e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e good evening and welcome to the 30th uh meeting for the militon planning board
for fiscal year 2025 at this time I would like to Now call the meeting to order um we can begin by um introducing the board members um and our staff this evening if you'd like to start Cheryl Tas secretary magiel field member Jim
Davis member and on Zoom we have Sean yes Sean okay we have Sean merid of Hall um service his chair um for staff this evening uh
Cheyenne assistant director of planning great and Julia Julia getman clerk great thank you and welcome to all um our first item um we can begin with our administrative items um we have our next upcoming um
meeting dates we will be meeting on Tuesday um with the MBTA uh discussion bringing you teal back back um for that agenda item and then we have our following reg regularly scheduled meeting for the March 27th so those will
be the next two regular scheduled meetings um and um uh staff update uh Cheyenne if you I don't know if you want to say a few words about the community forum for East Milton Square that we had and any other
items that you have quickly um Meredith sorry interrupt um would you just say what the date is for the Tuesday meeting the 18th of March sorry and do you want to just let folks
know that there will be opportunity for questions and comments on the 18th yes and for those um who may have known um 10 Basset Street is um that public hearing that was scheduled um will be being moved tonight so if you're um if
you're joining us with interest on the 10 Basset Street uh public hearing that will be um moved uh to April 10th so um thank you on that just to save people from sitting through our unnecessarily
um so Cheyenne yes anything um that you would like to add for staff update so Tuesday we had our community Forum over at the Milton Art Center that was regarding our East Milton Square overlay that we are planning to send to town
meeting um I thought it went really well we got some great questions really good feedback for the public um so I'm glad everybody was able to come out um other updates the ice house project is starting to Market so once we get that Lottery information we'll throw that up
on the website and then this was kind of like a question from engineering to the board which you don't have to answer it now just maybe an email but they were just wondering if the board has approved any New Roads since 2018 so if you
remember any New Roads um if you could send me an email any new roads I I was having trouble hearing that could you just repeat that Cheyenne yeah any New Roads um throughout Town they're doing some sort of um kind of monitoring project so
they're wanting to update their records and the last time they had kind of like a road record check was in 2018 so they were wondering if we had anything new since then we definitely had Wood Drive okay W wood lot drive would be wind Mir new
down off a Brill and walcot um wcot yeah but I don't think we approved that necessarily as a new road I don't recall actually if that's a private road or um going to be accepted
as a yeah I think it's private road but definitely would and then that other um one off Ford Ranch by me I can I can research this yeah that's yeah let's and then way I think is becoming a public
way okay because of the animal shelter thing yeah all right so Julia said she can research that through the DPW and find out through all right thank you Julia for taking care of
that any other updates sh um nope just those three okay um and I I just wanted to just clarify um last Friday there was as part of an update um because Cheyenne was in attendance um and I didn't ask her to speak but on
Friday we received an email um from Nick Milano that uh there had been a a meeting request uh to meet with hlc by um by Senator um Bill Driscoll and representative Wells and and that the Cheyenne was invited to attend the
meeting the Town Administrator um and myself um to represent the planning board and I was allowed to bring one other person and I um asked Sean fahe who had actually met with hlc previously so they they um
they' met with um when timl was still um our Senator so the meeting essentially was um the overview of the meeting was to really present the comments that we had that that our planning board had had
uh prepared I brought copies again just of our comment letter and the maps that we've that we had created with the 3 Acre um with the half mile um the three Parcels with the near the commuter lines so I would say overall it was a really productive conversation meeting in
person um was um it was nice to have that dialogue where I think we could listen listen to hlc's position and they could listen to Milton and the challenges that that we have had and that we've been struggling with in creating the districts the fact
that we have so much of our land is is built out and so much is conservation land that it we run into on all of our boundaries um we run into DCR rest and conservation restrictions and sort of explaining um you know parcel sizes and
B basically all the things that we had put into our comment letter were just explained a little bit more um more in detail so it was they were definitely listening and I think we will get some feedback and um when we get to the um next Tuesday I think they are going to
allow us to do some uh districts that are less than five acres which will be great which will be helpful um because that was part of the what we' put into our comment letter was part of our struggle not only finding those finding areas of open space but
finding the things that would meet the criteria of the half mile you know the contiguity um you know and and certain other challenges that we that we had highlighted and I it was it was just a positive conversation um so following
the litigation it it was nice um just to open that door and Cheyenne and actually Nick um had met with Zoe in hlc to to talk about those some of those districts that we were wanting them to explore to see if they would be acceptable so um
thank you Cheyenne for for um having those conversations too so that I just wanted to update and and cheyen was um great to come in and to go in so um that was just just wanted to update that and
um and then so the kind did they an indication of when they're going to issue the final regulations they're working on it and they said soon they're still reviewing things um they should come out soon but they did not they said that they they have a tremendous um I
say like 864 comment letters that they're reviewing right now and they said we're reading all of them um it was good that they had read ours um and we reiterated that you know the importance of that but they said they're working there's 150 towns still to be compliant
and that um that they're they're working to get those done um as soon as as soon as they can but okay so things may change on those I you know we I we're yet to see so um and so it was good it was I you know
productive and we could explain the challenges that we've had and the challenges that in our in our town so but that we are we working um to get to compliance so that was the message we delivered so was that Augustus there or
did you pop in no no it was um Chris kutchman was the sort of the lead um and then Nate who's the compliance officer and then um Seth um another it was it was senior staff buted Ed was not at the meeting so yeah so good so Cheyenne was
there anything else that you wanted to add or was that it no that was everything okay okay great um so now we can open our public hearing um for uh zero Blue Hill a
reopen um parcel B 7-5 continued from 2020 and welcome so Meredith can I just clarify we actually closed the public hearing I'm sorry we did close the public hearing so it's I'm reading off of what it says so we closed the public hearing before we started make sure we were on the same
page yeah because yes we have closed that public hearing and now we're reviewing the decision this evening so um Cheyenne if you want to sort of tee this up you've been um working on the draft decision and and we can bring
that up on the screen so I can bring it up on the screen but what we worked out was I sent the the school um the draft from the Gard school and then their attorney worked on it and then I added some dates that were missing and then to council
added and Cheryl added so really their attorney wrote it um and then I just Pro crit right and then but we're putting our head yep I'll pull up that draft okay great that's good
welcome back welcome I know thank you and you can introduce yourself while Cheyenne's pulling that up Chris fan here the applicant on behalf of Viking development Z great thank you okay so so before go ahead yes she
kind of touched on it when we left last time there was discussion on drafting the decision um we went back discussed felt that we you know could help you guys out maybe move it along and and put it together ourselves using the G decision um so followed that we even referenced uh the Little Sprouts one a few times just to make sure that we had
covered everything that that might have come up in discussions and conversations um the approach I kind of took was we had focused so much on a lot of the plans that it was my intent to kind of just reference those and make sure that that we were following what we had agreed to on the plans the landscape
plan the details the lighting plans the different fixtures we had talked about all of those are kind of referenced back plan set that we'll hopefully be approving and then obviously Cheryl had some comments Town Council had some comments I think it's in a pretty good spot um happy to discuss anything you
guys would like okay good sure I know yeah if you want to any of your comments um well the at the very beginning the we had the recodification since those other two
decisions so that's why right in the first line yeah and then um I I thought it would be helpful to actually list the drawings by that are included within the site plan right so
that's pretty straightforward yeah I reviewed it all and and your comments were all fine the only thing I made a comment back to was and I don't know cheyen shared it with you was on the construction management plan right uh about the the number of trips uh I just didn't want to be I I I don't want to be
so particular to something that might have some variability that I can't stick to I think you know when we get to that one I think that that Chang that that what you propose to strike is fine with me um otherwise I picked up some dates
which I reviewed the last peer review comment letter from horley Whitten and they referenced these dates of uh February 18th so you agreed with that right those are the updates okay and that's fine it's just a matter of
there might have been a a plan difference you know of changes being made from a meeting that horley wouldn't got a slightly different set um but it all lines that the the last revision date that you had in the um in the chart or in the table was uh February 5th so
there were changes after that so I just wanted to make sure we captured that and the in the February 18th set not all those drawings that are listed were modified but I still think it's it's good to have it's good to have the list yeah and then again these three that
were included in the table were referenced in that period riew letter which is why I I put them I looked at them I didn't have any you know fire turning that's fine that's in there right and then um I think cheyen had added here about
an email to Marina Fernandez such um you've you've reviewed that um and then uh under the storm water peer review there were two comments in that last peerreview
letter um which I it weren't closed completely so they were put I put them in as conditions yeah and I was fine with that okay there were nothing major Marina signed off on peer review for storm water as well so the way it's written is is
