of the home while still still ensuring someone moving in is paying less than 30% of their income towards those housing costs. So they run it essentially in the simplest form they run a calculation to say what can the cost of the home a home be to ensure the person moving in is paying 30% or less of their total gross income towards
housing cost. So that's pre-tax income that we use for that calculation. And because it's variable, we went and pulled a couple of examples to show you about re recent sales in that greater Boston um HUD metro area that you all sit in for different ownership units. So, for example, in in Amesberry, there
was a studio for sale for $211,000, a onebedroom in Danverse for $264,000, twobedroom in North Reading, $290,000, and a three-bedroom um here in Newberry for $330,000. Um, so it's obviously variable depending
on the size of the unit. However, I don't know, to me when I look at these numbers, they feel a bit more attainable than the rental numbers do when you look at them and run the math on it. Um, so these numbers are a calculation when the if it's a new development, the development is done. And if it's going up for resale, whatever the current market conditions are of the resale of
the unit, and so they'll vary slightly from project to project, but that's generally the range that that we would see based off what we're looking at right now in the current market. You're saying uh they they seem more reasonable because it's
you're paying a mortgage as opposed to rent. >> Yeah, that's kind of my editorializing about seem more reasonable. The reason why I say that is because these numbers to me are significantly lower than the market rate would be for a new 3-bedroom condo in Newberry versus the market rate
for a three-bedroom rental isn't necessarily too far off sometimes from the um affordable rate for a two or threebedroom rental where I was showing the last slide some of the one-bedroom rents were up to 2400 for an affordable
rate. We see 2500 for market rate. Um, so the difference isn't quite as large as compared to the home ownership costs that we've seen. The difference >> you said something about the homeowners of prospective homeowner assets figuring
one of the calculations. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Run that by me again. >> So um >> I'm looking at the 330. >> Yeah. So when you are going through um the income validation when you enter the lottery and if you are lucky enough to get to purchase the home you are
validated with your income but you also have a maximum asset limit in order to purchase the home. So if you are doing a um ownership unit and you're purchasing typically we see an asset limit of about $75,000. So you can't hold property elsewhere that's worth more than 75 or have you know savings over a certain amount. Typically that does not include
retirement assets if you have retirement accounts. Um, but it's mostly your liquid assets that you could um have today if you were moving into the home. And so there is an asset limit there. >> And then I think I mentioned earlier if you then move into the unit and 10 years down the line you sell the unit um
you're selling it for an affordable price. So you do get the whatever profit it is but you don't get to just sell it for what the market's demanding at the time for a three-bedroom unit. You then have to resell it at what the calculated affordable price would be. >> Am I allowed to ask questions?
Yeah. >> What about for the rental? Is there an asset limit? >> Um, I don't think so. I should double check on that. >> I don't think there is an asset limit, but there might be in certain situations. I should look. I'll get an answer for you.
>> Thank you. There's certainly a lot of in the weeds for all of this, you know, like and I I've >> from some experience I've had in my former job in Ipsswitch,
the affordable units that were a part of a larger development, like if you had a, you know, an apartment building with 120 units or whatever and a quarter of them were affordable and there was a management company there's sort of a a
built-in infrastructure for >> like ongoing just the questions you're asking like what happens in the next year you know like it's sort of the startup involves a fair amount of administration but um as
it goes into the future like if a property for instance the Cricut Lane homes there's an information session tonight if anyone's interested in that um because those are just what the the application period is open for those and
the lottery is coming up in November for those um three-bedroom homes. But so, you know, and there's a home there's a housing authority who's managing all that on behalf of the town and the developer, supporting the developer. So,
people will buy the buy these new three-bedroom homes, you know, what whatever time period that takes, and say they live there for 3 or 4 years, and then they sell it. That's where my question comes in, right? Because like who's then sort
of charged with supporting that effort. Um, and I do think in some cases towns have uh sort of set up more of a housing program where there's actually like a staff member who's the housing coordinator who really helps manage that
ongoing responsibility to make sure things stay on the subsidized housing inventory to, you know, assist residents who are like overwhelmed by the process. Um, you know, there was a one-bedroom apartment that was a condo, one of
three. Uh, there was a three-unit multif family house. One of the units was affordable. And when that condo unit changed ownership, it was a quite a process just to manage getting a new incomequalified
um resident in that property. So, it is I think my point is there's a lot of pieces to it, but um every and every town has to kind of really figure out a way to support that. There are also a lot of partners who are helping
communities, but um yeah, >> it's a lot of >> it's a process. Part one is well you really need to do them together which is good that you're asking these questions at the same time because one piece of this is the policy and the biome piece is then the implementation of it and the
mechanisms to then make sure it's all working successfully. >> Yeah. >> The mechanisms behind that process is something that I would like to do some deep digging into to get some of these detailed answers for you all because on the like property leasing side and the lottery side is not always my area of expertise depending on what they're
going with it versus the policy side of things. But certainly throughout this process, if we develop a bylaw for Newbury, we're going to want to talk to affordable housing developers and see what the conditions they're seeing. And through that, we can also tease out their typical process. We're going through a lottery and income uh
validation, those those pieces. >> I think so. In Newbury, the properties that have affordable units are are the larger ones like um Oakidge and Quaker Hill and Newbury Village. So there's
there's um uh more there's a there's a property management team and the town really isn't hasn't been that involved in it as my maybe you can speak to that but I I know it's um it's it depends on
what kind of project it is I think. >> Yeah. Well, typically on a on a rental, you know, you have uh you have your property management company, whether it's internal to the company or external. Um, so if it's fully integrated uh into a um much larger
company, they have what you would call um an affording >> an affordable housing expert >> um that's employed by the company. >> Yeah. >> Right. So there's uh there's a lot of assistance, a lot of support um not only with um between that person and that
particular deal, but a lot of deals. Um so >> because there's a lot of deals is enough income to support having a person like this. I think you're absolutely right on the for sale side. Um that's a bit of a
long tale. Um and that three to four could be a shorter tale, but where is where is that person? Right? Because um there's a lot of um you know, details. Um you know, I was thinking as
you were talking um you know, you typically would have an attorney for each each side, the seller and the buyer. >> Um but I don't even know, you know, if that's required by law. you know, it could be somebody going to
contract with somebody they know, you know, on a PNS that they pulled offline >> um and then they pay and then they record, right? So, um there are uh in my opinion potentially some some cracks
that people could wiggle through >> um on the for sale side, >> right? the rental side is is pretty pretty safe and um we actually have an affordable housing um person that's been with us for a very very long time and knows like
>> Yeah. >> expert on us. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um and she'd be happy to come in and you know for for an hour and talk to like the intricate details on the rental side, >> right? >> Yeah. I I think that would be, you know,
as part of this process, I think it'll be helpful for us to talk to folks that are working it specifically in that day in day out. Um, and one of the things we'll mention in a couple slides about the challenges associated with it to your point about especially the larger firms have either full in-house property management or they contract out or they
have staff that know it very well. What we've noticed with smaller developments which tend to be managed by smaller firms or maybe local developers that are doing 10 unit projects, they might not have the capacity to do as much of that administration. And so sometimes their challenge comes in where they're not an
expert in the process and it's so burdensome, never mind the loss of profit in renting an affordable unit, but the actual paperwork involved with it. We've seen folks pull out because they don't want to work through that paperwork as a smalltime developer. Um
>> I often like the the for sale developers that do the smaller, you know, um kind of types of um you know, projects. Um that could be a you know 3 to 5 year um
depending on sales and demand and um it could be 3 to 5 years before they complete um and up until the time they get uh pretty far along. Um they own a board city, they own control of the
association. Um but once they uh relinquish control and sell that last unit um we don't see you don't see them again. >> Yeah. >> They are on to you know some other town. Um so if there's uh
>> the condo association who would be kind of charged with assuring the restrictions >> well I think and that again that's just the present day that's what we have going on at Cricut Lane off of Pearson Drive. It's 24
single family properties that will be for sale. Um but it was a 40B approval. So, six of those three-bedroom homes, three three and four bedroomedroom uh will be deed restricted with a lottery
for the for the buyer >> with a homeowners association. >> With a homeowners association, it's a condo um development. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, and they're being based in related to the market sales and construction.
