##VIDEO ID:gDDz9lz2F5k## okay as a preliminary matter this Woody night chair of the Newber planning board permit me to confirm that all members in persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me planning board members when I call your name please respond the affirmative Peter posos yes sir Larry Murphy present Mary Stone yes Scott ker yes and Steve Manan I I Town staff when I call your name please respond to the affirmative Christen grubs plan director yes Daniel assistant planner yes and Matha Taylor special projects planner yes very good everyone's here okay good evening today is January 8th 2025 the open meeting of the Newbery planning board is being conducted remotely consistent with the chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 which extends the governor's March 12 2020 order suspending FR and provisions of the open meeting law GL c30a until March 31st of 2025 for this meeting the new planning board is convening by video conference via Zoom as posted on the planning board's agenda which can be found at the town's website you may join us by going to http semicolon zoom. us and entering meeting ID number 832 7141 3056 passcode 10879 or by calling in 1 1929 20560 99 us and entering the meeting ID number and passcode when prompted theum meetings please note that this meeting is being recorded and that attendees in participating are participating by video and or telephone conference this meeting is also being broadcast live through local access cable channel9 on zoom and at www. tnct v.org and the recording will be available on the new access YouTube channel in the future before we turn to the first item on the agenda permit me to cover some ground rules for Effective and clear conduct of our business and to ensure accurate meeting minutes as chair I'll introduce each speaker on the agenda after speakers conclude their remarks I will go down the list of board members inviting each by name to provide any comment questions or motion the meeting tonight does not include any public hearing however board members have however after board members have spoken I'll afford the public an opportunity to comment and or ask questions I will seek questions and comments through the zoom raised hand function in the order in which people click on the raised hand but finally each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted by roll call vote all right so that's out of the way the introduction um the first thing on the agenda tonight is a discussion about the ATM 2025 zoning Amendment proposals um first thing we're going to go to do is the recodification administrative updates for uh bylaws the first one on the list is um access accessory dwelling unit by law I can take that um good evening planning board um I wanted to survey you guys real quick I have two methods one is I can share my screen and you guys can read what I've prepared for you or I can go line by line does anyone have a preference take first screen share would that be okay Daniel absolutely sounds good thank you can you all see that all right so as you know we've been working on updating the Adu bylaw especially with the affordable homes act that's come into play and is now basically law um good news was is Newber had done a lot of good things for the ad bylaw that they had originally on the books and so there's been a little bit of an update to the the adlaw for Newberry um if you can see the screen one of the first changes and just to be quick about it is the to increase the supply of housing we've added a definition or a section B to the purpose of the bylaw and I'm happy to read that or you guys can read that it's up to you do you want me to read it out loud or do you guys haven't how long uh well it's basically so there's about one two three this is all it is and I'm happy to go through it line by line Some people prefer to read it and then ask questions so I kind of defer to what the preference of the board is at the moment go ahead go ahead and read it Daniel because um that way it'll be the people watching in the future could hear it you got it so the first update was to the purpose and intent the second update to the bylaw was there was no definitions in the ad section of the bylaw so we've added some definitions to the bylaw of that section um the other piece was as you know if you were at the other meeting Newberry allowed 1,00 square feet or 35% ex me Grace gross square feet or 35% and so the new Massachusetts law is 900 gross square feet or 50% of the primary dwelling which is ever smaller um the other section that was updated was this required the either primary dwelling or Adu to be occupied at least six months of the year by the property owner that is not a requirement going forward um another update for you guys um borders and Lodgers in both primary dwelling and Adu the Adu is permitted through Section 9710 D shall not be used for a short-term rental as that term is defined in mgl 64g and is prohibited from any use as a rental unit on a weekly or daily basis so Newber is not doing short ter rentals with adus um section four as an update there was um allows no more than two bedrooms in the Adu now the total number of bedrooms in the primary dwelling and the Adu combined may not exceed the capacity of the septic system per title five so that's the update to the bylaw there um another update to section four was requiring that all utilities serving the Adu be shared with the primary dwelling the update is that it may be extensions of the primary dwelling and let's see here section four also uh minimum of one parking space for an Adu the new update is not more than one additional parking space should be required excuse me for an Adu and further no parking space shall be required for an Adu located not more than a half a mile from a computer excuse me Commuter Rail station or a bus station so similar to the MBTA and the final update is Section Five where the zoning board of appeals will be the special permit granting Authority and they will discuss and vote to determine the approval of a 15 up to a 15% increase above the 900 S ft of gross floor area those are the Adu bylaw updates happy to answer any questions comments concerns sorry go ahead Larry yeah just a couple Dan as as I understand it these um amendments are largely to bring us into compliance with the state statute and rs is that correct that is absolutely correct yeah and and as to the number of buildings a number of bedrooms excuse me um how would that how would the piod uh apply to that would the piod Trump the uh that particular provision yes so the piod will stand okay that's all I had thank you sure So Daniel if you can scroll back down down for a sec uh the other direction yeah and so when we talk about the uh keep on going so I guess up just a touch when we we talk about trying to understand this nope the other way yeah keep going keep going short-term rental have you read that that that language uh I have but I couldn't I couldn't tell you exactly what it states right now I've read it a number of times and I don't know what it means I don't and and so I think if we're going to be in compliance what whatever that is I think we need to understand what short-term rental means I have an interpretation of what I think short-term rental means I've read that a number of times and it doesn't fit anything that I can understand so if we're going to sign off on something which is a state mandate that's great I think the town needs to understand what that term means and so what it means and what it means in that law my is no more than 31 days or not under 31 days so so we're defined at 31 days well that would be up to the board and if you guys approve that then that would definitely be what we would do so that's I guess that's a discussion I'd like to have the board to have if that's okay with with you oh yes go right ahead if anyone has any comments on that please um 31 days I just wanted to add one comment which is um we did have some discussion about this with Town Council and the recommendation to reference the state's definition of short-term rental was from her because then you know the key of having language in the bylaw is if the state's definition changes new R doesn't need to update its bylaw if it was if the change was different than what was originally approved um so I do have I mean I can read the definition I think Steve Mansion thank you actually forward it to me um by email so I I can uh I do have that right here if that's helpful I completely agree with you Pete that it's not um a userfriendly short simple definition so I don't I'm not saying this to preclude that we consider being more specific in the bylaw in our bylaw to make sure that what we're actually you know uh legislating locally is what we're comfortable with locally as long as it's also reviewed by Town Council and you know obviously meets the terms of the legal definition at the state level completely y yep I completely understand read it and then we can yeah if that makes sense um so