good and then um just again for the other board members you know I um I looked at some of our other decisions um not just those two schools okay and so the um that reference to the dark sky
being more specific about that about adding some specificity for the reduced light level MH um that was good that was something I was curious about we hadn't discussed an actual level so right and we had put this 30% in for memory care
facility that we approved last year so um and that went through a long approval process and then um the maintenance of landscaping is something that's come up quite a bit for us even it's one of the childcare fa facility so want to make sure that was
covered the protection of the trees which again you don't have trouble with and then you wanted to strike um in paragraph 7 um after the last comma right including volumes and timing of trucks yeah I just replaced it with something
more a little broader in terms of major construction Milestones that might have traffic or noise impacts um something as specific as trips I can't necessar they control a subcontractor to exactly what time they're going to show up or how many trucks they're going to have okay
I um I felt like this covered and that strike was fine with me if everyone else agrees and then like I said uh 12 and 13 were just pulled from the peer
review um and then on the last paragraph I just um made it express that we were um reserving our our right to amend so yeah instead of having it be and I looked into it completely fine with it I
understand it okay good um so I don't know if others had other questions or suggest no I just sent something in um which was added on the um the front signage that we had talked about so that was fine that's
great so then I if if we're all set with it we can make a motion to Y I would all right I'll make Sean did you have anything that you any questions or I just wanted to follow up on one question that charl made a a good note
about the landscape and watering Chris what's your intention is this a is this an automatic irrigation system that you intend to have yeah we will uh consider irrigation systems for um probably not the seated
areas but the the planted shrubs and things of that nature uh kind of around the parking and in front of the building okay I think what Char's calling out is what you know the responsibility that you have however you water whether it's a yeah understand whether just for clarity um we don't
have to it's just make sure we have a good understanding no matter how you water it we expect what you PL to live and drive yeah understood that means we don't put in irrigation and we have to be out there with the hose I understand the intent of of making it that's the point that's the point that Char's
making so just make sure we're on the same page that was that was it okay then if you'll take the motion I will make a motion to approve this site plan approval um in the form of the decision
that we have in front of us tonight for the Blue Hill a application is there a second second okay we'll do roll call since we're all on Zoom um Maggie yes Jim yes Cheryl yes
and Sean yes and myself yes thank you much you good thank you for being yeah in person so thank you great good night and we'll have that um that'll be in the office we'll get it
signed and filed yeah I'll work with once you did it sign perfect great so thank you all right Cheyenne so you'll leave a copy of that for um folks to stop in the office and sign yes correct okay great thank you
and we'll make sure that it's dated dated before it's submitted right when the last signature comes in thank you okay all right um so we now have um we were scheduled
to have our our um we're going to have to open our 10 Basset Street um site plan approval um so um I'll open that and um if I could have a motion to that this was a request by the applicants to
move until after um the next meeting with the zoning board of appeals so that um our meeting with them would be then the our next scheduled meeting would be on the 10th so if I could have a motion to move the 10 Basset Street public hearing uh continue that to April 10th
is there a motion I'll make a motion to move 10 Basset Street to April 10th great is there a second we have have to have a Time specific right so 7:05 be yes because we don't have another public hearing so let's say 705 75 at 705 is
there a second second okay roll call again um Jim yes Maggie yes Cheryl yes Sean yes and myself yes great thank you um and before we move into um Maytown
meeting articles um I know I don't know we didn't have a citizen speak on but I just wanted to offer if there's anyone in the audience who is interested in um citizen speak or public comment okay great then we will move um um move to um
our Maytown meeting zoning articles discussion um and these were the Articles that we um had voted on to have moved um were the Adu article the site plan approval article um we have a flood
plane map just update which is a housekeeping um but Nick Milano has asked that we move the East Milton overlay um zoning to um there will a June meeting scheduled which we'll we can discuss this evening um options for
for dates on that um but he has asked because they're really trying to keep it with so much of the budget items um sort of critical to not over um overly you know overwhelm the warrant committee let's just say who have a lot that
they're reviewing right now and so um I said I would talk to the board the select board has already disg decided to close the warrant before I had a chance to talk to you all so um and the warrant committee was told and I do think um the chair of the warrant committee seemed
quite relieved so and it's a month later than what we would be um you know doing we I know we're all anxious to see this we've all worked so hard and the overlay the public forum was was really great um that we held on Tuesday so we are
anxious to get that done but I think it makes sense to let us focus on our site plan approval the Adu articles get the flood plane map and then then we can have MBTA um work towards MBTA um and the uh overlay for East Milton for the
in June so that being said yeah is it certain that there's going to be a June town meeting there is and we did get asked and I said this was I was going to ask our board the options are June um it's June 9th or the 16th correct
Cheyenne that's correct Y and so the well do you know how many sorry uh other will there be other articles or is it going to be dedicated to zoning I think Cheyenne did Nick mention any other articles that they were going to um be submitted he did not mention
other articles because they moving to the light article the light um that was at the um our past town meeting that that that will be on the Maytown meeting now so I don't I haven't heard of any others um other than those two and I did say I thought it might be
a little tight on June 9th but I understand the people start to leave and cheyen are they talking about that that um a June toown meeting being fully remote he has not told me that he just mentioned the dates in June so we back
out a month to that from there for printing and you're looking at May May 9th so that's a a Friday so um that leaves about 6 weeks it felt tight I I I mean it's fine for
the overlay but yeah if we're talking about MBTA zoning we haven't had a public yeah meeting about it I mean I think June 16 is better another week is better yeah definitely as the preference and it still will be
tight it's probably going to be tight you know making sure we can get public forum stuff but I think we should bear in mind that May 9th is really our deadline at the latest MH yeah yes okay so we end up getting an
extra we get it that feedback uh to Nick on on that um okay so with that um we uh I don't know if the members have a preference whether we start with
the Adu article or the site plan approval article I'd suggest the Adu okay and um we have had some updates and I'd like to invite um M the chair of the zba the chair of the zba to join us and
we appreciate your um your work on this and attention to some items that we want to make this the best article we can so but you can join us thank you for inviting me to um participate in this and and as I said to um I thinkk you
folks at the town meeting I am the new chair of the board of appeals and replacing John Leonard after his long 20 years or so of service um and uh it's big uh shoes to step into but I am hoping that um we can have a sort of
better working relationship um you know with zoning articles that are then going to be enforced by us by the board of appeals that you know we would have an opportunity to take a look and so um with that in mind um I did take a look at the um Adu bylaw and the site plan
review bylaw and have sent to Cheyenne and to you folks um some suggested revisions I think the Adu article is probably the easiest and the simplest and probably the one easiest to move um yeah let's let's start with that and
cheyen do you have that pulled up um or if you could pull it up I can't see yes and can you enlarge um the font on that thank you that's that's great and so what I thought we would do with these
is to sort of walk through and you could um you could talk about your the redline items that you the changes that you would like to see made and just briefly let me just as a as a preliminary explain that I really appreciated the hard work you folks did on the draft
article that was at town meeting because that was done before there was a model and of course it's a lot easier as lawyers I you know I'm a real estate attorney I draft Deeds all the time and I base them on the 87,000 that have been in the chain of title so we don't like to sort of make things up and so it that
was a lot of hard work that people did on that bylaw and I want to recognize that work um but I also point out that it was done before the model and the model is very helpful and so there were some things that I added just because they were in the model like the first paragraph talking about the purpose it's
always great to have a statutory reference and a and a regulatory reference and so that's sort of the first paragraph that's in here and then so that's all new language we can also to tell folks that the model byla just came out yesterday so literally this is
we have been we've been working with a moving Target so um but so thank you because that yeah we're all analyzing that yeah and and I will say just in full disclosure I do have a client who's applying for a protected Adu in a
different town and it's been a complete hard scene about what he needs to what one person tells him he needs to do and what the other person needs to tell them to do so it's been very confusing so this is very helpful um and and I also want to point out the
significant difference between the model and ours is that the model talks about both protected adus which are no bigger than 900 square ft or 50% of what you've already got in your existing house there are also you can allow a larger adus
with a special permit we are not doing that so the lot of the language in the model talks about nonprotected adus and so it's I think important to keep in mind when we're going through this that you only are allowing the protected ones
and not not larger ones correct at the and so the sum of the language and the model doesn't really apply because the fact that we only have one kind of an Adu it's a protected one right and that's why that language the protected use was important and we had brought
that directly from the regulations right that's great so I I just in the sum of the language that you had in the first draft um was just a little you know get concerned about the purposes and what the AG is looking at and so I thought we
were better off to just kind of essentially sort of recite what they had already in their model but I did want to point out that um I in in number three it talks about developing small um um
