##VIDEO ID:ozXGTc7_0H8## [Music] good evening and welcome to the 21st meeting of fiscal year 2025 for the Milton planning board um we are um meeting remotely this evening and um we can begin with introductions um Sean just texted that he is trying to connect but we'll go ahead and just um Begin by uh introducing our ourselves on the board and then our staff this evening uh Jim Jim Davis member Cheryl Cheryl toas secretary Maggie Maggie fi member and myself Meredith Hall serving as chair um and with staff this evening we have uh Cheyenne Cheyenne Frasier assistant director of planning and Julia Julia getman clerk great thank you and good evening all and Cheyenne and Julia if you could just keep an eye out for Shan um who is trying to get on and join us and should be with us shortly um at this time I'd like to Now call the meeting to order our first um we have two agenda items this evening the first item we have is the discussion of our zoning articles um tonight um I thought because it is most pressing uh that we get through these tonight so we can get these to the warrant committee um that the one that needs the most work is the Adu since the uh final regulations came out at 5 o'clock on the evening of our last meeting so um Cheyenne if you would like if you could pull up um the working draft that we were working on sort of the last clean clean copy great um and would the members like to sort of just walk through this real quickly sort of where we were um for the public just to bring them up or do we um wish to sort of I think continue where we were where we were last Meredith if we could just quickly run through just in light of the updated regs just I think it's good to start at the top right perfect okay all right so um being getting up here yeah this all looked great the definition of accessory dwelling unit changed a little bit or changed right right so um I think we need to make it consistent U so can we just look at the the very beginning cheyen of the definition of accessory dwelling unit okay um so maybe part of it is just the way it's organized right so it's a maintains did anybody U do a comparison of the exact language so building code instead of state code so on online one two three four five uh instead of State Building Code we we capitalize build so strike the word State and capitalize building and capitalize code and then under after the word short-term rental is that here somewhere no maybe because we that's handled separately here because of the definition okay um didn't we talk about getting rid of detached unit as a it was as a in one of the definitions we did yeah yeah but before we get down to that one um do you think um just if we're trying to match um the state RS do you think we should I know this is minor but we have it as um you know um subject otherwise applicable dimensional and parking requirements that colon and then we have I yeah formatting are you talking about Maggie just formatting and the state has it at ABC I think it's probably a good idea to make it consistent I agree so sh I think you just need to also move those down to separate lines after you're done with the number in I wanted to look at this language that mereda you had added at the end here yeah this this had come from a previous um article that we had created I just I'm concerned about making the it part of the definition right yeah and I think we said let's just you know we can take that out okay we can take that out great then I think um after that we need to add um a definition for building code that's in the updated Rags um so it just says the Massachusetts State Building Code comma 780 CMR I think you can You' see that Cheyenne right right uh no I don't see that okay so okay so after the word massachusett just write um State Building Code comma 780 CMR period yeah they don't uh capitalize State and building code here in this definition just Massachusetts is capitalized thanks you know what I'm I'm wondering because all of this we're going to have to go through and this is this is changed um since those regs I'm wondering Cheyenne would you be able to pull up the state regs definitions and we can literally copy that whole section because there's quite a bit in that that we don't have as well as being different as being different so if we pull that up maybe we can do a copy and paste and save time is that possible Cheyenne to I should have I'm sorry I should have probably mentioned that earlier to you no yet have that ready because they had a lot of additional definitions that we did not have so while she's doing that Meredith um and if did all of you see under use and occupancy restrictions um which is also in the definitions that we can't um have a restriction on the number of occupants beyond what is required by applicable state code so we we can't have um a number of people per bedroom right I did see that so we have to scrap okay well and there's a couple of other things that we're goingon to have to change too okay setbacks under 10,000 sare foot Lots right also while um che's doing that um the AG's office has offered to review Adu bylaws before they're adopted and I was thinking that would be a good idea um I know it's not a lot of time but it seems to me once we have on the other hand we could wait until the model bu law is issued and compare it ourselves before we send it in but I I just I did want to mention that that opportunity is available to us yeah and the AG um on their website they do have a um a portal so to speak where you can go and see all the approved um bylaws so I did go and look at those but they haven't approved any new Adu B the RS came out so they are pretty good about um you can see what language they've approved and they have it and some language they approved at the end of last year is no longer in the rag so all those towns have to rewrite it and I think what we could do is we could finalize we could finalize this document send it over to the warrant committee have it ready because we do want to get it on to the February town meeting but we could ask Cheyenne to send it over um and we could Green Sheet anything that we needed if we needed to change something remove anything that was not appropriate or but I would like to get that we need to finalize this tonight so we can get it to the warrant committee yeah they have a lot of other so I guess um do we do we have all of their definitions yet not yet not yet yeah so just another um General comment is um the how it's handled for non-conforming Lots not being able to restrict that you um an Adu to a conforming lot or ALS also a minimum lot size uh because those definitely the minimum lot size is new which we weren't putting in anyway but I think just for uh the public that might be watching um the regulations don't allow for a provision that limits adus on a lot size basis or on a non-conforming lot or non-conforming structure basis mhm we also spoke about utility connections and the regulations do not allow requiring a separate utility connection but we'll have to look at that provision and when the one thing I noticed that when we get to it you know we've talked about that we are not allowed to add a you know if it's within the half mile a parking you know an additional parking place for an Adu but I don't think we put I don't think we put language in um stating that we can restrict it to to one if it's out that we could have a minimum of one parking place outside of the half mile you can't require more than one but you don't have to limit it to one either right correct and we didn't put any language in I think we started to talk about parking but we when we get there um I wanted to revisit that language as well a note Cheyenne you did miss the definition of eohc yeah they added a lot of definition yeah there's three full pages should we let should we maybe move forward and then yes back fill this later because it this will take Cheyenne I and I appreciate Cheyenne you're doing this very efficiently but um but maybe oh Sean is saying it seems like he's not a panelist so let's give Cheyenne a minute to maybe bring Shawn in as a panelist is he iPad too is um let's probably okay yeah maybe that's why there he is great yeah yeah Cheyenne that's probably my fault um because I think my iPad doesn't identify me as who I am no problem your iPad 2 I'm no iPad 2 my iPad 1 is on a Delta flight someplace okay good thank you for joining us Sean I'm sorry I could I've been listening to it all I just get we haven't gotten too far yet we're on the still definitions so Cheyenne's gonna while we move forward um we'll let cheyen come in and just fill those so we have all the same um definitions as the hlc regulations can I go back to a question that um I have that we just talked briefly about utility connections and um do they I don't think they said anything specific about a detached Adu I mean I I understand that an Adu within an within the same structure would not have its own utility connections but I think a detached Adu should have its own utility connections I I read it interpreted it that we could not require it but they don't distinguish it either way do they they don't distinguish a detached structure no because they don't have detached even in their definition so they're just whether it's attached or detached is just an um Adu they're not distinguishing between them couldn't we add that if if an Adu is detached I don't think it allowed as Meredith said well if they don't because what it says is u in the RS uh any requirement concerning utilities safety and emergency access that is more restrictive than is permitted by state requirements including the fire code this is one of the things that's an considered an unreasonable regulation and then it says a municipality may not require a separate utility connection such as water sewer electric provided that a separate connection may be required by a municipal or Regional utility investor owned utility by state law by a local Regional or state board or commission or by court order so I don't know if what you're suggesting fits in well I'm not I'm not suggesting it because to make it restrictive I'm suggesting it to make it appropriate you know we're g to we're g to we're going to you know connect water from one structure to another structure we're going to connect waste from one structure to another structure and that doesn't make sense to me and and nor is it nor is it typical to extend electrical you know from one building to another building but it's not to be restrictive it's to be appropriate yeah it doesn't it doesn't um um prohibit that from happening it's just that you can't require it so if that's standard practice then if an applicant came in and with a separate utility request I don't think that's something that the regulations would prohibit it's just that it can't be required well maybe maybe it's not a requirement but maybe it should say that utility connections to a attached a to you as subject to the you know jurisdiction uh you the authority having jurisdiction and the utility um companies so yeah I guess that might fit into that language that's in I don't think we should I don't think we should present to anybody that you can just connect one building to another building you know if someone's looking at an Adu um bylaw and and interpreting that they don't have to bring a utility connection and we may be misleading them and I think to write language that says that utility connections to an Adu detached Adu is subject to the authority having jurisdiction and the utility service providers I don't think there's anything restrictive about that I think it's informative and and probably beneficial and I do feel like if we put it in and for some reason the AG doesn't like it then she will just strike it the harm and add a CL Sean and I like that language that you used because it might be out of the control of the homeowner or the tenant and the T you know it might be the utility company that determines at a minimum it allows an applicant an opportunity to explore it before they get too far down the road and find out that it's required at a minimum you know maybe they'll go to the authority having jurisdiction and they'll say no problem you can connect it from one building and maybe the utility company will say that but I don't think we should mislead people uh and I'm not it might not mislead might be a an incorrect term but I think we should prompt people to make sure that they can do what they want to do okay all right so let's take a look at that when we get to that language so here we are we're at C General conditions uh and requirements so one two we had added that three and six all right I think um this is where we we had said we know we the number of occupancy of the adus shall be limited to a maximum of two residents per bedroom we're going to have to take that out um and I'm not sure if we can have the number of bedrooms yeah that'll have to be on the landlord yeah I think we have to take both of those out okay time but um can we go back to um number one there I think there was a change in that language in the rag um just quickly all right just keep going actually I'll look for it and then I'll I'll bring us back to it when I find it okay this is number 10 utilities such as water sewer electricity and gas for the Adu may be on so we were saying maybe on the same service as the primary dwelling is that enough Sean or did you want to add further language to that well I I still I still think that it should um you know where they don't make a distinction here of whether that's applicable to an Adu within a structure or in a separate one I think we should add language and and um have it read um detached or utility connections or you maybe it should read out let's see utilities for a detached Adu are subject to the authority having jurisdiction and the utility service provider and I think Cheyenne it probably should say for a detached are subject to the requirements of the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction in the utility service provider should you keep should that should be the second sentence probably yeah should not be the Le sentence yeah utility such as water maybe in the same utilities for a detached just say utilities for an Adu are subject to the requirements and then the second sentence would the utilities such as water sewer would there ever be an incident instance where an Adu in the primary dwelling would that require or would they want a separate connection for metering purposes you know it it's it's it's it's easier but you you don't have to I mean this there there are apartments that are you know that pay utilities or are have utility cost allocated based on square footage or or another measure but um so maybe we shouldn't in the second sentence not highlight detached well maybe what we should do Maggie you know the first sentence um uh we should add similar language in the first sentence utilities such as water so electricity and gas they may be on the same service as the primary dwelling you know subject to the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction then I don't think you need the second sentence you could say utilities for a primary as well as detached Adu and just make the qualification the same for both but you're just if you're referring to an Adu you're not distinguishing between attached and detached you don't need the second sentence the first sentence covers it yeah I I don't disagree with that I think um cheyen you you want to add in there the the utility as well subject to the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction uh subject to the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction and the utility service provider then at least what we've done is for for someone who would like to to do this we've at least prompted them to U you know confirm that they can do what they'd like to do and we can see how um if that's found to be acceptable so let's let me read this one more time because I think I think what we've said here is that they can be on the same service subject to the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction in the utility service provider so which is fine but um because that's what the reg say Sean that's why it's giving a qualifier but the reg say you can't require it to be otherwise so right I think the qualif gives you what you were looking for which is not entirely no because this doesn't speak to the detached Adu you know I I would still like to add the language that says that you know the utilities for a detached ATU should be subject to the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction and the utility service provider because in this sentence here we're saying that they can be um you know where're we're affirming that they can be the same service but we we don't know that for a detached no one should presume that it could be and I don't see it as restrictive I see it as prompting an applicant to confirm you know we're not saying that it can't be we're just saying that it's subject to you know those that really should be saying whether it can or it cannot sh did you have that's the I mean on the one hand it's