Um, great. Welcome everybody. Um, call the meeting of the planning board 26. Wow. >> To order. Um, >> so uh, let's see. We'll take a roll call first. We have John Harden. Welcome. >> Thank you.
>> Peter Morton. >> I'm here. >> Ryan Fry >> here. >> Sarah Kraton. >> Chris here. >> And, uh, Gordon Brewster is out getting a glass of water. And then we have our associate member Isabella Bates. Um and Mark Resnik Planner. Um Karen, can you
just uh we're not quite ready for you, but can you hear us? Give me a thumbs up. Oh, you're on mute. I just want to make sure we can Okay. >> I figured I'd just sit in in the beginning of the meeting and then whenever you're ready.
>> Good. Thank you. Um so the first um order of business um we were in a um sort of a little bit of a retreat last meeting and I just want to also again acknowledge um the contributions of Sue Felbrick and
welcome uh John and congratulate Chris and Jan on the election. Thank you for running and welcome. We'll have a good time. a lot of fun here on the board, right?
Um, so the first order of business is election of uh officers. It's always a little awkward. Um, so >> so I'd like to nominate Sarah Kraton to be chair.
>> Anybody else? >> All right. All in favor? Okay. All right. I'm abstaining post. Okay. Thank you. Um, thank you for uh but I'm always willing to have
somebody else step up when you're ready. >> Noted. >> We should figure uh have we got a nomination for vice chair of >> I have a hunch that I not a hunch. I'd like to nominate Chris. >> Okay, Chris. >> Who's going to nominate you, Peter?
>> Oh, no. Too late. >> All right, we have a nomination for Chris only. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Any other nominations? Um, all in favor? >> I >> All right. It's unanimous. >> Um, you can be the vice to the vice
chair. >> No. No. >> Um, excellent. Okay. Thank you. Um uh the next item of business is just um a little housekeeping. Have you I put in
a request to get you a um uh email. All of our documents are on SharePoint and we can sit down. Gordon, you we should sit down when when we do it together so that we can anybody who needs a refresher on where things are, happy to
to do that. Um and hopefully uh you I had Kendall I didn't think of it till today and I apologize send you the um quick uh dump but we'll share documents too. So um
any public comment on matters not on the agenda? Not seeing any public uh I do see two people. Any public comment on matters not on the agenda? raise your hand or Okay, hearing none,
we'll move on. Um, uh, public hearing for Manchester Marine. Is that at 6:30 or at 7? >> 6:30. >> 6:30. Um, do we have someone for, uh, Manchester Marine here? >> Brett Smith.
>> Good evening. Yeah. Um I'm here with my uh colleague attorney Ellen Fryman on behalf of Celco Partnership doing business as wireless. >> Okay, great. Just um I just want to make sure you were here. What we're going to do is um Oh, we have to first open the
um the public hearing um and uh then we can hear from you. I just want to make sure you were here. Um so you didn't give me the the So, I'm going to take a motion to
open the public hearing um for uh a special permit for the applicant of Manchester Marine Corporation um under section
six of the bylaw. Right. 6.1. See them here. That sufficient mark? >> Yes. >> Under section 6.1 of the bylaw and um this has been post duly posted and abutters have been notified. Do I have a
motion? >> So move. >> Um second. >> Second. >> Okay. We need a roll call. Uh I'll start with you Isabella. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Gordon. >> Yes. >> Uh Chris >> votes yes. Brian >> yes. Peter >> yes.
>> Yes. Okay. Um, all right. Uh, Brett, welcome. And, um, go go go ahead. And if you need uh to share the screen, um, can give you that.
>> Perfect. Thank you. Good evening, members of the board. Uh, my name is Brett Smith. I'm an attorney at Shhat Schwarz and Fenton. Our office address is 1441 Main Street, Springfield, Massachusetts. Um, we're here I'm here with my
colleague, attorney Ellen Fryman. Um, on behalf of Celco Partnership doing businesses Verizon Wireless. Um, we're here tonight for our eligible facilities request under section 6409 of the Federal Spectrum Act to modify an
existing wireless communications facility located at 17 Ashlin Avenue. The existing facility is a 90 foot and 9 inch tall monopole uh which is camouflaged as a flag pole
so that it um surrounds kind of is camouflaged with the surrounding marina um environment at the property. And our proposed modification entails removing three existing panel antennas
and installing those installing six new panel antennas to upgrade those as well as three diplexers and some additional hardware and cables. Uh as well as increasing the diameter of the shroud
concealment from the portion above the yard arm or the crossbar on the flag pole. um that increase would be by six inches from the yard arms all the way to the top of the flag pole. And um we also have I know we submitted
to the board some photo simulations and our updated plans. Um, and I'd be happy to pull the photo sims up and go through the board so you can see um that there really is no there's a minimal to no visual impact with the increase in the
diameter of the shroud concealment. Um, and would be happy to address any other questions that the board members may have. >> Um, what I did give you uh sharing rights. So, if you want to share the
visuals, I think that's probably a good place to start. Can you see that? >> Yes. >> Perfect. Okay. So these are um photos that are taken with the existing view and the
existing flag pole and then each photo will be followed by the proposed view of what it would look like following the modification. So here's the existing view. You can see the flag pole right here in the center of the photo
and then the proposed modification. And as you can see from these distances, I mean, it's minimal to no real visual impact on the concealment aspects of the facility.
This is the second view that's existing. And then this is the proposed view. And again, a third view right up close. This is the existing conditions. And this is the proposed view with the
modification. Again, the existing view and the modification. As you can see, there's the slightest um increase in the width, but all in all, visually, it doesn't have a a
significant impact on on the view. Again the fifth view that's existing and the proposed again existing view existing view and proposed view. Existing and proposed.
I believe this is the last view. You can see it here in the distance in the center of the photo. That's existing. And that would be the proposed view with the modification. And those are all of the views. If you'd like to see any of the specific photos,
again, I'd be happy to scroll back and address any of them. So um so can you just in um narrative describe the height and the width of the
hole uh existing and um the height where does at what height does the new hole begin? I'm looking at the actually schematic but um uh I think it's 77. Yeah, there you go. You want to make that a little bigger?
That'd be helpful. >> Yeah. So, the increase would begin right above the yard arms or the cross pole here, roughly about 58 ft above ground level.
And it would be a continuous width. So all of the space above the yard arms would be a continuous um diameter of the extended diameter by 6 in. >> And the existing diameter is what?
>> The existing diameter is 2 feet and the proposed would be 2 feet 6 in. >> Okay. And the height will not change. Is that correct? >> Correct. Um, >> and will it remain a flag pole?
>> Yes. So, everything else, all of the um concealing elements and the flag pole design will remain the same. The only um change will really be aside from the equipment that's being swapped out, um the increase in that diameter above the
yard arms. Um, and that's to be able to give sufficient room for some of the new newer updated equipment that uh that they're proposing to install. >> And Mark, this was originally permitted when?
>> Oh, originally permitted I think in 2005. >> Yeah. And then then it received an update in what 2011 14
>> they increased the height of the pole by 10 ft. >> Huh? Oh yeah. >> In 14. >> Yeah. Yeah. That was >> okay. So it was increased by 10 feet in
>> 10 feet up. 10 feet. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um >> and female they're in the folder. Those two approvals. >> Okay. Uh any other questions?
>> No. Okay. As I'm looking at the schematic here, it appears to be the existing lightfold will stay in place. You can see that's the way it's done and everything will be attached to that. Am I reading that right >> that the existing pole is going to
remain in place? >> Yeah, >> correct. Yeah. So, it's just going to be um basically expanding the shroud concealment that'll go over this top portion of it, but everything else below and the pole itself will remain.
>> I'm not seeing that old decision. I just wondering what conditions were on them prior. >> Do you have a question? >> Um, does it actually function as a flag pole as well? Can flags be on it?
>> Yes, I think so. I'm not sure. Oh, the flag definitely flies on it now, >> does it? >> Yeah. >> Can you look out the window? >> I mean, seriously. >> Awesome. >> It's right there. >> Yeah, there's a flag.
>> Hey, does it go all the way to the top? >> It's half pass at the moment. >> Oh. >> Oh, it's because >> Memorial Day Memorial Day >> from the firefighter who died, >> right? Will cell service be improved as a result? >> That was my question.
>> What what's gained by this? >> Yes. So, the updated antennas and other um wireless equipment that will be being swapped out and added um is is for the purpose of enhancing and kind of
updating the technology that's currently existing in the poll. um as as kind of the wireless needs of the area um increase um now obviously with everyone having wireless devices and
needing increased coverage um the that's kind of the main driver for needing to update those antennas in the equipment is to be able to further enhance the coverage that's existing at the site now and in the surrounding area.
Okay. I'm I did find the um 2000 decision. There were no conditions placed on it. So, um is it possible to have the uh entire hole be the new diameter?
I know there was conversation um because the way that this poll is set up um Verizon is not the owner of the pole. They are just a colllocator on the pole. So they um have space on the pole to just attach their equipment and it's
actually a third party who owns the pole. Um so initially the discussions around expanding the dimension had started with just where Verizon's equipment is located. Um, and
then there was some talk that it wouldn't have as visually um wouldn't be as visually appealing with there being kind of sectors that are a little bit wider and then going back to a more narrow
uh diameter. And I know Verizon had worked with the tower owner and had come to the agreement that if they were going to expand it, they would agree to expanding the entire top. Um, but I I'm not sure how those discussions went, if
there was even any um consideration about the lower portion below the yard arms. What do you guys balance in the two vision? >> Yeah, I'm just wondering. >> Yeah. >> Are there are there any other technology users on the poll?
>> Um I believe there is another carrier right around right here in between Verizon's two locations on the poll. >> It's not T-Mobile. The original um application
uh was to Nextell and then the application or the uh special permit in 2002 was to sprint. >> Verizon owns them all now. Don't they? >> What >> did Verizon buy next? >> I don't know. >> So,
>> does Verizon own Nexttel? Is that how you guys >> That was No, I'm not sure it matters, but I don't again I don't see um >> I don't see any
>> this is Ellen environment I looked it up sprint bought next to >> oh okay >> and you are asking for a waiver on the financial analysis portion of the special permit correct
Correct. Yeah. For the financial shorty uh requirement. >> Well, there are two things. One is the financial analysis that would be sometimes required for a special permit. You didn't ask for that, I guess. And the second is the financial shy to
because there's no disruption of the site. Is that correct? >> Yeah, correct. And as far as any kind of removal costs if the facility were to cease operations, um those are typically conditions or requirements that the
tower owner would take on. Um, and as a colllocator here, uh, Verizon is really only responsible for their equipment that's on the tower. And anything beyond like the remainder of the tower itself would be on would be
the responsibility of the tower owner. So in 2002 um the board found uh the board finds that this that the financial security is addressed by request for $10,000 bond
for removal of the tower mediation landscape and 5,000 bond for the removal of the sprint equipment. The board finds that 10,000 5,000 are adequate financial shy. The financial shy on each case is a 30-year shity bond payable to the town
of Manchester. So presumably that's still in place. >> We'd have to check. >> We'd have to check that. Um I'm just looking and um Okay. It doesn't look like there were really any other conditions than that.