short-term rental an owner occupied tenant occupied or non-owner occupied property including but not limited to an apartment house cottage condominium or a furnish accommodation that is not a hotel motel lodging house or Bed and Breakfast establishment where uh little number one at least one room or unit is rented to an occupant or sub occupant and two all accommodations are reserved in advance provided however that a private owner occupied property shall be considered a single unit if leased and rented as such right and so that definition does not mention anything about days right time it talks about it talks about scheduling something ahead of time which I mean if we're talking hotels that makes sense that's why I think this really needs to be clear when we present it to our at our meeting to say this is what what this is what this means because reading that does not digest that yeah Pete um y good point uh but it it's an easy fix to just put commas and explain what short-term rental means I mean you know squeak down something very simple and straight forward as a def absolutely and I agree I agree Mary I think that the thing is we're referencing law and if somebody goes to look at that law it doesn't help Define it so I think if we're going to Define it and we're going to promote it as such and say okay we we want this you know we going to have our 30 days as our as our our bench post then it's tied to that to what we're what we're talking about in at this right with this right clearly I think it's the second half of the sentence that probably I mean it'll I think it'll probably make sense to continue to reference the mgl but um this prohibited from any use as a rental unit on a weekly or daily basis um that's where I wonder if there's some more specific language to name the term and I I do believe I've seen some other communities that that say uh you know no less than 31 days you know there's a reference around the length of time if longer than a month is not considered short-term rental it's considered a longer term so yeah I'm happy to you know hear any other discussion and then you know I think Dan and I can kind of look into what's a reasonable way to add language that actually is understandable and are we tied to 31 days or could we make it a different length of time that's like two or three months does anyone know the answer that yeah I'm not sure um I don't I don't know that we're tied to anything Dan I don't know if you have you seen I don't I mean my first thought was maybe we talk to Town Council and see if there's suggestions or I mean I mean just to kind of survey the board is are people not interested in 31 and they're seeking more like what's people's interests it really does come down to what you guys want well Dan my pred elction would make 31 the a floor and I would prefer to see it a number greater than 31 okay thank you and part of that gets to having a sense of community when someone's going to be there for a good chunk of time than they are part of the neighborhood rather than a short-term renter sure but I don't I can't tell you what a better number than 31 is temperature are people feeling 31's okay or is the vibe people want to go longer I mean you could sit on it for the night and email us what is the point of this um 31 days versus six months versus you know it it rental unit on a weekly or daily basis so we have to go farther than that and uh and restrict it I think to something very specific there isn't any wiggle room but what excuse me what is the use of the of the building for I'm sorry of the unit what is it used for is it used for people to come in summer or is it used for people who just want to visit I mean we don't know who the audience is pretty much I mean it could be anybody but we're going to determine that by putting a um timestamp on it Mary that's a that's a really good point Mary um what what is the intent is the intent and Steve this ties through to what you said is the intent to to develop a sense of community so that we have people that are are here as opposed to transitory you know because I could see this being TR transitory in the offseason and I could see it be a longer term you know during season where somebody might want to spend a couple months around the area so I guess that's that that that's that's one question and is the intent to develop longer term housing for for for individuals families that have a hard time getting housing if we if we put some incentive that it be something for longer longer Vision that's that's that's interesting and then the second thought that comes to my head is what about enforcement what are we going to do when it's you know 30 days or somebody starts doing 29 days or you know um do we want to have that responsibility of having enforcement for this I I my my feeling is the intention of this is to try to develop a sense of community Po Folks that are trying to live gracefully in their homes help their families get started need additional income that can be sustainable I mean those are the things that come to right right to mind as to what what makes this make sense as opposed to somebody who wants to come for 30 days you know to to be you know on the island and then hop off or you know in in in the area and then and blast out and just have a revolving door of a you know modified B&B right I don't know that's the whole point of this you know is to deter that exact thing and again the intent is is very very important uh good use good word intent um what are we trying to achieve what is the goal is it uh to make sure that they don't that somebody doesn't use their house to make money only not um not to have these people be part of the community um again the audience who do we who are we trying to reach and um that will determine I think the timing if if it's a long-term mental then we've sort of we've sort of killed the the purpose of it I think well Mary I look at U purpose and intent section 1A and to me that does say something about what the intent is all about you know meeting the needs of uh the citizens of Newbury or providing options for the citizens of Newbury part of the problem too is you if we put a thre Monon or or more limit on it um people will be you know what's stopping someone from renting out three to five months of the year or six months of the year and then it being bacon six months of the year that's not really in the spirit of it all it's for it's for housing and year around but I just don't know how you word it and I don't know the solution so hey Larry what are your thoughts um well I have a question Chris that definition you read is out of uh chapter 64g correct correct yeah yeah and that doesn't say anything about the the term of the rental so the the language um use as a rental unit on a weekly or daily basis is our language it's not something that comes out of the statute correct I I am sort of doing a little research on the side here because I'm not sure if that came from the regulations um that the state yeah we need to be we need to be a little careful about that uh to me um to say not on a weekly or daily basis I would interpret that to mean it's okay on a monthly basis but that's just one interpretation right but it's not specific and and I I think uh the the problem here is you know would dealing with with the state statute and state regulation so as Dan suggested earlier it might be a question for Town Council to see how much wiggle room we have on that okay um I just I I thought it might be helpful to mention I just looked at Newberry ports Adu bylaw um and let me find it again their language and I'm bringing it up primarily since as you all know we share property in Plum Island with Newberry Port um so if you know some of this discussion I feel is uh considering the reality of Newbery which is that we have a Beach Community that is comprised of um both year round residents and properties that are not used currently as year round residents so uh their language currently and I know they are working on modifications as well um updates as well but their Adu bylaw says the Adu shall not under any circumstances be used on a transient basis meaning for any period shorter than 30 days so that is a way that another Community has worded it quite clearly um and I guess I would say in terms of the discussion of intent and purposes it's you know it's it may be helpful to look at what the purposes we have in our bylaw include um just to kind of be a reference for this discussion what is the language supposed to deter what do we not want to happen and why I don't get that from this thing um it keeps it from becoming if I may and correct me if I'm wrong keeps it from becoming a weekend rental spot or rented for the week and turn the turnover every week right and or an Airbnb type of situation we save ways from Steve's comment about being part of the community in some way I mean to look at Plum Island uh people that are already own a uh you know single family home on a lot they can do short-term rentals all the time