Good evening and welcome to the 10th meeting of fiscal year 2026 for the Milton Planning Board. At this time, I would like to now call the meeting to order and begin by introductions of the um staff and members of the board. Jim Davis, member,
>> Maggie Yfield, member, and >> Cheryl, we have Enzil, >> Cheryl Tagaya, secretary, >> and Meredith Hall serving as chair. Um, this evening, uh, Sean will not be able to attend the meeting. Um, but we do have our staff with us. Uh, Liz, Liz
Manning, planning director, >> Grady, assistant director. >> Welcome and welcome to everyone attending this evening. Um, our first items we have are administrative items, which um, we don't have a set of minutes
um, currently for approval. We approved quite a few last time, but I'm just waiting for those to be edited and reviewed by the members. Um, future meeting dates. Um, this is our only meeting scheduled for December. our next
um that will put us into our next regularly scheduled uh meeting dates which will be January 8th and January 26th um in 2026. So those will be the next regular scheduled meetings. >> Um
Madam Chair, >> yeah um I had suggested the third and fifth um Thursday in January if if if it would if possible because I've got a conflict on that second Thursday. I'm sorry. Yes. So, so you would like to do the um
>> 3rd and 5th which I believe um >> 15th >> 15th and 29th >> and the 29th. >> Yes. >> Yes. That's absolutely >> is that is that okay with folks? >> Yes, >> that might be great actually um to work with some of our schedules and getting some things ready um that we might be
considering for springtime meeting. So um we appreciate that. Great. So 115 29. All right. Excellent. And then uh staff update.
Yeah. Go ahead. Great. Um so Avante and I have been very busy since our last meeting uh in November. So I guess it's been almost um four weeks perhaps since our last meeting. So um couple of different things. I was able to share
this report out with you. I know I said last time that I was going to try to get this report to you sooner than the day of the meeting, but I'm I'm working on it. Um, so the first item on that is the housing production plan. I was able to connect directly with the um Karen Sunborg who was the consultant for the
town the last time around and my understanding is she is available to do the work which is wonderful. Um, I need to collect two other prices on that. So, I'm working on that and hopefully by the time we meet again, I will have um a more definitive answer on getting that
uh housing production plan underway because I know it's very timely and it's expired. Uh the traffic commission has had a really busy agenda. Um lot of um activity around the Randolph AB road diet and some of the um you know the sort of the feeder streets that are
really being impacted as cutthroughs and what have you. Um there was a pilot valet parking um uh plan approved for um Abby Park over in East Milton Square. So they're going to pilot that and sort of see how it goes and then bring some data
back to the um to the commission at at a later date. I'm not I think it was maybe a month or two. Um and so the actually the agenda was so heavy on the third that they needed to ex they needed to um to schedule a second meeting and it might happen next week. So, um I should
have more information about that when we meet again in in January, but it's busy. Um so, we Avante and I met with the folks from the shared housing support office, which is a group that is um is organized through MAPC and is through
the trick um you know, sub region. So, um, had a one-on-one with them, got a better understanding of kind of like what they provide to the town. And, um, now that we're sort of digging in more, you know, deeply to, you know, to some of these projects and sort of like what
the status of these projects, we're getting a better un a better grasp of like how to how to really get the best use for our for our funding and and get the get us get this, you know, the services that we really need there. Um, and so, but but but a very productive
meeting. So that was really helpful. Uh sign review met again and um did did approve new signs for 330 granite a which is a new nail salon there close to dependable cleaners. Um
Avante is going to be taking the lead on um reviewing the work to date from Horsesley Whitten on the open space and recreation plan. The two of us are meeting next week hopefully with Nick Milano to review some of the information that he's collected for various town
projects that might be helpful and overlap. So, we're going to have a conversation there. And we also had a productive meeting with um the park commissioner Rob Lavash um and he brought us up to date on all his um his work with the CPC and and his desire to
to get state grants for some of these field projects. So that was a that was a good meeting as well. Um we also met with uh Taber Key who is on MAPC's executive committee which I thought was very um interesting and and and terrific
for the town of Milton. I guess there's only 25 individuals on the executive committee for the whole sort of regionwide and he's been very involved with them for a number of years. Um I've got um I was able to kind of get dig in a little bit deeper too to in some of
the questions around you know the specific services that are available to the town and I found a couple of a couple of um local techn technical assistance projects that are that that benefit Milton language access planning and climate resilience playbook. So those are couple of things that the me
members may want to hear more about in at a later date. uh had a call with um the developers for 648 K Nav. They're looking potentially to get some um federal home funding for
that project. Don't really have a whole lot more on that one. Um I think they're trying to put some some information together for for that application. It's a it's a pretty it's a pretty um involved application for the federal funding. Um
Yes. >> Is that litigation or is that >> finished up? >> My understanding is that there's still that it hasn't fully been resolved. >> Yeah, that that's but I don't really have a lot more information beyond that. I think it had something to do with the conservation commission. Um
>> sounds like they're pushing forward. Well, I mean, my guess is that they're hopeful. They're they're seeking whatever funding opportunities are that are out there based on what they're trying to build. And if it's if it's 100% affordable, um then well, it
doesn't even have to necessarily be 100% affordable to to to qualify for home funding, but home funding could be could be something that could underwrite the project potentially. >> Just But the the appeals do need to get resolved. >> Sure. Sure. So, just to update, so it was denied by the conservation
commission, >> state, >> the Milton Conservation Commission, and Cheryl, I probably can't say anything about this right now because it is still in litigation. Um, but it was um sent over to D for review um who did who are
the superseding um body and they did approve it. So, last I heard, the select board was meeting in executive session to decide um if they were going to take next steps in appealing the D's decision. Um on another note, the historical commission, and I this just
happened this week, I just found out um received a letter requesting comments from the historical commission on the 648 652 project um asking for um comments regarding the historic nature of the site. um at which time they noted
in their letter that um 6 the intent was to demolish 652 but to preserve the house at 648 Cantonav and look at a redesign of the project. So there may be a redesign coming back to the town that
would keep um 648 preserve that house and keep it as a residential um property. And I don't know I don't know what that would entail reducing the footprint. Um >> but that was a change um and a surprise to everyone at the historical commission
that that was because that was not part of the original design. It was full demolition of both both houses which >> may be a good thing but again it is in um it's still in litigation in land court. So um we do not know that um
>> that has not been resolved. So great. A building permit couldn't be >> provided at this time. So >> good. >> So we'll stay updated on that. So sorry just to >> No, no, that's good. That's I appreciate that. >> Um again, still, you know, we we were
Avante and I were driving back. We we met with the um the Chamber of Commerce today at their at their lunchon um and I spoke to them just briefly um and we we were trying to add in our head you know the number of like the number of units
that are currently under construction and then you know how many of those are to be affordable and then you know just just trying to like kind of wrap our head around you know the monitoring and sort of like the regulatory agreements and the you know and this is this is a project that doesn't have its building
permit yet. So, so that's not part of the 4 or 500 units that we were trying to wrap our heads around this morning. >> Yeah. >> Um, so it's a it's a lot. >> Yeah. It's it's a lot. It's a lot to keep track of, but we're we're getting there. Um, so Boston to Blue Hills,
there's a link in the staff report about that. Um, I don't want to speak too much on that because I don't know that I really uh have done enough of, you know, kind of homework to understand exactly what the next steps are for that project. But I but my understanding is
that they're they're focusing more on uh Blue Hills Blue Hills Parkway and sort of making improvements there for for bicyclists and and to you know to make this make it make it easier for folks to get to get from from Boston to the Blue
Hills as this larger regional you know vision to to get people into the Blue Hills which is laudable. Um so we were sort of on the periphery of um a regional MVP planning grant which is
being spearheaded by I believe Norwood, >> right? Was it Norwood? I think it was Norwood. >> Y >> um we just found out today that Westwood apparently is has declined. They don't have the um staff uh bandwidth to do it. Um but this will primarily be coming out
of the engineering department. So, we'll just be sort of assisting kind of on the on the um you know where we can. Um and so we had a quick visit um at the super fund site on the Neponet River. Um I
wasn't it was really interesting. I wasn't realizing that it was actually on the Boston side of of of this thing and sort of like at a different point in the river from what maybe what Milton folks are really sort of focusing on right now. But it was very helpful because we did get an opportunity to talk with the
um the um the head of the Nepon River Wershed Association. Yeah. The um the executive director. Um so we got to make a personal contact with him which was good. Um and so yesterday, um we worked with Nick to get a um district local
technical assistance application in for the deadline. And it's a narrowed scope focusing on um this is in the economic development corridor and it's a more narrowed scope from what was what was previously funded. So I could share more information with that with you guys if
you want at the next meeting. Um, and then if you wouldn't mind, if it's possible, could we reconfirm the FY26 committee assignments because I'm just having a hard time finding a clear like a clear vote for all of those assignments. And I just if if that if
that you wouldn't mind doing that, then I can have it in the minutes and then I can if anybody needs a letter or anybody needs any documentation, I can just refer to the refer to the minutes from this meeting of the vote >> because I couldn't remember exactly when we took that vote. um because you were
requesting um for climate action committee that you needed that um formally voted and we ended up just voting the other committees. But just to review um I think what we had was we had a motion um to renew you you as our um
representative to the climate action committee, you to the >> Jim Davis to the capital committee and myself to the open space and recreation committee. And then Cheryl for CBC for CBC >> and for because this goes back to 71
master plan imple implementation committee as well. >> Right. That was um at that time. >> Okay. >> But >> and also I'm on the budget overview committee. >> And the budget overview committee. So >> yeah, I have you I have Maggie for climate and budget coordination, >> Cheryl for CPC and and MPIC
>> which no longer open. So I don't think we need to revote that. Uh yeah, I fine. I just I was unless you know because it was because it was sort of >> it was it was going back to 71. I was just I was being a little you know picky about it. But that's but that's fine.
That's fine. >> We can. >> So do you want a motion without >> empathy? >> Yeah, that's that is that I think because our vote would just be as of tonight. Um or unless you unless you're asking to reconfirm the vote that we took
previously. >> Yeah. I just want Yeah. Then we could include it because if that was to confirm that those were the votes that were taken, >> right? For for for all for all of these committee appointments effective 712025. >> Yes. >> 7125 to 6:30 26
>> unless the committee is no longer in >> no longer in existence. But that's Yes. So, would anyone like to make a motion to approve those committee assignments? >> Sure. I'll make a motion to reconfirm
um the fiscal 26 committee assignments. Cheryl Tagas, CPC and Empic, Maggie Oldfield Climate Committee and Budget Coordination, Jim Davis, Capital Planning, Meredithal, Open Space and Recreation.
um is retroactive to 7125. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Okay, we'll do a roll call since um we don't have everybody present, Cheryl. >> Um yes. Um Meredith, I I had a couple questions for Liz when we're done with this vote, please.
>> Sure. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh yes, >> Maggie. >> Yes. >> Jim and myself. Yes. >> Great. Thank you guys. Just while we're I see the note on your update that um you advise that each member must be sworn in at the select board's office.
So that was always my understanding. However, um when I joined the um budget overview committee, that question was asked and Nick said, "No, we don't have to do that
because it is assumed um that we are already sworn in as our roles on these on our committee." >> Okay. >> So, we don't have to then go get sworn in. So, I was a little confused on that. So, >> well, I've got conflicting reports. I
actually went and got sworn in by Sue Calvin because they sent me an email asking for another >> Yeah. So, so I just um it would be nice to have um confirmation cuz >> I've attended both the climate action committee and
the budget coordination committee since July 1st and I haven't been sworn into either one of them. >> Okay. Okay. I'll find out. I was gonna stop in and talk to Sue about and get sworn in so I can ask her to confirm. >> Yeah. >> Um because I think I did have something
from Sue in writing saying that I did need to be sworn in. >> That's what I >> So, we'll just It can't hurt, you know. >> Correct. Yeah. >> I want Yeah. And it And it could and and I could speculate that it might be like
committee specific >> potentially. >> The feeling I got going to try to find the >> Yeah. like especially if there's like money involved or something. Maybe I don't I have no idea but maybe maybe we'll find out about >> Okay. >> If I had to do training and get sworn in
from Gail Neville. >> Yeah. Okay. Ethics training >> conflict of interest. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Great. And Cheryl, you had a question. >> Um yes. And I think whether it be for
tonight or at a future meeting, I'm I'm interested in learning more about um the home program because I I'm not really that familiar with it and I don't think the I'm not sure how active Milton's been
with that. And then the other is the uh the MVP. Um I'm not actually sure what that is. And so >> and I know we have consultants waiting here. So again, I you mentioned a few items on uh your list that you thought
we might want to learn more about, and I would like to request that we put those on for a little longer agenda item um in January if we could so that we don't have to keep our guests waiting. So, thank you. >> Good, good questions. Yeah.
>> Anything else? >> Okay, >> that's enough. You've been >> That's enough. That is You got your assistant just outside. >> That's impressive. Yes. >> Wow. >> Thank you. >> Well, it's been a whole month. >> Okay.
>> Great. >> That's for a raise. >> So, now you hear that from me. >> At this time, we can move to our public comment um if there's anyone in the public um who has any comments or questions uh for the board, uh please
feel free to raise your hand. Let me just double check. Make sure there's no one out there. Yeah, two attendees, but no one's got their hands raised. Okay. All right. Um so then let's move to our the MBTA
community zoning economic feasibility analysis um from MAPC. An update on that. Yeah. So, um I just want to introduce Adam Pletz. Uh I'm I'm I want to make sure I get your title right. Adam, director of housing services at
Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Is that correct? >> I'm not a director officially. I'm a manager. >> Manager. >> So, I'm the manager of housing and neighborhood development at MAPC, but you know, close enough. >> Welcome. Yeah.
>> Thank you. And if you'd like to introduce your your colleague. I >> absolutely >> I'm having I'm having a bunch of tech problems today. So I think I can let you share your screen, but I'm not 100%. I can always share the I can always share
the slides myself if that's easier. >> Okay. Well, let's we'll let Avanti give it a shot and if there's any issues whatsoever, we'll switch back over to you. Does that sound fair? >> Sounds good. >> Cool. Um I'd like to introduce Avanti Krov. She is a planner, senior planner
with MAPC's land use department. Um she's a generalist planner in that group. Um she's been working on uh 3A economic feasibility analysis and she's going to provide a summary of her our
research and results. I will hand it over to Avanti. >> Great. Let's see how share screen goes. Um, all right.
