close to all set. >> Okay, great. >> Oops. >> Um, with that, I will open up this uh June 8th, 2026 Swamcot Planning Board hearing. Uh, and the first item on our
agenda tonight is approval of the past meeting minutes. >> Right. So I'm hope do everybody have a chance to look and provide any comments? >> So there are five there are five sets of meeting minutes. Um the February 9th,
March 2nd, March 9th, April 13th, and May 11th. >> And we should probably approve them one by one because some folks were here for some and some folks weren't for others. Um, but if any if everybody is
>> Could you put them on the screen just so that we see who's in attendance? >> Yeah, sure. Yeah, that makes sense. >> By the exact date, it might be helpful. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's true. You don't remember the exact dates? >> No. >> No. >> Um, uh, okay. >> I don't even remember if I missed one. >> Yeah. >> I I think I did.
>> Yeah, I definitely missed one and I don't remember which one I >> Definitely missed one. Yeah. >> Okay, >> just one second. Did you get any comments on them, Christa? Or >> No, I I didn't receive any comments from
any board members. March 2nd and March 9th. >> Okay. So on >> So the first set is the February 9th, 2026 meeting. Uh that was one that you weren't at. Sure. >> Um I think I was though.
>> You were. So, Angela or Bill, do you have a motion to approve? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from February 9th. >> Is there a second? >> A second. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> All those abstaining. >> Abstaining. >> Abstain.
>> Great. >> I did read through them all, so I was >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Anything that might carry over, but >> this is just silly looking at this screen. Um the staff F has fallen off
and is over. It's just a formatting thing. >> Yeah, there's a formatting thing with the whole um >> Oh, yeah. >> The whole the whole method. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Our names are split up, too. >> Oh, yeah.
It's just the online thing. >> Yeah. I think if I open it in Word, >> then it fix um >> All right. This is the March 2nd, 2026. >> So >> uh juror and I were both not here for this one.
>> Okay. So again, I can make the motion. >> Sure. >> All right. >> To approve the minutes from March 2nd. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I not here. So >> I I think it has to I think that's sufficient.
>> It's all we can do. stating >> I think it's fine because there's a majority of the people >> that right >> and I mean it's not possible >> it's not possible to right so >> beam himself back in here >> okay
>> um all right the March 9th uh 2026 >> I was not here >> Angel's not here for this one uh >> do you have a motion to approve >> I can make a motion on this one to approve the March 9th 2026 meeting minutes. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor?
>> I >> I. All those abstaining >> I >> April 13, 2026 meeting minutes. Uh, everyone that was on the board at that time was in attendance. Do I have a motion to approve?
>> So moved. All right. A second. >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor? I >> I >> abstaining >> abstain. >> And last one, the May 11th, 2026 meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I >> I. All those abstaining? I >> Okay, great. Um, thanks Christa and thanks everybody for taking a look beforehand otherwise. >> Yeah. Yeah. A lot a lot to get there >> along in this meeting.
>> Um, okay. Uh, moving on on the agenda, our next item is a continuation of the public hearing for application 25-21 80 puran road by Scott by Scott Miller.
Um, and I know that you submitted a new plan, so I'll open it up to you first if you want to say anything. Otherwise, we can >> I don't think there's too much to say. It's >> just we changed plan so that uh
>> 750 square feet, >> half story. >> Okay. Um, and I'll just open it up to the board. And in particular, I'd like to ask Jur and Angela. You know, >> I just have a quick question. Did that bring the Were you able to bring the
roof down by bringing that square footage down? >> Uh, because the detail on the front of it without having the other drawings with it does look like it has changed. Did you change elevations? >> Exterior. >> I wasn't aware of that. Oh, thank you.
>> I know he brought the the walls in >> and that was the change >> the knee walls. >> It just still says finish uh to Mid's point of the dormer. He still got 34 and 1/2 ft,
>> which I think is what it where it was at before. Yeah, because I I thought the intention on the square footage was to try to bring the building down or >> put push the walls out, right? We're saying you could then push the walls out and get more usable space, >> right? >> Right. So, it looks like you've shrunk
the space, >> but you haven't reduced the the height of the building as we were discussing last time. >> Well, I thought the main issue though last time was just making sure that the interior space was >> Yeah. >> compliant. I mean, if it if it's
compliant, I think that's fine. It is it is a loss of square footage because you would have had all of that space that if you lowered the building, >> that 7 foot2 could have actually you could have had an slight angled ceiling. >> Yeah. >> Um but maintained
usable square footage that was larger with the goal of shortening the building. Right. Now, all all that's happened is those interior walls have moved. >> Yeah. So the town gets a taller building and you get less usable square footage. Um, >> I think we need to,
>> but I I think that that's uh I I certainly if I was your designer, I would not advise that because it seems like you're um you're really missing an opportunity for that space to be better
inside. Um, while still addressing the height and the scale of the building next to the adjacent buildings. Um, but it doesn't seem to be reflected in this. So, you know, I don't I don't want to
sound like a broken record on it, but we keep coming back to the fact that there's concern about the height of building, but um, if the desire is to reduce the square footage um, and have a taller building, I guess
that's where we are and that's what we need to vote on. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's still it's still within the the zoning requirements, >> right? Okay. >> Um it was just the concern was the you
know having a a a half story on top of it that was um greater in square footage than half of the floor below. So now that that's been adjusted,
>> which I think has now been resolved. So and and everything else is within compliance. I don't >> you know um you're aware of the of the situation with the asbuilt like you're going to have to you'll have to have a surveyor. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> As long as you're just making sure you knew. >> Yeah. >> Um Yeah. Okay. Then I mean I don't think I have any other issues. >> I stole your um >> I like the travel files.
>> All right. So, I think >> Wait, did we talk about where the um the HVAC stuff is? I mean, is it currently in the basement? Is there a basement? Yeah, there is. >> There's a basement. Yeah. >> And and so and are those um because you're in a flood zone. So, but you're
not change you're not pulling out the square footage of the of the footprint of the building. So um I don't think that you need to raise it above that level or adding something on top
be different if you were you know sort of uh manipulating I guess would be the right word if you were deconstructing the first or second floor of the building but you're not >> right >> okay
>> um okay I think you know given uh the passage of time here it makes sense is to go through the uh criteria one more time just to make sure we're all on the same page. Okay, good. >> Uh so just running through section 5.4.8.0.
>> Um number one uh minimize the volume of cut and fill, the number of removed trees 6 in caliper or larger, the length of removed stone walls, the area of wetland vegetation displaced, the extent of storm water flow increased from the site, soil erosion, and threat of air and water pollution. I don't think that
there's really much uh on this point because as Angela you just pointed out there's there's no change to the uh foundation of the building and there's no trees being removed or or anything like that. >> Um maximize pedestrian vehicular safety
both on the site and egressing from it. >> I don't think there's any we're not changing the um >> change there. >> No change there and there's plenty of parking. uh minimize obstruction of scenic views from publicly accessible locations. This is one thing that we spoke about with the addition of the
coupula, but you know um we've had the HTC come and talk about this and I think we've all gotten comfortable uh with it. No one from the public has raised any concerns here, so I think uh this is fine. Uh minimize visual intrusion by
controlling the visibility of parking, storage, or other outdoor service areas view from public ways. Again, nothing's changing there. So, um, you know, there's nothing really to minimize. Minimize glare from headlights and lighting intrusion. Uh, again, there's
no change in the traffic pattern or anything like that. So, I don't think there's anything to minimize here. Minimize unreasonable departure from the character, materials, and scale of buildings in the vicinity as viewed from public ways and places. Again, this is another thing that we spent a lot of time talking about. I think this has
been addressed. We've discussed the coupula and the additional uh story I think um about as much as we can discuss it and uh we've gotten comfortable that this has uh minimized any unreasonable departures. Minimize contamination of groundwater
from on-site wastewater disposal systems or operations uh on the premises involving the use storage, handling or containment of hazardous substances. Um this isn't really applicable here, I don't believe. um ensure compliance with the provisions of this zoning bylaw, including parking
and landscaping. Parking and landscaping not so applicable here because nothing's really changing, but we spent I think a significant amount of time talking about sure that this is compliant with the provisions of the zoning bylaw. I >> um in terms of landscaping, I know we
did pretty much, you know, we allowed you to include the landscaping plan on the site plan, which is fine. Um, but I wanted to be certain that we had a couple of things firmed up that the grass lawn on either side of the front
walkway, the grass will remain. So, we're grass is not going to be replaced by pebbles or anything like that. >> Yeah. You know, it's >> okay. And that the the trees and and shrubbery that you're indicating here are that is a formal landscape plant. So, we will expect to see those
plantings. Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. And I know there was um you know you talked about with Rich in terms of the support for the the two um decks. >> Yeah, the decks. Yeah. >> That you have the correct um there's like a concrete uh
>> Yeah. I have to I have to find out what's under there and Yeah. I had to dig around and and then I got to move it anyway. >> Okay. So, those will be in your construction plans, right? Yeah. >> Eventually. Okay. >> Yeah. They'll be inspected. >> Okay. Um, thank you.
