did this kind of thing. I don't want to name I'm not trying to do that, but yeah. No, this
isn't Smith Holmes. This is uh >> Smith >> Smith home. This is Smith Home Building and and with all the same owners, but there was a convenient bankruptcy in between and and and and Yes. Okay.
If inspiration strikes on a way to nail people down to doing what they're supposed to, I'm all ears. By the way, if you're out there in public and you have special knowledge on here and you're like, "Oh, I heard of something." Feel free to drop
me an email. >> Okay. So, are we are we good with putting back in the payment in lie and building offsite? >> Mhm. Sure. >> I like that. >> And are we good with tearing tearing the payment in loo based on the amount of
development? >> Okay. Now, let's get to Adam's question as to whether we want to apply this to ANRS or not. Right now, it does. What's the I think I need help understanding the advantages and
disadvantages of going either way. >> The advantages is that for something like Carmenter Road, we would get a couple units out of it or a payment in lie of >> or units offsite >> or units offsite.
The disadvantages is that they may come in with um seven estate lots and you know each lot is like seven acres long with a huge long driveway and taking up a whole
bunch of land just for >> I mean we would we would get our is it Northfield Road 1089 1069 Northfield where they built the five acres so they didn't have to do the cluster. Mhm.
>> Um it'd be something like that. >> I mean, and then the question is, you know, it depends what somebody buys the land for, whether they think they can make their money back on seven lots or not. >> I think you can keep that provision. And
if a couple years down the road you find that you've got a lot of seven lot subdivisions, >> Mhm. With every bylaw you put together and put on the books, it's always a good idea to revisit it five years down the road to see how it's played out. Did it
did it get you what you wanted? >> I mean, >> I can't think of every weird thing that someone's going to do. >> No. And no matter how tight you write the bylaw, developers are um creative people.
Is there going to be that much more dem I mean I agree. So going along with I I think it makes sense. I is there even going to be that much more demand for the I mean like for
the bigger estate lots at some point at some point we run out of people with that kind of money. Well, I mean, >> and uh my family does fine for itself and we don't have that kind of money. >> Metro West is only getting tighter.
>> Yeah, I guess. >> And more people are commuting. Um I mean, I'll be honest. I see prices where I work. Um we bought our housing trust bought a house for $8.25
and we thought it was a steal. It was 1,600 square ft. >> My god. on a half acre, three bedrooms, two baths. >> Yeah, you're right. The housing shortage isn't anywhere close. >> Um the only houses people are building
are 5,000 ft² and up and they're paying 650700 for uh an 80s Campanelli that they tear down and have to go through the whole process. So they're paying 700. They're
probably paying closer to 800 for land essentially because they have to tear the house down, dispose of it, and then do all the planning to get into it. Uh the average value is 1.2. Uh if you
go on the sale pages, they're, you know, $1 million houses are nothing. Um it's not unusual to see a 2 to4 million house listed. And >> yeah, >> they're in my opinion ostentatious, but they're not like
it's not like a castle. It's not, you know, 10,000 square ft and, you know, all sorts of techy stuff. It's a it's a nice 4500 5,000 ft house, which is about five times too much house for me, but that's a personal choice.
>> So, we're about an hour into this. Let's um decide whether we want to keep this applying to ANRS or not. >> I say yes. >> I I I think I'm still Yes. >> Okay. Um I will I have one editorial
comment. Um, I think the board needs to significantly consider u multif family zoning in order to maximize this and to address just living and and being in town. I
don't think it needs to be universal, but I think it's something that in our next round we should consider. >> Could you give us one verbal paragraph to or less to describe what you're thinking there? Uh right now anything
that is not singular or two family requires a special permitting process limits uh four units to a building and I think that we need to be um more
thoughtful and explicit on how and where and what multif family housing should look like um and the density should be higher. >> Yep. Okay. Well, we are kind of getting at that with our senior housing bylaw and our cluster housing bylaw, which I'm
pitching as by uses. >> And multif family is a byite use for both of them, >> but they're both limited to four per dwelling. >> Yeah. Four per building. And I think in
these instances that makes sense. I think there are places and sites that would make sense to be able to build an apartment building. And I think that if we can create a bylaw that permits
something like that at a specified density, we can control the look and we don't get a Soviet block or the standard, you know, colonial apartment building that you see everywhere where they just plop it down. So, we're going
to get a big map from MRPC by the end of the summer that's going to show all our zoning districts overlaid with water and sewer. >> Okay. >> And and um it's going to show the developed lands and what we have left for development. >> Well, we can sit down and look at that
map and start um specking out areas that might be appropriate. >> Yeah. I don't think it's a today problem, but I think it's something that we need to consider. >> Okay. Why don't we move on to cluster housing? >> Cluster. Okay,
>> everyone got their cluster housing? >> Mhm. >> With some kind of cluster. >> Cluster housing. You've got it on the books right now. Um, but the beginning threshold for the amount of acreage you need is 25 acres.