singling out the utilities but there's other things that the building officials will have to determine that meet other building code requirements right so um zoning is only one part of the review uh for one of these applications to the building department right correct so many of these things about Adu will have to be confirmed by the building official or the fire chief yeah I I I don't consider utility connections a small matter um I think it's a really important matter and you know if the AG disagrees with adding the language they will strike it um but if they don't I think it's actually good language to have for all parties involved it's it's good for our town officials that um have to contend with with uh uh you know the applications and it's also good for the applicant that they won't assume something that they shouldn't assume so I don't see any harm with adding the language separately that says a detached Adu uh or utility connections for a detached Adu as subject to the requirements that same language again sh you subject to the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction and the utility service provider I don't see any harm in this at all me more information is always better so yeah we could go around if it's good or not good so let's just add it if it's not good then she'll strike it I'm going to try and go [Music] back if you don't want to go back Cheyenne I can I can just I can help you with this sure thank you okay so um I uh we would write utilities um for a detached Adu are subject to and you can copy just what you have written above the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction and the utility service provider and I think i' I'd add a couple words just to help here um where it says utilities maybe we should write um utilities uh connection requirements or connections utility connections I think that's simple [Music] okay and that was in that number nine just to point out that is where language of the parking space shall be provided for each Adu located on a lot um the question I had is do we want to put in any language which um we had in some previous versions saying that there are no more than five vehicles allowed to be parked on a on a lot containing a a single family well we can't write into this section something that's intended for single families in general right it seems like that would be something that would have to be modified elsewhere I mean it's in our general zoning I just you know if you've if you have an Adu with four college students who want to you know and you've got a family parked and then all of a sudden you have more than five vehicles I just was going to refer to what our zoning is as far as um limit to number of parking cars to be parked it's a good thing to put in because most people don't know that um yeah that's it was sort of a I was looking for that language before can't make an Adu more restrictive than a family corrected in the single family that allows us to restrict it for yeah but I think it's five cars for the primary and then you can't restrict it more than five cars for the Adu so I read it as this allows you a total of 10 if you have an Adu I don't think so I mean I hope not but that's the way let's well all right let's um I'll try to look for that language and see and we can come back to that if we want to add something I just thought it might be helpful if all of a sudden you know somebody has a you know a lot of cars being parked on the lot that aren't um the building department would have to enforce so I'll we'll come back to that if in our general bylaws not our zoning so are we able to do a start yeah maybe that's on while you're looking for that on the design standards number two um there this provision um is more restrictive than because we don't have a provision like this for primary dwelling so I'm not sure this would fly um we could say that it's encouraged um so that we draw attention to it just like the Energy Efficiency but I um so it we should we could say landscape area is in um is encouraged or it's encouraged to be provided or something like that and then strike shall be provided do you want me to put the is encouraged where that was let's see where say at the end yeah where it shall be provided that might make sense to put it there you know one of the things that came up in the um in the Ado Adu session that hlc held is that um it was discussed whether um a homeowner could put an additional driveway or a curb cut and I didn't see any restrictions um such that we might want to add language saying no additional um language um in additional driveway or curve cut shall not be added or an Adu well don't think about does that include like an extension of a driveway when you say additional driveway driveway or no secondary or something like that I would say no additional curb cut for the intention of a driveway or for for a driveway don't you have to go to the zva to get permission for a secondary curb cut cut yeah you would I don't know I don't know that I don't I I believe we've had to do that on some jobs yeah I don't know where you have to go Maggie but you can't just add a curb cup you have to go to the zba think you have to get DPW and police approval first they have to come out and check it out High because then they'll um as well right I think it might might be easiest just to write again I'm gonna go back to that phrase I used earlier on utilities but you know you know should an additional curb cut be required it's subject to um you know the approval of the authority having jurisdiction you know and and if one isn't required I mean then they obviously wouldn't but you know at least if one is needed to make it work we're we're we're safeguarding the town that the applicant knows they have to go through whatever channels there are right sh I think that should be a separate standard so I agree with the chery I think I think it's significant enough it should be separate I agree with the chery and we also I think we somehow lost um that all staircases external all staircases should be enclosed yeah I was I was wondering I took that out Meredith because we don't have such a requirement on single families to we but I guess a single family doesn't necessarily require a second exit like that so maybe you're right it should be added back in we can see what the AG says about that yeah that was in our previous find sorry now I don't see that language I pulled it up on the left hand side is it oh great yes all stairways to stories perfect great so we'll add think we should bring that back do you want it just after number three or yeah I think that's anything else in this section so maybe again number six I think I added this one but I'm not sure that this is the case for all single families so maybe it should be from the sidewalk or driveway uh it's really about having adequate pedestrian access right for the Adu um so sh can you scroll down to the um the uh just above E I just wanted to read this once more the energy efficient features and sustainable materials are encouraged you could add but not required to that again this is trying to encourage folks to think about this but it can't be mandated because it's not mandated elsewhere how how does how does an uh wouldn't an Adu be subject well um to the requirements to the end yeah uh but I think there might be a limit um I don't think I this one's so new I don't think I know it well enough but um but I'm I guess what I'm thinking is we shouldn't build ad use to a standard lesser than we're trying to build single family residential homes in terms of Energy Efficiency they would have to meet the well here's the thing there's a trigger for the uh specialized stretch code of 1,000 square ft so these would fall below it unless there's other work that is being done that would on the structure let's say that would put it over 1,000 square F feet yeah so there might be some situations where it's applicable but not often um in light of um what we've been seeing on the news and the fires in California would we ever want to encourage um you know to build with fire return materials or or build with fire prevention strategies because a lot of these adus you're obviously densifying an area yeah you know Maggie the building code uh has restrictions for how clo what the materials can be in a fire rating depending upon how close they are to the property lines and how close they are to other structures especially when you have two separate units um and the uh fire department I would think would be taking a look at it with respect to two structures on the property being able to access the second structure so are you saying that the fire department will be included in this review process for every Adu that's built I don't I think it's up to it's subject to the Building Commissioner making that request but the building the the building code has requirements so you you can't um you know build right on your property line like buildings in the past were built right to the property line but the building code day doesn't allow you to build right on the property line with some without U Fire protective measures on the structure and the same thing for separation between units you have to have a fire rating between the the units or distance between them so what I'm suggesting is it's already covered in the building code and you can't put something in the zoning code that's more restrictive than the building code according to these rugs right so I think it's under the Building Commissioner to determine yeah so you you could actually um you could you could make that known in seven energy efficient features s materials are encouraged but not required unless um unless the building code requires such at least I think it's building or energy code so there you go that's great even better um at least what this does is it safeguards us from in the future having to come back and edit a bylaw you know what I mean so it'll it'll be as if the code changes then they'd be subject to whatever the code changes are so I think that's I think that's good language if the code doesn't require it the building code doesn't require it or the Angy code then it shouldn't yeah espec the wildfires but also with more people driving electric vehicles you know and having um charging stations you know we just need to be careful uh I think that's I think that reads I think that reads well you might need to look at um that whether building code needs to be capitalized or whether building code should be separate from energy code um right back to that definition that we had on building code do build code Andor energy code yeah do we have a definition for energy code excuse me well the building the energy code does fall into the umbrella of the building code uh but I I don't think it hurts to call it out somewhat separately here but not I'm not sure we need to Define it because in Milton it's the opin specialized energy code yeah it's fall building I see what you're saying but that could change code no health code you could say building code fire code energy code or other applicable code something like that requiring such to be incorporated so I had um one thing on um on C the existing and proposed floor layouts of each building or or exterior elevations one of these I think should say to scale because I think we're going to need to have some like maybe exterior elevations of new and existing buildings to scale you could on number which one a d 3 D the scale to what to the primary dwelling yeah Rel to um to an architectural scale uh of one4 inch equals a foot that's standard what were the numbers again one4 of an inch equals 1T Z in you said 04 yeah one foot- Z in okay that should be equals one foot after the one qu inch and that would go under the floor layouts as well see like that yes okay thank you and what is the filing fee to be who determines that an a and where do something we should ask the building department I think and that would go to charge is $100 right is a filing fee of 100 so the building department generally F has a feed depending upon the size of the building um so here what we could say is as required by the building department review though right this is just for our review well it's going to go to the warrant committee so no but I mean this Fe is just for the planning department or the planning Board review so the site plan approval or is this no this is would be for the building department yeah yeah I think $12 per thousand say isn't it on the value of work the fee traditionally a percentage of the estimated um cost to build I think the problem if you put it in zoning and the building department changes its figures you have to go back and change your zoning I I still think we should just put it as required by the building department a filing fee in an amount determined by the building department that's fair okay under F I wanted to add um utilities including gas and water lines and Sewer in some cases gas water and sewer lines septic plus water Sewer Septic ones sewer and then you might want to you might want to include electric um just to at least recognize if it's going underground overhead and Landscaping including exist in landscaping including existing stone walls or should we say existing retaining and stone walls how about existing Hardscape yeah that covers it I think that would also show the driveway and yeah patio anything parking you think that would stone walls would be put on there I just we know how you could call that out but I think we should add driveway where parking is existing that I see this including existing say maybe drives yeah Hardscape and stone walls yeah stone walls I do feel like stone walls good why not forgotten which was an issue that Tim pointed out that we should always have triggered in our site plan review as well so we should remember these items great have anything out you know what did we have in here and we probably skimmed over it um but we wanted to address um setbacks and when we talked about non-conforming structures that they should meet the requirements of zoning where was that because we do want to address a lot that's less than 10,000 10,000 ft or less um it wasn't in the definitions it would be should be under General conditions and require General condition right that's that's number five number five yeah so here yeah so here we should add something on a lot 10,000 square feet or less a minimum setback of here let's actually let me pull up the RS where somebody have the RS in front of yeah I'm looking for it because we should use exactly the same language that are in the RS um it looks like they talk about setbacks twice or three times including the definition yeah it's where it refers to a lot uh 10,000 square feet or less down I think yeah I think it's under further down oh wait refer to under non-conforming Maybe yeah it's not the pre-existing non-conforming not there yeah both of those only show up in a definition and then um yeah it was under I think it was under non um regulations that cannot imposed maybe um maybe it's towards further towards the [Music] end that pre-existing I'm did you see it setback no I'm not seeing it right now know I saw it before too there it is let me just um I'm not seeing anything that references 10,000 square feet but pre-existing nonconform a lot 10,000 square feet or less maybe yeah flyer version I think so because even when I search 10,000 10,000 doesn't come up in here okay so H so maybe that was removed okay maybe I was looking at it earlier I thought I was what I'm with you Merith because I remember seeing that too it was on the website yeah and I'm not seeing it now one more okay maybe we should check to see if that's something that's been removed but I think it was a dimensional standard right yeah and reasonable regulations that's strange um because I definitely saw that in there before although we know things change this see it okay all I'll keep looking but why don't we all right okay we can keep scrolling down there's process site plan requirements use some dimensional requirements okay did anyone have anything else on the Adu um we have a hand raised okay all right let's see okay we um have Mr dhy raising his hand um if you can unmute and you're welcome to join us for comment oh hi it's Tom dy I just have one comment on the on the one definition if if you would go back to the definition of subway station that's been taken from I guess the U yes from the other source um I I think that the reference any stops along the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Red Line uh is taken from uh the uh hlc's definition and connection uh you know with with the uh other matter that we're addressing right and um Bas yeah so I have two thoughts one is since uh there is no subway station in in Milton of of any U I'd say real and practical sense now so first is that definition necessary in connection with um Milt say to you uh if it were necessary then I think it would have you know you want to think about um the reference to any stops along the M MBTA Red Line because as you know when you look at how the uh hlc treats it they treat the red line as in fact part that the uh let's