>> Great. Thanks, Angela. Um, number nine, minimize adverse traffic impact of the proposed project. Um, again, there's not much to minimize. Uh, it's just an addition of a story. Um,
and then minimize the hazard of coastal flooding, taking into account the effects of long-term sea level rise and storm surge. Again, we're not increasing um the outline or perimeter of the building. So I don't think there's much to do there. >> Um so when I go through that I hear you
know three things I think that we want to condition this on. >> Uh ensuring that the landscaping reflects what is shown on this and that this is brought in as the formal landscaping plan. this sort of ties into it, but ensuring that the grass lawn
remains um you know, it sort of goes without saying, but ensuring that whatever needs to be done at the decks is coordinating with the building department. Um and I think that's everything that I have on my list. >> I don't know if fire had any comments
about sprinkling that second story, uh the third floor, if you want to call it that, the half story. Um, I don't think we did, but let me pull it up.
I mean, it's a good idea to do, but um, so this was the only comment that fire had um, which was that the fire department has no objections. Okay. Okay. In that case, it's fine. Then typ than
just the the usual smoke alarms as required. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments from the board? >> Okay. I'll just quickly open it up then for public comment to see if there's anybody online. Um,
is there anybody online who's here to speak on this petition? Okay. Seems not. Um, then do I have a a motion to approve? >> Um, >> I make a motion to approve. Could you
just add the conditions in for me? >> Yeah. Written down. >> So, the conditions that I listed were uh grass lawn to remain as shown on the plans. the landscaping and shrubbery shown on the plans to be, you know,
brought in as the formal landscape plan and part of the um approval and that um the petitioner will coordinate with um uh the building department on whatever has to be done uh to make sure the decks are compliant with code and that sort of
thing. >> So, I make a m motion to approve uh the petition. Oh, let's see. It's been so long we forget the number. >> 25-21 >> 2521-2 80 Puritan Road with the conditions that
were just read into the minutes. >> Second. >> Second. All right. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> All right. Congrats. >> Thank you to all the board members. >> Thanks. >> Thank you.
>> Good luck. at all. >> Okay. Um, moving on to the next item on the agenda, we will open up the hearing for petition 26-09 by David Wilkinson requesting a site
plan special permit to construct an 896 foot ADU breezeway and porch addition to the existing single family residents in the A1 zoning district at 10 Puritan Park. Uh so I'll turn it over to you and if you could just introduce yourself uh you know state your name for the record.
>> Sure. Good evening uh board members. My name is David Wilkinson. Um resident at 10 Puritan Park. Um live there with my wife and two kids. Um we've lived in Swampscott since 2012. Um so happy to be here. Um and appreciate your time tonight. Um, I'll turn the presentation
over to my architect, Craig Craig Bosworth, to go through this in detail, but uh, the purpose of the application is to add an ADU to our home. Um, my father-in-law will be moving in with us, um, once the construction of this, uh,
is completed. And so, uh, have done everything we can to ensure that we're compliant with the underlying, um, zoning bylaws. And so, here to, uh, talk through any questions that you may have and look forward to, uh, the conversation tonight. Thanks very much. Um, I should al also add um we did a
pre-file meeting on um it was April 14th with Christa and Inspector Baldachi. So um got some of their feedback. Have one comment that we received from uh Inspector Baldachi which I believe was included in your package tonight that we believe is um hopefully addressed
satisfactorily. But happy to discuss any questions you have. >> Great. Thanks. doing this a while, so it works. >> Yeah, this is good. >> I love the board. >> No, no, no.
I'm an architect in Marblehead and uh David had reached out to us to help him with an attached ADU application. Um just quickly, this is Puritan Road, Puritan Park. This is heading up to Humpford Street. He has this corner lot right here. So, we are in a world where
we're dealing with lots. >> Oh, sorry, >> Craig. You need to use the mic he's asking. >> Oh, thank you. >> Do I need to repeat myself? >> No, you. >> All right. Thank you. Um, so the highlighted area represents the footprint of our proposed. And the
intention here, again, just give you an idea of what the house looks like. It's a two-story kind of brick house. Um there is a garage tea attachment over at the side and our intent is to have like a one-story attached ADU. Um while doing this we will also be um adding a small
little covered porch and a new sense of entry. Just as reference the existing floor plan um currently they drive into the garage and they have a circular driveway. Uh our intention is to take and to build off of the existing house.
They do have an opening for the window that will become our new opening because we're dealing with brick facade. That will be our new opening into a small breezeway that will attach to the covered porch and then the ADU will be off of that. And in the end, the intent is to eliminate the circular drive and
then that goes back to grass. Um he has small children. This would be a great place for them to play in the front yard. just the two relevant exterior elevations. So the front, if you're on Puritan Park looking at the main body of the house and then the left side elevation, the area that we're going to
be attaching to, this is the garage beyond which is way over here. But the area that we're going to be attaching to is really off of this window right here. And the intent is to add a covered porch that you'll see in a moment. So the floor plan here where that window
once was will become a door and this becomes a small breezeway so that the family can interact with one another without having to go outside as the grandchildren will want to run over and see their grandfather. Uh the small little breezeway will give access out to a back patio space. The covered porch is
such that as a person would park, they could walk up, enter the covered porch, either directly into the main body of the house or into his ADU unit. And the AD unit ADU unit will be sufficient in the sense that when you walk in, there'll be some storage, a laundry, basically have a living and kitchen
area, and then a bedroom suite with walk-in closet and a bathroom. So again, meeting the criteria of less than 900 square feet. Um, this seems to work well. uh we're able to do some cathedral ceiling things to it that will help enhance the architecture of it. Uh but
that's basically it. >> And you said that the less than 900 is does not include the breezeway. >> That's correct. That's correct. >> The breezeway is probably less than 100 square feet I think overall. >> So what we've done here is we've created the exterior elevations of the of the
ADU. And really the intent here is just to show in 2D uh what that ADU is going to look like. Um with some of the cathedral ceiling spaces we will have some transoms. Um so this is the courtyard side or the entry side as the porch is dying in. You'd have an entry.