So, >> Okay. Yeah. Well, when you see the the homeowners association, the condominium association, you know, um I've seen it, you know, I I see it down at Florida a lot, you know, where um you know, they
don't meet anymore, everything's fine, right, until a building collapses and then they right introduce new laws and codes. Um and then all the engineers come in and um determine that um you know there's $20 million you know um of
repairs needed um and then the condominium you know board we should meet right and then all of a sudden it's um it's a disaster um and I think that that happens not to that magnitude >> but in these small towns I think that
happens um very very often like a lot right that just there's a board Um, and you know, everybody pays dues and then, you know, could be 100 more like $300 or $400 a month. Um, but nobody nobody's
watching. >> Mhm. >> Right. >> And nobody's repairing, nobody's fixing. So things get, you know, run down until um, you know, somebody um, you know, on the board drives through and says, "We should probably meet and fix some stuff." >> Right? It's up to the residents. Then
they look at the you know the reserves and they say you know construction pricing is up 35% just in the last 5 years. Um so there won't be enough but anyway >> um if you want to go to the next slide here
um I just have two more I think two more so slides here. So we talked earlier about how uh bylaws and ordinances can take many different shapes depending on the community that you're in. um just want to talk through some of the main components of what usually factors into an I bylaw when
you're writing the policy itself. So the first thing or the first kind of two things that you look at is the percentage of the units required to be affordable and the threshold at which the affordability kicks in. So, for example, in your MBTA communities overlay district, when we did that work
um last year, uh we're requiring 10% of all the units in a development to be designated affordable. And we put the threshold at 10 units or more in development. So, anytime a development is over 10 units, they're required to have 10% of those units be designated as
affordable. Um so, those are kind of two first things that you look at. Then you also want to look at what level of affordability you're requiring within those affordable units. So again, for example, in your MVA communities overlay district, you're requiring the units to be set at 80% AMI. Um, of course, you
can also require things to be set at 60% or 30% AMI within the bylaw to have that deeper level of affordability. And we'll talk about in the next slide the pluses and minuses of doing all of that. Those first three bullets when you look at the percentage of units required to be affordable, the threshold where it kicks
in, and the level of affordability required, those also don't need to be static within the bylaw. So going back to your MBTA communities over the district, right now you're saying every project 10 units or more, 10% affordable housing at 80% AMI. What we are seeing
in some communities is they're adapting it depending on the size and density of the development. So they might say for projects of 10 to 50 units you have to have 10% affordable at 80% AMI but for projects of 50 to 100 units you need to
have uh 15% of units affordable. 5% of those need to be at 60% AMI and 10% of those are at 80% AMI. So you can kind of mix and match depending on the development size. But all of this needs to be weighted with what as I'll talk about in the next slide a little bit is actually feasible for a developer to
produce. And the reason we see these tiers sometimes other bylaws is that as we talk with the development community, what we found um is that typically as the scale and density of your project goes up, it makes it a bit more feasible to be including affordable units. So it may be feasible to require the developer
to have either a deeper level of affordability or more affordability if you have very large projects. Obviously, here in Newberry, we're not often talking about projects of 100 units or more as we might be talking about in other communities, but it's something to consider as we look at the potential
ways that we could draft a bylaw um in town. Um, also as a piece of that uh those components, we also look at what we call payments in lie. So, some communities will allow developers to make a payment typically to an affordable housing trust um instead of
actually building the affordable unit. And so those payments can take a number of different structures and calculations um for what the payment actually is the developer needs to make per unit. But typically um they'll be making a payment that would either be equal to um the difference in profit they could make off
of an affordable versus market rate unit or they'll be making a payment that be calculated um for the amount that's actually required to build an affordable housing unit. The affordable housing trust could get money. The challenges associated with that of course is then you need a affordable housing trust to manage those payments and actually spend
those payments. Um we see relatively often communities that have affordable housing trusts and they're collecting fees but then they don't do anything with the fees. Maybe it's no fault of their own because you need a good amount before you can actually take action on them. But that um is something that the town then would be managing with a local
board for payments in loo. I >> I assume a housing authority would would fulfill the same function. Um, not always. Um, it it typically you'll have a an independent trust overseeing the actual trust itself. >> Okay. And and an affordable housing
trust would require town meeting action or is that something the select board could uh >> um setting up the trust would require town meeting action. The board itself um would not be need to be approved by Tommy. The board would probably be like the select board or the town manager's
office appointing those board members. and and what sort of things uh I mean assuming like like for Newberry if we had an affordable housing trust and some money was going in there we're not going to be in a position anytime during my lifetime to start
building affordable housing right >> what sort of things can that money be used for >> um so we see things like down payment assistance um used for that so programs where people making a certain income can get you know let's say 20 grand towards a down payment in town if they're buying a market rate unit or thing. Um, we also
will see um, uh, senior uh, property improvement funds. And so if someone needs to make improvements for accessibility to their home or if um, they need to make physical improvements to a home, they could apply to um, have um, funds in order to make those capital improvements to their property. Um, those are the two main
things that I've seen those used for. Um, but in some other communities where there's high need for rental assistance, we also see some rental assistance programs. if they have large funds like during COVID we saw some of them used for immediate rental assistance for folks that couldn't make rent month over month. Um, two other
>> other there's one other thing I've seen um in addition to those three um is if an entity like Habitat for Humanity is kind of putting in a lot of funds sometimes the town like adds a little
bit more in to make it possible for an entity like Habitat to do the development. >> That's a good point. I mean, it just strikes me that particularly for a developer of of uh smaller developments, payment in Lou is going to be the more attractive.
Um, >> even larger ones, it's always >> everyone unless you um I mean there are developers out there that uh do a lot of tax credit work and you know it's um you
know they it's it's you know it's it's their their life, right? That's that's uh um but anybody that wants to is in this business for profit um it's always payment. >> Mhm. >> Then they've done it. They're out of it
>> in terms of you know monitoring. >> Yeah. But I've always wondered like there's there's this there's housing um authorities there's housing trusts affordable housing trusts and um you know you get all the you get these funds payment on L but there's
nobody to administrate it you know it just kind of sits there. >> Mhm. >> Um and which is unfortunate um you do need a bit of a of a stake uh you know in that fund before you can really do anything because things are so expensive. budget. Um, if you're going
to do it, you should probably think through it and create like a road map really from the beginning to the time where you can actually begin to disperse. Um, so
>> yeah, I I would just add that um um for that reason we see a lot of communities I shouldn't say a lot. I'm thinking of a couple that I've seen where the payment in lie is not an automatic guarantee where the the planning board or whoever the permit
granting authority is has to allow as an option. It's not an automatic option for a developer where the planning board has to oversee that during the permitting process um or trying to make the payments in lie um high enough that the developer wants to instead build the
unit because it's not worth it to pay for it um to have it on site. Um, and then I'll add, you know, to the affordable housing trust, the challenges, one of the challenges in Newberry is right now, correct me if I'm wrong, let's say you pass inclusionary zoning, you'd have payments in Lou. I think that would be pretty much the only
thing funding an affordable housing trust in Newberry would be payments from that payment in Lu versus other communities that have CPA, for example, Community Preservation Act. They fund their affordable housing trust through CPA. So you have multiple revenue sources there which makes it easier to accumulate funds versus here you'd be
you know every couple years maybe you get a project and you get another let's say 100 grand in there it's slow to accumulate and you still have to wait to spend that money. >> Yeah. But I think there's other uh opportunities to um you know push funds into that trust. It could be um relative
to the project could be building permits. >> Yes. Certainly. >> Right. Um I'm sorry. What' you say? So >> building permits. So if um you know and I'm not sure Martha maybe you know um but there could be different formulas
based on the different types of housing. So, if it's a multif family um housing project over 50 units, um you you could have a different formula on the building permit fee. And then um I think provided
you have um you know, reason for it be you know um the difference between what a normal fee would be and a um increased fee just that delta would need to go into the into the trust. And that would
need to be approved by select board or town meeting to um >> to allocate a certain building fee into a different fund rather than where they go now. >> I can't answer that.
>> I wonder how that would >> I would think that would be >> a question for for Tracy since they go into the general fund now, >> right? So there might be >> I I think it's a I think it's some um
lowhanging fruit there. Um regardless of what the approval is, I don't think there'd be a lot of opposition. >> Um unless you're a developer in town uh living and have plans on, you know, building something larger
>> for the a higher threshold for Yeah. One last question on the the 80 6030. >> Does the um does 40B um
just have it has you can either go 25% or 20%, right? 40B. >> Um no, you could. So that's when you're building a 40B development. You were correct. Yes. So if they're you're doing under chapter 40, it's 20 25%. Um
>> 25% would be moderate and at 80% Um, and then if you went less 20%, it's under maybe it's a 60%. >> I think it is, but I don't know the exact number. But yes, so you don't So for 40B, if you're building a
development under chapter 40B, you have to have at least 20 or 25% of the units in the development affordable. If you go up to 25%, then the trick is you get to count all the units in the development as affordable under subsets as inventory. Or if it's 20% at I think 60% AMI then you get to count all of them
towards your subsidized housing. >> You mean all the units in the development? >> Yeah. So often in comm this is the weird loophole in state regulation is that you'll often have communities have 100 units on their subsidized housing inventory saying 100 affordable units
but really only 25 are but you get to count all 100 in a development. >> But that's only for rental units. Is that correct? >> Correct. Yeah. >> Yeah. Not home ownership. >> Yeah. So it'll be different here in Newberry when a lot of years are ownership. Thank you for that. >> So that's an incentive to the town to
you know get um over that 10% threshold on the for um um you know dwellings. >> Mhm. >> But it's not it is a little bit of a loophole. But I just to your point on the you know
when we're looking at these um you know these uh this stuff it's you know you do we do want developers right to be attracted to new breeding. Um so you just got to be careful um you
know if it's at um if it's at 10%. um got to be careful about, you know, pushing it to 15 >> and then doing, you know, 10% at 80 and 5% at 60. >> Um so that's um you don't want to
disentize >> Yeah. >> always struggle with that word. >> Go ahead. >> Um ju just a couple things. One is there is a proposed um legislation for transfer tax fee on real estate transactions over a million and if that
passes that would be designated source of income um for a significant one. And the other thing is do you see towns? Um I remember going to the discussion at the community college at you know that conference a few years ago and and the
workshop I went to was really focused on the problem of inlt and how that >> was considered the big big problem um because they were saying developers just kept opting for that as they were saying and so do you see any movement towards
towns or smaller towns not offering that as an option? Um, I've seen where communities have put those thresholds higher for the payments in order to disincentivize them a bit more. And like I mentioned earlier to putting more barriers to getting approval for the
payments in L where the developer has to prove to a certain standard the the economic feasibility of them building the unit isn't actually there and that's why they're making the payment in L. Whereas I think the issue that was found in some communities was that they had
their inclusionary zoning bylaw and they said either build the unit or make a payment in loo and they got to choose which option they wanted and everyone defaulted to payment in loo but putting more barriers so to speak in front of that payment in loo is what folks have been trending towards. There's a great report that I just started reading through um from our colleagues in Boston
that analyze all the different payment and loo structures that we are seeing right now across the state. And so I'm hoping to get some more detail about how those have been functioning in the greater Boston area um for how they could be set up in Newbury. Um the next slide which is really kind of the last
slide talks about some of those challenges that Scott was alluding to before um in things that we really have to be aware of when we talk about um especially here in Newberry and in the Marramac Valley. So number one, kind of what Scott was just saying, sometimes your affordability requirements can be
