As a preliminary matter, this is Woody Knight, chair of the Newbury Planning Board. Remember me to confir uh confirm that all members are persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me. Uh playing board members when I call your name, please respond in the
affirmative. Peter Pos, >> yes, sir. >> Larry Murphy, >> yes. Scott Kinter, I believe he's going to be joining us. Steve Manion, >> yes. >> And um M uh Mary Stone isn't with us
this evening. Town staff, want to call your name. Please respond in the affirmative. Kristen Grubs, planning director. >> Yes. >> Martha Taylor, special projects. >> Yes. >> And Sadie Woodward, assistant planner.
Hello everyone. Good evening. Uh Jan the January 21st 2026 open meeting of the new planning board is being conducted remotely consistent with chapter 2 of the act of 2025
which extends the governor's March 12th 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law GL C3A20 until June 30th 2027. 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 83271413056 passcode 108790 or by calling in 1 1929 2056099 US and entering the meeting ID number
and passcode when prompted. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that attendees are participating by video conference and or telephone conference. The meeting is also being broadcast live through local access chable channel 9 on Zoom and at
newbury TV.wicksite.com/tnctv and the recording will be available on the new access YouTube channel. Excuse me. Meaning business ground rules. 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
motions. For all attendees, please remember to mute your audio when you are not speaking on Zoom. The mute button, use the use the mute button. And if you're calling in, um, use star
six to toggle to mute and unmute. There will be an opportunity for public comment and questions during the public hearing. I will seek questions and comments from members of the public through the Zoom raised hand function. video conference participants to raise
your hand. Hover over the bottom of the Zoom window below the photo gallery and click on the image of the hand that appears. Please ensure your name is fully and correctly displayed on the participant
list. Telephone participants to raise your hand in a Zoom meeting. Hit star 9 on your phone keypad. Each participant will be called on to provide his or her name and address and
then may ask questions or make a comment. Please do your best to keep your comments at three minutes or less. Your hand will be lowered when you have been given the floor or your questions. I will forward the applicants or their representatives the opportunity to reply.
Should there be a written submitt of questions or concerns, they will be noted for the record. The applicant will be afforded the opportunity to speak if the issues raised have not yet been addressed. Finally, each vote taken in this meeting
will be conducted by roll call vote. So that's the introduction. Um, first item on the agenda this evening, we have a submission for Michael Becker, 15 Central uh Central Street Bfield LLC
for a two lot definitive subdivision application at 15 Central Street. Assess map U1 one one lot 53. Um is do we have Mr. Becker here? >> Good evening. >> Hi Mike.
>> Hey Woody. >> Uh I'm here this evening uh with my partner and co-owner of the property Carissa Vitus. Uh, I'd first like to thank Satie and Kristen for all their help in getting
the submission up to snuff over the last few weeks and months. Um, I can go into the nuts and bolts of the of the plan if we're ready to do that. >> Sure. Yeah. Present what what you've you
have proposed. Yeah. So, the proposal is to create one new conforming duplex lot and uh keep the existing uh historic home and restore that. Uh both lots will be of conforming size. Uh we've had the
soils tested for both the drainage and the uh proposed septic and soil conditions are ideal for septic. Uh we plan to have uh town water for both property both. Uh yeah, both properties.
Um we have presented the plan for the road to the fire department and uh they accepted that that length road uh for this size uh subdevelopment. Um we've plotted all the existing trees
and uh as you know we had the sitewalk during the uh preliminary subdivision plan. I believe we have met all the qualifications for the application. That's pretty much it. >> Okay. Um,
we have to vote to accept this uh application. Correct, Kristen? >> Yes. Um, and Mike, I don't or Teresa, it looks like she has her hand up. Do you want to add anything?
Oh, yep. Go ahead. And you're muted. >> Hi. Am I on? >> Yes, you are. We can hear. >> Oh, sorry. Hi. Thank you. >> Did you want to make a comment? I wasn't sure if that was why you raised your hand. >> No, I'm just Mike's partner on the
project, so I wanted to let the panel know, hi, I'm here. Thanks for having me. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Do any board members have any questions at this time? >> All right. Uh hearing none, I would entertain a motion
to accept the um uh subdivision plan. >> So move. >> Um >> Oh, >> go ahead. Go ahead. >> Sorry. just yeah accept the submission and then you can have another vote to
set the public hearing date. Sorry. >> Yep. Thank you. Uh do I have a second? >> Yes, you do. >> Thank you, Larry. Thank you, Pete. Um roll call vote. Peter Pos. >> Yes, sir. >> Larry Murphy.
>> Uh Scott Ker isn't with us yet. Uh Steve Mandy just sorry I he just hopped on so I don't know Scott if you're still driving or if you're available to tune in
>> if he y if he heard the submission >> um Steve >> yes >> and I vote yes as well. All right. Um, now we'll have a I did entertain a motion to set the
um date for public hearing. Do we have a date for the public hearing, Chris? >> Um, uh, I mean, it's up to the planning board, but I think it would be a sufficient time for staff to help the
applicant with the legal notice and a better notices. Um, if you set the date at the second meeting in February, >> okay, >> which would be February 18th. >> Okay. I would entertain a motion to set
the public hearing for um 15 Central Street LL Bfield LLC two lot uh definitive subdivision um for February
8 uh 16th you said Kristen >> um 18th >> February 18th 2026 I entertain motion >> so moved at 7:15 sir Thank you. Uh, do I have a second? >> Second.
>> Second. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, roll call vote. Petos, >> yes. >> Larry Murphy, >> yes. >> Steve Man, >> yes. >> And I vote yes as well. All right. Thank you, Mike. And we'll see you on the 18th
at 7:15. >> Thank you. See you on the 18th. >> Have a good day. Thank you. >> Yep. Have a good night. Um, next item on the agenda leazison and meeting uh reports. What's that? >> We'll start with ZBA.
>> Uh, thank you, Woody. Uh, the ZBA met last Thursday night. Um, they had public hearings on the agenda for seven exit away and 25 Harvard Way to modify the structures uh, the homes on those properties. Also uh on the agenda was
the Sunset Club Pavilion, but I think where that's um on first 7:15 public hearing, we'll just defer any discussion till then. >> Okay. >> And that that's all that's all I have. >> All right. Thank you, Larry. Um
Conservation Commission, we met last night. We had a we had ended up having a light agenda. Um I don't believe there's anything on there last night that pertained to us. We had some docks and we have a um some
more dock approvals on the Paka River at the Parker River Bridge at the old Vernals, but other than that sidewalk tomorrow, but other than that, we don't have uh anything that pertain to us. Uh MVPC Kristen,
>> um the MVPC commissioners meeting was last week. Um it was on uh Zoom. They usually hold their meetings in person, but they sometimes don't have a meeting in January, so everyone was on Zoom. Um,
so it was uh really the primary agenda was updates from all the different departments. Um couple highlights. The um housing and community economic development program um announced that
every town in the region now has an active and approved housing production plan. So MVPC has been you know providing technical assistance. Newbury approved our HPP um two years ago now.
Um so we're in our first year of implementation. and those are five-year plans. Um so that's a lot of work that MVPC has been helping towns with um focused on housing. Um they also have some really uh interesting grants that
have come in to support economic development. They have some technical assistance and small grant um initiatives for women and minority owned businesses in the region. Um, so these are technical services available to any
business across the entire MVPC region. Um, they have a a arts and culture program that I'm not sure I've ever shared, but they have a part-time staff person who's focused on sort of bringing
public arts into public spaces. Um right now she's working on um public art on bus stops um and coordinating with the the MEVA um transit authority which is kind of cool. Um and then
they've also gotten some new grants to support their environmental program. They've um started their storm water collaborative up again which is a quarterly um quarterly partnership collaborative among all the towns where they invite
DPWA directors and planners and conservation anyone involved in storm water um management and uh environmental sort of infrastructure projects um to come together and they're getting some good grant funding to support that work
as Well, um and then the MVPC planners regional meeting is um next week. And that's it. >> All right. Thank you, Kristen. >> Yep. >> Um has everyone had a chance to review the
meeting minutes? >> Yes. >> Okay. Was that Scott? >> Yes. Thanks for joining us, Scott. Nice to have you. >> Um, >> thanks. >> Does anyone have any questions or
comments on the meeting minutes? And >> actually, I have a question for Sadi. Um, >> y >> just the substance looks fine. Uh, Sadi, you always uh include a link um to the
um meeting uh to the video and the the draft I have doesn't have that. I don't know. Was that left off for a particular reason or it's just an oversight? >> Might have been just an error. Um and but sometimes when I do the minutes, the
video hasn't been uploaded. Maybe that's why. But I I imagine it was just I forgot to to paste it in there. >> Yeah, I would. Yeah, I mean they look look fine. Substance substance is all there. But you're always very good about putting it putting that in. So I with
would with that suggestion that that that be added I that looks fine to me. >> Okay. Thank you Larry and thank you S. Um I'd entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for
I'm looking for a date for the meeting minutes. >> January 7th. >> Yes. January 7th, 2026 with um the amendment to add the length of the video. >> So move. >> Thank you, Larry. Second.
>> Second. >> Thank you, Steve. Roll call vote. Peter Pos, >> yes. >> Larry Murphy, >> yes. >> Steve Mandrian, >> yes. >> Scott Kent, >> yes. >> And I vote yes as well. So that's
amazing. And thank you for doing those. Okay. Uh, next item on the agenda, public hearing 2-8 Oldpoint Road, level two, uh, site plan review application for asbuilt constructed
changes to an approved site plan of record for proposed new 40x40 pavilion structure at the Sunset Club at 2-8 Old Point Road. assesses map U02-0-153A owner of the cottage the cottages
commercial LLC Vincent God manager I'd like to welcome Vincent Goden and or Steve Sawyer um I believe both of you will be here Steve Sawyers from Millennium Engineering um and if you would please uh you have the floor update us on your
permanent activities please >> all right um Good evening everybody. Unfortunately, my something's gone on with my uh laptop video, so turned it on but can't see me. >> Um, okay. >> And Vincent's here also. Uh, so it's been a while. Uh, I think it was back in
July. Uh, we ran through most of the site issue. I think all of the site issues. We did get a a clean letter um from Joe Swarka the peerreview saying all um the storm water issues were addressed with the latest design and
calculations. Um but uh Kristen noticed that as part of the zoning approval uh the all walls were um all the sides were to remain open. Uh so we went back to get a
modification from the zoning board of appeals. Uh it took some time. Um and I believe uh Vincent was there last he was in person last week. uh he can fill in on the on on the deliberations. But from
that it was uh approved the the or the new the gable ends those gable ends of the of the building were approved to provide one-inch gaps between the uh it's sort of a batten boy uh batten type
end with gaps between so it's it's somewhat open on either end of the gable end. Uh we do have we have some graphics to show that was presented to the um to the uh ZBA if you'd like to see them. >> Sure.
