good evening everybody This is uh welcome to the Manchester Planning Board Um uh I'll open the meeting Uh roll call vote Um Chris hereorton Sarah Kraton's here and Phil
here Um Gordon Brewster and Mary Foley had conflicts tonight Um and I think Laura is on her way Um I'll let you know Shannon when Laura um comes So um tonight I'm here President Hi
Shannon Um tonight we um have a public hearing for um the zoning articles that will be presented at town meeting Zoning changes um uh articles to change zoning I guess is more accurate And we're just
going to walk through each of them um one at a time and get public comment um and then on each of them we will vote them and then um uh after we've had discussion So
um so I do have um some slides if you want them and we're going to Laura is going to actually talk through associate members and she's not here yet So if you don't mind we're going to start with the accessory dwelling units Um and unless you think that people are
going to come for that Um but we'll uh we can go we'll go ahead and start Okay Um uh so um we have a num uh a number of articles on the town meeting warrant Um
it looks like a long list but I think as we go through you'll see that there's only really uh two or three that have um substance Of course we want to hear from people on on all of them and get your questions answered Um uh these are the topics uh
associate members um two accessory dwelling unit articles One um around um short-term rental prohibition which is related to the other two accessory dwelling units um a flood plane bylaw um expanding the applicability of site plan
review and deleting the introduction to the zoning Um so with that I will open the public hearing for the standard accessory dwelling units We'll skip over associate members right now Um do I have a motion to open the hearing for
standard accessory dwelling units so move second Second All in favor yes Okay With that I'm going to turn it over to Sue Bilbrick Oops that's the associate Um to just There we go Talk us through
accessory dwelling units and our standard accessory dwelling unit um bylaw Let me just uh go back one second sorry and show you where you can find a copy of the proposed articles Um they're
also uh they're on our planning board website and they are also on the town meeting part of the website um as the warrant is published there So back to you sir So first of all why are we
proposing this particular article on accessory dwelling units that we are calling standard Um the reason is because there was a new state law passed um effective of this year uh February of this year just a couple months ago Um
and that law now allows ADUs by right statewide in every city in town Um by right means special permit Um every in every zoning district where single family housing is
allowed So in Manchester that is every zoning district except the limited commercial Um the reason why we need to pass this article now is that we do have a ADU
zoning bylaw but the new law invalidated it So our current ADU zoning bylaw is invalid and uninforcable So we need to delete it and replace it with a bylaw that will maximize
Manchester's leverage over ADUs to the extent we're able to So what is an ADU um it could be a separate structure like a carriage house or tiny house Could be an apartment in your basement or above
your garage Um the state law of course defines it Um and I'll just read it We have copied the state's definition word for word into our proposed bylaw A self-contained housing unit inclusive
inclusive of sleeping cooking and sanitary facilities on the same lot as a principal dwelling subject to otherwise applicable dimensional and parking requirements that a maintains a separate entrance either directly from the
outside or through an entry hall or corridor is shared with the fence dwelling sufficient to meet the requirements of the building code for safe egress E is not larger in gross floor area than 1/2 the gross floor area
of the principal dwelling or 900 square ft whichever is smaller So um an example of an ADU that would be separate a separate structure would be the carriage house or tiny house that I
mentioned a moment ago An example of an ADU that would uh be accessed from outside or through an entry hall but share space with the principal dwelling would be the uh basement apartment that I had mentioned a few minutes ago So
what does that size requirement mean well in reality it means let's say you own a 4,000 square foot home which is quite large Um if your uh single family
zoning district uh has the has a 1 acre uh lot requirement for example that would be uh some areas in town Does that mean you could build a 2,000 square foot uh standard ADU under this law no it
doesn't It means um 900 square ft would apply because it's half the growth floor area or 900 square ft So 900 square ft would apply to you 1,000 square foot home Let's say you are a 1500 square
foot homeowner um come in quite a few in town on a small lot So does that mean that um so 50% um of 1500 would be 750 Does that mean you
could do 900 no You are limited to 750 because of the square footage of your home So that's sort of what it means in a nutshell in terms of the size of ABU Um so the state law calls these ADUs
protected use ADUs Uh we call them standard ADUs We think it's just a little bit easier to understand Um so how can we make this new law work for Manchester what kind of restrictions are allowed um are we
allowed as a town to impose under the state law well if you look at 9.1.2.1 2.1 and 9.1.2.2 um of our proposed zoning bylaw You will see that we have incorporated the
following restrictions Architectural floor plan to be submitted Exterior elevations to be submitted An engineered site plan must comply with all applicable zoning for the loft or zone
uh regarding flood plane water resource If you are in the historic district the historic commission uh must approve of your plant Uh you must comply with lot coverage setback and dimensional requirements of section
5.4 of our zoning bylaw Um another restriction we can put can put in place is it must be on a permanent foundation We don't want any camper vans or RVs or mobile homes um glamping tents or other
temporary structures It must be on a permanent foundation Uh it must be on one public water and sewer service So if your primary dwelling unit has public water and sewer your ADU uh will share
that one public water and sewer service not have a separate one Uh your ADU must use the existing driveway entrance for access It may not have a separate uh
parking If your primary dwelling is in within a half mile of the train station you might remember that circle from MBTA zoning We're not permitted to require parking but if your primary dwelling lot
is outside of that uh half mile we are permitted to require one off-street parking space uh for your ADU Uh we are putting restrictions on short-term rentals We are prohibiting
short-term rentals of ADUs in our bylaw Uh we are saying no rentals for ADUs standard ADUs for less than six months Um you can't have separate ownership between the primary dwelling and the ADU
So no separate title for your ADU Um and only one standard AD per month Now restrictions that you might think about um which are not allowed by
the law are the following restrictions on paying Familiar relationship student income number of occupants below the building code Uh can't have an employee relationship That was uh one of our
restrictions in our now invalid law um the lot size and the town cannot set a maximum number of ADUs that we would like Um we can't do that and we cannot require just attached or just detach We
have to allow them both That in a nutshell is the standard ADU Great Thank you Um we will talk about our large ADU bylaw in a moment and um
but uh I will um take any comments from the board that they'd like to add or questions All right Um how about from the public uh Sandy make sure you state your your name and and uh I'm going to stop sharing for a
minute Great Sandy Rogers 82 Old Essex Road Um I wanted to thank the board because um you've done a lot of work to pull together all these details Um I have one comment It sort of applies to
both because it says on number six under 9.1.2.2 only one standard accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted on a lot Then if you go to the large one it says only one large accessory dwelling
per unit And I believe it should be only one accessory dwelling unit regardless of whether it's standard or it's large should be on a lot and that can be misconstrued legally So I think that
that needs to be addressed I wanted to stop there and make sure you understood what I was saying We do understand um we've been advised that we
may not be able to say one's ADU per lot for a lot that you could have a large and potentially a small um I think the town it that needs to be crystal clear and then if that is the
case how many that means you're limiting it to potentially too Um uh when Susan noted um this description she did use the
term in a um single family zone And so within the text I'm not seeing anything that says anything about that
Um so therefore what if a what is a principal dwelling it is a single family dwelling on a single family zoned lot And therefore you're not adding to a multifamily
scenario That is not addressed here and needs to be addressed Do you want to comment on that Mark so the law law pertains to any district that allows single family home to