This happens to be where the kitchen is, but you'll have cathedral ceiling from that kitchen all the way back to the living room spaces. The living room being on the back side. So it's a relatively simple form. U we're less than 16 feet overall for the height of the structure. And we're using a little bit more orn
ornamentation in the sense of kind of more classical kind of elements to it. Um just because it exists on the back side of the house and it ties into kind of one of these brick older homes. Um in our opinion. Lastly, just a couple of perspectives of what it would look like just to kind of
give you a better understanding. Um, you know, if this is the existing from the front, you see in the front of the garage, the entry as you would walk in, the covered porch, the new entry kind of portico as you gives kind of a presence to the front door and then the access
point into the ADU. And then lastly, have one more perspective here um on the opposite side. So, as this is the attachment to that window, small breezeway, you're seeing, you know, basically the living room and the
bedroom suite belong beyond it. That believe is our application here today. If anybody has any questions, >> y Thank you. >> What What is the um foundation going to be for this? >> It will be a crawl space foundation.
It's not a full foundation. So, we will go four feet below grade. >> Okay. >> And then build on top of that. Fill it >> just like a frost wall. the frost wall. That's exactly it. >> So, I suppose that putting that um making the ADU in brick would is
probably a little cost prohibitive these days. >> Let's talk about that. You know, and then we started looking at some ideas with the brick. It just seemed that this was a a a nicer solution. Um certainly more cost effective as well. We are unfortunately under our budget. So, we're spending a little bit more money in the ornamentation of those kind of
corner boards and and adding a little bit of um dental details to it. >> I'm very familiar with the house. Um a good friend of mine many many many moons ago in high school. She grew up in that house. So, >> Oh, no kidding. >> Spent a lot of time there. Yeah,
>> it's a beautiful spot. >> Very beautiful house. Um so um okay so in terms of the ADU it has all its own um the heat is obviously part of the same system but it's got all
its own utilities in the ADU. In other words, you're not running another zone off of >> No, they all >> okay. Um so you know it sounds like you've you're familiar enough with all those guidelines um and lighting on the property. Is this going to um I'm assum
I'm assuming you're respecting the dark skies lighting that we have. Even though I'm sure some walkway lighting is >> lighting some of that porch and off of the backside with the patio doors. If somebody's going out to the patio at night, there'll probably be some wall sconces out there, but residential.
We're not introducing >> right >> any other light. >> And there is a fence around the property. How How tall is that fence? >> Six feet. Six foot fence. >> Six foot. >> Yeah, white wood fence. >> Yep. So, it's been there for a while. >> Um,
I I guess, you know, I don't have any other questions about it. I think, uh, let's it's just from the nature of the lot, it's a little surprising to see an ADU in the front of a building, you know, but that's where you have the land obviously. So, um, no, I get, you know,
I get that that's the the the logical spot for it. Um, I don't other than that, I don't have any, you know, I certainly don't have any issues with the the concept. And, you know,
so in the existing building in the back, is that a patio? >> There is a little uh Yes. >> patio out back. Yes. >> Yep. Yeah. in that in that uh I guess that's the north corner of the lot. Yep. >> In the back corner. >> Yeah. Northeast.
>> Is that a a stone wall or something? >> There's a stone wall. Yep. >> It's about 20 in tall, maybe 24. >> Have neighbors weighed in at all? They're aware of the plans?
>> Uh we haven't heard anything. I mean, >> aside from these meetings, they >> Yeah. have I mean, we have have spoken to a handful of neighbors since the notifications went out and no commentary raised. So, >> we did have um one person stop by town hall um and we printed out the plans and
they took a look, but they didn't have any comments they wanted to put on the public record. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> And the patio um that you put the little courtyard, are those um permeable pavers? In other words, you know,
they're able to to >> We probably hadn't gone to that calculation right now. It's it's impervious in in any calculations that we have there. Um, at this point in time, we hadn't really selected stone and things of that nature. >> Okay. >> Well, you're not in a flood zone, so
that's good. >> No. Um, and it so out of the green space that remains, which is you have some front lawn space and some space around the back, you're saying that you still meet all of the >> That's correct. >> All of the um the open space requirements.
>> That's correct. And I know that um that Rich mentioned the the distance between the shed and the ADU and do you confirm that that's about >> I think it was was it 15 ft?
>> You said it was 10 and you guys are 12. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> You meet that criteria. >> Okay. >> I have a couple I have a a handful of questions. Um I really like the plan. I think there's some some
great thought in how that whole thing is coming together and I think it's working it's working well. Um the space the scale of it um and the usage and circulation makes great sense to me. Couple questions and it's it's hard you
saw me doing the trace on there. Um the roof pitch being different than the roof pitch on the house. Um I think is not like the house itself I would sort of qualify it as a a colonial revival of a very certain
period. Um where they were influenced by modernism and they came at this with a very clean box of brick and then the details came in on the white trim. Um and then the depth of the eve and the roof pitch was the nod towards the
modernism um that was happening and the decorative elements happened in the the detail around the door. So it was it was that interesting transitional time on it. Um was there any consideration to matching roof lines so that the building felt even though the there was a
material shift that the building felt that there was a stronger relationship. The other piece that I want to build on that question is was there any consideration of actually hipping it? Um, so that again you had these the you've got this repetitive hipped roof
that's happening all over it and then all of a sudden there's a a big departure. So I'm I'm trying to sort of understand what the goal is. >> I appreciate that. You know, from from my perspective, I feel that this building is kind of an up building to the brick house. So I didn't want to
necessarily match the brick and I wanted it to be a secondary building. It's only 16 feet tall. We were trying to maintain a relatively low kind of profile. The use of hips. We are using hips and we're gabling in areas that I felt I wanted to have cathedral ceilings and take
advantage of the opportunity for the cathedral ceilings to p punch in a higher window. These are small units so anything I can do to make it feel a little bit larger than it is. Thus the need for in my opinion to do some of these cathedral ceiling spaces. Yeah, it's also a place that I can adorn it with a little bit of ornamentation. The
front entry is really adorned. Has a lot of like kind of nice detail to it. We are taking that off as we add our covered porch to it. Albeit I'm putting back a portico to it. Um, in my mind, it felt like a good idea. Give it a little bit of sparkle on the floorboards and
some of the eve lines and the gables that we're creating. In my mind, made sense based off of the program. The um the other question I had is the rel the relationship between the windows on it versus I know that you have a a kitchen counter. So you you you have a a
raised uh sill there. Um but I'm sort of noticing the ground floor windows on the house tend to drop a lot lower um on the main house. these are all like in this elevation here. Um it it does it does
feel sort of foreign um instead of you know I I understand that it's an outbuilding um but there's such a huge shift in materiality for the design to shift to is a little bit jarring um from my
perspective but um you know that is that is where my questions lay because the uh the intent of the original house is so stripped of detail. detail to then have so much detail on this um on this unit
that's in the front yard. It does start almost feeling like a subdivision versus an something that's annexed and um added. But you when it comes to the the
interior intent, I can definitely see that. But the pitch of the roof does tend to make it taller um because it's a a steeper a steeper roof. And you can you can actually see the hipping on the garage
does read higher just because of the of the dimensional aspect of it. >> Yes, you can see probably the length that I'm using between the breezeway. Oh, I brought the roof slope down there >> so that I could really make a lower kind
of connection form to the main body of the house >> on purpose. >> Mhm. >> It's probably exaggerated because it's so small, right? Think about 16 ft in height. The interiors are going to be 12 and a half feet, which is
can't jump anymore, but it was a day I could jump. >> That day never hit me. >> With the open space, you're just going to be digging up the driveway where it would have where it currently goes and replacing that with grass. That's right. >> That's correct. Yes.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Yes. Um, and then you'll be adding the plantings that are shown around the ADU in this. >> Those plantings are us playing architect, we're going to actually have a landscape architect who's going to do a much better job than we >> might do better.