>> Sure. >> All right. Well, uh let's see. Share. All right. So, you know, basically what it is, there'll be uh boards with a gap in between. Oneinch gap on each gable end uh was a resolution of what they
what what the um ZBA agreed agreed upon as far as how to handle these triangular ends of uh each each end of the uh pavilion. And so that that's the the structure itself. Uh, Steve, one other thing to point out. While while there's
a one-inch gap between the top of one board and the bottom of the next, they're they're in a louvered position. So, they're they're at an angle on top of each other. >> So, there's more of a open feel than than just that oneinch gap. As you approach it, it it more and more of the
inside of it becomes visible as you're looking up through the the louvers. Um, so that that provided that open field that the board had had uh the ZBA was looking for uh while still providing the
the rain protection and the sun protection that that we needed for it to be functional. >> All right. Thank you, Vincent. >> Yeah. And then so as we updated the up updated the uh renderings uh photoshopped renderings of of the
pavilion entering entering the property as you see driving onto the island the appearance of it and then leaving. Granted this actually leaving you'd be in the right hand lane. This is looking across. So you'd be in the right hand lane. So it wouldn't be as you probably
would it would be a little more little bit screened and not centered as you leave the island. uh as you leave the island. So, you know, that was I think, you know, from our recollection, that was the final item uh final final item
on the site plan review portion uh of the project. Uh I don't know if I'm missing anything, but I think I'd open up to the, you know, turn it turn it over the board to to see um see where we're at. and
hopefully can get this get this moving and approved. >> Okay. Thank you, Steve. >> You're welcome. >> I'll start with uh Peter. Do you have any questions for uh Steve or Vincent? >> Um Steve and Vince, thanks for coming
back. It has been a while uh to to to get back to this. So, I'll I'll I'll start off. So just so I historically remember correctly the reason for using the pavilion so that during rainy events rain rainy or sunny episodes that's when tables would be brought in and that's when the space would be used. Is that
right? >> Muted. >> Sorry about that. I had myself on mute. Yeah, it is not to add any sort of uh additional seating, just moving and having the ability to relocate around some of the tables and chairs in those
circumstances on a hot day or or if it's going to be raining um be able to locate uh people under there. >> Okay. So, we'll be moving already existing tables and chairs in and out. Okay, that's our first question. Sec.
The second point is now did you want to do lighting with this in here? >> Yes. There there had been a uh lighting plan submitted back in um back in April when we initially uh
>> had submitted this and I'm trying to see if I can find it right now. >> I'm looking for it also. >> So this is a phototric plan because I I I don't remember that. Uh I don't as far as phototric it's all directed. It's either up lighting under the structure or down. There's some down lighting
within the structure. So there's nothing uh it would all be underneath the structure. I I can find I don't believe there's a we didn't provide a phototric but it was all internal to the roof directing down on the ground or there was some some lighting on the rafters
that I think directed up into the uh on the um beams that directed up into the rafter. Is that correct Vincent? >> That that is correct. and same company that we used on the last go around where everything's going to be dark sky compliant kind of down lit very soft lighting we're looking more just for a
light glow than than anything else. >> So is the intention to have the lighting on all the time >> uh as far as it's going to be on the same timer system that that turns on and off uh with with the rest of the restaurant.
>> Okay. So, right now we have like the string lights that are all out there all they're on all the time and then the lights on the posts that are on all the time. And so now this lighting will be on all the time with >> it's going to be on the same timer system. I believe they turn off or they're supposed to turn off that gets messed up sometimes with storms uh
around 11:00 which I believe is the time that is required. >> Okay. So now we're going to have something with open slats. So there'll be lighting projecting outward. It just won't be contained downward, right? because there's going to be up lighting. >> Do I understand that right?
>> There's going to be lighting. >> Yes. There'll be some glow lighting. Yes. >> So then that lighting will be going outside of the building. So as you're driving up or down um the turnpike, you'll be seeing lighting of the roof. >> You will see very little from that distance driving away because of the way
the louvers work. As you drive and get closer and closer and get more under it, you will see more of that glow. But from far away it it compared to the light up sign that is right next to it that is much brighter. You won't even be able to tell.
>> So you'll see where I'm going with this Vincent. Cuz if this is supposed to be used for like rain and hot sunny days, I don't understand why there'd be lighting on all the time. And if there is going to be lighting on all the time, I'd like to know what that looks like. So everybody else, cuz right now there's a
lot of lighting on that corner. And we I I'm going to pull the the nature card here. We have one of the largest wildlife fly paths with Plum Island, which is a you know, this wildlife management area. And we're trying to
diminish lighting, not enhance lighting. So, if there's going to be lighting on, I'd like an explanation as to its purpose. If this is only going to be used for rain or hot days, that's the intention of the pavilion. From my understanding, >> that was the purpose of having it there.
Yes, but it's still an area where people can walk over to or utilize. So, we can't have it be a dark >> area. >> So, if people are going to walk over there and So, if people are going to walk over there and utilize it, they'll be pulling chairs over there and tables unless your staff tells them not to,
right? >> Uh, no. I mean, people have the ability to walk around the site if they I mean, there's kids running around at all times. I mean, it's if and if somebody wants to sit under there, we'll move a table there accordingly. Yeah. >> Okay. Got it. So, let's So, let's then get a better handle on lighting and what
it's going to look like because I'm disturbed. I I'm disturbed every time I go down there, Vincent, and I see the string lights on, they're on right now. >> The business isn't functional, right? The post lights are on. >> You know, what was originally proposed to this board a long time ago, uh, is
different than when we're at now. And I I understand that business plans change. I get it. But if the business is business isn't open, I don't understand why there's lighting going on. And so now we're going to have another structure with lighting going on. And potentially this time next year, that
structure will also be illuminated. So make me feel more comfortable, please. >> Well, I I believe the rules are that lighting has to be off by 11:00 or when a business ends up closing. >> But your business your business isn't
open right now. Right now it's not open. Lights are on. Your exterior is on. >> Then that is a scheduling issue on that that needs to be addressed. >> It's been over a year. It's been going on since you've been there. >> And so we're talking lighting. Let's
let's get it ironed out now tonight. >> And I come back. We have every intention of following the the code on on lighting. And if there's any issues with that, obviously we need to address that. But um it's
that the the actual additional lighting during the hours of operation that we will be there will not be visible in comparison to what is there. >> And also the street the street light on the corner in front of the pavilion as
far as phototrics would would be brighter than anything underneath the pavilion. But I I do understand Peter what you're saying is during nonoperational hours those lights should be off. We understand that in >> so so Steve help me get comfortable with it.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Well, we didn't you know as far as running a phototric as far as running a phototric for the lights within the pavilion we have not done that. Um but I can just from looking you know understanding the from an engineering
perspective and understanding how projects are looking at a street light understanding a street light and the spill from the street light is much brighter than the than the the very soft lighting within that within that pavilion. >> Right. So I'm
>> especially dark sky compliant lighting. Okay. >> Yes. >> For now I just like to hear what other planning board members have to say. Thanks. >> Right. Thank you Pete. Um, Larry Murphy, do you have any comments or questions? >> Just to uh to summarize what happened
with the ZBA is they they did approve um enclosing the uh uh the gable ends with the louvers as described. Um they approved that as a minor modification to the special permit. Um and the chair was
actually going to prepare a letter. I don't know if it's been prepared. I haven't seen it, but just um um outlining the um uh the requirements, you know, the size of the louvers, etc. That that's been discussed. So, any um
uh any decision we make might want to uh to uh take that into consideration, but uh Kristen, have you seen anything like that yet? >> No, I haven't received a letter yet. >> Okay. But this supposed to be something
again summarizing what the uh what the ZBA has approved for the for the gable ends. Ju just as a as a refresher when when this was uh originally proposed the gables were um
oriented north to south and the ZBA didn't like that and uh so the final decision was to turn them and orient the gables east to west. But uh uh apparently the um it's it's been a while now so I don't recall exactly what the
discussion was. Uh but apparently um the issue of of keeping the gable ends open or closed was was not addressed in the decision which is what brought them back to the ZBA and then there was no discussion to my memory about lighting one way or the
other. >> Okay. Thank you, Larry. Um, Scott Kent, do you have any questions or comments? >> Just that um I I do
um agree with Pete and his concern, you know, with the um I guess the timing of the lights and them being operational. Uh I'm not a frequent visitor to the
island. Uh but um I would think that you know if uh if the establishment is closed um that the uh lights would be off. Uh so I do have a just a little bit of of
some concern over that. And I also do agree with P that uh you know if it uh if it is an issue this has been going on um you guys have been you know before us uh a number of times
for a very long time that uh we ultimately um get to an agreement on something and if it and if it's a scheduling issue you know on the lights uh that um you know we we come to an agreement on. They
going to be on, they going to be off, uh, etc. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Scott. Uh, Steve Mansion, do you have any questions or comments? >> Yeah, a couple comments. Um, I'm pretty much where Pete is and what he
described. I'd be interested in seeing um some sort of visualization about what the light leakage is through the louvers. I understand the uh how the light will change as you approach the structure and leave it
because of the angle of the louvers, but I would like to see some representation of what you might see from afar as um a litup structure because the louvers is certainly a new wrinkle in the proposal.
Um, as an aside, I also want to go back with one question for Steve Sawyer about the uh drainage, but we can get to that later if you like.
>> Um, go ahead now, Steve, if you don't mind. >> Okay. When I read um the back and forth letters about uh drainage, the one thing that popped out at me which I didn't see being fully resolved was how um drainage
from the site was going to be going to the catch basin on Plum Island Boulevard. And maybe I missed it or didn't understand some of the uh engineering language, but it seemed to me that uh that was never really discussed and it
was something that Joe noted but wasn't discussed by the applicant. Um I I believe so in that last um the last submission I indicated uh the cap the capture area
that would be picked up by there is a portion of the apron that does go out to the catch basin in Plum Island Boulevard. Um but that was always the case during the original approval. Uh so what we what to mitigate what happened
was it was running around the a portion of the parking lot would hit the the island and run out to the park out right run around the island and out onto the street. And what we're proposing or what we're planning and we'll be installing is a stone ribbon against that to pick
it up and direct it to the rain garden. Uh so with that it was captured and directed to the rain garden and with with Joe Sarkca's last review letter he said that the updated plans and
calculation addressed addressed his concerns on that what is it the July I believe it's July 22nd um final response from Joe >> right and yours was a couple days thereafter I think or >> no my I had submitted mine prior to that
and he responded Yeah. >> Right. Well, I'll go back and take another look at it just for my own um better understanding or maybe ask Joe myself because it seemed to me that at the end of the day material runoff some
runoff was still going to end up being directed to the catch basin. >> Yeah. And and you know to you know this is a redevelopment project. it's existing pavement and it is far reduced from what it was when it was a gas
station. Um is you know it was all part of the original calculations and and is part of the review by Joe. >> Right. Thank you. So, um, again, I'll say thanks and I'll do some more checking on it. And again, the
concerns about the lighting are pretty much as Peter expressed. >> Well, I I do have I have the lighting plan that was submitted prior if we want to look at it. Uh, but there's no photometric involved with it.