say uh the the trolley stops are part of the red line and there's and those stops are part of the subway station and uh that therefore is why uh the classification of Milton in connection with the uh multif family zoning is uh somehow therefore uh you know permitting and requiring a a 25% multif family zoning uh for that so my first reaction when I saw that was if if Milton doesn't have any subway stations in reality does is the definition even necessary I I don't know but if uh if if a definition is necessary I don't think this one is helpful in terms of the way uh hlc tries to use it in other settings I um Merith if I could I I 100% agree with what Mr D is saying um you know at a minimum I think we should take out the definition but if we're going to write that same definition into our bylaw uh we we are essentially accepting that definition I think it's very you know last time we had a planning board meeting I suggested that extreme care should be taken with regard to that particular topic uh but this is this is this is giving the state what the state wants us uh to accept you know if any one of us just Googles um Subway what what the definition reads an underground electric railroad so I think all of us understand that that trolley line is not an underground electric railroad so I think it's a mistake and I'm glad Mr D's brought this to our attention I think it's a mistake to write language in here that's not um the true definition of what a Subway is we have another hand as well yeah and I agree I I that's something I meant to flag earlier so my apologies um and one way we could maybe look at that is just to uh not put in all the definitions we could put in uh Transit a transit station a subway station Commuter Rail station Ferry Terminal or bus station so my fear about not having is they would default to what hlc has so maybe I'm incorrect in that assumption um so I would think that maybe we should have a definition and I to Googled subway station just now says any of the stops along the MBT red green line orange line or blue line any fixed fixed platform serving as a point of embarkation for passengers that provides yearr round service for high capacity MBTA mass transit vehicles that regularly travel into and through Subways so I think we should put our I do think maybe we should have a definition in there I don't know what it should be but hey Meridan yes I oh we have two more hands raised we have Eric Hokinson and Kathleen oong great I just didn't know if there were any other well because we certain we well we have somebody right now who's speaking did anybody have any other questions on this topic I would like to hear from the other two and then I have a comment myself we've afforded Mr D yes yeah is there anything else uh Mr dhy that you would like to add but thank you for bringing that um relevant point up well I just would uh agree with uh me Oldfield that that that that additional wording uh that has been added um even to uh the the wording I talked about is just additionally problematical and and I would agree that I think that if there's to be a definition it would be simply an underground electric railroad if if needed okay thank you um Kathleen O'Donnell if you'd like to yes um thank you very much uh chair Paul I just wanted to point out that um the accessory dwelling unit Provisions are now in the do Amendment you know they are sort of there are protected use um and the you adus that are smaller than 900 square feet get to be done as a right you do not get to change the the descriptions of where these can be you don't get to change the definitions um those are done by the state and so you can certainly try to do that but I think the Attorney General is just going to throw your whole bylaw out um I admit that Mr Dy is right that this is a different definition of what subway stations and bus stations and all those kinds of things can be they actually are broader in these regulations than they are in the NBTA zoning but that doesn't change the fact that this is a this is now um a permitted use and allowed use like a church or a building or a school or that any other thing that's um protected by the do Amendment so I don't think you're allowed to be able to change those those descriptions I don't think there's any point in putting those definitions in the bylaw since you're going to be referring to the regulations anyway um but that's just kind of an editorial comment of that why you don't need to repeat things that are already going to be applied to this project to be these kinds of applications anyway but you don't get to pick what the definitions are supposed to be those are what are in the RS and they're as a right thank you I just want to comment because really what what Kathleen's saying is they most of these are irrelevant the only one that is relevant is the bus um as it affects the the parking um allowed parking use or requirement so we consider taking those maybe we just consider taking everything out I just wouldn't put I don't see the point of putting in the definitions if you can just say as defined in the regs period I mean it's sort of an editorial thing why clog up your bio with a bunch of stuff that's already in the reg someplace else yeah let's remember the reason that there's a definition here is that you cannot Pro mandate a parking space for adus that are within a half milees so we can put whatever we want here but when someone applies under the as Kathleen mentioned uh the state will look at let's just say the Building Commissioner requires a parking space if for an Adu within a half mile of the trolley stops and um the applicant says you can't do that and would you know appeal that and so you know it's it's the if we say that we we're going to mandate a parking space within a half mile of the trolley stations that is nonsense it's nonsensical people within a half mile the trolley station are the best places not to require parking space so that's the whole purpose of this definition here is is only has to do with parking space requirements that's it yeah but I think by using subway station you you I think it's to Sean's point you set a precedent where you're starting to accept the state telling us that the NBT that the trolley is Rapid Transit and until that fight is extinguished I would not want to set that precedent or help the state in any way setting that precedent so I'd like to see it altered or out I mean I appreciate what you're saying maybe we just take these out for yeah I I would say for the parking if you don't want to use a defin for the parking requirement a half mile of a subway station just say half mile of a trolley or a bus stop the trolley station or a bus stop because that's all where we really need to focus on for this point but I'd like to hear also Mr hinson's comment Char before we go to before we go to hson could would how about a half mile from transit the transit could be bus or you know trolley or or anything right would that would that capture Subway commuter rail Ferry or bus station yeah yeah I I you know I'm I'm opposed to writing this definition in there to continue to do what doesn't seem reasonable right that remember this language was just edited recently you know it's it's a Contin effort to try to uh to try to characterize something that's not a Subway as a Subway so I understand what you're say true I would still say Sean that we should be specific in the where the parking section is and and say try Okay Charlie's fine I'm I'm totally good with I'm totally Good With Charley I'll go with that sure and I just have something to say about the so in my personal experience um there have been um as of right and even my business I have two aspects to my business a nursery use and a landscaping use and my Nursery use is a do protector when I had to um apply for a landscaping permit I had to give up my protected use to be able to do landscaping so I am I am getting off track I understand that but a precedent has been set already in Milton that um that um you you can the town apparently can get to pick certain definitions um that are apply over so I I am you know I'm just um I just get a little bit frustrated when do M uses get thrown around it doesn't seem to apply to all protected uses so that's just my side note okay um all right uh if we can let Mr Hokinson speak now can introduce yourself and unmute hi thank you um I I agree with the intent of including somewhere in the bylaw whether you say trolley or something else because that the the parking exception is critical to have in places that are more Transit oriented I think that that's a uh aspect that should be kept within the bylaw I understand the the board's reluctance to use the definition that's been provided I think that that is why we have the definitions is so that we all agree on on what is being defined because while Google or our common usage for many years may say one thing about what a Subway is or isn't if you look at Wikipedia the list of MBTA subway stations or stops it includes all of the trolley ones so I think we can all pick and choose but I think that letting these definitions be what they are supposed to be and pointing to those is what's important but letting the state Define what is a Subway or what is a station is their job they are the transportation planners and I think that you will find that hlc or any other state agency will respond to what they say in order to achieve the policy goals that theyve outlined which is increasing housing opportunities in the Commonwealth thank you okay so if we go back um we would want want to eliminate a lot of these um eliminate let's see because they're they're sort of scattered throughout here we want it before we have Cheyenne start deleting we would want to delete Subway Station let's see um are we leaving I don't think you need to include if if we go to this the top of these definitions um I don't know that we need to include all of these in this B so let's just start with we want to Define building code I think that's fine um bus station that's fine station seems Commuter Rail station is fine because we have those as well design standards um we have them here in this section so I guess that's okay to keep yeah we don't need to have a fery terminal I don't think this uh y I agree floor area um we can eliminate the black portion because that was the old part and the the new part was um is up more up to date and I think we should have that historic district because we may come back and and have one of those I think lot modular dwelling I don't think we need definition of municipality I agree I don't think we need prohibited regulation I don't think we need to protect it because that comes us the do Amendment aspect of it we're not using special permit here when so I don't think we need that I don't think we need Transit Authority m I don't think we need transit station or regulation or unreasonable regulation or or that next to the use and occupancy or the zoning the question is do we want to put something for trolley or do we can we go to the parking section and look at that's the one place that it's referenced or I think it's under I think it's just above the design under the uh General conditions or something like that General so from we this says transit station so we'd want to say from a bus stop Commuter Rail station or Redline trolley station or matapan it's really not or Matan High Speed Line trolley station or station I mean if it gets I like trolley I keep it general what if it gets Charlie stop I'd say Charlie stop is bus stop or bus is that the way the definition works is that called bus stop it says bust station under definitions i' just say all right I guess Charlie stop is okay e any other definitions that anybody you want to go back just to run through them one more time now we have yeah let's do that yeah it's a good idea well we took out the definition of Transit Authority but it is referenced here in the bus station so I think we probably need to add that back in sorry yeah I'm fine with leaving that back in because yeah transit station yes yeah now can you scroll back up to where the bus station was Cheyenne thank you that's what I'm wondering whether we should say subway station to be consistent rather than trolley stop no we don't have a subway station arguably but we do have a TR right that's why the question is do we want to be consistent with all right that's fine Charlie stop is I'm fine with that I think that may come back from the AG that that needs to be changed but of course it's going to that'll be no surprise at least we're not setting a precedent just accepting it so in that in light of that we just take out then we should we not just sorry MTH can we just put trolley station rather than stop I think stop st yeah that's fine yeah stations typically are manned where they collect fairs but bus stations are not manned though yeah so I don't I don't collect the fair on the bus I don't think it's a trolley station a St Charlie stop the try stops I think a station is more a fixed platform well the trolley has a fixed platform it's where you pick up the before you get on this the trolley bus stop it's more fixed on the trolley than it is on a bus stop that's why their bus for bus a sign for the bus but they use bus station in their language she just said bu stop it's a you know whatever it's fine I know it's not whatever though Charlie you're right it's a Charlie stop i' I'd say keep it Charlie stop matter um yeah I don't know if it matters because it's yeah I think it should be consistent have never I've lived in this town for 56 years I've never called it a trolley station but we've never called them bus stations either we call them bus stops so it's just making the language consistent with what the definitions are except that I mean I'm I was fine leaving it at Subway um but you folks wanted to change from Subway to trolley I I still think the rest of it is consistent language is as a station it's a place from which you um access one of these modes of transportation well I mean there are definitions set by the state that were recently changed by the state that's what bothers me the most I'm just advocating for um calling it what it is and I don't believe in just creating definitions that serve the purposes of whatever they're trying to achieve so um we we can we can discuss that probably all night but that is a trolley it is not a Subway and most reasonable people so um I have never heard of a trolley station either I've heard of a trolley stop um but let's make a decision and keep moving I vote for Charlie stop that's my decision and I like bus stop because bus station is like quiny bus station well now you're going to be taking away another definition which is look at the definition that's contained in here but if Cheryl if you stop and your if you're if you're catching the bus down at the library do you consider that a station it's not about whether I consider something a stop or a station this the hlc has issued these regs their law and they have these definitions and I know I understand the reasons why you um other members of the board have taking some exception to the definition of Subway because it relates to NBTA communities but we're not taking exception to any other definition U that has been provided by the state and there's lots of definitions here and so I just think it's this whole thing is going to be kicked out if we try and rewrite the definitions of one of this of hlc's definitions in these regulations would it be would it would it have a resolution to remove bus station Commuter Rail station trolley station and just put transit station in but you would need a definition of Transit and so and we do have that in here like having bus station I I I would think that you're actually limiting um because Milton doesn't have a bus station but Milton has a bunch of bus stops it's based on the definition we do based on their definition we do have bus stations I understand most people think of a station as being Quincy Center they're putting a location serving it's a point of em embarcation for any bus is what they're determining a bus station to be I can tell you by that in my work and as an architect when I look at zoning codes and other communities um I always look at the definition ction because one Community will have a different definition for a term than another Community will have and so um you know what one of us thinks is the right term uh for a point of embarcation is really not relevant it's it's what the state has decided for this these regulations I mean I I do think going back to the bus station definition is just a location serving as a point of embarcation for any bus operated by a Transit Authority that to me is pretty simple pretty clear and that's why I said trolley station is by Def by if you by comparison it's a point of embarcation for the trolley all right so let's leave it called it yeah know I've never called a trolley station a trolley station it's always been a Ry stop it's a train station and a bus it's also been yeah it's been a bus stop it's a once again you don't want to set a precedent while we're still having arguments