so burdensome that developers will opt not to build anything at all. And this gets to that economic feasibility that we've talked about a couple times where if you're requiring a certain level of affordability, the developer is not going to make a profit on those um affordable units. And so they have to be able to make enough profit on the market
rate units to offset the losses on the affordable unit essentially. And in some communities, the loss is so great because the requirements for affordable units are so high. Let's say you require 20% of all the units be affordable. The developer is going to say, "My project isn't going to pencil out at all. So, I'm not going to build anything to begin
with." And then you're left with nothing. As opposed to maybe you could have gotten something if your thresholds were a little bit lower. So, that is so dependent on the local and regional market um and dependent on the conditions on the ground in in towns. And so something in Newbury for example
and some of the other rural towns um septic where you don't have uh sewer in the community and if a developer needs to build septic that's a much higher cost. Say they're doing a package treatment plant much higher cost for their development as opposed to if they were doing a Newbury port and had a sewer system ready to hook up to. So all
these little things play into the local market conditions and how much the developer is going to have to pay to actually offset that um that profit loss. um I see feasibility quote unquote the what I'm referencing right now can change over time and so what we are
seeing more uh frequently now is communities building in some type of mechanism to re-evaluate their I policy at least every couple of years. So maybe 20 years ago, you know, towns like Georgetown and others that were kind of way ahead of the curve and have had I
for decades, they might have implemented them and it was just kind of a set it and forget it because it was working and it was producing units. Well, the market conditions have changed so much in even just the past 5 years um you know coming out of COVID and everything where a policy that was feasible that a community might have passed in 2018
might not be producing units anymore today because of the skyrocketing costs. So a community might say like oh we permitted all these in 2019 though so our IC policy is working but if they don't revisit that and say what are the market conditions today they could be in trouble where now they're not going to produce any units going forward. So, we
really encourage communities that this I mean all of your zoning should be like this. Martha and I were kind of just talking about not resting on your laurels once you actually pass it, but you should be re-evaluating it and not thinking that it's a done deal once you finish it where maybe 2 or 3 years from now we come back and say, "Okay, what are the marketing conditions looking at
and do we need to propose adjustments to it depending on what we're seeing in town?" And that can go both ways. Maybe it gets um maybe u marketing conditions improve for developers and you can require more or maybe they get worse and you should be requiring less. It's it's all a a fluid mechanism. And then
finally, we talked about this already. Go ahead. >> One question before you go. So, is a mechanism that you would could can you write your bylaw in a pretty static uh structure and reference regulations
that can be changed more uh >> um >> more easily through public hearings rather than town meeting. Yeah, that's a good question. It's it's pretty limiting and I I would want to chat with council about how much you can have in your plan policies versus the bylaw itself because
the bylaw you would have to say like how much affordability you're requiring. I think what in terms of the 10% at 80% AMI but I think what you could be flexible with and I want to double check on this are maybe like the calculations for the payment in L. So I see some communities they just say you need to
make a payment and the planning board will determine >> the payment that's required and so that I think could change just by your planning board uh policies. Um but I think the main components would have to go back to town meeting and so it is a challenge in towns to do that. And so at
the very least typically the mechanism in some bylaws you might write in something like every two years the planning board shall report to the select board or shall evaluate the effectiveness and report to the select board or report to town meeting about the effectiveness of the bylaw recommendations for for necessary changes. >> But we should check with with council or
or Tracy to see what the threshold is for what we can do. >> Right. Some kind of reference to market conditions at the time would be re-evaluated at the time you were determining your payment. Yeah. >> Well, I think you we should go much
deeper um just because there's there's a lot of opportunity. Um if you're going to take a payment, most municipalities don't look at um you know, they're listening to the developer,
>> right? >> Right. That the developer saying, "Okay, it's easy math. It's easy math. I mean, we're only getting X number of dollars per month, you know, in rent for this affordable, but it goes deeper because, you know, these 25%
um or whatever it is, uh I mean, they're um there's deed restriction and the affordability is held in perpetuity. Mhm. >> So there's money on the back side and uh most larger developers I would say you
know 90% um aren't in this game to you know build it, keep it, maintain it, you know over 20, 30 years, >> right? >> Um they're typically in it to um profit
um out. >> Yeah. Right. They'll build it, fill it, um, and then they'll hold it for a year until renewals, um, you know, they get past that first renewal period and then then they mark it. So,
I would just probably, uh, almost everybody in this room is smarter than me, but we need a really smart person to that uh, uh, can get um really under the covers and just just try to capture everything. >> Yeah. Because
if it's a 10%, you know, savings at the end of the day, uh, for a payment in L, they're just going to say forget about it, right? It has to be a little meaty. Um, but if it's 15%, but I see a lot of the time. Um, and it's never going in.
you know, it's developers will tie up the land and um start to get things figured out, start to have discussions with um you know, you and um and then they ask about the payment loo and then
um that's always kind of an actor and it uh you know once they start to get traction and they think you know, okay, we're going to get something uh you know, done in town. But again, you never want to leave anything on the table and I think most
municipalities leave a lot on the table. >> So on the economics, instead of payment in L, what about incentivizing? You know, say you if you you're doing a subdivision and your yield plan says you can get 15 units and you say if you
build, you know, two affordable units, we'll give you an additional market rate unit or something like that. Is that is that enough of an incentive to then build them instead of doing a payment in >> L? Yes. Um that that's that's a good incentive. Um because
you know when developers are looking at um you know affordable you know um deals they typically um they'll pay the land seller um really um all relative to the density they can they can get. So, um,
like $60,000 a unit, um, but the developer only figures $60,000 unit for those 75%, right? The 25% at zero in their underwriting. Um, and then if everything pencils, um, you know, it's a deal that
they'll pursue. So, that incentive is actually, um, a really attractive incentive. Um >> so that might be something to consider especially if we don't have a mechanism for payment in L to build an incentive >> yes >> into the bylaw
>> that that would be very attractive >> but who in in your example Martha who uh monitors like future sales of the of the affordable units >> I mean I think that gets back to what we were talking about before is as having some sort of a a mechanism for that um
and I don't know >> there has to be somebody in It would have to be >> or or it could be some it could be a consultant on retainer, >> you know. So, you know, one maybe two or maybe five years goes by, you don't have one sale, right, on uh an affordable unit.
>> Um so, do we really want to have somebody on staff? >> I wonder if you could set up, you know, as a requirement if somebody's doing an I project and require that they have a management company >> that will be monitoring that. Um, you
know, I know Calwell Farm has a management company that deals with all of their stuff and maybe that's an added responsibility to ensure. >> Well, I think and that's again back to the reality of Cricut Lane which is happening right now like that was during the 40B permitting that was established
that Chsford Housing Authority would serve this role >> for the initial lottery. But I don't do you know if there was any discussion of the future? Yeah. I don't know. >> Like once all 24 of those homes have people in them and six of them have
income eligible owners based on the lottery, the initial lottery, 5 10 years from now, who's >> is it still somehow required for the homeowners association to make sure that Johns Housing Authority assists with
overseeing or like what's this oversight mechanism? you know, since that's a, you know, mass MHP approved project, maybe there is some kind of ongoing mechanism that wouldn't necessarily be there for >> about 34 Central Street.
>> But you could, I think, but um certainly you want to put the impetus on the board, the condo board, um, and the responsibility and accountability on that board. >> Something in those documents that got recorded. Yeah.
Um I think I just mentioned if you go to the next slide I have a we already talked about a lot of this but um just to remind us since it's so um dependent on the local market conditions about how much we could require Newberry specifically has some good opportunities and some challenges related to
inclusionary zoning. Um, number one, um, something that, um, especially I think Kristen, you were talking about, you know, if you're trying to meet septic requirements and title five requirements here in Newbury, you know, if you you need a the suitable soils and and b the capital in order to put in the actual septic system required to make it
happen. So depending on the size of development you're doing, the septic um that you have to put in is going to cost a certain amount of money and that's going to impact the bottom line there. Um, and depending on where the development is happening, you know, if the soils can't support a certain level of septic system, that's going to um impact how many affordable units you're
going to get out of the development because the development might need to be smaller or less bedrooms in order to fit the um capacity of the soils for the septic system there. Um, we already mentioned the lack of affordable housing trust here in Newberry. Um, we mentioned it early on, but the rental price of the
affordable units is high. um given your location in the greater Boston area, that is a plus and a minus. And I say it's obviously a minus because your folks are paying more money for affordable rentals. The reason why some might consider it a plus is it makes um
or could make your inclusionary zoning more feasible because a developer is going to get a higher um uh revenue out of the affordable units as they would in areas that we work in. For example, Boxford, if they're doing an affordable price, it is based off the greater
Lawrence area. So, they might be getting $400 less a month on the rental unit than they would here in Newberry. So, a project that doesn't pencil in Boxford might pencil here because they're getting more in revenue from the affordable units. And then, um, finally, there's strong demand for housing here and everywhere. It's not really
particular to Newberry, but there's a strong demand for housing here. So, your market rate units are going to um fetch a high cost and that will hopefully help offset the profit loss of the affordable units versus if you were in a really depressed market um really, you know, especially maybe if you're in like
central or western Mass where there's less of a market for housing, your affordable units um or your market rate units um might not get as high of a price, which would be harder to offset the profit loss of the affordable units, but you're going to get a pretty high price for the market rate units here at Newberry. Um that's it. So we want to go
through just to give you an idea of going forward. You can go to the last slide here. Um part of what we're doing here today and I've been taking some notes are what your initial questions are that you'd like us to go back and do research on and get answers. So things like the actual mechanism once we put a bylaw in
place. Um what are the steps for thinking about payments in L. All of those things are feedback that I want for how um we can approach this and the research you'd like us to do to get the information for you all. Um, we want to of course have time dedicated to get public input on what the public is interested in seeing as a piece of this
and also do some kind of two-way education. What's the public tell us they want and also how can we talk to the public about how this is structured so they have clarity should you decide to do a bylaw amendment at a future town meeting. They've heard it at least once before about how this all works. Um,
we're going to with all these factors in mind kind of analyze what options you might have for here in Newbury um as a piece of this process. We're eventually going to develop um sample bylaw amendment language for you all to decide. Like I said, you can go to town meeting whenever you'd like with it. But we want you to have some language there
so that you can pick it up and take it to the finish line when that feels uh most appropriate for town here. And you all will decide as the playing board if and what you'd like to take a proposed bylaw town meeting. So that's kind of the short and sweet package of what we're looking at here. Um, I want to
stop there and get any more comments or questions or things that you'd like us to do some research on and get you answers on. Um, and then the way we'll probably do it going forward is a lot of this communications will probably come um through Kristen and the staff here for you all. I'll come to, you know,
maybe one or two other planning board meetings, but you won't unfortunately see me as often as you did with MBTA communities where I was here every week. But we'll be kind of back and forth and doing those communications as we go along um through this process. Thank you. You know, if you'd like um
you know, we my company does have you know uh subject matter expert. Yeah. Has been in this you know forever. >> Mhm. >> Um you know I could certainly arrange some time 90 minutes uh you know just promo and and uh I'd like to actually
participate. >> Yeah. uh because it's very very interesting um >> you know the weeds >> um so just let me know send an email if you'd like that >> I will and that'd be very helpful because we're also you know I've been talking with other um like Menco and the
other kind of local larger local property developers and so we'll be kind of reaching out to several to get input and so it' be very helpful to have the perspective um of you all sure thank you Great.