And what I can say is that the the the light spill that the light from the from the street light at the site is far far brighter than any uh light within this structure. >> Right? But I'm thinking this is now
shall we say a new source and some visualization representation would be useful for me to see at least. Okay. >> Um, do you have anything else, Steve? Meaning,
>> not not on lighting. >> Okay. Um, speak up if you do in the in the near future here. >> Um, >> well, I had a couple of other issues, uh, Woody, but I thought we'd wait and go around the table once and I might
come back in with some others. >> Okay. Thank you, Steve. Um, I agree on with the lighting. I I think a photo I think what I'm hearing from the board and what I what I would suggest is submitting a phototric light plan. Um I
understand how the louvers work. Um the they will block the outcast of light but it would be nice to see and have a visual with a phototric blade. Um, I understand that they're all under 3K doc stock
compliant, but it would be nice to um see something. So, if you could submit something for that, that would be great. Uh, Steve Silia. Um, >> I I believe the um light the lighting supplier usually they can provide that fairly readily.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, the other thing is, um, if the business isn't open and the place is lit up like it's open, um, that's I find that problematic. Uh, maybe if it
would be nice if you had a plan for when the lights are going to be on, when they're not going to be on. And I understand it's a business. I understand you need lighting, some lighting for security. So, if you could have some sort of a plan with what's going to be on when you're not open, what's going to
be on when you're open, that would be better for the board to understand and feel comfortable with what's going on with your lighting situation. Um, and I'll leave it at that for a moment. If no one else on the board has any immediate questions, I'll see if we have
any raised hands from the public. >> So, hey Woody. >> Yes, go right ahead Pete. I just want to circle back so that we looks like we're we're looking for a lighting schedule for when the business is actually open and a lighting schedule for when the
business is closed. And since we're talking about lighting, I would envision this would be the entire uh site. U because we've been mentioning dark sky compliant in this conversation, but the rest of the site of course is not dark sky compliant. So, um I'm I'm kind of
leaning into that now since we're talking about lighting. Uh and then I wonder um does it make sense ju just to have down lighting in this pavilion structure rather than up lighting because you're going to be wanting the the ground to be lit? Um and other than
the aesthetics of creating lighting coming from out from the structure, I don't understand the the safety value of uplighting. Again, we're we we you know, we're giving all
considerations here to what's going to spill out. And I understand the street light. I got the street light. It's there. But if we all went down there right now to this corner, you see a lot of light and we're going to be introducing more light. So, I'm looking
for mitigation. Thanks. >> Thank you, Pete. And um >> you have your hand raised, Steve M? >> Yes, I do. Um >> Okay, go ahead. >> One other thing I want to note is that in the original approval of findings, it
was the finding was that the proposed building and site improvements will not obstruct scenic views from publicly accessible locations. And from my perspective, I've spent a lot of time, not a lot of time, but enough time on Sunset and the Plum
Island Boulevard looking down towards the proposed structure. And to me, the proposed structure will indeed obstruct scenic views of the marsh and the like as you're driving down Plum Island Boulevard.
And that in general is a concern because that corner is one where you do get a lot of uh scenic views of the marsh and looking up river towards new report. So I want to voice that as something that seems to contradict the
original findings in the approval. I think that was number F or something like that. And in looking at the proposal, you know, I'm concerned about that obstruction of scenic views
and I want to put that on the table and I think that lighting concerns will only augment that concern that I've heard about. >> Uh Steve, um is Vincent here. I can address at least that that one concern
that that you just wrote that that design uh the criteria that you're discussing is is one of the 13 criteria that the planning board is supposed to use in just making any sort of determination. And u number F is minimize obstruction of scenic views
from publicly accessible location. So that's just one of the one of those uh criteria and I think at least in this case we've gone as much as we can to go and do that by keeping it completely open to minimize any sort of obstruction
from anybody driving or walking along the sidewalks or or anywhere near there to still be able to have that view through the uh pavilion and see across to the um marsh and to the river. So, as
far as the criteria, as far as minimizing any sort of obstructions, I I feel like we've we've gone as far as we can to try and avoid obstructing any sort of views for pedestrians or or vehicle traffic going through um that
that area, >> right? Some of my uh perspective comes from say being at the parking lot at Plum Island Center and looking towards New Report. And what I envision seeing is is the roof. I mean, I appreciate that you've got an
open structure that you can see through beneath the roof, but um for what I've seen, I'm going to be looking at roof obstructing the marsh and looking up river towards new report. Um, I would imagine you you'll th those
at least from the beach you you'll be seeing the roofs of the adjacent properties obstructing before you would see that particular roof obstructing. But >> I mean, we've done everything we can to try and minimize that. >> Okay.
My concern remains though. >> No, no. I I understand. I just wanted to address that that it was something that we did consider obviously in >> I I Steve if if I can share my screen I can share a view from the parking lot looking out and you wouldn't you you
wouldn't even see the the pavilion would be tucked behind the buildings. You wouldn't even see it. You wouldn't wouldn't you would not have struck the the view whatsoever from the parking lot um the parking lot down in uh the town lot down there.
>> If you have that ready to go, share it so the board can get a perspective. Please, Steve. Can we see this? Yes, I can. >> Yeah. So, this is basically at the lot looking looking down Plum Island. You see the You see this? You basically just
pick up the sign here. The pavilion would be tucked behind, >> right? All right. I think when I've done it, I've been a little bit further south in the in the parking lot, you know, taking in the view from that perspective or for that matter imagining walking
down um past surf on that side of the street. And I always use the uh the sign as my point of reference in terms of height and that sort of thing. >> All right.
So even here you the pavilion. So this is on the other side of the street, >> right? >> You probably have a little piece of the pavilion right here. It'd be dimminimous as far as changing the view, walking and you know then as you of course as you walk down as you walk down towards the
old u plum island grill you'd be looking but then at that point if you're walking you could see underneath underneath the roof structure sort of look through um and I think we've done a good job here to minimize the impact as far as any
view uh walking walking down the street or from cars driving on and off the island. >> All right. Thank you, Steve. And thank you, Steve. Do you have anything else, Steve Mansion, right now? >> That's all for That's all for now. Yes.
>> Okay. Do we have any raised hands from the public? Kristen or Sadi? Do you see any? >> Um, we do. Uh, I Jeff Christristen Christensen. >> Hi, Jeff Christensen. uh for Mloud a um
I live in the house adjacent to the restaurant and um I'm also one of the owners of the property and restaurant. I just wanted to comment on the lighting. Um I looking out my window now and I can see that it's just the parking lot
lights are on right now. The system I know is um zoned for the different areas of the property and um from what I can see it's just the parking lot that has the lights illuminated and um I think
that's a responsible idea just because I can't tell you how many people I've see cut through there every day um through the property and I think at night time it would be irresponsible not to have the parking
lot at least somewhere what illuminated just my opinion. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Kristen, any other hands raised hands at this time? >> I don't see any right now. >> Okay. Do we have any other questions
from the planning board? Staff, do you have any questions or comments? Preston Luxi for MA here too. >> No, I don't. >> Um, would the planning board like to review the site plan review decision
criteria? Is that something we want to do now or do we want to wait for photometric plan? Kind of all on the board. >> Woody, I'll I'll I'll kick it off. You know, I don't I'm not happy with the lighting until I get more information.
You know, I I understand what Jeff just said, but I'm down there a lot and that place is lit up a lot. So, let's get a handle. Let's come back with a a schedule. Let's come back with how it's going to operate, when it's going to operate. Let's talk about whether or not we need uplighting or we just want down
lighting on the structure. And I haven't heard any of those answered, and they probably can't be answered right now. So, I'm going to say I let's get those questions worked out and let's get a nice schedule to to staff and circulate it and see where we're at.
>> Okay. Thank you, Pete. And I I have to agree with you there. I just wanted to pull the board. Larry, how do you feel about this? Oh, >> that that's fine. That's fine. Okay. >> All right. And Scott and Steve, the same?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah, I concur. >> Okay. Very good. All right. Um All right. So, so it sounds like on our table here is so we need a >> we need a uh a concise um a a concise
plan of the lighting schedule in the property when they'll be on when they'll be off and something in some manner that u that the establish that's that holds the establish establishment responsible for maintaining those hours. That's criteria one.
>> Yeah. And uh >> and then >> Yes. and when you're open and when you're not open if there's a different schedule for the lighting. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then also the you know it may be difficult unless we can come up with a photometric for the up lighting we'd probably just get we we
wouldn't even provide that and just go with the down lighting which is easy easy to ascertain that it's it's basically directed down at the in the sand and on the tables. Um, but uh we'll talk to the lighting the lighting uh supplier and get a photometric from them
for those for those lights. >> Okay, >> that's great, Steve. Thank you. >> Yes, thank you, Steve. >> I I did see uh Vincent had his hand raised. Vincent, was do you have anything to add? >> Yeah, I was going to follow up a little bit on what you were saying. I think
when when the original lighting plan was done was when we were under we were anticipating that the gables were going to be completely closed in which would have kept all the light trapped in there, all the uplighting. And so when we went back to ZBA and they did change
it and want it to have a more open feel to it, um I completely understand that that changes the the the uplighting and and would create a little bit more of that that I guess light pollution out that uh could easily be
resolved by by removing that now that there's going to be some openness to those cables as well as the um just getting back to the the the lighting. I think that um the schedule of it is something that is supposed to be on some
sort of timer system, but I think that's kind of just this is our first season actually being closed for an extended period of time in the off season. Um, and so I think that's some something that probably just fell through the cracks there. But, uh, we'll certainly
come back with a a full schedule that that outlines exactly which areas will be, uh, lit at which hours and which times um, depending on when we're open and close so that we can kind of solidify that.
>> Okay. Thank you, Vincent. And that would be much appreciated by the board. Is this something that you guys can have in for next Wednesday so that make the agenda for the 4th or would you like to have this public hearing continue to the 18th? >> We we should be able to get this by the
end of the week to you. >> Okay. Steve, you have a question. >> Yeah. Two-parter. Um, one, with Kristen's help, I'll probably try and have a conversation with Joe Schwartker just so I have better understanding uh
as about the runoff. Uh, since I'm going to ask, I wanted you to know that I would be trying to talk to Joe. The other thing in the back of my mind, uh, is when go back to the original approval, it was for a restaurant um, and not a merchandise shack as well. I
understand that the merch shack can be an ancillary um operation where you selling, you know, Sunset Club material, but I'm inquiring whether whether that's the only stuff that you're selling as opposed to
um you know, merchandise that isn't related to the Sunset Club itself. >> Uh we have not and have never planned to sell anything else but but Sunset Club merchandise. I mean, I I also have a shop across the street that sells all kinds of other Plum
Island related things. So, I really would not want them selling anything else besides things that uh that say Sunset Club on it and that directly are merchandise related to to the restaurant. And just to give a sense, it's a really a >> um very ancillary gosh at 5% max of the
of the sales, not even our our our merchandise. It's just something that uh takes a lot of space. Um and it's is something that the customers have have asked for. >> Yeah, it's u I appreciate that. Um it's not Alice's restaurant, but you can get
just about anything you want by going to the cottage. So just checking in with u the merchandise shack itself. >> Thank you. >> Yep. And when it comes to merchandise, if you're on the island for the week, it's nice to go home with a souvenir
from the club. So, I understand that as well. Um, so I'd entertain a motion, unless anyone else has anything to say, speak up, please. I'd entertain a motion to continue this public hearing for um the Cottages LLC uh Sunset Club at
2-8 Old Point Road to February 4th at 7:15. >> You have it. >> Thank you, Larry. >> Was that a second, Scott? >> Yes. >> Okay. Roll call vote. Peter Boss,
>> yes, sir. >> Larry Murphy, >> yes. >> Um, Scott Kinter, >> yes. >> Steve Manion, >> yes. >> And I vote yes as well. Uh, thank you, Vince, and thank you, Steve Sawyer. >> Thank you. Have a good night.