but if you're going to add an Adu and allow short-term rent rentals for a weekend and that sort of thing then I think that gets to be somewhat problematic in terms of the intent of trying to promote the the needs of the citizens of the town and the housing yeah and I'll tell you the only reason that I'm really concerned with this is because where we're located I think if we were if we were in Central Maine we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right exactly yeah Scott tell me your thoughts um I'm a bit torn Pete yeah um because you know if um we have a a new Resident that um is um you know let's say my age and I've got younger kids and um you know I want um my kids to take my house and that I want to stay in town and uh what perfect opportunity is uh stay in town next to my kids my grandkids is uh you know a home right next door small Adu um and uh and I'm only going to be here six months um I'm going to go to Florida for the other six um I mean adus it's a small house um it uh it costs money um whether you've got a resident in the house or you have nobody in the house you got to heat it um I mean there's a there's uh always Capital Improvements um it's it's it's an expense but it can also be uh an opportunity to um um maybe mitigate some of those expenses with uh some rentals so if I'm going down to Florida for six months um and um my kids are looking for a long-term six-month rental um in my business we call that short-term rental but uh let's call it let's call a longterm ental for this this discussion um what if they can't they can't get get anybody to rent it for six months um what if they can find someone that can rent it month-to month maybe it's somebody that's working out of town um you know and wants to be a nuber uh because uh they like you know heading out to the water every weekend but they're here for work uh but they're only going to sign on um you know for maybe a week or two weeks at a time because they don't know how long their assignment is going to last so I'm a little torn with that um I'm a little torn with um just putting up um maybe too strict of some guidelines goal posts whatever you want to call them um you know on the um um on the opportunity to um maybe make money but you know what's that money I mean that's going to go probably into the dwelling and control expenses so I do think um I I I place a high value on on you know being here having what we have you know at the beach um you know long-term rental is certainly preferred um that's that'd be first choice but I'd be a little bit worried about placing too many restrictions and then when it's all said and done really who's going to police it um right that's that's the tough part the enforcement we going to lay that on the on the bilding inspector or uh the planning board maybe me you Larry and and all of us Mary Woody and and Steve could take turns uh taking on that responsibility to police it you know um weekly I don't think so I mean so that's that's going to be a challenge so I think you're on to something Pete I'm not sure how we solve it I can appreciate you know Kristen's um I mean new report um lived a new report I mean they do a lot of things great um but I'm not sure it fits with us so to answer your question Pete I'm kind of in the middle and a little um indecisive you know the I I think this discussion was really really helpful um and thanks Woody for letting me just kind of Babble about this because we're going to have to explain this to our community in a very comfortable manner to say hey we've thought this through and this is where where we land on it and and that's why I think it's this is really kind of the meat and potatoes for Newbury in my my opinion no problem Pete and uh I I guess to keep moving on too as well um everybody just kind of sit back and on it feel free to email Kristen and maybe Kristen can run something by Town Council to see if we can add a thre Monon or a six Monon Clause to it but everybody keep it in their mind I guess and if if no one has anything else on it we'll move on hearing nothing I skipped over MAA uh on the recodification administra administrat updates to the zoning byw I'm sorry MTH that's okay you want to you want to take that now sure yeah it was It was supposed to be before that last discussion that's okay I think ad was on top of everybody's mind at this point so y re recodification not so much um so just as a as a kind of a brief recap we did talk about it um several weeks ago kind of where we are Our Hope had been to bring a complete document to town meeting um with um revisions to all the zoning bylaw articles and you know that's clearly not not going to be possible so we have talked with Town Council about which ones we might might want to move forward with and those are the ones that um I sent to you yesterday and some of them are primarily admin rative changes um revisions additions uh some of them are addressing few issues that we've had along the way you know um over the past years so I haven't summarized them because we haven't really talked about them but I thought I might just quickly screen share each of them I don't want to go through you know line by line but just kind of give an overview of what we're what we're looking at if that's okay with you guys yes good good so um I will start with article one are you all able to see that yep I can okay so this is the article which is basically the the introduction to our zoning uh purpose and intent and everything all the changes here are ones that had been recommended by Town Council and really to tie it back back better to Mass General law so we we basically had one paragraph on the purpose and intent and she has recommended that we add language regarding the authority and uh for adopting this bylaw and amendments the purpose of the bylaw which ties back to what we had before if there are conflicts between this bylaw and other other covenants bylaws Etc this bylaw shall prevail um if decisions or zoning has been enacted or buildings have been done um in accordance with prior bylaws those are still okay if any any portion of this is deemed to be invalid the rest that does not invalidate the rest of it the scope of the bylaw what it covers applicability and then Amendment um we have we I flyed here zoning map we as as we know we actually have zoning map and then we have the overlay District um map and uh Town Council is going to come up with or develop a definition which basically kind of encapsulates both of those into into one term so the zoning map would refer to both so those are the proposed administrative sections at the at the beginning um so any any questions on these I don't have any I take that down um the next one is um revisions to article five special permits so are you able to see this now yes okay so as some of you may recall a few years ago we proposed to add some language to article 11 administration at the end of zoning regarding sort of general purpose um or general special permit requirements that did not pass at town meeting but it's still something very important because it provides guidelines not only for the board and reviewing special permits but also for applicants in terms of what the uh the board is looking for in um for special permits so um this basically is the same language that we proposed before um which is the purpose and intent um and we're proposing to put this in the beginning of article five which is our special permits article and it's the one that includes other special uh specific special permits that have their own requirements such as Ben breakfasts um the osrd common driveway so this these Provisions would cover um special permits which don't don't fall into those specifically identified categories so again it's the purpose and intent the applicability um designation of per special permit granting authorities and probably most important for the board or any board who's the special permit granting Authority is the criteria under which the special permits um would be reviewed and a special permit would be granted um and procedures and filing requirements would which would actually be regulations developed by the board um conditions which could be imposed on a special permit uh waivers fees and Laps and there is a a provision here applicability to single and two family structures um I had a question about how that applies to the piod which um we are discussing with Town Council in addition we've looked at trying to address a couple of the things that have come up with our open space residential development applications um one is the basic maximum number and I think this is something that's still under discussion here um would love some thought thoughts from you guys about it we've had discussion about a yield plan and and um you know if it's a single family if it's a yield plan showing single family lots with single family houses that's pretty straightforward you've got that number of lots it also has the you know the number of lots and number of units are are in sync um