number three says develop smallscale infill housing that fits in the context of single family housing while maintaining the appearance and character of the town's single family neighborhoods so that was language that you already had and I just sort of
modified it a little bit but I think that was it that was that has been your intent in the drafting to make sure that things fit in and so that's there as the purpose um and then the the rest of the language is pretty much um the same as
the as as in the model um the definitions can I ask um sorry that's okay um thank you for your work on this I can you go back to that um phrase that you just read I I just I want to make sure I um in number yeah
it's I guess what yeah so we had written allow dwelling units on single family Residential Properties or in single family districts that are appropriate for households at a variety of stages and you're replacing that with develop smallscale infill
housing yes because at number one we already have production to address local and Regional Housing needs across all income levels in all stages of right of Life there were sort of repetitive language so I um so we do have that all
stages of Life language and number one um yeah my question if if I could if I could finish my question I'd appreciate it can I finish yeah um help me understand what infill housing means just just that phrase infill
housing um it's from the model but it's essentially you already got developed properties and so all adus mostly are not going to be put on Virgin Territory they're going to be stuck in people's backyards or in the back of a larger lot or that sort of thing so they are all
kind of described as infill housing you're not doing a Housing Development with adus you're right you're filling in an existing territory I I do yeah and you know I I also realize that Peter has already taken this for a review and and
prior to your changes it was acceptable so I just want to be careful of what we're changing I is as I said it's from the model itself I understand I I heard you when you said that earlier I understand it's from the model um you know and I'm referring back to the comments that
Peter made uh to us Meredith um I just I see a lot of red here and I just um I I want to make sure that uh we don't forget that he has already done a a review of this but he did not have the model bylaw either when he did his
review yeah sure I understand yeah that phrase is strange to me infil housing but um if it's from the model I I uh um I guess from an interpretation standpoint
you can you can interpret that to be um something that to me describes something other than what I think an need to you this um right to to sorry Sean to Sean's
Point um we talked about this before is um and I'm not saying I'm not in support of that language it's um the it's this is for the average resident mhm who may or may not be familiar with um
um you know building I don't have a problem taking it up no with building terms it's your V yeah so thank you yeah so I'm an average resident and um and not just for the Adu bylaw but when I
review all of our bylaws sometimes you know you do need a law degree um to that on purpose yes and I think I really think um they do do it on purpose cuz then we have to hire attorneys so um so
in as um so me looking at this is just from a different perspective than you looking at and not to say you're wrong or I'm wrong it's just sometimes more common language is more helpful for the
average reader well you scratch the word infill and then it would just say develop small scale housing that fits in the context of the neighborhood I think Kathleen my concern is that for a person for a late person that doesn't speak your um
both zoning comprehensive and um legal terminology language it it it for someone could interpret that as infill housing somebody might think that is something that is going to be built
between existing housing that already exists it's it's an odd term it might be it might be a common term for zoning language but for the lay person it just reads like it may
be a housing unit built in between existing homes well there are that's taking the INF maybe taking the word infill out taking the word infill out yeah um yeah
I do assume the majority of the ad units will Adu units that we will um we will find will be within existing structures oh I don't know um the ones that um you know I can speak from experience from being on the
board of appeals and the temporary apartments that we've approved um some of them have been additions some of them have been conversions of the garage um you know we have we do have an application before us for one that's um
on top of a garage um so I'm not so certain and then we did have one that was a separate building um in the back um so uh you know I don't think you can assume that they're going all going to be part of the existing dwelling no I think well I didn't say they all would
but I I think the majority of them would be but um I do I do understand that if there's an existing structure There's an opportunity for a conversion but um again the language to a lay person might sound like a structure is going to be
built in between existing homes that's that's really the point I'm trying to make so removing that word infel that I think yeah not to laor a point but I will okay um the goal of as of right is for the average resident to maybe not
have to hire an attorney right so I agre um so if the more simple it is the easier it is for the average resident to understand it is legal
language though so we do have to make sure that it meets those requirements because as we've all know zoning is is legal language um exactly so all right so all right so the next um wait are we
going um section by section and kind of signing off on it well no thought we would be able to talk about it at the end like let's go through everything and then we could come back to so the definitions um we're all this sort of the same um I just you know tried to clean
it up so that they were all you know that there were some typographical sort of issues like sometimes there were underlines sometimes there was a colon sometimes there was a period I took care of that we didn't really you don't need to have a definition of the building code it is the building code you don't need to have Ain addition of the fire
code cuz it is the fire code um and so I took out the ones that we probably didn't need um one of the things that I thought was interesting in the definitions and also as a as a person who watches a lot of This Old House in
number eight in modular dwelling units um I thought it was important to make sure that we said we describe them as a building that as unit that has is already in compliance with building and Fire codes that makes it a structure
that's basically finished not something that's like a mobile home that you don't want to have or a trailer that you don't want to have so I wanted to be sure that we had that language in there and that's in the that's from the model um pre-existing non-conforming structure we did not has a have as a
definition and we clearly do need that because I think as um Cheryl had pointed out in our discussions that there's probably a fair number of of these things that might be going on properties that would be pre-existing non-conforming structures mhm absolutely
there's just a little uh typo at the end of that one the I are the uh NG is missing un zoning the last word simple thing yeah um and then uh principal dwelling
short-term rental we just we don't have any other longer definitions of short-term rentals I think we're just going to describe it as whatever is in the statute um the um site plan review um I wanted to make it clear that this
site plan review process is only the site plan review that you have in this bylaw not in the other site plan review one because I think that's going to be extremely problematic um so I I just sort of said with site plan review as we have in this bylaw and then transit
station we had separate definitions for all these things and I just didn't see the point you know actually some of these things were in the regs before they these were we took so now they've changed they they that was part of the problem they changed and I took out fairy terminal cuz we're not probably
going to have one MH so um in the regulations I don't think we weren't clear enough I think in our draft in the draft about the fact that if you are on a septic system you're going to have to comply with Title 5 so
it's very clear right now and see too that if you have a septic system or well you're going to have to comply with Title Five sending notice to the Board of Health is not sufficient I think just we need to be absolutely clear that you've got to make sure that you've got that MH
um and then I don't think me said there's a lot of red lines because it's a you know just sort of changing so can I just ask you Kathleen on on that on that General conditions yeah it's 1 a and 1 B should those really be a um One
A and B or should those be number one one number two and renumbering of um we it could certainly do that if you want yeah I just because it's the separate entrance and the title 5 aren't really connected together necessarily oh
yeah no I think in my last draft I made them one and two oh okay sorry so that that's change okay great is that what you have Cheyenne up there okay no she probably doesn't cuz I I sent her a CLE different on the screen looking at your clean one
but but on on the one I sent today it's one and two oh on yeah it's still 33 but it's a more recent email sh it came in it yeah it was late it's the it's just the um yeah it says clean version version okay got
it so that's I like the red line too yeah yeah I can't I can't get it to come up my notes won't let I come so in anyway in any event I did make that change one is the separate entrance two is the title file three is that you can only have one um
four is that you can't turn it into a condo um okay five is detached unit shall meet dimensional requirements six is that it's um could be located you know within an existing primary dwelling or an existing
accessory structure provided that any new construction of floor area complies with applicable setbacks which you had all along I didn't change that um the rental period in number eight is what I thought
that it made more sense to make that three months at a time you can't rent it out on a weekly or a daily basis and it can't be used for boarding or lodging or other commercial use and the reason I you had 12 months before but I thought three months if you think about it you know you have Grandma and Grandpa coming
up from Florida and spending the summer living in the Adu for three months you know that sort of makes sense um I thought a longer period of time wasn't really very helpful and I also think that in I know that in my neighborhood when somebody needs to do some work on
their house they're always desperately trying to find some short-term rental in the neighborhood um and so this would allow for that that's that's that's an item that's an item that I'm uh strong disagree with I I um I favor the Adu I
think it's a great thing for the town um but I don't agree with a term that's under 12 months um we we shouldn't create such transient nature to this housing if grandmar and Granddad are coming they're not necessarily renters
um if they want to stay for 3 months they're welcome to stay for 3 months but if the Adu is being rented um my opinion is that it should be 12 months if you consider uh a a almost every rental period for anyone including a college
student that doesn't need 12 months of rental um the term is 12 months so I'm not I'm not in favor of doing anything less than 12 months I think it's important to protect our neighborhoods and the folks that live in the
neighborhood so that if someone is going to live in an Adu at least they can be sure that that Adu is not transitioning in a period of time that's under 12 months yeah I'm with you Sean I wouldn't want to put that stress on neighbors