>> Yeah. Um, so >> that's and I think actually if it were to wrap this like once they start to fill in with the landscaping and it starts to grow, it's going to hide some of the stark whiteness. I think you know that >> I don't it's this is hard for me because I I it's a noble reason to have
something like this >> but when I start to think of a precedent where every brick house in town like this happened in my neighborhood too it's like complete shock of style difference to add an ADU but it was for a very noble reason and it was understandable and it worked well on the
inside and but it's it's and it's it's the bylaw like we can do this it's just how do you make it not look like attack on. >> I don't know. >> I mean, if I can just address that. Um, so I'm a real estate developer,
commercial real estate developer. So, uh, Craig and I spent a lot of time focused on doing the best we could here. Um, if I had a different shaped lot or if your if the bylaws worked differently, this would look different. >> Yeah. >> Um, we do have a budget. >> I actually think, frankly, we we did
some study on what a brick addition would look like and it would look a lot heavier and a lot more imposing. So, um, >> and and the brick wouldn't matt. I It would hardly, >> right? It would be This is 1941 brick. 2026 brick would look very different. Um, >> yeah. So, >> that's deadly. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, we're I will say, you know, the garage door is a big white door. Like, there's a lot of white on the front of the building already. Um, >> we were very intentional with what we designed here. And obviously, this is a schematic level of design. >> Yeah. Um, but we were very intentional
here to ensure that the dental molding molding carried through that a lot of the I'll say period details for lack of a better term are complimentary. Um, because I care about what this is going to look like. >> Of course,
>> you know, this is a home I plan to, you know, live in for potentially the rest of my life. So, um, >> and and the front side, the courtyard side is is nice because it's it anchors the garage form, you know, it creates a nice >> balance to that.
>> Yeah. And our hope is, you know, we spent some time looking at I mean, again, having two front yard setbacks to deal with, right? Makes it challenging. the original design when we sort of thought about potentially having it be a sideyard setback there, which obviously
is not zoning compliant. Um, that was some of the first feedback that we got from Christa, so thank you for that. Um, you know, we were originally thinking come off the side and make it feel a little more symmetrical, which certainly in my brain I would have liked. Um but just kind of working within what we have
here fortunate to have the space that we don't need to seek any kind of variance and um you know for that reason uh have the design that that uh is in front of you guys. >> Yeah. I mean, I think the design looks great and, you know, I just want to keep in mind that, you know, our our
obligation here is to minimize, you know, departure from the character in the vicinity. And I know that this street has a wide ver I mean, I don't think there's any two houses that look the same on your street or coming down the other way. >> And there's a house on Phillips that
actually I think is somewhat similar. That's a older brick house that added on. Um, I mean, the unit has been there since I've lived in Swamp Scott. I don't know if anybody knows the house that I'm talking about, but I don't know if you know what I'm talking about, but um I think it looks pretty similar and it's
it's you know with the landscaping and everything it's coming in just part of the neighborhood. So >> yeah, >> I just add the other thing from a landscaping perspective that doesn't really show up on the on the survey, but kind of around the shed, especially
along Puritan Park is a you know pretty mature planted bed. The intent is going to be to keep as much of that as we can. Um, we like, you know, for my father-in-law, like to have a little bit of the visual block for him. Um, there are some probably, >> I don't know, 30 foot tall arborite that
run right inside the fence line on the corner. So, the intent is to keep those to the extent they're healthy and >> good >> and can be maintained. >> There'll probably be a few more that we plant on the other side of the shed. Right now, it's a little bare on that side. >> You've got quite the road dendrin out there, too. It's fabulous. They're uh
pretty robust. >> Yes, >> they love it and they love it in town. They >> Bill, do you have anything? >> All right, I'm just gonna >> stop in for a second and open it up to public comment. Um >> Okay. >> Uh so, is there anybody uh online who's
here to talk on this petition? I guess not. There has not been anybody uh to speak online in a number of hearings. So uh okay with that um I'll bring it back to us. I don't know if there's anything else. >> I don't have anything else.
>> So I can anyone else? >> No. I make a motion to approve. >> Sure. Should we let's just run through the um just run through the criteria then. That sounds good. >> Oh, I did I did have a quick question in uh David in your letter.
I don't know if it was just that the words were left in here. Existing lawn and landscaping within the the footprint of the proposed one-story ADU addition, the proposed breezeway connector, the proposed covered porch, and the proposed rear patio will be stripped and removed
to allow for foundation. >> Oh, I I am seeing the qualifier on it. Never mind. I missed it. The existing lawn. Yeah, >> I was like I hit the stripped and removed and I was like you're stripping and removing on proposed and then I >> Yeah, >> got it.
>> Once I read it out loud. >> Um Okay, then I'll just read through the site plan special permit uh criteria in section 5480 of the bylaw. >> Okay. Uh, number one, minimize the volume of cut and fill, the number of
removed trees 6 inch caliper or larger, the length of removed stone walls, the area of wetland vegetation displaced, the extent of storm water flow increase from the site, soil erosion, and the threat of water and air pollution. I don't think any of this is applicable. Uh, you're not removing any trees. Um, I
guess there is some fill sort of with the patio, but it's a dimminimous and you're keeping the overall um open space, I think, well within the um requirements. >> And the the objective, just to be clear,
on on earth movement is to keep any of the excavation on site because there's a bit of a it's a slight grade change down to the Puritan Park. So the objective is when we excavate we'll you know strip back the um curved driveway and then sort of all that fill will go in there
to smooth create a level >> surface. Good. >> Okay. U maximize pedestrian and vehicular safety both on-site and eressing from it. >> Obviously there's the change to the um driveway but I don't know that that really has an impact on pedestrian and
vehicular safety. Probably a little safer. Um, uh, number three, minimize obstruction of scenic views from publicly accessible locations. I don't think that's really applicable here. Um, number four, minimize visual intrusion by controlling the visibility of
parking, storage, or other outdoor service areas. Um, I don't think that's applicable. Um, minimize glare from headlights and lighting intrusion. Number five, again, you're reduce shrinking the size of the driveway. So I
think that's achieved. Uh number six, minimize unreasonable departure from the character materials and scale of buildings in the vicinity is used from public ways and places. I think that's what we spent most of our time talking about and uh we've gotten comfortable that you have minimized that. Um uh
number seven, minimize contamination of groundwater from on-site wastewater disposal systems or operations on the premises. I don't think that's applicable here. Number eight, ensure compliance with the provisions of this zoning bylaw, including parking and landscaping. Um, you had the back and forth with Rich. So, I think we've
addressed the only uh applicable open items there. >> All parking can still be accommodated on site. There's no street street parking as a result. Okay. >> Yeah, we're expanding the driveway in front of the garage to provide three, you know, >> spots across. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Uh, number nine, minimize adverse traffic impact of the proposed project. Not really applicable here. And um number 10 uh minimize uh the hazard of coastal flooding taking into account the effects of long-term sea level rise. Uh
again there's a small change in the amount of open space so not so applicable here. Uh I guess with that is there do I have a motion? Um, I'll make a motion to approve um the
application for an ADU at um Tempuritan Park. Application number I don't know. >> 2609. >> 2609. Um, that's it.
>> All right. Is there a second? >> A second. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I. >> All right. So moved. Thank you very much. >> Good luck. Good luck. >> Thank you for your time. Yeah, I appreciate it. >> Good luck with all that. >> Okay.