That is huge. >> Mhm. So, I've dropped it down to 10. Um, other than that, right now you require that 50% be open space. I'm requiring 60.
Love it. Mhm. Um, questions, comments? Uh, for the people at home, let me explain the premise. Cluster housing is when you have a a a parcel of land where you cluster the
housing closer together, leaving at least half of the parcel as open space. It's economical for the developer as in they don't have as much roadway to build or storm water to control.
and the town benefits by having some usable open space for uh either just the residents of the development or for the town. >> Mhm. >> How come single family is the only housing typology that's limited to two
units per acre? >> What was my thought process behind that? Um what page are we on? two uh two >> uh at the top E1A
>> um having title five in mind um it's typically 10 thou 8,000 10,000 square ft per bedroom. >> Mhm. >> So that's about two single family homes per acre.
So, what I mean, I guess if if we're going to worry about Title 5 controlling, why couldn't we allow four? And if somebody wants to build two-bedroom cottages for empty nesters
or young professionals or whatever, then they're going to build, you know, a 900 ft two-bedroom that meets a 10,000 ft lot area for Title 5 and be able to manage that. Or what if the parcel
sewered? We could up the density for those that have access to municipal sewer. >> Mhm. >> But regardless of the size of the unit, a bedroom is a bedroom. >> True. That's Yeah. And I guess I'm also
thinking that if we limit the the floor area ratio for single families at four an acre, you're not going to get people building uh 3,000 three or four 3,000t houses on an acre. It encourages them to
be able to build more units at a smaller size and we get little a affordable theoretically. Yeah, I I don't see a harm in increasing if we increase the number and the limit
is but you can't build it in many places due to title 5 then they just can't do it there for other reasons and that kind of comes out in the wash but then if there is favor I mean if there is uh
favorable land for I do this is where I'm not the expert. I know there are options beyond sewer and conventional >> build treatment plants. >> Um but I mean it's one of those that if they wanted to go that way and if it was
doable, more power to them. I I like the idea of maximizing I mean if we can get multiple single family homes so much the better cuz that kind of hits a different demographic. I I don't know that Lindsay and I are ever going to want to share walls with
another person ever again. However, I also >> 30 ft away wouldn't be as big a deal. >> Yeah. Okay. What I can do for all three types is double up the density if municipal sewer is available.
Is there a reason we can't just give increased density and let the ability of getting of getting the basically the ability of getting the septic or not to dictate it? >> Let the developer figure it out. >> Yeah, exactly. If they can find a way to
get more again on patch treatment on something else, good for them. >> Well, do we I mean I I'm only talking about single family. I think four units an acre is a fine density. Um, I just think single family could be four units an acre as well.
>> Board, other board members, are you good with that change? Okay. >> Four it is. >> Um, now you mentioned something about um limiting the size of the unit. Yeah, I
it's just a thought um for the single family just so that if they are in a sewer district, they're not trying to now build a bunch of massive units on small footprint. >> I don't know that I care.
>> Okay. >> Like I look at and go like I don't want a giant house crammed up directly against three other giant houses. >> But if somebody does whatever. >> Yeah. Because okay, we're still because we're still doing the cluster
development. We're still preserving all that open space. >> Actually, no. I think I like it more with having that option because that means >> maybe people who want the big house >> have another option if that's what the market is. Y >> then they might produce that as opposed
to just more McMansions on a standard acre lot. >> That's fine. >> Um I have a question about minimum parcel size. Mhm. >> First, I I love the shift down to 10. I I think that's a a great choice and
makes a lot of sense. What I wonder, even 10 acres, I mean, there's only so many big buildable lots in town like that, is it potentially worth going smaller? It is cl and I don't know the answer to
this. Is cluster still an economic and open space advantage at something like five or 6 acres? I don't know if it is one way or another. That's why I'm asking. I don't know the answer.