>> Are are you guys seeing that? >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Cool. Um, well, yeah. Hi everyone. My name is Avanti. Um, like Adam said, I'm a senior regional land use planner at MAPC. Um, and I'm working on the economic
feasibility analysis for Milton. and we're here today to discuss some of the zoning options for Milton's MBTA districts. Um before I do that, just so we're all on the same page, just wanted to uh go through a brief overview of what
inclusionary zoning is as a tool. Um it's a policy tool that requires affordable units to be included in market rate developments. Essentially setting aside a specific percentage of units to be affordable. Um, this policy tool is set by municipalities, but
subsidies for the affordable units are not required. Instead, market rate units help cross subsidize or cover the cost um of including the required affordable units. Um, so setting a well-balanced policy is really critical because if a
policy requirement asks for too much affordability, market rate revenue may not cover the cost of affordable units, making projects economically infeasible. But if the project doesn't require enough, then the town isn't gaining all
of the affordability benefits it could be. So the goal of this financial of this financial analysis is to essentially find that sweet spot between maximizing community benefit while maintaining development feasibility.
Uh so this is a conceptual diagram that illustrates how project income and ultimately the range of feasibility decreases when an inclusionary policy either asks for a higher percentage of unit set aides and or goes deeper into
affordability requirements. Um and this is just to kind of explain what I mean when I'm saying affordable units. Um, HUD uses a percentage of area median income or AMI to determine eligibility for deed restricted
affordable housing units. So, you can see in the chart here, uh, the HUD limits for the geographic region that includes Milton, 60% AMI and 80% AMI are the most typical affordability men benchmarks for inclusionary policies and
that's what we most commonly see across Massachusetts. Um, also just wanted to give a little bit more context on the economic feasibility assessment or the EFA itself, um, and how it fits with Milton's MBTA overlay districts. Uh, so
HLC stipulates that local inclusionary zoning policies may conflict with section 3A by zoning if the affordability requirements make a project economically infeasible. So they required that no more than 10% immunas
be affordable to households earning 80% AMI. A lot of municipalities will go beyond that 10% figure. Um or they'll try to reach for a deeper affordability level like 60% AMI. So in those cases, and
it's a lot of municipalities that'll do that, HLC will then require an EFA as part of the town's compliance application. So that's what this whole analysis is kind of about. Um to measure feasibility, HLC generally wants to see potential projects that would hit at
least a 15% internal rate of return. That's that IRR figure and a 5.5% return on cost. So those are the development feasibility benchmarks we've been using. Um, sometimes small projects will be
just under 15% or 5.5% and that's when the feasibility becomes a little bit questionable because it's harder to get financing for those small projects. Um, at the same time, depending on what that number is, if it's just under 15%,
um, we acknowledge that small projects are usually constructed by small developers and they typically require a lower return than regional or national investors. Um, so we have in the past been able to justify IRRs that are in
that 14% range only for a small project. um if that is what the town chooses and we have done that before. Um so for Milton and as part of the EFA process we test various building scenarios with a proforma analysis to
understand whether such scenarios are hitting that 15% a IR and 5.5% return on cost. Um these are all hypothetical uh but the assumptions we're making in this analysis um are based off of real data from
industry standards industry standards. Um we've spoken with multiple developers across the region and have confirmed data and confirmed trends. Um, and we've also submitted several of these EFAs where HLC is paying close attention to
our inputs and um, approves of our assumptions. So, we're pretty comfortable with assumptions we're making for these scenarios. Um, in terms of project size with each of these different scenarios, we like to test the
smallest project size that would be subject to affordability requirements. So in Milton for the current MBTA overlay districts that would be an 8-unit project. So that's why you see that as our first scenario in this chart. Um and you can see that the
largest development scenario we're testing is 75 units. We are assuming that if the policy is viable for a 75 unit project, it would also be viable for larger projects because of cost
effectiveness and economies of scale. Um, so Milton's current bylaw it for its MBTA districts, it's requiring 15% of new housing units to be affordable for households earning up to 80% of the AMI. And that's probably the most common
policy we see across the region. If Milton wants to increase the percentage of housing units from 15% or go for a deeper level of affordability than 80% that will require a zoning amendment. And that's what's bringing us here today
to discuss th those options look like and which policy option we want to pursue. Um so there are technically four options we're looking at. Although I will say the last two are pretty much the same just with some small key differences.
But overall all these options could work for our analysis and for a potential inclusionary policy. Um but I do just want to note that for option two and for option 3A as you can see the feasibility
for smallcale projects is a little bit lower than the 15% IR that we're trying to hit. Um, like I mentioned earlier, small projects are usually constructed by small developers and we have been able to justify IRRs that are in the 14
to 15% range before. So if we do choose that option, we can uh justify that to HLC, but only for small projects. Uh, can we justify those kinds of returns? Um, I'm going to walk through each of these options so that we can discuss
them more in detail at the end of this. Um, oh, sorry. Here we go. Yeah. So, option one is what is currently written in Milton's bylaw for MBTA districts. It says 15% of units will be affordable at
80% AMI. Like I mentioned earlier, this is very common across Massachusetts. It's pretty well understood by developers. At 80% AMI, we can maximize the number of affordable units. Um, in this example I illustrated on the right
here with one of our scenarios, a 50 unit development with that calculation, we would get eight affordable units at 80% AMI. And because this is already part of your bylaw, this isn't going to require a zoning amendment. Um, the only
con I'll note with this policy option is that 80% AMI does not support lower income levels where need is greater. So that's the only con I would note about that. Um, for option two, option two would
require a small percentage of new units to be affordable. We would require it at 8% instead of 15%, but you would get a deeper level of affordability. Instead of 80% AMI, you're going to get 60% AMI. The pros are obviously that 60% of area
median income that's serving lower income levels. And as I just said, that's where affordability affordability needs tend to be the greatest. Um, it's also a pretty simple policy to implement and understand. The cons I just want to note here is
that it will generate fewer affordable units. That's kind of the trade-off uh for deeper affordability. And if we're generating fewer fewer affordable units overall, that will slow down the pace of affordable unit construction. And that is just
particularly important to note because the state subsidized housing inventory requires 10% of the housing stock to be affordable in a town or a city. And with only 8% being required for new developments, it will be hard to keep up
with the 10% requirement in the long run. Um I do just also want to note that this was one of the policy options um that we saw from above where smallcale projects were returning an IRRa that was more in the 14 to 15% range which is
just a little bit lower than ideal for developer profit profitability. Um and then the only other thing I wanted to just keep in mind is that this would require a zoning amendment since it's not what's currently written in the bylaw.
Uh the next two options are almost the same policy just with a few key differences. Um this option differentiates between small and large projects taking into account what um taking into account that it's harder to
get affordable units out of smaller projects. So in this option, small projects, which we're defining as 20 units or less, would provide 10% of new units as affordable. Half of those would be affordable at 80% AMI and the other
half at 60% AMI. For large projects, those would provide 12% of new units as affordable. And same split where half of them would be affordable at 80% AMI and the other half would be affordable at 60% AMI.
So, if you're still following along with the illustration here on the right, um, in our 50 unit development example, um, that would count as a large project, which means 12% or six out of the 50 units would be affordable. Out of those
six units, three of them would be affordable at the 60% AMI level and the other three would be affordable at the 80% AMI level. Um the pros to this policy is that it does balance the number of affordable units and depth of affordability. The
cons are that it is a little complex um to follow which means that it will require a little bit more municipal capacity to admin administer. It's also going to require a zoning amendment. Um and then I will just also note that this was one of the policy options that
similarly returned an IR between the 14 to 15% range for the smallcale projects. Um, option 3B is very similar to option 3A, but in this case, all projects,
regardless of size, provide 12% of their units as affordable. For small projects, those are the projects that are 20 units or smaller, their 12% would just all go to 80% AMI since 60% might be hard for
those smaller projects to hit. um for the large projects that are 20 that are above 20 units, those would still need to provide half of their 12% at 80% AMI and the other half at 60% AMI. So it comes out to the same calculation that
we saw for option 3A. Um three of the units would be at 80% AMI and the other three units would be at 60% AMI. Um the pros and cons are pretty much the same. Like I said, this policy is again trying to just balance the number of
affordable units with the depth of affordability. Um unlike option 3A in our proform analysis, the rate of return for small projects in this option actually are more feasible. So that is one pro. Um but the cons are that it is
still kind of a complex f policy um to administer. So, uh, just to compare all the options across that like 50 unit hypothetical example I was showing. This just kind of illustrates the tradeoffs between depth
of affordability and number of units. We could think of option one as maximizing the number of units. Option two is prioritizing depth of affordability even if there's fewer units. and options 3A and 3B are kind of trying to find the
middle ground between having a good number of units um but also acknowledging or trying to achieve some of that deep affordability. Um and then just before diving into discussion just wanted to point out some
other policy details that you guys might want to consider as you think about this. Uh, for example, the threshold at which this policy kicks in right now for Milton's MBTA districts, your affordability requirements are kicking in for, uh, developments with eight
units or more. Um, so if you want to change that number, um, that might be something to discuss. You could also consider different requirements for home ownership versus rental units. You could think about alternative to on-site affordable unit construction. So, for
example, if you want to allow a developer to pay an inloo fee as an option instead of building the affordable unit, um that could be part of a policy. And then you also just want to generally think about the mechanism
for administering um and just think about the municipal capacity for if you especially choose one of those more complex policies. Um, all right. So, that's pretty much it on my end. Um, I think the big thing that Adam and I really want to walk away
from today is which policy option we should consider as we are writing up the economic feasibility analysis and just overall what policy option you guys feel align most for the town of Milton. Uh, thank you and I can stop sharing my
screen. That's great. That was really interesting. Um how you broke down that that analysis. Um I'll just start with questions of the members um of the board.
Um, would HLC ever consider reducing the 10% requirement of towns if we went um to a 60% AMI or we I mean I know it's stay at 10% but if they really want to
work with um communities and help um create more affordable units the true affordable as you mentioned perhaps they should look at reducing the 10% requirement. Has that been discussed? >> Um, and this is for the subsidized
housing inventory chapter 40B or is this >> Yeah. >> Oh. >> Uh, >> I could take this one. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Adam. >> I think that's beyond both of our pay grades. I do think that >> I have heard discussions about that in
my travels around the region over the last six, seven months that I've been in this job. I think that there is a there is an emerging recognition that the SHI program, the 40B program, how it how it works and how it exists
is problematic in certain respects to the development of affordable housing, particularly at particularly at, as you pointed out, kind of the lower level or the lower the lower percentage AMIs. Um, I think the challenge with that, and I
don't want to turn this into like a policy discussion, but I think the challenge is with kind of getting down into those lower AMIs is if even if even if the state would kind of change the structure of how SHI
worked, um, you're you're going to bump into the feasibility stuff that we're just talking about. Now you start you go you get into these like lower percentage AMIs that they it's really hard for them to pencil out at scale and and by by scale I mean you would it's hard you're
going to be hardressed to find places that would be able to pull this off in in in large numbers. I think that's the challenge. >> I think it also go ahead. Sorry. >> Yeah. So that's what I I know it's a policy question and I know it has been spoken about and I you know I'm an
advocate for um changing our state law to um to let communities um have a little bit more local control over it. So I know it's probably outside of this discussion. Um but another question I
have is just recently um in Cambridge I I believe a developer filed a suit against um the Cambridge policy in their subsidized um their inclusionary zoning. And so how is that
going to um affect um you know are we jumping the gun until that um court case is heard? because I believe their argument is that it um it's it's not it's they're going
against um against a developer's fundamental property rights. >> That's interesting. Um, I'm assuming that that suit is being brought in respect to the afford the affordable
housing overlay in Cambridge, which effectively, you know, covers every square inch of the city. Um, you know, I I don't So, I think that's probably what's where that's kind of legally being grounded. Um, that's not what
we're proposing here. Um, and I feel like I feel like we're on very very strong ground here with respect to and how it works legally in the state because I just would hate to put all
this time and work and um if we could have a potential of um a change coming. >> Yeah, I mean that's the but that that is the first I've heard of it. But it I mean I guess it is slightly concerning
but I wouldn't I wouldn't pause this for that. >> Jim, did you intro? >> I just want to weigh in saying that. Uh great presentation. I it was quick and to the point and I got it. Uh thank you. And um I'm an advocate for just sticking
with option one. I really feel that getting any units above 10% is paramount in getting Milton a safe harbor. I mean, if we were at Safe Harbor and we were well into Safe Harbor, maybe I would look at other options. But for now, I'm I got to
confess, I'm a little close-minded and I really want the 15% to get us to Safe Harbor to to just to put the the stop to these 40Bs cuz they're huge developments and they're the ones the developments that impact our town in the most dire
way. So, I'm an option one advocate. >> Cheryl Hi, thank you for the presentation. Um, so I I have a couple questions. First is that this work will um I guess be submitted to EOHLC in
support of the zoning that was passed in June. Right. Because it was kind of contingent the 15% affordable requirement was contingent on this analysis. Correct. >> That's right. So what you will present
will will basically um say that yes it is viable in Milton to keep this at 15% at the 80% AMI. >> That's right. >> Yes. Okay. >> Our analysis shows that it is feasible and viable. >> Okay. So um and your methodology is the
methodology that the state set up right EOHLC set up to do this work. Is that right? approve the methodology. >> Uh yeah, I can just comment a little bit and say um MAPC developed the
methodology um for all the different assumptions we're making around the different scenarios. Um but we've done like I mean like a lot like several of these analyses since then and we've had
>> Yeah. And we've and so now those assumptions are like the state is very familiar with our assumptions. They're very well versed in our assumptions and they've approved of all the analyses we've sent them. Um and they approve of that methodology. So we made the
methodology but it is a state vetted methodology. Okay. >> And that methodology in your report it'll be evident to us how you arrived at your conclusions. >> Yes. the the report that we the actual
EFA and report that you'll all see will have a lot more detail with a lot of appendices, specific source citations, where we are drawing from and how we're calculating everything, >> right? And then have you seen other communities um
go with that um sort of your option 3A or 3B? because I agree um with others that um having a requirement which yields less than 10% is not going to be supported. I don't think um because
Milton um needs to gain ground, you know, make up ground or on that 10% to meet that 10%. So, we can't lose or lose ground if we have something less than that. But I am um somewhat interested in
that um third option and whether others are pursuing that or already have it on the books. >> Vonte, I can take that one. Um I we did a similar presentation like uh similar to this last week in Actton and they are
was a much longer conversation. We provided more options. One of them was a tiered option. Um, and that was the one. It was also an interesting meeting because it was like joint housing trust planning board select board. So, it was
kind of a mess. Um, in a good way. I mean, it it was good conversation and yeah, like I think they came to the conclusion that this is this op an option with a tiered approach was the one we wanted to kind they wanted us to kind of look at a little more. Um, so it
is done. Um, I actually don't know off the top of my head if Actton is above 10%. I feel like the bigger question is who's doing it that's under 10%. Um, I don't believe Actton is. I believe they're over. Um, but the short answer
to your question is yes, some communities are looking at kind of those those tiered options. Yeah, I uh I I was going to mention something similar to what Actton um is doing apparently is I I do think we
should get feedback from the affordable housing trust and the select board as well on whether um they would like to see um any further um analysis of any of these options. Uh but I do think that uh
it makes sense for us to um at least confirm that what we have in our zoning um is supportable, right? And that if there's something to change that there's some public process in thinking about that. Um I don't think the our board
should make should close out that discussion uh right out of the blocks. I I think we should invite um other feedback on whether we should consider that change. I I don't see it as an immediate need, but um I also am
curious. I'm an architect by day and I um have seen projects um where the numbers are just more challenging to to make work in general. Um, and I um have seen where the the city of Boston, which
is has fairly high requirements on inclusionary zoning, has been giving some relief to developers, kind of stepping it back a little bit from some 21% and 17% that they have in some places uh to something less just to get the projects um to help move the
projects along. at some point just to kind of see um if you're seeing projects actually getting built in your data or is it just ones that are getting approved. I don't know if that's clear to you what I'm kind of seeking there in in that
information. So you you want to know if the kind of the model we're using is based on projects that were built or
projects that were permitted. >> Yes. Like in today's economic climate, I'm seeing that projects are harder and harder to pencil out financially. Yes. >> And there's less and less actually getting built. So, if you Boston has made some presentations about this in
the last couple of months that I've seen that were pretty interesting. There's a lot of units approved but not nearly as many getting built. And part of it is the financial challenge that we're in with the economics whether it's construction costs, labor shortages, um
interest rates, what lab uh land costs, what have you. So while we say while you've said that yes these is a feasible and these are at 10 units these are feasible I I just am curious about the the data that supports that.