Um, moving on to the next item on the agenda. Uh so Christa prepared a helpful um packet here for our discussion to sort of um
continue what we spoke about at the last hearing uh around you know preserving ground floor commercial space within mixeduse buildings. So we were thinking that we would just have an you know a discussion amongst ourselves uh to continue our last discussion and also
discuss a few other items that uh Krista noted in here. Maybe Kristen could you give us a little run through? >> Yeah absolutely. So I can run through the presentation um >> and get into our discussion topics. So
um originally on the agenda it's expansion upon um the discussion that we had last month on preserving existing ground flooror commercial space within mixeduse buildings. Um I have added a few other
discussion items into into this conversation for us to talk about um expanding on that and what um some 2026 bylaw updates might look like. Um so just a general overview um we would start with the Humphrey Street
Overlay District ground floor commercial mixeduse preservation discussion um that we started at the last meeting. Um a new topic to introduce um would be a potential 40R smart growth zoning district surrounding the commuter rail
station. Um, I have a few slides that we've put together just on what 40R is, um, what the potential district could look like and, um, why that's a discussion that we want to have tonight. Um, and the third item for discussion
would be the ADU and site plan special permit discussion. Um, and that gets into basically the state requirement for 900 square foot allowed by right for ADUs, the 500 square foot um, in the zoning bylaw that
we have currently and how we would how we would want to potentially address that with a zoning change. Um, and then number four, there are a few upcoming at the next meeting discussions that we might have. Um there have been some
discussions at town hall with the tree committee um and they have met with staff and have proposed um a potential tree bylaw. Um, but first they would want to come at the July meeting
and talk a little bit about the tree committee potentially reviewing some of the larger types of site plans and having comments on those landscape plans in terms of types of trees, things like that. Um, >> I'm sorry, types of >> Yeah, tree type. um and they can they'll
get into it in the presentation, but um caliper things like that they could look at more in depth for those um larger developments um and provide review comments on that. >> Would that also include subdivision plan? Because I'm thinking of one one
that we had a huge amount of trees removed that was uh >> well that was a subdivision just because it was a street that correct right >> potentially. Yes, >> I think that that could That would be another one just beyond the large development but right situations like
that where some guidance might have been good. >> Yeah. And part of the discussion can be you know when their review gets triggered. Um but the discussions have been you know whenever there's removal um like significant tree removal with an
with an application. So, um, with the start of adapting to online permitting, um, that's something that we can add them as a reviewer. Um, and they're aware of those timelines. You know, it's only two weeks that the committee gets with our month-long cycle. So, they would have to designate a reviewer. It
they wouldn't be able to talk about it at their board meetings unless >> it's something that was going multiple months. So, um, we've been in discussions with them about that, what that might look like. Um but similarly um the the climate action and resilience committee um I think you'll remember
last summer they came before the board um and had some discussions on potential reviews and they have been putting together a rubric um so we're inviting them to come and talk about um what they've been working on as well. >> Okay, good.
>> for scoring for larger developments. Is the um tree plan is that the same plan that they submitted several months back? >> Yes. >> So Pat that really hasn't changed too much because a lot of that um applied to
private property even when no construction was happening, >> right? And so they've proposed a tree bylaw, but what we will talk about um first is what adding them to the planning board's review might look like for comments initially um and then we
can get more into the detail of the tree bylaw. But um the first discussion will be just surrounding >> what would comments from the tree committee on um planning board site plan special permit review look like and how would their review get incorporated into
the process. Okay. Thanks. Um so um question that I have is um you know I we keep bringing up the signed bylaw and I'm >> still feeling that this is something that's really important and that we're
not that far away from um in the interim I've had um uh two different select board members um mention to me you know what about this type of sign and I see that kind of sign. So there are, you know, other sorts of things that we
should be um looking at as well. And we also discussed that, you know, signage amnesty program, especially along Humphrey Street, to give some of those businesses that have been out of compliance for quite some time, >> an opportunity to come back into
compliance without being penalized. perhaps getting help of some nature with um putting together, you know, new signs or removing, you know, the offending signs, etc., etc. So, you know, I' I'd
like to see that happen as well. I know it keeps getting bumped out because, you know, it's a big it's a big bylaw. Um, you know, it's going to take a lot of review. I think that we've done quite a bit already, but there's more to do. Um,
and there was, you know, um, then it's the whole issue of that's something that that Ted brought up as a select board member >> that, um, there's concern about um, having
these, you know, zoning um, amendments come up in the fall town meeting simply because of the, you know, the timeline. line that we need for public hearings and so forth. But it was my understanding at our last town
meeting that the decision had been made to have all the zoning bylaws come up in the f at fall town meetings. So this will be a chronic issue forever if that's when we're going to have the zoning bylaws. Then we're
always going to have the hearings in the summer and there's always going to be a lot of activity in the summer. So >> either we agree to you know >> to um accept that. >> What's the window that those have to happen within? Is there a x amount of
weeks before town meeting? >> Yes. >> Not >> over maximum minimum. >> There's a general timeline right now. I can pull it up but the warrants opens in September potentially. And so we will need to have
you know what we are proposing nailed down by then. You can make some slight changes between then but you need to have it nailed down basically by September. >> But essentially our public hearings on those the ones that we need to schedule we need two y >> individual meetings x number of weeks
apart. Um >> and and we are work working on the timeline with the town administrator's office and the select board to make sure we're working backwards, right? To make sure that we know all of the what all of those deadlines are, >> right? >> So that all of the engagement >> does get done because
>> the last thing we want to do is not inform the public of these items that are being passed. So um we do want to engage as much as possible and make sure that we're meeting all of those deadlines. And they do come up a lot earlier. >> They do. I think >> they do. And that's, you know, my
feeling is I'm fine with if they want to bump stuff into the fall and just do all the zoning then, >> you know, that's fine, >> right? >> But, you know, understand that this is what it's going to look like. >> And if it helps for next meeting, um, I
can come with the schedule. >> Yeah, I think we should all just be familiar with it anyway. Do we have a date for that fall meeting yet or I know that they that fluctuates sometimes? Yeah. >> When that like could they push it? >> Oh, fall. We call >> December. It's in December. >> Yeah. Sometimes it's in December. Almost December.
>> I'm not sure the exact date right now, but um we've been calling it the December town meeting. Oh, Ted is on the call. He might be able to answer this for us. >> We don't. >> Thanks, Christa. So, it's set for December 7th. >> Okay, perfect. Thanks. >> And the No problem. The timelines that
we were presented uh at the meeting last week was I believe final warrant language was approved by the select board on a the first Wednesday in October. Um so you would really have to submit your warrant articles by I think it was the the third Wednesday in September.
>> Okay. >> Or I'm sorry, the second Wednesday in September. So you're you'd have to do all the work really by the second week of September. >> Okay. >> And can we build those hearings into our scheduled meetings? >> Um >> or are they standalone? We could if it
they're usually standalone. And the reason is that unless it's a really small article, you know, it's we've done it with like just like grammatical changes and stuff like that, but typically we've had separate hearings. >> Yeah.
>> We will we'll plan for separate hearings and we'll plan >> and I think you know comment to us was that you know your hearing is going to be end up being in the summer and that's >> no >> understood. Um, I get it. But, um, you know, that's that will be this the case
for all the zoning then because you know that's the way the schedule lays out. >> I could provide you some context that I think might help shape your conversation around it. >> Sure. >> The presentation and I just want to preface this. Good to see you all. I'm
attending as your new liaison. So, if I can be helpful, let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to kind of sit back and let you do the great work that you all you all do. Um, this schedule was presented to us at the last select board meeting and ask for our
kind of awareness and consent on it. We agreed to table it so that we could have a further conversation with the planning board about how the timeline might impact a your board's ability to really get this done um over the summer, right? Because those timelines are not ideal.
Um, so we didn't vote on this. We kind of tabled it until some of these conversations with your board could be had. Uh, but the real kind of concern that some of us brought up was, you know, if you have to have final warrant language to us by middle of September, that leaves you, you know, really June,
July, and August to do all the work um, and get all the public engagement around getting the final language passed. So, you know, if that's something your board is comfortable with and Christa and Marzy are supportive of, that's that's great. I just wanted to make sure you all had that understanding uh before the select board really voted to approve
kind of this this layout and it wasn't fixed. I mean, if there's big things that come up that need to be addressed at a spring town meeting, there's always the ability to do that, but that comes with its own perception issues of, you know, when people get used to doing zoning in the in the fall, then they change it to the spring, there's other ramifications that that can have.