every 3 months having a new tenant come in that has to learn the nuances of the neighborhood um I think and and and I'm sorry to interrupt you most of these people bought homes in what they thought were single family residence
neighborhoods um not expecting that their neighbor was going to change on a on a short-term basis so I think it's a it's a it's a basic um uh protective measure that we have a
period of time that 12 months no I'm with you I'm with you and and I agree as well especially since there's no owner occupany requirement mhm if if the the
owner was required to live in one of either the Adu or the primary dwelling I think there would be more oversight but because there's no requirement for that I do think you're going to have turnover not just of the
you know edu but possibly even the primary dwelling and again I um next to me two of my neighbors do have adus and um it works fine um but I think also
it's because they're there monitoring and to your point one of them has family coming in from Greece for longer periods of time and um it's not a problem whatsoever so I think for me personally
I do support um the concept of adus but just the uh short-term rental and the the model I mean the model byw allows for towns to um extend it for as long as
possible as said it's your it's your byog not mine so it's you know thank you all right so let's come back did you say you you must you're referring to the temporary Department bylaw that your neighbor is utilizing is that right yes
correct yes y sorry Y and it also I have the same I have a neighbor right next to me that utilizes that for their parents it works really well I have a neighbor two to us down that has the temporary PL of bylaw that they utilize um and it works very well and and you know obviously those folks are there for
years so there's um there's really nice stability for all of us in the neighborhood um so yeah I feel very strongly that 12 months is it's your decision not mine so fine I mean that's something that we discussed at length before and I think Town meeting's going to and the warrant committee discussed
at length and town meeting probably will discuss at length I I think uh I'll just mention one thing there are um situations like visiting nurses uh they go for three-month um assignments and with uh bid Milton you know um bursting
at the seams and probably in need of Staff we could ask them were there are they taking uh in visiting nurses and and where are they finding that those nurses live um the other thing I would think that it could mean a need for um
is um faculty that might be visiting faculty at uh Curry College or labber because they might be coming for one semester um so it is something um you know to think about uh and whether the
shorter term makes sense in some instances and just because we say it's a 12 Monon rental that is very difficult to enforce I think so to your point if a
visiting nurse or faculty signs a contract for nine months they're on the hook for the money though they're um you know it would be hard for the the town to enforce that and they might leave after three or six months
mhm well you rais a good question Magie and I I don't know if we've talked about this but if somebody if somebody uh has an Adu approved um now it's um I I imagine this is a registered Adu right so it's a it's a residential unit that's
registered and um I don't I don't we should have some mechanism that the owner of that Adu um you know is is submitting to the town that the beginning of period of of you know if we're going to have a 12- month rental
period we we need some mechanism uh of compliance I don't think you can legally do that you can't do that for a single family house right you can't require it of an Adu um and that's the you know that's sort of the general guidelines behind
the the regulations and behind the model is that you can't require anything more of an accessory dwelling unit protected accessory dwelling unit only the protected ones um then you do have a single family member and we don't ask our single family people to tell us when
they're renting their houses for a year that you can rent for less than a year well because it's an accessory to your principal dwelling so it's a different use right so you're not asking any yeah more of the accessory than you
would of the I don't think that single if I wanted to rent my house out I can rent my house out for 3 months yeah but you don't have to tell the town that you're renting your house out for months so Sean suggesting that that a person with an accessory dwelling unit has to report to the town that they're renting
it out okay but wait but we have to because there's an Administration and enforcement provision right so um we we for a single family house we do not have an Administration and enforce
enforcement provision but however for adus so again the state is a bit contradictory um and not to really get off subject but is this really an unfunded mandate because now all of a sudden
we're putting extra work on our building department it's not an unfunded mandate because it's the choice of the property owner to do it so it is not an unfunded mandate you choose to put an Adu in your
backyard you're stuck with the regulations and we did add I did add at the end I did that Administration and enforcement and so the Building Commissioner shall administer and enforce the provisions of this section no building shall be changed in use or
configuration without a building permit you need a certificate of occupancy and you know the the building inspector sort of applies the do analysis to any request for an Adu building permit so we did I did add that because we didn't you
didn't have that and that's from the model I put that in so I think that you're what what you're with is the fact that you have the situation where the Building Commissioner somebody can make a complaint to the Building Commissioner that that Adu is being used as a revolving door and that would be a
violation yeah but what are they going to say so if I have a tenant for 12 months and then my tenant says I'm leaving in three yeah chase me for the money or just just or I'm going to sublet it or you find somebody else to move in in two seconds the landlord is not going to chase that person the
landlord is just going to find another tenant if this temporary nursing is so popular and it's it's no no no I'm saying that if there is a if there is a violation that the Building Commissioner somebody can make a complaint to the Building Commissioner not you obviously
if you're the landlord you're not I know but what's the Building Commissioner going to say if I the landlord say you know what my tenant said I will leave amicably or you can evict me at the cost of 10 grand you know I'm as a landlord I'm going to say you know what you want to be here 3 months I thought you were going to be here for 12 but you can go
and I'll find somebody else and that's I mean that's what's going to happen um seems to I think in the interest of in the interest of moving our meeting along Meredith I'd suggest that we we consider this just to Y um I mean I appreciate Kathleen's experience and her
expertise but I just you know really what I I care mostly for is um the adjacent neighbors of any Adu so that they're um they have some protections right now they have no protection at all Kathleen I can do it
as a right right now listen I I would appreciate when I start to speak if you'd allow me to finish I will promise I promise you I will do the same for you it's a courtesy that I think I I owe you and I I hope you would expect to owe me but um my my concern is
is um you know adjacent neighbors to wherever there is an Adu and Meredith just so we don't you know use too much time in the meeting tonight maybe we could just take a look at this and and have a conversation again as a board and maybe have a conversation with Council to see what we can and what we can't do
um but that's my only reason it's a good call thank you I just would like to point out that right now I could file for a building permit for an Adu that's if it's less than 50% of my house and no greater than 900 square feet I can go ahead and get a building permit right
now without anything at all correct sure so I'm aware um you're plugging a hole which you have a big one right now because they can do that as of right and so I let's continue because I yeah I'm done that's it okay that was on that
okay um well um do you have now yeah questions I thought there were a couple other things uh that sorry I guess yeah that was there was maybe a couple little cleanup things right so that was that you had the things that
you may have noticed I mean probably right now is that I did put in timing on making your decision for the review of the site plan because right you didn't have any timing and so there are Provisions in f one two and three that
you allow you to impose reasonable conditions um but you have to be moving on this 30 days after the complete submission is given have to give a decision within 75 days unless everybody agrees that you can do a longer
time and that's really to keep these you know keep you need to have a time frame uhuh that's in this this uh clean version guys yeah in F yeah okay and I agree that there should be
some time frame for the decision um because otherwise I think this could be deemed as being too honorous by hlc or the AG um because they're as of right right right exactly um I think that's a good ad
and I think the administration and enforcement's a good ad so thank you Kath and and um I I want to thank you for jumping on this because as we know the model just came out and to go through and compare what's in the model and what's in our bylaw is um it takes
time and I know you jumped on it today and spent a good chunk of your day today working on this and I do appreciate your efforts on it yeah and also with um the timing is that consistent with um like the length of time that zba has to
render their decision we do ours fairly quickly the temporary departments typically we only just have like one one hearing maybe at the most we have one or possibly two but most of the ones that I've done it's been one night yeah um but so that's good if it is one night
but is there um legally a requirement just just to provide consistency from one board to another board or or yeah I mean I don't I think what you want to have is is a deadline because people don't know when I can file my appeal if
there's no drop dead dat yeah and so um I so I I so I tried to pick a reasonable time and I thought 75 days seemed reasonable in some situations I mean going to your site plan review by law um lots of the towns that I looked at had a
different process and a different timing if it was a minor project or a major project and so I kind of picked the 75 days from the fact that it's sort of a minor thing um that's where that number sort of came from but you could S I mean
it's your no I mean it is nice to get things moving along and you know check the box move to the next um you know and I as an applicant it's it's really nice to move it along but I was just thinking
for consistency cuz I have found that sometimes we don't have consistency so it would be nice if zba had a legal requirement or do we have a legal requirement that we should all kind of yeah I mean we do but as I said
for the temporary apartments that I've done it's been you know the only thing is that we have to advertise yeah and and because we don't have on the zoning board um don't have dedicated days of the month that we meet other towns do we
do not it's it kind of depends upon when we get three people to show up and talk about it so um so that that sort of moves around um but I thought some reasonable time in 75 days seemed reasonable to me but it's as I said it's your your Bop so I I did have one
question because this was there was a at town meeting there was someone who stood up um and I know you had crossed it out but I just wanted to have an opportunity to discuss this um in advance of town meeting um it was the line where it says it is recommended that rad nonresistant techniques for new construction will be