with the state we just start using their definitions it's just like seceding I mean I don't know who's still having arguments because there's no lawsuit decisions as far as I understand that the town has taken um and until that time these are regulations that were bound too well we're in compliance right now but that's a whole another argument charl i' like just have to say Charlie stop we're we're been we've been asked to write a bylaw which is going to be submitted to the state um I think you know some of this discussion we're having now was prompted by a question that our resident Mr Dy brought up and if we're submitting something to the state I don't feel comfortable submitting something with a definition that um that we're not required to include if they come back and tell us we have to have definitions and they tell us what the definitions are well maybe that's the way it's going to be but I don't believe we should submit definitions that we don't feel comfortable with so especially with the definitions are part of a definition that's used in a different matter um that is is um still um being it's unresolved that other matter I I think trolley saying trolley station is less um it'll it'll be um less controversial let's just say that prob stop is less controversial well for the state sorry um so are we keeping it as station or stop I think station just seems consistent with the other terms but okay I'm but I'm up for yeah whatever the board feels well I feel putting it as a as the W stop instead of the word station but I'm not going to stay here all night and argue about it I know I like stop better so there's two I had already said my position I should think it should be station but there's one for station two do you have a preference you know I'm gonna I'm G to use the reference I always have in my 60 years trolley stock okay so we'll put Trolley Stop commuter station or Trolley Stop okay all right so let's scroll through the rest of the [Music] okay um so if there's nothing else um Cheyenne would you be able to just send out a clean copy of this to the board tomorrow yep and um so if there's anything that anybody picks up that maybe we want to change but other than that um I think I would I'm ready to entertain a motion to um to move to send um this zoning article to the warrant committee I'll make a motion to send the Adu zoning article to the war committee as a final draft okay as a final draft all right is there a second yep second okay I we'll do a roll call again yeah um can we have discussion for a moment oh sure yeah um is it the other members understanding that we view this as a placeholder until we receive the um model bylaw from hlc we're not going to have it in time I think we have to in order to get this on the February town meeting we have to submit this um I think the town meeting before the town meeting if we need to add a green sheet on something yeah if we we need to write but we have all the regulations so I think um we don't need to conform to the model bylaw if we're following the regulations that the state has provided for us um if there's something that stands out that we want to change we can do a green sheet but this has to be our final um draft that we're putting putting forth um to town meeting and give it we can't I I think that that a warrant committee they need to begin reviewing this and I don't want to switch out a whole entire new article when we've spent so much time and work on this because we we may have things that that model bylaw does not have but that are within the states um that are that are absolutely appropriate to put in so but I certainly would want to review it and if there's a Green Sheet you know if we want to make any changes or amendments that are minor amendments uh I I certainly would think that we we would be welcome to do that any other comments from the board now I support sending this to the Warren committee right so we have a motion we have a second um and let's do a roll call um Sean sorry I had myself on mute um yes um Maggie yes Cheryl yes a Jim yes and myself yes thank you and again if we see anything last minute that we want to tweak you know before it goes to the warrant committee but cheyen would you be able to um send this out to our members and for to draft uh to the chair of the warrant committee yes I'll do that and Nick yeah and to send it to Nick too Merida yes um I'd like to suggest that we send it to the AG's office for review certainly that's as has an opportunity is available to us for that as soon as possible and actually um Peter melow we would want to send it to um to actually Peter Melo and then let Peter melow make a determination he may want to send it to mass Municipal but I think we should send it to Peter Melo and let him determine who should review I agree with that okay and if he thinks it should go to the AG you know certainly that but I I think we should have Town Council determine but okay so we now can move um and let's try to move through the site plan um and Peter melo's comments that he shared with us some of these are very minor some may need a little bit more discussion um cheyen if you could pull up the site plan approval yep our clean article with with his with the um comments from from Peter mow so this was so number three was his first comment and um when I read this yeah sorry I think we can really just say interior work causing any change of use or size shall be excluded well also a different use it says there so any change of use or a different use or an increase in size I don't see why we would need it for a decrease in size or different use I think different use is what we so I don't I don't think we need to say we said a change of use in the beginning so if we say a change of use or size I don't think it's relevant whether it's a commercial building um because what we're what we're ultimately saying is it could say change of user size shall be excluded from this site plan review requirement with the exception of a restaurant bar or entertainment use so it's almost we're addressing what type of uses would be excluded but if you're if you're increasing the size now you're saying it's excluded so if you're increasing the size of a restaurant at the marketplace it's excluded from site plan review by that change no I'm I'm saying it's a change of size any any change of size yeah but see restant say you shall be included then instead of excluded see no it's it's the exception right but if you're saying any interior work right now what that said it was it's excluded from site plan review with the exception of a restaurant bar or entertainment so it's only but if it's an increase in size of anything else it doesn't all right so so it's ex this is for interior interior work only yeah so we're not we don't want site plan right true I think it was good though actually was fine the way it was I actually think but well except what you could say is increase decrease in area and and go back to excluded but do you think we need or a different type of yeah because if it goes from if it goes from let's say a dental office to a clothing store does that doesn't need to come to for review no that's why we're excluding it but I I guess it does it's to me it doesn't matter if it's a commercial building because we're saying the only time it's going to come back before us if it's a restaurant bar or entertainment all right so it's excluded go back to that yeah it just seems like it's a little too wordy but all right so if you said or size and you get rid of increase and decrease is that what you're suggesting all right and then then in areas not needed then and I think or a different use of a commercial building because that would be not relevant yeah okay that just seemed to sort of simplify I think that was what Peter was commenting on the next item is should I'm fine with might he thought that might be better I don't know what others think yes I think that's fine I understand his point so might instead of should cheyen the next two pages look to be fine impacts on public service so I did read these comments um and I'm wondering if we should because I understand the intention if we should just take this out well I think if Peter thinks we should take it out then we should yeah and then down at R maybe we just have in this section period and not put in the purview the board I agree just end it there and then on B vehicular access um we could say 24t for development with it would be more than 10 parking spaces but actually what he's say more 10 or right with 10 or more and 12 ft for development with less than 10 parking spaces yeah I think that was it for that page so he had a question on this Cheryl and I actually didn't know the answer to this is that fine to just leave as is um defined and established well um same do we need in a definition section some name of a document I I think um that would risk being have to be revised in the future you know if a name of a document that re that um sets these standards or guidelines uh if you were to look these up you would find them um so I guess I'm not sure what else we would want to add except something in a definition but I'm not sure that ass when she was saying are there are there clear definitions if you looked these up are they sufficient yeah yeah that's what I that's my understanding as well they're clear so I I think those are fine to leave and then Transformer and generators I think we just needed an and there yes agreed resiliency and sustainability I'm wondering if just on this I like the the first sentence but maybe we take projects must identify site and building strategies that that's that's what actually gives they just need to do a narrative they need to tell us what they're doing to address these which if you don't require if you don't require to identify what they're doing then I don't know how you know what they're doing so first they have to identify what thing you know their site or their proposed project it's really for applies to larger projects and so I can see you know that this may not apply to some smaller scale projects U let's say for example Milton marketplaces application that's before but if this were a larger project under um you know let's just say MBTA Community zoning then depending upon the site where it's located you know extreme heat well maybe that strategy is you know shade trees in the parking lots to help um with um you know um heat island or maybe it's a reflective roof surface to um reflect again heat there I mean it's extreme participation precipitation might be something about Gathering a storm water or rain water to use in a rainwater Garden or something I mean they don't have to be complicated things they right they just have to tell us what what they can do with their project they might be a lot more sophisticated than that too on a large project right I'm fine with that did anyone else have any comments if we want to just leave it as is yeah just leave it as is okay so under W he had greatest extent possible um I think we could say reasonable or reasonably possible yeah Reas reasonably possible yeah so like reasonably possible is that for like if the site allows for it is that like f if the applicant can financially do it what's reasonably possible what is that I think it's something like let's just say it was a site that had a lot of ledge um or you might not be able to do some um rain Garden type of um storm water green infr I sort of like to the extent possible I thought that was fine actually but maybe we just leave it then so it doesn't have to do with financial we ever consider Financial so we do I I think we consider things that are because we I think these are actually cheaper in some some instances than doing the structure think about that really large underground storm water systems that you retained storm water retention system that you find underground on projects um those are like wcot Woods when they took apart the whole front field to put those in it's a lot of a lot of effort to do that whereas these I mean a rain Garden a pollinator Garden a biosil by comparison are I think less expensive let's just keep to the extent possible I think that's I think that's fine and there was one more this I didn't know if Sean if you had any suggestions on this or um Cheryl if you had any further thoughts on his comments or Maggie and Jim obviously so and you know the idea of this is um to respond to the situation that's already exist rather than the zoning that's in place because there might be pre-existing non-conforming setbacks at the front and um but if you have buildings that already meet the zoning then the proposal should meet the zoning but if you have buildings that you want to align with that are out of compliance that you can align with those that's common in zoning um that you can align with the buildings that are adjacent to you so whether it can be Rewritten I think the concept is valid and that's what I was going to say I think Peter is correct that um it is the language is confusing however um yeah the concept is correct so I don't have I'm not sure how to make it less confusing it's clear if you read it more than once right at first it may sound confusing but to me um you could say instead of saying dimensional standards you could say front yard setback because that's really what you're talking about because right above it it says minimum front yard requirement that might be helpful what you that change I I think I think the language is fine it's just maybe a little it could be ordered differently and it would be probably read well you know where after where it says infill Lots if we wrote infill building should meet the requirements of each subd District's you know um setback requirements um period and then read after that if the adjacent buildings are set back a distance that exceeds the minimum front yard requirements um infi buildings May match the setback line of either ajac building or an average of the setback of the two buildings I I just I just think if we take that sentence that says infill building shall meet the requirements for each sub each sub that probably should be established right after infill Lots because you know then it opens up the possibility that if those adjacent lots are set back further than the standard we're creating the opportunity to either be similar to that or uh be the average of the two does that make sense I I just think it's just so do you have specific language you want to recommend um yeah well what what I'm saying is so after the comma in the first sentence right it reads infill building shall meet the requirement of each sub subd District's front yard setback I think that if you copy that uh Cheyenne and you paste that in right after infill Lots up top yep there you go right in there so that's established right that infill building shall meet the requirements of each subd District's front yard setbacks and then we create the opportunity for something different unless maybe it should say unless the adjacent buildings are setback a distance that exceeds the minimum front yard requirements um you could probably take out otherwise now infill buildings May match the setback line of either adjacent building or an average of the setback of the two buildings to provide consistency along the street well here it would be not exceeds but um is less than less than okay I agree is it less than is it less than or greater than Cheryl it's less than because if if you're saying I mean you always have an opportunity to set a building back further than the front yard setback right that's what of given correct so if you want to if the building's next to you are closer to the street than what the required zoning is you want to be able to match those right so you're giving an exception to the zoning requirement so I don't I think unless should not be capitalized here um and it should be a comma instead of a period there um after the K cheyen yeah and you could say in which case infill buildings May match so yeah so after the word requirements yeah right there in what so I just say in that case infill buildings May match the setback line Etc you said in which case in which case right then I think the rest of that stays y a long sentence true you could Ender that requirements and you could say in that case infill buildings May or in something like that it works [Music] you know I'm sorry cheyen could you just go back to what we where we just were I just wanted to see the punctuation at the end yeah of the two building along the street Peri it just needed a period sorry thank you that's um okay down we just [Music] had where he said the board May reject any plan materials here sorry materials and I was trying to remember what this um yeah I don't remember maybe a mixed mixed use kind of application but I don't know remember what materials that would be should we just take this out take it out I think yeah I think we should keep this I I feel like this is sort of the only basis that you can reject is for standards for health safety welfare and amenities appropriate to the needs of the persons yeah I think Peter just would need to advise us a little bit more