be which is all of our districts with the exception of the LCD And if you look on second page page three of the handout at the top is a chart which says that they're allowed in all district section
of the RC So that's where it's clear about where they're allowed and where they're not allowed which is I think part of your answer I'm not sure what the didn't quite understand what the second part was So the issue is that the
purpose of an ADU is to add what usually one extra dwelling unit to a single family residence home What a lot However what is a principal dwelling
what if that is a multifamily therefore then that's adding just yet another apartment another dwelling to a multif family And then that should kick in other planning and zoning regulations
And I think that it needs to really be specified in the text that it is a single family dwelling that this is being added to That's that's what's unclear about the the regulations is
that whether you can limit it to one accessory dwelling unit per lot We are doing that but we it may not survive And the other other part is can you limit it
to only single family homes and believe that you can So um can you please if you have a two family home you could add an accessory dwelling unit to that So for example
we've gotten a specific question about someone who has a two family home in a garage If this passes they would like to put an excessive dwelling unit in the garage Well more accurately under current state law we're we're advised
the building inspector has been advised that they can do that That's correct and that we can't we can't really prohibit it So then if it is a just a question if it is a sort of a a multif family then you
would have to take half of one of the units not the total building unit and you would have to specify which is the primary dwelling of those two units or what if there are three units or what if there are four units and now you're
bumping up on a lot of issues with respect to the size of the lot the size of um parking all of that And I think that I think we should walk before we run specify in a it's my opinion you know
within a single family um scenario and then see how it goes See see what that issue is Um the other issue is what if someone wants to add an ADU within a Chad situation that's another scenario
where you've got a lot of other specifications on the amount of dwellings etc It could cause a lot of confusion and the idea of having the zoning regulations is to make it as clear as possible and then make sure that we're protecting the community and
protecting the owner Can I answer some of that though in a ch you can't have an ADU because it's not doesn't allow single family homes It's only for multif family So if you're going to take the rules of the child you're stuck without an ADU You can do
multif family however which would be more or less the same thing Just can't add an ADU to a multif family using the child regulations So you just said it can't you can't do it to a multif family Therefore you need to add in the single family to the tax
But the the state law says you that ADUs can only be allowed in districts that allow single family homes A CHOD does not The the overlay district does not but the underlying zoning does at least
in the in all the places where we have CHDs except the LCD So if you're if you're a multif family without using the child regulations state law doesn't say you can't have one and we can't prohibit it
I think I'll speak for myself and but I think I speak for the board that we agree with you that this uh and the legislature may have actually agreed with you as well but the this came up in the comments to for the regulations from
many people and um they left it um as um in a district that allows single family though and they did not restrict it to single family dwellings The so
this current state our our attorney has said that the current state law in effect today would allow a two family in a single family district to have an accessory dwelling unit And then it'll be up to the building inspector to
your second part of your question to determine the square feet of the primary dwelling and thus the the upper limit of the allowed ADU size upper limit size And in that situation they could
potentially add a standard and a large unless there is any standard we've restricted to only single family homes That's why we did no excuse me large We've large we've restricted to single family homes is that in it's point that
out Thank you Thank you Yeah And that's why and that's I think speaking for myself I agree with you but right now um the state law gives that right And so what we're trying to do is put as many
um sort of uh well this article does two things It deletes this the provisions that are currently obsolete and it uh puts as many um sort of oversightes on the standard ADUs that we are allowed to
do Thank you Uh I'm going to go to Zoom Um I have Zoom user It looks like it's Adam Yes thank you Um I think uh you guys are
doing a great job Uh but I did take a close look at this Um say your name I have Adam Adam Zerger and I'm I'm speaking on behalf of my wife and I Cindy Zagger and my myself who own 21 Union Street Um also on behalf of Melky
LLC that owns 13 Elm Street Um we had some comments just uh again I think you're doing a great job but I the main comment we have is what what's the municipal purpose for imposing the restriction that would prevent
separation of title because it seemed to us on reviewing these that that would prohibit ADUs from becoming condominiums So therefore the regulation sort of looks like okay in order to come into town you got to be able to afford to buy a full two family or a three family or
whatever it might be that has the ADU in it Um but by prohibiting the ADUs from being condominiums you're really taking you know market rate units that'll be a small reasonable size that might sell for lower purchase prices and sort of preventing people that could only afford
those and not the full property from buying into town Um and as someone who sort of moved into Manchester the first place we bought in Manchester was a small market rate condo It seems to us that that really cuts against the uh the affordability problem that the town is
trying to tackle Um so I wanted to get your thoughts on that primarily I guess I'll take it as a valid comment I don't have a um Anybody else want to comment on that
well what's the purpose what what's the if it what's what purpose does that regulation because any in order for it to survive the the state statute a regulation has to have a valid municipal purpose What's the municipal purpose of that provision
well one I mean if you want to divide up one property um into condos I don't think this is the vehicle to do it I mean what we don't
want is a lot that has a home and then an ADU and have the ADU under separate ownership you can't divide up that lot Um it it just isn't the way Manchester is um laid out to accommodate that kind
of property division I mean that's just one of my thoughts Um but again why what would be what purpose does that really is what town purpose does that serve because we have you know two families that have a large unit and
a small unit in it um they exist You know are we are we discriminating against condo buyers that can only afford a condo versus folks that can afford to buy the whole property it doesn't What's the purpose what's the real purpose what does it do for the town right I'm going to just
um take a a couple other comments and we'll think about your a valid comment Um let's go to the room Um Gary has uh No John had his hand up first John so I have a few comments but on on Adam's speak identify yourself Yeah John Harden
54 School Street Thank you Um just following up on Adam's comment Um it seems that some of the other provisions in the bylaw would come into play Um for example if someone had an ADU on their
property um and it was a large property and if they wanted to subdivide that and create a different lot it would need the frontage it would need the area it would need all of those things And I would think that would help govern what
properties could do that or not even setbacks right and that you couldn't create a non-conforming condition by just wanting it to be a separate property right it would have to fall into all of those other categories So I I kind of wonder if if that stipulation
is unnecessary because there are lots of other things in our bylaw that would prevent that from happening um without some really good forethought right who could have common ownership of the land and and have uh condo ownership of of
two parts of the building that happens all the time Yeah Could condo to be honest I'm not totally sure about So but but this simple division of of a property correct i think actually could be feasible if every other thing in our bylaw was correct I think I have an
answer also Yes So if if it were a condom that secondary use would no longer be accessory It would be its own unit right it is true Sorry It's legally true It would not be an accessory unit It' be
its own unit in a condo relationship Uh and so I think that's probably the best reason of all That was the intention Yeah Um Okay Comment from Gary Gilbert A couple of comments about this Um I would Gary Gilbert 11 Magnolia
have um I would contend that um you could jump to that definition of what I'm in the middle of this in Cambridge too Um you could jump to that definition that an accessory use has to be accessory to some other unit but it's going to be