But the the question you're saying that that you would not be responsible for removal of the tower because it's not owned by you. >> Correct. >> Is that reflected in your application?
>> There's no letter of authorization here. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Um, so it sounds like that's not even the relevant Germaine to the application.
>> Yeah, pretty much. Yes. >> Now, whether we should revisit the 10,000 if we have it, is it still sufficient after 25 years? Right.
It seems before we grant the uh waiver of that we should know that we have it and that >> okay that's an open question. Um any other questions? So law requires uh some testing, pre-esting and post-
testing >> and what to do if they're excessive radio frequency emissions and I guess those could be conditions for the permit >> and is there a definition of what excessive is?
>> Um applicable federal, state and local regulations. Don't ask which section I'm in. >> This is section 8.13. It's on page 55. >> Okay. So, we
>> So, we do have a special permit for wireless devices as opposed to the section um for general specials. So the criteria are mitigate against potential negative impacts on visual quality, protect against potential damage to
neighboring properties, financial to cover the cost of remediation or damage to landscape upon the removal of facility. Testing and monitoring of radio frequency emissions um
in compliance with Because I can remember when there was a proposed cell phone tower more in town knowing a huge outcry about that because of the radio frequencies going out. People were very worried about that
>> right that was on the I think the water tower but they did they are on the water tower. >> Yeah. I think it's like a little bit 20 years later people are less >> worried or more no accustomed to having their cell phone our cell phones and
I'll put myself in that category. Um Mark, you also asked a question of um raw uh Copelman and Paige. >> Yes. >> And what was the question and did we hear back? I asked them a question related to um the issuance of the
special permit because they they use the >> what's the term you use um that it's a not exempt facility eligible facility therefore you meet certain conditions
so you're not necessarily subject to discretionary permits um so I asked the question and page page. However, they I think between some town meetings and vacation time, they didn't get back to me. So, um I think uh
it'll by the next meeting we should have a complete answer on that. >> Okay. Also, I believe under the FCC regulations as far as like firing like
monitoring and testing of radio, there's there's there's certain things that really do limit what communities can do, if anything at all. I mean, um, you know, and again, it's pretty limited. Haven't done a cell tower in 15 years.
So, not familiar with what the latest is far as that goes. But I can also confirm that. >> Um, so our our jurisdiction is visual impacts and protecting neighboring
properties and presumably given that it's on Manchester Marine's property and they're not here and they know it's >> um, okay. We have a butters notices of butters notices. >> Yeah, they were notified. So, um >> well, the application did
>> come from Manchester Marine >> and it also included a lot of data about the emissions. There was a lot of radio frequency stuff >> which we're not really >> which is I mean can you Brett can you explain um how you're regulated on emissions uh
radio frequent emissions and how that's regulated just so we're comfortable. >> Yeah. So to that point, um I we did submit an RF report that kind of outlines um the emissions testing that was done um preconstruction and
pre-modification for the site. Um but in general um Verizon as an FCC license holder does have to ensure that they comply at all times with all the FCC regulations when it comes to um radio
frequency emissions and all of those aspects. So just um by terms of their licenses with the FCC, they are required to make sure that they're compliant at all times. Okay. Um, so it seems to me the only open
question is the question about the financial shy and where we are with that. >> So um, what do you recommend that we just continue till the next meeting and then close it out then? >> Yes. Yeah, I recommend you continue so
we can um check on the pond and where that is and if that's in place, whether you want to um ask them to talk to the pole owner
about increase in the width on the lower portion. also um confirm about the testing with council as well as uh the process that they're saying
they're entitled to decision within 60 days which I think we'll get to anyways but um which I think I believe is is what's required as an eligible facility. >> Okay. So I think we can resolve those
issues pretty quickly at the next meeting. Um so uh I'll take a motion to continue the um public hearing for the application for man cell phone tower until June
>> six. Uh June 8th. >> Yeah. >> Um at and I'm going to say 7 PM because I've got something we want to do at um before or maybe 7:30. Um >> you want to do the >> Yeah, we wanted to do a sidewalk. So
hold on. We'll set a time here in a second. Um what I wanted to do at the June 8th meeting was to we talked about in our little >> off uh meeting at Seaside when was uh a foot walk of the general district. Mark and I talked about it's probably going to have to take us two meetings, you
know, do one chunk and then so if we could start at 6 on that night if people and I'm just want to get a sense for people >> June 8th >> June 8th start at 6 and then come back here and start our public hearing for this matter at 7. I think we have maybe
two other public hearings that night but um have those all been posted at 6:30 >> for that meeting have been posted >> at 6:30. here. >> Okay. Uh, maybe what we should do is do our walk
at the end of the meeting. >> It's not twilight. >> What do you think? Um, >> can we like if we walk at 5:30 and just do this end of like up to >> people do 5:30? I don't know if that works out people.
>> That gives us an hour. Okay, we'll start at 5:30. >> The walk down June 8th. >> June 8th and then we do have other public hearings posted at 6:30. So, why don't we schedule you for 7:30? That way you're not waiting around.
So, June, uh, I'd like a mo. Does that work for you folks? >> Okay. Seeing nodding. Thank you. Um, so I'll take a motion to ex to uh continue the public hearing on June 8th at 7:30.
So moved. >> So moved. Okay. Um I think we can just vote this. All in favor? >> I opposed. Great. >> Okay. Um thank you very much. Um we will uh resolve those questions and Mark may
be in touch with some questions about uh being and encourage you to be in touch with the pole owner about whether or not there's a the diameter can be um modified. So, um Mark will be in touch with you. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Great. Um >> anything else? Okay. Um update from Karen. Um Sunore Isabella. We hope you'll stay, but yeah. Thank you. >> Um great. Um Karen,
hello there. >> Give us uh >> Okay. >> Want me to share uh the new version, right? >> Uh yes, if you could share the new PowerPoint and while you're doing that, I can kind of get started. Um, so, um,
we're updating plans that were done in 2015 and then 2020 was the last one. And, um, we're I finished the first couple sections of the housing production plan, which I plan on just
providing kind of key takeaways from that this evening. But besides going over that, um, which I plan to do expeditiously and get your input, I'd also like to, um, have a conversation about next steps, particularly the
public process that you want to go through, um, as well as a little bit from you on your thoughts about a potential town-owned property that might be suitable for affordable housing. I
know it's limited uh but it is a required component of a housing production plan to offer uh some examples and then um any thoughts that you might have at this juncture on strategies
um to address the housing needs that we are we've kind of assimilated in the housing needs assessment. Uh I I do know that some gra congratulations are in order uh given your recent town meeting approvals. Uh and one of the things that
we certainly will do in the plan is to show the progress that has been made including some strategies that were in the last plan that have in fact been implemented. Uh so with that why don't we just go unless you have any questions why don't we just start going through
the brief presentation. Oh, yeah. I I do have a question. Um, sure. >> This is Peter. Uh, the um items that you just mentioned that have finished since the last housing production plan. I
noticed those as well. Would it make sense to share them at the top just to allow us all to understand what has been done as we frame what might be done? >> Well, maybe we we can certainly do that.
I did include at the end of the presentation the strategies that were included in the last plan. Um so maybe we can get to that then. Um, >> okay. >> Just get through the the first part. If
we want to scoot back to the strategies and you want to focus on that, we can I we can do that. >> Okay, that that makes sense >> to SC to go charge ahead. >> You go through your presentations. >> Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Uh, so next
slide. Oops. God. Um, so this is just a brief slide on what is affordable housing and this is based on the chapter 40b definition. Um, so there is that affordability
threshold that we talk about all the time about that 30% of income uh level that if you're spending more on housing costs than that, you're by kind of traditional definition spending too much
and has cost burdens. The um chapter 40B definition is you have to meet a number of requirements to be included in this subsidized housing inventory that counts towards that 10% affordability threshold
um or annual housing production goals that we will uh talk just briefly about. Uh and those requirements are that the units has to be subsidized either directly subsidized by some public
entity or approved through a subsidizing agency. They have to be deed restricted and we're talking about in perpetuity unless there is a good reason not to go through in perpetuity. They have to be affirmatively marketed and they have to
be affordable households earning at or below 80% of area median income. And the AMI limits were just recently reduced. And just to give you an idea, for a household of three, the limit now is $123,400.
So, um, they keep they keep going up. So, it's uh we're really talking about moderate income. go to the next slide. >> Can I um just stop on I have two questions on this. Yeah. For comments. >> Sure. >> The first is of the 200 of the you know
2,300 yearround housing units but we know that we have a number of housing units if I look at the assessor's database that are not year round. There are a lot of people who do not live here year round who have a house.
>> Yeah. So we really don't have 2,300 yearround ho housing units. I don't know how many a lot of people who own homes who are not residents. >> Well, this is b it has to be based on
census data. It has to be based on the dennial census. Everything stems from that. So whatever figure they came up with, we have to go with. It's not like you can, you know, argue with it. Um, okay. This is this is the census count
that we're stuck with and the next count will be in when the 2030 >> figures are released. >> Okay. So, 2293 is census data and not the number of assessed housing units. Is that right? So, if I were to look at the
number of housing units the assessor has, it would might be 2500. >> Uh, yeah. And we have some information on, you know, assessments by property type, but no, this is a definite US
census figure. >> Sarah, are you thinking people who um have a primary residence in Florida for tax reasons? >> Yeah. And they don't and they live here >> five and a half months a year. And there's a >> Yeah. But this is this is the count of
the actual number of units regardless of how they're occupied. >> I guess my point is she's saying it's not it's the number of people who fill out a census that say that they live in a unit and are resident here.
>> Yeah. It's really based on you know the total number of units minus those units that have been identified as occasional for recreational purposes. Um and so that's that's the figure that comes out.
>> Okay, >> there is a subtraction there. People who have basically said that they don't live in the units uh year round. If they're lying, you know, that's a problem. >> Yeah. What what can we do? >> But in any case, we're in worse shape
probably than because that would only mean we have more units and less affordable. Well, or the flip. I was thinking that the denominator if you're I don't I don't know how to what it does to our it just >> because but it's
>> okay. So it's year round housing units as oppo so the number of house people who >> housing units in man is higher than that >> census here. >> Yeah. >> Means that they declare their res right. Okay.
>> And then so we have so we we have the um you have the gap you have the gap of 114 units to meet the 10% state target >> without considering future growth. Uh just
I think you are aware there are a couple proposed projects that could take you way over the 10% uh level if they do in fact come through. Um and um just also to point out on the SHI that almost all
the units are rentals mostly for seniors and mo most do involve the housing authority. Um >> okay question next slide just to go over housing production plan. Sorry. >> Sorry. Can I ask a quick question? >> Sure.