about this I mean could be problematic um does he support us sending this to the AG wants if if it passes town meeting or does he think it needs a modification I guess I would want a little more information from him this is saying that we that we can never reject any site plan approval I don't think can I I think it's difficult I think you can I think it's it has to be a significant reason this is in our current zoning but whether that because it's been there for a long time whether it would still meet requirements I guess we could find out yeah we should ask isn't it um similar to like a 40b that it an application could be rejected if um if there are local concerns and I think the local concerns are exactly what's is stated here and it is not just for the community but it is also for the residents of whatever project it is is that a local concern the way I understand site plan review is they're coming to us with a byright project and we're putting additional restrictions on it but we can't really restrict it we can guide them but we can't stop it now I think the only way we can stop it is in our initial administrative procedures where we have to require to do a traffic study and environmental and stuff like that and if they don't get all that paperwork in we can we can reject the special permit but I mean submit it it'll be interesting to see what comes back well maybe we we do ask Peter for further information on this on he we should just eliminate this yeah I mean I think he says it it could be problematic you know I he's Town Council so I think he should advise us whether he thinks it is problematic and we should REM remove it or whether he thinks it's okay to leave it and get the AG's take on it yeah yeah I really think it's his call I agree okay did anybody have anything else on this only question I had was whether adus can be subject to this we include did adus in the very beginning I think we can leave it in for now but it is something I think that could become problematic to Jim this is as for as of righty to use are considered as a right so I would think that they should be subjected to this right they they can be subject to site plan approval but whether I I think we've left in here the pre-application conference we've left in here waivers because you know some of these things wouldn't be required and and I don't think really we have an opportunity to say no for a Dober Amendment use so whether we have it for other things like in the commercial districts for a business that's coming for that this purpose or a mixed use development I think it's different than overuse mhm I agree so if Peter had advice for us as to carve out something for protected or Dober Amendment uses I think I that might be beneficial yep because then maybe in that C in C there maybe that gets split or there's something that addresses over Amendment protected uses in that but it still applies to other applications under site plan review yeah all cheyen would you be able to follow up um with Town Council on that to see if we if we could address that his concerns with with adding a Amendment language yes do that specifically okay all right anything anything else okay um so we can um if I could have a motion to move this uh article for site plan approval um for review to both um to Nick um Peter Melo Town Council and to the warrant committee moved oh there you go second all in favor all right Cheryl yes Sean yes Jim yes Maggie you're muted Maggie sorry yes yeah I can see your mouth move it um and myself yes great thank you so much um so those two articles and we have um we haven't voted finally or formally but our map article has been all set um and I think that's on the schedule for the warrant committee to review but maybe we should just take a formal vote to send make sure that that has been sent to Warr do we actually have the map the final map for the Brook Road I don't know that we got to did we get a final map for each of these um I did see it in my printed materials because they I was wanting to make sure they made that correction where they had one Elliot sort of outlined in purple sort of those um but there was also a problem with the Brook Road that included some properties that weren't actually in the district um pretty good those didn't get edited okay yeah I'm looking at them both all right great yeah were those in the folder I think so the updated folder okay I have a printed version it looks good good that's okay yeah it should have two Parcels D16 now thank you it's a lot of 16577 and 4325 Nine thater Street and three Laurel Road yeah that that's all that's on the map exactly okay right okay so with that just a you know a formal motion that we've moved that forward for um submittal to the warrant committee um just a vote on that let's um what is this called the zoning map Amendment zoning map no yeah it is called right to include Milton Village plan unit development BRK road overl district I'll make a motion to move the zoning map including Milton Village plan unit development and Brook Road overlay District to the Warren committee for review a second roll call aan yes cherl yes Maggie yes Jim yes yes and myself yes great okay so those three are um submitted to the warrant committee formally and um so we can now move to just the only other item on our agenda for tonight is um discussion of the MBTA community's action plan um and we can begin um looking at that and there was um some comments that were s to us um from Mr dhy and if you just want to address th your comments and then we can discuss as the board and we can sort of walk through our action plan and um how we best uh approach um response um I guess my opinion and and probably a bit of a continuation of what I said in our last planning board meeting um I think Mr D has uh I think we should follow Tom's suggestion um you know as I said in our last planning board meeting Mr D uh has come before the board a number of times and um I certainly have uh I have the highest of respect for his um legal mind and uh he's come before us numerous times and we have yet to hear from anybody that uh disagreed with Tom's legal reasoning uh it makes it makes uh very good sense to me and um I feel like we should uh take Tom's suggestion and follow [Music] it I think we're in a very difficult position right now um as the board who has been asked to draft an an action plan and complete a a form before the comment period is over and the regulations have been properly promulgated so it is asking the the way the action plan has been drafted it requires us to commit to something that is I believe um premature um I believe that we would like to demonstrate that we would like to work with the state but to to commit ourselves to doing something um I I would like to for us to you know respond in some way um Tom had some language that he prepared to add as an an appendix and a sort of a comment um as we know we're going to have to we're gonna have to speak with um the select board on this because I think you know whatever we do um we want to work you know together with the select board um Nick Milano um has been asked to sign off on this and draft a letter there's there's it's it's more complicated than just simply sending an action plan or putting our comments in um perhaps tonight you know and I want Cheryl I see your hand up um for everybody to comment but but maybe we walk through the action plan for those who are watching who might not realize what is being asked um what is being asked of the planning board um as far in the town as far as commenting on an action plan it has just come out that the comment period is going to be from juli um excuse me from January 31st to February 21st so we again have 20 days to a very brief time for a public comment um and any any data any information to be reviewed this almost seems like hlc is assuming that they're not going to make any changes and they're really not going to listen to anyone for them to ask for an action plan before the comment period is over it just to me um it does not make sense that we would have an action plan when the period won't even be over by the time the deadline um exists um in terms of compliance um certainly I expect to have something you know by July but um but I think it's I think this is absolutely inappropriate to be asked to commit to an action plan which is um which is prior to the comment period it just it it is absolutely against everything that the SJ has required the state to do it's as if they're completely ignoring the SJC and trying to work around um the requirements of the a APA you know the proper promulgations of the regulations so I don't even think it's legal what they're asking us to do um and I'm not a lawyer but I I think we should respond that this is um it's not appropriate at this time um and that you know Milton and any other Town should not be seen as non-compliant when the when the public hearing you know the public process has not happened yet so um I'll open it up to the other um my board members for for their comments as well um Cheryl I see your hand up and I know there's people in the public who would like to comment so um yes ahead yeah um I appreciate that Mr dhy has spent a lot of time thinking about this um but Mr dhy um is not Town Council he's not been um retained uh by the town um to advise the planning board um there are other members of the public who are also attorneys who have their hands raised who I would like to be afforded the same opportunity as Mr dhy to address the board uh with their thoughts about this my understanding is that the emergency regulations are fact the law and that um the law those emergency regulations uh require us as per the letter that Nick Milano received um yesterday in which we were all forwarded that Milton is required to submit its action plan by February 13th or it will be deemed to be out of compliance and uh ineligible for the grant programs that are outlined in the letter and also that we would be ineligible for those um if we don't submit compliant zoning by the deadline of July 14th so I'm not an attorney either but um I asked if Town Council has been advising um this um action plan is uh required to be submitted by the Town Administrator um if the town does not intend to comply with the law I don't think the planning board can make that determination that's a select board item it seems to me our responsibility uh is to review um and provide comment about how we would comply with the law not whether we should comply with the law or not and at this point I would like to hear from the two other attorneys who would like to provide comments to the board okay first we're going to hear from our the other board members and then I'll then I'll go to the public um Jim you had your hand up uh next thank you Meredith um yeah I like Cheryl am not a lawyer either but um if you read the action plan that Tim filled out in 2023 it you know his ansers really tie us to a 25% plan and compliance and I know that the legislature has I think there's maybe almost 30 bills that are pending either amending the MBTA 3A law or repealing it all all together and it's not just from one legislature I think it's from almost 20 different legislators um from different communities that are affected by this and there's even some interest in in Central and western Mass on this thing so I think for us to fill this out the way Tim did um is is just irresponsible at this point with so much left on the table I mean I agree with um with Meredith that I almost think that the way the dates are set up where we have to set up this action plan and commit before the um regs are even final or before there's there's public input is just wrong um and and Mr dh's thank God for that um his template spells out exactly what we should do and I I actually agree with it and you know there aren't too many towns that get the benefit of a Tom DH I know there are other lawyers in town but uh he's pretty good on this subject and I I am going to listen to him that's all I have for now Madam chair thank you right and Maggie you had your hand up next oh yes so um so first I just have a question before we actually go through the action plan um so my understanding is that Nick Milan as the municipal CEO is legally committing to Leading the process to adopt this required zoning and I'm wondering if he does that um he not wondering but he would be acting in direct opposition of the will of the people and disregarding the voices of the community so I'm wondering if he does that would there be a response from groups or individuals um you know which could you know recalls could be initiated um you know which is a concern to me and it's my understanding that Nick Milano can't guarantee that um that um that this that the decision to adopt any amendments to comply because this goes to town meeting so how can Nick you know certify and I would be nervous if I was Nick to certify yes I'm going to bring something to you hlc because he can't certify that because that falls within town meeting I think um so I don't know how he can sign this I'm just looking out for Nick um so can he sign that can he sign it promising hlc to bring something when it in fact has to be approved by town meeting anything else Maggie is that oh no so that's um my question question um and also um I'm just the situation is complex and um there are too many variables to make a really full informed decision um you know especially when um our our obligations are still unclear so right now Town Council has not advised us you know he has not invited us to have a Sation with him about this um so right now um Tom D is really the only one who has um given us sort of a road map um so as for now that is um I you know I I agree with his um his um path forward Meredith can I just make it correct I didn't know if you had your hand still up from yes so I just wanted to um just make a correction I think to what Maggie said um the statement needs to say and this is quote from the action plan form it is the full intention of the Town Administrator to take necessary actions to bring any zoning intended to comply with all requirements of General Law chapter 48 section 3A and 760 CMR 72 to a vote of the municipality's legis legislative body in the time frame described in this action and to submit a district compliance application to eohc no later than October 13 2025 and so it's not saying that he's delivering it he's saying he he's he's committing to bring it to a vote of the town meeting so that I just wanted to make sure that that was clear and I still would like to hear from Miss odonnell and Mr hind yes um yes Kathleen I think you add your hand up first if you would like to join us welcome thank you um for taking my uh my comments um I looked at um Mr D's letter and I've listened to now two meetings of the planning board discussing this action plan and I do have a practical solution is that you could State on the action plan that you are reserving the right to make changes to that action plan depending upon things that need to be addressed as a result of the final form of the regulations that's one sentence that could be added to the plan that just says here we're submitting this on time on the 13th and we're reserving the right to make changes depending upon what happens with the final regulations and I think that's a much better solution than sticking trying to stick it to the hlc with you know an an antagonistic response I think we should just say listen we know these regulations aren't final here's our best effort and we're going to go ahead with that and so I think this idea for some reason that people think that there's some question about whether the law is legal that's been decided by the SJC the zoning is legal the attorney general has the right to do the enforcement and you have to remember that if we don't adopt something it would be quite simple for the AG to go into court and get an order that enforces the zoning that we adopted a year ago and nobody wants that result so why not take the proper steps comply with the obligation to submit an action plan and as I said and reserve the right to make changes to it depending upon if you think that there's some sort of Miracle that's going to happen with the trolley or whatever fine but you'll have the right you'll have reserved the right and that would be just adequate enough and I think that shows our good faith and I think that's an important thing to be doing these days because we don't have the best reputation at the moment thank thank you and I do agree that we want to um demonstrate in whatever we decide to to write that we are that we are trying to work with the state we're not um you know we understand the SJC has um determined that it that the law the statute um is legal and enforcable um I think it's the question is um the uh guidelines which are now um soon to become regulations so thank you very much and now I think there was an uh Doug Hine would like to speak also um good evening uh everyone um I had not planned to speak today um but it's it's when Mr Fey challenges attorneys if there's any attorneys out there you got to figure at least a few of us are