we've had a couple of cases where we've had um two family lots showing two family structures and most notably 105 high road and the conclusion on that was that eight units were allowed um but that turned out to be one that was not actually a subdivision it was a site plan so um not really explaining this very well I realize but I guess the question is if we have a yield plan that's based on two family lots um you know is it really appropriate to say then we can get eight Lots eight units out of that or should it still be two family lots with the resulting you know same number of units um with bonus requirements so um that's something I think still to be discussed and maybe we can't deal with it for this Springtown meeting um we have a provision in here which requires the submission of an osrd um for any development that will create U more than four Lots that's actually something that can't be done so we need um because of a a um court case the Wall Street development case so that's something that needs to be revised we've looked at um to try to address some of the um discussions and disagreements about what constitutes open space we're suggesting removing the sentence saying that the open space um will still be considered if it's separated by a roadway or an accessory amenity so it all needs to be one one contiguous area um there's also been some discussion about um whether in fact Wastewater and storm Water Management Systems should be considered um part of the open space so one suggestion is just to clarify that it would be subsurface Wastewater and storm water management systems that could be located with the open within the open space as long as this the surface um is usable open space consistent with the allowed uses and we've added some reference to um open space condominium plan I think in when this was originally drafted it was um you know the assumption would be that it would be an open space subdivision but as I said before the 105 high road was a condominium plan it was a site plan so we're try we've added some language to to address that and I think that is uh that's it for Article Five I don't know if you want me to bring up the site plan review now as part of this or hold that as a separate discussion and put that with the storm water uh no go go ahead well I I mean I'd like to hear some feedback from the board if they have any on all that or some of that some of the particular questions that you raised um I think you were asking for some discuss yeah it's a lot it's a lot to digest I'm happy to share it again if that would be helpful right um Martha Christen if I may uh I had one perhaps substantive comment um on [Music] General for no 4G about consistency with the most recent town of Newbury master plan and I'd like to see some discussion about whether that's a good idea or not uh my experience is that the master plan was meant to be guidance and not become part of a a bylaw right so you know I'd prefer to see some reference to it as a guidance or emphasizing that it's guidance and not binding particularly uh since the master plan itself could be updated and uh I'm also hesitant to incorporate in a bylaw a document that could be much much different in three or four or five years scroll up on that Martha sure okay yeah right there criteria special per we Gres specif here or any other specific factors may be said it's it's just um it's it's calling for consideration of the master plan I don't I don't see it as necessarily being binding was that your point step right uh I mean I think consideration is a better word than consistency Larry well it's it in in number four criteria it talks about shall be the following in addition to any other specific factors that may be set forth in this bylaw the determination shall include consideration of each of the following yada yada yada consistency with the most recent town of newbry master plan so um I I I don't see it as binding myself but neither Li but but in an extreme case I suppose you could site the master plan as as reasons for denying a project I think that's really the purpose of including this is you know if somebody were proposing a project which was you know completely inconsistent with some of the goals that we've included in the master plan such as you know preservation of historic resources or preservation of you know natural resources and that kind of thing um so I also don't see this as something that's that's binding it really is guidance and I think as Larry pointed out um kind of the overarching language here is consideration so it would be consideration of whether or not it's consistent with with the master plan I don't yeah when you make your findings you you want to go through all of these and and and re you know in any given decision um recite how the how the um the project meets those goals or or why they're not appropriate for consideration or something you know well again just my reading I find consistency to be a stronger word than uh consideration and I have been to new report meetings one time where a comment was made from the floor and the response from the podium was but it's in the master plan and there was some back and forth about whether new reports then master plan was something that had to be adhered to as opposed to considered anyway that that's my case and whether there's a better word than consistency I'll leave to the group to or to thrash out I I think the consideration is the key word um as Larry pointed out Steve and it being in the a paragraph that uh kind of lays things out for you know a through G um it's really consideration in you know for really the consistency um um really with the master plan plan I I I don't see a lot of I I I don't see um I don't see any harm with that um but uh completely respect um you know your concerns just my opinion well sure that's why I made the comment for there to be some back and forth uh I I think it meets your concerns Steve that that's my interpretation of it okay I can I'm certainly prepared to move on and I know Marthur and Kristen have heard us discussing this as well so I'm done okay hope hopefully not done for the night very true you're out of here is there anything else so Martha I I see two two places is be as being meat and potatoes that we need to talk about the you know the multi the the uh condo issue down osrd right yeah osrd and the second is the uh you know multif family or the two family I think we need to really because those are two issues that we bumped into already right right and they kind of you know we didn't have it would be best if we could try to iron those potentials if they come back again us so that we understand them yes and that's that's the Hope in trying to address it now but we need to make sure I think that we've really you know got got some alternative language which really makes sense to everybody you mean this alternative language or no I'm not you know it's it's not there yet it's been flagged but it's not all right I thought I was missing something yeah no you're not missing anything you know sort of like these have been issues um the board has you know chewed chewed on them a lot um with the applications that have come you know before the board and you know this could be an opportunity to try to clarify the language so that we don't run into the same issues again yeah I think we can all agree that that needs to be done clarified right so um if anybody has any thoughts on clarifying language now or how to think about it that would be great if you want to think about it and send you know send some thoughts to to Kristen and Daniel and me that would be great um if we can't you know I know we're under a you know pretty tight time frame to get things to to town meeting um it would be really nice to try to get this language clarified now but if not then might have to wait for another round has Lisa made any recommendations on either of these these two that might be helpful here um on the basic maximum number and the yield plan what we did talk about was sort of what I was trying to explain before and didn't do very well probably but um you know in a case say if we take 105 high road as an example where we had a a yield plan that had four two family lots with four two family houses so that was you know yielding eight units that it should be maybe maybe it would be helpful to look at it it's kind of one to one so if the yield plan is four Lots if it's four two family lots then the osrd would need to be for two family lots and there could be a bonus but if it's going to be a condominium site plan as that one ended up being there were no Lots it was all one lot then maybe it's the number of units that prevails so if it's going to be a subdivision it's still two based on two family lots if it's going to be a site plan you can take the number of units which is basically what Coldwell Farm did as well I mean it's really the number of units that that that affect density and affect U um uh the impact on Services right right everything else is just ownership