Yeah, Avanti, I'll let you have the final word on this, but I will say that the models that we use are constantly being updated. And that's kind of like one of the things that we make sure we do is interview developers, people in people in this game now, what they're
seeing and what we hear from them can adjust some of our assumptions. I mean, I think the challenge with this is that these are hypothetical scenarios. They're based on assumptions. Those are we can tweak those as much as we can to kind of the reality of the on the ground
but at the end of the day they're still assumptions. So we try to make them as as as informed currently as possible I think would be the answer there. Avanti do you have any thoughts on you know kind of that perspective based on the fact that you kind of ran these numbers initially?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um uh I do think I mean you and you guys will be able we'll share all this information with Liz. Um it'll be reflected in the analysis, but like you'll be able to see um like the construction costs we use and like how
much we're assuming like wood frame versus like steel cost and like things like that. Um, so you'll be able to see those assumptions and I agree with Adam what you were saying that we um I think have done a pretty good job of keeping those numbers up to date and consistent
with like inflation of construction materials and things like that. Um, and we also have just like anecdotally talked with a lot of developers about these numbers. um your other data point on what's
getting permitted versus what's actually getting built. Um that's really interesting. That is the data point that I'm not sure if we have um or if that's like something we're tracking. It could definitely be something
uh I could ask our data services or research team overall at MAPC is like is that something we have ever looked into? that's something we're trying to observe just generally like with any of the cities or towns across the region. Um but that's the only thing I can't confidently say we would be able to
demonstrate or show uh that gap between what's actually getting built versus what's in the pipeline and getting approved. But we also have to remember that this whole MBTA 3A has been sold to communities that it it's just zoning.
It's not production. It's not a production requirement. It's just a zoning requirement. So now you're looking at um it is actually a production. Like do we care actually if
it if units get produced or not? like from the zoning perspective. >> I think that's not a question for this group. I think that's a question for the state. But that's I I hear what you're saying. So um in terms of Milton, I
feel, you know, time is of the essence for us. We have our we passed the zoning through town meeting. um we're at risk of having projects come before us um until this actually we can support the
15%. So from a timeline perspective um how long do you has has it taken you to do your report for EOHLC and then what is their response time typically been for approval? I have to get back to you on that unless
you know Avanti. But um I think you can answer the question I guess like how long will it take us if we had a if we had an answer tonight, where are we at in terms of turning around a memo that could go to the state? >> Yeah. Yeah, I can answer that part. Um I
feel like uh if we decided tonight um and I I'm accounting for like holiday break and things like that. I would say like in early early to mid January I could have a draft memo ready for Liz and the rest of you guys to like look
over um a first draft. Um and I I would say like typically with like other municipalities I have worked at um usually between like two to three months. That's the overall process.
We're like kind of halfway through the process. We're kind of in this uh uh point where we're just trying to decide which policy option to include in our EFA. So, if we walk away deciding like, yes, let's do this option, then I can immediately just write up the memo, get
the draft going over, and it should wrap up pretty quickly. Yeah, I don't have a great sense of like >> turnaround time from EOHLC, but we do have >> we do have a relationship with those
with the people who do that work and we can be annoying about reviews like anyone can. So, I guess I would commit to that, but I would have to get back to some of the people who've actually gone through this whole process. I'm not one of them. Um, and ask and ask on a sense
of timing. I also think like you guys are kind of at the you guys are at the a tail end of this process which you know nine months ago that review period would probably be longer because there were more people kind of submitting. Um and I just know like I know the body of work
that we have in this space has narrowed significantly and we have the majority of communities that this thing would be triggered on. >> That's great. MAPC that is >> that's great and I I agree with you know Cheryl's point that I I think these
things you know once we have this approved that it shouldn't just end there that we should be able to still you know continue to look at being how we can be creative while still getting ahead in our units which is really critical to Milton to get ahead and meet
our 10% threshold. Um, but I would be um definitely open to having further conversations even though once this once this and hopefully it will be approved and it sounds like you all have done a great job and very successful with
getting your memos um and your um your analysis approved. Just one other question that I have just to think about. Have you seen any communities which have either um requested to do above 15% I think Newton possibly and
maybe Brookline um but some communities were considering uh writing in 17% into their zoning. I don't know if you've seen that done or if you have seen um communities that have done 15% if they have requested on top of that
for less than eight units that they would um that they would acquire a payment of some sort as a portion of their development profit profit margins. Would that be something that we could in
the, you know, if we get 15% approved, could we later request that we would add on, you know, a request to go into the affordable housing trust um from less from developments less because we could potentially see quite a few under eight
units. Um, is that something that we could possibly build our affordable housing trust funds that way? >> That Yeah, go ahead. I I can answer some of it and then Adam I'll turn it to you um if you have any thoughts but uh I
well okay I'll just say um for going higher than 15% um >> I think I have seen that and I will say I think it was uh to some of the points that I think Cheryl was bringing up I think it was a lot easier a few years
ago um to do that but because of inflation and the cost of materials and everything. At least from what I am hearing anecdotally from developers um not just me but like our MAPC team from what we're hearing um is that there is
just a lot of uncertainty right now with cost and that is uh making developers kind of less likely to go into communities that like have higher than 15%. um or like you know going up to 17 or 18
or even like 20%. Um so that's that's just anecdotal that's not u that's not coming from any verified source. That's just coming from the conversations our MAPC team has had with developers. Um I have seen uh
I have seen examples of inloo fees um for affordable units and I am trying to remember I don't want to misquote the city or town um because I've worked with hull and I've worked with Melrose and I
believe one of them had like an inloo uh payment option instead of building so I have seen those opt options. Um before um what was the other part of your question? >> It was not really in lie of an
affordable unit, but for those who were under for developments under eight units which wouldn't have any affordable if we could ever ask for there to be some sort of a payment into the of a housing trust if they weren't building if they weren't
required to do anything. if we could do that on top of our 15 for units um above eight developments above eight. I >> do you know if any Yeah, I'm not sure if I know of any off the top of my head.
>> I I don't know if I would consider that but I think the answer kind of my broadbrush answer to this entire kind of conversation this piece of it is you can do whatever you want. You could you can absolutely do whatever you want here. I
think what is important is and that's to say like I think it gets back to Cheryl's comments, some of the other planning board members comments about like the fact that things change, right? Like stuff changes, costs change, um the
market changes. Even if we decided even if you guys decided tonight to do 15% at 80 within you should be re-examining policies at minimum every five years
because these can things can get stale and they can stop working and they require they would require some they often require like sale trimming and sometimes they require wholesale kind of changes but
that I say that to say like you you can we could find examples of probably every scenario under the sun on um related to inloo um related to
whether it's 17% at 80 or maybe at 17% at 85 I mean generally people stay in the 80 60 kind of 100 range in terms of like it's not great to like be tweaking those percentages on the AMI side but People often more often tweak on the
required unit number percentage. Like sometimes they'll do 25%, not 25% but like 15, 17, 12%. I think we saw some of that in our scenarios. But I guess I'm just saying that to say that like all of this stuff is tweakable. I think what's important and it gets to kind of the
point of what our presentation is about. If you're going to tweak, you got to look at feasibility and is is it or is it not feasible? I think if you can answer whether it's feas if you can answer if something is feasible
then you can do it and there's not a lot there's not a lot that's necessarily stopping you. >> So do you think it is feasible for us to request higher than 15%. >> I think that in the current market in
the current climate that would be tough that would be tough to do but I haven't run the numbers. Alexis, uh, I can re-examine the numbers, but one of our housing analysis, I think Liz, you were working with before I got
on the project, Alexis, when she ran the numbers and she had told me that I I I would run it again myself, but um, she had told me that going above 15% would put you guys a little bit in that
questionable feasibility range. I don't have like exact irr um to quote on that, but she did tell me that at a little bit higher than 15% it started to get um into questionable feasibility.
>> And then it gets close to what a developer doing a 40B would be required to do. So that becomes more attractive. I think we don't want to risk that until we get our our 10% safe harbor. Okay. And Liz, any comments? Any thoughts from
you that you would like to add? >> Um, I you know, the the this the third and fourth options are, you know, clearly would be difficult to administer based on current current staffing capacity. you know, we have we have um
you know, that shared housing support office, which is which is a terrific resource, but um you know, we kind of have all we all we can handle just to wrap our hands around the current 40bs that we're dealing with trying to you know, deal with um all the various
various components of fair marketing and and regulatory agreements and annual monitoring and etc. So, realistically, I think the simpler the better. Um, and um, I haven't dug into like the numbers behind the the the analysis, so I really
can't speak to that, but um, yeah, I I I think I think the I I my my sense is the the 15% at 80 at 80 is probably the most realistic approach right now. But it's definitely like Adam was saying, this is the type
of stuff that you don't just you don't do it once and then sort of walk away for several years. like it's something that should be >> should be should be looked at and and uh and and numbers from you know that conversation about you know what what were the numbers for something that's
been built versus something that's been permitted. Well, the numbers for what were built, what was built are probably so out of I don't even know that you could even use them today, you know, in terms of like how quickly things have escalated
and how quickly the environment has changed in construction and whatnot. So, that's my thinking on it. I don't know how well it sounds like we're all on the same table for at least for right now. Um, so I would love to be able to give
MAPC a direction um that they could draft a memo. We have a meeting on January 15th. Um, would that be a reasonable time for you to be able to put something together to um have for us to discuss if we were
to vote on option one tonight? >> Um, I would be able to have a memo ready for you. I would not be able to I will actually be out of office on January 15th. I won't be able to be there. Um but I could have something ready by
January 15th for you guys to vote on. >> Okay, >> great. >> And if you have it earlier and you could send it to us prior to our meeting so we have time just to everyone has time to read and and think about it. Um but it
sounds like your expertise in this area would um >> Yes. Yes. Cheryl. >> Um uh I agree um with pursuing the memo for the
uh 15% at 80% AMI. But I also would like Liz to um let the town administrator and the select board in the affordable housing trust um know about this analysis and if they want to watch the tape of the
meeting or review this PowerPoint and if they have any comments that they would want to submit to us. Um, I I just feel like as important as this is and as much interest as this has had over the last few years, it's it would be it's a very
short time frame for and it's over the holidays, you know, for people to like find out about it after the fact. It just um I don't think would sit as well. So, just in the spirit of transparency and openness, I would make that suggestion.
>> Yeah, I think that's I think that's great. So, >> and given that town meeting supported the zoning, I I >> everybody knows about the 15%. This is >> that's what we voted on, but but I think that's great to share, especially the presentation and the different options
for the future for sure. So with that, I would entertain a motion to support um the drafting of a memo um for application to EOHLC um
supporting our 15% affordable at 80%. >> Is there a motion? >> Sure. I'll make that motion. Make a motion to draft a memo to direct EO I'm sorry to track MAPC to draft a memo uh supporting the uh 15%
option and submit it to EOHLC. >> Yes. >> Second. >> So to submit it to EOHLC or to draft >> draft
a memo for to send it to EOHLC, but it's just a draft at this point to be approved by us. >> Yeah. So I I guess I would like the motion to be just to prepare the draft and to submit that for discussion in
January. So that gives an opportunity uh for the select board of the town administrator to also review before a vote to actually submit to >> that's okay. >> Okay. >> Was the intent? Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Is there a second to that? Is that a motion
>> then? Yeah. Well, if Jim, are you accepting that kind of refinement of your motion >> as a friendly? I'd love to. >> They call it a friendly. >> Yeah, friendly. >> It is friend. It is meant meant to be friendly. And then I will second it. Yes. Thanks.
>> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Cheryl? >> Yes. >> Maggie? >> Yes. >> Jim? >> Yes. >> And myself? Yes. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> That's great. Thank you. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank Well done. Thank you.
>> Take care and byebye. >> Good night. >> Too wordy with the amendment. Note to self. >> Um, super super knocking off the list. So, um, our next item is to welcome and
introduce our new, um, representative from KP Law, uh, Carolyn, attorney Carolyn Murray. It's here. Welcome. >> Yes, please join us. And this is for a discussion of the attorney general's a zoning amendment
review um of our articles and then we can maybe keep you for a moment just to discuss some of the conversation around the rules and racks that we were >> certainly reviewing too so we can cover both of those.