>> But you also reach out to like a nonprofit developer like Harbor Bites who >> Certainly. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you, Ian. I know we've >> Yes. Thank you. >> got a few others wanting things, so we'll >> I'd love to stay, but I have to get to
my next stuff. So, thank you for having me here today. Yeah. Awesome. Thanks. >> Have a good day. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Where's your trash? right here. >> Yeah, thanks.
>> I think that video can be like the whole video of our meeting, you know. >> Okay. So, I'll keep it or maybe just keep that recording just in case. Yes. Is there a way to start again? >> Yes, there is. This meeting is being recorded.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. Awesome. >> All right. So, um yeah. So, we've got our other expert zoning >> hardly >> planner with us today. Um and uh we've
got a hand out. >> Yeah. Which one? >> I saw you know my address. I haven't been in there for [Music]
>> Yeah, we got one plan left. It's taking forever to write. >> I'll give you a hand out the window of my truck. I mean, >> who has done? >> Yeah.
inside. >> I took a ride down there, you know, and >> um I'm going to share is an opportunity for someone who might. >> So that's that's a nice tractor. >> It's a large one. No, it's just an intro.
Some kind of presentation and then a chance to >> Yeah, I know. >> Yeah. >> There's a good turnout, but >> I'll drop that tractor all day long.
>> You have an orange one with a lot we >> have a good day. Oh, you're welcome. >> Thanks, Pam. >> Did you get one of these? >> Thanks. I guess >> we just got another one of those. It's a
little older, but we're using that closet, too. >> 90s, late '9s. I'm looking for one of these yet. >> No, >> I want to buy one of those. Um, you
know, the John Deere little they can put a little plow on it. >> Yeah. >> What do they call them? The um really small >> the compacts. I'm not sure what they call them, but >> yeah, there's a name. There's a name. >> They're expensive. Um, but you can put a
little plow and you can actually um if you get the right one, it's enclosed. It's got heat. >> Yep. Heat AC. >> Yeah. >> The little compacts are >> Yeah. And they're four-wheel drive. They can either be diesel or gas. >> Um, you know, pushing 2 ft of snow with that.
>> And hydro, I think, too. So, you don't, >> you know, you're not shifting all these gears and doing all this crazy stuff. >> So, it's definitely automatic. There's a couple of them in town.
Road has one. Oh, yeah. I see his up uh up near the front. Uh he keeps it parked up there. >> Yeah. >> No, do what you don't need any. >> It's not too bad.
>> No, you're not going to >> I like that little mini excavator on tracks, too. Yeah. Everybody said, "Why?" I said, "I just like running that stuff." >> Did you travel somewhere recently? >> Um, not really recently.
>> But if it goes, >> those things can get up to >> 25 miles. >> As long as the planes are flying. >> So, if it's register, >> you can take that. Uh, you can take it to Plan. >> Yeah. >> Just the speed limit.
New reports off 25 miles an hour. >> So you can take that downtown. >> Stop that, right? >> We drive everywhere but on the highway. >> You what? >> We drive everywhere but on the highway.
>> Yeah. So you would pretend to fall under the font plate. So How much time do people have? I know we started about 15 minutes late, but I think we're we might go past 10:30 if
that is okay for people. >> Do we get paid overtime? >> You can extra >> extra half zero anyway. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, I think it's still zero.
>> I have until >> I think that's the only math equation. It's still zero, right? >> Half an hour. >> About half an hour. >> Whatever we need to do. It's raining. >> It's your day. >> The rain dance.
>> Yeah, I didn't even get to sleep in. >> I don't know if that means priority. All right. All right. >> Okay. Should I put this up on the screen? >> Um, either way, I mean, everybody's got it.
>> Is there anybody's on? >> There's nobody on sound. >> Yeah. Okay, good. >> Um, so the other thing we wanted to talk about today is is um kind of where we are with the the RE recotification pro
project. um phase two of that and also go other go over a couple of other potential things for the board's consideration um for moving forward for annual town meeting at 26 or even as far
out as 27. So, um I handed out a list and I hope it's not too much in the weeds. It's it's a lot of little picky stuff, but um as you recall last year we did we probably got through about half of the
recodification recommendations that Lisa had had given us. Um primarily because we also needed to focus on the ADU bylaw and the update of the flood flood flood hazard bylaw. So that took a fair amount of fair amount of um time and effort to
get through those and there were a few of the articles that we just decided that we would defer until this year. So if you recall we made uh we did a a pretty thorough rewrite of article one general provision. So that's all set. We
don't need to do anything further with that for um this coming town meeting or going forward unless something changes. Um because that was tied back to to Mass General law language. Article two, use districts. That was um that was one that
we did not address. Um we do need to add some language um regarding the MBTA community's multif family overlay district. Um that didn't get plugged into that particular article. And Lisa had also recommended language for a new
section on interpretation of district boundaries. So, we'll be bringing I'm in the process right now. We've been working with a a kind of a working draft with a lot of comments and red lines and deletions and I'm I'm updating that to kind of create a master master draft
which will be formatted as if it were going to town meeting with the bold underlined the strikethroughs and all of that. So, um we've been meeting with Lisa, you know, off and on over the last few months. will be meeting with her again next Thursday. And our hope at
that point is to get through all of the remaining questions we have on the different articles. We've gotten up through article six, the table of uh use dimensional regulations and we have a few more to go and then to be able to,
you know, bring >> that prepared draft to you all for for discussion. Um but moving forward article three regulation of use districts. There was language in there that um was
specifically related to um select board as permit granting authority for special permits and agricultural residential and some other districts. Um that's been deleted to um coordinate with the new language we had on special permits in
article 5. Um, a big one, and I probably should have put an asterisk next to to this one, is um, reviewing and amending the table of use regulations and the bodies that are designated as special permit granting authorities. So, this
um, this is an effort that we are have not started yet, but needs to be done and and um, my hope is that we would maybe have a working session just on on that. I think it's it's um, Do you think a like a smaller working
group could be good if there's one or two board members who are able to join that with um potentially the chair of the CDA? >> Yeah, I think that would be helpful. Um I think perhaps a select board member might want to be involved in that discussion as well and Peter Benette
could be helpful. So I think that would be a good way to deal with it as kind of a working group and then bring it back to the full board for some recommendations. So, we'd probably need to start that pretty soon, >> I would think. So, yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And I have pulled out um table of use
regulations from other communities and I'm starting to look at those versus what we have to see, you know, if there are things that we don't have, but we should or um you know, things that we have that no longer make sense or need to be clarified.
But I think that would be a great idea to have a have a workshop. >> Do you think that would be like a one time meeting working group or and then bringing it back to the full board? >> Um I think it might actually well we
could try it but I can't. >> I think it might we might need more than one. >> Okay. Uh the next one in article four, the regulations of overlay districts. Um again, we need to add language regarding the multif family overlay district which
we didn't include last time. Um there's some outdated references that need to be corrected. Um the water supply protection I think probably also needs a deeper dive in terms of allowed uses um
prohibited uses and uses allowed by special permit um just to make sure that they still make sense. And um there are a whole bunch of CMR references which Lisa um town council is checking for us.
There are some tweaks that need to be made to the Plum Island Overlay District. Um, small one just adding the adoption date of POD since um it references date of adoption, but it didn't actually have a date in there. Um, we need to clarify language
regarding special permits and findings. Um, and when we discussed this with town council, that's probably a discussion to have also with the chair of the ZBA since they're the one who ones who deal with these. And there is a provision in there regarding use variances which are
actually not allowed. So um she's recommended that we strike that. And then in the adult entertainment um district um if you recall the last time we started to um we had talked
about moving definitions out of article 11 which is administration into district specific or youth specific areas. Right now, we kind of have a mix and match and we didn't move the definitions for adult entertainment last year. So, we're going
to do that this year. And we're also going to just chase through the buffer zones and make sure that that everything still actually meets the the requirements. >> Excuse me, Martha. Yes, I may. Regarding the POD, yes. Do you anticipate um
whether any changes might be needed because of the ADU? >> Um we flagged that as a question and I'm actually not totally clear yet on the answer. So um I would like to talk with council more about that.
>> I know um it's becoming something of an issue in the island. One of my neighbors is, you know, exploring edus with Peter, but so it's something that people are aware of if they may not be aware of how it affects the POD. So, >> Right. Right.
>> Right. Because I think the the limitations on F and lot coverage and and number of bedrooms all still apply. So, >> but yes, thank you for that question. >> Yeah. Martha, what's the issue with the variances?
Um there's a there's language in there say um basically saying that use variances can be granted upon a finding by the CBA. We actually do not allow use variances in our bylaw. So it was an incorrect >> well if it's in the pod then then it's allowed in the pod is
>> um it the way it's worded I think it was actually intended to be special permits not not variances from >> discussions the terminology I find very confusing. Then there's a lot >> like it doesn't m I think you point out it doesn't make a distinction between a
finding and a >> right right >> and a special permit >> right and we talked about that with Lisa at our last meeting and just trying to to clarify that because a lot of things that call for findings really should be special permits and then they may need to make special
certain findings in order to grant that special permit but >> Right. Right. That's what's I have always found very confusing. >> It is very confusing. Excuse me. Any other questions about that section?