>> We added five units >> from whatever 20 20. >> Okay. No, actually 2015 to 2020. That's what this is, right? 2016 to 2020. Or is this current?
>> This is the most current list from the in the 115 units was actually what was included in theund in the uh 2020 housing production plan. >> So, I guess that my question just was um where were those five units added? Were
they affordable units of part of a larger project? Were they added strictly as straight quarterly units? >> They haven't been added. 115 units were part of the plan in 2020. >> So
from 110. >> Oh, upper up from >> Oh, that was before 2020. >> Yeah. This is >> 2015. And I and now to tell you the truth, um I'd have to go back to um I'd
have to go back to the um >> it's not because marketed. >> So is this from 15 to 2020? 15. I just provided a comparison of like back in 2015 you had 110 2020 you had
115 2025 26 you have 115 >> okay >> all right we'll go on and then we can come back >> yeah sure >> um so just to we went through this before in the last meeting but basically
U based on housing production program guidelines from the state. Um the in order to submit a plan for housing production and to get approval of the units, you have to have a plan that
meets all the requirements of the state. And you have to show uh the production of 1/ half of 1% of the year round housing count uh in order to get what's called certification or safe harbor. And
that's 11 units for uh Manchester. Um and then if you get 1% you get a okay so safe harbor for one year for 11 units you can get a safe harbor for 2
years if you produce 22 units or the equivalent of actually it's like tw yeah yeah 22 units equivalent of 1% of the yearround housing stock. Um, and that's just kind of the kind of the basic
incentive for communities besides good planning and having a roadmap uh for for housing. uh an incentive to be able to uh if you have safe harbor to for the ZBA to deny a comprehensive permit
application it deems inappropriate without the developer's ability to uh appeal that decision. Um so next slide uh this is just basically a um a list of
the major components that are required by the state as part of the housing production plan. Uh executive summary comprehensive housing needs assessment. We're kind of there on on those pieces. Um and then the next next section that
we'll be preparing is updating that the uh the challenges for creating affordable housing and then the actual h annual housing production goals over the next 5 years and then the housing strategies to address those goals and the needs that have been identified in
the housing needs assessment. Um there are also I listed these here. I don't know if I have to read through all of them, but all of these categories have to be addressed in the HPP under the strategies. Um, and
uh, you know, we have done that in the past and we still have to when we get to the next sections on the goals and strategies, we're going to have to make sure we pick uh the checklist of all these categories. Um, next slide
under just sees very brief uh demographic and economic trends updated through the um the HPP housing needs assessment. Um some recent population gains with a projected declines going
forward after 1980. As you know, there were some declines in population. Um, and uh, based on the 2024 census figure, the um, um, the population total is really back up to
the 1980 level, about 5,400 residents. uh they're expected after uh a period to decline again uh to like 4,900 by 2030
and uh lower than that um 2040 and 2050. Um not surprising is the continued trend towards losing younger residents and gaining older ones. uh which is also predicted uh to condict to continue just to give
you some idea those under 18 decreased by 23% between 1980 and 2024 and that's in the context of a the total population decreasing by only 1%. Those
65 and older though increased by 141% during that period which kind of gives you a glimpse of some of the real demographic shifts that are continuing to happen. um increase in family households to uh to 75% of all
households in uh 2020 24 uh very high median income of $26,369. I mean Manchester has always had among the highest incomes in the state, but
this uh actually even surprised me a little bit just to give you some other context. the county's uh median income was 103,000 and the states was 10 almost 105,000. Um and in 2020 2010
uh Manchester is 105,000. So we're talking about doubling in uh decade and a half a question about that in your um report. Yeah. Yeah, but it's not um you haven't done an inflation adjusted um
>> all these figures are adjusted by inflation. >> The census figures are adjusted by by inflation. >> Okay, those are and those are >> it says on the chart top of the chart, you know, the inflation adjusted figures.
Okay. And then the other question I had um because when I was on the school committee, we did um uh use the UMass we had to use the UMass data and it didn't
it didn't come to fruition. Um they so um if you look back at our last housing production plan or maybe the one were did we do one before that or was last okay two >> no we did one before that last one yeah >> okay was the same prediction that we
would by now be decreasing and um so that's the first question then if our population is going to decrease for whatever reason UMass thinks it's going to decrease >> and the production plan says we're going
add 100 units. Like how do those things? >> They're basically looking at the status quo. They're looking at, you know, uh births and deaths and what's happened kind of in the past. If in fact, um
there is a surge of housing. Um there will be a clear increase in population that will be more than what they're uh probably predicting. these you know these projections are you know all based on lots of assumptions
and even the various forecasts themselves have different assumptions. So you know it it is not a science it's kind of uh an art to it to a certain extent and it is it's it's interesting
when it's pretty true to what happens but often it's going to be off. It's just the way forecasts are. >> You're So the assumptions that you're using are assumptions for the state. It sounds like that are then applied to Manchester. Is that correct?
>> The state. >> What do you mean? >> What? >> I'm ask again. I'm not certain I understand your question. >> So the the assumptions that you're including in your analysis come from what study or where are you pulling
them? Are they stable? >> The projections are I included some from MAPC to 2030 and I included um the UMass Donna Hugh Institute um projections too. They're both
included in the drafts. Um so they, you know, they differ somewhat. >> Um can I just if I can just finish? Yeah. Um, so to your point, Sarah, there are some unique data points that we're aware of in
Manchester that are counter to what we're seeing statewide. And I just wonder if we can I can we provide or can we discuss your assumptions before you complete your analysis just to
>> you know learn? >> They're not my assumptions. I'm just using the projections that are typically used for our >> which are assumptions. >> So >> I'm not making assumptions. I'm using their their >> assumptions. Right.
>> No, but the assumptions generate the projections. >> Right. Right. So I guess let me let me try and ask it a little different way. >> Not in a different way because I'm not understanding. >> Okay. All right. Well, it just seems like um some of the numbers that you've
already shared for like the 2030 population in Manchester of 4,900 sounds light considering the direction that it seems like we're going. And I'm just, you know, a a difference that's pretty sizable. That's like 10% from what it is
now to where it's going. And I just wonder how that ultimately impacts the analysis. Well, you know, when I actually in some cases where there was census data that didn't make sense to me, I actually included that it was surprising and
questionable. Um, if we want to add something in this piece on projections that given X, Y, and Z, these predictions tend to be uh most likely to
uh underount what will actually happen. Um, that's one thing. However, you know, between 1980 and 2020, there's there there was a real decline in population. So, it's happened before. Um, and with the baby boomers passing away, sadly
enough for some of us. Um, you know, that's going to be there's going to be likely another dip. If there is going to be serious housing growth, which might actually happen, um we could actually put something into the housing needs
assessment says that uh with pending potential uh housing development, these figures could turn around and the decline would be uh much less potentially.
I'd be I if you feel that would be helpful, we can do that. >> What do you think? >> Also, I know we all are going to have a lot of comments that we can also funnel to Mark um on
a whole bunch of picky things. So, >> Mark, John has another question. We have time tonight to delve into this. So hopefully >> I was just going to suggest that it would be useful if we're able to compare population growth either um you know
historically or projected for Manchester relative to something like the growth of the state >> because then we would have an idea well gosh the the state's growing in population but we're decreasing population so there's something unique about our situation that's causing
>> yeah I mean I can easily do that the growth for the state has been about 7%. >> But I can usually add something like that. >> I have a theory, but I'll I'll wait till later. >> Yeah, theories, too. Okay. Um All right, we'll keep going and
we can Oh. Uh God, hold on a minute. >> I did finish this up. >> Hold on one second. I mean, I just Where's my zoom?
Somehow I my zoom here. No, zoom. Zoom. >> Oh, she lost >> I lost somehow. The zoom fell off the uh >> We can still see my notes.
>> I >> We can see you. >> Oh, that's good. I just yeah somehow the zoom but I so I don't have to look at the the um slides
to do the thing. The the next slide just shows the um change in income distribution from uh census data 1999 2010 and 2024. And you can see by
uh that that basically the numbers uh have gone down for each kind of group of uh of income range until you get to the 150 plus uh when you see that big
spike um which is now 65% of all households. And then in comparison um it's 33% for the county and the state. Uh so um that is a major
uh change uh that uh oh here we go. Here I go. Got it. Okay. There we go. Anyway, um next slide gets to housing
>> dramatic. um loss of rental units, which you don't really like to see um cuz we're talking about affordability in some diversity of housing on these plans. Um there was loss of 130 rental units between 1980 and 2024 and that
represents 20% of the town's rental housing stock versus a gain of 346 owner occupied uh units. Um the median single family my house price
was uh 1 1,350,000. This is as of the end of 2025 and this is through the Warren Group's banker and tradesmen data. Uh and in the comparison it was 780,500 in July of 2015.
Uh the median this is census median gross rent was $1,811. Um but this figure includes the units in the subsidized housing inventory which comprise 20% of all rentals. So it's skewed down and then market rents are
much higher and um talking about at least $3,000. And >> can you pull out the on that one? Can you uh pull out the um the units that are on the SHI? Cuz I
thought that um I mean an SHI some of them the the rent that that the um SLV developer for that's going to charge for a unit was like $3,000 if it
was on the SHI. So, I'd like to know I I would I flag that as um one of the things I suspect this is one of my assumptions is that we have a fair number of rentals
in town that are not on the SHI >> but are below market rate. Well, you know, that's not surprising completely because in fact my contention has been that owners
probably owner occupants who have rental units generally or often will have below market rents because they want to keep good tenants and so they won't be completely, you know, jamming the units up. It's when properties turn over that
and they're refinanced that rents kind of uh can go up higher in smaller multif family uh properties. Um but you know uh talking to folks in real estate about
the private sector rentals there aren't a lot of listings. A lot of people have to rely on word of mouth month because they've uh they know somebody you know somebody. Um, so it's hard to get a really kind of uh clear uh signal and
and and the other thing is that there are winter rentals uh and then you've got the sea seasonal rentals and uh which tend to drive up prices because it they have a real effect on supply of the
year round stocks. So, um it's it's complicated and I try to get at some kind of uh of uh scenario in the analysis on on uh housing cost and affordability, >> but your median gross rent is from
census data. >> It's according to 2024 census estimates. I was saying it is >> it is it is lower because it includes subsidized housing inventory unit and that includes most of them are housing
authority units >> right but what is the rent >> but those those rents are low >> it's a third of your income so that everyone's playing different >> everybody's playing different so it would be helpful I think to for me to to take those out and see what the um
census data says as our rents are because on >> well we have analysis of rents in in the plan in the housing needs assessment there is you know gross rents um by the rental range and numbers that are in
that range um in the housing cost information >> sometimes I just worry that if by putting thing getting a whole that if you put things on the shi they the rents will go up from I mean it will raise our then you know five years
later we're going to see if we add our 11 units per year at you know the SLV's rate of that median is going to go higher >> so I think the issue is that when a property goes on the SHI when going
through the 40B process >> all the units count as affordable >> I know >> even only 20% of them are actually affordable I know. But even those that are afford big a affordable >> they're not 3,000 a month. They're like I think that's
>> well they're 2100 for a two something like that. 3,000 for a market rate. I think I think he was gonna charge whatever >> that's correct that if so builds their
>> their project all of their units count even though% >> that's right >> yes >> that's what the 40B law says it's stupid but that's what >> right so it doesn't really it helps housing production but not affordable you just get
>> right but I got to say that 20% of all rentals the SHI um mostly aren't big 40bs. They're housing authority units. Um you know, without with some exceptions, you know,
there's some off-site units um small uh small developments. So, those rents tend to be low. >> Sorry, can I ask one followup to that? >> Sure. about sov say they add I forget
what it was 100 something >> that increases the total number of units in our town >> therefore the 10% >> would beat the 10% >> we'd need it but our um just adding their units would increase
the total number of our units but because there's enough it would it wouldn't meet it it would get us to the safe Harvard. >> But um I try to suggest here >> the average the average unit. >> Well, >> so this is an issue that the affordable
housing trust is is grappling with. >> Yeah. >> Which is affordable with a capital A versus >> affordable, >> right? >> And still a affordability isn't solving our problem, right? >> So then the the the um the average
rental rate would SHI rental rate would be totally skewed when just if SLB comes online. >> Uh, sure. Yes, it would be. Well, yes, the FHI units would seem to have very high rents, >> right?