>> So thank you Madam Chair and and members of the board. Um so it's nice to finally meet some of you folks in person. Um I I know that KP has not been on board for very long and for those of you that have never um had contact with before. Um a
little bit of my background, I've been a municipal lawyer for going on 24 years, I guess. Um, and it before even going to law school, I actually worked in your neighboring town
of of Brainree in their legal department for about eight years. And I've either been at KP Law or I've been at the town of Brainree in their legal department. Um, first as their parallegal and then as their um, first uh, town solicitor when
they changed their form of government. So um I bring with me not just a land use knowledge but sort of a general broad overview of of municipal law. So um I've recognized that sometimes you go
to meetings like this and for example do you need to be sworn in for some of these subcommittees and I I chuckle at questions like that because it really does depend on the committee and whether it's exeicio or or whether it's um you know something that is standalone. So, um, I'm looking forward to working with
all of you. It it suffice to say, um, so I I see on the agenda that you had discussion about the zoning amendments generally, but I was also asked to look at the site go through more specifically to to talk about the site plan review bylaw and the regulations as uh drafted
just generally and then as they apply to the ADUs. Um I don't know if you want to focus more on site plan review first or if you've got any particular shall we um either what do you prefer Liz do you
>> well why I think maybe ADU first ADU might be just a little >> I and I and I provided the the board has um has had the um attorney general's letters um you know for for a while now um on the three the three articles that
I think that we're we're talking about the the site plane review, the ADU, and then now with the MBTA communities. Um I think and Cheryl, I know Cheryl was interested in in in this topic as well. Um I think the the primary my
understanding is a primary driver is is you know sort of like the the limits of the board's authority as as it you know with respect to the protected uses and also with you know what what can and can't be done properly with site plan review and and that power. Um there's
probably other things too though that were in those letters from the from from the attorney general. I don't I don't know if if if it's worthwhile to to look at those individually or I I I I the the one on the MBTA communities is kind of the most recent. That's November 21st.
>> Mhm. So that was my that was my sort of I wasn't surprised by any of the comments actually. Um it was sort of a lot of what their comments were were some things that were part of our discussion. Some of the language um and terms and definitions that they struck
were things that we put in knowing that there was a chance, you know, like boarding and lodging, you know, we that came up even at town meeting. Um you know, trailers, mobile trail, you know, mobile trailer, you know, for ADUs, you know,
some of the things that that were addressed were were not surprising. Um I guess one of the questions that I had is when the language when they partially approve something and they say we don't approve th that you know those strike
language you strike that language >> that does not require I just want to clarify that we are not required to go back to town meeting >> absolutely not now >> for that that is those are struck and that that is what gets pub the clerk will then take our articles less th that
>> exactly language. >> Exactly. >> And that's what >> Yes. And I can I can say uh the town clerk I've had a couple of conversations with her as well as the decisions have come out and asking she asked that exact question at one point. Um but that is exactly right.
>> So does she clean this stuff up or do you clean it up and give it to her and she files it? >> She has already cleaned it up >> and it's um I don't know if she has posted yet. It was posted in the Milton Times um today that came out all of our articles. It's about
>> it's a book at the end of the Milton Times. >> Um yeah, but it's in there. Yes. And and I will just say, you know, like on the the ADUs, um um you know, we we've kind of been we've been seeing an awful lot
of these, you know, on behalf of all of our clients, and I have yet to see an ADU decision from the AG come down in less than 10 pages because they're sort of following this particular format, you know, and and you could probably skip
the per first five pages because they're the same for every single community. a lot of communities are getting partial approvals similar to what you got here um for precisely the same reason like I um some communities you know were drafting
these early on in the process you know and then I think it was January 23rd when the final draft regulations were were issued well you know there were some towns that had already um their warrants had already closed they already had to have their internal deadlines met
and there were a few things that, you know, we weren't exactly sure how it was going to be interpreted. Um, and there were some communities like you were just alluding to, Madam Chair, that um, nothing ventured, nothing gained. You know, let's put it in there cuz
we're not really sure how they'll ultimately come down on it, but if the AG doesn't like it, they'll strike it. We still have a bylaw in place. Um, so we've been surprised in different areas as to some things that have passed and some things that haven't. Um but you know overall you know looking at what
they did strike here under your ADU um like I said I wasn't surprised either. >> Yeah. >> And it was very minimal. >> Right. Right. Um and so that you know has been >> as you said it's now been posted by the
town clerk. So that should be >> spent a lot of time discussing the size and we're still back >> the 350 ft less than 350 ft. the building code still covers us and then >> right >> it still has to be whatever structure still has to be permanently attached to a foundation which makes me feel good
>> so you can't roll a tiny house trailer under your front lawn >> call it an ADU >> so it wasn't bad for in my humble opinion >> no I would agree with that >> and it was interesting because when we were in the middle of drafting our ADU
article the definition final definitions hadn't even come out yet so we felt like we were we were right on top of it as quickly as we could be to get something in knowing that ADUs were going to be coming, applications would be coming. So given the time, time was of the essence
to get this completed and and and like I said, I think that that was the case with a lot of communities that um you know, they you either scrambled at the last moment to put in substitute motions or floor amendments at town meeting and you all know your uh your
town meetings better than than I do. Everyone, you know, there are some town meetings you do not present a floor amendment. that is the the quickest way to put the the nail in the coffin of a zoning amendment. Do not do that. Um others, oh, you know, what's a 10-page
substitute motion handed out as people check in at town meeting, you know, and and and in fairness, a 10-page amendment shouldn't be handed out, right, at town meeting. So, um you know, there's there's a little bit of a know your town and see how it will work. And and like I
said, there were some communities who felt this is important to us. we're gonna put this in, let the attorney general tell us we can't have it. >> And like I said, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. So, um, but overall,
um, to get a partial approval, that's pretty much what everybody is getting these days. >> So, and I know we've already had a few conversations or emails from your building inspector about certain scenarios and how we should apply it. So, >> good.
>> Um, it's going to be an active Right. >> Active issue going forward. >> Yep. We had a a a owner come in today and um looking to do a detached a detached ADU and we'll we'll need site
plan review. So, it's it's coming. So Liz Meredith um >> I um as Liz said did um suggest that town council advise us a bit the decisions or the um I guess the
decisions from the AG. They uh in a few places they say town should discuss this issue in more detail at town council. >> And so those were the things I was looking um for some feedback on. and also if there's anything that we need to
do as a an amendment to any of the zoning that we pass in response to the letters. Uh and I think some of it really has to do with um Dober amendment which MBTA MBTA community zoning and
ADUs are now protected as well. And so there they had some cautions. They said they approved but they had some cautions. So, you know, before we get applications coming in under these, I I just think we
um it would be helpful to to understand if you have any suggestions for us on that >> on those comments or those sections. >> Certainly. So, um that's also not unusual for the attorney general. anytime they they want to just raise
something or make sure that the town applies it consistently with a statute or whatever, they always refer you back to please speak to town council. Um, you know, that's their gentle way of saying, okay, this is this is technically consistent with state law. We don't have
a basis for denying it, but be careful how you apply it. So, um I I know there was a question about um the Dover amendment and what is or is not a protected use. So,
a true purist on the Dover amendment would say religious and nonprofit educational uses are the the true Dover amendments. And yes, over the years, we get these little um additional add-ons like child care facilities. I've heard
some people use do and solar in the same sentence. It's like they're not exactly um there's a difference between you know what can we absolutely not prohibit versus what can we reasonably regulate. So um you know MBTA zoning comes in
under an entirely separate statute under 3A as opposed to 4A section 3. You got to flip a whole page over in the books. Um, it's MBTA zoning is not a do use. It is a a requirement, yes, for MBTA
communities to adopt zoning, but it is not a do use. Um, ADUs with this, and I want to be clear, they use the term now protected use ADU. So, it has to be an ADU that complies
with um the state definition of an accessory dwelling unit. Um they refer to it now as a protected use ADU. Um it is I'm going to call it dol
like in that yes it is we cannot prohibit its use anywhere where you know a single family residential use is allowed. We cannot prohibit it just like we can't prohibit a church, a synagogue, a temple and we can't prohibit a nonprofit school. But
what we can regulate with the do uses, there's there's eight categories that we can regulate. So we can't prohibit them. We can't necessarily require a special permit or unreasonably regulate them, but we can impose reasonable conditions
as applied to bulk, height, lot area, open space, building coverage, parking. you know there's there's two more that I should know off the top of my head but there are eight specific things um in the statute that they say you can
regulate >> so I know for example um with respect to the site >> setbacks it was setbacks >> setbacks too yes thank you um so those are the only areas that were allowed to regulate and that generates
an awful lot of questions from communities in terms of well what is a a reasonable regulation Um and more importantly who decides what a reasonable regulation is. Um some communities they will give some latitude
to say your building commissioner or your zoning enforcement officer. Typically that's done by bylaw saying okay you can you can assess certain um restrictions. In other communities, the protected use will either go to the
zoning board or go to the planning board as might be applicable, usually the zoning board. They might go kicking and screaming because they don't think they need to go to the zoning board of appeals. Or they might go there voluntarily. Or they might go there under what they call a reservation of
rights where they want to be, you know, good neighbors. um where they're willing to say, "Okay, you are allowed to decide how many parking spaces is reasonable for my use or how high my building can be and that sort of thing, but
you can't require a variance for them or can't hold them to the variant standard, for example. Um, most of the time, unless you've got a specific bylaw spelling out how those do uses are going to be administered, most of the time the building inspector
is going to refer them to the zoning board of appeals and say, you know, the closest use that resembles this is X. Um, and do your very best as you can to apply the zoning bylaw or the spirit and intent of the bylaw without prohibiting
the use. Um, so I know for example that was something that in particular the attorney general brought up in um the site plan review um comment letter and again with that caution of just be careful um how you apply it because a
few things one is you've got a very very in-depth site plan review bylaw now you know God bless you all if you're going to you know whether it's building design site designs lighting in addition to the normal site circulation, parking, etc., you've got a
very robust bylaw of all the things that you look at. When you then compare them to the eight categories that the statute allows you to to apply to a do amendment, we are not going to be talking about the caliber of trees or how many trees are going to be cleared
from a a do site. We're not going to be looking at a phototric plan or dark sky compliant lighting. um you know you're only going to be able to look at those like physical characteristics you know bulk height open open space setbacks
etc. So, I know there's been a lot of discussion um mostly by email about well, what does that mean and what should we do? Um you know, you've got you've got your bylaw, you've got your draft regulations that you're going to discuss tonight.
One question is, do you have a different set of regulations for do protected uses that might be that might trigger the site plan review bylaw? >> I can. >> Sure.
>> Sorry. Can I just chime in there? >> Um, we don't, but I do think we should. Um, and I think it one of the problems that we had was just how far we could um
could go. I guess it's with those eight items that you mentioned, but I do think u whether should that be a separate section of the zoning bylaw or should that fall under within the site plan review that we passed?
>> I I think it could be either to be honest. you could have a subset to um your site plan review bylaw as it applies just to do amendment uses. But right now when you look at the applicability section for site plan
review multif family mixeduse or commercial greater than 800 square ft or parking loading access driveways related to those uses. I pause and ask how often is, you know,
a religious or a nonprofit educational use going to have a multif family residence? I don't know if we're really considering a dorm to be multif family residents. I, you know, I'll leave that to the side
for the moment. Um, you very rarely see mixed use or commercial uses with those uses. They might have a gift shop, for example. Um, I don't know that whether you're going to get a gift shop greater than 800 square ft to really be
or maybe you might have a cafe or something in there, but is that really the type of mixed use that is going to be combined with a do protected use to trigger site plan review? Um I suppose and again then when you look at parking
loading and access driveways that are associated with that multif family or mixed use or commercial how often is all of that going to come together and apply to a do protected use I think it's going to be
rather rare to be honest with you but if there are but independent of your applicability section There are some towns that have um a separate site plan review for do
protected uses bylaw and it is very much scaled down to just those particular um items that chapter 48 section 3 allows you to regulate. So that is something that you know could be considered for
the future if you think you need to. Are we automatically as the as under the mass state definition of uh do amendment which clarifies what a planning board or what
what a town can can oversee. Are we is that um I guess are we protected under having th that those regul you know that we could regulate those items without having right currently it's like if we had a do amendment project which we have
had actually recently most of our we've had two preschools we've had you know we've had a few items um daycare that that we've had to look at through the through the lens of a do amendment. Um so are we currently protected under
under what the state statute says. Um and then also the question is because again maybe it is something that we do look at as having just something that we add a separate section to a lot of it there there's some gray
areas where it comes to safety. um you know where I see the crossover with lighting like you can't necessarily regulate lighting but you also have to make sure that it's safe and that the lighting is not offensive to neighbors because I believe that is within the
jurisdiction of a planning board to to to look at the safety factors and protection of both the neighbors and whoever would be parking whether it's on a parking lot that there's >> there's enough lighting but yet it's not too much lighting for example Um
>> right. Um so by asking are we protected under what the do amendment currently provides? Um I want to make sure question >> meaning >> you currently have to comply with 4A section 3
>> absent any kind of a bylaw. >> Right. Okay. >> So a do use comes in we're going to just do our best to follow 4A section 3. >> Right. And there might be some pieces of our zoning bylaw that we might apply.