accessory because it's condemned sort of to never be more than 900 ft in size in a condiment relationship they're going to always be a minority say um they're going to have a minority vote in the condominium association So they're always going to be a handicap sort of unit which is sort of the idea that it's
an apartment or a small unit And I would add to what Adam was saying is um and that definition isn't written anywhere I think you're you're jumping to an assumption in my opinion Um but um to me you're missing a golden opportunity The whole town has been
talking since the 40B and and looking at what the state's definition of affordable housing is And I think everybody agrees it's a pretty lame there should be a def definition There should be semi-afford sort affordable defined And the affordable housing um
definition in the state is is slightly below market rate I think is what it ends up being And here's a golden opportunity to create um obviously because they're small cheaper rentals or cheaper purchases as a condo And what's wrong with that it's it's a chance to
get some mixed income housing in town that's really needed And you're also meddling in someone's own personal private business affairs Someone owns the property They have a lot of money invested Why can't they do reasonable things with it in terms of commerce why
um get in the way of other people conducting uh commerce so that I have other comments but they're more housekeeping on other parts of the law But on that one issue I feel very strongly you should not and I don't think the state will allow it either but you shouldn't tell people they can't condominiumize it Condominiums for some
reason have a bad name They're homeowners in a sense Homeowners are better than renters because they really care about where they are I mean not that you have bad renters but you know we're not against people owning a home Why be against somebody having a condo it's just another form of ownership It
creates a big opportunity I think if I I don't have the file already but the um standard ADU we do not have the prohibition about separate title We only have that in the large Standard number five the very last thing
I mean the little old widowerower widow the standard Sorry the people that was not allowed 9122 primary I don't sorry I stand corrected um I think uh I so I stand
corrected on that I think um the intent was to keep it as accessory so we've heard your comment um let me uh go to Allison Hammet on Um Zoom Hi thank you Actually this is Whitney
Hammet uh Allison's husband Uh we're at 12 Lincoln Avenue Um I have a question about um existing accessory dwellings that were built uh or ours was built in 2020 for my uh parents who have since
passed uh but they lived with us for a couple of years Um it is larger than 900 square ft Was fully permitted and built again in 2020 Uh wondering what provisions
uh there are in the bylaw for existing uh ADUs and um that may be larger than the 900 square ft Also um well yes larger than the 900 square feet Um Mark
do you want to answer that first i don't I don't think we have a specific provision that addresses how that would be handled whether you would um you've already received a special permit for it Um
and so I think this was this was done strictly through the building department There was no special permit needed All right Um so since it's existing and it is protected by state law Although it's
greater than 900 square feet Um no I believe if whatever provisions you built it under those those apply It's grandfathered These apply these provisions do not apply to your existing Right You received a special permit from
the board of appeal We were we received a permit from the building department to to you know went through the process did the plot plan did the elevations the plans you know the whole bit um fully permitted and built um you know as an
ADU though per the previous provisions which you know is family members and things like that right so um it's a little over 1100 square feet um uh in total uh there were no restrictions on the size you know except I think there
were restrictions as far as like based on the size of our existing uh house Um and then there restrictions about the amount of space on the it's a story and a half So the second floor you know um had to have a certain restriction in
space um based on the first floor um uh you have a slide on um I don't speak for the state but what I'm reading from their slides um is that a 12
au that is greater than 900 square ft um that was previously approved um with a requirement for a family relationship would not fall under our standard ADU or the protected use ADU Um
and so you could continue to I think you would be fine under the state regulation Yeah So it would we would just kind of grandfather into uh you know the the new ADU laws by Manchester
as far as uh the uses for it and things like that No you would operate under the the provisions that were in place when you built it or any special permit conditions that were provided to you when you were had it permitted So I think you'd have to talk to the building inspector for sure because it's hard to
know your circumstances but um I don't think this applies to you Okay Okay Thank you Um Okay back to Gary Uh just quickly he's he's bringing up a subject that maybe you want might want to
consider addressing What about ADUs that were been around a long time that could be proven to have been around a long time that weren't legal shouldn't you create a special permit um venue so they could become uninspected and for life safety and and all that stuff and become
part of the fabric of town well hopefully the building inspector has um been appropriately approving building permits I think certainly there are a there are spaces in homes that may
have a sink and a refrigerator and a stove top cooking facility but those do not meet the state's definition of a cooking facility or a full dwelling And um so that is a subject for the
building inspector um how to deal with that So I don't so any other things that's a they we shouldn't have illegal this isn't a opportunity This isn't we're not trying to go into people's homes and find out what they've built That's the building inspector's purview
This is about new construction new a new use But there's a lot of ADUs in town that have been here for a long long time and they're not necessarily going to comply haven't complied with any law Don't you want to you want to keep them living behind the in secret i mean why not encourage them to become legitimate
they'd have to prove they've been around a long time etc and get inspected but I think you should create a v an avenue for that Otherwise they continue to do it in a clandestine manner Well I think that's a scope of the future I think the um state regulations cover that We may
stay say um a municipality may not prohibit the development of a standard would be use ADU in an existing structure or principal dwelling or lot due con due to nonconformance that could
be used for or converted into a protected use ADU in conformance with the building code So if it conformed I think it's covered Um okay Sandy Bodmer Turner Uh I'm Sandy
Bodmer Turner at 89 School Street and I just wanted to make a comment about the condominium sort of discussion And I I think certainly in my mind and my impression is that the whole idea of ADUs is precisely to fit the solution
that Mr to be a solution to what Mr Hammet was talking about you know of families who need an extra room who could use a little more income who have a a kid back from college who you know doesn't have a place to live who have an elderly parent you know whatever And so
I think that was the context It was a family need kind of context not a developer need kind of context And I I think that makes sense And also I believe Mr had the one district which is a two
family district Um okay Uh uh John um you mentioned uh or I think actually Mr Hammond mentioned that when his project was u permitted he um had to
abide by the one and a half story uh guidelines or not guidelines but um restrictions Would that also apply for the ADUs no the state law says that the under the ADU law state law the ADUs cannot be
more restrictive than a single family house regulations in terms of dimensional requirements Dimensional requirements same height same setback same lot coverage all of those things That that does make it a lot easier
Thank you Sandy Rogers Um yes on 9.1.1A um it says suitable private housing for moderate and lowincome elderly and young participants Um I believe that should that should completely be out because of the law It's not supposed to be for any
particular ages Um it sounds like from the law we're not able to say anything about affordability We're hoping for affordability just based on the size of these but that's it Um there's nothing there I think it this is
legally misconstring the situation Um I want Are you objecting to that language i'm objecting to that language because we cannot state that it's for elderly for younger citizens We cannot state that it's moderate or lower income I
think that in presenting it to the community that's one thing but in in what we are articulating and the bylaws I do not think that we can legally state that Um