>> Well, yeah. Well, they're going to include, you know, 75% will be market units >> and you're going to get credit for all of them, but only, you know, only 25% will be uh actually affordable. And that
was a state policy to try to get small towns provide carrots for small towns to do multifamily rental housing. I mean, that that was the purpose of it. and the capital affordable at 80% AMI. Those rents are pretty high. >> Yeah, they are.
>> As opposed to 60% or 50% of AMI. Yes. Typical. >> Yes, that's right. >> So, um going on high affordability gaps. I mean, when you have a median, usually
the the the definition of affordability gap is the difference between the median single family home price and what a median income household can afford. Given that you have you you have a both high single family home price and you've
got very high uh median income. And so, but the gap still is almost 400 almost $500,000. If you um look at those just at the AMI the 80% of AMI level the gap doubles to
over $800,000. Um it becomes uh very extreme. Uh and then cost burdens. These are households that are spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs and that includes 74%
of those with incomes at or below 80% uh AMI limits. And it also includes 39% that have severe cost burdens and that they are spending at least half not more of their income on housing costs whether
it be for rental or for ownership. So if our population is has a increasing or has increased in its 65 plus >> 65 and over income daily >> what
>> fixed income >> right so our 60 our senior population tends to have uh lower earned income >> sure but may have assets >> that's right
>> other places which one of which might be the house. >> So it's that affordability gap may be artificially large because of our demographic.
So if our if our demographic was uh growing uh ex a lot in the 40 to 60 age bracket. That's your biggest earning years typically, >> right?
>> So, I think our affordability gap might be artificiallyated low. I mean, it's hard to know, but it it seems like >> uh it you know, and maybe you have this elsewhere that I didn't delve deeply
enough into by by um age of respond of a resident. We do have median incomes by age range um in the plan and obviously that those
on fixed incomes um have a significantly lower median than those in the prime of the working life. Um so those figures are included and there's some more income data by age range in the um plan
and there's uh um also kind of cost burden information by types of households in the plan in the um needs assessment too. >> Okay. >> And income range. So there is there there if you look
under the in the affordability analysis there's some figures on that. >> Uhhuh. >> Okay. >> Um this chart I think really shows the
increase in housing prices. This is from assessor's data. Um the uh the bottom kind the bottom line um actually it's hard to say is like the
yellow line is uh fiscal year 20 data by numbers of units assessed within various price ranges and the top one because like this big curve at the end that's
fiscal year 26. So you see the um accumulation of units in various ranges go from kind of a high level of uh between 500 and you know 800,000 to the number is going
up past the million the million.2 level. I mean it's uh it it it is kind of dramatic. >> Yeah. >> The shift that's occurring.
>> Uh the next slide. So I mean put down and trying to distill this information uh and come up with targeted uh needs um and still continuing that rental housing is a top
priority uh for both families uh and for seniors. Um, rental lets you when you actually can do affordable housing and financing, you can get some often some
units in the lower income tiers. Um, it's meant to diversify the housing stock somewhat. Um there are 0% vacancy rate for rental housing uh to make up for some of the loss of rentals that have been occurring
has been occurring and almost all state subsidies are for rentals. Uh and once again, if there's an interest in safe harbor and getting beyond 10% or meeting housing production goals, all uh units
in a 40b rental project count towards the SHI. Um, but there's still a need for firsttime home ownership as a uh on the town's housing agenda to help to diversify an increasingly aging
population to attract young families and give them ability to to live in town. Uh, and there are very few subsidized ownership units uh in Manchester. Um there's also a need to integrate some
handicapped accessibility and supportive services giving increasingly aging population uh and the numbers of folks with uh with special needs. And one of the questions I ask in um as a note in a draft is whether you wanted to
potentially add another need which is kind of the need for resources to help folks make important uh improvements to their homes. uh given the age of the housing stock um council on aging thinks
this is a an issue for older uh adults who own their home and the ability to have resources to maintain them. Um so that was just a question um that I thought you might want to consider.
wonderful program in MC called Christmas in April in which people would go to a senior's house and do all the repairs that were needed. >> Plumbers, painters, you know, pick up the yard, the whole works. It was really
a wonderful program of community. >> Was that in Washington DC? >> Yeah, >> this was in April. >> That's great. Well, there are some resources. It's hard. You really can't use CPA money for
home improvements because there is a state rule that basically says you have to if you if you don't use CPA for acquisition and construction, you can't use it for home improvement. But there
are other towns that have uh um have found ways to support small grant programs uh and that type of thing. Um it's just something for you to consider whether
you want to add that or not. The unique slides these I just listed the ones that we had in the last HPP. um you know obviously you've already established an affordable housing trust fund just a matter of capitalizing it
securing sufficient professional support. We asked for you know we talked about a part-time p person potentially um an ongoing community education which is kind of a no-brainer about any kind of housing initiative the town would
want to pursue. Um next slide is um just give you an idea. Next next slide is >> um yeah
>> relates to zoning. with the other version. >> No, no, no, no, no, >> no. Hold on, hold on. >> Let me see what the other version. >> Well, I can just Well, you're trying to find it. The zoning strategy >> one you sent me then only had 14 slides.
So, >> well, this was slide number 12. The slide number 12 had >> I see it in the folder. >> Yeah. >> Anyway, one the first one was to pursue chapter 40 or 40 as smart growth zoning.
Um given that you've been going through Um, you you're going toward going you went through the MBTA. Um, >> sorry. >> We sure did.
>> So that >> Sorry, >> that's okay. That's okay. So pursue 40 R40S smart those are smart growth zoning districts that um have some financial incentives from the state um and what they were recommended in the last plan
um modify multif family requirements >> what um 40R we went through a whole long thing with this M >> MAPC who was and they identified a area
of town that didn't meet the 40R. We went through a long I wasn't on the board but there was a lot of meetings and MAPC identified a site that didn't meet the 40 basic criteria um as being uh near enough to the train I think it was the problem right wasn't
that the problem at >> well it doesn't have to be transit oriented to get be a 40R um but you did go through the MBTA uh zoning so you have kind of set aides part of of that
>> as well as the next piece which is modify multif family requirements. There might be, you know, >> you've just gone through uh downtown uh and harbor uh changes. Um >> yeah,
>> and then modified accessory department bylaw where you went through and had to, you know, deal with the state requirements on ADUs. Um so you've made you've made a lot of pro and then you've also did the senior um housing uh bylaw.
All of this will be highlighted in the plan but there will we also have to include some based on the categories of strategies some other zoning related um approaches uh to be included in the plan.
So none of those to date have by your numbers uh added units on SHI. Um >> not yet requirement. Some of them have a requirement if you have over a threshold
your you fifth unit your 10th unit has to be big a a affordable but the uh applicants here to four have stopped short of doing that we can talk about why um but
we can do we've done those zoning strategies and we don't have any uh >> results >> results if the metric is solely numbers of units on the SHI. Now, it's it's
soon, so hard to know how long, but I think rationally it's going to be a modest increase in units on the SHI. It's probably not 11 a year. I actually
think we'll have the opposite problem where we'll add units >> and then our market rate which will increase our total number of units and make our percentage less. >> Right. Right. So, it's almost like >> which which is partly I mean it was I
think a result of um the way that we went about the 3A zoning for example trying to encourage small projects that are that can fit in these small lots. Right. >> It's they had to be within a mile of a
or a half mile train. >> Yeah. But it's then hard to get five units. >> Right. >> And get that one affordable. >> Right. Right. Yeah, >> this is not easy. I mean, it's that's it's certainly the case. You did you've
had a little bit of luck with your inclusionary zoning bylaw. Um, and and the other thing that we put in the plan is while we're focused on those units that are count towards ASHI, there's also recognition that uh units that help
uh serve a need, help diversify the housing stock uh may be uh not market but a little bit more affordable are also um something that can help address local needs. And we,
you know, acknowledged with the accessory apartment bylaw that those units were not going to be SHI units, but they could really serve some needs for the smaller pe uh smaller um households and potentially provide
income to those uh owners who uh are really scraping by, just barely scraping by. Um but uh you know once again it's a matter of looking at kind of where you see like the next steps as far as a
focus on anything related to zoning or regulation. >> So Karen, I want u I assume you're going to be talking to the affordable housing trust at some point. >> Yeah, meeting with them June 16th. >> Okay, great. So one of the things we're going to be talking about there is
powderhouse apartments. >> Oh yes. Yes. an accomplishment, but because of the state's bizarre marketing requirements, those units can't go onto the SHI until they go through an affirmative marketing
process. >> Yeah, they can only really be counted after they've done all those requirements, including firm and affirm marketing, and they turn over. So that you can't really count occupied units. You have to wait till they turn over. So
that general affirmative marketing plan is a real obstacle to creating small numbers of affordable units because people who apply to the SH to get their units on the SHI
have to spend a lot of money to go through this lottery process and uh all the rig roll that's required monitoring so forth which they can't afford to do with a small project And I think that's something that the state should spend
some time thinking about ways to make the process easier and more affordable for small developers. Um >> yeah, I I I remember you mentioned that before. I think that is an obstacle. Um
maybe this is something the housing trust might want to subsidize. Well, we've talked about it and another possibility is is a regional approach to this. >> Yeah. >> Where some regional agency which might exist >> could that has happened in certain
places. They have a ready renters list or ready buyers list and they've been it's been done on a regional basis. >> So we can add that to the plan. I mean that would be that makes sense to me. Um, also I heard of a a project, an
inffortable project on Cape Cod where six towns got together together. >> Yes. Yes. >> One project. >> Yeah, they've done it. And Dennis had a project, Orleans had a couple projects. Cape Cod Village. Um and towns uh
actually a numbers of towns uh actually provided some money to support those units because they believe that people in their community might benefit from them. >> So just to put them on the shi
>> well they they you forego that yes it's a matter of you know they felt it was worthwhile to some extent to provide some support So that's the small A versus the big A, I guess, for affordability. >> Yeah. The the the town that has the
units physically in their community, uh those big A units count on their SHI. The other towns, I think they're just looking at potentially meeting some needs and maybe some quidd proquo down the road.