going to want to want to talk um and it's funny that I had written down um almost the exact comment as attorney O'Donnell said which is to insert language in the action plan saying that we reserve All rights to amend this plan upon the final regulations being promulgated that's an absolute way to reserve rights and and this kind of in many ways kind of reminds me of the discussion from earlier this evening about you know wanting to change the language in the Adu article because we didn't want to set a precedent look as a matter of practicality it's not going to make a difference if we don't follow the regulations be they the emergency guidelines or the eventual regulations we're going to get sued and the argument is not going to hinge upon what language we use it's going to hinge upon whether not we got a trolley or a tea or or whatever the case may be um but that was kind of my my last point was was adding that language into the action plan which I think keeps us from getting sued right now which is my number one priority for the town is not to get sued what Mr odonnell I'm sorry what attorney O'Donnell is suggesting is going to get us sued and right quick uh that's not in anyone's interest let's keep our options open I I also want and I've heard attorney O'Donnell speak a number of meetings now and um I think you mean Mr Dy Attorney D yeah I'm sorry thank you very much um and and I appreciate his perspective uh and and I agree with a lot of um his legal conclusions but in my practice you I tell people that just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it should be done and you really have to look at things practically and so just taking the nature of the emergency regulations themselves I think the fair question that he has raised is are they in fact emergencies and and I think you can make a very good argument and possibly have the the better end of the argument by saying they're not emergencies and they're they shouldn't be promulgated we can challenge them on that on those grounds but but what's the point and the reason why I say what's the point is within 90 days we're going to have regulations that have been promulgated properly according to the APA and filed with Secretary of States and it's going to be a mood point so why even fight the battle that's going to be moot it doesn't make any sense that when we're paying someone 940 bucks an hour that can add up quickly some litigation may be a foregone conclusion um and and I I'm not happy about that necessarily but but maybe it needs to happen um and and I guess I accept that on some level but there's no sense in fighting something that that we don't have to fight uh I think the comment that I believe Mr fahe made last week about you know us not being able to get a fair shot in this in the the Commonwealth I I understand where he's coming from and saying that and I've heard a lot of clients over the years say things like that when they they get a decision that's not in their favor and the SJC you know decision I don't care how you want to frame it it it took away the ability for us to really thrust a dagger Into the Heart of the NBTA communities act it said the Act was was certainly constitutional that it can be enforced that um that the AG can bring an action to make us comply so really now what we're left with is nibbling around the edges and saying well hey let's you know attack what the eventual guidelines are going to be regulations anything and we know what they're going to be they're going to be the exact same thing that that are in the emergency RS I mean so we shouldn't be surprised by this we shouldn't be surprised that they're going to ram it through within 90 days number one they're required to do that under the CMR they have to replace emergency guidelines within 90 days they're going to do that and you know we're gonna say oh that's not enough time I can't believe you're doing this and they're going to come back and say well yeah but we we spent two years asking for comments when we originally came out with the guidelines um and so we've kind of done that already so you the bottom line is yeah I agree when you use the word fair I don't know if i' use that word but we're not going to get a shot that favors our position whether that's fair or not I think it really doesn't matter what you call it we're in a worse position you can't deny that we've got a Target on our back you can't deny that the fact that emergency guidelines came out within what eight nine days from the SJC decision and the only changes to them from the prior guidelines was to specifically say that Milton our trolley is part is is is within the category of a rapid transit stop they're gunning for us that's it so you know as much as you know I hear the AG and the governor say well you know we can talk this over and try and come up with a solution uhuh we know that's not going to happen let's put let's realize let's recognize the fact that the time for talk is over and it's either going to come down to are we going to have a plan that complies with the guidelines or not you know maybe that means that we have to engage in some type of uh 30A action which just for those of you it's essentially if you disagree with things in in in regulations you get a determination that's not in your favor you can have that reviewed by a superior court judge uh I've done a number of those not particularly in land use but I've probably done at least about a dozen of them over the years and it's it's a pretty narrow review I mean they look to see if there was some type of you know kind of you know strange procedure that went on that really deprives someone of a substantial right but when it comes down to defining things courts defer to administrative agencies the SJC said that the SJC specifically said said that it's okay for administrative agencies to Define things and that's the way courts look at these things so I think eventually it'll come down before a judge saying hey are we you know are we a rapid transit Community or a Jason or you know it's going to come down to whether or not the you know the the the trolley stops or a te- stop or not so you know I I I think if we're hinging our hopes upon that it's a long shot and I think we have to be ready um to come in with a plan with a 25% plan whether or not we use it I I don't know and I have my own feelings about whether that would be good or bad for the town I I don't relish the changes it would bring to to my neighborhood but it it is what it is um and and I think we have to be ready to have that implemented at a moment's notice so please don't fight the battles we don't have to try and conserve as much ammunition as we can for uh legal cost for the battles to come because we're going to wind up getting sued um unless we do this in a in a way such that we you know petition the Superior Court to you change the definitions and engageing some type of 30A appeal um but that's going to be it it's not going back to SJC or anything like that um sorry to ramble but again I I really didn't think about these comments at had time um get the action plan in place keep us at a court and we'll we'll do the best we can thanks guys great thank you very much for your comments um okay just to clarify I don't think any board member has said we shouldn't fill out an uh the action plan correct I've never said that I'm just trying to figure out the best way to do it right and that was interesting that we actually can go back to Superior Court and and try to resolve the trial classification but anyway I don't think that we are in a in a i i don't agree that we're in a worse position than we were before I mean we've got six months to comply and um plenty of chances to to I shouldn't say argue but you know to try to get to the bottom of this meanwhile I mean how are we going to fill out this action plan so we don't tie the town's hands so one thing I would say Jim is we don't have six months if we fill out an action plan that puts us out of compliance with the emergency rags and that's what we understand the emergency Rags are in effect the action plan is due before the final Rags are issued so if we submit an action plan that's not compliant with Rapid Transit then we will be out of compliance as of February 13th and we'll have that gaps aren't but the rigs aren't even um you're you're suggesting that the emergency Rags don't apply but hlc has told us they do apply so as far as hlc is concerned if we don't have an action plan that's compliant with the emergency Rags B submitted by February 13th then we are out of compliance they said it in their letter and so we will be how we fill out form we're either going to be in compliance or out of compliance as of February 13th and so we will be subject to lawsuit um as if we fill out the form in a way that's inconsistent with the emergency Rags which is that we are Rapid Transit community and again for clarification and I'm not saying we should I'm not taking a position if we should fight um the emergency regulation because it's my understanding one part of uh declaring an emergency regul is to provide a statement um for the reasons for filing it we have an emergency to the Secretary of State and they did not do that and one of the reasons I think they did not do that is because they can't because there is no zoning emergency um this as you recall this is all about zoning as we've heard it's not a construction mandate so this is just zoning as everyone has said for the past two years so I think that's why hlc did not create or submit a statement um to the Secretary of State but I digress on that and again I'm not an attorney and I do think we should fill out the the action plan I do think we should abide by the statute I I haven't wavered from that um point in time um and and so I don't know if now is a good time to go through the action plan are we that's could you pull up the action plan um and it will be helpful for people who are watching also to sort of get an idea of what um what we're asked to fill out great great thank you so would it be helpful for the board if we just sort of walk through and we fill out what we can right now and I do think we need to have a conversation um with Nick um the you know the select board um and town Council um so what does that look like Meredith When you say have a conversation with what does that look like well I think we should we that we would send over we're going to work on the draft tonight I think we should work on the draft to our the best of our ability for that to to Nick and um and and Town Council um and then determine you know do they want to make changes to this but this would be what we would want to submit as the planning board okay so we're not actually having a true conversation yeah I mean it's we'd like to send it over and you know I'd like to get the thoughts of you know the Town Council and what the select board the select board might agree with us on what we're wanting to submit and and um and if the select board decides then then we submit what we what we agree on okay so just like the original action plan we worked on the original action plan the the planning board with the planning department and then um so that's the first step so we're taking the first step right now right and then it it so we don't have the authority to actually submit this it goes to the select board and they decide whether to submit this or not but we fill it out the way we want is that the way yeah let's let's go through because I think it it does say the town so I just I I want to check with um Nick and Town Council on that okay so MBTA Community name p Milton Mari if you if you go scroll up back up a little bit to I think to the question of who submits it is says this form must be submitted by a municipal official with authority to act on behalf of the municipality and I understand that's to be the Town Administrator is that do you have a different understanding of that that is what um that is my understanding yes that or well again I want to get clarification on that can it be a representative of the planning board who's submitting this we should we should find out about that yeah because Tim submitted it before he signed it yeah yeah I think as Cheryl as Cheryl points out it makes it pretty clear if you're a city it's signed by the mayor if you're a town it's signed signed by the town manager if you have one or a Town Administrator I don't think it yeah I don't think it allows for the planning board to submit it I don't think so but um and this is drafted this is slightly different than the last yeah because it it says very explicitly right here for towns okay we just running through this or are we wanting to yeah we can yeah we can run through and just have sort of a our save draft of what we' like to share did the to have you spoken to the Town Administrator about the planning board working on this Meredith um briefly and did he ask us when it first came yeah when it first came out and did he ask us for our input um it was the understanding that the planning board was going to be working on this he didn't necessarily ask us to work on it it was not a request it was sort of okay okay I guess I don't see why we wouldn't work on this it came from our planning director last time yeah I was at that point with the plea you guys all worked on on the um 20 you might have had cheen you might have had more of a conversation with Nick on this um the only thing that we talked about was what was mentioned earlier which was him signing that we would be certifying a model so for him to do that it would have to be a certified model so we didn't get too deep into it but um we did discuss that we would be working on it tonight so cheyen so let me ask to clarifying question on that did he say it was his intention to submit uh an action plan that would be compliant with the emergency regulations um he said said that he has to sign a letter certified in compliance but he can't sign that until we all get on the same page of providing a compliant model so he can't yeah so that was the discussion okay all right thank you the way the way this reads they the the and the way this is prepared they're they're asking you to regurgitate what they've already written that's this this section of it but if you get further into it it's it's not well maybe that's true but can you can you skip a section so what's not maybe we spill it out you know as an adjacent Community prompting a response from from the eohc and maybe enforces a meeting um so it doesn't look like you can skip a section they all have this red asterisk so and we also can't save this document so I'll have to start a separate document that we can edit as we go and then we can put the final in here um because we can't save this because is this what you're um submitting online because I went online and created I created a document like like I was somebody from a different town um it's just the the form on the website they mail in eail it's just what's on the website yeah so similar like when we did the Adu public comment letter was just you go on the website you fill out the information and then you submit your document so so can we just then since you can't move on I think we should look at each of the questions before we answer any of them and just run through it that way first yeah dry run just without putting any answers in it so I mean obviously the first one is triggers a lot of things but let's just not spend our time talking about number one at the moment I don't think 1.2 let's run through the rest of it and see if there's agreement on any aspect of it so on 1.1 I would think would be say C appendix 1.1 the community name is just the town just Milton so one see appendix yeah but you're so you're you're saying that Mr dh's advice is what you want to do so let's put Mr dh's memo on the screen for all of who people who are watching and residents who may want to watch this later have the Benefit of Mr dh's memo Cheryl before we do that Cheyenne I'm sorry to spin you in circles I think what you started with is a really good process let's walk through this first and you know dry run and we won't probably better that it's almost 10 o'clock that we don't you know drill into tremendous detail on every one of these but um you know I agree with you 1.1 is easy we put Milton in 1.2 probably one we should skip over they're asking us to identify our category 1.3 let's skip over it for now 1.4 let's skip over it 15 um let's skip over that one let's skip over 1.6 well even 1.5 I think nobody disagrees that there's MBTA Commuter Rail stations right no but then it's boundaries they're not they're not within our boundaries correct that's clear yeah um that me um is 1.6 and no no that would be a yes A yes yes little bit of commuter rail okay yeah a small amount 17 someone's name likely based on the form language above it would be Our Town Administrator uh title email phone number all pretty easy um the name of the municipal CEO I I assume that is to repeat Nick again um as the Town Administrator mailing address is easy um please bely describe other members of the Court team developing the multif family zoning District that