>> Thank you. >> Turn back to the agenda. Um, the next item I see on the agenda is old business potential zoning amendments for the annual town meeting 2026. Um,
Martha Taylor, special projects planner. Welcome. You have the floor. >> Hi. Actually, I think um I think we're going to start the discussion with inclusionary zoning um which Kristen was going to handle and
then we'll get into some followup on questions from last time and um getting into looking at the table of use regulations. >> Okay, great. So, we'll start with Kristen. Go right ahead.
>> Thank you. Um, okay. I have so many windows open. It's going to take me a minute to find the the uh draft. I thought So, okay. So, since our
last meeting, um Martha and I had some followup with town council and in addition, we had a um working meeting with the staff at Marramac Valley Planning Commission who are providing technical assistance. Um we talked
through some of the questions that have been raised about the draft of the inclusionary zoning. Um, let's see. Some of the comments were whether it was um sort of generic and not really uh drafted specifically for
the realities of Newber's housing um climate and housing um uh what we have, what we've seen, what we want to see. Um so we talked through that quite a bit. Um, and uh, following that meeting, um,
Ian Burns and Kayla Renie came back with a a revised draft. So, I thought if it works for you all, I can put the draft up. Um, I think I shared a clean copy thinking that would be the easiest to
read in a comprehensive way. I also have a a marked up draft. Um, so I don't know if you all have a preference on which one we'd look at or I'll just go with it. Martha, what's
your >> What's your thinking? >> Did you get the draft with Ian's notes after our discussion earlier today? >> No. >> Okay. >> But not yet. I think it might be easier to do the red line one because that really highlights some of the changes
from the previous version. >> Okay, I'll get that up. >> Can you see it? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay, big enough. A little bigger. Make it a little bigger.
Move it over here. Okay. So, um this is structured like any bylaw. Um there's a lot of there's a lot of model bylaws. A lot of towns have had an inclusionary bylaw for longer than we have. So, um just to sort of say the the
structure of the um uh sections of the bylaw is consistent with any inclusionary zoning bylaw that you'd get if you asked AI to give you some. Um so the first section is the purpose. Um
trying to keep this as simple as possible. The purpose is to encourage the development of new housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households and to diversify the town's housing stock. Um so
um when we get into the next section, the applicability, this is the section I think we had some more questions on. I I recall one of the comments from the last version was just how exactly does this
work? um what in what cases um is this applicable? Um so uh so we worked on clarifying that um essentially there uh
the way we have it structured now anytime there's a new residential development um or a net increase of dwelling units on a property. So, a new residential development is this little um number I
or a mixeduse development whether in a single structure or multiple structures that results in a net increase of four or more dwelling units on any parcel or contiguous parcels comprising a proposed development site. So, there could be
more than one parcel but in the same ownership and part of the same proposal. Um, we talked a little bit today about whether four was the right number. Um, I think again in thinking about tailoring
this to Newbury and what what kind of opportunities we have for future development in addition to thinking about what the planning board has seen come through. Um, we really
primarily in recent years we've seen small subdivisions. We've seen like the submission you all got tonight which was for a two lot subdivision. Um there's also been a number of smaller
subdivisions um of you know three to uh 100 high which came through a few months ago was a three lot subdivision. Um there have been some other recent projects that were sort of four, five, six, seven lot subdivisions. So thinking
about again really wanting this bylaw to um be able to be used immediately. I think what we talked about today was whether three or more dwelling units might be more appropriate than four just
to capture what we might see. Um, I'll pause a minute. Um, Satie or Martha, is there anything I'm missing related to that point? >> Um, not on the number of units, but we did talk today about potentially
clarifying that it does not apply to the, you know, the MCMOD since that already has its own affordability. Um, so that would be there would be some language in there excluding that. The other question was whether um if you
look at um I there under A there's reference to the OSRD and there is an affordability incentive already built into that. So the question is, you know, do we put that here or do we keep it with the incentives that are
in the O and strike the affordability incentive from the OSRD or keep the OSRD incentives as written um which include um having more than 50% of the um area be open space and there's also an
incentive for historic preservation and strike OSRD here. So you know that that was part of today's discussion. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, just to sort of add to that, it's it's um
uh if we um if we include an OSRD proposed development as a part of it here, we would have to revise the OSRD section of the bylaw. This is what Martha just said, but just to kind of think this
through in my mind, um I I think in our discussion this morning, again with the eye of trying to keep this as potentially simple and straightforward as possible um for this year's town
meeting, I think there's sort of was a feeling that perhaps we keep OSRD as it is, which um has been a very effective tool for the town particularly in terms of um uh you know preserving open space.
I I don't think it's very regularly been used as an incentive for affordable units, but um but it's sort of opens up a a complicated component of how do they work together and if we just keep the OSRD, which has been working well the
way it is, this could be a new tool for a different kind of um subdivision proposal. Does that make sense? So, that's a question we're still talking through. Um, moving forward in
this applicability section, um, just clarifying the bylaw applies to all residential dwelling types, um, with the exception of nursing homes. >> Kristen, can we go back? >> Yep. Uh under uh 2 AI,
a finding a special permit for the planning board that results in a net increase of four more dwelling units. I assume the spec because it's later in the document, the special permit would require for offsite affordable units. Is
that my understanding correct? >> Um I sorry I asked that question again. I There there there's well there's a difference between a finding and a special permit. >> Yeah. >> The special permit I think one of the later sections
requires a special permit for offsite uh affordable housing that's offsite. That's 4C2. Correct. Um there is a discussion later in the bylaw
of a way to build the affordable units not as a part of the subdivision you're proposing but to build them offsite. Correct. >> Which specifically requires a special permit from the planning. >> Correct. >> Okay. So let's assume we're talking
about on-site affordable units. I guess that can be authorized on a finding by the planning board. And what are the criteria? What what what findings does the planning board have to make? Is is it subject to a public
hearing to notification of a butters? How does all that work? >> Right. Um, so I agree that the word finding,
this isn't something we talked about today, but I also noted made note of that when I was reading this. Um, so that is a question whether that should be there. I don't think it should. Um, >> or or should should any application
just be subject to a special permit? it. I I'm I find it confusing and I'm not I'm I'm I'm trying to still understand the the procedure, how you get from A to B. How do you get this in front of the planning board? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, to my mind, the
clearest way to do it is really if somebody is through the subdivision process. So under, you know, subdivision rules and rags, if somebody comes in with a buy right three lot subdivision and they say, you know, I really like the idea of getting, you know, an
additional market rate unit, then this would be applicable and, you know, there's kind of a path forward and that ties into some of the waiver language as well. Um, and that would not that would not be a special permit in my mind or even a finding. it
would just be part of, you know, this would be kind of an accessory step, if I can use that word, to a subdivision process. It's I kind of agree with you. It's not quite so clear to me um for
some other kind of development that wasn't going through the subdivision process. I mean, hypothetically, and it it is a it's maybe a stretch, but you could have someone come in with um uh an ANR lot.
Would would which would not have to go through subdivision approval? Would would this still be open to someone in that situation to a developer in that situation? >> I think I think the idea is that it would be development. It wouldn't be an ANR situation where somebody was
developing say three separate lots. It would again to my mind it would have to be a subdivision. Um as opposed to ANRS. Um so I'm not sure that that directly addresses your your question, but I you
know I agree there are some ambiguities here still. Um, okay. >> I just sort of scrolled down a little bit, skipping some sections, but I think this is the section that describes
in part how it would work, which I think is one of the things we're trying to talk about. So it is a structure similar to how the the open space residential development bylaw works which is the applicant would have to come to the
planning board to show a by yield plan as Martha says presumably for a subdivision. um maximum units allowed by right on the parcel using the current um dimensional
regulations um and subdivision regulations that we have. And then the planning board would allow an additional market rate housing unit above that maximum number that was allowed by right
for every additional one affordable housing unit. So this is the description of how the affordable unit is uh it's an incentive. It's not a requirement, but this is how
an applicant could look at their subdivision, think about what's allowed in the in a you know conforming subdivision. And then uh this section sort of outlines how they would propose that in
order to get an additional market rate unit I would um you know include an affordable unit as part of that. So, it outlines this um uh you know, there's some constraints, a
density bonus, this section right here. Oh, I guess we're going to sorry, this pertains to the OSRD. So that is a section that potentially would be um not kept if we keep this in the simpler way and just remove any reference to using
this density bonus for an OSRD. Um but the bonus calculation this section affordable units are restricted to households earning at or below 60% AMI. This is an optional calculation may be
counted as two affordable housing units. Um and then this is where um again the sort of the mechanics of this to be figured out through the planning board um subdivision approval process would be to
accommodating the bonus units. The planning board may reduce the minimum lot area frontage per dwelling unit required or other applicable dimensional standards in the underlying zoning district. So, for instance, instead of
40,000 square ft lot area for each um dwelling unit, the planning board could work with the applicant to reduce that minimum lot area to allow for the additional units. And kind of as a as a sidebar to that,
we did I don't think the language is in there now, but we did talk about including that sort of standard language saying that you know all of this is subject subject to title five regulations and you know other other state applicable state regulations
because you know wetlands or septic systems and all of that capacity would need to be factored in. So is town council blessed this version? >> No. No. She we just received it today
when or yesterday when I shared it. >> Um we will be meeting with Lisa hopefully on um with town council on Monday. Um although that's not confirmed yet, but that's my hope um to re review all of the remaining zoning amendment
questions that the board has. Um so let me let me go back up if this I know this is sort of hard very hard to do on Zoom and and a share screen technical um review. Um,
so following >> Yeah. >> I I I don't object to what you're trying to do. I'm just trying to understand the process, that's all. >> Yeah. You know, your questions are good. Yeah, it's helpful. >> Um,
okay. So, we're up here in applicability, which is the second section of the bylaw. Um uh we had a discussion about um rehab of a building and or structure and also um
conversions of a structure. If you recall, we talked specifically about conversions um applying to this and at the moment uh our recommendation and you know up for
discussion with any input is that it potentially not be applicable to a rehab of us building or structure that is destroyed or damaged by fire. Um
Martha talked about how we talked about it not applying to the MCMOD um potentially not applying to a project through the open space residential subdivision. We also talked about the Plum Island Overlay District and how in
general there's uh it's it's not very easy to even if you wanted to increase building units um in a in a multiple unit um structure. There is no multif family housing allowed on Plum Island
and there's also restrictions related to the Plum Island overlay district. So possibly we could just name that here um that it would be excluded for these additional bonus units. Um
so the question um >> what was the thought process Martha for not allowing this for anything that was damaged by fire or other natural disaster? Um, that's actually language that that
Ian and Caleb put in. Um, so I I can't really address that. We did discuss it. Yes. Today and kind of the thinking about putting that in there, but >> I think um, yeah, I don't know. Can you guys see that note that I just
highlighted? I'll make it a little bigger. which I think answers your question. Um so I think that you know in the case of fire
rehab scenario um this is Ian's comment. This language is typical when I is required but may not be necessary in this bylaw where it is optional and incentivized. So I think the reason most many inclusionary zoning bylaws mandate
the affordable unit and that's in that case this section makes sense because if you're you you wouldn't necessarily want to uh require an applicant who lost their
structure through fire or other disaster to be required to do something. Um, so I think again, uh, this may not apply for the way our, um, bylaw is being drafted to incentivize.