So just to the big developer who comes in with a 40B of 100 units, 20 of which are big a affordable >> well 25% 25. >> So then 100 units count on the for the
town. >> Yep. So, a little developer who comes in with 10 units y >> and makes well, for argument sake, two and a half or three of them affordable, we only get to count three. >> That's right.
>> No, you get to count if they go through 40b, you would count all of them if they're rentals. If it's home ownership, you can only count the actual units. >> But it wouldn't be a 40B most likely. >> Yeah. But if it's not a 40B, we only get to count >> Yeah. Well, whatever the inclusionary
zoning bylaw is what, 15%. >> 20%. What% >> 20%. Yeah. You you know um Yeah. Or the other thing is um you could provide some subsidies through your
housing trust. >> Well, we've actually done that during CO. The uh trust uh subsidized a bunch of rents and mortgages for people who became unemployed. >> Oh, kind of an emergency fund.
>> Yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It doesn't help us get which seems to be the only metric. >> Well, it shouldn't be the I mean, what we're saying is the small A is more important than the >> I agree. But >> so, so one issue is that the people like
you want missiondriven folks to come in and develop these projects, right? Yes. >> Um yes, if you could get someone to come in and do a 100 units and they're all affordable because that's their mission. >> Yes, >> that's the best case. >> That's that's absolutely right. And you can get down to those lower income
tiers, the 60%, the 50%, and even the 30%. Um >> those same folks aren't doing three units here, two units there because it doesn't work. >> Well, that's like Harbor Life. We can't we can't >> Right. Right. Right. right. I wonder I
do remember some conversations in which they they um they function with the state by um how many units they manage. It's not actually how many units they
own but how many units they manage for the for their affordability process. So, I wonder if someone like um Harbor Lightite or Northshore CDC, for example, they they they own now um
>> Powder House. >> Yeah. Uh Powder House and they're looking for more units because it's tough for them to to manage one project, >> right? >> They want to manage 20 units in in a town, >> right? Right. Could could we convince them
like let's say there's a person who owns um like a place where my dad used to live where there's three units. >> They're all condos by the way so it's not easy. But if you could convince one of those owners
to let CDC manage their unit so that we could count it as an affordable unit. Takes the burden off the owner. uh you couldn't count it unless if the units were occupied and they were just taking over units that's
not going to count. >> You got to do all those things affirmative marketing and they can't be occupied. >> Would would the CDC be willing would Northshore CDC be willing to do that for each little units across the town?
>> No. >> Seems like a lot of work. >> No, you could do a scattered site development though. you could a bunch of sites. >> Yeah, >> they could be put together for financing and done that way. >> So, I guess then the big picture is the
way we've set up our 3A zoning the way we've talked about well our zoning in general because it it only allows four units to be built. >> Zero. >> Yeah. Zero ourselves a Yeah. So our strategy at the moment is is making
it much worse. >> Y have a strategy that would make it better. >> Um unless we would convince someone like the um SLV to do all affordable or all senior. I think the all senior thing
actually >> it' be on the SHI though. >> So it's a mission-driven developer that we'd have to seek in order to to do that. >> Sure. which is what the trust has been trying to do for 15 years. >> It seems to me like that the bar that
the state has set is so high >> it's counterproductive >> for the in terms of number of units for the for the town and then the procedural barriers both of those barriers are so high that
the marginal increases of of homes maybe you hear a three lot, you know, three in the ch or whatever. It we're just kind of it's like death by a thousand paper cuts. But the even if
all of those three units were addition driven, it was easy to get the that fifth one on the as shi, it's still the burden is so high that it's almost feels impossible. I mean
>> it it it takes a meaningful pro big project. >> That's the only way to do the option. >> That's what's happening. A lot of communities have these 250 unit >> large large projects in their community >> that help them get to that because they
count all >> right >> that big number that helps them get to that numbers and >> right >> so I mean let's just talk briefly about I know there's li limited town owned property but um uh can we just have a
brief conversation because if you had some town owned property uh of some size and do an RFP and you could uh potentially get a missiondriven developer to come and do the project um
and have it uh all the units count but all the units to be affordable. I mean, I think that's what the affordable housing trust has been thinking and thinking and looking and >> ideally that would be >> good thing.
>> The trouble is the the town is trying to relocate the DPW and the fire department and the police department. And so every piece of land that's at all buildable is being looked at for those things. And it's
very hard. you know, maybe the DPW moves and we can get a hold of of that site, but then maybe they want that for the fire department. I mean, >> it's just a free-for-all. Yeah. >> Yeah. It doesn't make it any easier, huh? >> There are a couple of possibilities. And
one of them was a development site from 30 years ago, which fell through, but might come back. And and it's a piece of town on land uh underneath a water tower essentially.
uh which could accommodate 40 50 units. Um so maybe that's worth really pursuing. The other possibility is the town is pursuing a a senior center on a condominium arrangement with the Masons
and maybe part of that senior center could be some senior housing as well. Uh everyone poo poos it says it's it's going to be too hard. But guess what? Everything I'm going to do is going to be too hard. So >> the other uh property would be the
housing authority property at street what's that called park is about an acre plus >> and some of that development could be redeveloped
new building >> then you remove some of the older buildings and build a >> I need a functional housing authority to make that happen and Now maybe we do >> looking better. >> Yeah. >> Well, some housing authorities have done
redevelopment work. There are models out there. It's not like it's easy, but um >> but there was an RFP put out, wasn't there, that >> twice >> twice to so at least in terms of strategies, we've put out an RFP twice to try to redevelop those. Um
>> I think at the time the the housing authority wasn't >> wasn't looking wasn't enjoy wasn't excited about >> they weren't a good partner >> and it was a very ambitious RFP. It didn't it didn't really focus on one
particular development and certain projects. >> I want to take take another look >> trying to get the scale big enough scale to attract a big developer. So, um, >> yeah, >> but but at least we have three
properties you can write about. Um, and and the fourth, John just mentioned the fourth, which is a small property, but um, what's it called? >> Planes. >> Oh, not the planes. >> It's actually bigger. >> Yeah. >> What's it called? >> Planes is really tight. They they
housing authority has the third property. Oh, the planes >> space >> which could be redeveloped or added some units too. It's rather small. It's on septic but um that might be and then we
are looking at a a property owned by uh power company. So it's not town owned but it's you know utility owned property. So >> okay we'll be talking to about this stuff too. The building inspector does
have um when Peter and I met with him, he said there had been 11, didn't he say 11 new accessory dwelling unit applications since we modified the >> you think it was that many? >> Anyway, he said that >> there's been a number
>> a number of more like two. >> No, it's more than it's more than two. It's more than it's less than 11. Although it's never going to be a big wave, but it's good to see that something's happening. >> Okay, >> we are we are I mean I've had a number
of people come in and talk to me about it. So there's some other ones in the works as well. >> Good. Maybe we just look at the last couple of slides. Development strategy we you know pursue mixed use to you've kind of done goes
down we have to include something on public property which we just discussed and support smallcale in development conversions. We can talk a little bit about um and then next slide is next steps.
I I I do want to hear more about any other suggestions, but one of the things I wanted to talk to you about is the process of next steps. Uh if you get your comments to Mark, I'll go through and I'll make uh I'll update the
versions that we have now. Um the question is it I think it was just was it the I think it was the 2020 plan or at least the 2015 we had a you know kind of a community housing workshop where we
presented the you know the draft housing needs assessment and then we did some you know small group brainstorming exercise to get input from local leaders and residents on uh you know what their
perspective were with respect to needs and how to address them. Um, and the question is, do you want to do a process like that? Um, or should we just move on to the next
sections and draft those and then have a community meeting? It's really up to you. I go with the flow on how you see the um, process unfolding. Well, we're getting good at doing community forums. >> Well, good.
>> Um, it seems to me the last time we did this, Karen, uh, was 2020 and there was almost no publicity about it, it went through the planning board, the select board looked at it and said, "That's great." And that was the end of it. >> Yeah. I think things have changed a lot
in the last five years and um think there's much more awareness of housing problems in the town, >> right? >> Um so I think it might generate quite a bit of interest. >> Okay.
>> I think a lot of people are going to have questions about the 40B projects and that could turn into a big focus of a conversation like this. >> Sure. You're absolutely right. like Gordon Woods for example. >> That's going to be a big one. Yeah, a lot of chatter about that. I I think a lot of people are confused about the 40B
project projects in the process entirely. I think I think we're going to get a lot of questions. >> Well, there was a lot >> you know, I'm fine about it. I just don't it it becomes if it's just focused on the 40Bs and a lot of disgruntled p
people, it's a problem. >> That's what it would Yeah, that's that's so that's why I think maybe if we did something maybe not quite as big workshop but something that was more like an online
um you know uh forum like we've done before where we and we advertise it specifically for this and that you know because we've gotten good at getting the word out of what it is and be very
specific to this not to 40B not to any development proposals. Keep it as a simple online forum. >> I mean, realistically, I don't think we're going to get a whole lot of new ideas. I mean, this we're a small
community with a very limited thing. This is the third time around. Yeah, >> we've done a lot of the things the last few years that you can do to try and create housing in a kind of confined we're like working in a shoe box, right?
>> You know, trying to build, you know, wherever we can find a little bit of space. Um so um so I think maybe trying to keep it as a confined you know very focused forum and maybe just an online
thing you know people I mean hybrid people can come in as well but you know we we do it that way I think might be better in order to kind of >> yeah it seems to me that people don't I
mean we you know I don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of this and that understanding what is what is a what are these acronyms? What do they mean? Um I mean I guess from
where I sit I'm pretty frustrated that we can have this lovely list of all these zoning things check and it gets us nowhere on the SHI goal. Um, and
even if we get 11 units a year, >> Mhm. >> I mean, we get safe harbor for a year or two, it just seems like the box, the policy box was still constrained that. >> So, one of the questions I was going to
ask, that's my frustration. My question is going to be is um other towns >> that are like us uh you know in terms of uh we have a lot of amenities here. It's not surprising that our
>> land prices are high and then our housing prices are high and then people are improving houses left, right, and center. Yeah. They buy a house and and then they rip it down or expand it or put in, you
know, amenities. But what other communities like us, do Sherburn, do Sherburn, Welssley, Hamilton, Newbury Port, how are their plans different? What are they doing? What are
their strategies that or is their plan look similar? who's or how have they been successful in meeting, you know, who's been successful when they're dream like us?