I think if we we're already going down to 10 from 25. I I don't >> I think if we try to apply it to something like five that I don't know that folks are going to go for it. >> I I think you are overestimating how
much people are even aware that this bylaw exists and care for no matter what what we're actually doing is making a brand new bylaw that 98 plus% of people in town have no clue
exists. Well, let me ask this. How much mileage have you gotten out of your cluster by lot so far? >> To my knowledge, I don't know if you know of it. I don't know of any. No, >> the 25 acres was always a killer. I I think I think 10's probably a good place
to start. Um, I think five creates too many opportunities without any real test case. >> Okay. >> Any any practical?
>> Yeah. I think if you go to 5 acres, what you're going to get instead is the shared driveway. >> Yeah. >> With two, three lots served and no open space. >> Okay. I I am fine with that. That's why I that is why I posed it as a question.
I didn't mean it as a declaration. No, >> probably not. >> So, did you want to include a floor limit or not? >> No, it sounds like No. >> All right. >> Um, >> other comments, questions? >> Uh, on E3 on the same page. Is that page two?
Yeah. >> Uh, the percolation test shall be done for all of the proposed house lots. Is that before? Uh, so it's by right. So the plan doesn't need to be approved by the planning board or anyone else.
>> No, this would this is uh cluster housing would still go through site plan review. >> Okay. So did that percolation test need to be done before site plan review? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can we include that in there? >> Say that >> we had a development where that was a
contentious >> you're probably still dealing with the fallout from that. I was going to ask about E2 and E3 together if those are standards for cluster development. >> Very much so. >> Okay. Cuz my only concern there was I I
I like the protections they give for making sure no really this is cluster and not squeezing in more units than would be buildable. My only concern was if they throw off the economics to make cluster potentially not economically
viable. If you're saying it's a standard and we know cluster development is still done, I'm fine with them. >> Great. >> Yeah. I mean, the cost to develop a preliminary plan is relatively low compared to a definitive. >> Okay. Well, one thing I want to do once we're squared away on the language here
is send the these bylaws to uh the engineers that work in our town and say, "Hey, would any of your clients be willing to pursue any of these? And are there dealillers that we put in here that we're not aware of?"
>> Smart move. Thank you >> on F. And this applies to the uh because there's the same one same yeah F1 the 40ft vegetated buffer. Um and this would apply to me to the same requirement
under the senior housing as well. Um, I was wondering if there's a way we can basically say, yeah, you don't need the buffer if your building looks if if it's determined your building looks approp that what
you're making looks good in the neighborhood. Is there a >> I I so >> I sorry. >> No, it's okay. So the issue is we have so many complaints from the citizenry,
understandably so, about some of the developments that have come in and have a bunch of house butts, you know, the back ends of houses facing a road and they look weird, they look ugly. Um, and I was wondering, is there a middle ground?
it almost something more of a form-based zoning approach that says if you do X you don't need the buffer if you do if you're not doing X you need the buffer then we would need to write the formbbased code into this >> Uhhuh. Um
the buffer is the nonfrontage property lines, right? >> It is the perimeter around the development, not it's not the front. Oh, it and it's a frontage as well.