>> Yeah. What was the impetus, Ted, for um for splitting up that? I mean, it was a a timing issue and because it used to be like, you know, the fall town meeting was was to just nail down financial things that we didn't have a chance to do
>> at other times during the year. Um, and now it seems like that's, you know, just a a routine second meeting. But I'm just wondering what was the impetus for pushing all the zoning articles to the fall or winter, whatever.
>> I think the goal, right? I think the goal was to divide and conquer. So to make spring town meetings really more financially focused and hopefully no longer than two nights and to give a little more substance to the uh winter town meeting, the fall town meeting beyond just the approval of you know
final end of year um transfers that need to be made. So it's really to make each one be able to stand on its own legs but have neither one be you know the threeight marathon town meetings that I'm sure we all loathe to some degree. Um yeah and um do you have personally do you
have an opinion on this um the schedule for I know you had voiced some level of concern but I'm just you know it's I don't know if you're comfortable even talking about it at this point since you guys are still in process of figuring things out.
just from my perspective. I mean, it's a for routine zoning changes, that's easy to do if you're changing, you know, a number here, grammatical stuff there, minor setback changes, those are more routine. But for, you know, I recall us,
you know, doing 3A, which we did, you know, great, especially in comparison to some of our neighboring towns, we did really well with, but trying to do something like that over a summer timeline would be unrealistic. I don't I don't think it would be even I don't think we could even attempt to do that
type of significant zoning change or public engagement that is required when you do that over the summer. I just don't think there's capacity from my experience there or wouldn't have been capacity on the board to undertake the work to get there or the engagement from the community to get the level of understanding that they would need to be
supportive of some of the zoning changes that we would require. Now 3A is a big big topic. It's kind of the utmost extreme, but you're talking about I think you talked brought up a 40R tonight. Those are some big kind of visionary zoning changes that I would envision would need a lot of planning
and work to get done that realistically over the summer might be more difficult to do. So, that's kind of where I think, but but again, I am no longer on the planning board, so that's just what from my experience I would I would have envisioned being the the trouble spots,
>> right? No, good point. obviously and thank you for attending. I I don't recall the last time we had a liaison um attend one of our meetings. So, thank you. >> Just >> old habits die hard.
>> Thank you and thank you for your input. Um I will speak a little bit along the lines of timeline and everything like that. Obviously, everything on this list is a lot. It would be a lot to pass everything. part of the discussions that we are having will be how do we want to
move forward um with you know what initiatives um but I will also say that later this week on Wednesday uh Marzy and I have a meeting with MAPC we weren't selected for the technical assistance that we applied for um we applied for multiple applications
including the signed bylaw review earlier this year but um we have a meeting with them to go over this list again to see if they are able to provide some technical assistance this year um as part of the budget that
we have from consulting um um this you know in July that kicks in um that we'll renew with the new budget um to see if they're able to provide us with technical assistance because this is a really big list just for staff capacity to tackle you know over the
next few months but um potentially you know there could be the option to have some minor, you know, technical assistance from MAPC on some of these initiatives as well. So, we're going to go over those. >> Okay. Um,
regarding the commuter rail 40r smart growth zoning or expansion of 3A overlay, um, I'm sure Marzy told you that we did attempt a 4DR district over
the train station about oh gosh, I'm going to say six years ago. I think it was just precoid and it it um what started as a really well-intended
transit oriented 40yard district, you know, quickly got um you know, the town administrator at the time got very involved. some of the sluck board members got very involved and the mission creep ended up going down Boral Street and up Essex Street
and you know before the thing just blew up. So there's you know there's that but there's also um and we can obviously discuss this. This is why it's on here. Sure. You know my opinion is that we'd probably have an
easier time adding a um a 3A. We need five acres of course but we could it might be easier for us to do that. >> Well, something I did and that's the way that it was worded, you know, 3A or 40R
um you know, there are the benefits to 40R with the um incentives from the state um with the payments for adopting the district um and then density bonus payments as um units get built. Um, but
we did take a look and if you can see it visible there, it's also in the packet um of potentially what that could look like. But this district shown in blue >> also abuts the current 3A overlay,
right? So we could look at it as a 40R potentially or, you know, a 3 an expansion of the existing 3A potentially. You know, there are ways to there are different ways to look at it. And that's part of what this discussion
>> is is, you know, this could be a 40R over the train station. There are a lot of um reasons supporting that in terms of what 40R does in the benefits um that we would get from having it be a 40R rather than just MBTA 3A.
>> Yeah, I understand that. um you know 40R districts are made for mixed use and they're um it's very common for them to be around commuter rail stations because um that's basically one of the reasons for the over the smart growth districts um for
the walkable mixed use in those types of areas. One interesting thing to note about this district um that's proposed right here is it covers both the housing authority sites. That's where those little um
houses are. So if the housing authority to in the future were want to reddevelop those sites, it could look um different with more density um within whatever regulations in this overlay are. Right? So it would allow
for redevelopment of those sites in the future um within whatever guidelines potentially were placed on this overlay district um which could be a benefit as well. >> Yeah. Um yeah. >> So agreed.
>> Can I just ask a couple quick questions? Mostly clarification. So, um, the creep that you were talking about that that occurred the last time that was coming all the way down Burl Street, correct? And >> and it went up Essex a bit as well.
>> Yeah. Y because this this proposal as I see it just in looking at the map um has very little impact on fully residential neighborhoods. like agreed sitting no sitting on >> what really looks like is housing
authority and almost completely >> uh current mixed use or industrial um which is great. I guess the question that I have from the the perspective of a 40R district is
we did lay the 3A on top of a good portion of our industrial space >> and the this is sitting on a good portion of the additional industrial. >> When you say industrial, do you mean commercial zone? commercial industrial
>> industrial is is the quarry basically when >> but if you okay I should be careful how I say that um >> I'm just talking about zoning region >> yeah it's commercial it's commercial but it is not uh retail >> understood it's much more business commercial >> got it
>> um 40R um I'm wondering if there is going to be push back around tax revenue or if that's something that um with it being mixed use the hope is that it would be expanding into residential and
commercial. So we would retain and actually increase that >> right and that that is you know the purpose of 40R um would be to encourage housing but also mixed use right in those walkable areas. So that's
>> right by the commuter rail station that ideally would be the place Yep. for transit oriented development >> potentially, you know, housing that does get introduced is mixed use. There could be lesser parking requirements because the people who would live in these areas
wouldn't necessarily be car dependent because they're walking distance to the commuter rail station. The the thing that I'm curious about though is um the taxation issue on it because I think if I remember right from that time I wasn't on the board but I just remember in town
there that sometimes that can come up is that you know we are such a business unfriendly location and do we want to think about making sure that we have have ground floor retail or ground floor
commercial um built into anything or does 40R restrict that? >> Uh, it allows us to tailor that, right? So, >> yeah, for the 40R district, um, I kind of we skipped through this, so I didn't really go over this, but um, part of
what it allows for is you can tailor like building heights, setbacks, parking requirements, design standards, but are also like requirements for ground floor commercial. >> Excellent. >> Um, so, >> oh, there I'm sorry, very last. Yeah, it it's part of you know what you're able
to tailor to the area based off of what >> if we get into this >> tailoring it so that taxation question that can sometimes really be just a circular argument um is well addressed and it's right there that if we if we
did tailor it in that fashion that you know we could be increasing our housing and the commuter rail adjacencies but while also So, um, supporting business, which I think is is a topic that I've heard come up many times. >> When the when the 3A came in, was that
right when the West cut applied too? Right around. >> No, it was right after even though >> Yeah. So, so that was part of the feeling though. People were already feeling like it's going to become very dense, right? >> Yeah. Um, yes. And and I think when 3A
came in, um, you know, it was it wasn't focused on affordable housing. In fact, when the the first, you know, we did ours pretty early on just to, you know, um to get a jump on it. But, um it it
was almost like you've got to we've just need to build more because when we build more and we create this volume, then the you know, there'll be such a we'll flood the market with with units and that things are going to get cheaper, which you know, history has shown us does not happen here. We just have a lot of
expensive apartments and that's just a fact. That's not me, you know, some pulling something out of the air. That's the way it goes here. >> But and you know, it also puts the burden of developing more and more and more on these little tiny towns like us just because we happen to have a train
line going through since you know 1865. >> Okay. Anyway, but and 40R on the other hand is is all about affordable housing. And yeah, you can put some, you know, mixed use in there because that makes a neighborhood more affordable. look and
have, you know, I mean, more, you know, more easily desirable when there are some services there and, you know, >> well, that's why I was wondering maybe the backlash to the 3A originally was kind of this reaction to the >> Yeah, it was the backlash was that it was this mandate from the state saying
that we had to add 2,000 housing units. >> I would I would say though that the backlash to 3A didn't fully happen because of the fact that we happened to have these zones that were very low impact. >> Yeah. that didn't >> um to do it. So that even at town
meeting there were four people or five people that >> were against us um placing the 3A where we were suggesting >> right >> um and I think they were more in reaction to the state not >> they were and and the other thing was
that the the fact was and we had of course we had you know consultants that we were obliged to work with that's you that's how the state ran it you had you know consulting groups you had bowler engineering that worked with us on on creating it. And there was the formulas
are, you know, was crazy. But the, you know, just what they go through to to figure out number of units and the density per acre, but um, you know, trying to figure out where you're going to put all those units and and we don't have any space
for it. We flat out don't have space. So the only thing we could possibly do was, you know, we have a little bit over there by the other side of Elm Place and which is that little funny funky little corner, you know, going down under the bridge and then we we had to overlay it.