>> Yeah. >> Besides that 40b a li a giant 40b. Well, I I I I do think that if there's town-owned property and you can build on it and you drive the terms and conditions of that development and you do rental and you can count all the
units, if you get a missionbased developer in where you can get it lower income tiers, um you know, those have been projects that have really added to the SHI. Um there >> who has been successful? What towns?
>> Generally bigger cities are more successful. >> I think I saw it in the 20 2020 >> places on the Cape for example. Um I mean uh just did another plan
um for handover um and they had some town own land and they're moving forward uh did an RFP. Uh I mean there I mean that's just one example. There are
plenty of examples of like school conversions of, you know, to senior housing. You know, some towns have mills that they redevelop. Not that you guys do, but there are other towns where they've done little cluster
developments, little bungalow developments, uh, pocket neighborhoods. Um there, you know, there have been some towns that have been able to do special needs facilities that have counted on the SHI. Um you know, there are lots of
examples of uh of of towns that have uh uh made progress on those types of of uh endeavors. Are they meeting the 10% and how does their plan the the elements in
their you're you're simply saying that they have been successful in that list of things that would that the affordable housing trust has been trying to do. >> So for whatever reason ours are more difficult or bigger or smaller. >> No, I mean I think it's the high cost of
is a real problem. some towns have been able to acquire property and convert it to long-term uh affordability, which your housing trust has tried to do a number of times. I mean, there there is a frustration level, I I'm sure. Um but
uh um you know it's uh I mean in different ways that maybe the town can use some of its housing trust money to subsidize some units could be helpful.
>> I think >> habitat units. Um >> Karen, can I just >> example make a quick a quick comment? the um the last plan you did, there was a table in there that shows our surrounding towns and the percentage of
hi that they have and I think >> it's in this one too. >> Hamilton was 3% >> which was 8% >> when is now over 10. >> Yeah, but they've got more land than we do, right, to to build these things. But
I mean, Hamilton was really low. >> Wenham was pretty low, too. >> No, Wenham was actually over 10%. >> Was it Is it over 10? >> Yeah, I think so. >> Yeah. So, >> when one project, I believe, put them over 10% of maybe.
>> Yeah, they >> I know that Hamilton is >> they fought it, but it happened. it is about to break ground on a housing project that was land donated by Peter Britain who his goal was to was to create housing somewhere street.
>> Yeah. So he said screw it. >> That's Harbor Lake. >> I'm I'm going to do it on on my land. >> Then Harbor Light again um up in Gloucester developed the old YMCA building into affordable housing. >> Northshore CDC developed another lot up
in Gloucester. Mhm. >> Uh Beverly Harbor Lights all over Beverly. >> Right. So those projects are how many units? They have to be like 30 units. >> Uh the smallest one probably was Maple Woods. That was 60. They they just
they're doing one I think it's 45 up in Ipsswitch. Not on land that's out in some field somewhere in the center of town. >> In the center. >> In center town. I think if you were to ask Andrew why he's not working in
Manchester, I think there's a perception >> that it's hard. >> We actually we've had a number of meetings with Andrew. He would love to do a project in Manchester. We almost did one on on School Street. Very close. Uh but the property got sold at the last
minute to somebody else. >> Yeah, that was a shame. I heard about that from Mark. >> Yeah. So was that like we have >> well site control is huge you know and density is another one it's really >> how many units was that >> 12 12 to 15
>> well your um the other thing I want to just go back your your executive summary first paragraph says manchester continue to guide new development to fit its own need for diversity and housing types and affordability while still complementing the town's traditional development
patterns and I think that what I'm hearing is if the unit if it's 45 units in the center of town or if it's you know I know summer street has had to be 30 towns I think that's quite
different than the um traditional development patterns and that's maybe where we have to that may m that may be a sentence that's not true it because I think people think
traditional development patterns are two units, four units, you know, smaller scale. I think people are very concerned about scale, you know, that's my sense. Um, >> I gotta say the Summer Street project, I
use that >> often as an example of how you can do great development >> in the downtown area that looks great and really means meets a mix of needs. >> I mean, you guys need to be really proud
of that development. >> What's the status of the SOV project? >> Nobody knows. It's it's under appeal by combination of the town and NCT as far as I know.
>> When do those uh 40B units count to SHI? Does that happen once they are built? >> No, it happens when the uh comp permit is approved. >> Say that again. >> It's when the comp permit is approved.
The comprehensive permit is approved. they can go on the SHI, but if it doesn't if they if it doesn't start construction, there's not building permit within a year, they'll put a zero on the SHI until they're really occupied.
>> Okay. So, there's a window between projects. >> A window. Yeah. >> Whatever happened to that project on Elm Street? >> That's what we're talking about. That's the powder house. >> Yeah. Is that still in the works? >> No, it is. >> That's been what, two years? Well,
people had to leave, didn't they? >> Yeah, they it needs to be affirmatively marketed and occupied. >> Oh, that's the Okay. All right. >> So, they didn't do the marketing didn't happen according to the state guidelines. So, even though they've been filling it, that's the problem. They've
been filling it the right way. They've been qualifying people. They've had enough units turn over, >> but they didn't go through the process, >> but they didn't go through the right process at the beginning. So they have to start at ground zero again
>> and and wait for units to open up >> and then wait for units to open up and then >> Yes. >> That's never going to happen. >> So the good news is >> you'll make progress. There'll be some progress on it.
>> Right. That doesn't help us. >> What is the help that we know >> what does the SHI really get us? It's just a baloney thing. >> Well, I think the I think what the SHI gets us is it allows us to say in my
opinion to say no to 250 units in in a place. >> Well, we're pretty good at saying no anyway. >> That's you know things that >> you can say no to the large project, but it's the one that's under the large cap that you can't say no to, >> right?
>> Well, we did any we did and now we're >> No, we didn't. >> Sure we did. >> Now we're paying tons of fighting it. So instead of having to be built already. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um so the question before us is it
sounds like we're Mark's suggestion is that that if we have a forum that it be about some of the demographics and what is what is the what is the plan? What is a 40 you know what is a 40b and not
>> oh god >> go >> yeah what is what is this plan? Yeah. >> Yeah. I we'll work it out to kind of keep it fun. >> Yeah. I was thinking that some of the slides that I went through tonight would be applicable to a community meeting.
>> Okay. So, in the interim and is there a urgency to get this done so that we don't put the town in some Yes. >> ours is lapsed, right? >> Yeah. But we're in a lapse period. So, there is a bit of an urgency to get this done. So,
>> is it important to get it done before other projects come before the town? >> It's it's important to get it done. >> Yeah. So, you told me that the uh first units through the uh section 3A have come through that includes some
affordable, didn't you mention that? >> Uh it's doesn't include affordable. >> Oh, it does include affordable. Yeah, they have they they just filed for four units, but it's not five. So, five would
require an affordable. >> So, >> got it. >> The max they could build on that parcel would be seven. So, >> so let's um get comment. I think we should do is get comments to Mark before
the next meeting on the plan, the draft plan. And then um do we need to also uh meet with Karen again to go through the specific recommendations? Right now you just have a placeholder for those. >> Yeah, I I I I think we should have the
community meeting and then get to the next sections of the plan. I mean it unless unless you want do you want me to draft the whole thing and then present the whole thing to a meeting or do you want just to focus on
these other needs and try to get input on what people think should be the key strategies the housing agenda and you tell me how you want to do it. the so when I've done it before and I think that's what Karen's saying is you want
the community input before you have a final draft so that the community input can say we need the missing middle as they talked about at the last town I was at when we did one of these and they talked about town
houses developments and other types of things small small uh small houses, the uh cottage style and other types of things that you can you can subsequently if people want that you can subsequently, you know, change zoning to
allow that under certain conditions at certain locations. So, um so that's that's kind of um how we've done it before. So that's why we could hold that sooner and then have Karen finish the plan, present it to the board, and then
you guys can vote it. >> Are you talking about doing that in June? >> Well, we have June 22nd. If >> can do it on June 2. >> I can't do it on the 22nd. >> Okay.
>> Does she have to be there for it? Yeah. >> Yeah. Um All right. We'll find a t time. >> Okay. >> I guess I'm being I feel like when I listen to Chris, I feel like that the
town has taken many steps that I mean uh I'm wondering if it's an opportunity to to explain the steps that have been fried. ask for input, you know, so
people don't think that we're back saying, "What should we do?" You know, >> I think it's always good to lead with that. >> Yes, I agree with you. Yeah, >> always. >> And um there's there's been a lot of efforts made, but >> Sure. >> Um
>> well, you've made a lot of effort to add housing to allow for opportunities for housing. It hasn't necessarily been focused as far as >> but the affordable housing trust >> but that's trust is a good example that's 29 years
>> right >> we can surely talk about that >> but I mean as far as >> the qu the thing I'm worried about is the elephant in the room which is SLB >> yeah that's exactly right I think
>> well so isn't this discussion about housing needs assessment of SHI is part of it, right? I mean, >> right, >> maybe it turns to all SHI, but I think we should lead with it being an overall housing assessment.
>> That's right. >> No. So, so let me ask you this question. If we were over the 100, we had 115 units right now, would we just unfund the the trust and not care about affordable housing because we met with
HI? No, because we'd still need 60 more units. >> What's 60 more units? >> Well, then isn't that we have 100 110 right now, right? >> Yeah. And if you added 136, it would be
>> Yeah, we'd be on the we'd meet the state's requirement. Sure, I understood your question. >> My question, if we met the SHI requirement today, would we >> you'd still have local housing needs? >> Well, thank you, Ken. Yeah, I know what you were going to say. Yeah. Do we just Is that No, I don't.
>> Except our population is going down. >> I mean, >> apparently >> apparently or going to go down, >> right? >> So, it's >> No, Chris. I mean, that's >> It doesn't mean that there won't be people in the community that are really struggling to get by.
>> Yeah. That even if we're smaller, we're still going to have people struggling. >> Yeah. I think one of the the the key um pieces here, Karen, that you outlined was affordability, right? Still don't address that. >> By the way, our population is going down
>> because of our housing problem. >> Young people can't move here and buy a house. >> Old people have no place to go, so they are staying in their houses, right? Slowly dying, >> right? >> And we're not replenishing the the people. So, our numbers are going down.