issues right artha can you remind me um when an applicant is presenting their yield plan and they're making a case that the Lots can support a two family are they required to show that that they can meet the septic requirements for the two family they're not I mean they're not required to necessarily do perk tests but there has been um for the yield plan there's a requirement that you know at least some especially if it's going to be a large subdivision some representative number of lots can support septic systems I know that's tricky because it's you know the yield plan is a conceptual stage of an applicant's proposal generally it's not the it's not what they're hoping for but I've always struggled with that a little because it seems uh I have a hard time thinking that it's appropriate to approve a yield plan that shows that they can build something that they actually might not be able to build right like it's supposed to be a a true buildable plan I've just always struggled with that a little bit yeah no it's been it's been one of the the tough things about this and now we have adus right right um which still need to be supported by the septic system yeah I feel like somehow there needs that needs that it would be helpful if that could be somehow tied into what they're requ IR ired to demonstrate when they're presenting the yield plan to the planning board and the yield plan is based on the subdivision uh the subdivision rules and Rigs and there is a requirement in there about um I don't have the exact language in front of me about septic and about um water you know getting certification that that it could support a well um so um yeah we do have one one precedent but this one was on on on public sore and public water which was it was based on a two family yield plan was four two family lots and the board did for that one actually allow eight single family lots with eight single family houses but they were served by public water and sewer was that off Ross Lane yes y y Wilshire Road well regardless of of what's in the osrd bylaw they're still going to have to meet Board of Health standards yes yeah Title Five standards for sure Title Five yeah but not for the yield plan they just they don't have to go through that I don't I don't know we we had a lot of discussion on that PR when 105 high road was uh um was originally proposed um that was some some years ago now all all of the conversation but but we held them to a waiver free they had to they had to um show a waiver free yield plan well right so that has a so can you just explain how colell Farm went they had to get they had to show they could build septic for each of those units I don't think they did I think it was um they had to show that they could um do septic systems on SE some representative number it wasn't all 64 lots that I think they were showing on their yield plan but some you know some reasonable number of those lots me doing perk tests for you know if they're proposing five or six slots it's probably not a huge deal if they're proposing 64 Lots showing on the yield plan that each one of those lots could support a septic system could be could be owners well I mean you know our two recent osrs have a common septic system right right but for the yield the yield plan they need to be buildable a lot so you need to know that they can you know they could actually be perk have Perks they they couldn't you know think for a yield plan they could they could propose a common septic system not for the yield plan title five doesn't um I think Title Five I may be mistaken on this but I think Title 5 allows a common septic system only for a cluster type development oh okay maybe that's the answer then yeah that may have changed but I know that when we were talking about it before that was the case you know I think that was one of the issues with 170 Orchard Street because they they were very limited on where they could you know where they could get perks and the original osrd for that did propose a um a common you know a shared system but the yield plan um the possibility of getting perks on the number of lots that was that were originally proposed was was very unlikely I really think it'd be best if we can Hammer this out so that another board in the future doesn't have to really struggle what we had to struggle with Martha yeah no I agree and that's why we flagged it because it's been you know it's sometimes it's a simple conversation but sometimes it's been a very difficult one and it would be great to get some really clarifying language we have enough information to make a decision or not um I think not right now um but if any of you have any thoughts on on how to look at this or what the clarification might be you know we could we can then review that with with Town Council and try to get um into time for the next meeting try to get something that that is um you know much more flushed out that's good but the S the sense I'm getting is that you know we all recognize the issues and would like to try to address them is it is it going back to Simply what Larry said about it's just about units then should we just tie it to units as opposed to Lots yes and that's kind of where the board has landed in the past it seems it would be more easily understandable so that would be to continue what what has been done in the past if if if somebody presents a say four or two family lots as the yield plan eight units could come out of that and it could be eight single family units on eight single family lots impass correct well it's just you know it's it's It's Tricky it's It's Tricky and it will certainly affect the outcome indeed eventually we have to decide so are those the two um for the osrd are those the the two major major items um I know I went through it quickly but is there any anything else that seem to be a flag in terms of trying to clarify the open space and um what can and can't be allowed in the open space so basically these these two I think doing the wa the defining this subsurface uh uh Wastewater storm management is important yeah okay and the other was remove removing this open space will be considered connected if it's separated by a Road Weare and accessory amenity that helps clarify anything good I'll just add some tube sense which is in my opinion from an open space perspective it's it would just be fine to not include any Wastewater storm water management systems as allowed to be counted in the open space it doesn't at all prohibit that those areas can be used as open space for any purposes that it's possible to use them on like kicking a ball or having a picnic table or whatever but just counting I just again from my open space hat wearing my open space hat open space is natural habitat it's natural environment it's like there are a lot of characteristics of open space and you know Wastewater systems aren't necessarily consistent with what I would Define As Natural open space right septic field isn't considered open SP s of right but what we the language that we have in in the provision before is the the um uses that the open space can or purposes of the open space which include historic preservation outdoor education passive Recreation agriculture Horticulture um so you know it would be you know in that context it would be possible to say have a you know have a playing field on top of the leeching field for this for the septic system so that that's kind of a context for this and the purpose of the changes to um this provision three were just to clarify that they had to be subsurface and not not surface things again just playing Devil's Advocate it's just you you can go in any time you have to dig up your septic if there's a problem with it you have to repair your infrastructure if if there's problem with it so it's it's um it's not the infrastructure of Wastewater and storm water management are their things there's like human infrastructure that may or may not you know need to be modified addressed you know just wouldn't wouldn't any repair or maintenance of that infrastructure you know would be temporary um and uh you know I I personally think and just my opinion that um you know um God's not making any more land um and that um you know we need to find um or at least understand that uh there needs to be creative ways to um really introduce um housing um but by the same token and we need to protect um and um really introduce um open space um because that's what um is is of Great Value to our citizens uh so I mean I you know if you have um you know a storm water um drainage or pipe running over or running under subsurface um you know an acre or two or whatever it is of of land getting to uh you know a pond or what have you um you know for me that would be okay provided you know can't see it um you know it's not dangerous um it's um um you know you can have your children grandchildren anybody that can um want to use that space you know has access to it can kick a ball can do whatever they want um so I I would be careful um not not to make that um too