Um, under >> Oh, yeah. Actually, there's been a lot of discussion about the definition of building heights that the ZBA has struggled with. Is that settled? Did we resolve that last time? >> I we we rewrote the definition. Um I
don't know whether anything has come before the ZVA that you know now has to refer to that definition. Um are there have been there any >> No they don't no is is a short answer to
your question that I can recall >> but I think um and we we rewrote the definition in a way that um the building commissioner thought was was appropriate. So that's that's what's >> so far so good. Then >> so far so good. So actually if you you
know if you're aware of any discussions that come up on any of the EDA applications where they're still struggling with it you know it would be good to know that and we can check with Eric when we >> and making sure they have the new bylaw >> right
>> cuz it's not on ecode yet which is something I've been just kind of waiting for but it's a process. I mean the attorney general approved all the changes from town meeting um related to definitions and um almost everything
else. There was one small thing but um whether the people have been working with the bylaw for a long time are aware of all the changes or not as you know in practice but uh bylaw there.
>> Yeah. Yeah. cuz that was last year. >> That was that was like a year and a half ago. >> Oh, >> that was approved. >> I know. >> Seems like it was yesterday. >> It does. >> But I mean, our discussions about ADUs kind of, you know, hearken back to that,
but yeah, that's actually been on the books for over a year now. >> Um, the building height definition. Um, so we got we saved um council from Peter Bette.
>> Mhm. is that um I'm just interested did he just go back to the IBC um national building code? It just seems like that it's easy,
right? I mean, you've got a a building code definition, a building height, and then the town just has to say um 35 ft or 38 ft, you know, um whatever they want.
I'm just interested in >> Yeah, it's not exactly that. We did do that for the definition of structure. Um that just seemed to be the cleanest way to do it. Um our definition for uh building height is still mean green. um to mean height of roof, but we clarify
that that's you know the roof with the the highest eve. Um I think part of the discussion um issues that ZBA has had is how do you deal with roof decks and that kind of things. Um so I think Peter was probably referencing the IBC on more
than pro. >> Sorry. >> No, that's okay. It's a good question. Um so article five special permits as you recall last uh last town meeting we
added a whole section about um general special permits that aren't related to a specific use. Um so that part of it's all set. Um wind energy um council has pointed out the
noise criteria I think don't match the state's requirements. So that needs to be revised. And this is another section where we need to move the the specific use specific definitions from article 11 into into this section so we can be
consistent throughout. Uh the next one is a biggie. Um so based on a recent court case, I think it's the Tracer Lane case, um town council has advised that we cannot in fact require a special permit for um
large scale ground mounted solar um installations. Right now the way it's structured is that it's site plan review for anything that's um I think a quarter of an acre to two acres nothing below that. And then two acres
and above, we require a special permit. But according to >> Can you say that again? >> I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Um, so right now our bylaw requires no special permitting or or discretionary permitting for anything
that's under a quarter of an acre. Um, for a ground mounted installation that's between a quarter of an acre and two acres, we require site plan review. And then a ground mounted solar installation that's greater than two acres um two acres or greater would require a special
permit. Um according to the recent court case um it is a protected use and it needs to be allowed by right but can be subject to site plan review throughout the town >> who would no longer fall under a spe
>> no longer follow under a special permit. Um, so Lisa um has reworked our our special permit language um to turn it into site plan review language. It's kind of combining the two site plan review and special permit language
sections that we had in that um bylaw. There would be an opportunity and this is one of the things I wanted to discuss with the board. Um we could potentially if we can find land area large enough create an overlay district where it
would be like allowed by right subject to site plan review and then special permit would be be required after that or outside of that but >> I'm confused. I'm not does that contradict the by right aspect? So if if
we can create an area large enough where it's allowed by right that would be acceptable and and you know the state would consider it's were honoring the fact that it's a protected use. We could outside of that if there were
areas where we really felt that a special permit was required we could do that but we would just we would have to be very careful. >> So then then the find the court finding that it's an it's an as of right use is based on state
regulation rather than state statute then >> well it's a 40 48 section 3 so >> okay [Music] >> but isn't that MBTA communities
oh that's section 3A >> that's 3A >> okay and and would there be are we talking u what what would the threshold for a level one rather than a level two site review >> um >> same as it's in there now. >> Um I would think that probably all of
this would be um fall under level two. >> So that's a that's a question for the board whether you know whether there would be any interest in seeing if we can create an area large enough that would that would be only site plan review. How large of an area?
>> I'm not >> that's not quite clear. >> Okay. >> At the moment, >> three acres, >> you know, we three acres would not be enough. Um, you know, we could include the areas where we already have existing or permitted solar. So, that would be
the landfill um the middle row, the bashaw property and the use property. But it would have to go beyond that. >> So, it wouldn't have to be a contiguous area. >> Don't think it would have to be a contiguous area. But we could also, you know, just kind
of set that aside and rewrite the bylaw as site plan review for now and consider consider an overlay district in in the future. Well, so if it wasn't contiguous, it would be, you know,
pieces, right, combined would be, >> you know, over that threshold, >> you know, >> it couldn't just be the existing sites because we'd have to have areas that don't have
>> currently, >> right? But we might want to think about areas that are already developed for other purposes. You know, there might be some areas along Route One, for example, that are not not uh
um you know, heavily built on or something like that. Even if it's an overlay district, you know, just like the MBTA, it doesn't matter if it's developed or not. >> Y >> but there you know there could be some parcels there. I don't know. Um yeah, I
think we would have to look at it perhaps MVPC could help us um you know do do some mapping to figure out what with some LTA time or something you know what what areas might be useful and whether it seems that they would be
large enough to meet the requirements of the law. Do you remember what the law says related to >> I'd have to go back to look at what says yeah the tracer
>> decision now I know it's bold >> can I bring you back to wind energy >> I know you mentioned noise is there any consideration about u lighting effects of flicker It's an issue. I recall uh back by the
traffic circle when that turbine was put up, the residents on the hill were quite displeased at the time above the flicker they got from the red light that was mandated by FAA or whatever it was and they were pulling the blinds tight all
night long. >> So anyway, that's the context in which I ask whether anything about lighting and flickering. Um, we haven't talked about that. Um, there are some provisions in there about flicker, but I honestly don't remember
what they are. You know, nothing had sort of jumped out as a flag that we should address that, but we can certainly take a look, >> right? Consider, please. >> Sure. Um the only other thing on the solar is the council has also recommended that we
review the financial security provision because if it's a solar solar installation on private property um as opposed to town owned property, it might not really make make sense because it's not a town, you know, potential town
liability issue. >> Yeah. How does this impact, you know, like roof mounted solar. >> Roof mounted is exempt anyway. This is only ground mounted solar. >> Okay. >> So, I think roof mounted just requires a building permit, right? Building
commissioner. >> So, any thoughts on that? Any any interest in seeing if if we can create an area that would be sufficiently large or should we leave that for another time?
>> I don't know if we'd take some brainstorming and whatnot, but if we had an area, but then it would still fall under the special permit. We said we'd have to be careful, but >> right. >> Yeah. >> So everything outside >> everything outside the area, the
overlay, right? So the overlay would allow it by right side. Yeah. We can we can discuss this further with town council see if you can get clarification on size of the area. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think that would be the driver. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean I think it's some some percentage of area in the town and then for us it gets to be a question of well is it a percentage of developable area because you know a third of us you know is marsh which is undevelopable and
things like that. So I think there are >> if you if you start looking at specific areas then people are going to start to think that someone's going to put a solar farm up >> yes >> next to them ain't enough >> right and you know for certain areas there might be other you know other
considerations wetlands or um whatever that would still shape whatever happened but um we'll look at a little further and come back and make some recommend commendations. >> Yeah. But I mean if if if you could get
enough area um you know just just using the the parcels for that currently are solar >> projects then like you said like the the
landfill whatever that might be an easy route you know easy explanation for town meeting. >> Right. Right. Yeah. The question is whether they would be big enough. >> Yeah, I was thinking the landfill would be perfect, you know, if it had capacity
to, you know, go big. >> Yeah. I mean, I think the one that's proposed there now, I can't remember how many acres it is, but it's not, you know, it's not huge. It would not be enough itself to
>> How many acres are do you think? We'll we'll try to get some clarification after that and see if it makes sense. It >> be interesting to see when they stop >> when they what >> when they start building that.
So, >> you have a land. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, I I do think >> we're beginning to see uh a lot of just significant drop off on solar
>> just because of the um incentives are, you know, going away, >> right? And that could impact the industry as a whole. >> Yeah. >> It's hard to know. >> Okay. U moving on. Article uh six dimensional regulations there are some
minor clarifications nothing major that needs to be done there article seven um I'll come back to that under the um signs again some relatively minor there's language referencing
agricultural signs so we're going to plug plug some language in there that we already have that's not in the bylaw there has been a suggestion question um to prohibit LED signs. Um and town council said we can certainly add a
provision prohibiting those if if the board would like to do that. >> What why call LED signs? >> Because they tend to be very you know very very bright. Um >> I mean I don't know they are
is it possible to like how you can um like how you can um like tell the a developer like most of it's like a lighting plant how many like lumens or how long you measure light
>> but something like that like you can have an LED sign but it can't be this bright >> well >> something like probably I mean LED lights >> more efficient than other >> they are more efficient going
>> they just denied a LED sim Bridge doesn't rally. >> Oh, did they? >> What's the agricultural science? >> Um, it's it it's some language regarding, as I recall, was some language regarding off- premise agricultural science.
>> So, we've got we've got that language, but it's separate from the bylaw. The bylaw refers to it. So, it was felt that it made sense just to >> put them together. >> Put them together. >> Okay. So nothing no real changes just >> just to put them so that it's cleaner. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> People don't have to go searching. >> Yeah. The LED U Raleigh they think it was cuz it was in the historic district but they wouldn't allow them to change that sign to LED. >> Is it lit now?