Like for example, when a when a child care facility comes in, sometimes um as guidance, a building inspector or a zoning board might look to um other requirements in the bylaw that might apply to say a private school and see
whether or not the parking requirements and um you know maybe some other aspects of it. you're always going to have a minimum lot size, a frontage, you know, setback, um, that apply within your zoning
district, too. So, I if you're asking, do we have to adopt a bylaw or are we okay just operating under the confines of 483 as is, you don't need a bylaw. >> Okay. >> Um, and in fact, you've already proven
that when a do amendment use comes in, all right, we just sort of figure this out as we go. and we we abide by as much as we can of the bylaw and a certain amount we might just have to you know overlook or say well we can't go there
we can't regulate that particular aspect um I I hear what you're saying about safety and lighting and I think it might also go handinhand with what is the use right um >> that's where I think it's hard to
>> traffic's a big one too and I think that's where I think where we have come our experience with the with the stove amendments and we've had really great projects which we just had one um that was um recently approved that they said this was the most efficient approval
process. They came prepared. It was an out ofstate developer and we were able to um we knew our boundaries like what we could but there were things that we asked them for that we knew we couldn't we couldn't mandate but we asked them and they were open and they you know
they were like of course this is a better we like this project better because of these suggestions right >> so sometimes we do >> like for them to see what's in our site plan you know these are the things these are what we're trying to achieve in a project but we know we can't require
them Right. So maybe having something which Liz was maybe suggesting or maybe you have a section or something um that we include the do amendments but and maybe you know of a good idea. >> I would rather see the do amendments
separate not buried in our site plan review document >> and you might be able to give us a great examp I don't want to have to go through all this. So, I just want to be like, okay, town of Milton, what is your requirements? >> Because I might have skipped right over
the site plan review chapters thinking, oh, that doesn't apply and didn't didn't hang in there for that final paragraph at the end, right? You could do that. Um, and you, Madam Chair, you're just asking one community that does it by site plane review and has it in their
bylaw is the town of Wayland. they have a a pretty I think it's you know only like a you know two short paragraphs basically that they subject um um a use to site plan review um you know
in my experience you have really two different kinds of do protected uses or applicants there are those that want to work with the community and and um as you say sounds like the one that you just had said oh this you know this was a pleasure
a pleasurable process. It was efficient. It was great. Other communities, I'll get the letter from the lawyer first before we even know that the do use is coming in. Um, telling us, just to make it perfectly clear, this is a Do
protected use. You can't subject us to this. I had, you know, one lawyer send us a letter about a daycare facility, childcare facility, saying, "You cannot subject us to site plan review." It's like I don't know where you went to law school or where you've last last read anything on this, but you most certainly
can subject those uses to site plan review. Um, so and then then there's sort of like that that applicant in the middle that really is willing to play along to a certain point, but they also want you to know that at any at any
point they can pull out of the process and say you just can't go there. So, I I I think I think having something in the bylaw that just says, "Here are the expectations." I think that goes a long way for both
the applicant because they know who they're supposed to deal with and they're not trying to lobby a building inspector to say, "We don't need to bother the zoning board of appeals by this. You can just go ahead and you can decide how tall our building should be." Um, if you lay it out there, you set the
expectations for the applicants. You also you also clearly identify, okay, if it is going to be site plan review, is it going to the planning board who administers that site plan review or is it going to be someone else? And we're going to be very clear about the, you know, the the eight items that we can
address. Safety and lighting. I don't know anyone who's going to argue about safety um or argue that a parking lot shouldn't be well lit or that say exit stairwells or emergency stairwells, you know,
should not be lit. Um some of those things are going to be handled uh just by the the building code itself. Um, but I think if if you've got a do use site plan review bylaw
and in the course of talking about, you know, the eight things that we're allowed to talk about, if safety and lighting come up, I don't think anyone's going to b at that. I think they will they will feel fine. But if we start saying, "Well, can you please identify the mature trees on the property that
will be preserved? And can you tell me um what your landscaping plan is going to be and make sure they're all native species? I think you're going to start to lose the the goodwill and momentum um with that particular applicant. So, um
yeah, I'd be happy to send you a copy of of Wayland as a as a starting point. Not that it's not that it's perfect and every town has their own way of doing things or but at least um why reinvent the wheel if you can see what someone else has already done.
>> That would be great if you would. Would you mind? >> Sure. >> Will you also tag on the eight criteria for >> I will. Yes. Yeah. And I think those are in Yeah, >> I know they're in my email earlier today. I don't
>> think bother. I'll find it. So, I was hoping to have that printed out for everybody. It's in the folder for um Carolyn's um um review of the site plan review. >> Yeah, we can circulate that just to Yeah. >> Yeah, it's it's it's in it's uploaded in the folder and I do have one copy one
hard copy of it that I can share if some if anybody wants to wants to look at it. Um but you know, reviewing the rules and regulations kind of like do you do you have it? I have it in my but I could pass it to Jim. >> That's okay. I'll find it. Don't worry about it.
>> It's in our big binder. Jim, >> it's in that gigantic. Oh, really? >> All right. I'll be looking at that. >> The rules. The rules and regs. >> Yeah, the rules. >> No, just the eight criteria for I think it's the Dober amendment that we're >> Yes. Yes. Yes.
>> I was going to say if you if you find my email, it's bullet point number six. >> And here's a here's a hard copy if you want. you're more than happy to use that. >> Um, so yes, a lot of this stuff kind of came up as Oh, sorry, Cheryl. A lot of
this along a lot of these com a lot of these items came up as in the review of the rules and regulations because it's it's it's it's alluding to how we're going to handle the process, >> right? So, so it and it's trying to it's
trying to um you know not outthink but you know try to trying to trying to anticipate as much as we can you know these sort of like these scenarios and and I don't want to forget the and you had some com comments as well Carolyn about the um like this idea
with like a a constructive grant and and you know and making sure that we're really careful and have a very clear process >> if there's an incomplete application um and that you know so so there's so in in this im in this in this um memorandum
which I received today um and is in the is in the board's folder on the on the website um there's a there's a lot there um I don't know if it's worth do you would it make sense to try to kind of go through it sort of piece by piece or I don't I don't know what what what folks
feel feel like they want to do >> well I think your comments were really good and it might be some things that I would love to give the board time to digest and think about and read. I know Cheryl, you would probably, you know, some of the things um and everyone else
um would be interested in having a chance to absorb and listen to if you we can do it. It would be nice to maybe do an overview tonight and then um but I think the ADU the rules and regs that um
and your comments on those would be much simpler >> and it would be great because um they're actually we just got an ADU application that came in and it would be nice to if if our board can approve and vote on the
ADU rules and regs this evening and then defer um the site plan review vote. to our January meeting and just give members time to think of questions that um they might have. So why don't we start with the ADU rules and Rex first.
Make sense and your comments on that and and >> and that's actually I had no proposed changes to that one. I thought that that you covered everything that you needed to cover in that one. That's right. Did anybody
>> I have a question on the ADU? Um in in because some folks have asked me at what point in the process does an applicant uh do they have their completed construction documents with site plan
that they filed with the building official before it gets triggered to uh a site plan approval? because sometimes again in my day job world before something gets its zoning approval a um
an applicant may not complete that level of detail of drawing because they may end up having to redo it. So I don't know that it's that clear in our um submission requirements what level of detail is required. I think so. Avanti
and I were talking about this today after the after the gentleman left the office. Um the architect. Um so I think my opinion is that the building commissioner is going to need a survey
plan in order to make a determination that the ADU is can be done. So, and be and beyond that, um, you know, and and I and and we again, we kind of had this conversation. I said, I want to make sure we're very clear with
applicants that, you know, before you spend a lot of money, we just all want to know that this is something you can actually build. So, um, maybe we get some kind of like a zoning, you know, memo from the from the
building commissioner kind of at the outset. I mean, that's going to have to happen anyway, but there the you're required to do um elevations and floor plans for the primary residence.
Um even if it's a detached ADU, that's how I read it. Um that could get expensive. Um, I don't know whether or not I'm reading that properly. >> Because that's going to have to that would determine the size of the
accessory dwelling unit that it would be >> uh I I guess I mean I'd have to go back and look at you know honestly I'd have to go back and even like get myself get myself up to speed on like >> determine this. That's exactly how you >> that that's why you would need that
primary even if it's detached because the size of the um size of the ADU is determined by primary residence total, >> right? >> It's either half the square foot or 900 ft not to exceed 900 ft.
>> Oh, very good. >> So, and that's even with the detached. >> So, both attached to detached. Yep. >> So, okay. So, walk me through it. So if it's a 1,500 square f foot primary residence, what's your limit? >> 750.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Unless you buy allows, >> right? But having the but needing like floor plans for the primary residence, right? That's different than knowing what the square footage is. >> Well, you'd at least need the perimeter out,
>> right? So, so I I guess what I'm I guess what I'm saying is is is you know there's stuff that there's stuff that they're probably going to have someone's going to have to do regardless and then there could be other things that could cost some money. Um and you don't want to get people to get too far down the
road on that. That the one thing that I could think of is is that sort of interior stuff on the primary on the primary residence. I mean, you're probably going to have to do that anyway if you're doing an addition, if it's going to be part of the of of that of that principal structure. But if you're not touching
the principal structure, you I think you also have to do renderings for the principal structure so that you can get a sense of what the what the accessory is going to look like on the site with the with the principal. Um, so I don't I'm I don't know. I don't know
how to put something in the rules and regulations that's going to I don't know. I I I'd be open to I'd be open to to to a suggestion as to how to how to facilitate that. Um, >> don't we have an opt out clause already?
you would determine if this all needs to be done. And could you look at a project and say, "Hey, if you just measured that with a tape measure to determine the 1,800 square f feet or more to cap it at 900, would be your discretion as the planner.
Then they may have to get an asbuilt survey and then position the detach ADU on the parcel. But that might be a couple of grand as opposed to architects plans. H if you go if you go on the town's website and you bring up the um
>> the card on the house the on the website it has the dimensions of the footprint of the house >> right >> so there's really no >> anybody could go and do that >> um although I think >> cost right there
>> I think it needs to be a little bit more specific than that because that footprint you don't know if it includes a porch, an outside porch area. Sometimes they just do a big outline of >> it's probably going to be more like probably going to be more pre-existing
non-conforming, you know, side setbacks that don't conform today. It's going to be parking areas. It's going to be that that I think I think it those are the types of things that you're going to have to know like you all that stuff's going to have to be located.
>> That'll be covered by a survey, right? Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Which isn't My experience with surveys is they're like $1,200 $1,500 to do an asbuilt and then to place an addition or a garage or whatever you're building. In this case, a detached ADU.
>> I mean, are we thinking that, you know, 1,500 or two grand is too much for someone to spend before they get potentially shot down. So, >> and it's and I have to go back and look, is it is it usable for space? um that it's because I think that would exclude
stairwells, closets. So that's partly why I'm thinking that you need to have something more detailed. Is isn't it usable? >> It's it's gross floor area and they defined it specifically in the statute
and um so there are you know they they're very clear about what they include or exclude. They exclude crawl spaces, garage parking areas, attics, enclosed porches, or similar spaces. >> So, I was anticipating the I was
anticipating the building commissioner handling confirming that stuff. >> I agree. >> Right. >> So, I think that was your question, Cheryl, right? At what, you know, at what point do those designs need to be done? My yeah my point was like at what point
does um one file for this the planning board site plan approval on it. So the building department it does a different level of review than the planning board. Right. Right. >> What's required for the building
department is more detailed than what's required for the planning board. >> Yes. So, is the checklist um so I guess I'm wondering is it clear to someone who wants to build an ADU what
the process is uh for the for those two different reviews? Does it and does it make sense? It's not just a survey, you know, gym. If someone's doing an ADU, let's say it's, you know, they're going to do an
additional or a standalone detached, they're going to need structural drawings, architectural drawings, and the survey, etc. Do they get all of those drawings done? because I think what we heard from our building commissioner is that um
someone did do that or maybe it was from the board of appeal that I heard this someone did do that and then they found that no that it wouldn't be approved on zoning grounds and they had done all these complete construction documents which will be far more than $1,200
$1,500. >> Oh yeah, I agree. We shouldn't hold those. Yeah. Yeah. We shouldn't hold them to that until they get some kind of a Right. That's what I just wanted to clear. >> I wanted to be clear like you have a site plan. >> Um and and it almost seems like in that
initial stage what you do have on the town's GIS system from the assessing department is the size of the um enclosed space. So you could use that and as an initial
review to determine the size of the unit, which would be maxed out at 900 anyway, at least an initial review um that yes, that this particular property with this particular home could
could meet the ADU requirements and then from there they could go spend additional funds to develop a more complete set. But e still it's a it's a set for the planning board and then a more detailed set for the building department. >> Um
>> so wouldn't the process be um just like any um renovation at your house that the applicant say I wanted to do an ADU I would first go to the building department. The building inspector would say, "Fill out this form.
Let me do a review." And then he will would write a letter, you know, to the applicant in, you know, either a denial letter or a letter outlining the next steps. I feel like it would start at the building department.
>> That should be the gateway, the first gate. >> Yes. And then the building inspector would say, "Okay, this is the list of things you need." >> So, is that what Michael White is looking for, a list of like a process?