So people have to die faster as well. >> That could be a solution. >> Well, these big 40b hostile 40b projects >> don't completely solve that picture. Right. No, they don't. >> And they leave us exposed and then they then they
>> potentially take a huge section of land that we have access to that's forever. >> Right. Well, and they actually can make that worse. I mean, >> I went to the Gordon presentation and the developer started off by saying, "I
am a luxury housing developer." >> Yeah. >> I mean, that was his opening line. >> Yeah. >> And his whole thing is a swimming pool and a clubhouse and a cafe and it's a luxury product with
whatever number on the SHI that it's required >> 25% >> 25% of whatever large. So that doesn't solve our >> cost of living problem.
Um so it just adds more housing which I I mean I I don't think it's and it's the other thing is that it is rental housing. So if you own your home and you're a senior, it is a significant
tax benefit to buying something smaller, not renting. So that piece is also um not not a thing. I think what it does is it brings
a new community area whether for good or bad to a develop to a parcel because they he talked about it as I mean that's the vision of that project whether it's you know but it could be any old project right let's create a community of 385
units with a pool and a clubhouse and a cafe um so to me a community of whatever size that is not going to come downtown to buy their coffee and not going to, you know,
send their uh residents to the Mac, which is an existing building and an existing business in town, but they're going to have their own little clubhouse with their own weight room and they're all that that to me that's like flying in the forget the SHI for a minute, but
in terms like it doesn't it doesn't do any of the things that we've talked about trying to do and it's a scale that is not consistent with the town's development patterns >> is um is the senior housing by right in
the LCD >> no >> but we could change that >> what I was going to suggest was if someone approached SLV and said hey I like your project I want to buy that from you, but I'm mission driven and I'm
going to do all senior housing. Would the town support it? >> You think? >> Shoe. >> Chris would not sure if he would, but >> I think we it might it might solve the
affordable thing. It might solve our >> It might It's not a great place for seniors to be living. They should be solved. Yeah. So, um this is probably not the best thing to
get through go through the the merits or the uh assets of any particular development. So, Mark and Karen and I will figure out a date to have a forum, a public meeting where we take this the next step. And maybe what we need is a
um sort of a calendar of the next steps. And and in the meantime, between now and the next meeting, we will all send our comments to Mark who will consolidate them and get them to Karen because I have a bunch a bunch of comments and additional questions. Comments and
questions. >> Does that make sense? >> Can I suggest that we also put down a a list of questions we'd like this forum to >> answer something?
>> That would be great. Yeah, good. Okay, good. Thank you. Very. Anything else for Karen tonight? Stop sharing. >> Thanks, guys. >> Thank you very much. >> Um, okay.
general district planning project. Uh first of all, any other thoughts on on this? >> I just had one question about the safe harbor. Uh would that apply with this housing production plan? Would we be able to get a safe harbor?
>> No. No. You have to build 11 units a year. >> You have you have to actually get money add a certain number of units a year, approve a larger project. Uh and then that gives you depending on
the size one or two years >> assuming it moves through and it starts getting built. Um so >> we're just not at that. >> Yeah, we're not. Is there any kind of time frame when we are optimistic that
the powder house will become part of the SHI or is it just is it >> happen unit by unit? So >> oh >> months as they go through the lottery and we just >> so as turnover occurs >> we have to check people's income levels
every year, you know, make sure they qualify. >> Okay. And isn't Harbor Light though expert in this kind of >> it's well they have a company outside company that's managing the property
>> and yeah so somewhere along the lines both of them are experts but one of them I don't think >> that I didn't get that going soon >> that's really unfortunate >> but so those we'll have some incremental progress over time
>> you I should say something about this. Most 40Bs you're starting with a blank slate. Somebody builds a project, fills them in with people. This was unusual because >> right >> this an existing afford
small affordable and so they already were all the tenants already met all the income requirements. So they could search let them stay they thought right. Turns out >> instead of kicking them out. >> Yeah. instead of >> which seemed like a bad idea. >> Yeah. You don't want to, you know, throw
people out to do it. It was just uh complicated. No one had ever done this in the state. So the state was totally confused. >> No one had ever done it. State. >> No. It's always a new project. They take
over an old building, rehab it, put people in it. >> Wow. So really too bad >> because that is an interesting, >> you know, it seems like there could be an incentive program to
>> put small units. >> That was an incentive. >> We had a meeting with Secretary August disincentivizing >> affordable housing. He said, "Hey, I hope this is the law." >> It's the law. >> Yeah. We asked for a waiver. We said,
"No, we can't grant them." Amen. very frustrating. >> Any other comments on that? Great. Okay. Uh general district planning. What we talked about was um doing a walk around again. So I think we're going to try to
start at 5:30, do a walk a part of the general district, then start our special permit. We have a bunch of stuff next in that meeting. Um and do it that way. So it it seemed like it and if it rains what we decided we
we'll just use Google Street View which isn't as great but we will continue a virtual I mean it's pouring so it's um but I think that's useful to see it on the ground and oh that's we'll figure
out where we're going to start. >> Yeah I think we let's me start here. We'll come up with a >> do >> Yeah. >> So that we end up back here and we do like this half of the general district and then maybe the next meeting.
>> Yeah. Another meeting we'll do in the other half. >> Do the other half and then we can kind of discuss what we see and kind of >> think about where we kind of may want to make
changes where we don't. It would be helpful to have a parcel map the actual detailed parcels of the >> map of the district showing each of the parcels. Yes. Yes. I'll have those.
>> Great. Okay. Uh review of driveway regulations. >> So the process so we we now have authority to issue regulations which we will hold a public hearing. We have the um uh draft that we've been shating
around and I just wanted to uh go through it a little bit tedious but >> um so the first issue is that um there's a purpose statement which I think is
kind of um safety and flow of water um onto public ways and neighboring properties. And then the second is um that the permits shall be issued by the DPW which I think we have agreed to and it shall be separate and in addition to
any required site plan review and prior to any building permit that seems to often not happen but that's a and there was debate about that um actually at one point where people start building and
then they come for their driving car but I I think it's intentional to have it before the um designed to maximize visibility and to minimize the flow of water onto public way and adjacent. >> Sarah, >> what >> I think you
>> do I not have the right one? >> I think you are you looking at >> I'm looking at the one that was in the in the in the >> put the wrong one. There are three of them. >> That's the That's the That's the general. >> That's the generalized. Okay.
So, which one are we? >> So, we want the one that says driveway regulations. It would changes for discussion 22326. >> Okay. That one's not in the meeting form. >> That was emailed that
>> email today. >> Yeah, it's in the >> I see the one in the in the folder that you're >> when you're on ICU. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Draft 21926. Yeah. >> Changes from >> the regulations >> with change. Yeah. With the the red
lines. >> Yeah. But that was the that's the article marks, right? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I see. >> All right. >> One that says regulation. >> Oh, okay. >> Not by law. >> Yeah, I got it. >> It wasn't in the folder, unfortunately. But
>> no. Okay. I'm gonna open that because I do we tend to say, "Oh, yeah. Yeah." And then we just don't talk about it. So, right. Um, I don't want to spend too much time on it, but >> regulations that the GPW
>> Yeah. Well, so there's not a lot of changes to the regulations. Um, you know, what we did is we pulled out a lot from the bylaw. >> Oh, it's not. >> And we added a few things in here, but not a lot. we added. So for example, the
first thing we added was uh instead of filing with the clerk, public works wanted filed on open gov. Um the application fee and the application shall be determined by public works.
Um then further down um >> there's a lot on application fee but so I think what I want to talk about is the criteria for design section five. >> Okay.
>> So that's where we move some of the design standards from the bylaw >> right >> into the regulations. So that the regulations when the bylaw didn't conflict
that the regul bylaw just had the process and then the regulations have the stand right. So this angle it should be 90° unless an exception is granted. Number of driveways residential lot
should limited to a single driveway entrance unless a second would reduce or eliminate the need for vehicles to back out. to so DPW now has that's a big change that uh the authority to
um allow a second driveway fonts on this is weird. Um so minimum of 10 ft and maximum of 12 feet at so this is a driveway width as opposed to just a curve cut but we're
going to go with that. Um, >> so if a driveway is uh 120 ft, but the house is set back under 100 ft, the driveway, the length of the driveway would supersede. So it would need to be 12 ft wide.
>> Yeah. Fire trucks. >> Yeah. So it would be >> fire department wanted >> Yep. But if the if the house was if the house was uh under 100 feet set back, we'd still go by the length of the driveway >> rather than the set back from the
>> from the road. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um and for longer driveways, they want to clear obstruct. This is a um fire department 20 ft wide and 13 ft. If we're going to have a second
driveway, don't you get into how much impermeable material in a lot, >> you know, you still have to combine. So, >> you still do not have to do that. >> Driveway counts as permeable.
>> Permeable. So, so and if you're putting in a second driveway, you still have to have enough permeable surface. all this stuff. Okay.
So then at uh existing curbing um radius should be no more than three feet and there's a driveway width. Um and I think this is the same cross-section that we've had for a
while. Um the uh driveways and apron shall provide adequate pedestrian use in compliance with MAB ADA and DPW standards. Damage should be replaced.
Um location not not uh within 5t of a lot line tree utility pole 10 ft of the nearest driveway. This is what we had before within 20 ft of the nearest street intersection. Uh grades, this is um great beach driveway where it intersects the public
way shall not exceed 6% or 9% on minor streets for distance of 20 ft of travel up the public way of the public way. uh pvious mous if it's contained within the driveway
will not wash into the roadway. And then new commercial driveway shall be reviewed by the planning board. Um and >> why is there no H? >> Uh typo.
Um, >> is there a different different width for commercial driveways? Summers >> under site plan reviews. I think it would depend on the use more discretion probably.
>> Um, >> maybe I should add >> maybe I should add something for commercial driveways. and grade shall be determined by the planning board and the safe planning deal not just >> DPW. >> Yeah.
>> Um DPW should review application conduct site visit. The DPW determs the driveway entrance approval can be issued or special conditions exist. a driveway that is not comply with the criteria
or in the opinion of DPW should require special review may be special may be permitted a special permit is grant um and then they have 30 days to act and the review period should be extended
consent and work cannot be initiated without approval of DTW professional permit and complete work shall be inspected Ed. Um, and if it's denied, the u property owner
disagrees, it can come to us for a special. >> Okay. Any comments? The next step here. Oh, sorry. Uh, what is 4.0 C? Should be removed. Rewarded
tights. >> That was already done. That was just a note or the width for the fire truck. So or that C has already been changed. >> Okay. So you can get rid of that. >> Yeah. And then this is the fire regulation NPL50.
>> Okay. >> Know whether we want to add that. I didn't >> I didn't those are just the two comments I got from fire chief. So, we will have a public hearing on this and then we'll promulgate these. Um, Mark, I'm going to
ask that you do the presentation of the summary of those. Sure. >> A couple slides. >> So, that >> we should have DPW here. >> And do you have DPW here? >> Okay. >> So, we have to put that on the calendar.