>> Yeah, it's 40 ft all the way around. So >> the intent of the buffer is to screen it from abuing properties who say I don't want to see a housing development >> on on other people's land. I mean I like what you're saying cuz form the
formbbased makes sense. It's a ton of like this wouldn't be ready for for next May if we did form I don't think would it? Um my my comment on this was I would like to see it be a non-disturbed
zone for 40 ft as opposed to a buffer. Um and so because often what they'll do is they'll go, "Oh yeah, I'll give you a buffer." And they clear everything to the property line and then they do vegetative plantings and they bring in
these little tiny trees and they're like, "They'll grow soon." >> Okay. Well, that brings up another point. What if we're dealing with a site where you've got the 40ft buffer, but it's just grass
and you'd want the developer to put in some landscaping. >> Mhm. I see. Cuz then the non-disturb wouldn't work there because they can't disturb it. Al alternatively, do we
>> we can give we can make that an option for the planning board if in the planning board's opinion >> that uh additional landscaping is required um you can make that a condition of approval from site plan. >> I think so. Um, I think, you know, to
your point, Matt, the aesthetics, the push for this new codification of site plan includes the removal of the board's ability to judge or consider aesthetics
in their determinations of approval. >> I I hear that. I get it and I understand why they make that choice. I am deeply frustrated because the problem is I look at cluster and go
if done well that 40 like a 40ft visual protection >> shouldn't be necessary >> isn't needed cuz it can just be like any other set of houses. It's just going to be more dense but it's not going to look ugly. However, we also know that cluster
can happen where it's effectively looks like a bunch of shipping containers stacked next to each other. >> Well, and that's we had a big fight over this very issue in Sterling with the zoning board wanting a 100 ft buffer all the way around the property.
>> Have you read our solar? So what is the um well look right here what is the setback requirement right now I can find it
table of uses what's your table of dimensional requirements Nice. Why am I not able to find your dimensional requirements? >> 40 ft sounds about 40 ft sounds awful familiar, but don't quote me.
>> 40 ft is probably the front set back. Yeah, there's 25 on the side. I think it is. >> That sounds about right. >> Yeah. Did you guys forget to pay your uh main bill? Take it on the town's website.
>> Ooh, give me just a second. Adam, it's just you. >> It's probably my VPN. >> Yeah, my VP. Oh, apparently my >> Oh, I'm not using right now. Okay.
>> Yep. It was I can't find it. I can't find it. Um, if 40 ft is too much, we could make it whatever it is for your uh side and rear setbacks
in your residential districts. >> I'm kind of fine with either. Um, I don't mind the 40 ft. I would don't want it to be a cleared and then reveated. >> We'll say we'll say that it's a
non-disturbed buffer. However, if it's just bare land grass, the planning board shall have the option of requiring landscaping for screening purposes. >> I like that. Okay. Good. >> Okay. >> Um,
other comments, questions? um open space. Um I was seeing on a couple places how uh Boilston, Westminster, uh there's one other that I think I forgot to write down. Um for what we've got is like 60% maintained as open
space, but we don't as far as I'm aware delineate like for like Boilston and Westminster, they determine what counts as developable space. So like you can't say that yes we conserve this space that is a really
steep hill down into wetlands and we conserve that and that's part of that 60%. Um like I think the the delineation I saw for them was like first determining what is
buildable area. So taking out your wetlands, taking out your extreme topology and then determining your I think the places were like 50 or 40% determining it from that value instead of gross land area.
>> Doesn't that fall out from the preliminary site plan? >> Does it? >> Yeah. So in the preliminary site plan, they first need to prove, hey, I could build like I could build 10. Here's my traditional subdivision
plan showing I could build 20 units. >> I can build 20 units. Therefore, now we're going to take those 20 units that would have been spread out everywhere and we're going to condense if the wetlands would be in the way of that development. >> Yeah.
>> Our our minimum lot size requires a certain it limits the the wetlands per lot and it limits the steep slope. >> Okay. So that gets factored in just in the calculation of what's a buildable lot for the subdivision. >> Okay. So we have that further up the
chain. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I I I would look at H1 item B and C. The minimum required area of open space shall not contain a greater percentage of wetlands than the percentage of the wetlands found in the overall track.
>> Okay. So if you've got 20% of the lot as wetlands, you can only have 20% of your open space as wetlands. >> And okay, >> 80% of the minimum required open space shall be laid out as one or more large
contiguous parcels that are distinct from parcels dedicated for other purposes. Uh, one question I had is whether that buffer area that we just discussed, do you want that included as the open space? Because right now,
>> I'm okay with that. >> Where we're requiring 60%, that's going to be a pretty sizable >> 60% an aggressive number in the world of >> most of the other ones that we had on our list were like 50 or >> a lot of them are 50.