>> Yeah, he he reviewed this um these rules and regulations and he his only comment was um that the first stop should be with um the GIS manager to create a second address. Um, so or create a create a unique address for the for the second for the
second unit. Um, so he he he was comfortable with it. Honestly, I was trying to I was trying to back I was trying to back as much of this into permodize Cheryl as I could. Um, because the more that gets into permodize at the out at the outset, I don't have to
duplicate it. Like I can get the dimensions and I can get, you know, sort of bad information bred out of permodize. Um, and then but but again, I mean, we're we're looking for architectural plans showing the existing floor layouts of the principal dwelling
and the proposed floor layout of the accessory dwelling unit. So, this is the conversation I had today with an architect. You know, like you're right, you don't want people to get too far down the road >> with, you know, drawing up these plans if they don't have a really clear um
answer whether or not they can do it. So, um I like that idea of having something maybe we could get something in permitize from the building commissioner that that you know is some type of a confirmation that the that the um you
know, again, I'm not really sure how they're going to make a an an affirmative an affirmative decision without survey plans. I mean, I just think that that's just common knowledge. You need to have a
survey. Like, as an applicant, I just think that's a given. If you're going to embark on a project, you know, there's an outlay of money up front and it's not guaranteed that it's going to pass or not. And that's
I don't know. I just think that's the nature. But in this case, in this case, if you meet the requirements um in the state law, then it is a guarantee you're going to get it approved >> because you can't deny it if you meet those requirements, right? So, you have
to meet how ownorous you make it, right? >> You have to show that you're going to meet those. >> It can't be any more what? It can't be any more than what a single family what you would require for a single family, right? or an accessory structure in the same
zoning district, whichever is more permissive. >> So, yeah, you you got to analyze. I mean, to your point, you're going to have to look at you're going to need to know what is the existing square footage of the house on the lot. Yes, you could probably get that through the assessors, but then where are they proposing to put
this? So, so we'll know that'll tell us what's the maximum size of this ADU, but then where are they proposing to put it? And then the building commissioner is usually the one who looks at it to say, okay, do you meet the setback
requirements? How high is it going to be? Make sure it's it meets that. Are you providing a, you know, separate parking? Whatever the various things are that he looks at. I don't know how you do that without at least having some sort of uh you know a survey plan with
at least a square on it saying you know this is where the ADU is going to go with showing the setback and dimensions like from lot lines and etc. But then the site plan review component that comes to the planning board is different
because you folks are looking at design standards. you're looking at architectural features and compatibility in terms of color palettes and finishes and roof pitch and that sort of thing. I suppose you could just have a concept plan that's created as opposed to a
full-blown um you know set of construction detail plans, right? >> But what the planning board's going to be looking at is different from what the building inspector is looking at. But at the same time, you know, if
you're looking at things like roof pitch and if you're looking at an ADU that's going to be in a detached accessory structure, and if that detached accessory structure is only 5 ft off of the abuing property line, you might not
want to approve, you know, the the gable with the window facing into the neighbor's backyard. you might, you know, suggest orienting it more towards the interior of the towards the principal dwelling. Um,
so, so I can appreciate that you're trying to keep the cost down for, you know, the folks who are going to be coming in to build these ADUs, but I don't know how they get through site plan approval without
doing some of this work and paying some professionals to to show you what they're planning on doing. So is the concern not having him not having an applicant have to spend so much money up front until we're sure that it's going to go to site plan
review because once it gets to site plan review we can't deny it >> is the way I understand site plan review >> right >> it's always the question at what point do we actually say okay now you got to get construction drawings you know for the past couple of I don't know meetings
a survey was great and an asbuilt was great and a art, excuse me, architect's rendering was fine, but now we have to go to the next level and spend the couple grand or whatever. I don't know what a full set of drawings cost, but >> yeah, I mean, I guess I don't know. I
mean, I I guess um I guess we'll just have to Well, maybe another conversation. I mean, Cheryl, what do you what do you think >> as far as as far as like the level of drawing like >> Right. >> to me, >> we wouldn't expect them to be at 100%
like construction drawings like until they're ready to >> Yeah. So, let's use the example of the dormer. >> So, if you had a full set of drawings, you might have framing plans that show the dormer on the east side and then the planning board asks you to move it to the west side. So now you're not just
amending your building elevations, but you're amending your framing plans. So I do think it's worth trying to get the site plan approval done at before the full set of documents that the building department needs. So I think if we can
figure out how to incorporate that into the process with the building commissioner and with the site plan review rules and rags, I think that would be more homeowner friendly. Um, and you know the
uh the cost of these is high already and I think just having a clear process for folks would be really beneficial and and I think what we're trying to do is sort of sort out what that clear process is. So Liz, maybe you can go back and speak to Michael again based on our
conversations here. I'm happy to um join a conversation if that would be helpful. Um >> yeah, definitely. Yeah. No, I I I appreciate that. I I think um and we can update these because I think this is weird. This is all so new um that if we
were to vote on approving this tonight, we could we could vote to update it with additional changes or amendments that we would want to make. Um, but I think not giving them any, you know, I think giving them as much information as we
can at this early stage would be would be helpful. And I think we'll we'll be learning along the way. So, one of the things, Meredith, about voting tonight is I checked the folder when Liz sent this out last week, >> uh, or when you whenever you first sent
it out, Liz, and I reviewed everything that was in it, and then I didn't review I didn't get a chance to review the new things that were added to it, including >> um the memos and the final these rags. So, I would like a little time to be able to review the things that all of
these things that were added to the folder. Um, >> okay. >> Including this that this is something I do think is worth thinking through well and if and we >> have a vote at our first January
meeting. I that's what I would suggest. >> Okay. Um, >> I would try to keep the process similar to what our existing process is. Um, with the building inspector and site
approval, can we try to keep it as >> he's new? He's new. He's new and I'm new. >> Right. Right. >> So, we're so we're still trying, you know what I mean? So, some of it is still just trying to figure out that that relationship. if if I had done one with him already, it probably would be would have been easier a little bit
easier to put this stuff together. Um but um no, I think that's all I mean as long as you guys are comfortable with me um handing out like draft rules and regulations, which I did today >> because because and and it it it spells
it out pretty clearly. I mean, this this gentleman already had done um they were trying to they thought they they were hoping to maybe subdivide and so they had they had already they had already done some some drawings and had some had some had spent some money already on the property. Um so, um
yeah, I just want to I want to be able I was I I I know these are going to be coming in so I just wanted to I'm just trying to trying to be be trying to get somewhat ahead of it if we can. Cheryl, I just want to go back to your what you were originally um stating is that you had spoken to somebody who had actually
gone directly to the ZBA first, >> not the building. >> No, I don't think so. I think this was I'm sorry. I I'm not sure, Meredith. This is just something that came up. um that I recall that someone told me that
they had gone that very far thinking that it was something that was as of right approvable and then they got they had done all of the work and found out it wasn't. >> I believe an ADU was built. We currently have an ADU that is built
>> and they didn't pull any permits or whatever. You know, they didn't meet any setbacks. And so my understanding is the building inspector is trying to figure out what to do with it when they don't need any it's it's fully built. >> That's different than the one that
>> permit. Yeah. That's that's different than the one I'm thinking of. >> Yeah. And I what I just wanted to remind people of is that you can go to the ZVA if you want to exceed the 900 ft. If you don't want it to be under a pro,
still go and seek an approval for an ADU that's not under our protected use. Correct. That's my understanding. >> So, right now, if since this is a use which is allowed um and somebody wanted to build one, they would have to file for a building permit and then it would
be up to the building commissioner to decide whether the drawings were adequate. So this is really just dealing with our component of it, right? The rules and rags for the planning board's portion of it. So I think if without
having this in hand, Liz, I think if someone comes in to either your office or the building commissioner's office and is told, well, you have an addition or you have a detach, therefore you're going to need to do site plan review.
Then they're going to ask you, well, what's it entailed? What is entailed with site plan review? But the first thing that they should find out is that that's the process that they have to go through, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I and I think I think I think
the building commissioner is is do is doing that. >> Okay. >> Okay. So I do you think it's a hindrance to um to wait until the 15th of January to have the rules adopt the rules and
rags adopted? >> No, I I think I think as long as um as long as you know people are comfortable with with you know using this draft set I mean it it all the all the draft set does is is
capture what's in the bylaw. Right. So, it's not like it's it's not like it's anything that's not already on the books. It's just it's just walking people through the process, but it's all it's all it's all in the bylaw. And and honestly, this has been really useful
because because um I wasn't really thinking as much like on the from the design the design aspect piece. So, I probably need to go back and read that bylaw more carefully because I was thinking it was much more sight stuff. I wasn't I wasn't thinking that the board
was going to be talking about, you know, like aesthetics because that's that's getting into a whole other a whole other world and and and I and you know, knowing that this is a it's not a protected use, but it is a protected use sort of. Um, yeah. So, so it's probably
it's this is good. It's all it's all it's all good. >> I have no I think it's great giving people the regs, applicants the regs and use it as our beta version. see what kind of feedback you get and we just tweak it as we go. I mean, nothing's going to be perfect out of the box.
>> And you're the person that's going to hear it all. So, >> but another the need for a much more simple 10 steps. This is what you need to do instead of giving them the
>> bylaw. But I also hear Cheryl where it's like 10 steps of one of those steps is going to cost you >> Yeah. >> four grand. It's like, "Okay, wait a minute. How can we get around that, too?" >> Yeah, this is going to be expensive no matter what.
>> I I just don't see how anyone does this without spending some some real money. >> And I was pushing back on the survey at the last meeting, even though I really appreciate the value of it. So, are we going to we are agreeing we'll we'll we'll have the draft for any
applicants that come in, but um we can revisit this on the 15th. Does that sound good? And then we'll also be able to um hopefully take a vote on the site plan um rules and regs also, which we may
want to add some things in the meantime based on um some good comments that Carolyn had. Okay. All right. So, let's move on to the um rules and regs for site plan approval. Some of the comments and suggestions
that you have provided. So, I'll just I know not all of you have seen my email, so I'll just go through that. Um and the first comment relates to uh section 11.1.3
and this is about the clerk timestamping the original application. Um as we know from other types of zoning applications, everything starts with the town clerk gets stamped received by this town clerk and the clock starts to tick.
What's a little different here, however, is you go down to um 11.15 and we're talking about the planning director is going to go through that application, determine whether or not it's complete, notify an applicant if it
isn't complete, give them some period of time to cure that, and um you know, a copy of non-comp of and if they don't cure it, a non-compliance letter is then sent to the office of the town clerk. So my question in all of that is
you don't want that original application stamped by the town clerk to be starting the clock for everything. And you also want to be careful that sometimes these notices of non-compliance sometimes someone forgets
that it has to go to the town clerk or the town clerk forgets to put it in the right file with the for the right thing. Um, so it might actually I would make a recommendation that when the completed application is actually received that
that also be sent to the town clerk because if someone on the other end of this 120 days because I'm assuming we're not going to have a let's let's keep it simple and keep the special permit um combined special permit off to the side.
If this is a straightforward 120 days and if the only thing the town clerk has is the original application, well, a lot of things could happen after that original application. The planning director could go back and forth with an applicant for two months waiting for
revised plans that never come. And then, you know, a a less trustworthy applicant may try to come back later on and say, "Hey, I'm entitled to constructive approval because more than 120 days have now passed since the time I I submitted
my application." The town clerk's going to go to her file, see, oh, you're right, and it's going to be ready to issue some kind of certificate of approval. So I think we want to tighten up that process between you know the original application and a completed application
um just to make sure that there is that I would make sure that that completed application maybe that's a compliance form or somehow or other something that clearly identifies you now Liz have deemed this to be a
completed application that also has to be stamped filed with the town clerk and I would say that all of the time frames then flow from that date stamp. >> Um, you might also just decide maybe the original application doesn't have to go
to the town clerk, but um, you know, we could talk a little bit more about it, but I think it's more important to make sure that that uh, revised completed application does go to the town clerk. Um >> well just well on that note so would we
move um the 1.5 just re number it so because I was in that similar situation. Uh I went to the town clerk with an application and then I also went to the
town planner and it was a little bit um confusing. Mhm. >> So would it go to the town planner first? >> Because >> this is intended to be to be to start with the with the clerk. >> It is intended to start.
>> I mean that's how I that's how I laid it out. So are you are you suggesting with the site plan review you don't necessarily have to start with the clerk? >> That's one option. Or another option is really just to make it clear in 11.1.5 that you know you're notifying the town
clerk with this non-compliance letter if someone doesn't provide a completed application. >> What I'm suggesting is you also want to make sure the town clerk gets the completed application and gets that timestamped in. And I would further add
the time stamp on the completed application >> then starts the clock >> for the time to act. >> Right. Right. Yeah. I totally agree. All all everything that you've laid out here I Yeah. All of it. >> I would have thought it would always
start with the town planner, >> the application in the past. >> Tim, my experience when Tim was here, Tim liked it to start with him, but I don't think it's a requirement. And it it varies a lot from town to
towns. I know a lot of towns like it to go to the department first >> because and I mean absolutely nothing disparaging against any town clerk, >> but you go into the town clerk's office with your application, they're going to stamp it, say, "Thank you very much. Have a nice day."
>> Whether you've included five out of the 20 requirements or 20 out of the 20 requirements, >> that is neither here nor there to them. they're just going to stamp it in >> versus you might want in this circumstance,
>> have them file first with the planning director. You then have your preliminary review, you deem it complete, and once it's deemed complete, that has to go to the town clerk's office. >> That's why we put the preapproval process in our bylaw.
>> Yeah. I mean the pre that that kind of spell it sort of spells that out >> you know that >> to talk about having a pre-application sketch and then >> talk about identifying applicable information requirements and etc. I mean
I I'm I'd be I'd be happy to to to have them to have them you know to walk them downstairs like as far as >> but that should go into the rules and something specifying that >> Yeah. I I Yeah. I guess I guess I'm trying to uh beyond sort of like that
pre-application process like that's I think that's supposed to kind of kind of >> and I don't disagree that a lot of that should be flushed out >> but if I if I remember correctly the pre-application process is encouraged >> but not required. So what if someone skips that
>> right >> um >> and just and just wants to go ahead and just and just file >> and then it would be in their best interest to meet with you first. Yeah, you know, but >> Okay. All right. >> And especially if they have an attorney who's not familiar or hasn't worked in
Milton, >> I think naturally attorneys just go to the >> they go to the clerk. They go to the clerk. Everything under chapter 48 is go to the clerk. So, >> yeah, I I just I like I said, I think we can we could tweak this a little bit to
just tighten it up to make sure that that completed application then goes to the clerk >> and that starts the time frame for having to schedule the hearing >> and for the board to have to act all of that. >> Okay. But somebody could have some of
this >> someone insist on having it stamped in though. Sure. >> Right. Sure. So, >> okay. All right. So, all right. >> Well, they or you might get the applicant who says, "My attorney said go to the town clerk and have this stamped
in." Okay. >> Mhm. Okay. All right. But but the but but I I I hear what you're saying. I And I agree. I agree that it needs to be it. We don't want to we don't want to send stuff to the clerk that's that's going to just cause cause us headaches, you
know, down further in the process. So, I to I totally agree with that. Um and um and as long as as long as the clock starts ticking then so there's not going to be this expectation that hey I've already spent three weeks with the planning department like what are we doing here >> right
>> and and so it's clear that the clock starts ticking after the three weeks or the four weeks or the multip the meetings and the phone calls and what have you. >> So we can sort of spell that out here better. Okay, good. All right. That that'll that'll help me. Yep. Okay. >> You should also spell out some kind of a
by appointment for Liz so people aren't just walking up to your office with their stack of papers and demanding you >> address them right now just to respect your time. Would that be an issue for you? Would be an issue for me? >> I mean, >> you're at your desk at your phone and someone walks in with their site and
like got to look at this. My experience has been that typically there's there's folks are reaching out in advance because they just because they want to have a conversation to try to figure out what they're supposed to do. And and um that's my experience and and you know we
we're pretty clear on on our communications that you know we're we're out of the office a lot on site visits and at meetings so you know it's best to make an appointment with us. Um >> we did update our names on the website so Even more calls.