Um, we potentially would still want to incentivize. I don't know if that's the direction your question was going, Pete. >> Yeah, I just didn't I didn't understand the thought process. Yeah, >> I I have the same reaction to it. I I
didn't get it either. Didn't understand it. >> Yeah. >> But it does. >> I mean, I think it makes sense. We might want to allow rebuilds to be denser than the original construction. So maybe there is no reason to exclude the
option, >> right? You know, I think it was it would I think the reason it was in there is it could be a potential, as Kristen said, if it were acquired, it could be a potential hardship for somebody who had lost their structure to have to rebuild it and include an affordable unit.
But here, if it's an option and it actually makes the project more economically feasible somehow, then then there could be a benefit. Those are good points. Um, the next section is definitions.
Um, these are pretty straightforward. Still need to be reviewed and edited to make sure we're consistent with other definitions in our bylaw. um and make sure we're covering everything relevant for this
section. Um so number four, this is again uh where the program is described. So the developer may elect to include affordable housing units as part of a
project in order to qual qualify for density incentives outlined in the section six. Um and letter B describes how the affordable units are subject um are restricted to being affordable.
Um Ian did want to pass along I think there had been a question at one of our earlier meetings about um you know if and when afford permanently deed restricted affordable units come
into Newberry um as we're hoping uh what's the process when they change hands um and Ian did have a conversation with the state which clarified that once a um you know for ownership units once
someone owns the property is living there in an afford in a deed restricted affordable unit and they sell their property they are um required to notify the state and then the state actually takes the role of helping the owner uh
find a qualified um new affordable uh unit owner, someone who qualifies for living in that affordable unit. So, it's actually the state that has a much uh bigger role in monitoring and um uh
again just sort of supporting the lottery or whatever the process is to find a new owner of the unit. Um the owner goes directly to the state and then the state's required to notify the municipality. So the point of all this
is there isn't a new there would not be a new bigger burden on the municipality to help with that kind of monitoring and and process uh procedural requirements of the affordable unit.
Um, okay. Uh, let's see what's the next most I think don't think this section we had a lot of changes to. So, you've seen it before. Um, again, it sort of outlines the process for um as I was describing selecting qualified home
buyers um through the marketing plan. th those are the pieces that are um supported by the state. Um letter E is related to how the affordability is determined um relative
to um income limits, housing costs um and then the resale calculation that's included as part of the deed restriction. So once a unit is um permanently deed restricted as
affordable, it it is retained affordable um in the future. So an owner can't, you know, sell it without that deed restriction still in place. Um let's see. So no building permit shall be issued
until all agreements, affordability plans and restrictives have been approved and exe executed. Um same cir certificates of occupancy. So again this is related to the process. Um and then we're back in this section
we looked at a little bit earlier um about how the density incentive actually works. Um and then the last change is that we are proposing that discussion of a
conversion of existing structures be saved for another time. Hopefully, you know, if if this were to move forward successfully this year and we get the sort of simple incentive structure in place,
uh once approved by town council, once reviewed by you all and the select board and the public hearing process, if this moves forward this year, we would be in a position to next year take on some of the sort of next level of um considerations that are laid out by the
housing production plan. one of which is looking more closely at conversions of of existing structures to encourage multif family and to encourage affordable units. Um, another is, as we've talked about previously, the um
starter home or 40y overlay district. Um, the state has just come up with regulations related to um, right-sized homes and and looking at smaller lot sizes. um how to encourage single family
homes in a denser um subdivision structure. There's a lot of sort of meaty discussions related to the kind of housing diversity that I think really is fits what Newberry has and where
Newberry might want to think about um encouraging through our zoning. But I think a lot of that might take more time than we have for this year. So I will stop sharing so we can all see each other for a minute. Um I'm happy to
bring up anything if anyone has specific questions about the language. Kristen, as I listened to your presentation, I found myself thinking about how
the language contains so many generic things that were not necessarily specific to Newbury. I know Martha mentioned earlier how yeah, but the end of the day, they're going to have to meet Title 5 and, you know, water and sewer requirements. And I was thinking,
well, that be true, but if you think about that upfront, there's not going to be that much of new that's really eligible for this um inclusionary dense zoning. And I'm wondering whether we need to think about
language that matches the reality of Newbury. Um, you know, I'm thinking about where bedrock outcrops might be where we already know from soil maps that uh it's not likely that you can put in a septic
system, which then leaves you with thinking about um is there any new technology out there that can handle the load from a from a proposed development? So I again
I just have a certain lack of understanding which makes me a bit skeptical about generic language you know from the state in particular which doesn't have an understanding about the sight specific nature of that we have to
deal with in new sorry I'm not bringing it to the logical conclusion but that's what I'm u you know concerned about when I hear hear the language being presented I'd love to put Scott on the spot and say what his perspective as a developer
about this, but he can pass too. >> Well, I just want to pass like Drake May um on uh on Sunday. So, um I I have to tell you, we're we're using um we're very
heavy into uh AI right now. um that uh is solving a lot of the generic um you know I guess generic concerns generic
um you know I guess answers to the questions um uh generic um you know the state versus the town um and then internally um you know with a lot of our process. So, uh, I'm,
um, I'm an old salt. Um, some have called me a little, uh, um, long in the tooth, so to speak, so I'm a little, um, I just can't get my arms around it. But there's a lot of folks.
we have uh a department internally that is working around the clock and the uh the improvements and the efficiencies that they've gained uh as just uh you know creating this um just meshing of um
what needs to happen. So that's all I can tell you Steve. Uh but I do appreciate uh the comment because I do think there's um there's something out there. There's it's really really tough and uh between Martha, Kristen, and Sadi
um what you're having to really deal with um it's uh it's not easy. I'm glad that uh I'm um I'm not in your shoes. And I think one thing I'd say to this
is, you know, I don't really see it, and again, I've sort of got my head stuck on this as a subdivision process. That's the easiest way for me to think about it. But, you know, it's not so different from, you know, subdivision. Somebody comes in and they say, you know, I can
do four lots by right. They're going to have to prove that they have the water. They get a, you know, certificate from a well driller. They have to prove that they've got the septic systems. um if it's an OSRD they you know they can get a density bonus already if they
have 50% >> more than 50% of the open space set aside so I you know I think that I think the parameters are already there in the process um it'll be very sight specific for for
each each one um and and it is now so I don't really see that it's that that much different. I don't know if I'm stating that clearly, but >> No, I I think you're stating it clearly
and I do think you're right. Uh but I do think just um my response to Steve um you know future state and hopefully it's not too future that um we'll be able to
see maybe um search for you know progressive communities you know in in in the in the US and let's just say it's Mantova Minnesota that's uh incorporating um you know new um um
subdivision conditions or amendment, whatever it is that we'll be able it's going to be real time. You're going to be able to see and say, hm, that makes a lot of sense, you know, and it just really simplifies things and and you can
put a lot of it in the same bucket. Um we're I think yards away from that. Uh but to your point, Mothra, I agree with you. I think when I when I uh dive into this and and trying to understand it, I use
projects were either seeing or have recently seen the board. you you've all been working and some of you for several terms of being on the planning board and seen, you know, a number of the
different kinds of subdivisions that have come through and just sort of trying to imagine how they could have been different. Um, I think what's behind this bylaw is multiple conversations with developers
both Martha over the years I've talked with folks just in the recent, you know, six months of drafting this and MVPC has also reached out to several, you know, multiple developers who are doing small projects, the kind
that Newberry might see. So, what would be a tool that actually works for you to encourage uh potentially denser development, although we still have constraints and barriers,
primarily septic, which we know um but encouraging a way that makes it economically feasible to pull in these affordable units. Like just think of any one of the projects we've um you know
we've been looking at recently how you know we heard tonight oh the soils are great there. Well instead of just two two homes what might you know what could we imagine being there anyway? It's a
philosophical comment, I guess, but that's what helps to me is actually make it specific to what we've been seeing in Newbury and see if it would work. Okay, that is inclusionary unless there are other questions. Um, and we want to have a few more minutes on some of the
other zoning amendments. >> Yep, I'm good. myself. Uh, everyone else I haven't heard anything. So, switch gears to Martha. >> All right. So, um, I wanted to go back to a couple
things that were raised in in the last meeting in previous discussions. Um, and I'll see if I can share my screen here. Um, so are you all able to see that? >> Yep.
>> Okay. Um, so this goes it this doesn't sorry the dog is barking. Um, so we had um we had language proposed
and I'll see if I can make this a little bit bigger. language proposed by town council regarding lots in two districts, two zoning districts. And the language that was originally proposed had to do with in the the the less restricted
district and the more restricted dis district um and extending the less restricted district could extend into the more restrictive district. Anyway, it's very, as you can tell, it's very confusing language. We
had a discussion with our building commissioner and town council and his practice has been to say that a district which is split or a lot that's split between two districts whichever district
covers more of the lot um is the one that kind of prevails over the entire lot. So this um this is the proposed language for that. We're still waiting to get confirmation from him that this is in fact reflects
what he's doing and reflects our conversation and also from town council. But it ties into the conversation that we had the last time about, you know, the our initial thought to change some of the district boundaries so that they
were cerminous with parcel boundaries. And we didn't have many lots that are actually lying in two districts. One was, you know, 17 central which has the ale prime gas station. One was um uh the
commercial highway A where 12 Kent way is located and the other was Parker River Marine. So um you know I guess the question to the board is given this interpretation in a sense it's kind of a moot point for example 17 central street
the prime uh the larger area of that lot lies in the commercial highway district so under Peter's interpretation or practice commercial highway would apply to the entire district so >> the entire lot you mean
>> the entire Yes, I'm sorry. The entire lot. Um, >> okay. I'm sorry to interrupt you. That was a question I had was >> whether or not the L Prime lot had more commercial square footage or more aggra rank square footage. >> Yeah, it's it's more commercial. It's
about I think it's 60,000 some odd square feet versus 33,000 something. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry for interrupting. >> So Martha, if I may. So AL Prime, as we know, has frontage on Central Street. >> Yes.
>> And it it's bounded on three sides by residential uses. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Does this mean under this interpretation that they could put in a body shop behind the uh behind the existing gas
station or car wash or a service bay? um you know if it was an extension of the existing use kind of accessory I would I would say probably so um >> that's not a comforting thought for
>> state and there yeah and there's kind of a correlary question which um I put out to town council which is currently if you have a lot um which is split between two districts and the front of the lot is
commercial and the rear of the lot is residential. You can't go through a commercial district to access residential. So under Peter's interpretation, you know, does that become moot also? So
>> yeah, I yeah, it's a good point. >> I Oh, go ahead. No. So what you're saying Arthur is um the residential a onl prime automatically
can be commercial. Is that I'm just looking for a clarification. >> Yeah. I mean >> basically the whole lot becomes commercial. >> Yes. Under under under our building commissioner's current practice >> and which is memorialized in this
language. That's right. That's right. >> That's how I see it. And it um I think it's a fine interpretation, but you know, it um it does restrict
really any opportunity for um any type of residential housing like in the future, actually forever. Um >> right. Well, if it if I may interrupt, if it stayed the way it is right now and
say in a butter were to buy that residentially zoned portion of the lot and you could access it through, you know, what is already residentially zoned, you could have residential development back there. If if the lot just, you know, stays exactly as it is,
again, our building commissioner's interpretation is that the entire lot could be used for commercial. So I guess it gets into the question of whether you know would it be appropriate to move forward at this time to
you know change the district boundary so that the whole thing is in the commercial highway or we leave it as it is for right now. >> It it's I I have another question Martha. Um, the term existing law, does that mean
existing at the time that the bylaw is adopted or existing at the time that you apply for a building permit? Um, >> yeah, I guess I would that's a very good question. I guess I would interpret it to be that it's the lot that's existing
when the building permit is. So, so one one could manipulate lot lines in order to uh to transform a residential district into a commercial district. >> I mean, lot lines change all the time as we know.