>> I was thinking uh June 22nd. >> Yeah. >> Um, so the ad will come out in uh in a week from Friday's paper. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And um if you know anybody, I did
send it. John Carlson had asked the town meeting. I asked Kendall to send him this so that um anybody else who's expressed interest, he's the only one that I'm aware of, but >> someone I spoke to about a month ago, not sure if it was him or somebody else.
Okay. So I just want that first. >> Okay, great. Any other comments? Great. Um Okay. Um so last project, last time we went through our project list. Um I think our
we don't necessarily need to take any action tonight but um just wondering if people you know had had any other thoughts about things. As you can see, we already have a pretty full agenda now till between the housing production
plan, the general district material, and the um uh driveway regulations and a couple of permits that are coming, special permits that are coming along. But um so I don't see us doing anything big, anything else
big except um the town clerk had which we didn't put on our list because we didn't know about it. town clerk got a grant to have a uh
it's called general code um which is a company that use that takes general bylaws and zoning and puts them gets rid of typos and formats them and puts them on a website so it's searchable and um
keeps track of amendments and all of those administrative things that are difficult Um, and our zoning at the very least has probably 42 different ways to do bullets and sub bullets and those kinds of
things. Um, and so she has is moving ahead with this under a fairly short time frame. So that's going to take a little bit of our time as some maybe not even just a little bit. Um, there'll be two parts. There's one is potentially
there if I guess three parts reorganization, reumbering recommendations and the second might be uh removing things that are illegal or
recommend small changes that are uh recommended. And then the third thing could be more substantive suggestions. Um, and given that any of them are zoning changes, it'd have to come to us. The select board had a lot of hand
ringing about this. Um, were you there at the meeting? >> No. >> Um, concerned about how difficult it is to do zoning changes and all of that. And um, it's a town clerk's initiative. She
wants our cooperation. I think we, you know, it's on the other hand, it seems to me it's an opportunity to tidy things up um make things, you know, continuous improvement. Um so she
has asked, did she get to you today? >> She's >> Yeah. So she the first thing that they've done is a um proposed a sort of a quick read through and I think they have some initial um uh
suggestions. So Mark and I I don't know if you're available t I think Thursday morning >> um are going to hear what they have to say. if anybody wants to join us because it's so exciting. Um, let me know and uh um we'll uh stay
tuned. >> I I think in general this be a little smoother than it is sometimes in some communities because although it was challenging process to say the least. Even though I wasn't here, I've been
through it with Burbowski in another town. You've you've taken care of a lot of the legal things and some of the conflicting things that you might have had before. And so they're probably not going to find a lot of stuff that you're going to
that's blatantly illegal or one section is >> me, but there will be some things. So you will we will be bringing those to you saying we have this list of things that we need to correct through town
meeting articles. Generally those are outside of the scope of readopting the new format. Um so sometimes like smaller things are in but big things are a separate article. So again, um you know,
until we they really do the review, we won't know. >> Yeah, this may not be as big a deal as this. I understand the select board were very concerned and and rightly so, but um may not be
so bad. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think that the we we have done several reorganization and typo things that did sail through with you know by saying this doesn't change the meaning. I think was when you ch you
can't I think personally I think it's very difficult to change the direction of something while you're trying to reumber. reumbering seems who cares, right? As long as it's improving it, making it more readable. And then substantive changes,
density, setbacks, all those other things were those are more substantive. So, so we'll meet with her on Thursday and see what they've come up with. And I was going to suggest that maybe you and I since we lived it uh go through Burrowsk's
memo and because he did a memo to us. It's in I know where it is. >> I have. >> Yeah. And say here are the things that we've done on his because he did a whole review. here are the things we've done and if there's there are remaining
things like section seven >> section seven >> um that the code general code can help us with it might um >> they are really more of a renumbering thing they're not going to make policy
recommendations they're not going to say this is >> but there were a couple things that he identified that were you know he believed were illegal or you know that kind of thing. So, >> we'll we'll go through the memo,
>> put those two efforts together and see. >> I think Christine wants to see this renumbering effort on a on the November town meeting. No, she's done in October. Yeah, maybe April. >> Yeah, April. >> Okay. So, that's still out there and it's really her initiative. We'll see
what the scope is. Okay. Um, so any other discussion about other projects? We'll get that that project list lives. Did you update it? >> Yeah. So, what I'm going to It was It's right now just says spring of 20 of 26.
I'm going to change and put the last meetings date on it. So, that that that'll be in there as far as the document that we're working off of. Um and and so you can always
go look in that and see >> where will it be kept I'll show you. >> It's under it's under um planning pro uh board projects. >> So it's under um if you look under it's planning
projects >> it's red here. Yeah. And then you have um project list. So there's the the various lists that we've been keeping. >> Yeah. >> So um and then any projects that become
projects are list have their own folder. >> Projects that become projects >> projects like downtown zoning has its own folder with a communications folder. I think that for the last round worked pretty well. Um all right. Um
other matters. Um talked a little bit a bit about the um proposal for Gordon Woods. If you haven't had a chance to watch the select board meeting for last
Monday, a week ago, um the video is online. I would encourage you to look at it and um watch it. >> Some good comments about scale, I think.
>> Yeah. So, um thank you. um you make your you know I don't think we have we don't have to take any action I think um we don't have any official role in
the project but um we can talk about whether we should make a statement or once it comes forward. Yes, their their their plan as they described was to uh kind of
shop this. They need to build community support for their project and explain why it's good to manage whether it's um technically whether it's good or not doesn't matter. It's right. They have to be able to convince you that this is a good project because it's
a large project. Being a large project, the zoning board has to accept the project as a project they want to review. They have 15 days from the time it's submitted to them to make that decision. Um
the developers stated that they even though other boards don't reveal 40bs, the only ones who do is the zoning board and um conservation for if they're in any sort of the state jurisdiction for
conservation, the local bylaw only the state. Um so but they said they were going to try and go around to different boards try and build community support. So I expect that if they are going to follow through with that they will want to come to the
planning board to um make a similar presentation or something along those lines. >> A meet and greet >> perhaps >> or what a meet and greet. They're not
required to they might go to you know other roots other words >> what would you do you have any sense of when they budget to zoom in >> they they said yeah October they the
first step that they have to do is file for what's called a site approval letter. So they have filed that with EOHLC and um they what EOHLC does is they send out a letter to the planning board and
to the select board asking for comments um on those on the proposals and there's a basic site plan and a little description that gets sent that gets sent into the state that then comes back
um planning board and select board get to comment on the proposal you can comment as extensively as you want breaking it down to sidewalks and lighting or you're concerned about environmental things or whatever it is
generally they approve it the site approval letter I've not seen one haven't been in too many but a handful of them they approve it sometimes they will say you need to make sure being a large project you do a traffic study.
You need to make sure that you know you evaluate the sewer capacity or they'll they'll put in some caveats that they have to evaluate in their submission to the zoning board and then they make their submission to
the zoning board. So >> in SLB's case, there was the town required a third party on a number of topics. Um a town town hired a third party review.
>> Yeah, that that's typical. zoning board will be able to to do that for you know traffic probably things like traffic um >> water storm water
>> just yeah storm water um well water and sewer capacity generally are available that's really again if it's questionable maybe they'll require some sort of analysis um about that. I know that they did talk
about and made a thing about lowflow water fixtures >> and they're the required by law >> which are required by law. So the only question is what is the are they doing that just sound good? Are they doing it
because their water use is so high that it does create an impact to our water system? I don't know the answer to that. So, you know, that that might be something that the zoning board or that we comment on and the zoning board
evaluates, you know, whatever the the impacts are on your specific community based on that specific project or things that you can uh review or comment on. I >> mean, they said things like we're going
to meet the stretch cut. Well, that's required. So like that. >> Yep. >> Low flow. So you know it's a high level. They're at a, you know, they're just at a high concept level that not, you know, they'll
>> the other thing that we'll do is file with the conservation commission for ENRAD, which is an agreement on where the wetland boundaries are. And the commission again can hire an
expert to assist them in determining that line. Okay. Um any other uh any other updates? Okay. um minutes. >> I noticed on the April 9th meeting it talked about town
councils close to board. >> Okay, that was April 13th. >> I guess 13 one of those meetings. And there was one where they had Chris they she had I don't know that she needs
to um list both the members present and the call to order because there was there was a discrepancy in one of them. on the um 413 in the 413 minutes. Yeah, >> there are there's a section called other
matters not previously anticipated and they cite me as providing an update of the facilities planning committee's progress. not do the job that Gordy did. >> Want to make sure he gets credit for that. >> You deserve credit, Gordy.
>> I had that change. Um, okay. Uh, said it was under that one. That was town council. >> Not seeing town council in that one. Okay. So, let's take the let's So, let's take April 13th with the amendment that
Peter has requested. So, um I was not there and Sandy was not there. So, I'll take a motion from somebody who was there and uh John was not there. >> Move to pass that. >> Okay, Peter moves and >> uh um Chris second. Any
>> Chris, >> any other discussion? All in favor? >> Opposed? And uh two abstensions. Great. Um, okay. Uh, how about three? Um, 39. Well, maybe I can find it.
>> Well, it was just a >> 39. You're going to move >> the communications one. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Move those be approved. >> No, that was this was um actually Ted Miller and all that is a regular meeting. Three night.
>> Was that maybe? I don't think those Oh, okay. This is the one. Um, so the board authorizes Mark Resnik to make administrative changes to all articles as recommended by town council >> and is not town council. Town council.
>> Jeez, for crying out loud. >> She has to correct the next one. Okay, with the understanding that is correct. So that was correct. So that's um March 9. Um I think everybody was present.
No one was absent. So I'll take a motion. >> I'll move. >> Second. >> Chris seconds. All in favor? >> This is my favorite. >> It's a big moment. Uh the 23rd. I just want to get these done. Everybody was
present. >> So moved. >> Okay. >> Hold on. Do you want one? >> Okay. Um Peter has moved and Gordon has second the motion. Um all in favor?
>> Okay. Boy, that was when we met with Karen previously. How time flies. Um the 16th that was a communication session. We have Well, we can't vote that one. That
was just Sarah, Sandy, and Sue. >> Sad. >> Brian Gage. >> So you can't next. >> So I I'll vote to approve that. So a short favor. I don't know how we
approve that. Okay. Uh, and is that it? We caught up. Exciting. Oh, no. Um, May 11th. >> Oh, Gordon and I weren't here. >> So, public comment. This was Okay. So,
I'll take a motion from Chris Moves and Brian. This is um this was a Yeah. Um, this was our planning meeting. All in favor?
Three. That was okay. And May 26, that's the agenda. Approved May 26. Yeah, I think we're caught up. I think there's one communications meeting that we still got to do.
All right. Any other matters? I'll take a motion to adjurnn. Peter. >> No. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> You good? >> So, don't forget your homework comments
on the house plan to mark and you and I got to dig out the progress. >> And you're um >> want to understand more about Thank you very little bit.