incorporated into the design of an Adu and I know this ridon is an issue you know I I I understand where she this person was coming from um do you want to address that because I think we if we do strike it out we had we had put it in to
the Adu which one are you looking um this was the pre this was our red line from town meeting um so this was the line Lor the amendment so I just wanted under
number stuff so I just wanted to be able to if we do take it out that we've had that conversation of why we why we removed you could certainly put it back in I didn't I didn't have it in the draft that Cheyenne sent me right that's what I was looking at to so I that's the
only reason I didn't take it out okay it wasn't there when I looked the one that I got didn't have that in there okay there's lots of versions been going around so this is an older ver I I'm yeah yeah I'm looking at some one of the older versions where it had been in there because it was the language that
we accepted at town meeting so I remember it so I don't know if the members feel you certainly can't require it but you we can't require it but you can put it in if you wanted to in the design standards where you talk about in number five D5 where you talk about
energy efficient features and sustainable materials or encourage but not required you know you can sort of put it in there I think it was yeah yeah it wasn't there I think it was under design standards and I think it it the way it's it reads it might want to
be that we um suggest that you know rayon um techniques be incorporated as necessary or something I guess drawing attention to it is a good thing but not all places need it you
know like we just had ours tested using the it might fall under building instead of zoning right no it doesn't I mean you knows I've been selling real estate real estate attorney for like over 30 years and radon is one of those things that it
depends upon atmospheric conditions barometric pressure um the time of the year it's all that sort of stuff so you can test your house one time and it won't have a Ron problem you can test it 6 months later and it might no but to suggest a building practice might be
under building and not zoning is what I'm saying but it's not a requirement that they put in a rate on mitigation it's not in the building I think it's fine to keep it as a suggestion just as we were doing with other things just to draw people's attention to it and they can look at it add it in number five
that so cheyen can you if I read it off to you can you add it um yeah I was going to pull it up from the old version yeah it was under number eight page four page four number eight item eight d8 under design standards is
where it's that would be now D5 it would now be D5 yeah with the energy efficient features okay as a separate sentence at the end a separate sentence at the end of
D5 number six you're saying sorry can we pull up go back to those but I yeah I'm looking we're all over the place would you be able to pull up um the design standard section D so we
could yeah looks like you want to do it as six it it seems like it would should be its own item right number six M well what I'm looking so it'll be number
seven so what is again I'm having trouble seeing it um the what is the um the item that was taken off from the design standards oh I move you you already had you already had an entrance separate you didn't need to repeat it
again okay I noticed that too yeah yeah okay that was it wasn't it wasn't it wasn't a legal change it was a we don't need this twice right great okay I just wanted to double check that that's great okay so it would be do you want me to read it off to you Cheyenne is that
helpful or sure just while we have it in front of us um we're going to say as a separate item it is recommended that radon resistant techniques for new
construction will be incorporated into the design of the Adu techniques okay great so um that's what y accept it I um um took the uh opportunity I guess
you will or the privilege of sending um I think Kathleen's uh Redline version to Maran mric because she was comment she commented also at town meeting and I see that she's uh an attendee so I just thought maybe we could ask her if she
had any um comments tonight yeah and maybe she doesn't but I see you're there Maran and if You' like to have a comment or to listen she raised her hand okay
can we let in um Marin MRI okay I don't have a lot of comments um but I've been listening very carefully um just a couple small things um by the way that I it's a lot of work to do this I didn't do it so I want to say thank you to Kath
mcdonal for trying to integrate the new um suggested bylaw with what the town was proposing and I really felt like you've done a lot of work on this the last town meeting but maybe there were still a few things that needed some work so a lot of that seems to have happened
here um just my own opinion is um um thinking of the length of rentals and the limitation on length of rentals I'm a little hesitant with with the idea of a 3-month limit because somehow it seems to suggest that a lot of you know it it it suggests that it's
great to be doing 3mon rentals um I think the issue there is that there needs to be a lease for whatever the rental term you decide as appropriate the the shortest rental term um I think if somebody chooses to leave and not
occupy the premises for the remainder of the lease then the land ORD has to figure out what to do about it but I I don't really think that's a concern for the way the law is written um in terms of time limits um I think 75 days is more than enough time for this reason
this isn't a special permit and this isn't a variance the time limits are sometimes longer for the board of appeals for those applications there's they're defined by law and um they're statutory and here um this is an as of
right use but you can put some reasonable limit on how long you may spend uh you know looking at the application and deciding particularly with site plan review whether it's appropriate so I'm not sure it's accurate to compare time limits for
board of appeals cases for variances in special permits or planning board special permits with time limits for this since it's an as of right use but I I think it's a great idea to try to come up with the time limit so whatever the planning board decides but it's good to put in something there um other comments
I like including the the um suggested rate on language I think it's a good idea anything that's a new issue that's coming coming up if you can put it in as something that we should be looking at I think it will it will make us look at it and I think that's great um
and really I think I think the bylaw is written in an appropriate way now I think that you know if somebody is putting a a small um Adu within their existing house and the exterior isn't really being changed or anything I don't see there is there is a reason to do
site plan review there you would have already changed that before the last time reading you had excluded that type of Adu but for everything else where you're adding an addition or you're using an accessory structure I think more review is necessary because it's really hard to know exactly what people
are going to come up with and it does have an effect on immediate neighbors what sorts of structures are created and since this is a new um you know it's a new device uh we want to make it possible to create additional small
living units but we also don't want to cause a lot of harm to immediate Neighbors in doing it so I I like the balance at struck in this I think it's a good byof and I'm sure the board will work it over a little bit more but I think um I think you have something really good here thank you for asking me
I don't have anything original to add to the to the um amendments that you're making so far um thank you well Mrs mcgetrick is here and with Kathleen here um just a clarifying question so the limit is either you know half of the uh
gross floor area or 900 square feet so say if somebody wanted to build a brand new um accessory building and they wanted a garage and then an apartment above it is it 900 total for the the
first floor um and 900 for the second floor is it 450 ft on the first floor 450 ft on the second floor well how much of the um how much of it is the unit accessory
building is the accessory apartment it's the access so does the accessory apartment include garage garage garage isn't including his living space does ites yeah so um you can have a 900t garage on the first floor and a 900
square foot apartment above so your whole structure is 1,800 Square ft mhm and then you're asking what the calculation is because it's supposed to be based on the grow the uh square footage within the walls of the existing structure does that include the garage
first floor total square is that what you're asking yes yes that's a good question I think the gross LA area excludes garages I have to look at the language um let's see can you find it yeah gross floor area definition
excludes crawl spaces garage parking areas enclosed porches and similar space I mean that's the situ ation we have now with temporary Apartments is that okay the garage isn't included in the square footage of the temporary
apartment right but it's not just that question actually is how do you calculate gr square footage in order to calculate uh what the allowable space is for Theory apartment Mar it's defined in number in in in the bylaw number five in
the definitions it's the sum of the areas of all the stories of the building height including basement Lofts and intermediate blah blah blah but excluding crawl spaces garage parking areas attics enclosed porches and similar spaces so that's right from the
model it okay does it mention unfinished basements just out of curiosity um no including basements including basements includes basements and Lofts mhm it's interesting because there's no
definition of the Loft and the basement so like a basement that doesn't meet the habitable uh ceiling height definition is not truly a basement then because it's not habitable space that's a c yeah so but that says it does say compliant
building Heights ceiling okay okay it does say that all right you you wouldn't count across space would you would count a basement because here like when you're talking we look at our definition and our zoning code of a half story that Loft space I'm assuming kind of Falls
underneath a sloped roof and if it falls under a slop roof proof the definition of half story starts when the wall is 4T tall which is not habitable to stand up in a 4ft tall but that's where the calculation for 2/3 of the floor area
below comes from mhm so um this I didn't look and see if they have a if this gross flare floor area when it talks about a loft space if it gives a
height or what does what do LOF space mean right it certainly could mean different things in different zoning bylaws in each town but it has to have compliant ceiling height okay so 7 feet ceiling height is is is the building code for
occupied space I think a bathroom department or something like that yeah and there's requirements for shower you know the height of a shower right so um maredith can I just bring something up about the setbacks and the dimensional
standards yeah so I um attended um a webinar I think it was a couple days ago where um they reviewed this model um bylaw and also had some questions and clarifying
comments and one thing is that um the Adu can be built to the dimensional standards that are least restrictive so on the setbacks that's an accessory
structure on the primary dwelling it's the main structure so if you think about how that would apply if you had an accessory structure that in a resident C District could be 8 ft from the rear property line and 8 ft from the side