So it's overlaid over Crown Point. It's overlaid over part of Vinnen. It's overlaid over Summit. You know, we had to I mean, there was no place to put it. So could more units be built there? Probably. You'd have to bulldoze Crown Point and chances are you're not going
to there's over 400 units up there. I mean, chances are you're not going to even put back the number. >> Those are condos, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Which which in itself is an interesting, >> right? >> Situation because the building isn't built >> to last 100 years. The building from
that period is built to last 35 years, right? >> And it's owned by how many people, >> right? >> Um so these become really complex situations. So, you know, at any rate, we had no other choice of where to where to put stuff. I mean, we could have over
we would have had to overlay anything um no matter what we did. >> I think this is all sort of highlighting though the 40R like advantages because 3A obviously has a lot of baggage that comes along with it. >> Uh 40R allows us to tailor it to keep
the res to keep the um retail or create a retail tax base. And so I and and it allows for affordable housing and market rate housing, right? >> So it has all this stuff that feels very win-win if you can, you know, overlay it. And to your point too, Angela, like
I wasn't here obviously when there was this mission creep or whatever, but I feel like >> Oh, I have I have all the background. Yeah. Yeah. But you know, Christa started with this like I feel like this is like a very >> sensible totally like if we can you know
>> stop it from you know taking on that sort of expansion I feel like it could be a real >> right >> positive >> and it's clearly directed to the train line. Yeah. very, you know, and zoning something and and and having, you know, and executing on that are are two
totally different things, which, you know, we we deal with all the time in terms of people thinking, "Oh my god, the bulldozers are coming out." And and of course, they're not. >> Um but um however, I've always been a fan of zoning that end of um the street.
So, um I see either one, you know, I think if we struggled with 40R, then we could probably easily expand the 30A, I think. But, um but I think the the 40R makes sense. So
>> I I also think that I think that the the ideas behind these places or these zones is, you know, it's just educating town meeting, >> right?
>> And and I think town meeting got a dose of 3A because it worked its way through media and all these other things. They were hearing the story. They were all of that. >> And I think with with this I think we
doing this following successfully passing that 3A >> and everybody understanding that you know the life has not come to an end and >> right but it's it's a case of just having ourselves established for this type of growth. Um, I don't know. I
think it's not quite as foreign now as it might have been when we were attempting a 40hour precoid. I think that it's something that that they've been educated outside of the town >> um to have understanding what >> going back to Ted's comment if if
something is more important um that it gets done more quickly like maybe the the Humphrey Street idea where we where there could be pending applications where people get rid of ground floor retail. Do we focus on that and like that messaging as oppo and then table the 40R because like you said it's
nothing's going to maybe happen tomorrow could that happen next year >> knowing the timelines >> we start the conversations you know people can listen in on these meetings they can start to get familiar with the terms they can understand it we let the Vinnen development settle for a year where people are freaking out about
development and then focus on what might have a more immediate impact and put >> I think people are starting to, you know, feel com more comfortable about the vintage just because the commercial part has has >> like they see the excitement of like, oh,
>> they can see the excitement and we've got three more, you know, three more great sites coming and then the other side's going to get refaced and >> yeah, >> you know, I think there's a there's a a lot of good that comes with it. So, that's >> I think also the fact that that appeared in front of them
>> and then it's here, >> right? Um yeah because it it moved at a pace that >> I think people perceive projects move at >> instead of re reality is you know I'm surprised how quickly that has has come
to be >> um which is great. I would I agree with you, but I would also say that we could also be strategic about the conversation around Humphrey Street and the important the important business mixed use
>> and then roll into 40 and tie it together. Yeah. Um because I think most people have an aware well I don't know people that commute have an awareness of what's down there >> and recognize that it's not um you know it's an area that there's it could be it
could be updated upgraded and the idea of getting residents and business uh combined down there I don't think would be as threatening >> right and you know you can see a lot of a lot of um there's going to be a lot of changes down there. Even the little, you
know, well, I don't have to talk about >> they're they're both potentially related in the sense where we could do public engagement surrounding mixed use >> in general. Um, and it would be relevant um to both really important >> at the same time.
>> I know that 40R is pretty, you know, it's a complex process. So, but I assume on that one we will need to get some kind of technical assistance which we had the first >> and um I know we've skipped around a little bit. Um, but bringing it back to
the Humphrey Street overlay conversation that we started last month, um, I think at least as staff's personal opinion, at the very least in December, we should be introducing a special permit for conversion from commercial to
residential. >> I agree. Absolutely. >> At the very least, we should be bringing something um because it is, >> you know, you can look at these maps. I was talking with Marcy today. There's another example of one on the corner here that had already been approved that
we weren't even thinking about, you know. So, >> right, >> you know, it's it's a lot, you know, of this incremental change. >> Meaning, it could happen anywhere really. >> And it's not, you know, it's not even barring it. It's just allowing for that special use approval for the conversion.
They need to they would need to make the argument >> about what's viable. >> Is another one ending or another one? Um, it's another one that was passed. >> It was passed a couple years. It was that I think it had been an old pharmacy for years.