restrictive um just my opinion given that septic systems and leech Fields do need to be replaced and they don't last forever to me I think Kristen's stated concern or argument about is it really open space if you have to dig it up and I just see these systems as having a uh limited lifetime particularly if they were common systems where there's room for a lot of things going into the uh leech field that can cause it to clog and therefore fail and that's sort of my opinion so any any other thoughts on that because I'm I'm hearing arguments on both both sides so I don't have any what are your thoughts Martha no I'm just you know I'm hearing I'm hearing very good Arguments for both both sides um I guess I guess I'm asking your opinion um I my my opinion it would be to to basically do what is is shown here which is just to clarify that subsurface systems um could be located within the open space um as long as that open space is consistent with the allowed uses um as that was that was allowed before but it wasn't you know it wasn't totally clear clear um but still to exclude surface systems such as retention and detention ponds because those even though they could actually provide some wonderful habitat they you know their constructed systems which um you know aren't natural open space so where did he go from here would he I was just going to ask thatle take a straw pole um sure I mean I with number three as amended it looks fine me but I don't number one it's we just remove the sentence there so that's yeah just to ensure that that the open space is one you know one contiguous area yeah I don't see a problem with in really it's just number three Mara um yeah I mean I think that's that's the concern right now a star pull the board that sure just start with Peter I'm comfortable with it Larry um yes uh you know my initial reaction frankly was how to simplify it and avoid any future questions and my my initial reaction was to say you know Wastewater and storm water management system Serv the osrd may not be located within the open space period I mean that at least is going to take any any questionable um uh you know no question about the interpretation recognizing that a developer uh does have the right to ask for waiver of that but by the same token I'm just thinking off the top of my head here we also want to en encourage developers to use the osrd that's what it's there for so anyway to answer you to to answer your question yes I'm comfortable with it is I think that's a reasonable compromise I I agree also um Woody and I was U thinking about that you know um really the waiver path Larry um but you know with me if you want to encourage um I think this is probably right very agreed that it's it's okay I mean as it is all right Steve you're mute Steve mute can't see it here we go thank you uh I'm still not comfortable with it since to declare open space something that is guaranteed going to need to be excavated and not usable as open space just doesn't make sense to me so I'm not in favor of it okay and I'm comfortable with it and and to your argument I guess any management of that would be temporary so that's another thought it's not forever that they're digging it up or it's dug up for it's not usable so agreed to disagree um anything else in that Matha um not in this one does anybody else have any any other questions or comments on this article I don't okay thanks I will take that one down so Cons considering the yield yield plan question the units is that was there a proposal of language there or Martha do you want to just like think about that a little more and then propose something for the board to react to yeah I mean there's no I don't think there's anything on the table right now um I would if if any of you have any thoughts um you know please send them to us and otherwise we'll take a look at it and discuss a little bit more with Lisa and see if we can come up with a proposal which will really help clarify that and we'll we'll also discuss the um you know the title five the um septic with her as well you know what's you reasonable for the yield plan that sounds like a path forward just just for my edification Martha um you know those two um were looking to improve um to really uh provide you know much greater Clarity going forward um as a result of the issues that we've experienced in the past um on you know developments such as 105 High Road I'm I'm only asking because I I didn't really wasn't um around for what happened there um and for me it would have been it'd be great if you and I can have a 20-minute discussion um you know outside of you know this forum and I can just get a better understanding if you wouldn't if you had the time I could certainly find it that would that would help me no certainly I'd be happy to talk you know fill you in a little history on that one and happy to talk with anybody else as well um yeah the the major discussions about that really were kind of um how to you know what constituted open space how to calculate the open space and and the yeld plan so um I I know there was a lot to to that one um and there was a lot of back and forth and um I'm not sure if we ended up in the right place or not but I'm sure there's a lot to learn from that one so I will absolutely give you a call um just so I can get a little more education on that yeah sure happy to talk about it thanks good all right um next one is um one change to article 10 the um Provisions regarding customary home occupations as some of you will recall there have been some issues with this as well um in one special permit application that was before board the use required a special permit but because it was being conducted as a customary home occupation the court ultimately re ruled that it was it was considered a customary home occupation so we're proposing to add some language to the customary home occupation um Provisions to say no use which requires a special permit under the table of use regulation shall be permitted as a customary home occupation just to clarify um because there's you know the the uses in the table of use regulations which require special permits are there for a reason um that you know was felt that they needed more more oversight more um you know closer look during during the permitting process and so this is to try to help clarify that it doesn't doesn't matter how it's being conducted it still if the use requires a special permit that it will be a special permit this may not be exactly the final language we haven't reviewed this precisely with Town Council but words to this effect so Martha could I ask you a question yes of course okay so such as professional and business offices so would that allow for someone to do a ha hair salon business out of their home as long well if if it I can't remember if that requires a special permit under the table of use regulations yeah if it does they would have to apply for that special permit if it doesn't and they're conducting it with no more than two non-resident employees I think they could yeah so I guess the the question is is so if it requires a professional license so a barber requires a professional license anything that requires a licensing process would that be allowed then again if we well this kind of goes to a deeper question I think one of the things that really needs to be reviewed is the table of use regulations to see whether you know whether um the the uses that have been identified as requiring special permits are really appropriate um and also appropriate in the zoning districts that they've been designated for um okay so that doesn't really answer your question but if we you know if if we in the past had deemed that a hair addresser would be appropriate for a special permit because of the amount of traffic that it might be generating or whatever um then it would still under this still need to go through that process if it's not been identified and there's a sole practitioner who's doing it with one client at a time that's probably a customary home occupation exact answer your question kind of kind of kind of okay well Martha wouldn't uh wouldn't it I mean there are only a finite number of special permits wouldn't it be clearer to Simply go through the table of use regulations and delete those from the table of use regulations or maybe even redefine them that that Pete's example of the what was it a hairdresser um uh would be uh uh require a special permit if more than two employees were you know employed uh in the home occupation I am I making myself clear am I just confusing the issue no I mean I think you're getting at what I was suggesting before we really need to take a very good look at the table of use regulations I mean it makes no sense to have I don't know a dog day Doggy Daycare okay um in the table of use regulations as a home occupation if you're then going to to um to adopt a bylaw that says well even if it's in the the U um table of use regulations as a special permit as excuse me as a home occupation it still needs a special