>> It's a lit sign. you know, plastic face, see through that side with the with the gas prices, so you could use the pole numbers. >> Yeah. >> And they wanted to put a digital number, so you just change the price of
gas with the remote. They wouldn't allow them to do it. I mean, I kind of would echo Sadi's comment, which is it seems like there's a different way than blanket prohibition of a certain technology
because I feel like technologies are always changing. Like we don't know what future LEDs may not be as bright as like current LEDs. I don't know. Right. So, the concern is the extension of light into the surrounding. So maybe there's a different way to
>> Yeah, there's got to be a way. >> Yeah. To have limitations that >> blanket. >> I mean, you can even go to Home Depot and you can get a daylight LED bulb where you get a soft bulb. >> Yeah. Right. I mean, for example, we're we're calling for 3000K for color
temperature to keep it warmer as opposed to the blue lights and things like that. >> Since you mentioned that, can you help me out? I don't understand any of that. What's color temperature? So that's basically the the warmth. So if you have something that's um say 2500 or 3,000
K, that's um that's pretty warm. Sort of a light a yellowish light. If you we're not talking warm to the touch, not to the touch, just color, right? Um like a lot of your old incandescent bulbs were, you know, pretty warm color-wise. Um >> like yellowy versus blue,
>> right? >> That's how I thought of your question, >> right? But a lot of the the newer headlights, for example, on a lot of the LED lights, you know, 5000 and they're they have very blue intense light. >> Seen that on on the road.
>> Yeah. And then there's kind of a daylight in between. >> Yeah. So that's it. It's not not >> So the blue you want in your garage, right, to get you busy, >> right? Yeah. >> And the yellow you want in your family room.
>> Right. >> Right. Okay. Right. Right. But I mean the the uh thing about the LED signs actually did come from somebody on the historical commission. So I think it would be worth you know taking a look at other ways of maybe addressing it as opposed to a prohibition. I'm no
lighting expert. So I you know we're sign expert so we probably need to get some guidance on that. >> Sounds like Sades our new lighting experts. >> It's all yours. >> I don't know. >> She has a nice lamp in our office.
Exactly. I like it. Warm versus cold. >> All right. >> Oops. >> Throw my two cents in. It's maybe apocryphal, but I heard that LED lights on traffic lights that stop go yellow caution.
They're so efficient that they don't generate much heat. And in our cold New England climates, when you have a snowstorm, the snow can actually accumulate in front on the lenses if you want. So you can't see as well as you might. >> Well, I think with the newer cars with
the LED lights, they actually have to heat them >> for that reason. So So that the headlights don't freeze over. >> So you're using more. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Consequences. >> Just like getting a rainstorm, having
your lights come on in your car, and it takes energy to power up the lights while you're just driving down the road in the rain. give us a report on that. >> All right. So, >> color temperature and physical temperature. >> Um, article 9, special regulations.
Right now, that just has our site plan review. If we are going with full site plan review for solar, we probably want to be moving it into this section. We've talked about the possibility of creating a second a separate section that deals with all of our sort of alternative
energy things. those are kind of scattered around right now, but haven't quite figured out how to address that yet. Um, article 10, general regulations. There was some language that town council had had uh recommended regarding
non-conforming uses and structures um and pre-existing non-conforming lots with non-conforming structures. Um we do need to make one small amendment to the um ADU bylaw based on
the attorney general's review. Um is we are prohibiting ADUs on lots with basically multif family dwellings and we can't um we have to allow it on same lot as any type of principal dwelling. So that
language needs to be clarified. And then article 11 administration as noted before moving definitions into their respective parts. >> Thanks Scott. >> Thank you.
>> Um so those are the things that are all kind of related to the recottification project. In addition um in going through the bylaw and there are a number of things that have been sort of on my mind for a while. Um the first of which is
making some changes to zoning districts where they overlap parcels. You know, back in 2011, 2012, 2013, we went through an exercise of creating um the business and light industrial
district um clarifying the Bfield business um district and and some other areas where we made the district boundaries um co-termous with parcel boundaries. So, you didn't have
part parcels that are falling within two different zoning districts. Um, I'm not sure that we can address all of them right now. And there's some pretty convoluted district boundary descriptions, but the um
u the maps that I gave you are ex excerpts from um from my map um and I wanted to go over the ones that I think may be worth t taking a look at. So first um are two in biffield. The top
um map you have shows shows the other than the residential agricultural which is all yellow the three uh zoning districts in Bfield. So, we got the commercial highway um which is on both sides of 95, the
Bfield village business district um and the commercial highway A which is here and light industrial biffield. So, the next sheet is the commercial highway section which is on the other
side. It's on the west side of 95 and I know you guys have been dealing with it with the um application for 15 Central Street, but the the district description for this part of the
commercial highway goes from the intersection of 95 down to the intersection of Church Street and then I think 223 or 225 ft back from central Street and um you know the overlap on
the 15 central is you know potentially a little problematic. I'm not quite sure how that's being dealt with for the um application the subdivision application. Um but the fact that parcel 54 on map U1
is also only partially within the commercial highway district sort of limits development on that parcel. that was created way before my time. So, I'm not quite sure why that limitation was set. But my question is whether
there would be any interest in just cleaning this up and getting commercial highway out of parcel 53 or 15 central and just making all of 17 central um part of the commercial highway district. >> Seems reasonable enough cuz it's a large
chunk. It is >> Oh, behind the gas station there that they they they played it quite a few years from now, but I had a rumor at McDonald's that they have any problem. I have to know obviously that happens.
>> McDonald's behind the gas station. Yeah. How did they access those? >> I don't know. I just It was a rumor I heard years ago that they would when it got clear they were thinking about McDonald's, but nothing ever happened. >> Yeah. They also came before us at one
point. They wanted to put in a donut shop and a separate structure, but they couldn't. You know, that would have meant two primary structures on the lot, which is >> what shop? >> A donut shop. >> Duncan, >> not Duncan. It was going to be something else. >> I mean, a boutique donut shop.
So would you also clean up uh the section on on par 47? >> I would think so. I >> mean I wonder just wondering out loud if if maybe at some point that that did was
defined by boundary lines. >> That's certainly a weird >> Yeah. Otherwise it's hard to see why >> Yeah. why I would ever shape like that. >> Yeah. I mean, I think a lot of a lot of the zoning districts um along route one that was also set by um 500 foot offset
on one side and a thousand foot offset on the other side. So, I think they were doing this commercial highway on the other side where Pearson Plaza Plaza is was also an offset at one point and we changed that to incorporate full parcels.
So, um, you know, I don't, you know, the only question is are there unintended consequences by cleaning this up? But it seems to make sense to do that. >> What's behind the You can't tell from
this map, but parcel uh U148. Is that a is that a residential? >> That's residential. >> Access from downfall road. >> From down Yeah. Downfall. see a little bit on the big on the big map. Just
those little lots off of Johnson Lane. >> Oh, yeah. >> And I can't picture what the building is on U 11 47 either, but >> yeah, that's a weird one. >> I don't recall anything being there. >> Doesn't look like there's front entrance.
>> Yeah, it looks like that's a landlocked lock. Although not on this one got some hair a little. >> Yeah, that's like part of a
>> It's not a I don't know. >> Looks like a driveway. >> Weird. It >> says eight. >> Is that state on? That must be the state. >> So >> anyway, If if you let let's assume you
did that and you know you you just pulled back that district to just include um process 54 >> 54. >> Would that be spot zone? >> I don't think so because it's part of a bigger district. We've got commercial
highway district on the east side and we also have commercial highway district on Scotland Road. You know, I wonder if it goes again that I know it's getting late. Just thinking out loud. I wonder if it maybe that this was created
somehow separated by the by the Route 95 construction if it goes back to far. >> No, it's just >> thinking about it doesn't matter at this point. >> Yeah. The only thing I can see is is is you moving the commercial district to to
butt up to the residential uses on Johnson Lane, >> right? Which it does on on the other side butts up against um residential districts on Fruit Street and >> Yeah. So we don't
for today what I'd really like to do is just sort of get a sense from the board if it's something that that you think is worth pursuing and if so then we can you know we can kind of go through the exercise of seeing if there's any downside but at least move forward with
>> certainly certainly taking 53 and was it 47 >> 47 >> out of the district would be worthwhile. I think we need further discussion as to whether or not we want to extend it to the entire parcel of 54.
>> Yeah. I mean, right now, as it stands, it's residential agricultural. It really can't be used because you can't go through the commercial to >> So, but there may be some reason there might be some some reason not to do it.
Okay. And then the next one is the commercial highway a district which is where we are right now. And the description in our bylaw basically it's a 500 ft swath from
to the to the west of of uh 95 down to the river. Um this representation on the map I took some dimensions and this representation on the zoning map doesn't match that at all. Um it's crossing boundary parcels or boundary or parcel
boundaries. So it seems like again it would make sense to to clean this up and make it coerous with at least some parcels. Um if you looking at this um you know 2A
is where Lake is that's where we are. Um immediately to the left of that seven is a residential parcel. 19A is the parcel that's owned by the town. Um which was originally acquired ideally
for recreational purposes. Um then there's a little little parcel owned by the Commonwealth. There's a on the north of Kentway um there's a residential parcel and then there's the dentist
and the corner um of Kentway and Central Street is is a private residential. That's where the dinosaurs. >> Um that's Yeah, that's on the other on the Yeah, the west side. >> Yeah, the dentist is the second one in
>> is the second one in. Right. >> So again, we don't need to necessarily decide what should be in and what should be out. But if you think that it's worth exploring to try to clean this up, I think it might be might be helpful. And the description honestly doesn't
make any sense. And having Having it overlap parcels is also not particularly helpful. So, should we take a look and come back with a recommendation? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Uh, the next one is the Parker River
Marine District, which which um flanks 1A on the south of the Parker River. Uh the original purpose of this district um it was actually originally included in the industrial district. Um we
changed the zone >> to be the Parker River Marine District again back around 2011 2012 to um kind of recognize the fact that you had a couple of businesses down there, actually three that had both residential
and commercial businesses. Um, but this also crosses boundary parcels and um I think could probably use some
some cleaning up. If you recall a few years ago um we had an ANR from Mr. Rivier which created um the parcels here which are 82 and 82A smaller one that doesn't have a number on it and those are all purely
residential now so it seems like it might make sense to take those out of the Parker River Marine District they're not doing it was Arthur Blood's property previously and there were some marine related activities but that's not none of that's happening anymore. for
>> and then clean up on the other side of one area. >> Yeah. And clean up on the other side as well. We've got rearfront marine. Um but the other two parcels I think um you know they're privately owned. They're mostly wetland. Um, but I think that side we
would need to take a look at a little bit more to see whether it should just be the riverfront marine parcel or if there's any benefit. I know there's some construction storage materials being stored on 49. Um,
but I don't wouldn't anticipate that any marine related activities would be happening either on that or on 47. But we could talk to the property owners. >> You mean we'd be what? What do you mean
talk to the property owners? >> To see if they wouldn't be anticipating anything in those areas if we could just take those two parcels out 49 and 47 out of the district. >> I'm having a hard time finding 49 in this. Let's see. 47.