>> Yeah, it was good. So, it no longer says the the the prior town assistant town administrator. >> You are now no longer anonymous. >> Exactly. We have business cards. Yikes. Um, so I I I think I think that's I think that's probably okay. I mean, I
haven't, you know, I but yeah, could there be somebody who's, you know, who's aggressive and is like, "Hey, these are my rights and I want this stamped in and I want to get this thing reviewed and whatever." Yeah. So, that that can happen, too. But, but yeah, but I definitely want to um I definitely want
to sus out as much as we can before it gets it gets down it gets stamped in downstairs. I totally agree with you on that. Right. Um, my next comment was really more just a comment more than anything. um that once you've got a completed application, you
have to open the hearing within at least 30 days later, but no more than 45 days later. You know, that could if you push it out to the 45 days, that could leave leave you with just 75 days to review an application. Um
that's not very many meetings when you stop and you think about it. So, um, I also recognize that no one wants to go ahead and pay the cost or prepare the legal ad in anticipation of a completed
application and a hearing date. I I fully appreciate that. Um, the only thing I would suggest thinking about since you're also allowed to use um outside consultants that you might need for any sort of technical expertise, you don't want to wait. and I don't know
what your practice is, so please, you know, uh, you know, educate me if I need to be. But I would I would think that the better use of that time would be if if the planning director is going to get the first look at this application and make
sure it is a completed application, she's going to be in the best position to say they're going to need a traffic >> engineer. We're going to need someone to look at storm water. um you know, we might need a phototric plan. What whatever it is that you might feel that
you need, maybe we need a landscape architect um to look at some of the the the what's being proposed. You don't want to wait until you're opening your public hearing on let's say day 45 of your 120 days to have a planning board
start saying, "Well, who do you what kind what areas of discipline do you think that we need to hire, you know, an outside consultant?" Okay, Liz, do you think you could get some, you know, solicit some quotes for us and find out, okay, we come back two weeks later at our next meeting or maybe four weeks
later at the next meeting by the time you've got proposals, that's not going to be enough time for a lot of these folks to conduct a meaningful review of the project. So if it isn't your practice, I would suggest that for this, I would delegate that
peer review identification of disciplines and ability to at least solicit quotes to the planning department right from when you get an application in. you know, even if you get a quote from someone and you don't even have a a completed application yet,
you're not spending a dime, but you're giving them a sense of what what is the project, where is it located, what would it cost you to provide some kind of peer review of this for us. Um, I don't think their cost estimate is going to change much from original application to
completed application, but I want you to maximize the use of time. Um, I know the applicant could grant extensions. Again, sometimes we have applicants that are perfectly willing to grant extensions. Sometimes you've got the applicant who says, you know, you've
already had enough time with this and I'm not giving you anymore. Um, so just something to to think about as you um as you move forward with this. Um, constructive approval. Liz, you were talking about this and I think that really kind of goes handinhand with the
whole um issue of the completed application being filed with the town clerk and that sort of thing. But what we don't say is, you know, the the the bylaw just just announces that failure to act within 120 days shall be
deemed constructive approval. I think we should actually put something in the regulations as to how does one go about asserting constructive approval. Um if we use other examples of say you know under chapter 48 if someone thinks that
the zoning board didn't act on a variance within a 100 days there's a process for them to provide a notice to the town clerk to provide a notice to the parties and interest. Those parties and interest can literally initiate a lawsuit. um to challenge whether constructive
approval has has occurred. I'm not suggesting we want someone to to initiate a lawsuit, but I would think that at a minimum they've got to provide some kind of notice to the town clerk. I would think we'd want the town clerk just to check in with you, the planning
director, to make sure that there haven't been any extensions granted. Um no one's trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. Um, I had a situation in another community where we're at a meeting one night verbally the the
applicant agrees to a further extension of time. Everybody walks out of there with the understanding that we're going to get more time. Our um our the staff person did not have handy um the extension agreements, you
know, the preprinted extension agreements were not handy. So, the staff member said, "I'll follow up with them the next day." The follow-up didn't happen. The next meeting comes, we have a snowstorm, the meeting gets cancelled, you know, we go to the next meeting
date, and in the interim, what does the applicant do? The applicant files for constructive approval, and the board's all up in arms saying, "But we had a we had an agreement to extend." So, you had a verbal agreement. It never got put in writing. It never got recorded with the town clerk's office. So the town clerk's
presented with this request. Town clerk had no option but to find constructive approval. So I I I don't you know I think at least something that requires that they go to the town clerk's office to get a certificate of constructive
approval and that the town clerk um have to confer with the planning department to make just to confirm the timelines and confirms no outstanding extensions. that type of thing before it gets issued. It would just be my suggestion
for this. Um, and I think we talked about um the Dover amendment. I think that really covers most of my comments. And you know, I said I'd be happy to to tweak
the regulations a little bit, provide some language. I don't mean to just >> I don't mean to sit here and spout off some ideas and then say, >> you know, the >> two of you to >> I'm happy to redline and and and help with that. Um >> that'd be great. >> Because it may very well be that as I
notice one thing, >> maybe something else has to be tweaked just a little bit to be consistent. And then you all do it do with it what you will. >> That's great. >> These are your regulations. >> Yeah. No, this is great. I I I was I was trying to I'm trying to marry
the narrowness of of like what we can and can't do and then with kind of how they already do things here in town, you know. So, so it's a little bit of a like a little bit of art. >> Yes, it is. Yes, it is. >> You know, so no, that's awesome. That'd
be really helpful and and I can't help on the art part. So, feel free to say that is not how we do this enough. >> Okay. I don't know yet. I don't I don't know. >> There's probably some better ways to do things in Milton.
>> That could be said. That is not unique. >> So, if you see any happy to do that or if we've >> admitted something which you think is important and has worked well in other towns, >> I can certainly do that and make sure
that you've got that well before January 15th. Yeah. And I'm probably going to send you um the section of the rules which which apply to project review fees. >> Section 12. Um yeah. So we can button
that up too. Sure. Yes. Is it maybe we could add that language there about about me having the authority to, >> you know, to because because honestly like a one of these I'm I'm going to ask for $5,000 like when they apply for for
for engineering review. I mean that's just a bare minimum number. That's my my plan. >> Um so if we can somehow have that in in that section. >> Yep. and then they can have it back if we don't use it. But that that's kind of
that's how I'd like to do it. Do you have certain peer reviewers? Um I know some towns will have like a firm that is you know just waiting for you to call and say got a new project in. Here you go. Do you routinely use someone for
very safe >> civil engineers? We have few. There's a few that Okay. >> Yeah, we have some names that >> Okay. >> You I don't know if you we can >> I know Tetra I've seen Tetrate Tech. I've seen I've seen that name >> for traffic or Beta maybe.
>> There's there there there are a couple of of um firms that that have come up in a couple of projects I've looked at so far. Um I I I was planning on getting getting scopes from them for for for you know sort of general like on call
engineering services or whatever. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So I have a question about that. So say um there are applicants and they have certain traffic consultants and engineers and they those consultants work with an
applicant. Is it then appropriate for the town to hire those um consultants to review one another project? I mean, is it is it okay to be on both sides of the table?
>> Um some people feel yes, it is. Some people think I don't know that I like that. Um, you know, when we're when we're talking about peerreview consultants under chapter 4453G, the applicant's paying for it, but it is
your consultant. You hire that person. Um, the applicant can only object to our selection if they think um, you've hired a firm um, that doesn't have a traffic engineer and you're expecting them to do
the traffic assessment. So to you know they can challenge the qualifications. They can also challenge on the basis of a conflict. So but it's not exactly clear you know what what is a conflict and as an attorney I look at a conflict perhaps a little bit more conservatively than
others might. Um so for example there might be let's just take um tetrate might work for you know um developer A in Canton but then when developer A has a similar
project here in Milton maybe Tetratech is not their engineer maybe they have hired you know somebody else instead. So, do we want to then hire Tetrate Tech when we know that Tetrate Tech has worked with developer A? Maybe we don't.
And and often what I find is that the the firms you reach out to, they will say, just for the record, I have worked with this developer before. Or if they feel they truly have a conflict, they will say, I I can't submit a proposal. I have a conflict. Um or they might say
something like I am working um currently with that developer but you know in a town 25 miles from here. Do we really do we really care like is there really some kind of like inside baseball type of uh
conversation going on? I I don't have as much of an issue um with a with an engineering firm or a traffic engineer representing developers and towns provided there is some sort of
difference of the type of the project and um maybe even some distance between us and that other community they work in >> if it was in the same like in Milton because I've noticed we have done that before. >> Yeah. like a certain
consultant represented a developer in Milton and then Milton hired this the developer and I was watching and I'm like I don't think that makes sense to me. It's it's probably I I don't think it is a direct conflict because it is it I'm going to assume if it's a different
board, >> yeah, >> different different project, >> different scope of review, things like that. I mean, I could come up with probably, you know, half a dozen reasons why it's okay. >> But I get the gut reaction of, oo, I don't like that. That just seems to be a
little too close for comfort. Because you think about things that that might be said. For example, um you know, if an engineer who is working as a peer reviewer, suppose they come into the planning department, um or even like as you saw
with MAPC earlier tonight, here are preliminary findings, right? And we have a casual conversation, they get some feedback of, you know, where the board seems to be at with this project. Well, you know, an engineer could could
come in could have a conversation and say or, you know, with with any of you or or with staff and, you know, maybe be led to believe that, well, if you shave 30 projects off of 30 units off of this,
I think you'd get an approval from the board. Oh, okay. Well, then that engineer, you know, two days later is then in the developer office having a meeting with them about another project, you know, across town and says, "Oh, by the way, I
think if you knock off 30 units, you got an approval." So, there is like that that sense that there isn't you can't feel completely confident in your conversations with somebody who is representing both sides
in the same community. you know, whether everyone just has their guard up about that, um, or whether you that's just a basis to say, "No, thank you." Um, you know, I just had a a developer challenge the
selection of a peerreview consultant because the peerreview consultant worked the property straddles two property lines. The peerreview consultant worked not for the town but
for abutters in that abuing town against this particular developer but not on this project and but they didn't ever want to see that particular um you know consultant ever again. And you know I said to the but I said to the board I'm
like I don't think it's a conflict but I think it's going to be a distraction. you know, the board is going to insi they're going to appeal. They're going to insist that, you know, this guy had some implicit bias against the developer. So, you want your decision to rise and fall in its merits and not have
have it be tainted by that kind of mess. Um, so it can get a little close for comfort sometimes. So I I don't disagree that, you know, that might just be an internal policy that you just look there are enough engineering firms out there
you can find somebody who isn't working with a developer in Milton at the same time. >> Thank you. This has been really helpful, really wonderful moving us forward on getting our rules and regs solidified and and reviewing the comments from the
AG's office, which is which is great. Um, one thing I just it's not on our agenda, so I don't want to get into the discussion, but I I'm thinking of our our time frame and spring town meeting, and one of the one of the items that we
had set as a priority was to look at our signage. It was something our previous town planner had seen a lot of flaws and things that issues that had come up um some holes that were vacant. So he had previously drafted a very comprehensive
um detailed sign bylaw which we we ended up pulling back before our last town meeting because it's a huge section of definitions which we may want to separate. It was it was very detailed and some of the items were really um were understood by the sign we have a
signed review committee in town and a lot of the a lot of the items are technical. So for somebody who would be working with a signed designer, it all made sense to to a lay person. It might be like, oh, I don't understand what
that terminology that lumens, you know, certain lighting levels. Um, and we just had it will be familiar to town meeting because they've just gone through that with the lighting trespass bylaw that was recently passed, but a lot of it's technical. Um, so we have a draft of
that, but we also have what was passed most recently in 20ou in um 2017. So what I thought is without taking up anyone's time right now, but I just wanted to get permission would be to ask
Carolyn to start begin reviewing that. >> Sure. in with the expectation that we would like to have a really good sign bylaw for the spring that would and I can we can have a conversation offline on what were some of the um the problems and things that have come up billboards
for example being one of them um neon lights they'll be fine >> so really and a lot of the work that we've done in our um in some of our we've been doing some overlay zoning in Milton Village East Milton square where
we put some design guidelines into those which we are hoping to sort of tie into what what we would like to see our signs look like in town. Um meeting you know not internally lit signs you know doing more you know when appropriate and and
pro what we can prohibit again and what is reasonable that we would like to you know work with um a shop owner or a business owner. So, if you could help us begin and maybe again you have you know of towns who have really good sign review. Uh >> I'm going to tell you most town sign
bylaws really are not that good. They are usually like they are usually either exactly what you describe. Why do we have 15 pages talking about signs? What's the difference between a monument sign and a ground sign and a you know >> y a down up and you know the size of a
sign you know and and so you know as a historic town we want to keep the character but we also want to you know work with our businesses as well so people find their Yeah. They want to be able to find their restaurants and salons. Exactly. Right. >> Right. Right. Exactly. So that would be
um that would be great to take a pass at that and and and you can see where we are in both. Could I get a a copy of that prior draft? I mean, are are you happy with that prior draft and just want it to kind of be >> I think it could be simplified >> somehow. Um, don't reinvent the wheel,
but work with that draft. Yes. Okay. >> All right. >> I think it's longer than 15 pages. >> Yeah, it was too long. It >> was too much, but we tried to cover everything >> and a lot of it was a lot of it was definitions which are maybe could go into a different section which wouldn't
be so cumbersome. Okay. >> And let me ask you as far as like I do you have a schedule out yet for um having to submit warrant articles? We do. I don't have it in front of us right now, but we could get that to you as well. >> Okay.
>> So, um yeah, because there's a few things that we would like to be thinking about, but some things we'll be working on, but we recognize they won't be ready for a spring town meeting. >> Okay. Um, that's good. >> Does that sound good to everyone? Um, if
I just at least give to get ahead of things. Sure. And I know we're in the holidays now, so I don't expect any, you know, feedback until >> Nothing says, you know, Christmas Eve like a good sign by. >> Exactly. It's amazing just because we've been so tied to all of these different
schedules with deadlines how quickly they come, you know, because the warrant committee needs time to review and select board and we want to make sure that >> um they're ready sooner than later for so people can have in public hearings. People could give comments. So, >> nope, that's fine. That's why if you
just let me know so I make sure I, you know, make you get what you need before >> a deadline. >> We can send those to you. Perfect. >> Thank you. So, anything anyone else has, Liz? Anything?
>> Well, it's a lot. That's a lot. Thank you. You did. >> Well, welcome and we're grateful. >> Well, thank you. It's It's I'm looking forward to working with all of you guys. Thank you. And um >> I probably will not see you. So, happy holidays.
>> Happy holidays to you. >> Signed by law in January. I know. Thank you. >> Oh, have a good rest of the meeting. >> You too. >> I'm sure it's warmed up to about 50° out there. >> Yeah. >> The winds. It was the winds.