>> All right, then. Sure. Um, the other one I had, and I'm not sure where this goes, um, but in terms of like land clearing, um, for these spaces, I was seeing things from, I think this one was
Boilston in particular, uh, like mature tree preservation or a preservation of a certain percentage of trees on that lot. Cuz like we have some spaces like if you go down Reservoir Road where there's a bunch of houses in a row that are just fully clearcut house open field house
open field >> flat L2. >> Yeah. Like is is that something that is valuable to kind of have developers find a way to maintain the character of the land itself and
find a way to put in these houses. I think that comes out based on what kind of open space use they're gunning for with that remain with that um with the uh are you talking about the open space area or the
>> um developed? >> So I think the one that I saw it in originally was in the senior housing for uh Boilston. Um, so I I don't know what kind of applicability it has cross
>> items here. >> To my understanding and and I I want to be corrected here, but this is where I think out loud because it helps me see if I understand correctly. Um, a lot of the open space area will be dictated by whatever the intent is for the open
space set aside in this cluster development. >> Okay. >> Because if it's an agricultural cluster development, >> Sure. then it's going to remain arable land. If it's a forestry cluster development, it kind of has to be >> forested. >> Sure.
>> Um, do I understand that? >> No, you're right. >> Right. Cuz I'm like I think so I think that does get wrapped in that way you're going to see more I think being realistic >> in a cluster development. We're going to
see more clear cutting in the developed area, but that's because you're cramming more things into less space, >> but that's giving us the bigger tracks of contiguous >> and the 40 foot non-disturbed area. They're going to keep the trees in that in that area.
>> Oh, sure. Yeah. Okay. And I'm suggest Yeah. >> So 40 ft's the front setback. It's 20 for the sides in res A and it's 30 in res B and outlying. >> Um, we can make >> I I'm just you were looking for them, so
I I found >> um Well, we could go either way. 40 ft or use the uh setbacks in >> I think 40. Keep it nice and consistent. >> Okay. >> I I don't have I don't know enough about the impacts to have an opinion one way or another.
Um, >> I mean, if they're dealing on a 10acre lot and they're clustering, I don't think the extra 20 ft is going to scare them off from >> development. Um, I I I noticed we use I I just happened to
notice shall is used at points and I don't understand the word sha. I used to know what shall meant in laws and now I don't. >> You will do it. I I know it did mean that my understanding is shall is no longer as binding.
So in >> say I I tend to use will >> in se on page 4 2B it was shall be specified on the site. Yeah. The proposed use of the open space shall be specified on the site plan in
appropriate conditions and restrictions shall be part of the deed. The playing board shall have the authority to approve or disapprove this. >> If you want it to be will, it can be will. >> I my input is I am worried about shall. I
am not educated enough here to do more than be worried about the word shall. If you think if will is equally good, great. I just I know that shall has no longer being interpreted the way we
always thought it meant with law and I didn't want to put us into a future where the playing board doesn't actually have the ability to approve or disprove disapprove minor point though. >> Okay. >> I had a couple of questions on the top
of page three before we get too deep in >> um the minimum roadways shall be 18 ft. Have you spoken with the fire department about that? No, I have not. I will run both >> three and four by fire department.
>> Okay. Uh, so and four, I don't I I feel dumb that I don't understand the 750 ft, but if the road's only 500 ft, how are we going to put a 750 ft turnaround or a turnaround at 750 ft?
These are roads that are exceeding 500 ft. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see the may I thought it said may not exceed 500 ft. Okay, then then I am dumb. Um, and then no
buildings shall be flood lit. Does that include like where uh that's uh exterior lighting 3C. Same page. Um, does that include when you put a flood light above your garage to light your
driveway or is that like the lights in the the ground that light up your actual house? >> I wouldn't say that again, Adam. So, if you have a light over your garage, like the spotlights, like the motion sensor
lights that a lot of people have. So, when they come up, >> I wouldn't think this applies to that. >> Okay. >> I mean, they're often considered flood lights. I just I The other is the ones that people put in the garden to light up the front of their house so they can so show how
awesome their house is, >> right? And that I would understand excluding >> I see because I I look at the I'm not an exterior lighting law expert. I know some of these have very specific
meanings but outdoor lighting fixtures shall be cut off type mounted no higher than 15 ft and oriented and shielded to a ver avoid glare on adjoining properties. I don't know how flood lights meet that require how like a traditional garage
flood light even meets 3A. >> Where did you read that from? >> Uh exterior lighting 3A on page >> okay. Yeah. >> I mean that was just my whole thought there was I >> I'm not opposed to it. I just want to
understand what we're >> if we're confused on item C, we can just remove it and just leave A and B. >> I I mean I think that's I I don't I don't know enough here to understand what I feel yet.