seems like it would be the planning board and Consultants yeah as it says here right underneath the bus yeah um that's I guess straightforward um so section two housing overview yep um housing related goals or strategies right y yes that would be yes at least 15 units an acre I don't think so as of right we don't currently have any existing zoning districts that allow it by right correct that would be no right yeah we do have a housing production plan yeah we do have a master plan we've been working on an overlay District in East Milton so I would say yes and I think we have open space and Recreation plan yeah we have a lot of I just want to go back to the how these were answered before one second yes is this m municipality currently working on any other yeah plan for housing I think we could list all the approved 40 yeah as well as the approved um winter Valley 2.4 is yes because we have we had a vote yeah it's yes we receive state funding [Music] yeah from Mass housing partnership yes that's right I think what we were have been thinking of and I think it probably still applies is a new zoning District mhm well there base or overlay though did wasn't it overlay before select all that apply yeah other zoning strategy a new base well when it's we haven't been talking about a 40R well let's go from the beginning number a we don't have one that already complies we don't we had not been talking about amending existing such that we would make them as a right correct so I don't think B would apply we have not been discussing a 40R so then D says a new base zoning District or District so base zoning means you're changing the underlying zoning um so I um so say a I think that's it's not a though because we don't it could be C because it it's not it's not um a new 40R but it's other overlays yeah I would say C and D then right c and e c and d why wouldn't it be e also could be E I suppose I don't know what it is but yeah I mean it's nice to leave our options open well I think in 3.2 what we discussed was our our mixed use not um eliminating our business districts was important so I'm looking at what we answered before non-housing priorities include mixed use development portions of our potential District are in existing business districts and other portions are in areas of town that have few commercial amenities another Factor was affordability pedestrian and bicycle connections to Transit Transportation Connections in portions of the district not in the trans Area Transit area such as uh bus lines bike Lanes public realm Street tree canopy impact of resoning on Municipal Services which I'm not sure we can do any longer preservation of existing open space and we had a the town has a concern about the capacity of the metapan trolley and its ability to absorb New Riders and achieve the goal of taking cars off the road Town's also concerned about the Commonwealth's commitment to implementing the matapan trolley transformation project those improvements will be crucial to ensuring the trolley is able to support the potential new density that a 3A district will create so those all Sav the applicable same we could add those but that we also wanted to talk about um because it's become such a a real issue is the health care capacity for hospitals local hospitals yep so uh thanks for bringing that up because I mentioned that last time so um as I mentioned you know the um the health department did send out a letter to five different entities requesting a um Health Care capacity audit um in my understanding at this point they you know they haven't responded Mar Hy and Andrea Campbell were two of the five um so I would like to add that letter um as another appendix also I would like to add um or an attachment you mean an attachment yep um I would also like to add and maybe it's as I mentioned last week you know I'm on the climate action committee and we are talking about um you know drought flooding wildfires and in light of what's happening in California um I would like to add a letter about our concerns about wildfires um the Blue Hills is about 2,000 acres it takes up about 20 5% of U Milton's land mass and so I think it is a true emergency like if if hlc thinks zoning is an emergency I personally think that um Health Care capacity and wildfires are actually a really true crisis um so I would like to add those two things um to it if I can Cheryl could you send um or actually cheyen you probably have all of those the list that um Cheryl it's in the folder it's it's that um document that's in the folder Merida yeah so Chey if you could share if you're sharing these with with Nick um to include that as well as what Maggie is suggesting we'll do okay great and then along the lines of the mix use development I'd love to mention something about increasing our commercial tax base just because the town is so broke that was included in that I think that was included in one of the items that we had yeah I didn't see it I'll read it again though the commercial well actually I'm talking about actually increasing our commercial tax base through commercial yeah through mix use development through whatever but as long as it it okay we let them know that we're trying to increase our commercial tax base well as we discussed when we had the presentation with the consultant about the economic development um we one of the main priorities was making all of our non-conforming businesses um you know not special permit but make them as of right so we we have many um commercial businesses outside of our commercial districts and to me that's low hanging fruit and I think we should um first step should make those all as a fright so let's uh scroll down further so I'm sorry can you go back up to four yeah four is a timeline which they're requiring task start and finish for each of for each of um component so seems to me um public Outreach should be the first thing and that's on their list as the first item and that could be doing the Forum that we postponed and trying to do it in February is difficult because we have um school vacation and town meeting but it it seems to be that needs to be the first task yeah I don't think we should let public Outreach slow us down I I've heard a lot from the public and I think I have a good idea of where the zoning should go Jim we have not had a public forum since the SJC decision came down and I I think that the the public um is very is going to be quite interested in what the town decides to do with this given that decision so I I don't think you should um presume to know what the entire town wants to do now since that decision's been issued yeah I think we could push forward without it but that's just one I think we could back this out July you know we have the July um so if you want to back it out yeah if we have submit you know District compliance and we just have to make sure that um the public Outreach Forum was rescheduled because another big um initiative in town was going on in that same night so it wasn't just like the planning board decided will to just not have it I personally asked if we uh if it could be rescheduled once we knew the outcome um because you know mot was having a big um public forum on um the rotary 2 rotary it wasn't like we just disregarded it just so I I think we should put a placeholder in this and I I think this needs to be determined because we can work as fast or slow is you know so one thing I would say is in the prior one it said public Outreach would be ongoing throughout the process so that might be the same best approach here another thing was procuring consultant Services uh which we still have done so maybe that could be one of the we've already procured consultant services um develop the zoning apply the compliance Model A planning board hearing and special Town Meeting those were the short answers in our prior application those seem to be also good answers for these as far as the dates if this has to be adopted by mid July right you would need to what we had before is December 4th was the town meeting we had planning board hearing mid to late October um and the compliance model we had complete in the schedule it said in August so we don't have as much time as we had in this because it also had developed the zoning in March March through September uh I would say I mean we've been working on zoning so it that's been on we could say that that's been ongoing just like the consultant Services yeah I think all of this has been ongoing I have we haven't had our planning board hearings because we haven't we don't have a final we don't actually have districts and a set compliance model but we've been working on them so it seems to me we'd have to have the compliance model and the zoning ready by the 1st of June if we want to have a compliant article voted on by town meeting by mid July what meeting are we going for I'm sorry Maggie it would have to be a special it have to be a special yeah um so as you know that the um that 23 bills have been already filed with the state legislature to either repeal it or amend it you know because there were so many significant concerns and opposition um and there other ongoing legal challenges um so do we know and again this is a general question because I don't really know too much about the State legislator's schedule do you know do we happen to know when those would come up I don't no okay okay I just find it interesting there are 23 bills filed yeah yeah I mean that was my point earlier you know so what do you do about that proceed with caution it's what you do right right okay so I I think we should move through this and not get too way down because I think um so public we have exactly our action plan we're yeah so if we said public Outreach ongoing consultant engaged compliance model in ongoing or in progress and so we could say develop zoning April compliant final compliance model May or I don't know what the order of those would be compliant maybe the compliance model April and the zoning may maybe we want early May for that that's reasonable and planning board hearing yeah there so the hearing month before the hearing should be June I guess zoning May compliance model April and and do we in each of these short answers as um people suggested do we type in a statement that says we are reserving the right to make changes I think that makes sense wherever however it's deemed best place to put it I would think it would be in every answer so I think we if we said early April in the compliance model early May for the zoning early June for the public hearing so that gives February and March to work on the compliance model testing the districts doe public Outreach two months when considering there's February vacation in there I think that seem and the April vacation in there I think that seems appropriate I agree I think that's is that the is that the last part of the cheyen can you scroll down a little further yeah okay let see attached sign statements and this is where we would have C appendex referred to for our comments yeah and the other documents that Maggie was suggesting the letter to the governor so what are you suggesting goes in here any documents that we want to attach including our appendix and the comments that we would provide did anyone have anything else to they wanted to add up above what excuse me cheyen were you able to take note of what we discussed on these answers yes I've been writing them down so that you could do a paper draft since you can't do this okay I'll be doing that tomorrow okay so you know it really comes down to um you know whether as we said earlier we want to put in the action plan that we will be compliant and Reserve our right to amend or whether we we take that other approach which would put us out of compliance and I I really think that's um that's something that the public should be able to understand and and provide comment to um and you know there's several meetings tonight including the select board and fire station building committee and there might be others and how many people are able to see this um it seems to me some public input ought to be sought before this is submitted on February 13th I I agree yeah um I wonder if we I I just want to I just want to come back you're suggesting that public input uh for us to fill out the action plan public input on whether um people feel as if or residents feel as if the town should continue to pursue a path that's non-compliant with the with the regulations with the emergency regulations because if not then they have to be prepared to allocate funds you know to prepare for lawsuits that challenge it and in a time when um the select board is discussing tonight you know an override that of substantial dollar I think the public needs to be aware of the financial implications of these decisions if we uh you know make a recommendation as a as a board to pursue a path that's non-compliant well there's also there's also Financial ramifications to to creating a plan that might really harm the town in the future I I I actually disagree The public's obviously they can communicate with the planning board the select board the Town Administrator as much as they possibly want I think at this point um because what are you going to do if you have a hundred people that send in a comment and in 50 uh you know have one position and 50 have another position how do you make a decision um my opinion is we're an elected board the select board is an elected board we have a Town Administrator um I think this is in our hands now we have to make a decision and I'm not precluding anybody from sending an email to the planning board uh or to any of us they have every right as a resident of the town to do so so I expect since you've invited it you we're going to get those and that's fine uh but I don't think that we're going to be able to make a decision based on the public input I would hope you would consider public input I mean it's incredibly important thing we just spoke about don't mischaracterize what I just said they're entitled to submit anything they want but what are you going to do take a take the vote and make a decision you know if you have an overwhelming response that's that uh supports um something that you don't agree with do you think you're going to change your mind my point is that this is something that's been discuss there's been no public discussion about what the town should do since the SJC issued their decision zero it's unbelievable I can't believe that there hasn't been a public forum by the planning board or the select board the Town Administrator that explains the decision explains what the town's options are and and has people there's so many people who are wondering what comes next where's the leadership and so for us to say for tonight that this action plan is the next step and it's been spoken about for one hour tonight other than Mr dh's memo at the last meeting I just think that that's not a nowhere near enough of a communication with the residents of the Town who will be impacted by whether we continue to be non-compliant well Cheryl you know that this has been a changing this is you know the emergency regulations that just came out then you know then we had a public hearing process this has been sort of a moving Target this is not you know not because anyone has had full information I think we've been waiting waiting for information and I think that's why you know we cannot give information to the town until the town has received the information we just you know we just found out yesterday there's a that there's you know public hearing processes you know are are just um we just received that we have 20 days now that that has just been put on to us and and so we are having to react and having to deal with the information that we have at hand but it's um this has been this process with hlc has just been very backwards and I mean we're yeah we're asked to do something that we don't have we we don't have a final comment period and we're asked to do an action plan so regardless of whatever we intend to put in I do intend to add the comments I would like to vote um to add the comments that Tom has provided because there it's not it's not about what we want to happen it's about what is legal what is absolutely the law and that's what I'm trying to follow um I'm trying to be compliant with the law but you know the way this is proper this is you know improperly being promulgated in my opinion um to try to have an action plan before before final on that on that note on the legality I think we have to rely on Town Council absolutely we can't rely on any particular res whether it's Mr dhy um Miss O'Donnell Mr Hine or whomever we have to rely on Town Council and so whether it's legal or not whether the guideline whether these emergency RS are um are properly um prated I guess uh you know in terms of Mr hin saying what's the point in fighting them when the final RS are going to be out in 90 days you know I think um what we SP what he's suggest Ed and um you know what kathen O'Donnell suggested was show good faith and so show good faith um is that we um intend to be compliant and if um so you know there hasn't been any decision