property line so that could be the Adu and it could be 2 and a half stories in height uh because that's what's in our our byw otherwise but we could modify those Provisions in our bylaw otherwise and therefore then the Adu
would be subject to them as well um to make it consistent the primary and the accessory I don't think it has to be exact the same didn't we do that already not in our regular zoning our regular zoning regular it has to tie to our regular zoning and the other thing is in our regular zoning which is
something that has if you see some of these really large houses that are built on small Lots is because the um loot coverage does not apply to a single family so the only thing that's dictating the size is the setbacks really and there's a again some kind of
little bit of a an open space which I was rereading which is very convoluted language and maybe Kathleen can look at that I've read it three times again today um but we could um put into the general or into the other sections of
the zoning byw a lot coverage requirement and that could some of those um I I keep thinking of the ones that were built in that new subdivision off Pleasant they're very close um so that's something yeah and I think those were
great thoughts um I did talk to Nick about that and he said we would not be able to reopen the warrant to put those amendments in for the May town meeting but we could do it for June but we could do it for June it would just um so I think it would be one SE one new article
and maybe you think it would be too but um one would do would deal with the setbacks they're all under um the dimensional standards so maybe they would could be one article it would be one article one article okay so one
which would deal with lot coverage and one that would deal with setbacks but I don't think we want to put it the what it is for the um the main house but I think we want somewhere in between because I otherwise I think we would
preclude of them being done in a in a SE district and right now it's 8T off the property line which is accessory dwelling unit can't be lived in right no ad you mean access you're
saying that you build an accessory dwelling Unit 8 ft off the property line that's not for the intent of any kind of second floor first floor apartment that's just for a cazo or a garage or something right it would be it could be a garage with the the the what uh Maggie
was just describing it could be that and it could be 8 ft from property lines right now I mean someone could go apply tomorrow for that um if they're watching but what I'm suggesting is the the issue that I see with it is
accessory structures now can be eight in a in a residen c they can be 8T from the side and 8T from the rear but they also are on story height that's what I'm sorry that's what I'm referring to this question was asked Wednesday at the webinar and Kathleen and I talked about
this too um so now you can pick you can take the least restrictive the height and the least restrictive setback of setback from the two and combine them so I I I don't think that if we had the accessory today
and we knew it was going to be 35 ft that we would say 8 ft is the right Dimension so that's why I'm suggesting we adjust it I'm not suggesting we make it the 30 ft cuz I don't think that would fly because I think then we we would look like we're precluding people from adding them but I do think we want
a little more space so that they're not right on top of the neighbor um and so like just so again kind of the C's or the resident C is the smaller um District but remember this you can't have a minimum lot size so
even though Min uh resident see is 7500t minimum lot size we know that we have many more lots that are smaller than that um and so um you know we don't want to make this um overly restricted that we preclude them from being built but we should think about um adjusting it a bit
I think and um and and probably also in the others because um residents a and double A it's 10 ft from the side and the rear and residence um B it's 10t from the side 8 ft from the rear so I
think um that's something and then uh you know whether the lock coverage might be um 60% making sure it's at least 40% open but it might be tiered also so it's maybe that for Resident C and something else for b and a and double
A and that would address the big houses too big houses and small yeah I just wanted like percentages cuz sometimes with feet so sometimes um you know personally I get annoyed with the
randomness of um oh you you know have to build a fence 8 feet in or on the property line or 30 feet in and I know I'm like special permit situation but so I don't like the randomness of a lot of different things
I like consistency um so that's why sometimes percentages like X percentage of your lot size should be your setback but that could be too confusing well there is a provision if you have an unusual shaped lot that if you're depth is is is not
deep enough that you can have a percentage of the depth be your setback but that I I don't know how we would do that with the accessory structure I think the um uh I think on the accessory is we should
just look at a a a little bit of a modification um and then think about lot coverage overall not just before because of adus but because of um we don't have that applying to single families I see Mary has her hand up Mar yes if you'd
like to yeah I just wanted to comment to that thinking our bylaw currently does not allow an accessory structure to be at 8 ft if it exceeds 20 ft in height so um if your accessory structure is the full two up to 2 and 1 half stories
which is what a residential structure would be allowed to or any structure um it it has to be the setback for a residential structure I I still think you should look at the existing um statutory language and bylaw language and you might want to do some changes
but keep that in mind don't don't think that if you that you can build a new accessory structure um that's 2 and 1 half stories high and have it be 8 ft from the side Lot line 8T from the rear lot line and then put you put an accessory an ad unit in it and it'll be
fine that's what you were saying you can't build it that's it's I think I'm going crazy well that's what they that was asked very explicitly during the webinar well meridith was on the webinar too it was asked very explicitly then
they that's what they said so but if it's in our building code maybe that's it's in our building code we don't have it buing Cod that's we have an it's a standard State Building Code and it's in there so I think we should just put a pin in that because that is something I
think we should look at for the June meeting but for just for tonight um I'd like to keep moving if we could and so I think that was um that was it for the on the Adu and we'll go back and we'll talk about all of this after um but Kathleen if you wanted to if we wanted to move
and pull up the site plan well I mean you could yeah I mean the site plan one you know you you probably are not going to like because um you know I we're always we always open to listening but um because my
basic feeling on it is that all the design all the design information should be in design guidelines and not in the zoning so you know that's sort of a major major extraction from your draft and so that's just my personal feeling and obviously
um other people disagree with it so you should all put that back in um so I'm just saying let start with should we start with the beginning of just yeah so which one are we looking at please your clean version you could look at the line the red line
then we can see what she is what we worked on and proposed I will say that as a basic concept um the idea of this sort of pre submission require conferences and having a meeting and all
that sort of stuff what I'm very concerned about is the timing on our site plan approval um there are three bills at the legislature that all talk about 90 days um and so one of the
things I got concerned about was the the the longer time limits that we have in our bylaw that would be a problem if any of those bills pass um and there's been a lot of discussion at the real estate Bar Association and other organizations
about um the site plan approval process and and trying to tighten it up so that it's it's a creature of cre it's a creation not a statutory um provision and so there's just been a lot of um heat about this site plan approval
process and so I thought that our the timing that was in our draft was too long and the idea of a pre-application conference that gets set up with the planning board at some point in the game just added more time and I was worried about that that um that we would have
challenges because of that so what time do you prefer what duration do you prefer I put 120 days you know on that I I I think Kathleen if if a site plan um if it comes
in complete with everything that's needed um I wouldn't disagree with you that 120 days is reasonable but the clock shouldn't start ticking in my opinion until it's a complete
submission yeah so I why I like the the pre-application Conference of some form and whether we need to adjust the language I think we can talk about the reason is like when the gardener school who we approved tonight when they first
came to us um their um their approach was to do a huge cut to get a level complete level parking lot building on a sto on a pretty steep site and we asked them to reconsider that design and and
they did but they said that gee you know I and I made a comment gee why didn't you go in for a pre-application conference and they said we didn't see that that was an open to us because they were just going by what's in our by laws and our rules and rags and so they said
we already had all of this engineered and they kind of were not really in the in the interested in redesigning it all um which I think kind of puts us in a more difficult position to try you know to get a better design or a better or a less impactful design let's say and so
that's trying to keep it so it's more reasonable cost outlay for them to come in with a preliminary design before they engineer it before they do the storm water design and the traffic report and the maybe the traffic doesn't as much impact but definitely the storm water
and the grading and the Landscaping is going you know would change based on the the designed approach conceptual and I think that the best example JD wild when he came in with his proposed plan and and sort of wanted to give sort of this is what we're thinking this is sort of
the site how it would lay out you know where the buildings would be it was really helpful and for us to say yeah this is go go forward this is great so but I would say that you can't determine whether or not it's an application is in Conformity with the master plan yeah
unfortunately the master plan is not part of your zoning that makes sense so that yeah so I'll I'll um I'll look at I'll I'll redo that okay that's um and then I as I said I'll you know I
there were some typo things that I fixed um and language things um application and evidence of fee for the site plan appr Kathleen can we come back to I know something that you mentioned at town meeting was you know this idea about the
change of use you know and oh yeah yeah and so um I agree that something that already has to go to the board of appeals um you know may or may not need to come to us but the one of the things that really is driving this again is
recent experience with the Milton Marketplace application where you're where the hours of operation are from one restaurant to another are going is is exponentially like what three times longer which means like traffic uh or
parking lot lights are on Long deliveries might be longer or more intense uh the demand for parking you know may not be able to be shared as much with other users so the impacts to the neighbors could be different just based on the type of commercial use that