>> See, I Yeah. And I read A to mean if there are street lights or other parking lot lights, they needed to meet that standard. Uh, does does lighting on the out This is not meant to
sound as facitious as it does. No, I >> like does lighting on the outside of a building not count as outdoor lighting fixtures. >> I would have considered that building lighting if you had asked me. >> So, I I don't know the rules >> and and I guess it's an interpretation
thing. We don't necessarily define outdoor lighting. Um, I think of outdoor lighting as its own standalone fixture that is lighting outdoor areas, not lighting areas adjacent to a building
from that building. Um, I guess I think back to when the board approved the 1325 Massav project and they allowed building lighting, but they didn't allow parking lot lighting in the rear because the
building lighting lit the man doors and was essentially the same thing as a parking lot light just mounted a little bit lower and a little bit smaller in size. How about we agree on what kind of lighting we want and don't want and then
I can work with the building commissioner on drafting language to that effect. >> Yeah, I'm fine with standard like house lighting like lighting a driveway or lighting doors. I I I don't think we need to flood light the fronts of
houses. Um I'm I'm happy to be told other people feel otherwise. Um, but I think that the the other uh lighting as it's outlined is fine. >> Okay.
I don't know what I feel, so I'm pretty comfy with >> All right. Well, I'll talk with the building commissioner and see if we can tighten that up a bit. >> Um, Stephen, I did want to call out specifically, I know I said it to you individually, but I want to do it in
public, too. I want to say how grateful I am that you included agricultural as an option in this because >> we've talked about this. >> Yep. I like say you and I have I just want to say that again that I am grateful it's there when we talk about
Lunenburgg being a town that values its agricultural legacy even as we transition away as we have already transitioned away from that being a primary economic motivator within town. I'd like to see
ways we can maintain it and I think this is going to help with that. Why not let them lease out their open space to farmers to for hay or for crops or whatever >> cows. Other comments on cluster housing?
>> Uh performance guarantees. So I love that we want to include performance guarantees >> but no letters of credit. >> Correct. And it says it. So my question was it references the Lunberg
subdivision rules and regulations under under subdivision control law. The developer gets to choose their method of securing the development. This isn't a subdivision. So I'd like us to choose. So, it's either cash, a a a bond
through a AAA rated Massachusetts company or a covenant where they have to install everything before we release any lots for building permit. >> What does a So, you're saying no letters of credit. What is a letter of credit?
Essentially, they go to the bank and they say, "Well, my development only costs $5 million, but the bank gave me a loan for >> Okay, got it. >> $8 million, and that extra $3 million is
governed by the town releasing it upon me doing the things I need to do. It's It's a disaster waiting to happen." >> I I understand completely then. Yes. >> Got it. I have one quick. >> Yep. >> Um I noticed on other cluster housing
bylaws that were sent uh there's a mention of frontage, but in ours there's not. I'm just wondering if we're expecting frontage in this sense to be picked up on another bylaw. I was just curious why it wasn't included.
Yeah, >> like there isn't any table of necessarily dimensional regulations other than >> I would well in in in the absence of that it would be the underlying zoning. >> Would it just be the regular 50-foot uh
>> whatever the underlying zoning district >> and I don't know if it's worth mentioning that it can be referred to in another bylaw. I'm not sure how that works. That certainly. >> Well, but wouldn't it be 100 ft then if it was the underlying zoning? >> Oh, is it? Okay.
>> And then does that mean that each lot you create to cluster needs to have 100 ft of frontage? >> No, it would be the frontage applying to the development. >> Oh, okay. And then everything
>> Oh, unless you meant frontage per lot. >> So, in conquered they mention frontage per lot. I was going to say a lot of them for single family. >> Yeah. Have their own dimensional regulations within the >> Is that what you meant for for Okay.
>> I wonder how much that really matters. >> Like I don't know the answer. I I >> Well, I just think cluster is like multiple like if in my head cluster could be you know town homes and single family and apartment and all mixed together. So, are we just assuming that
the regulations for single family homes also apply? >> No, we would want to have them uh the dimensional standards smaller. >> I was going to say, do we even want dimensional standards? >> That's what I was wondering if >> because if they're going to go through
site plan, I guess we do need to have a minimum. So, they have to be able to get a driveway, right? >> And could they do a common driveway within a cluster? Is that then a special permit on top of it?