can I just comment on that one for um I take we'll take that as a comment Um we did have council review this and they that did not get flagged It does say to facilitate the availability It's not requiring Um so yeah I think I think it
it it really I think we have to start presenting things objectively to the town regarding the viability of affordability Um we can't control that Um I also want to um reiterate what
others have said that this is an accessory dwelling unit and it is not a principal dwelling It's not a condo That's a completely different use scenario Thank you Great Thank you Um Adam do you still have your hand up
yes I do Um thank you for recognizing me again Um I just wanted to respond to Mr only's comment about the ADU and in condos not being allowed The state actually has a definition in the regulations um in 760
CMR71 section 2 where they they define ADU and nothing in that regulation says that they can't be condos and condo condos are not a separate type of use as was just suggested that they're just a
typical single family residential use that's that's allowed um whether it's it's somebody's occupying it as a condo or some it's a single family It's it's not a different use Um and so the town would have to have a legitimate
municipal reason to restrict them from being condos rather than just saying it's it's the law because the state law just doesn't require it Okay Thank you Okay Any other comments on the standard
ADUs Oh John go ahead Sorry Um I was wondering about um 9.1.2.1 six uh about the public water and sewer service Um I can imagine many
uh many um uh existing homes on a property let's say they were on septic Um you know it's very common that they're that the size of the septic system might already be under size for the home Um so if they wanted to add an ADU they
might have to add a whole new um a larger septic system If they're lucky to be on town sewer that's a different story Um but I'm just wondering what the what the point Yeah what the rationale was behind Well there are two things One is if
they're on septic and they add bedrooms they would need to comply with Title 5 Yes So um and that could be however they decide to do that two systems or whatever But the the request here was that water and sewer municipal services
would only have one hookup and that was at the request of the DPW Um also the regulatory process um it was brought to the EOHLC's attention that in
order to to dissuade ADUs towns were requiring uh separate utilities for um as a as a deterrent um to ADUs And so they specifically ask
that we not uh require separate um uh service utilities They could be separately meter meter Right But I think that also goes to the state intent that this is an accessory to the primary use
rather than two uh dwellings separate is you know to sort of to Sy's uh bond returners but as as long as it was um okay within title five they could have
two septic systems for example Well yeah I think you could probably do that in the same way if you added make an addition to your home right you add two bedrooms you you know I don't know I'm not a title expert Okay Uh Gary Gilbert Um I have a couple of housekeeping
comments about um we went through we worked hard to renovate our bylaws starting a few years ago and some of the stuff in there was um ex uh not particularly needed or redundant And um I see item
one 9121 item one architectural floor plans Sure But when you start asking for things that the building department's going to require if you're adding item two and three any addition let the building department determine that I mean they do determine that If you're
adding an addition you've got to do a whole slew of things And if you start saying a little bit of what they require but not everything that they require it it gets it gets almost competitive to what the building department's regulations are You have to provide a site plan for an addition and elevations
That's all you know why why start well I will repeat myself but I wouldn't go there I would just eliminate that language because you need to go through the building department process and they'll ask for all sorts of things Um so which ones would you eliminate i would just wouldn't say two and three I mean you need to get a building permit
because you're adding if you're adding an addition you're adding an addition That's a a big deal Foundations you know you got to meet zoning on all sorts of levels Let the building department determine it Item four This is the kind of language that we had before in various bylaws You don't need to say you have to comply with the bylaws They're
the bylaws It says at the beginning of the bylaws Anybody does anything has to comply with the bylaws If you start saying in sections like 91 or or 136 or whatever you're going to start repeating that everywhere all through your bylaws It's not necessary As well as item five
If you're in the historic if if you're compelled to comply with the rules of the historic district then you're compelled to comply with them Why put it in your bylaw and clutter it up um and lastly item seven I would suggest slightly tweaking the wording so it's a little clearer I think in item seven
you're trying to say they have to comply with the lot coverage requirements of a primary dwelling and not what had been required for accessory buildings So I think you might want to say that apply to you might want to add a little bit of words in there What would you add um
with lot coverage requirements that apply to primary building the primary building something similar to that just to be a little clearer because I see what I think I that's your intent um and that's the end of my comments Thank you for your patience
Um I'll just speak to the the redundancy piece which we all can appreciate having done removed a lot of redundancy Um I think the problem is when you present something at a town meeting you want people to understand those things that are
important to to the voters which is historic and watershed protection and and um and that some people are trying to also read the bylaw who may not be as versed in its entirety So it's those things are particularly important Um so
uh but I understand your I understand that concern Um Sandy just one quick last thing I think also there will be a lot of potential accessory dwelling units that are not going to be building a new They will just be reconfiguring
within their existing footprint So I think it is important to lay out the details expected um because they may not go through the building process Thanks um Adam Uh another comment and
then Yes No thank you I I wanted I was going to save this for because it when you the same provision repeats itself on the large ADUs but since Gary brought up the topic and repetitive I just I think one of the issues is that sometimes when you have this language here to sort of
you know remind everybody about you know historic and architectural plans and and I I see what you're trying to do and I think it's a good thing because it gives everybody a clear picture at town meeting Um but remember these are zoning regulations So we need to be precise And I'm not sure town council gave it the
level of attention that it probably should because for instance if you take a look at number five that just said uh actually yes if if located in the Manchester Historic District the historic district commission must approve any changes to the exterior of the building That doesn't really cover
it because number one they don't really approve They just issue a certificate of appropriateness But that's not even sometimes they do things different like they might issue a certificate of hardship They might issue a certificate of non-applicability if it wasn't visible from the street So I don't I
don't think it's technically correct to say they approve any changes Um I think it might be better to say something along the lines of you know if located in the Manchester Historic District historic district commission you know process must be followed or something
like that because I think what you have here is a mismatch with what the historic regulations actually are And I think you kind of run into a similar problem sometimes maybe on number nine as well about all standard accessory dwelling units using existing driveway entrances for access like what if the
driveway entrance isn't so good Like you might want a better access and I think that language like that I mean I know what you're trying to do by saying okay we're not not we're not like allowing new driveways or a second driveway for an ADU but I think you're you're
throwing the baby out with the bath water by putting in a requirement like that that just is a blanket prohibit prohibition or requirement that mandates using an existing driveway when you know something else might be much better Um thank you
Great Remember that there are provisions for variances if there's a variance from zoning That's that would be required yet another step for folks I know Okay Any other that's almost impossible standard to get a variance for though So okay Uh thank
John One more question comment question Would anyone be prevented from uh permitting an ADU and then some point in the future if all the site parameters worked doing in
an ANR and separating that lot there' be a separate title right but it wasn't created with a separate title later in the future after the ADU was created and now it just exists as a building on the on the
property at that point would anyone be prevented from doing this not if they meet the standards for access You can do an ADR you could do an ADR anything there or nothing