it is I see yeah that's in b um in in B lowercase b number three any use or change in use that requires a special permit by the board of appeals shall be excluded from the site plan approval right but one of the things that's the Clause that you would have some question
about right because where we were we've talked with them about uh odor concerns for you know a restaurant that's operating more longer hours more intense kitchen use they have yeah but but that's not site plan approval that's unfortunately that's the
use that's controlled by the special permit so we have the request before us about odor mitigation about um lighting you know that sort of you know that not the lighting but the odor mitigation and I can't remember what else noise um is
in our application and our hearings um because that's not site plan approval is approving the site right extera so you have to think about what you are looking at for site plan approval you are looking at a piece of real estate and you're looking at the
impacts on the you know the traffic is obviously that's something that you would be considering um is the uh parking sufficient for the use of the building you know that sort of thing except that we have parking under our special permit I mean they actually have a variance and then a
special permit for the the situation on the older piece just for example where you put exhaust you know is on the exterior of a building you could put it and I've seen it in some places on a city where it's put on the facade that's right on the sidewalk and grease is dripping on the sidewalk versus going up
through the building and directed away from a resident residential neighborhood so that it can be exterior yeah but as I said not you have to sort of think about what you're coming in as on if you're coming in on to site plan approval for the most part I mean it's a it's a use
as of right and so you have site plan approval whereas if it's not as of right you're coming to the board of appeals for a special permit or a variance and that sort of thing so we have to look at all well this is yeah and I this is a unique situation because it is a residential
neighborhood and it needs a special permit um but I would say you know I think what you're trying to say is when we're looking at an impact a change of an impact for now there's going to be ex more um significantly more delivery
trucks including kegs you know keg deliveries um wine you know much more intensive than the plate ever had just having an opportunity to make sure there's proper loading zones and um I mean the reason this one came to us is because they came to amend their site
plan approval to enclose the outdoor space and then to add a stair and then um you know um the the the enclosure the decision on that enclosed space you know had a
particular kind of use associated with it which is what triggered it but you know otherwise it wouldn't have been triggered right but yet the then uh and then it's a question of whether they would have even thought that there was a trigger to go to the board of appeals because we're the ones who really said
it should go to the board of appeals no actually they have that situation anyway yeah um because they have to amend their I I I don't want to get into a priv I mean a particular process but I mean I would just say that site plan
approval is being looking at the project and the impacts on the abing properties and that sort of thing and so it's like when somebody says to me the board of appeals should be doing something about you know making sure that they only have you know two Beverages and that's not us that's the liquor license so like the
way I read like now in our bylaw for the what triggers it on the businesses if you change a window or a door it's it triggers site plan approval which doesn't seem it's true it says any change on the exterior of a building
yeah so that to me and some special permits come to the planning board and they need a special department and a site plan approval they just don't go to zba yeah yes you do have Provisions in the bylaw for special permits issued by
the planning board correct um anyway so all right so yeah mind full of time so that's something to we'll think about but yeah we'll just that's something I I said I don't that's the rationale yeah all of this is just suggestions not like in cement
um and um I I had wanted to have that conversation because I think it's it was an important one to have but but also we um um we want to pass something and so even though it's suggestions so say if we don't take your
suggestion then would you oppose yeah what happens to town meeting yeah town meeting cuz we don't want um we've had this discussion I see no reason to stand up at town meeting and repeat it yeah people can be watching this meeting and can hear the thing that I don't think we should have design standards in the site
plan but you know it comes to it comes to a vote yeah um I'm not standing up at town meeting and and revisiting this discussion we've already had it somebody asked me I'll say I went to the planning board and I asked them and
they turned me down I was heartbroken and we and we asked her to do this we asked her to come do this no I know and we appreciate that and there's a lot of good stuff a lot of and again to my point earlier this is also for an Aver average person cuz I have to read all
this as an average person and yes more concise language is um easier to understand so I appreciate some no you cannot you will not expect me to stand up at town meeting and to put you on the spot I think you did a lot of cleanup things
here too appreciate quite a bit there was some you know there were some words missing and some right um so and I think it was it's good that you put in that we actually under limited circumstances we do have a right to deny though oh yeah and you and you
put that in and I kep the language that was in that's in the proposed statute so we didn't have any trouble with uh adding a reason that we can't support um um uh yeah so I and the only thing I did
take out is on outside Consultants I don't think you can have somebody pay for the lawyers you know that's funny because that is elsewhere in our BW because Brian pulled that from I forget which section it's in right now but it's in one of them as a former Town Council
I can tell you that hardly ever get that legal fees covered by certainly they're never covered in 4bs yeah and stenographer too right that's yeah and who could you find to be a stenographer there's now a new AI app we just used in our last annual meeting that can tape
everything and uh sort of a mess but there you go so I will um I will uh take a look at the uh pre um application stuff I will throw all the design standards back in and um fix the rest of couple typos that's
great anything else let me just see if there was anything else I know that the you you said this at town meeting and you consistent with it here under um the review standards f M are in
removing just wanted you to be able to explain that here again um other aspects of site design that may be reasonable reasonably within the spirit and intent of this section we could ask for yeah I think that is um too
fuzzy um it's sort of it's a you know what we would refer to you know sort of in the in the um just too big a door um that allows everything that come in and and that you think that that could also then
be used as some reason for denial because you didn't get it yeah yeah okay and I just and I how some somebody supposed to know what they're supposed to be doing other aspects of site design I mean what am I supposed to
be what am I supposed to be providing that was one of Brian's biggest concerns too it was supposed to it was meant to be in the that there's something that we was unanticipated that we couldn't predict with every site it's so unique
you've got such a long list that's it hard for me to imagine what you could come up with that wouldn't be already on here but but it was a person who never filled a blue book in the entire time she ever had an exam but yeah and it it was
accepted by the AG's office it didn't it didn't get I don't have a comment on that maybe I don't recall that was flagged or not but I didn't think it was I actually I can appreciate Kathleen's uh view on that and Brian had the same one and well no I can too cuz as an
applicant exactly you know you're like what does this mean you know I might have a different taste you could pay me you know 950 bucks an hour to give you the answer for yeah so that would be an item that we could take out okay I think I think it's
that I don't mhm I know you need to Sean Sean did you have anything NOP I am uh I'm also okay and then I think there were a couple references that would have to be um added back in MH uh with the
pre-application conference and the design guidelines but otherwise I yeah I didn't have any I I appreciate some of the the clean up and clarity and rewrite I mean it is kind of hard to do because
you do wear two different hats like when you're around the table you're taking the position if I was a neighbor what would I want but then I've also been an applicant and I'm like oh my God I don't want any of this we we
really need to balance you know so it is really hard to do and I mean I would agree if I was down there with all of your strikeouts but that's not where I am right now and it's reasonable when we need to Yeah well yeah I mean we do have
to balance the applicant um you know rights and especially on something that's as of right right uh which is this that's an important consideration to remember is that this is as right yeah so the property owners
bought a piece of property with an understanding that they have an ads of Right Use right so um it's not you know sometimes people will buy the property contingent upon approvals when it's not as a right but as a right I know and it is I I am personally in that struggle
you know for my business I have an as of right use a nursery use but I also have a landscaping use and um unfortunately I sort of had to give up some of my as of
right um use for my Nursery to get the landscap like I like I really understand um so I I do sympathize with applicants a lot thank you very much I really
appreciate your time so thank you Kath thank you thank you Kathleen good good thank you so should we just go um just you want to stick with s plan approval over here while we're here okay so I think that was I
think we summarized um what we wanted wanted to keep in what Kathleen's going to put back in um yeah I I I had didn't have trouble with the other things that were the two things that I um kind of flagged for discussion was the pre-application
and the design yeah just send me a note okay but I was I was fine with all the rest Sean are you would I you good with that because that's mostly keeping what we yep
felt most strongly about and just and I was talking with um Meredith briefly earlier about our language and what could be considered like still ours before it goes to the warrant committee and U Meredith said we had like a week so you know if we if we get a clean
version of this with Kathleen making these putting basically putting some stuff back in that you took out y we if it's not too much we could get it done and and get it submitted so we don't have to have a green sheet yeah and I should have mentioned this earlier but
we have been invited to the um and it's been posted for any planning board members to go to the warrant committee meeting and and present these articles I would really love to have a clean version to give to them with and and
have a clean version for town meeting that's Monday night no green sheets this time we will make sure we didn't ask her if she could have it to us by Monday night but I didn't so we can reach out and maybe um I did mention to her actually when I spoke to her today too that um the warrant committee would be
discussing on Monday and and I think that's why she made this push today so I think she probably could if we get back to her can you reach out to her and just let her know that would because we would like to have it to Cheyenne to make you know to have Cheyenne um make any