made about what next to do on any legal front and so we're left whether we going to be compliant or not and um and I vote for being compliant and I don't think we should include legal strategy that hasn't been um put forth by Town Council I I just think that's not appropriate y i I agree charl I just Marth I just want to go back to you know the discussion I was having with CHL a few moments ago eohc violated right we all know this the administrative procedures act they're the ones that have created this aggressive timeline you know they're the ones that established the date of the 13th of February they're the ones that you know have issued emergency guidelines which to me is quite strange given that they've been found in violation of a procedural process that they just ignored by issuing emergency guidelines and they created the deadline of the 13th if if there's anything that's precluding the public from being involved it's not the planning board it's the state creating these timelines that are so aggressive in placing a uh placing a date for uh an action plan of the 13th of February that's what's preventing the kind of Engagement that you're asking for that's what 15 days away from now thank you we do have one hand up um from the public it looks like a phone number ending in 011 if you'd like to add a comment I just want to make sure I I'm not sure who this is if you could introduce yourself state your name and address for the public please and your comment hello yes we can hear you now hi Merith uh this is Mark chriso calling from 17 Waldo Road um if I could hello everybody I've been seeing you guys for a little while did want to put a through few thoughts out there if I could um I've been listening just a little bit tonight but I think any future planning board action must not tie us to the rapid transit classification uh as as you know I feel we need to pursue the reclassification I want to go look at two things I want to look first at the matapan trolley we know that trolley is the only rail service in the MBT Arsenal that operates a single vessel with severe limitation due to its minimal carrying capacity it's get the least carrying capacity of all and that's Complicated by the fact that it's it is the only vessel that does not transport downtown it's limited to local stops only it ceases its operation outside of a rapid transit station that's Ashmont rapid transits DET Terminus which it only feeds into just like a bus and let's not forget that this trolley has anemic ridership and is without the possibility of high ridership and volume capacity in the infrastructure Rapid Transit restrictions that could not support such an aggressive housing agenda besides that you know we know that the SJC just came out with a ruling and they've said that hlc did not properly promulgate their uh regulations but we also know that there were many missteps in my description that L hlc presented to this board with different members back in 2021 starting in 2021 when they came up with the draft guidelines you know they rebranded that top tier classification just weeks before that deadline I think it was March of 2022 they didn't give a deadline extension for people to do their due diligence to uh to really assess the situation and then after the fact when they went through the process what were there five communities I think in total that were that were uh relinquished of their responsibility zoning regulations zoning requirements under that Rapid Transit top tier classification and there were 80 downgrades based upon different classification changes Etc so they've made many missteps not just the one that the SJC called them out so it's really going to be difficult I think so go forward playing by their rules alone without at least bringing these things to the attention uh of of of of legal counsel when when when you're dealing with this but you know I just feel that at this point we got to move forward and we can't be moving forward at 25% classification associated with the rapid ter classification so I just want to put that back out there for consideration uh that said thank you very much thank you that's great yep you're welcome okay okay I couple words Meredith I mean sure absolutely yeah I just feel that there has been plenty of public Outreach I mean we got two great lawyers tonight um in Kathleen O'Donnell and Doug hind that had great input and you know I happen to think that Mr D's advice is a little bit better um but I think this board is capable of filling out an action plan and making a decision as to what we want to do whether it's 25 or 10 or or you know whatever we choose but I think I I'm skeptical that we're going to come to an agreement on an action plan without sort of presenting a couple different ones and I don't really know how to do it I mean I would I would love to sit down with Mr dhy and and just sign figure this thing out attach his appendic to exactly what He suggests and see what happens with the eohc now others on the board might not want to do that so I don't know if we have two separate action plans filled out that we vote on or or or I mean I don't know how we propose taking the plunge this out but I think we should decide tonight what we want to do so next meeting have to call a meeting in a couple of days and vote on something and and get it in I mean I think it's worth doing well either way I think we're going to need a follow-up meeting to this we're not going to and this is a action that the Town Administrator we talked about has to take and whether that Town Administrator is going to want to get the select board's opinion on this you know I I I don't think the planning board should think that we're acting in isolation on this so yeah I think um you know my suggestion would be to to complete the draft in a draft form as Cheyenne said she would do yesterday and then share with the town administrators that there's um you know Mr dhy has this memo there's been concern about whether it represents Town council's View um there's been concern about the fact that the um this is due before the regulations are uh promulgated um and that there's you know um there's maybe some agreement amongst the majority about not wanting to be uh committed to a compliant model based on the emergency but it's not unanimous and then you know um and let him take that input because it's not our decision to actually to vote that this is the actual plan is to provide our input and guidance that's my view our decision to vote on a plan to put forward to the select board right have they asked for it we would need clarification for that um so so aren't we the planning board we are the that's exactly right so the they didn't ask for the sorry go ahead I guess nobody's asked for anything from us right so why are we doing anything they didn't ask for it hey let's just blow it off I think no I just meant that the the U action plan being needing to come from the Town Administrator who works under the direction of the select board doesn't work under the direction of the planning board that was my reason for saying that oh yeah I think the action plan needs to be admitted by the Town Administrator but I think it's got to be generated by the planning board correct that's the way I take it so it is the planning board's responsibility to put Force zoning so perhaps there wasn't a d a uh a formal directive however we all know it so let's not kid ourselves let's not um you know confuse the public we know that it's our responsibility to do this so we don't have we shouldn't be arguing that point we just need to do it so one thing that I would say is if it does require other input when what the planning board is deciding to do is submit something that says we're not going to comply with the emergency regulations because your intent is not to comply with the rapid transit community and therefore you're going to submit a plan that's going to keep us out of compliance and make us ineligible for Grants I just agree that we're saying I don't think we're going to say that we're not going to comply so are you going to check the rapid transit on that form I I think we're going to leave it open and I think we need to have a discussion with and we need to open the door for a conversation with with hlc as what I feel correct and we are just to clarify we are not out of compliance at this moment in time we should be asking for reimbursement of any grants that were uh denied to us one Grant in particular has R me the wrong way is the the grant um for um infrastructure for our disabled now I don't know if you all know but I grew up with the severely disabled sister I am very sympathetic to the disabled and for that reason alone I called um that Grant um issuer and that really annoyed me I shouldn't have to be doing that so that Grant should be also looked at to be reinstated um so I I think Cheryl we all know we want to be compliant with the statute um the public does need to be aware of all the financial ramifications of everything in this town and we know that they're looking for a $10 million override and we are not saying to keep things private or out of the public we meet how many times for How many hours we get written about on social media not always in a great light we get written about in um the Milton times just today and you know whatever that Commonwealth Beacon we were quoted in that so everybody knows what's going on the public has had ample opportunity they knowwhere to find me I don't I'm not hidden away anywhere um I'm a huge proponent of transparency but I'm also a huge proponent of getting things done I think right now we just need to get things done right so so this would be so either we can we can complete the draft we can have Cheyenne sort of start filling this in um I would like to see the comments added no matter what we what is sent in I think no one can disagree with what Tom has stated but you know obviously we would want Town council's opinion um but I think the comments so the question we I had asked to put those comments up on the screen tonight that didn't happen are those available for the public to see are they posted on the website under MBTA zon they're in our planning board folder um which can be accessed through the planning board website and has Town Council seen them that memo and has Nick Milano seen the memo yes I said I think um just an opinion but Meredith you're the chair before we put you know uh Mr D's um what he prepared out there should we check with Mr Dy and make sure he's I assume he's going to be okay with it but just seems like that would be fair to him he's got his hand up actually oh yes he is um Mr dhy if you would like to um unmute yourself and please feel free to speak up on this issue you're still muted there you go there you are okay sorry uh yes absolutely it should be uh public and let me say one last thing because it anyone who attended the prior meeting that I spoke at I mentioned also that to the extent that there are you know members of the public residents and all who you know firmly believe that the uh 25% uh you know classification is really something that should be prioritized or pursue pursued uh my my view is different in terms of the the legal analytics having said that as I mentioned that earlier this planning board has worked so hard on each of the two different aspects one the compliance with respect to the uh hlc's uh uh mandate and secondly looking at the uh I'll call it the proximity uh to the commuter uh Rail stations right so uh one of the one possibility which I you ought to at least consider although I I I would absolutely not agree that the uh I think it was well said the the com the uh real station uh modality is absolutely compliant with the statute okay so having said that uh there you could you could consider given all the work you've already done uh pursuing for the purposes of a vote by the you know the town residents both that is to say to the extent that it may be that uh and I don't agree that the town count count challenge the the regulations that's in fact what the uh SJC um said that the regulations are un enforceable they have to be properly done and furthermore at at page 13 of their decision they said and to the extent that the town uh feels that those aren't properly adopted it can it can challenge them uh just as it said and I want to say this clearly and slowly page 23 footnote 23 SJC said we have not taken a position or analyzed the uh application to Milton of the of the statute that Still Remains therefore and even said it could be pursued down in the lower court so I don't want to go on but I do think that to the extent that uh it is uh you know very strongly suggested that that that's that uh whether it's to save money or whether it's to um do the do the only thing that is somehow U mandated which I don't agree with uh you could pursue both you you know you've already done so much work having said that I think it would be I think it would be um unfortunate and and and problematical not to at least pursue uh the application of the statute uh on a commuter rail adjacency so simple and so so clear the math is right in the statute in the statute and the statute I'll finish now the statute uh has uh priority in terms of analytical and and legal import over the regulations to the extent that the statute is specific and applies to Milton so simply and c and clearly then the than to the then is to Milton that's that's the focus so so please do uh put uh that as you know uh I provided the document last night that I'm talking about because I had a draft on the on the 26th and then the letter came in from the uh from the secretary of the eohc and so I simply had first paragraph that added that so I'm talking about in and you and it was provided and uh Mr Milano has it and and you all have it it's that January 28th document thank you great thank you so cheyen if you could put that up on the website just because it is right now sort of it's 10:40 um so I want to make that you know available for the public can I just make one comment about the commu rail the application of the statute and the land areas the land areas that are within that half mile those Community Rail stations on the map or a lot of those are single family homes and you're applying 15 units an acre on those single family homes and uh those neighborhoods haven't been reached out to at all to say that your um your properties are are potentially in a in these districts and um when we did this zoning uh last year the planning department had a monthly meeting in which public forum in which people were invited to come and listen learn and provide their comments and so if you're talking about new districts and you think that we don't need any more public comment on on those new districts I completely disagree with that I haven't said they don't need oh I'm sorry not not addressed to you Mr Dorney sorry that was that was addressed to the board sorry fellow board member sorry and as and as you yourself know better than so because you're so very uh uh I think articulate and knowledgeable about the the regulations regulations even say that half at least half of that uh could be uh zoned that that multif family zoning could could be located elsewhere and another part of the regulation said actually if it's if it's below a certain number of units which it is it could be U it could be located anywhere so uh Mr D you you understand too that that's in the in the regulations or in the guidelines not in the statute right so the statute is pretty clear that it says a half a mile but the guidelines we say the guidelines aren't properly prolongated so that's where I have some some conflict with the with the approach um so but I think it can you look at the statute and the statute gives you the the norm and then you can talk with the hlc about whether with respect to the uh flexibility that they had in other respects they want to do that but the but the hlc is bound by the statute and you start there that's all that's all I think thank you I I really appreciate the opportunity to say and and now thank you thank you so I think Cheyenne will um will communicate sort of where we are you know on our draft you know sort of where we're we're looking to go with this um and get um for their uh opinion from Town Council from um the select board I don't know how they're dis they were also discussing this this evening so I don't they're meeting at the same time so I don't know how their discussions went but um we'll get caught up with the chair and with Nick tomorrow and we'll have to have another meeting on this so as because we do want to respond with something by the 13th so um we will um we will need another meeting prior but I'll have Cheyenne send that out to see you know when we can have a follow-up meeting and where should we where where we should go with this so um any other comments from the board before we have a motion to adjourn no other comments okay um I would entertain a motion to adjourn so moved is there a second all right roll call a Sean yes Cheryl yes Jim yes Maggie yes am myself yes all right thank you so much good evening good night 3 2 1 here we go [Music] ah