>> Um would this setup allow I mean again the I think a lot about the Sawyer Hill Eco Village. One because I'm familiar with it. too because it definitely informs some of my concepts
of what cluster development can be beyond we're just again a bunch of shipping containers next to each other or similar. Um but um like there what they did is all the house
they have separate parking. All the houses are walkable. Like all the houses face each other and are connected by walking paths that could take a car for furniture delivery or something if need be. And
then the parking is separate. I don't think that should be mandatory by any means, but I was wondering is something like that doable here or and I don't know how frontage plays into that in that kind of >> situation. Now, now I remember my my thought process here. Um, we're
considering this all one parcel. >> Okay. >> So, it's >> that's that was that was my next question is are we doing >> we're not carving out individual lots. It's one >> so they essentially get an an exclusive use area. >> Right. >> Okay.
>> Then we don't need frontage. >> Right. That's why >> I'm fine with that. >> What made what clued me in to my original thought process was the homeowner association maintenance for the entire >> Mhm. >> shebang. >> Then I'm Yeah. Then I'm comfy. >> Then we're good. >> Okay.
>> And that answers my question. >> I mean, my my comments on the senior housing are very much the same because they were very similar bylaws. >> I did try to keep the standards the same. >> Yeah.
Um, so above and beyond what we talked about that's in in cluster that's applicable to senior. Do you have anything else? >> Um, one thing I saw from Westboro, this was their senior one, but I think it would also apply here. Um, was shade
trees provided along internal roadways and pedestrian walks. Um, that that just seems like a generally good idea to plan to look after the people that live there. Mhm. >> Okay. And that was from which Bila? >> That is from Westboro uh Senior Living
Overlay section I3 H. >> I C uh sorry I3 H. >> I 3 H. >> I asked a question about community
centers, but I think it gets answered later in the bylaw. Therefore, the residents, not >> Yes. I just I think we just want to be explicit that they can't become business meeting places or, you know, birthday rentals or things like >> community centers for developing
residents. >> Yeah. I mean, I can't imagine people in the senior wanting to rent it out, but um >> they can make some money. They would >> I had Okay, I'm looking I had a question
about how ADUs were going to impact this and the uh and the cluster development, >> but if it's only one property, if it's only one lot, you could get one ADU. >> You can get one ADU. So, I think we still want to be aware of it, but I'm
less concerned about that than I would have been otherwise. But I I think that's something we still need to be aware. >> First one in gets it. >> I know. Uh >> well, they're they're going to have to get the um association to approve it anyway.
>> Yeah, Brian had some vague thoughts on that a while ago when we were writing ours that didn't get factored in for a variety of reasons. Um but yeah I my other question on this
was I was looking at our occupancy restriction and um I don't think I I don't think I have a problem with this with the way we're doing it but I know
um some senior developments and especially where we're I think were thinking this might be done more. Do we expect this to ever get done by is is the intent for this one to be done by private developers or are
we really setting the stage for when the town does something? >> No, this is intent the intention is to spur the um private developers to build senior housing. >> Then it is I don't know how state laws factor in. I don't know how many things factor in. I know some commu senior
communities out there have different regulations for if someone inherits the property whether they still need to be senior. >> That's in the That's in there. It says there's a 2-year >> exemption. Yes. So, I know some just say
if you inherit it, you inherit it. I know some say instead of doing it that like younger people could inherit this or that, but they have a total percentage population that you have to be below. >> I don't know that those are better. I
just know that they exist. >> Yeah, I it just sounds like a lot of enforcement headache. >> Yeah, I I I I think I'm fine with this, but I want to put those ideas out there. Now, some of these bylaws that I sent you uh precluded um children 18 and under.