changes that we wanted to make maybe she might I'm just thinking on the Adu if she sends it over with so three months we might what if we have um all of the things that were unrelated to the design standards and the preapplication be
accepted so the new red line to us will just relate to those two items and then even with those as red lines that could go to the warrant committee right right right and we could say that those were just mostly being put back right um except they do kind of
like her time limit yeah no I'm accepting I'm saying accept but Sean's point you know a compl completed application it doesn't say in here completed application it's a little little thing but I think it makes a big difference what which um what page you
looking at uh page 11 top of the page time limit yeah I like that cuz I do feel like sometimes we get thrown under the bus oh they take so long to do this yeah but it really after the complete appli
yeah where she redlined the at the top of the page so all you have to do on number 10 then is say I mean on I feel like on page 10 after submission of a after the submission of a compl completed application or something to that effect
it says on the bottom of page 10 mhm no more than 90 days after the receipt of a site plan review application you could just put the word complete site plan review application are we going 90 or 120 see she suggested 120 120 yeah all right so we're changing this to it was
90 for the Ado yeah I I'm looking at site plan approval 120 for the site plan it says it says 90 doesn't it no I see 120 on on so top of page 11 is where I
am on the redline version safe plan approval check it I'm looking at what I just printed today right what's that am I losing my mind again well I think on cheyen it's the bottom of page 10 I'm
just losing my under time limits no less than 30 days and no more than 45 days on the red line version top of 11 but I'm on a Redline version that you might not be this is a red line version but I keep looking I got the right typ approval can you enlarge that a little bit you just
go 120 days after a completed submission or something to that effect eight so the board shall consider oh yours isn't broke mine's broken up differently like my page breaks here for some reason um but he here it says 90 where does it say 120 oh there was just
cut out you're saying I so do you see these oh so so it was struck yeah so you're saying go back to go back to 120 but make but but have it's say completed application or completed or something well in
Cheyenne's that she has which is probably different than Jim's um on what Cheyenne has on the screen it says should be commenced no later than 30 days after the submission of a complete application Commission of
a complete application commence means started that's so we can't delay to start it within 30 days that makes General site plan review of a project on of average complexity shall be completed no more than 120 days after the submission and I just want to say after the submission of a completed
application but that's that language is struck and so we have down below but weren't we just going to put all the struck stuff back in except Noe we were only putting the the design the application well I think we should put that back in that's just my thought and
you guys do what you want with it I don't mind changing the the 90 to 120 but I don't think we should add all that language back is my point okay um but as long as it says 120 days after a
completed application I'm I'm I'm good all right so that's in um under zero decision and then we put complete 120 yeah it's under I think it's under n
time limits it's not under o decision yes just did it up here on the screen you see it yeah that's good can put it there too yep that's good there you
go cool also um regarding our next agenda item um we do have Peter on the line okay Peter Jackson melow oh Peter melow oh okay but we
have did you want to go through them these line by line then or did you want were there other no that was that was I'm good yeah I'm good otherwise we're good otherwise we're good I think the other items okay the changes I'm fine with all right so I'll follow up with
those three things then the timeline the design standards and the preapp meeting right yeah and then I a question mhm under o we changed it from 90 to 120 for the completed down here
you want me to change this 90day period to 120-day period as well right right yes good catch that was good sounds good so timeline design standards and application all right that was Cheryl
that would be great to follow up with on that that's okay and then do we need to take a vote to submit that to the warrant committee then as a draft Yeah expedit it yeah we've already
sent ours but as an updated draft as an updated draft I would take a motion to send the updated draft to the warrant committee for a review so moved that second second all all in favor Cheryl
yes Jim yep Maggie yes Sean yes and myself yes great okay thank you that actually wasn't as bad as I thought you're doing better be um time wise okay so now let's uh just step back and look at the
Adu um and I think there were um some um proposed changes here um I think it makes sense to keep the purpose and definitions consistent with
the model bylaw myself s mhm and then I was okay with the things that she removed that weren't right so all those applicable building code fire code um I didn't have any an issue with those I think all of those are just I
mean the only thing I was thinking again um it may not be necessary but it just now now I'd have to go um go somewhere else to look you know for the definition I know the
definitions don't have to be here but again just as a regular person if I want to build an Adu which definition are you talking referencing um bus station Comm Road
station yeah or or what did she maybe had was it the building Cod she just move those Jim I think she moved them underneath Transit so then those aren't St aren't totally yeah so if it's not relevant so that was the only
um yeah do we keep them in or do a couple of typ there a typo there I did find it there was a typo I saw too again I don't have a strong feeling about it or not but sometimes having more information even though it makes the document a little bit
lengthy was that the same type of I saw in under Transit under yes that's the one I saw yeah I I circled a few of those I I can Okay show I can show you if we want to run through those at the we struck the word infill right so that
was yes that was the one thing we did want to remove under uh purpose yeah you already have that okay and then um chain can you make that a little bit bigger if you don't mind thanks
under another typo is under definitions the pre-existing non-conforming structure which you may already picked up when I mentioned it before yeah you did okay the I the NG and then under transit station there's a two typos that
yeah you've got that one you've got that one okay those are okay I thought all the general condition changes were good and she she explained that number
that four in the was already covered elsewhere so striking that's not really striking it we added the radon right yep under process and requirements I thought those were good
changes the enforcement so I think you all want to leave in the 12 months I think we leave it and we see what town meeting wants to do with it personally that's you know there'll probably be just as many opinions there and we'll see how the vote Falls it's fine right yeah
exactly me can we go back to four real quick a little hung up on that c regulations for with the accessory structure within the same district whichever results in more permissive regulation yeah because that's what the requirement is that's
what to sh was get it we have to do that we can't that was why I wanted to make that adjustment and our on our separate zoning articles yeah and I do think we should do that for June and that was emphasized pet if we don't
yeah yeah that really was driven home at the webinar and you if you wanted to just hear that you can watch that it's it's um it is the recording is posted I think it's uploaded now all right but as soon as uh I heard that I thought we
need to do this yeah I'm was trying to think of a workaround for this but I guess there is none huh that is the unless I get it I get it I get okay all right I'm good yeah okay so is there anything else Sean did you
have anything else on this Adu um no I I think um everything that we've discussed so far tonight is I have nothing more than what we've talked about I'm good okay so do you think we should send the warrant committee a
Redline version so it's easier for them too to see the difference between what we had before which they reviewed make sure you send it just one so they reading the right maybe we send it both ways maybe if they you mean both ways
send a clean version and a red line version I think that makes sense so they can look at the red line but if they want to cross reference it and say what was it before like or what were the changes they'll be able to see but since it was technically sent back for further review we don't need to
do that it's really new document yeah true I I think if you I'm fine with it just going that way but um maybe it's less confusing for them it could be less confusing because they should be looking at it with clear eyes eyes okay that's fine with me and they're much more
familiar with it now that that all of the with various amendments and I think maybe we should make them aware that the model bylaw is available if they want to look at it on the I mean that's what we we could send that send it to them too yeah right
great great points okay so then I'll make a motion um to submit the revised Adu language to the warrant committee second is there a second second sorry great uh roll call um vote on this Cheryl yes a Jim yes Maggie yes Sean yes
and myself yes great okay thank you very much um so now um so yes do you have anything else what gets sent to what gets sent to the warrant committee can that be sent to us as well so we all working off the
same yes Chey we'll have it sent to you cheyen and then if you can distribute it to everyone that would that would be great definitely okay okay um and Sean um if is there anything
anyone else has before we um discuss moving to Executive session I don't have anything okay and everyone's out of the room at this point um so Sean just stay with us um I
will we have one person on Zoom there's one person okay um oh they left now okay and do these guys have to leave they they will leave yeah um so I
yes I would like to now move uh that the planning board convene an executive session pursuant to uh GL section uh 30A section 21 A3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation entitled bardi at
alling St versus planning board at all norfol Superior Court civil action number 2482 cv515 uh because an open meeting may have a detrimental effect yes question for you I know that the mil
Access TV people left and I did stop the recording so that won't be saved but are we still streaming like if someone's watching this on YouTube or Facebook is it still going to be on YouTube and Facebook live uh Milton access is still here so
it will not be anybody hear us I can hear you Julia can hear us we haved she was still reading I was still reading the yeah we haven't adjourned yet oh okay cool thanks okay great sorry um
so uh with respect to litigation entitled bardi at all versus planning board at all Nori Superior Court civil action number 248 2 cv515 because an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating
position of the planning board the planning board will not re reconvene in open session at the conclusion of the executive session cool okay if I can have a motion so moved second second all right
all in favor Maggie yes Jim yes Sean yes and myself yes we're now officially in executive session e