there Yeah And then if they need to adjust let's say utility access to the dwelling because they do want to sell it then that's a different issue Okay Um yes We have a question on seven
the way it's worded So 9.1.2.17 all additions to standard accessory dwelling units So it's not specifying the standard accessory drilling unit It's additions to I'm a bit confused as
to what that means I think that you're saying that the standard accessory dwelling shall comply with the lock coverage requirements um the primary building setbacks and
dimensional requirements This is implying an addition to which is a different process I would think So you don't need those words Yeah you're right A standard accessory dwelling unit blah blah blah blah blah because that's good enough
Something else there You were thinking as an addition it has to comply But this yeah number to be the addition language addition for oh an addition that
contains that that was our intent okay just call it a a standard accessory building that's the top standard yeah I know just oh I have one other item and then you've got below there too all additions and
structure on on eight I think you need to review the the text and wording regarding what is the primary unit what's the st the standard dwelling and then additions and that this is by right and
then they were coming they might think that they can just do an addition by right to it and it might be very confusing So recommendation to review that wording as well Thank you And one other comment
go ahead Gary on 91222 about the lease period Yes I would I would support limiting them to you're they're already things are already limited in town enough Limit it to one month I mean I don't see what you
gain by by saying it has to be six months I mean some people might only be able to find renters during the summer and no one's interested after that Um and I know that's true for some rentals in town Um uh and uh I don't see why six months I
don't see how you're what you're protecting in town by doing that I think you're going out of your way to limit this unnecessarily Um someone might find three separate renters during the summer and that's all they get I don't know But a month is already a long period of time It's not a shortterm rental It's not an
Airbnb thing Um what does it matter to the neighborhood or to anybody um well it I would say we're balancing there things we heard during this process from people who do not want any rental which we
can't you know prevent rentals Um there are many people who feel exactly the opposite from the way that you feel So we're balancing the one week one month folks with the never no way no never nohere in town folks That's where the
six months come I think there's probably other people that would agree with me though I mean sure people are fearful There are both sides People are fearful of anybody coming in town but I think we've had that It's almost a disease in this town and we have to stop being afraid Let people rent That's why we voted town meeting right this is our
compromise I I would like to hear very we've we've spent a lot of time on this This is important I would like to just hear you uh uh hopefully um speak for the fact that we're deleting the existing um provisions of the employee
housing and um exist the doubleiz lot Yeah we were singled out in 15 57 communities in the state We were singled out as the most restrictive in the whole state for AD So I just um we got rid of it's helpful to have the record show that we're at least
moving in the right direction Um and uh there will probably be more to talk about on this So I'd like to uh any other public hearing comments from either the board or else I'd like to stand on the standard ADU Thank you Sue So I'm going to close the public hearing
for the standard ADU bylaw Um and um uh take a motion to do that Absolutely All in favor yes Okay Thank you Um now we're going to discuss the
standard ADU Um I'm wondering if we should talk about them both at the same time though Just probably it'd be easier because we may want to make some edits to both at the same time Um well so this is this is the problem Okay Part of the process is that these have already been
submitted to town to the end of the vote Yeah the only way to make any edits will be on the floor of town meeting We did hold a public hearing on these several month ago or a month of ago and got very
few comments So um so you know this is that's kind of the process and if you want to discuss and vote amendments as the board that you're going to present on the article
you can do that or you can leave it to citizens to prevent their own petitions however they and we also could uh actually um vote with changes
is on the 14th right we don't have to do that tonight That's correct Yes I can add it because I Yeah The only thing we do need to do tonight for sure is to vote the addition that we made at the last
meeting to uh to confirm that That's just uh so on um it is to add on the elevations Yeah it's on 9.1
2.1 number two And at the end of that sentence period elevation shall be submitted for any application requiring an addition to any building to habitable space and add the four words or a new structure That that was added at the
last that did make it into the war made it into the war So we'll take a motion to approve that change Um as we discussed at the last meeting second Um any discussion um all in favor i post unanimous Okay Thank you Um and
then uh we've heard a number of things uh in our comment tonight One about uh the separate title Uh one about changing the purpose Um what about removing the procedural
requirements um and um tightening some tightening some language Um are there any uh motions to address those at least tonight like I said we could think a little bit a little bit about any of
those and uh take up amendments um at our next meeting but um I think we should take them up in the next meeting if we have any Um I think we I've heard you folks um Laura no
sorry I was just clearing my throat I apologize Um you know uh I do think we've heard some suggestions that do slightly improve things but I think we're also trying to balance real clarity at the at the town meeting and amendments at town
meeting Let's uh let's think about those make sure that they're really um worth the not worth but uh that they add sufficient clarity No Um uh so any other motions other than that we make any
changes to what we the only thing you would have to do is whether it's this meeting or the next meeting prior to town meeting to recommend or not recommend Well let's do that right now So I'll take a motion to recommend the um
standard the standard ADU um bylaw uh article to town meeting So move Any other discussion all in favor i Thank you Get write the report to the
moderator or before the Okay great Thank you Um now I'm going to open the um public hearing uh to see uh if the town will amend the zoning bylaws um to define and regulate large accessory dwelling unit Um so I'll take
a motion to open hearing move Second Second All in favor yes Um thank you Um Chris do you want to help us uh we've talked a little bit about this but let's um Chris do you want to just um Sure
So um 900 square feet seems like an arbitrary number for how big a unit should be And I'm going to give you in fact Mr Hammock talked about his ADU which is,00 square feet And I'm
going to give you three uh examples of why larger heating units might be warranted in certain situations The first might be you've got an existing garage and uh it's say 950 square feet and you want to
convert it You would not be able to do that under the under the ADU law that we're proposing Another example might be you want to put an ADU in your house but the way the dividing walls within your house work is
you end up with a thousand square feet for an ADU Again you wouldn't be able to do that And the third and probably the most important is that due to personal circumstances maybe a disability or some other personal reason you need a
larger living space than 900 square feet So um we could have just simply said all ADUs can be 1,200 square feet and be done with it but the board felt it would be more um logical and better for the town to
allow larger ADUs of up to,200 square feet but with a special permit And so this proposed uh amendment to the bylaw would insert a new definition of a large ADU Uh again
it would be half the size of the primary residence or 1,200 square feet whichever is smaller The second is it would allow um a changes to the zoning table which would allow these large ADUs
uh by the ZBA in districts A B C and E but not in the D districts but not in the general district because those districts already allowed two families by right or by special permit
anyway though we felt it'd be redundant We then use the same rules basically for the large ADUs as we are for this the standard ones except we're only allowing one large ADU on the lot and only on a
lot that has a single family residence on it So that kind of bypasses some of the concerns about this the generality of the state law Um and I guess any changes we end up
amending for the standard ADU and probably have to do for the large ADU as well Okay great Any comments from the board additional comments um great Uh Adam Go ahead