>> I I was going to bring that up as well >> for like 3 months out of nine. I don't Yeah. >> However, and and um I've had two town councils tell me this. If you have such a provision, then you cannot apply your inclusionary housing bylaw to it.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. It makes more sense to me like you have a resident who fits the for like the senior housing the over 55 >> and whoever else is there is there. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I prefer that because otherwise
we are creating scenarios where families cannot take care of each other. >> Yeah. >> If a tragedy happens and to me that is the opposite of what we should be doing as a government being haha you can't help your own family. way. Hit the
bricks, kid. >> Um, quick add-on, the uh shade trees on walkways. Uh, I just like if we could also include that they are like regionally native trees that are used. >> I think we I think we should include native species in all of our landscaping
requirements. >> Yeah, full agreement. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Um, >> so I'm I'm going to go back to the Westboroough provision and um >> figure out how to get that in here. Page 2 IB under the design standards
maximum dwelling size shall be 1500 square feet including all unfinished space and or attic. >> So how does that apply if the attic isn't accessible or has those like funky
ladder stairs that you pull down and is just a you know an insulation space. That's what I saw for Boilston. Um, theirs was like calculation not on square feet but on like number of bedrooms or number
>> and town council says you can't limit number of bedrooms. >> Okay. Gotcha. Okay. >> Yeah. I just don't want to because if we did it that way and they have a basement and an attic space then we're talking about like 500 square
foot single floors. Are attics normally counted? I thought non-livable space wasn't counted in square footage. >> Yeah. I mean, if it were if it was a space that was able to be conditioned, I think counting it is I think space that can't be conditioned, we shouldn't count.
>> Yeah. >> What about I mean, is it as simple as I don't know what the term would be, but floored attic? There's a difference between an attic that has a floor inst that has >> that's conditionable space essentially. >> Okay. Like, you know, if you have one of
those rickety ladders that pulls down out of the ceiling, you're probably I mean, unless you're Jan Brady, you're probably not living up there. >> Senior anyway. >> Yeah. >> Um I just I I don't want us to get into something that someone challenges down
the road because they're mad about the old people next door. And >> so just maybe just leave it at 1,500 square ft period. Especially when we're looking at senior housing. Like my mother-in-law lives with us. She can't go upstairs or into the basement. Like
those are inaccessible areas to us. >> I think unconditioned basements should be counted in that calculation cuz they will get finished. >> I just don't I I think it should be conditionable space or space that could be conditioned. >> I'm fine with that.
Um, so help me understand the word conditional in >> conditioned like you can put heat and living space and all of that like >> is that a typical term? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Brian will probably know what it means. Conditioned space. >> So excluding or including conditioned space. including space that that can be made livable like all the if you have an unfinished
basement it it and it's it meets height requirements and all of that then they could finish it and it should be included but I don't think the attic is often going to be a place that like I don't think they build houses that have the stairs that go up to the attic
anymore. >> So including all space that could be made livable. >> Yeah, that's fine. Okay, got it. Next issue, >> uh 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit. Um my concerns about this revolve
around if someone builds a um assisted living, >> we could make that um one parking space per bedroom or per bed. Do you need one parking space per bed? I guess I don't know what the standards
would be for because I my guess would be most people living in assisted living aren't driving, >> right? >> So, you're essentially having visitor space. I don't think every person's going to have a visitor every day, right? >> And you're talking about staff.
>> Staff and visitor space. So, we'll come up with a different standard for Yeah. Thank you. >> Good catch. Um, and then everything else I had was um the same stuff I mentioned on the
cluster. >> Great. >> Uh, folks, I think we made some real good progress today. >> Love it. >> Um, I'm going to revise the bylaws accordingly. I may not have all the answers on
inclusionary housing by the time we get back together. >> You mean Monday? >> You're not going to get any of this by Monday. >> Um Lee tells me that um
we're not going to have a very busy agenda on August 10th. >> Boom. Let's make our next session then. >> Mhm. We could make our next session from 6:00 to 7:00 then and then take whatever comes in. >> We could ascend to the stage.
>> Yeah. What whatever comes in is going to be stuff that we continue from our next meeting. >> Okay. >> So, we'll make 6 to 7 our next working session on August 10th. >> I like it. >> And then we'll do the rest of the uh
hearing stuff. >> All right. >> Great. Okay. Uh, so, uh, nope. We, uh, we do need to look for public comment. I know we're not on Zoom. There's no public, but I'm going to ask if there's any
public that has public comment. >> Seeing none. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All in favor? I. >> I have this form that you need to fill out for