>> Yes. Yes. And and and frankly I I find it a little unsettling that that someone a member of the public should be able to look at a zoning map and understand what
the uses are for, you know, within that zoning district and not have to go back and and um and research every lot that that might uh might lie in in
in in two districts. I don't know. Just >> so just uh sorry to interrupt Larry, but for clarification and a comment as well. U so L Prime is an a good example of the
conversation we're having here. Um the front's commercial, the back's residential. The commercial supersedes in the build inspector's interpretation. So the whole lot could be used for commercial. Now in the understanding that if we were
to entertain a lot line change in the future, you could add a house lot there. But with the way it's set up now on a revenue for the town perspective,
if we were to go forth with what you have mapped out, changing that whole cleaning the lot lines up so it's lot line specific and the whole lot was commercial. If in the event something
was to go up in that unused space at L prime now, wouldn't it create more revenue for the town tax-wise than a house lot as zoned res with a lot line change?
Does that question make sense? >> That's a good question. Because if it was if it was to expand and you had a McDonald's drive-thru in the back there and it was all went
through planning and whatever it needed to to come to fruition, wouldn't that be more revenue for the town than a to be used as a house lot? Yeah, but you I I think it's a great question, but the you also need to look
at the likelihood of a McDonald's drive-thru back there, right? So, as is, I think you need to look at the tax revenue for the town today. Uh but you know if you were look
if you're going to look at the opportunity in the future for let's say um what is the area right now um just using this lot um um as an example that's uh zoned residential.
>> The portion of the lot that's residential right now I think I don't have it right in front of me but I think it might be about 33,000 square feet. So if you and how many lots does it abot? Um
just say let's just call it hypothetically three. It about three lots and it has 33,000 square ft. Um, you know, I guess hypothetically you could look at it if it was zon
residential that there would be an opportunity for three abuing lots to purchase, you know, a third of the available um residentially zone land as is um or
by right and then ultimately do an ADU on each one of those um lots that would ultimately increase the overall uh valuation of each lot um for tax purposes. So, I mean, it's a little and
maybe we're just spending too much time on this, but um I don't want to or at least don't think we should um hamstring um you know, any opportunity in the
future for um you know, housing, especially affordable housing. So just my thoughts like I I'm a little agnostic but uh I know we spoke about this um a bit uh not ad
nauseium but we did speak um uh much about this especially this particular lot um last >> right and I guess you know I don't I don't know the answer to that question you know I suppose one could also say if there's an expanded commercial use on
it. I don't think um you know my interpretation of the zoning is currently we don't allow you know two two principal structures on one lot. So whatever went onto that lot if the gas station is still the primary use would have to be accessory to that. So it
wouldn't be the gas station in front and say a McDonald's drive-thru in the back. you know, it could be something that was connected with the gas station. And as far as revenue is concerned, you know, if there were expanded commercial use on that lot, that might be equally beneficial in terms of tax revenues. It
doesn't address housing issues, but so I can't, you know, I can't address the tax question. >> Yeah. No, it was just a thought that crossed my mind. right >> after what you just said. Um is there is
there road frontage there for for that lot to be divided down the middle from front to back? So >> yeah, I don't think there's enough um frontage for it to be divided. >> Okay. >> That way. >> But it was just a thought that came to
mind because you said you can't cross commercial to get to residential. So you couldn't put a driveway with the 53 feet and you know what I mean? So >> Right. Right. Yeah. The only way it could, as it's currently zone, the only way it could be used for residential
really would be to have it be acquired by one of the abutters. >> Yeah. >> So and and to Scott's points, I you're duly I I understand where you're coming from, too. So, it was just a something
that crossed my mind as it if it's the majority of it's commercial and it's considered commercial and the building inspector's interpretation, wouldn't it make sense to go forth with what you had proposed originally a few weeks ago? >> Right. So, that's really, you know, the
question really is twofold. Um, assuming we get confirmation from the building commissioner that this is, you know, this is consistent with what we discussed. um you know, is the board okay with its language? And second, how does this affect the decision on whether
to reszone the 17 Central Street parcel? Yep. >> Because if you change the zoning, um,
if anyone wants to to, let's just say they want to do what I said, you know, three abunders, three ADUs, and they wanted to purchase the land, then it would have to go back, it would actually have to go to town meeting for a zoning
change, right? Yeah, it would have to if it were if it were officially reszoned now so that the entire parcel is clearly in commercial highway and somebody wanted to buy a portion of it for residential, then it would have to get reszoned at town meeting. >> Well, not necessarily.
As long it depends of whether or not you're going to build on it. If you if you're just adding to the to the back of your lot, then >> Well, I I >> But yeah, and then I I guess I would carry it a little further. If you're adding to the back of your lot and it
now becomes a lot that is primarily residential according to the building commissioners, it becomes resial. >> It becomes residential. >> So, >> but I I don't imagine Peter's interpretation has ever been challenged in court, has it? I have not heard of any challenges.
>> You know, >> as it stands, it's subject to it would be subject to a court challenge. If we amend the bylaw, then maybe not, but >> right. I mean, right now, our bylaw is silent on on lots in two districts. So, the effort was to get some language in
there. His his practice is different from the language that was suggested. Um, so >> and the other thought too is that what's the life of the gas tanks there? They were replaced in the '9s at some point.
I don't know what the lifespan of the tanks in the ground are and the L prime could come come or they're they're leasing the land owners could come to a a a spot in the road where the tanks
have met their age and they have a new plans for the whole lot. So, I mean, anything could happen, I guess. Yeah, man. But I've seen what I've seen in the past is if it's a lucrative, you know, venture by Prime, I
mean, they this tank replacements and they just do it all over again for another 30 years. So, >> I don't know. This is uh this tough one. Um >> Yep. I agree.
So, um, you know, the material is there. If the board feels that it's appropriate to move forward with it, um, to change the zoning for the whole lot, we can do that or we can just let let it sit for now.
And then I guess that also goes on to, you know, the other two districts that we we looked at last time. They're a little less clear-cut than this because they're they're made up of a number of different parcels.
>> You're talking on the other side of the street. >> Um yeah, we're talking um where 12count way is. Um, >> yep. >> And then also the Parker River Marine District. And we also did get a an an answer for town council to the question
that Scott asked about the docks. So if we were to reduce the Parker River Marine District so that it it's those three parcels that we talked about last time, but the docks are extended beyond
that. It's not the the zoning the land use district. It's actually an ownership question because they're they're then going in front of parcels that are owned by other people. So presumably there there would
be an agreement in place for for the marina to have those docks in front of parcels that are owned by other people. But it doesn't the the zoning if we take the Parker River Marine zoning away from those abudding parcels that doesn't make
any difference. Then don't some of those docks already are some of those docks already in front of parcels owned by other people? >> Yes. Yes. Yeah. So that's that's why I said presumably there are some agreements
already for that to be happening. >> That I I look at that as it's in a waterway and the waterway has nothing to do with the river frontage. But maybe I maybe I'm not looking at the right way either. So
well obviously the there was permission for the docks to exist there now. So >> well presumably that does that mean we're near certain that there are
agreements in place. >> You know that that we don't know. But you know we're talking about the zoning question. you know, does it make sense to change the the the district boundaries and that that does not impact the docks one way or the other? >> Agreed.
>> From what council said, >> it's really not our business. So I guess again the you know based on on this interpretation of lots that are split um >> you said you said Lisa me came up with
this language. um this she didn't um she didn't come up with this language, but it was it came out of the discussion that that Lisa and the building commissioner and Christian and Sadi and I had and we're just waiting to get
confirmation from him that this in fact does actually accurately represent his practice. So I guess my last question would be if we were just looking at Central Street and Prime, you know, what are we sol what do we if we change it? What do
we I guess what are we solving for versus just keeping it as is? I know it would clean things up. Um but ultimately you know do we want to
um see less less flexibility um I think going forward with use well there is another option too Martha isn't there an option to pull the the
shaded so to speak areas of the commercial to the side boundaries and leave the back alone left leave the back in agreg. >> You know, there's so there's so little of the commercial and the abuing properties, you know, it almost feels to me like if
if you know, you either leave it all or you change it all. >> Change it all. Okay. >> I'm I'm I'm inclined to think that we leave Central Street alone, Prime alone. The others I don't have a problem with,
but I I would agree with that statement. >> I'm fine with that. >> Okay. All right. So So we'll leave 17 central as is, but move forward with a proposal to to change the boundaries, zoning boundaries on the other two that
we talked about, >> I think. So >> yeah. Okay, >> that's fine with me. Larry and Scott, I believe Pete and Steve. >> I'm on board as well, guys. I've been silent for this conversation. It's been nice.
>> I think Martha wished my my flight was delayed. I'm I'm sorry for um >> No, it's okay with it, too. >> Very good. It's a discussion.
>> Yep. That's that's is if anything changes when we hear back from the building commissioner with this interpretation, you know, we'll talk about it on the fourth, but we'll proceed on on that basis. >> All right. Thank you. >> We have to we have to vote on these on
the fourth. >> Um >> by the fourth. >> Yes. Yeah. We'll have to vote to recommend to the select board any any proposed zoning amendments. I don't have my schedule, but yes, >> ideally they'll bring
um Oops, it's not the one I want. >> Do you want to go over this schedule again? Is that the question or yes, we need to vote on February 4th and then the select board would um their meeting is February 10th where they
would refer the amendments back to the planning board for the public hearing. >> All right. Okay. >> All right. Good. Um there's a another it's it's kind of a a a minor change and I thought I had it ready to share but I
seemed not to I'm afraid. Um which was just in in article three and this leads into the discussion about the table of use regulations. There's a lot of redundancy in the body of article 3 references to the table of use regulations. So, in our last discussion
with with town council, um we've just cleaned that up and sort of combined sort of the the end of that article with some language in the in the beginning of the article. Um I think it was in the materials that Kristen sent out and unfortunately I just don't seem to have
it here. So, it's more sort of administrative. We originally had a direct reference to the table of use regulations at the end of that article because the original intention was that the table be within the body of that. When general code did
it, they pulled it out as an attachment. So, um it's just kind of cleaning up those references. And oops, that's the wrong thing. Sorry. All right. So then the last thing I
wanted to go over was the changes to the the table of use regulations. Um and some of it is purely administrative like changing board of selectment to select board. um our our acronym if I
can call it that for the residential agriculture has always been R A but we've verbally called it the agricultural residential so it just seems to make sense to flip those to be consistent. Um,
one of the biggest changes is to there was a holdover um from previous a much older version of the zoning that had designated the select board as a special permit granting authority for certain uses.
um particularly in the residential agricultural district um and the residential um limited business district and some other ones. So the suggestion sort of universally
is to change that to either the select uh the planning board or the ZBA. In looking at other towns bylaws, there are I think I found only one example in which the select board was actually a
special permit granting authority. Um, I'm going to scroll down for a second. There were some that I think we originally kept as being select board because they might have some townwide
implications. um in particular um having to do with um see if I can find it. I probably missed it. um electric distribution um and also the water supply protection
overlay district. the electric distribution and discussing that with town council. Um, you know, the the thought was that the select board would actually be granting other kinds of permits or entering into agreements with
say the electric company and that we're really talking about land use permits. And so we came down to feeling that even for something like that, it was more appropriate for the select uh for the planning board to be the special permit
granting authority than the select board. Um again, there were holdovers. They they were the special permit granting authority for indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. That was that was a holdover um from the old zoning.