>> 47. 49. Um, >> it's on the west of mine. >> Yeah. 49. That's a letter, right? >> Oh. Oh, okay. Oh, I got it. >> That's what
>> this is a letter. >> There's a little bond there. Is that where the goats are? >> Where they used to be. >> Where they used to be. I >> believe so. Yeah. I think 47 stories. >> I think it's story too.
>> I guess that's a question as how much is that a part of the conversation like like looking at what the current use is or some kind of outreach with the property owners? like to
>> right >> as a as an input in the decision like like how does that >> what's the best practice there to think about it >> that's doesn't need to be answered but that's an open-ended question I think
>> what is the rule if if um a parcel is within two two zoning districts is it controlled by the major majority of the of the parcel or where any structures going to go or
>> um that actually is some language that um Lisa had cleaned up in our >> my understanding that that the building inspector has been interpreting
uh the majority land area prevails. That's not quite the right language, but you get my point, right? >> No. >> So, for 49, it would be residential egg would
um be >> not Parker Marine. see what the recommended changes to that language were. I mean, I think I guess just to kind of clarify the question I have
when you're thinking about zoning districts for certain uses, I think there should be it's kind of a lens of what's the best practice for the town's use, right? like from a public use perspective rather than a
private perspective rather than just matching what's currently happening. Thinking about it in a way that um looks to the future about what kinds of uses would you want to potentially attract? What kinds of uses are appropriate for that location
and that site and what would you potentially want to attract as a use? Um, which doesn't mean consideration of its current use isn't a part of that, but the driving factor would be thinking
about what's best for the community. >> I mean, are are we running into practical problems now >> with these? I'm not just talking about the Park River District. I guess, >> right,
>> right. do we have a solution in search of a problem or do we have a problem in search of a solution >> right >> you know >> I mean I think in certainly questions come in from property owners whose lots
who they see this like my you know a number of these parcels we've talked about I feel like questions have come into the town about could I do this or how do I do this so it is a lack of clarity on the on on the paper but it's not
the questions have been answered right like like we've you know worked through like 15 central or you know um it's more like a I don't know be interested by your perspective over many years but
from my perspective it's sort of like house cleaning like making it clearer and more straightforward for anyone who's considering what the land use is. It's just kind of cleaning it up to facilitate um
whatever clarity. But your question is a good one. It's not exceedingly problematic in any way. Okay. >> No, but it is odd that it overlaps a lot, but doesn't include the whole lot. >> It's just confusing. Even like one marath before it got
subdivided up. >> Yeah. >> Blood's place the there was a square there and then there wasn't anything. And I think the, you know, the issue with the the Marshav one is that for the the parcels that were in both districts,
you had different setback requirements and and um for the ANRS, I think it wasn't so much of an issue, but originally they were looking at a subdivision. So, you know, which which setbacks all of a sudden are you using from the street and that kind of stuff?
200 versus 20 or so just, you know, it seems to me that it's it's cleaner and more straightforward and less subject to interpretation. If there are clear boundaries, but you know, yes, certainly if they're they're good reasons for
future use or something, then it could make sense to keep things the way they are. Okay. What's the next one? >> Um the next one actually I think um that was more something I don't think we necessarily need to deal with that. This
is this district the um Park and River residential has an extremely convoluted parcel description or district description. Um, and
>> you mean in writing? >> In writing. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You know, that was all all land that was sold off by married bargaining. And again, it's almost completely following parcel boundaries, but um
there's one where it doesn't. Um, so I'm not sure it's something that we need to tackle right now. >> Okay. >> Um, next thing on the list is inclusionary zoning, which we just had a
great presentation from Ian on whether the board wants to move forward with that or not. Uh the third thing is energy storage facilities. We did get an advisory from town council. Um there's been another
court case um in which energy storage facilities even those which have minimal um connection to a solar um solar generator are considered um a
protected use. So, it would be, I think, beneficial for us to develop a bylaw. She's provided um we can work with her on on that, but there are a lot of concerns about fire hazard and all of that kind of stuff. And we've had at
least two um two different companies expressing interest in creating. One was a very small one, the second one was pretty large. These would be solar energy.
>> They're not solar necessarily. They could just be storage, you know, taking energy from the grid and storing it and then putting it back into the grid when needed. >> But we're talking electric. We're not not talking >> oil storage, >> right? No, sorry. Electric. Yeah.
>> Yeah. They're like giant batteries the size of like ADL storage drills. Okay. >> Or even bigger. They think they're going to put one in the church for the thousand sheets of plywood in the roof uh left of Hill
Street. >> Oh, the whole church. >> Yeah. >> Interesting. >> It's over a thousand sheets of plywood in the room. >> The paper be subject to site or something.
>> Yeah. I don't know. >> That's a new report, so I don't think >> Well, I I >> Right. Right. I think it would be if it's if it's considered a protected use, it would be sideline review. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, just for things like screening that type thing,
you might want to have some say over that. >> I mentioned the fire department have a lot to say too. >> Fires. >> Absolutely. >> I think I mentioned u Sorry. >> No, go ahead. I think I mentioned Lost
Landing which is on Monterey Bay in California had a big energy storage place which caught m place which caught fire and it's very costly cleanup is underway. I think ironically enough it was replacing a coal burning plant that was there at one
time >> and it's an emerging issue I think is the best way to put it. >> My understanding is too once they catch fire they just keep burning. So, >> oh, that'd be one way to reduce the size of the landfill.
[Laughter] >> Holy cow. >> So, is I can't remember what we know now, but is it is it similar to the um is it allowed
by right anywhere currently? because we don't have a bylaw or mention of it in the table of uses. So her advisory said these standalone units do qualify for protections under
um 48 section 3 the doer amendment >> um regardless of the fact that solar energy may constitute a small portion of the energy collected by these units. So I wonder if it's the same if it could be handled the way we're we were
discussing the solar ground large scale ground mounted solar which is certain parcels are allowed by right but anywhere else special comment >> right I what uh council said um the the decision
will likely be appealed but um Uh the do amendment allows for the town to impose some reasonable regulations on these construction projects to address potential risk to public health, safety, and welfare. As such, the towns, although unable to outright ban the
construction of ESFs, can impose certain reasonable requirements special prior to approval, such as adopting site plan review standards applicable to solar energy systems or requiring a special permit. But I'd want to follow up on that more.
>> We are currently working um um drafting unreasonable bylaws and regulations. So I think you know if the board is in agreement that this is something we should pursue, we can work with council on putting something together. >> I can imagine a solar farm or wind
turbine farm wanting to have a battery storage place on that same footprint. That way you can make it, store it and release it as need. >> Right. Right. So
>> in particular with turbines, you have a lot of empty space between the towers. >> Yeah. >> Which be suitable for a battery storage facility, >> I think. >> Okay, we'll follow up on that one.
Um the other one that um the board may want to look at at some point, but I'm not sure that this is the year to do it since we've got a fair number of other things is taking a look at our parking um by law because that was developed a number of years ago like
2009 I think 2010 um and really doesn't address current best practices you know in terms of um you know storm water management or sort of space sharing and things like that. So,
uh it might be worth taking starting to take a look at bylaws from other communities to see if they're addressing that or get some some guidance on that. >> Would commercial parking come up? Again, I'm perhaps having a narrow pro mile in
perspective, but uh I know there's a lot of parking done in non-sanctioned areas and non-sanctioned properties on the island. And when I talked to the building inspector about it, it's like he was saying that he in effect would have to
be there to see the money changing hands for parking before he could enforce what is obviously, you know, warm summer weekend business parking cars on the island. >> I think that would be a different issue. This really gets more to, you know,
numbers of required parking spaces for different kinds of uses and, you know, do you put tree islands in and things. So, this would really be for new construction in any part parking lots or areas. >> Okay. >> As opposed to I think the concerns that
you're raising which are very valid. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So, it more applies to what's new as opposed to existing. >> Right. Right. >> That those types of issues wouldn't be handled through subdivision regulations
of site review. They're not really um I mean I think the the parking bylaw kind of sits on top of that. So, if we have say a site plan review application for a commercial um structure, then that would refer back
to the the parking bylaws to to how many spaces are needed and that kind of stuff um per employee or per, you know, based on square footage or that kind of thing. >> It's sort of like the sign bylaw, I
guess, like it's a little bit both. >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. I mean, I feel like like quantifying the number of spaces for a use is something in the bylaw, but the board would have
some uh ability to condition things like tree islands or like other kinds of like site plan stuff. if it triggered site plan review.
Yeah, it's interesting. >> So, you know, this might be a longer term project, but um >> well, I mean, you know, speaking for myself, I think it's all worthy of further discussion. you know, everything that that you
that you have here. I think the big limiting factor would be timing. >> Well, I assume we need to get our recommendations to the select board in January >> probably >> for them to then refer it back to us. >> Yeah, I think last year we did
some real planning board workshopping through December and then the >> Yeah. >> initial recommendation was early January. >> Yeah. because January 1st is going to be here before you know it. >> I know that's that's the issue. >> Yeah. >> You know, and certainly we don't want to be in a situation where we're we're
either biting off too much and we just can't move it forward or, you know, >> Well, I I it seems to me that that that the uh updates that the zoning, you know, that you've already identified is pretty much ready to go. >> They they will be, I think, without
without too much more work. So then you know the question is what new things above and beyond that um might be a priority. Um >> yeah maybe inclusionary zoning. We'll see what Ian comes back with I guess.