>> Oh my gosh. I know. Just >> something about this building. You end up parking farther away from the entrance. >> Yes. >> I know. >> In the side door, >> right? It's so very true. >> You don't notice it until you're in a night like tonight. >> But I enjoy being in this new built space. So,
>> no. I don't know. It sounds like maybe people want the like the basement better. >> You guys might be might be basement dwellers. I don't know. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> That's um so that was great. So we
>> Yeah, she's going to be fantastic. >> Great. Yeah, KP is going to be great. Um so we had just talked about having each of our committees just give an update. Um, and we just I gave an update on open space last time and um, so just thought
you could just highlight what's happening with the capital improvement committee at this point. If there's >> Yeah, I love being on capital. It's great. Um, >> but thank you for serving. >> I don't want to be Mr. Negative, but it's grim. You know, we we approve um,
anything over 25 grand that lasts 5 years or longer. Fire trucks, street sweepers, windows at the school, windows at the town hall. Um, and most of the department, all of the department heads will give us a five-year outlook of what they want. And
if you add up everything that they want over the next five years, it's I think it's $220 million. >> And we allocate about a million bucks a year. >> So, you know, what do you do? Yeah. >> Um so what we're doing is listening to
all the department heads like um DPW came in this you know on Zoom came to me this morning. >> Um facilities came last week and we just asked them for their top three. What are your three most urgent things and we try to split up the million dollars
accordingly. Um, you know, last year was a little more exciting in that we had the um fourth floor of Cunningham >> classroom buildout, which I really pushed for as a planning guy because we have a global crowding problem and we have 500 more units coming online soon
and >> we're going to need classroom space. So, that I I thought was sort of >> great. We blew the budget, but I think it was lowhanging fruit and it was definitely good use of the money. um this year it's not as you know satisfying but to the department heads
they need this money and they need these things whether it's a firet truck or a street sweep replaced and I got to give away the money as the best we can. So we haven't made any decisions yet as to where the money is going to go but um hopefully we're going to meet two more times and by January we'll be able to
make recommendations to the warrant. Now, do you guys tend to give out um fewer um fewer projects but larger sums or do you do more projects at a a lower dollar
amount for each project? >> I think it's 50/50. I mean, we're just putting out fires. >> Yeah. >> Whatever the urgent need is and whether it's a, you know, um something came up about flushing the boiler at um Cunningham Collieott. It's got glycol in
it, clogs the system. You got to flush it. We haven't flushed it in a while. Um, and it led to a freeze up. So, we're like, "All right, we have to do this." >> Wouldn't that be in an operating budget for >> um for maint for maintenance for um
because I think that's where some people have said, "Oh, we >> we had to build all new schools because we had let you know things just weren't maintained or weren't kept up and now we have consolidated facilities. Does consol consolidated facilities
submit a budget request for saying this is what maintenance is going to cost and we're going to have to flush this boiler every >> few years. >> What triggered it was it's over >> that should be built into more of an operating than a capital. >> It should be but what triggered it was over 25,000. Now whether it stays with
us or not there was another thing. It was a um a hot water heater at one of the schools that was 85 grand to replace. >> Wow. Um, so I I don't know if that I I mean I kind of agree it should be >> because Bill Richie did a great job. I thought I mean he always did wonderful
job but it would seems like maybe some things that we know should be presented in the annual budgets you know when we're looking at everything. >> I can go back and ask because we're going to meet again on Thursday. So the difference in operating versus capital,
>> but I know because it was 25 over 25,000 it brought it to our attention. Whether it stays with us or not, I'm not sure. >> Question. >> Oh, Cheryl, sorry. >> Yeah, Jim, do you review uh items that get bonded? So larger
um expenditures that would go out for bonding. Yeah, most of our stuff is bonded versus free cash. >> Oh, just just a million dollars though each year because don't things come on and off the bond? I don't know, whatever it's called. But I thought those were
fairly large. Some of them >> like the new fire stations. >> The new fire stations that um >> those will be bonded, but I don't know if those would be the capital.
Um, so I know we talked about the um the park down at the warf if that was going to come to us and um where are my notes here? Hold on a second. We spoke to that and I I kind of
felt that that wasn't really a capital project that should come from CPC. Um, but I don't know. I would imagine that would be bonded, >> but I guess I don't I I can say I don't know. >> Has the CPC bonded anything yet?
>> Well, as the board's representative to the CPC, no, not yet. Um, but there is some ongoing discussion about doing that. Um I think it's about been about a million
dollars also for CPC funds, you know, to disperse across historic preservation, recreation, open space, and affordable housing. Um but I was thinking um
like the debt service that the town has, you know, as far obviously it has things like the fire stations, but it also has other um things that I don't think have to go to town meeting for debt override exclusion
or to the town voters overall. So, I I I'm just curious, Jim, maybe some you could kind of find out what the process is for some of those if if you don't have them on a regular basis because it seems to me like a million dollars could
be like one department's request. And I can see why you have $220 million worth if you're only giving if you only are able to distribute a million dollars a year. They're just going to keep aggregating, right? So, I'm just curious what happens with those requests eventually, like at a certain point, you
know, if you there's a capital request for a roof replacement and you don't replace it, you're going to have some problems. I'm just wondering how many things like that there are. I think there's a ton. Um, and I think unfortunately it gets rolled into next year.
Um, and I think at some point it triggers an override, but we just had an override. So, I think the the goal is to avoid another override. But, you know, I can I can find out more. That's the way I understand it is if if capital doesn't
get funded, it gets pushed to the next year and hopefully next year it gets funded. Um, I mean, Richard Wells keeps bringing up, you know, John Furelli from the library waited, I think, eight years to get a generator at the at the library. He finally got it, but you just
keep pushing it to the next year and pushing it to the next year. Now, I don't have a generator. It's not a catastrophic fail, but if you know, we've let by call build up in a boiler and it freezes, that's a catastrophic fail that leads to more. >> Yeah. So, see that I feel like that
generator is sort of an extra where a roof or a boiler should not be a capital expenditure. To Merida's point, that is a maintenance and should be an operating. >> Yeah. And I don't know how to push it
over to that because there's also reccocking of the windows. That should be a maintenance item. It's relatively >> simple. >> Yeah. >> But you know, it comes before us and I guess I don't know why. >> So I could find out the difference between maintenance and >> Yeah. We don't Yeah.
>> Cuz I always thought capital were the extras. >> That's >> you know the extras that you know like Chromebooks for the um >> for the school department like >> fire truck replacement and stuff. >> Yeah. >> Even Chromebooks are 319,000.
That's 20% of them. So every year be 20% of them. >> And then a new fire truck. Isn't that like 750,000? >> 1.1. >> And EV vehicles for town staff for the you know inspection department. You know
they use town vehicles. I think they are >> they all need one. >> They all over over the next five years. >> Yeah. >> Electrical inspector, plumbing inspector, building inspector. They all >> the board of health wants one. COA wants a new band, but hopefully that'll be a grant. It's just it's a ridiculous amount of money that we need.
>> Well, I know my um my committee's not on this, but the budget at the budget overview committee, it says we have $4.2 million in in >> free cash, >> free cash. So, that's a discussion. >> A question. I get to answer it. I ask it
today. That was my you know are we so are we financing that free cash with our override last year right.5 mil >> but four million in free cash >> and those are expenditures by the the
select board approves from the free cash >> yeah so yeah because we're looking at some of the planning um you know expenditures that we're we might need to make and are important enough to use free cash. You know, the
recottification, you know, hiring doing some important work that um may need um to borrow from free cash if it's a if it's a townwide, you know, initiative that's worthy. So, >> and how long does the free cash last?
Does it last a year? Does it last three years? Does it last five years? >> I think the goal is to last four years and then every four years have an override. >> Replenish the free cash. Yeah, with prop two and a half it's almost impossible to
good. All right, thank you so much. That's I appreciate that. Um and so the next thing um and I just I really just wanted to take the opportunity to to thank this entire board um every
staff for all the work that has been done in the last couple of years. I mean I think it's um somebody had asked well what does the planning board do you know is it really the planning board other than MBTA you know what have they been doing
this was putting together a chart which everyone can review and look at which is the last three years because I think a lot of residents in the town don't realize how much the planning board has been doing so beyond MBTA beyond ADU
beyond site plan approval. Beyond overlay zoning in the Milton Village design guidelines, overlay zoning in East Milton Square, we have been highly productive and I just want to thank everybody for the number
of meetings that we have had to to get through. Um, and we have, you know, I think we have a good set of goals um that are um that are ahead of us. Um, we don't have to go into huge detail, but I
just want to acknowledge Maggie actually put together a chart because somebody had questioned you and said, "Well, what has the planning board been doing?" And I have I keep a list. We have our, you know, our annual reports, but I've been keeping a list of all the things that
we've been doing. So, I gave you my list and you know, all the ANRs we've approved, all of the, you know, all of the um, you know, the preschools, the the the memory care facility. I mean, it's it's really there have been some
massive projects that I think we've worked really well together on um on doing and with our applicants. Um, we're seeing a lot of construction. And I think a lot of people don't realize how much development is in the pipeline right now. They're starting, you know,
they're seeing 440 granite going up. They've just, you know, the Henry site has been completed recently. The um now we we were seeing 40B projects around town. So I think people are seeing how much has been going on and really
keeping that in mind when people are like, well, we need more development. we need, you know, more tax base that they understand how much development and what the capacity of the town staff is um from the planning department, from the building department, really what is
required to manage and oversee all of these projects, you know. So when we look at things and we look at how much more development or you know what we how we want to have control over our our
projects. It really is a balance of you know how we grow the town but in a responsible way. And so Maggie, I just I know you put a chart together which what we would like to do is um put something and I think Liz you said that we could
do this is have it on our website, have it available because we do list project developments, approved projects, you know, there's categories, but to have a spreadsheet like this I think might be helpful and it will keep, you know, and we can keep a running um sort of a
running inventory of of the projects that we are that are pending or approved or completed and maybe we even have a category there. And um I don't know if people have had a chance to take a look at that and if there's anything that's
um missing that has not been included and just the last I know you updated and I didn't get to see the updates Maggie. So if you just want to highlight some of the things that you were working on with that. Um, well, I have, you know, I I've
only been on the board since 2022. Um, and I know a lot of the time has spent on um, MBTA. And so I was sort of,
you know, I kind of got a little annoyed with a couple town meeting members after the past town meeting said, "Oh, the planning board, you know, doesn't, you know, what have they done? What have they done?" And so it prompted me to go through be like, you know, we're busy
and you know, if you ask our families, our families would say we're busy. So I kind of was I took a little bit of offense to um to when someone said when two people said um the planning board
doesn't do anything. Um, so I went through um back to 2022 when we started and I don't know if this is the proper way to do a spreadsheet. Maybe the information can be a little bit different. So I don't you know it can be
changed um however anybody wants to change it. Um, but I think we've accomplished a lot and I feel like people we get a large audience on hot button um topics and that's why you know
people tune in but on every day like I don't know how many people are tuned in tonight and one >> well not necessarily the live stream though >> yeah they could be watching and they watch it on repeat um but I think on normally we don't actually get a super
large viewing audience all the time or they tune in and tune out and so they don't really know what's um what has happened and to Merida's point um a lot of people have said oh I just didn't know you know I didn't know that
Randolph a 40B project is so big and it's interesting because that's the project that's been talked about for the past 15 years so I don't know why people didn't really know it because it's been around for that long. So, I just want to again echo Meredith's um comments. You
know, I enjoy being on the board and I enjoy working with all of you and we always have different perspective on things, but I think everybody really works hard and I just want the town's people to know that we work hard and and fortunately I work with the public and I
hear um praise for the board and say thank you for all that you did. So, I just wanted to kind of pass it along if you guys are not um you don't see as many town residents perhaps, but a lot of people are >> and I hear that a lot as well. People really do appreciate
>> they they do appreciate all the effort and everyone from what I hear is they say every board member works hard. So, I just was trying to um you know quantify and put in writing. I'm a visual person and I like to to see things and we
should take accomp we should be proud of our accomplishments, you know, and um and recognize all that we do. So So that's why I did that. So thank you. >> I think it's great. And then you look at
top of the list, second page, 111 Highland Street. Granted, we got it passed, approved, whatever. It took almost a year. >> I mean, how much time is associated with each one of these line items? >> So, you're 100% >> so many hours. This is this represents
so many hours times five people plus a planning director plus an assistant planning director. I mean, the amount of hours I can win in this job is out of control. >> Yeah. So, that's one um column that I was sort of contemplating was should I put >> number meetings? Number of hours. >> Yeah. how long it took, how many months
of meetings, and I didn't have the time to do more. >> Take more time out of your time. >> Yeah. So, but I think I did think about that. >> But it's good community outreach, you know, all of the different public forums that we've held, you know, really trying
to educate for those who say, "We didn't know about MBTA zoning, like when did this happen?" you know, it was we we've tried to really put things out there and and be as transparent and communicate communicate as um as often as possible.
So maybe, you know, the staff could think about how we a good way to put that on the website. Maybe you might want to reformat it or do something else with it. Um I'm not looking at you want to, but you are very technically savvy
and so we would love your ideas. So, um, >> and like Cheryl's been on it longer than all of us. So, I think, you know, to recognize Cheryl's, um, >> absolutely, >> you know, input. Feel free to add all the stuff that you've done, Cheryl. You know, it's been on it longer than I
have. So, um, >> Maggie, you know, I was looking for something the other day and I found myself on the archive section of the website and it had zoning articles that we worked on in 2015 and there were like
10 at least and I was looking at them and thinking, well, you know, some of these were probably sent back for further study and they haven't been studied since in 10 years. But, you know, there are things on the website and I'm not sure how I found it, but maybe it would be something to um to
make a little easier to find, you know, like initiatives or archive materials from different years. Uh so, if people are interested um in one of those topics, they could ask the board, you know, to pick it back up, you know, to put a priority on it. Um but one of the
things one of the um you know projects that uh you know speaking of things that take time um you know the zoning so the memory care we talked about the permitting of it there was zoning for that there was zoning for winter valley there was zoning for the
great estates which allowed for the Wolfcott Woods permitting >> um there was the overlay zoning in Milton Village um some zoning that we should revisit for the corner of um Brook and uh the parkway there where the
old uh the building is probably condemned by now the the falling apart. Yeah. So, um, you know, one of the things I think that we've talked about, uh, before that's been looked at, that probably wants to be looked at again is like pre-existing
non-conforming, like the businesses, you know, um, grade estates, whether uh, condo conversion only applies to 10acre properties now. So, there's a lot of things um that I'm sure that a lot of people don't um
uh even realize that, you know, um some of the challenges or the the issues that might want to be addressed. Um scenic roads, you know, we talked about um scenic roads and whether we should
update that. So, there's lots of um I guess history in my 10 years, you know, with different members who've had different interests. Um and there's a lot of good material that we should probably take a look at again. >> Well,
um thank you. So, I think with that, um concludes everything on our agenda. Um, unless there's anything else from anyone, this was a great meeting and thank you all. Um, and I wish everyone
>> Yes, >> I'm sorry. Before um I'll just make a request for an agenda topic um the the master plan committee, you know, the three members that the planning board um
will need to um appoint. I don't know if you've had conversations with um Liz, Dylan, or Benzel how the the three appointing bodies are going to do that to make sure that there's the kind of skill sets. But that's just something
I think that could be discussed. And then also um you know the board want role in um in thinking about an up the targeted update to the master plan.
>> Yep. I think that those are good. Um I think so far I think there's there's been two applications so far on for the master plan committee. Um but yeah, I think process wise we can
discuss that um how we how this board and I think each bo each board will probably have their own process on how they want to do it. Um but um but yeah, I think that would be great to talk about that. >> Yeah, just it's a question of, you know,
making sure you get the cross-section of um right where people more members live and their skill sets. That's all. >> Yep. Exactly. Great. All right. Well, thank you all. Um, and I just wish everyone a happy holidays
and um, hopefully some good time with your families and to relax and enjoy. All right, so without a motion to adjourn. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> And I'll second. >> Uh, roll call. All in favor or roll
call. >> Maggie, >> yes. >> Jim, yes. >> Cheryl, yes. And myself, yes. >> Good evening. Good night. >> Good night. Night. Good night.