And at the risk of making you all dizzy, I'm going to go back up to the top. So, there are some other other things that I'm suggesting that we add. Originally, I was thinking that we it might make sense to put in columns for uses allowed
and not allowed in all of the um overlay districts, but that becomes very cumbersome. And I looked at some other communities that do that and um it it makes it very difficult um to kind of
sort through all of that. So my suggestion here is to add a note below and we discussed this um briefly last time to really call out the fact that the overlay districts people should look at the particular regulations for over
the overlay districts and what's allowed and what's not allowed in each of those instead of trying to call it out in separate columns. I added a note here. Um, for mixeduse structures, we have a definition of mixeduse structures, but there's also
language in the zoning which specifically says that if you have a mixeduse structure, each of those uses has to be allowed within the district that the mixeduse structure is proposed for. So, I added a footnote on that.
Um, again going down, this is all changing select board to planning board for the special permits. We did have a couple of cases where uses were permitted that it really seems
like it might be more appropriate to require special permits in certain districts such as membership clubs in in the Bfield Village district and the Parker River Marine District which are smaller.
We had talked in a separate kind of working group about um we were permitting the um museums in the limited um or the light industrial biffield district which is actually where Jean
Paul Beck is doing his prototyping and we discussed that with Lisa. you know, the feeling was that he might want people to be able to come in and see these prototypes that he's creating, but her opinion was that that's, you know, that's an accessory use to what he's
doing. So, um, given given that particular lot configuration, it makes more sense not to allow an actual separate museum there, anything that he wanted to do. So, that was changed to to not
permitted. Um couple of changes um changed the language um on med medical marijuana treatment centers. This was um not changed when we made the combined the medical marijuana and adult use
marijuana last year. Um and this change should have also been made. So it's not not permitted in the commercial highway district for either the retail or medical marijuana because they were combined.
Um again the change from select board to planning board for those uses. Um I had raised a question here. I think funeral homes or mortuaries are not allowed in the water supply protection overlay district. So my initial thought
was maybe we should call that out but I think that gets addressed by adding the footnote further further down. We talked about um breaking the cemeteries into um one
category for private, which would actually still be planning uh select board issuing the special permit and having municipal cemeteries, which would just be a permitted use subject to site plan review. uh non- retail bakery. It was not
permitted in the commercial highway and commercial highway A, but it seems like those could be appropriate uses. So maybe changing those to special permit makes some sense. Um I think this was actually these were reversed. Um
food processing and distribution was allowed in the Parker River Marine by special permit, but seafood processing and distribution was not. So I think it was actually supposed to be the opposite that seafood processing and distribution would be allowed by special permit.
This is the electric power um item that I was talking about before. So that's a change from select board to planning board. Uh the next highlighted ones here all have to do with the new clean energy
um facilities bylaw that includes wind and solar and battery energy storage. And um the the thought right now is we currently have small wind allowed
through throughout the town. um smallcale groundmounted um is permitted. Mediumcale would be permitted in the a portion of the commercial highway district along Scotland Road or the portion that's along Scotland Road,
the northeast uh where it intersects with um uh I 95 and also in the business and light industrial district but requires special permit elsewhere. Large scale the same thing.
uh tier one, so the very small battery energy storage systems would be permitted throughout the town. Um but tier 2 and tier three would be permitted by right again subject to site plan review um in
business and light industrial and that same area of the commercial highway on Scotland road adjacent to east of 95. Uh the other discussion we had um was regarding outdoor storage which we
currently have um defined as open storage. So town council recommended that we kind of clarify that. So we changed open to outdoor and the discussion we had was actually to
not allow it anywhere in town as a and this should actually be principal use not primary use. Currently, it's allowed by special permit in the business and light industrial district along Route One. Um, but to allow it by special permit where it's an ancillary use to
the primary or principal use in commercial highway and business and light industrial. And I'll get to a revised definition of those two things um in a second. Uh going down. Um the way this item was
written, it it uh the any other passenger transportation services was a little ambiguous. So we're proposing to change that to similar. The one below kind of makes it sound like it doesn't allow vans or limousines or ambulance
service throughout the town, but it was really intended to be the offices or headquarters for those uses. Um, we discussed changing um green houses in the Parker or agriculture farm stands to permitted instead of not
permitted in the Parker River Marine District. Um, we had hotels and I'm sorry I forgot to highlight this. We had hotels and mo motel as permitted in commercial highway
commercial highway a and business and light industrial but in thinking about it further it seems that having those allowed by special permit is a little bit more appropriate. Um this is something that we've kind of
goes back to the discussion that we were having about conversions in um with regard to the inclusionary zoning bylaw. We've been talking for a while about trying to find some way to allow these
conversions of um single family homes into um more you know several units. Currently, we don't allow any multif family dwellings of five units or more in town. Um, it's not permitted across
the board. Um, with the exception of the MCMOD, which which is an overlay district. So um kind of raising as a question whether this might be a place where we could allow allow that um as a
conversion state that it's a conversion of say single or two family structures into multif family by special permit you know up to six units or something and I'm just throwing throwing that out as as something for possible discussion
and I'll I'll come back to that there only a few more here. Um, we needed to update the accessory change from accessory apartment to dwelling unit um to be consistent with the ADU bylaw changes from last year. Um, bed and
breakfast established. The select board is currently the special permit granting authority. So, the thought here would be to have the ZBA be the special permit granting authority for that. Um some clarifications to notes down
here. Um just clarifying the selection to go to for a district specific applicable regulations. So that's more just kind of word smithing not a change. Uh we needed to add the MBTA communities multif
family to the overlay districts list. Um this is making the changes to the medical marijuana and uh treatment centers adding that to this.
Uh note six is clarifying um and we do this also for um medical for the marijuana uses clarifying that it's allowed in only a portion of the commercial highway district by right. Um
the next note is tier one and or tier two and tier three battery storage the same things. And then note eight is the added note about the um mixed use structures.
So that's that's it for the table of use regulations. So I know it's a that's a lot here. So, if there are any any questions or comments or anything you want to talk about. >> So, Martha, would you go up to that one
with the five units or the six units that's not allowed anywhere in town >> right here? Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, what are people's thoughts about that? >> Are we too tired, folks? >> I was wondering if it affected the
inclusionary anything inclusionary that we have if there's two jive together I guess is what I'm trying >> yeah I mean this doesn't if we do this to the table of use regulations or make this change it doesn't really include an
affordability unit or affordability component Um, >> but we can't have it not permitted if we're trying to encourage and incentivize, you know, and again, this goes goes back
to inquiries that we've had from developers in the past who have been interested in converting, you know, some larger um homes into say three or four units um or actually
or five >> and that would be permitted under the draft inclusionary bylaw. >> I'm sort of trying to and we took the conversion language out of the current draft of the inclusionary zoning bylaw.
So, I'm really thinking about this as not not necessar it's a way to create more housing, but not necessarily, you know, with an affordable unit. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah, I thought you said you had taken
that up. >> So, I I this has not been on my radar, this section of the table. And I I mean, >> so someone proposing a MCMA development currently can't have one of the
structures have five or more units. >> Well, the MCMOD is separate. That's the, you know, that's the overlay district. So they, you know, they could do that as part as long as we haven't excluded that in the MCMOD, which we haven't. So this is just under the base zoning,
not the overlay district. Right. So maybe we need some kind of note related to this. >> Well, I think it would go go back to the, you know, the the note that I added here referring to three below which goes
to, you know, all the overlay districts. >> And again, you know, I sort of apologize. We haven't, you know, we've been thinking about this for a while, but we haven't really talked about it. And I thought might as well have that discussion and see if it's something that that
we feel could move forward at this point or we can just leave it the way it is right now. >> Well, I don't >> So, you're proposing Oh, sorry, Larry. Go ahead. >> No, I I I I think it needs more thought, more discussion. I don't know about
going forward with it now. I mean, you wouldn't want to permit it in every zoning district. >> No, I'm thinking mostly of the residential agricultural district, actually. And maybe maybe in the Biffield Village district. Um, but yeah, it would not it would not be
in every district. >> Yeah, I mean, I think it's certainly worthy of discussion. I'm not sure at this late hour in terms of by late I don't mean that it's 9:19 tonight. I mean that it's uh
that that it's we're this far along in the in the process of presenting this to the select board because that may get a lot of attention >> and it could yeah absolutely absolutely so you know it's just been sort of in the back of our minds for quite some time. So I thought, you know, it could
raise the question and say, "Yeah, let's explore it or not." But you're absolutely right. We're, you know, we're at the 11th hour on all of this stuff. So maybe that gets saved for another time, you know, along with the idea about conversions and an affordability
component as well. >> Yeah. Martha, which brings to mind another thought. Um, is it the intention to um uh to submit the table of use regulations as a separate article? I
know we did speak about this at one of our meetings and and my follow-up question is if so, well, if any of these other warrant artic uh anticipated warrant articles fail, is that going to create an
inconsistency between the table and use regulate table of use regulations and the other in and the main bylaw, if you will? >> Right. I Yeah. I mean, I think and I've been thinking about this. I mean, in some ways, I think it might need I mean,
it's it's all this energy stuff. So, it might make sense to have that be a separate article. So, that would include removing existing language and pulling it into the clean energy
article, which becomes our new article 11. And as part of that along with the the revised solar and the battery energy storage language and as part of that a component of that warrant article would
be these you know these things here because if that article fails um these things are kind of moot. Um I think so the rest the rest of the table
could potentially go as you know we've talked about bundling sort of the administrative more administrative changes into one article and that could include changes to this table. But there are some that that are substantive as well
like changing the special permit granting authority. So, I'd welcome any thoughts on how best to deal with this. But I I do think that all of this, you know, clean energy stuff should probably be dealt with separately as
part of that clean energy article. Um, that makes sense to me. I mean, there there may be some way to structure it that, you know, if it's if it were included in the warrant article that includes the table. There might be some
language town council could give us to say this won't be included if, you know, article 4 doesn't pass or whatever. But >> um >> but I like your approach of just including it all together for the clean energy stuff
>> and it you know it it is a little tricky because there are some some things that are you know clearly housekeeping and cleanup and we want to make sure that those do get voted up. There are other things that you know I can imagine there might be um some concerns or questions
about some of the other proposed changes. So, but is there any anything specific that you would like to kind of revisit or talk about on the table?