permit um well it's not and right now that particular use is not in the table of use regulations is something that's a customary home occupation it's something that requires a special permit so well wasn't that the case we had that we on that issue yeah I mean it required in that particular case it required a special permit um when the special permit came up for Renewal the board denied it because not all the conditions it it became apparent that not all the conditions of the original special permit had been met the board's decision was appealed and the the judge ultimately decided that it was something that was being conducted as a customary the use regardless of the use it was being conducted as a customary home OCC occupation but it was listed in the table of use regulations as something that required a special permit you know regardless of how the business was being conducted yeah so not sure that I'm explaining that very well but I think that the per the purpose of including this language here is basically to say that it doesn't matter how it's being conducted if it's something that the board feels or the town feels is appropriate for a special permit the special permit is required should we take a little bit more I follow your point now that the the customary home occupation yeah I get it yeah the customary home occupation doesn't address the use IT addresses how the business is being conducted I get it I get it yeah I I have remembered that case differently but I get it yeah no that makes sense then this language makes sense that makes sense to me okay yeah I mean it's basically to to try to ensure that the table of use regulations prevails with use it's a little confusing in the number one that there's a little bit of a a vague definition of a customary home occupation but it's it's not a definition it's just parentheses you know what I mean because it's it's like you're you guys are just in your comments you just sort of raised the issue that what's trying to be addressed here is not um the use but or not the activity but how it how it's however you just said that Martha it it seemed um it seems potentially confusing to name certain things like can we strike that parenthesis or is it helpful or should it be further clarified what a customary home occupation is or isn't yeah I mean maybe it should be clarified I think originally when this was done the intention really was that it would be you know say an architect or an attorney working out of a home office or something like that um or a soul practitioner of some sort I can't I honestly don't remember if we have a definition of this in in uh in the definitions but maybe that's where it should be clarified so I'm just gonna I'm GNA highlight this and maybe maybe Lisa can give us some guidance on that there is not a definition okay in definition section currently yeah I didn't think there was you know I think until this particular case came up it didn't you know it never really occurred to us that there would be something that would require a special permit that um or use that would require a special permit that could ultimately be allowed as a customary home occupation so all right but I think that's a good point so we should try to clarify that anything else on this one I don't have anything okay hearing nothing so I'm G to take something out of order um because it's in um it's kind of in the sequence of all of this stuff um and that's a change to site plan review and if you all recall last May um the board approved changes to the site plan review regulations um as required for the ms4 um storm water permit and those particular Provisions had to do with record drawings um there was also a change recommended by our consultant Renee budro um that needed to be made to site plan review we couldn't do that at the time because of the timing of town meeting but that change was to to um add some language uh regarding the um preconstruction conference and what needed to be observed during that preconstruction conference so that language show is shown here in red and this is specifically the language that we received from our consultant our storm water consultant basically that um you know the site design operations storm water practices and site controls and um during construction and to manage runoff after development should be reviewed so that's that's this language here any questions about that no okay okay and the final one is maybe a little bit more complicated um and these are recommended revisions to article 11 Administration the first portion of this is to um add language regarding uh building permits who the permit granting Authority is what the building permit requirements are and this is all language from Town Council any changes um requirement for a certified plot plan violation of building permits appeals to the board of appeals and penalty for violation so these are all Provisions that we don't have right now that the Town Council is recommending that we add so any um any questions in in theory on any of those no thanks okay I did okay I have one question no go ahead Martha was that only they only have six months uh just let me just maybe it's my my can you uh scroll up to number three um and then down is it good for six months the permit is only good for six months is that right with uh maybe down a little bit further D or E yeah right here it's D shapse of constructions not begin within six months from the issuance is that inury standard um I believe I can double check on this I believe that's language that's come you know comes straight from you know state state language that's that's begin that's not yeah it's not complete it's just begin you know it's Sim similar to our our special permit requirements although in that case somebody has two years to start you know for substantial use but um we'll check with um Town Council on on this and I don't know whether there's any any um extension provision so anything else on that I don't have anything okay you you were going to say something El so so the other um well Town Council added some language regarding variances just clarifying that the the zba um can grant dimensional variances um then the other major part of this is the written definitions and um a note of explanation here when when Town Council went through and marked this up the original intention as I said before was to try to get the entire document uh by law before t uh town meeting um there are definitions in here that were struck with the intention of putting those in the particular sections of the bylaw to which they pertain right now we've got a little bit of a mix and match in some cases we've got bylaws like the marijuana bylaws I think has all the definitions in that multi family has definitions some of them like wind um the definitions are back here so the attempt was to um to make it consistent because we're not doing the entire recodification for town meeting there are some sections that will not be addressed necessarily so one of the things that we we want to talk to Town Council about is um whether we should still consider moving all of the definitions out to be with the provisions that they pertain to or leave them here for now so that's kind of a question mark so the strikeouts that you see a lot of them may be staying here and we'll get that clarified when we meet with her which hopefully will be next Monday the old things that are I've highlighted here are some clarifications to basement um bus terminals I'm going to go down the major ones really are uh she suggested moving moving and kind of making uh consistent the definitions for dwelling unit we had them under residences before so she's recommending that dwelling unit single family two family and multif family all moved up as subsets of dwelling unit um Building height is uh something that the zba has been uh struggling with um particularly for for structures down on Plum Island so we're trying to clarify that um that's not this is flagged right now this is not intended to be a permanent suggestion so we will um get that finalized and have a proposal to you all for your consideration um she's added some language regarding industrial cleanup services uh more importantly probably for Us's definition of a lot um to flush that out um lot Frontage we don't have a definition for Frontage right now um addition of lot line front and rear and side lot lines and non-conforming lots most of the rest of them are um more minor additions um kind of bringing them up to current standards like adding videos and compact discs to vending machines um uh more flushed out definition for structure and those those are the highlights and she's flagged a couple of things as well that we need to take a look at so I don't know if you all had any opportunity to review this before if you have any questions um about any of these proposed definitions I don't do anyone else I have to do my homework on this one Martha yeah we all do yeah oops this okay uh if there's nothing else I will stop sharing so um so