Thank you again Sorry to be a repeat offender again Adam Zagger Um this time I'm speaking on behalf of myself and Cindy for 21 Union Street Um I just wanted to point out that the Chris you just mentioned that the reason for not allowing the larger ADUs in the G
district was because of redundancy and the two family is already allowed That's correct Um but as this applies to our particular property um we have we have a we have a little bit of a problem Um we have a barn behind our house that is about 1,600 square f feet um that we've
been we have a special permit for an employee dwelling there that we haven't started construction but we may at some point Um we would love to be able to avail ourselves of this new provision but it it's just simply not allowed in
the G district And because our barn is detached we really have two options to either proceed with the special permit that we have that would have to be leased only to an employee which is not very practical So you know to be honest we we likely are not going to pursue
that Um we're still trying to decide financially but it's it's pretty tough to spend you know $500,000 or more on a structure that you can't rent to anybody other than employee Um and then with there's no the only provision that would be available to us would be a 900 foot
ADU which wouldn't really make any sense for a 1500,600 foot building So by not at least having the ability to go and get a special permit through the ZBA here on the larger ADU provision I mean we're we're kind of stuck in in a in a spot where we're more likely probably to
demolish the barn and do an addition to our house than to keep it And and we really want to keep it Um and I think there's other other um properties in the G district that also have this characteristic where you've got a detached structure um that may be larger than 900 square ft So I do think that
this provision sort of misses an opportunity to legalize those um in the future and and instead actually encourages us to unfortunately take them down which is not in my case what I want to do at all
Well thank you Thank you Um Gary Gilbert you two things with with regards to what he just mentioned you might want to add something um that allows a special permit option because you wouldn't get a variance for this There's no hardship he could prove But
you might say unless there's an existing structure which it then you could consider a special permit in other districts in town that has an existing structure That's part of the fabric of town to have barns and some of these other buildings That's why our town's kind of cool
idiosyncratic Um if I could just comment one reason again this was a compromise Um there are many people who live in the D district um and the G district that feel like
it's very dense already Um and they felt very strongly that um the larger ADU should not be allowed um in those districts So uh that was part of our thinking
Okay hold on Let me make let's just Sandy Rogers Okay so here are two different things again on number seven the wording all additions to same comment Yep Um second on number 10 it
says if a large accessory dwelling units it's just a typo not a big deal Um I think in um sort of thinking about what was just raised um my understanding is that you could
potentially have a barn some type of structure that has that's closer to the lot line than what the dwelling unit would be And it's very important because now you're adding a dwelling where
there's a lot of activity there's lights there's everything And um I want to make sure that there's that there's that that buffer for your neighbors Um and I think that's very important and that's covered
within So number 10 actually says if a is um if a large accessory loan unit is proposed to be in an accessory structure constructed after town meeting date the structure must comply with the primary
building setbacks and that because accessory structures have smaller setbacks Um we were trying and if setbacks have a basis um then therefore after the town meeting
if you're constructing something new that's accessory and plan to then make it into an ADU then you're operating under the dwelling setback not the garage garden shed setback So that was the intent to do exactly what you're saying
Yeah Um okay Go ahead Nope that's it for now Um I will just clarify uh that I did ask Allan we we talked about this at our meeting Um I checked with Alan Wilson and um while the town meeting may or may
not agree with us on the um our decision to exclude D and G at this point we cannot add those in because that would be outside of the scope of the warrant So um at this town meeting that would
not be within the scope of the warrant to expand that So that would have to like Gary suggested about affordability or other things uh be something that would come at a subsequent uh bylaw amendment And to Adam's point I
think it'd be better to allow special permits for additional dwelling units in general in the downtown not accessory dwelling units So um Okay Any other uh Laura go ahead Um I thought that Mr Zerger's comment
was pretty interesting and different from when we made the six-month rule that applies to everybody in every district for that rule but this is different rules for different districts which in the case of the,200 or the 900 square fit I think there's quite a bit
of validity to the case that he's making where you might have a reason to do a 1,200 square foot And so I think I I hear what you're saying about it's not going to go before this town meeting but since we're discussing it I think that is a really valid point that should be considered for the future because it
feels more equitable to make that um possibility the same for all the districts u sitting inside the LCD Okay Um uh did you have a comment okay Gary on a positive note I really support this
Um I really think it's important to allow a special permit option for something as big as a reasonable size of 1,200 square feet because I mean some people have um attics above their garage I mean you're going to are you going to wall off everything beyond 900 ft and say it's storage who's kidding who
they're going to put a door in it and they're going to use it as part of their living space And it may be totally appropriate and there's so many odd dead end streets or quiet streets or um buildings houses that have interesting spaces where you really it's really
important to allow this where it's reasonable It will I think it will be reasonable and I'm glad you're doing it Great Thank you Okay Any other comments um I'll take a motion to close the public hearing for the large accessory dwelling units
Um all in favor okay Um we will take a uh vote to make the same um addition to the uh exterior uh elevation plans will be required in
um for a new structure for new structures as well So do I have a motion to that amendment uh that it has made it into the warrant Motion to confirm that confirm that amendment um for this one this for the
large accessory dwelling So move second Second All in favor i Okay Are there any um changes that we should make tonight i think we can think about a couple of them Yeah All right I'll take a motion
to recommend the article for to amend zoning for to add a large accessory dwelling unit bylaw Um motion to recommend Chris has re has moved second Sue has seconded Any
discussion all in favor okay Post Great Thank you Okay Um the next um we're going to go back to associate members
Um I'll turn that over to Laura talk about I have to open sorry I have to open the public hearing for the accessory dwelling for a um bylaw change to add associate members to section 12 of the zoning bylaw Do I have a motion
so move second Second All in favor i Okay Thank you Turning it over to Laura Okay Thank you Sarah This uh this is a short section recommending the establishment of two associate members for the planning board Um these would be
appointed positions not elected and they would in effect serve as kind of pinch hitters or alternates when um the uh full board um when someone has to step away in the middle of a special permit or um you know has a has a some reason
or or something happens to someone that um requires that an alternate member stepped in Uh we saw this happen on the CST permit when um we sadly lost our chair during that permit and had to
start the whole thing over again Um we were fortunate in that the um permit appa um applicants were um cooperative in working with us and kind of going back to the start it was an important and is an important development in the
town but uh the board would be well served by having these uh associate members Um and we've recommended and discussed with the select board that they would be jointly appointed by the planning board and the select board Uh we think that's important to get a good
uh kind of cross-section of people um considering these planning board um alternates or um uh other members and um it's a model that had served us well on other things like the 40A model and and
other matters when we want the um input of the select board The associate members would serve for two-year terms Um unlike the elected planning board members that serve for three And the members would be staggered so that the first person appointed might serve just
a one-year term or a two-year term but the first two people in would be staggered so that um you were always having one rolling um every other every year there would be um one of the people would be rolling on or off Um and they would serve us on special