>> I don't have anything math. >> No, I mean, you've obviously put a lot of time and thought into it. But you know there are certainly different different ways about you know thinking about some of these things. So, but if there's nothing now, then maybe
I'll go on to the last thing, which is is the the um outdoor storage item that I mentioned a little little while ago. So, shall I take this down? >> Sure. Sure. >> Okay. So, are you all able to see this?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, our current uh definition of sort of open storage of of materials um is
um somewhat limited. So again, this was it was suggested for the mo um that it should refer to um a time period. So anything that's being stored for more than a 24-hour period of time. And um so
it's been changed to the keeping in an in an unenced area of any goods, junk, raw material, supplies, equipment, merchandise, vehicles, or the like in the same place for more than a 24-hour period. Does not include storage of small quantities of materials incidental to
other permitted uses such as contractor's yard. We had kind of a conflicting or it was kind of a confusing. We also then had a definition of open storage of raw materials. So it was suggested that we should actually have a definition of raw
materials. Um so I just changed this to raw materials instead of open storage of raw materials. And we don't I'm suggesting striking out the
reference to mining operations because we don't actually allow mining operations in town. So raw materials would include things such as stone, crust stone, gravel, sand, mulch, and and lom. So these two definitions kind of go
together. Right now they're a little bit confusing because they're, you know, both talking about open storage. So did you want to have a definition on the quantity as well? That's it's a good question. Um, you
know, I looked at a bunch of definitions and there are some, you know, some towns that have definitions, you know, like bulk bulk storage of these kinds of materials. Um, but I didn't really see anything that
necessarily limits it to a certain amount. So any any suggestions on how to to clarify or write that would be most welcome. >> Yeah, I'm not I'm I'm not sure. But if
you were to just look at an example of say the the contractor behind the um public storage, you know, near the um dump,
you know, um a contractor like that could store, you know, I would say in that back lot near the border. You know, potentially
um you know, a 40 foot high cone-shaped um quantity of uh loom or top soil. >> That could be uh several hundred yards, maybe a thousand to 2,000 yards of um
cubic yards of material. And I don't know. I mean, it is probably the right spot if you're going to store anything cuz there's not a lot of residential. Um, but it does
beg the question, you know, what is acceptable? U what's what's the acceptable accept acceptable quantity? you know, is a a few small piles of of gravel or or top soil or
you know that contractor may come back and say if we you know challenged them and said hey that's not the right quantity and they may say well it's a small quantity for me right and um so unless you have u unless you can measure
something um I don't think you can hold anybody's really feet to the fire um on a requirement. So, I don't have an answer for you. I'm just saying I think um um
again, it's something and I don't want to prolong the meeting, but it is something that um we should at least have something in there that um we could measure, >> right? Because it really I think what you're saying kind of goes to this sentence here. This does not include
storage of small quantities of materials incidental to other permitted uses such as a contractor's yard. So you know what is what is considered small. >> Yeah. >> This is just a definition section. >> Presumably you would look elsewhere for
the limitations on on >> on what you can keep as outdoor storage or raw materials. >> Right. And that's exactly some communities do have a whole section in their bylaw on what they call bulk
storage or related things about, you know, I think quantities and screening and and all kinds of things like that that regulate that um that we just don't have right now. >> Yeah. Because I mean all this is doing
it's just defining these terms. It's not prohibiting anything, >> right? It's I mean it's trying to to it's trying to clarify the definitions that we have right now because we actually have in the table of use regulations we have three references to what we're calling open storage and you
know it was just it was kind of confusing and ambiguous. So this is an attempt to sort that out. >> So that's in the it's in the table of use regulations that you would find the limitations on these things. >> Yeah. Although it doesn't, you know,
that doesn't really reference quantities either. And there's kind of a blanket one saying open storage, which are we're changing outdoor storage at, you know, if not noted elsewhere. So, um,
so I think what you're saying, Larry, would be or Martha's saying we don't have that. And it's a Um, it's a task for another day >> at this point. It is probably a task for another day. So, you know, it probably
be helpful to have that. Um, you know, and >> but for the definition, this probably works. But you know and I you know the the one suggestion I made in the table
is to not allow this kind of outdoor storage as a primary use any place. It really needs to be associated with say a site contractor's headquarters or or something like that. You know it's just not a great land use.
But I guess, you know, given given the hour and everything, maybe if you all have time to really go through the suggested changes in in the the table and we could follow up with a discussion next time. And what what goes to the
select board doesn't have to be the absolute final draft. That needs to be in place by the time the first notice of the public hearing is published. Um, so there's a little bit more time, not a lot, to kind of refine this stuff.
>> Yeah, >> Martha, if I may make a comment about recharge areas. >> Okay. >> I uh recommend uh saying that the transmitted to groundwater, not aquifers.
Acryers have a particular definition from my world about yada da da yielding a useful qual quantity of water. So you could be contaminating groundwater even though it's not an aquifer per se. >> Yeah, good point. I'll make a note of
that. >> That's good. Ground water is two words, too. Another age-old debate in the geologic community. >> Yeah, it's like storm water. one word or two. >> Yeah, you got it. >> Okay. Yeah, thank thank you for that.
>> So, I will take this down unless there's anything else. So I think as we discussed before a lot of the definitions like the ones that have been this is only an excerpt but you know ones that are crossed out are for the most part ones that are being relocated to other places the related
bylaw within the body of the zoning bylaw. So that was what I had for tonight. >> Okay. Thank you Martha. >> You're welcome. Great work, Martha. >> Thank you.
>> And we'll pick it up on January 4th, right? I mean, uh, February 4th. >> We'll turn back. I wish we could turn it back. >> We're all done with that. That was a couple weeks ago.
>> All right. Um, anything else, Martha, before we >> Oh, no. That was that was everything from me. Kristen, did I or Sadie, did I miss anything? Is there any anything you want to add?
>> No, I think that was great. I really appreciate your um you've done a lot of research behind the scenes to propose those modifications. Um, yeah, I think we will have a big week ahead of us next week to kind of get a
lot of this in final shape so you all have a chance to, you know, dive in again before our next meeting in a couple weeks. >> Very good. Do we want to go right into your plans for club, please, Kristen?
>> Oh my gosh. I forgot. Um, oh boy, I had a big list, too, but it's so late. Um, no, I I guess I'll just keep it short. I
I will mention um we Let's see. Satie and I have both done um CPTC trainings this month. Um, I don't know if you want to say one sentence about yours, Satie. >> I was about adopting and revising rules
and regulations for planning boards. Um, I didn't get my degree in planning, so um, I just can't >> hear you say. >> Oh, you can't hear me? Sorry. Um, adopting and revising rules and regulations of planning boards was the title of my my module. It was really
interesting. So >> there's a lot of detail in the difference between bylaws and regulations and it's, you know, a constant learning exercise to sort through it all. So um super helpful. I did one about um some community outreach
ways to uh engage and incentivize people in projects, things like that. It was actually moderated by um uh Gerard Whitten who's our local Newberry resident and director at MVPC and that was that was a great workshop as well.
The annual um citizen planner training um conference is coming up in March. So I do want to always encourage people to attend that. It's in Worcester on March 21st. Um,
I guess the only other thing is we do have a lot of other sort of municipal project work going on. Um, we helped uh worked with Mason to apply for a municipal vulnerability 2.0 grant. We're
expecting to hear about that this month. Um Sadi in particular is helping work on a um funding grant proposal for um design work for the Boston Road Route 1 intersection. Um working with DPW and
the support of Marramac Valley Planning Commission for improvements at that intersection. Um which has been on the master plan for a long time. Um so that's a grant proposal that's due the beginning of February. Um, and we're
also, uh, there's a lot of stuff going on with Border to Boston Trail. Um, we are probably going to be submitting a DCR recreational trails grant, which is an annual funding, um, state funding, federal highway transportation money
through the state to support municipal trail projects. Um and we are that's also due the first week of February and we are um getting very close to contracting for the um federal appropriation funding for the byfield to
Newbury port feasibility for the by border to Boston Trail um which is sort of going to be the first public process related to that segment of the border to Boston Trail. So, we do have a lot of other stuff going on. Um, just this is
the big push for zoning and we really appreciate everybody helping us with this work right now. Thank you >> very much. Thank you. >> How about the federal uh access grant? There was going to be a January 12th
meeting as I recall. >> Um, there the public meeting has been postponed. We've had a meeting last Wednesday and this Wednesday the project team is deep in the engineering for
that. Um but uh we are and so that is was postponed but is aimed for March. So we don't have a date yet. >> Okay. I'm intrigued by saying that the team is
deep into engineering for something that hasn't been brought before the public and the public may be saying no to so much of it to begin with and you could spend a lot of money on engineering for something that hasn't been even revealed
as possibilities after this. >> Well, there are three concepts that are being considered. The feasibility is you know that that is the scope of work is 25% design plans for three concepts to
bring to the planning board uh to the public. Um so I'm happy to share the scope of work for that project which might help or maybe we can spend a little more time giving some detail on that. Um
>> I'm happy to explain that further. >> I think that would be useful. Again, I'm reminded of an old college prof of mine that made the point about how a steamroller moves very slowly downhill, but you want to get in front of it at the top of the hill, not at the bottom.
And this project bears all the signs of a steamroller that's already underway down the hill, and that concerns me. Uh again coming back to what comments have been put forth about the quote no action alternative
and I'll be quite disappointed speaking as a member of the planning board and for myself if the no action alternative isn't fully vetted as well. So that's my comment.
Yeah, I mean the project is a feasibility study to improve public safety in terms of access to the island in the face of current flooding and future future flooding. So it is a public safety project looking at what is
feasible with the fact that we only have one way on and off the island and we want to make that a safe uh as safe as possible for the users. um both currently and the future. So in terms of I mean I think you're
bringing up really good points Steve in terms of you know we need to know there's a certain amount of engineering and analysis that needs to get done in order to know what is feasible and permitting is a big piece of that. Um
but you know design is also a component of that. So, I think the public meeting we had in the summer, early summer, a while ago now, but all of that input in terms of um ideas about
future, you know, future use of the turnpike is incorporated into the process, but there's also just a more technical piece of it. So, >> right, but I I I heard people doing more about this is what they'd like to have
for access as opposed to focusing on how access would be achieved. And there's a big there's a difference between the two. And now, uh, as I'm sure Pete well knows on his frequent trips to the island, you've got a sign up there that
says, "Turn around if if it's don't drown." and you're raising the spectre of people drowning as they drive down a turnpike which has some water on it. And I just I see that
and I shake my head about some of the thought process that's going on, you know, building up a big fear factor. But anyway, uh again, I I can think of three more than three items that people at the public hearing raised as things they'd
like to have which again weren't necessarily part of uh thinking about how we going to do this. Anyway, I'm done. I'm sorry I get a bit wound up about that. But again, for the lack of information,
um, that's being brought forth to the public, I think something's missing there. And it's not all on the new planning department by any stretch. >> Well, yeah, I was actually going to say
it's not on the on the new planning department. Um, and I do appreciate uh the concern there, especially you being a Palm Island resident. Um, so um I'm
not lost on that, but I don't not sure if this is the right forum. >> Yeah. Okay. With that said, I have no com further comments this evening. Um, if no one else has any further comments this evening, I entertain a motion to
adjurnn. I'll move to adjourn. >> All right. Thank you, Larry. Do I have a second? >> You. >> Thank you, Pete. And a roll call vote. Pete, Larry, Scott, Steve.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Have a good night, everyone. And thank you so much. Thank you, Martha. >> Thank you all. >> Thanks, folks. Martha, great work. Thank you.