that was it for the recodification yep now um and we've done storm water um yes we did the storm water General bylaw or um I didn't I I have that here that's not it's not a zoning by law but um it is tied in with the site plan review changes in so far as the recommendations that were were given to us by our stormwater consultant I can pull it up it's something that I think really the Conservation Commission is going to have to deal with but um I'm happy to pull that up if you want to take a look at it it's basically two definitions that are being revised put go ahead and put it up and okay get our eyes on it I'm sorry hold on so the two definitions that uh our consultant recommended that we revise our sorry to be making you dizzy here one was a definition for new development um any construction activities or land alteration resulting in total Earth disturbance equal two or greater than one acre or activities that are part of a larger common plan of development disturbing greater than one acre on an area that has not previously been developed to include impervious cover and the other one was Redevelopment to red velopment Rehabilitation expansion construction Improvement of impervious surfaces demolition or phased projects resulting in total Earth disturbance equal to or greater than one acre the one acre is the the trigger here or activities are part of a larger common plan so those are those are the two two changes to this bylaw that's a general bylaw but we'll need to go before town meeting okay um so you don't have anything else then um I have here a flood hasard bylaw has something with that um so just to update the board we don't have anything to look at tonight but the revised bylaw um is back in the hands of um DCR the state uh review Agency for for flood plane management um it went back at the end of December so they have said they get us comments within two weeks so that will be early next week so we are hoping it's in good shape it's been reviewed by Town Council and multiple iterations of Staff review you um mostly with the flood plane administrator who's the building inspector Building Commissioner um so that will uh when it gets back to us we'll take another look at it inhouse and then send it around again okay so thank you Matha for everything and thank you Krist um we'll go into Old business we'll dive into the housing production plan 2024 to 2029 does uh everybody got that everybody had a chance to review it does anyone have any questions housing production plan any corrections on the housing production plan I don't have front of me unfortun to update the board you know we did have that presentation in December um from AAC Valley Planning Commission staff and we you know reviewed that that's been in the works for um you know over the last year so all the public input has been included um Dan and I do have a meeting with um Ian Burns at marac Valley planning on Tuesday um to finalize the language they are taking a look at updating some of the data which has become just any data that can get updated uh that we have as a summary from 2024 we're going to try to get in there since we're now in 2025 so we're going to review those updates um next early next week and um any other Redline comments some of you have sent us comments which is terrific um we're clarifying you know some corrections such as updating the board members who've been involved in this and staff members that kind of those kinds of edits so we'll the red line is uh there's still a red line but it's in good shape and um there are no significant changes from the version you all have seen um Dan if you have you've been in deep with it as well which is terrific to have another set of new eyes on the plan um if you have any other comments or updates no um again we've we appreciated the comments we've gone back and forth we've got a meeting with Ian um I'm just wondering if the board again has any questions or if they would feel comfortable taking a vote as far as having it be amended and the language being amended so that we can move forward to the Sol thoughts on that board members does everyone feel comfortable voting on that i' entertain a motion to approve the housing production plan pending some amendments don't move is it is it still in Redline form kisten uh yes as I as I just was saying we're finalizing the updates to the data um so there's no red line that are significant changes but it is we we do still have a red line it hasn't been uh you know all the changes haven't been accepted yet the mvpc will I think Ian mentioned this but they'll be putting it into a more graphic format um so we'll certainly share that as soon as we have it they I I will share their support staff member Tyler who was with the board at our last discussion with them is no longer at mvpc so um so they're finalizing their end of it unfortunately I guess that position didn't work out um so everybody's working hard to finalize what we have but yes it's still in Red Line form so go ahead Pete yeah I was just gonna kind of piggy off scott then I think until we have a final I think we should hold on doing any action yep we'll wait we'll wait till we have the final version sent out to the board sorry about that that's fine that makes sense to me [Music] um that brings us to the plans report I believe I can hop on that one um basically the planners report is everything that we've gone over tonight is exactly what we've been working on and uh you've been seeing it it's it's complicated it's dirty it's got Nuance so we've been working on it and uh I I believe Kristen had mentioned it earlier but we are moving upstairs Monday so that's another update but aside from that we're in the throws of it right now that's what we've been working on okay thank you Dan and I jumped ahead my fault um we have the financial report for December 2024 um payroll and invoices authorized payroll warrants for planning director special project planner and assistant planner PR 25-12 for pay period ending 12424 PR 25-13 for pay Peri period ending 12 2824 then we have a planning board s PR 25-13 period from July 1st 24 through December 30th 24 expense invoices Dan Loro for reimbursement of APA conference Mage in apa membership 12 1124 Christ grubs for reimbursement for APA conference mileage and APA membership 12124 and Amazon for office supplies 1217 24 then we have escrow accounts joea construction inspections for Cricket Lane 1212 24 and Joe Shaka construction inspections for 105 high road 121724 that concludes the financial report next is uh liaison reports liaison meeting report excuse me first is CBA that would be Larry yeah I don't really have much to report uh they normally meet the third Thursday of the month but they had some scheduling issues this month so they're meeting on January 30th and um I know they have one continued public hearing on a variance in Plum Island but uh beyond that I don't know what's likely to be on the agenda that's all I have okay and uh Conservation Commission they met last night um there was a few items on the agenda but nothing that pertained to us um and then we have mvpc Kristen yeah and we also um neither the planners gr nor the Commissioners has met um since we last met and the commissioner's meeting in January has actually um been cancelled so they're not meeting until February okay and um that I skipped over plans report I jumped ahead on plans report so we've done that D gave us plans report so lastly I have here uh meeting minutes so everyone got a chance to revie the meeting minutes for December 18 2024 I haven't I have not okay everyone else I would say you did yes yeah I I've reviewed it I do have one question for Dan though if I may yes go right ahead L uh Dan it's customary that we include a paragraph um uh summarizing the uh uh the chair's um uh Zoom meeting instructions and I don't see that here was that intentionally left off or no it was not I can include that for sure okay other other than that looks fine to me okay I have nothing further with it and hearing nothing further no one has any further corrections I would entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for December 18 2024 with the amendment that Larry just stated so move was in zo so move Scott I have a second second second thank you roll call vote Peter sure thing Larry yes Mary yes Scott yes and Steve how do you feel yes yes and I vote Yes as well so meeting minutes are approved um does anyone to have anything else this evening say thank you to Dan Kristen and Martha um for all the hard work on this this is a lot of stuff yes it certainly is so um much appreciated and happy New Year thank you Happy New Year very good no one has anything else to say I entertain a motion to adjourn I move to adjourn I'll second that Larry thank you okay do a roll call vote Peter yes sir Larry yes Mary yes Scott yes and Steve how do you feel yes and I vote Yes as well thank you for Effective meeting and everyone have a good night good night night good night now thank you see you soon thank you