permits or other matters where we feel like um something um significant is at stake and that may take a longer duration than the usual sort of meeting or two when we need those associate members or when um a planning board member has been called away and we need a
quorum Uh I think that's it Am I missing anything okay Anybody want to add anything okay Um any uh comment from public on associate members i will um just for the record
indicate that there has been uh suggestions in the past that the appointment process be by just the planning board and others have suggested even just the select board But are we have um arrived at a joint planning board and select board process because
that is how we currently appoint uh vacancies Should it pass when would the first election or first n you know when would it take yeah It would be for the the next year which usually starts with the election cycle June 1stish
So for this hearing Okay Okay Any comments hearing none I will take a motion to close public hearing for a zoning change to add associate members Second Second Uh any discussion all in
favor i Okay Um any changes people would like to make i'll take a motion to recommend the uh zoning article to add associate members So move Second is from Peter Um any discussion all in favor i Thank you
Thank you Laura Um okay the next um uh one is um a short article um I'll open the public hearing to address um a zoning change to prohibit short-term rentals in
accessory dwelling units Open the public hearing motion who is moving that Peter is seconding All in favor okay Um on this one this um both the standard and
the large ADU proposed bylaws prohibit short-term rentals in ADUs However if those two uh uh were to fail um then we would be left with a vulnerable position
where accessory dwelling units that would be in the future under our current bylaw if allowed or under the state law would be allow could become short-term rentals And so this was a sort of belt
and suspenders uh proposal to say should those two fail let's just take up the prohibition on short-term rentals And if those if the standard ADU passes um this would be passed over because that
defines this provision Um we have added to all three a prohibition on short-term rentals using the state statute of definition for short-term rentals which is 30 or 31 days 30 days I think or less
30 days or less Um we have a general bylaw which is has a different name than short-term rentals Um anyway uh and is six days So we use the more um uh longer
duration uh definition of short-term rental That's the explanation Do we have any comments hearing none I will take a motion to close the public hearing for the ADU prohibition on short-term rentals
Second All in favor i posted Any changes i'll take a motion to recommend the ADU prohibition on short-term rentals um and the strategy to allow the chair to direct the moderator to pass over if needed
Second Um all in favor Okay Thank you Um the ne the next one is uh open the public hearing to uh
discuss the flood plane um bylaw the proposed flood plane bylaw zoning change public hearing second All in favor i Okay Uh the
purpose of this um bylaw in zone zoning bylaw is to ensure that um we don't make flooding worse um by property owners and that uh pro prohibit certain hazardous or injurious uses
within um a flood plane um and to adopt the state bylaws that um ensure property home owners can actually get flood insurance because the town will now be in compliance with state regulations So
this bylaw is um really just a um state model bylaw that we've taken without modifications One question people might have when they look at this proposed bylaw is why are we referencing maps that are dated in the future which is
July 2025 and that is those are the way the maps are are are identified by the state We've checked that with them Um those maps are available um on uh I think I have that um on the planning on
the planning board's website and here's the um website that um and where you find it you go to the FEMA's map center on that web uh national flood hazard layer of FEMA Um anything you want to
add Mark on the flood plane bylaw yeah this is the flood plane bylaw was approved by FEMA and then our we had to make some adjustments to the bylaw as so it pertains specifically to Manchester all communities do and then
that bylaw gets reviewed by the state and gets approved and so it has been reviewed and approved by the state So um okay go provided town meeting says yes Okay Any comments from the board i have a
logistical question If people want to see the meeting the maps at the meeting which I suspect some people might is there some way of being able to show them the maps uh we can make some available for viewing at the at the um
Can we post those on a at the like the check-in table or something do it or post it or something but I mean that would be really I mean to make there are nine maps I'm not suggesting everybody
gets maybe we can at least put that's a good suggestion We put them on some poster boards Great Okay Um any other comments any uh comments from the public sandy Sandy Rogers
Um it's okay Number four it says permits are required and then below assure all permits necessary permits are obtained Is number four meant to be special permits are required
no So oh that's the heading where it says four permits are required for all proposed development in the flood plane overlay district and then five is assure all necessary permits are obtained So I was wondering if number
four was meant to state state special permits are required It looks like four is local I'm sorry Four is local five includes federal state federal But it just was was it very I
think this number five is is the criticism that Gary and Adam were making before that we that you have to get all the other permit Yes Right But that this is permits are required for all proposed development It's any permit special permit all
permits Well it would depend on the use So if you're putting in a um new home you have building permits and perhaps a historic district review or like you know all any
of the um relevant permits Yeah So I guess a special permit goes through a a certain process versus a building permit goes through another process with other people The permit review process here is
building permit So someone wants to build they submit for a building permit And so um so in order to get that building permit issued you have to make sure you have all the other
permits like an approval from historic or something along that line So I know it might be hard now in the process but maybe in another review there might be some tweaking of words
for clarity Thank you This is straight out of the step the Yeah this is what we have to adopt But it could be better for sure Okay Any other comments i will take a motion to close
the public hearing for flood plane uh voting bylaw Second Thank you All in favor hi Hi Hi Um Okay Um I will uh take a motion to recommend the um changes to the
Manchester bylaws to add section 10.2 flood plane regulations So move Um do I have a second second Um any discussion all in favor i posted None posed Thank
you Okay Um working right through this Um we are proposing to delete the introduction to the zoning bylaw I will take a motion to open the public hearing to
our change to um delete the uh intro to the zoning bylaw Motion Second Second All in favor i uh Okay Peter Morton Yep And the purpose to of deleting this is to keep the
zoning bylaw up to date Um keeping the background information current and available And the proposal is to delete the introduction Uh and the background information can accompany the zoning on the web and be updated as needed Great
Thank you Anything anybody wants to add um any comments hearing none I will take a motion to close the public hearing for the deletion of the intro to the zoning bylaw So moved Second Second All in
favor i I'll make take a motion to recommend that we delete the intro to the zoning bylaw So moved Second Second All in favor i posted Great Thank you Um let's see The last one I'll take a
motion to expand the applicability of site plan review public hearing Peter moves and Chris seconds Um all in favor opposed thank you Um this uh
provision um is in section 12 of the bylaw And right now we have only one um condition listed there um that triggers site plan review Site plan review is um a uh planning board public
hearing process with notice to abuts to provide input rather than always strict requirements but um for certain uses Currently um those uses are the number
three listed here development the expansion or change of use requiring five or more new parking spaces and number nine which is several other places within the bylaw such as marijuana facilities that require a site plan review But we felt it was important
that we at least take a stab at expanding this list um particularly to provide oversight around um changes in you know large changes around commercial uses um transitions from residential to
commercial use um uh new multifamily construction or renovation to three or more units that is a it is a specified in the MBTA zoning but certainly any other um multif
family buildings would trigger and any alterations of basically more than an acre of land um for residential or agricultural or other uses Um there probably are other things that we could
uh over time think are applicable Um but this is a good start and um I thank Mark for bringing this to our attention as a um sort of gaping hole in our site plan review Anything anybody would like to add or mark