>> Yeah I suspect there'll be a lot of discussion about inclus inclusionary zoning given all the weeds that we're talking about. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sure. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean it's always been one we sort of get get to a certain point with it and start to really start thinking about triggers and and payments
and move versus other kinds of things for setting up an affordable housing trust and sort of that's where it keeps stopping. >> Yeah. Uh, the other thing on the list, um, and I had that for maybe farther down the road, but I apparently a question has
come up from Verizon again about the DPW site is whether the board wants to try to move forward again with expanding the tower wireless tower district. >> I I don't like that site. We went over the that you and I had Mark had a lot of
discussions about that a few years ago. I remember I just don't think that site lends itself to it's too small. >> It's it's tough. Yeah, >> it's tough. >> And in in fairness to the neighbors, too. I mean, you'd have people that literally would be their property would be in the shadow of of the tower. And
yeah, >> you know, it's and it's in fact we were talking about this at a recent meeting about how it's the last time we looked at this. Remember Woody? I think you pointed out it was like 2020
was the last time we uh we had a a consultant look at this and >> technological advances. >> Right. Right. And that's exactly part of what we discussed with with town council was if um you know if there was any interest in moving forward with this it
would probably be make sense to bring David Maxon back in have him do you know another coverage analysis and see if the recommendations are the same as they were before. I I mean that TPW um property might in my might be fine for a
small what do they call it? Small cell. >> It's a small cell. >> Yeah. Facility. But but putting up a 100T pole there I I just I I I I couldn't support that. >> Yeah. We did talk about this in July at
our last workshop. Um and that certainly >> had a lot of >> align with the need >> kick back on the trade >> makes you feel too. So >> yeah I mean the school committee seemed open to pursuing it once all the
questions that got raised were answered. >> Well they they just wanted it at the uh parcel where their subject system is. >> They yeah they were more >> Yeah. They didn't want it in the main campus. So they were getting too much push back at the time I think.
>> But I think they >> or anticipating push back, >> right? I think they did express some openness to pursuing that if all the questions that were raised about, you know, health and everything else could be addressed >> and a clear I I do think the community
would benefit from a clear analysis of the need, like a very clear, you know, updating that that study and really working through the research on it to demonstrate why there our problems to your earlier
question like what's what are we trying to solve here >> and that's kind of the upfront messaging that um I think the last time we worked on this we decide we need to do more of
>> right right no absolutely >> yeah so it might be you know it might be worth seeing if there was some some way of bringing David Max back in. Yeah, we'd need some some funding for that. So, that was my list.
>> Thank you. It's a lot. >> You've been busy in your retirement. >> In my retirement. >> Yeah. We could not be doing this without Martha supporting this drive.
>> It's probably time. >> And even this feels like a lot. >> Yeah. >> To how to prioritize. I'm I'm not sure how we can move all this forward in the time we
have. >> Yeah. No, I know that that's the next how how does it get prioritized and how does it get bumbled in a way that makes sense? >> Yeah. I mean, do you want to do all the required, you know, just looking at your repotification phase too? You want to I
mean, my inclination would be to just make that one article, you know, and simply explain that we're just updating this and getting rid of some um inconsistencies. I suppose with the
exception of the uh ground mounted solar. >> Yeah, I mean that's the that's the big one that stands out as as kind of a major change. The rest of them are >> Yeah. I mean just clarifying language. >> Yeah. And and finishing inserting the
recommend recommended language that Lisa had given us previously. I did find uh her recommended language regarding lots in two districts which says where a district boundary divides an existing lot and the major portion of said lot is in the less
restricted district. The regulation relating to the latter district may extend as well to such portion of said lot as it's not more than 20 ft within the more restricted district. >> Well, you know the lawyer drafted that one. So,
>> is that easier than what we have now? >> Clearer than what we have? >> Yeah, I think right now we actually don't have any language regarding that, which is why she's recommending that we add some. >> Which article is that in? >> Um, it's in article two. >> Read it again.
>> Where? >> Oh, yeah. You've got that listed, right? That says where a district boundary divides an existing lot and the major portion of said lot is in the less res restricted district. The regulations
relating to the latter district may extend as well to such portion of said lot as is not more than 20 ft within the more restricted district. >> Okay. The latter district being the least restricted district. And what's
the how do you deter I'm sure restrictive why 20 feet and not 30 feet. >> Yeah. I I don't know. Um you know I think the the >> the restrictions really >> well I guess it would be both use restriction and dimensional restrictions
requirements. So it could be that one is more restricted in terms of use but less restricted in terms of dimensional. >> Yeah. >> So this may be something to talk to >> tricky. Yeah. >> Also get Peter's take on how he would interpret this.
>> Right. Let's write something that's English that people can easily understand. >> How many years ago was it that there was a push for clearly understandable English for the common person versus
or at least providing a translation of the uh language. >> Yeah. But >> I know a lot of >> a lot of zoning bylaws in more recently have added like pictures of things
>> to go along with complicated verbiage >> and things building height the little diagrams for different types of roof. There's there's for some reason people who draft these things I include myself in this don't like to use periods you
know I mean a short declarative sentence set it with another short declarative sentence >> right make that sentence as long as you can with make >> it's kind of like a Henry James paragraph which is all one sentence
>> um but I mean that's that sort of goes I guess to my my feeling that it might be good to clarify the boundaries of some of these districts so that it doesn't even get to be an issue. >> No, >> follows a lot lines. >> Yeah. Follows a lot lines and then you just don't even have to to deal with it
either dimensionally or use wise. >> Well, well, I think again I think I said this earlier, but if you got the time, all of this is worth at least presenting to the board, you know, to to make it, you know, for the whole board to make a determination whether we want to push go forward with this or that because I
don't think you're going to get it all in, you No, I don't think so either >> for 2026. >> No, I I I think that would be very unlikely, which is why, you know, I wanted to kind of talk about it today and get a sense of, you know, are there any clear priorities or yes, let's move
forward and then see what we can accomplish and what what seems to um make sense within the time we have. So, I wonder just kind of thinking forward, um
I know workshops like this are hard to schedule and add add another meeting onto the regular meetings you all are doing. So I just would sort of be open to figuring out if we might be able to
reserve time on regular meetings for the next chunk like our you know a month from now would be November 5th like should we bring Martha back November 5th and get updates or do we want to
schedule like is this I mean we only have partial >> I won't be here on November 5th but you know Okay. Well, that's why we need to set the calendar really because like you said, it's going to be January before we know >> because we're already talking the second
meeting in November. So, >> at the earliest, >> that Martha back if we go with the regular meetings. >> Right. >> Right. And then the other question is um getting back to the table use regulations and SPGA, you know, seeing if anybody would be interested in
particular in participating in a workshop on that which would be separate. >> Well, I was my impression you pretty much had that in hand. >> Not the table of use regulations. because I think, you know, we talked
about potentially having discussion with at least one with with um a ZBA member like Eric um potentially a select board member, a couple of planning board members and building commissioner. We've asked him to review it because I
think it would be very helpful to get his input on um you know are there any particular things in the table that are unclear that give him heartburn every time you know somebody comes in and
says can I do this you know and there has been discussion about, you know, taking taking another look at who the special permit granting authority is for different uses. >> Well, I I volunteer for to participate.
>> That would be great. >> Thank you. Do you want to try to set a time to come back with the board or do you want to set a time for Martha to come back? >> Yeah. No, I'm open to we we're going to be under a tight schedule here before we
know it. Any suggestions for mouth would be great. Cuz you're going to have to confer with top council on some things. Yeah, we're meeting with her um next
Thursday and the hope then is we still have I think three art articles to go through where there are questions um that we haven't talked through yet and then as I've gone through the ones that we have discussed I have sort of new
questions or need some clarification. >> Yeah. I mean, would the next get together, what whatever you want to call it, uh I mean would be would be in a would we be in a position
to look at actual um proposed uh B uh town meeting articles or I'm not not making myself >> No, no, no. I know exactly what you're asking. I think my hope would be that at least there might be a you know a
comprehensive draft of everything. >> That's what I was trying to say. >> Yes. It might not be broken down into the exact articles, but at least there would be a document >> would have the language, for example, >> would have the language and have the, you know, bold underlines with the
additions and new language and the strikeouts and and be able to go through all of that >> because I I I think without that, we're just going to have another discussion similar to what we're having this morning. >> Right. Right. I mean, today was really the idea was just to kind of say, okay,
this is this is where we are. Um, this is the general outline of what's happening, but the next step would be to have have something concrete to take a look at. >> Yeah.
>> Well, certainly we have a standing agenda item for our regular meeting so we can discuss it. >> Well, you could do that. Yeah. I mean, just >> update >> just Yeah. zoning bylaw amendment updates and put that on the agenda. If we don't, if
>> we got something to talk about, we will if we don't. >> Yeah. >> I mean, ZBA, for example, has the the Cricut Lane on all of their agendas. I can't remember the last time they actually got a report on it. >> And that's not a criticism. It's just they left the door open for exactly what
you suggested. >> No. And uh I know with conservation they carry >> they leave everything on there even though we pass by every every two weeks but >> that makes sense because then at least
it can it it's on there to be discussed. I mean it could be could be handled in the planners report but as an standing item I think that makes sense especially as we're getting closer and closer to town meeting. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So probably I mean the 15th is
next week. We we we're doing this today so we won't need that. The 5th I know is the next regularly scheduled and then it would be the 19th. So probably the 19th might be kind of what we'd shoot for I
think relative to the work we need to do with Lisa and potentially the little working group about certain things. Right. I mean, hopefully we could not quite
sure when, but it would be nice to get the working group together >> between now and then. >> Between now and then. >> Yeah. Well, that's >> seven weeks, right? >> Yeah. I'm just looking at my schedule. I might be
>> six weeks. >> I might be the cog in the wheel or whatever. Yeah. I mean, we need to just work backwards from what our deadlines are and just make it happen, I guess. >> Okay.
>> Well, this is great. Thank you for your patience and sitting through all of that. >> Very helpful. >> All right. I don't think there was any. Does anyone have it?
I didn't bring >> See if Woody wants a motion. >> Motion motion tojourn workshop. >> I'll move to adjourn. >> I'll second it. All those in favor? >> I I >> Anyone opposed? Very good.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, Martha. >> Oh, thank you guys.