um great Thank you Um public comment uh Sandy Rogers Number seven any alteration of land greater than this certain square footage except for one or two family residential agriculture whatever uses
Um so I have a question Is there anything in the bylaws that says I buy a lot of land and I can just go in and clear cut without any any review and then we end up with
something like happened at Summer Street or potentially worse And so what is the reason to come up with this particular number square footage and why do you need to say one
or two family you can't and there might be some legalities of just a big question Well I think um we have one or two family by right um in most of the town and I think uh um
that was probably the reason for exempting one or two family I mean primarily use site plan review for commercial purposes and where this has been helpful is when in communities really where you have a lot more commercial property and
bigger properties and someone wants to alter a piece of land and put in some parking um is where I've seen it Uh it's important because it creates drainage problems and other things if you aren't reviewing it um because it's not
necessarily building like a commercial use on there but if you don't have something like this it often times won't trigger site point of view So that's that's the purpose of that And also you cannot uh
restrict agricultural horicultural horiculture and agriculture So it's just stating the obvious And then to your first part of your question um if are there any rules if you're doing a single family or two
family and the answer is yes if you trigger the earth removal bylaw So um or if you are removing ledge or um uh um certain quantities of um work in
the setbacks So so if you're doing those things but if you're have a flat field flat forest and you want to take down all the trees unfortunately in my my opinion you're allowed to do that under our current bylaw That might be a future
um thing where we might want to think about that but um that this is not that purpose Okay Thank you Good comment though Thank you Um any other um comments from folks okay I will take a motion to close the public
hearing to explain the applicability of site plan review So move Second All in favor i Okay I'll take a motion uh to um uh well yeah I'll take a motion to
recommend that we expand the applicability of site plan review meeting Second All right Second from Sue Um all in favor i Unanimous Thank you Okay I
think that ends the public hearings Thank you everybody for coming Um we have a couple other things I want to just mention Another introduction We just did the introduction Okay We did it out of slightly out of order Out of order Sorry
We did that one quickly Do you have any questions about that um just making sure Yeah actually I know this is out of order I was looking for that Um is is that wording elsewhere the idea is that we'll put it on the website so that
people can get the right information because otherwise we to amend the intro we have to go to town meeting So if the intro has something that's wrong every time changes Yeah But there's no laws within that introduction or
anything about process right it's simplyformational That's we should make that clear Thank you Okay Um one other uh relevant to this Um we talked about having a forum Um and uh I'm going to suggest that we
have it on April 17th I'm not sure Mark can attend that day but I think that's okay I can attend this Thursday Is that Oh next next Thursday April 17th And I'm thinking of a given that we had low turnout we are competing with the select
board and the final four Well isn't that a Thursday that's a Thursday Um but I'm hope I'm going to suggest that we do it in kind of a informal format rather than this presentation We can make this video available online and and edit out um the
comment sections I think Um so uh I'll be in touch with folks um about who's available I don't if people have a conflict that's fine Um if people can come and we'll be in touch about the
sort of a format of in person um I guess with a Zoom link Um I can come and so if we have three or four Yeah 6:30 years What what time do people
think is good 7 like 6:30 or 7 to be the what the time that people expect to come to planning board So um but if people have other things we we can we're not going to take any action at that meeting
We will and reserve the room and we'll let Tiffany do some Yeah Yeah Um the second um thing is I sent you an email today about a sitewalk um for uh the sea
street um spy rock hill prop anrr I think it would be useful at least for myself to um take a walk there and to see the on the ground conditions and um so if you can just get back to me if you
haven't um responded about which of those times we will post that one for sure um unless you need to know like tomorrow because people want to do right so maybe I know that's why I yeah so just um let me know if you can attend
Thanksy um uh or at the end of this meeting just reply to me The um last thing is um Mark uh asked uh invited a woman by
the name of Kathy McCabe who is a consultant um very experienced with helping people to think about um planning and zoning um to come and
meet with him and invite me to talk a little bit about the future work in the downtown planning as Mark has talked about um a number of times And so what we did is we asked her to um make a
proposal which we will present or present um at the at our business meeting um for time uh to just help us do kind of a visioning What do we want to get out of a planning process so that we all can be on the same page um and
because we have some money in our fiscal year budget we can move ahead quite quickly with some initial thinking get us thinking about it and then um launch a larger uh effort um maybe phased maybe
multi-year I'm not sure what we'll come up with but I think it's a good opportunity for her to lead us in a a thoughtful um process I thought she was very um had some great ideas and so at
uh we'll we'll vote that or we'll we'll talk about her proposal at our next business meeting That's a good question on that So when does the fiscal when does the money have to be spent by June 30th or income yeah Or income So we
would have to uh agree on a scope and a kind of a timeline and get her under contract by the end of June By the end of June Yeah So So we have time to discuss it next week think about it So we don't have to
hear from her before town meeting That's correct No not before town meeting That would be great No the idea was that in May um uh um or early June we would um have a
conversation about what we want to achieve how we might achieve it how we might phase it how we might um uh apply for a grant or um what that scope of grant might look like maybe she would help us develop the a grant application
It's sort of a the first step is to what do we want to so so I so um so the state has uh created a what they call one-stop grant application for over a dozen
different grant pro programs And so um we're a small town under their categories So they have a small town and development grant And so um what I've been looking to do in talking first off
we came up with the MBTA discussion about a year ago about whether to include parts of the general district and we chose not to within the MBTA because we can't uh dictate an excuse etc So and we talked about it a little
bit at the downtown improvement committee and um I kind of feel that really it should be coming through the planning board is the planning you know uh board for the town that we should kind of put together a
vision for the downtown and and a certain area of the community and how do we want that to look and function and um moving forward which will provide kind of the basis for when we look at zoning
when we look at streetscape and all the other things that'll be included in the grant application So I have to get that grant application in sometime in June So we won't be finished but we'll be able to say this is what we're working
towards You know we're doing some preliminary work They'd like to see that the town's already thinking and working on something And then hopefully we would get the full grant in the fall We start next uh whenever the contracts around January
of next year and and it'll be for the entire general district We already have kind of a game plan for the core area of downtown so we can begin to move that forward So that's kind of the overall big picture
whether we still pull other parts out and uh we can discuss kind of as we move forward So yep So um I thought it'd be useful we thought it'd be useful to have Kathy just help us frame that up and create a sequence um so that we can uh
do some actual planning that resulted from the MBTA task force identifying this as a key priority Um so that's coming next uh next week So with that um I will uh any other discussion people
want to talk about great Well thank you um everybody Is that was that our list Mark yeah And just to let you know like also expecting us to go for someone from our previous housing production plan for
the next round of updates So Okay great Um so we have a lot on our agenda next meeting So let's uh take a motion to adjourn tonight Oh yeah We've already closed all the here So move Uh second Second All in favor
great Thank you Thank you Sarah Great job Thank you everybody We're going through that What can you um what are the like the