>> It was the collapsing building that got brought up. >> Yeah, it was a Yeah, it was a pharmacy, then it was a hair salon, then it was all kinds of >> It's one It was a brown building. Yes. Right. You get it. >> Yeah. It's an example where here on the 2016 land use map from the state was
shown as mixed use but is now completely residential, you know, as will be. And you know, I fear that that could happen along We have we also have >> um absentee landlords that own big chunks of Humphrey Street, the non ocean
part of Humphrey Street um that just, you know, aren't going to care. So um you know, they're they live out of state that aren't involved at all in the development. So that concerns me as well
because um you know we don't >> you're not proposing a ban though. You're proposing just a >> a process. >> Yeah. >> You're not proposing a ban. You're proposing a >> Right. It's just a special permit for a conversion. >> It's in a business zone. It's a it's a
B1 zone. So, I think we kind of, you know, fact that we've allowed it to be all residential has is something that's been exploited a lot over the past, >> right? And I would say it's unusual for
commercial zoning to allow for residential. Normally, zoning is more um exclusive, you know, as you get to higher >> intensities. That might have happened. Um anyway, it doesn't matter when it happens. >> Do we have a sense of like what the town generally feels? because I I don't if you saw after our last meeting there was
a I think the tides wrote an article >> and I thought that most of the comments that I saw were positive. The only negative comments that I really saw were people saying things like >> um basically like well why why would you regulate what people can do with their
property? And and my thought was sort of like well we do that through in most of the town you can't build any businesses. So right why should it be that you can only say that you can't have businesses here and over here it has to be anything goes >> right. >> Um >> and I I guess I think this is like a
good starting point but I would the thing about this that concerns me is that I wonder what our criteria will be to evaluate and if we don't think a project should go forward can we say no? I wouldn't want us to say no and then, you know, someone says, "Well, what's your what's your standing?" I' I'd
rather have something that's a little stronger and says that, you know, we have to preserve the mixed use, but I obviously don't want to go ahead and do that if that's um you know, not something that's going to be able to >> or there's that hybrid that we talked about last time, which is if it's touching Humphrey Street, if it's like
on Humphrey Street, like yes, you know, having that that criteria be different than something that might be a block off. You know, usually the reasons are that people buy the buildings and they just want to flip it and convert it into something and they don't want to deal with commercial, but they're not
interested in >> what like what kind of standard. So, well, the only thing we can do is go back to saying that, you know, um uh um either either we forbid it, you know, we ban it all together in
commercial zones or we it's allowed under with a special permit and there has to they have to be able to make a case as why this is more beneficial to the town than having a retail property there. I mean, Lena, >> right? And there are different ways you
can go about it, but potentially it could be however we decide to word it. Um, you know, they would need to provide an argument that ground flooror commercial isn't a viable use. Whether that's, you know, they weren't able to rent it out
for over a year, you know, some something like that, whether it's, you know, the location of the specific building for ground floor commercial, some >> whatever we would decide those criteria are would be what they would um be crafting their argument for with a special permit.
>> And we would need to have that developed before we have >> September >> before September. >> And what about you know that I mean it's a mixed tax rate they have on that building. So they pay commercial tax rate on the commercial space and they pay
>> or or do they pay commercial tax on the whole building and then it switches if they ch I mean I'm not sure. I'd have to ask the accessor's office like what they do with that >> and commercial is more expensive, right? >> Oh yeah. >> Yeah. Quite a bit more. >> So it would be a benefit to them
>> if they were flipping it to >> Well, I mean residential. That's interesting. If the if the building sits in all commercial, >> it should be a commercial >> then then that regulation, >> but they're allowed to have by right, they're allowed to have residences on
upper floors anyway, right? So, I don't know what they're paying. So, but if the goal is to bring their taxes down, that does not seem like >> a great >> I mean, look at the building. >> Sell it to somebody who doesn't >> with the hot dogs and ice cream. I mean, that's been right
>> successfully used as mixed use forever. >> I think that's like the ideal. But my concern is that you know that those buildings where there are not that one notwithstanding but other structures along um Humphrey Street little stretches at a time are owned by
absentee landlords who you know um they don't they're not bought into having >> Oh yeah, definitely right. So that's what I'm saying is like I wouldn't you know the but you couldn't lease it for a year. Well if you're absentee do you even really >> they don't care. I think what I would
is that it's a is there is it possible like can we have a a special permit that's just a completely discretionary special permit and they can apply for the special permit to have the the residential and that's the way it would work. So the default is because I think
the intent of the the bylaw was that the default would that you really >> right all residential would be special permit rather than a conversion >> hole in the zoning by. >> Yeah. Gotcha. That I mean that potentially could be >> because I think that would just put us on better standing. >> Yeah. rather than looking at it as the
conversion is looking at it if you want to do completely residential that's the >> you have to get a discretionary special permit >> because I I think one of the the defenses that the town can have is as you erode a commercial zone you're eroding foot traffic you create a dead
zone you're creating >> you are actually negatively impacting the commercial pro property around you when you remove you know if there's and in many of our zones there might be six commercial spaces.
>> Yeah. >> To you know to reduce that by a sixth >> is significant. >> Yeah. With that. >> Yeah. >> So I think that is interesting to make that convert. >> We already have that that you can't
reduce the commercial footprint. >> Only in Vinnon Square. >> Only Vinn Square. >> Yep. that we could just expand that. >> Okay. So, for next meeting, I know we don't have much time, right? Um with these potential zoning bylaw changes.
So, thinking about for Humphrey Street over district for next meeting potentially coming up with some draft language and criteria for a special permit um for resident just for completely residential uses. Yep.
>> Um and coming up with some draft bylaw language that I can run by you guys. Um does that sound >> Yeah. In the time in the timeline that >> can I build on what you're saying which I think is really interesting that there is that reduction. It's not permitted to
reduce commercial space in Vinnen Square. Um, I guess a question that I would have is Vinnon Square and Humphrey Street, >> wouldn't there be logic in that rule being in both places since those are our
two commercial districts? >> Yeah. I mean, >> there's an interesting argument in that. >> Yeah. >> That I think could get voters thinking about it, >> right? All we're doing is really putting in place what we've already put in place and what was intended here in the first place. >> Right. Yeah. >> So, it's in B3 and B4 right now.
>> Okay. >> Which is Vinnon Square and basically says I mean B3 right now is is the same and it says that you can't you know you can't um reduce any anything that's currently commercial stays commercial.
You can't change it. Um B4 which is the new Vinnen Square or Swampscope mall zone. It actually does cover the entirety of Vinnen Square meaning the malls on both sides of Paradise Road. But it um you know applying right now to
to Swamp Scott Mall we changed it so that um it had to keep 75% of the existing ground floor space if it was an existing building that was being
converted and the reason for that was that the Swamp Scout Mall so like where you know Walkers Sam Walkers is and the Gap is and so forth Those stores are all double D because that mall used to have a corridor running down the middle and there were just little stores on either
side. When they got rid of that whole look, they combined it to just have, you know, the store faces on the parking lot side. Then all of a sudden they went through the corner. All those stores became double deep. And so they were all
very large stores. And um so to date it has not been a problem. But, you know, we said in case I don't know if somebody want to switch it. I mean, it doesn't look like it's going to be an issue for anyone there. But, >> it also seems like those
>> those are actually attractive spaces. >> They are they are now. >> No, but it but it's a it's a case where like I used to be a store designer for the Gap and one of our major issues was the fact that the the earlier malls the mall stores we couldn't fit in.
>> Yeah. So they they never complained about it. It was the smaller stores >> and um but it doesn't seem like we have anybody complaining right now. >> B2 and B3 if we were to align B1. >> Yeah. >> B2 I don't think that that has
regulations in there. >> So it's just B3 and B4. Correct. So Venon Square. >> And where is B2? >> It's in it's mixed in different areas. A lot of it's down by the train station. A lot of it is so Using this as an example, Essex Street
here, this is B2 on the north side. Um, but there's like B pockets of B1 around here. These are all small pockets of B1. >> Is there any reason not to have the the rules in all of the B's?
>> No. No reason. >> Right. And so this actually um is part of one of the questions I wanted to ask you all tonight is when we were talking about this uh Marzy and I just um at town hall >> we were thinking of should this
conversation really >> be restricted to only Humphrey Street because there are other examples of B1 in town that's getting converted to completely residential along Essex Street. So, do we want to keep this um conversation strictly to the Humphrey
Street overlay district? >> There's no reason to do it. >> Um yeah, do we want to um think about it on townwide? Um because there are other examples in town. I I think for a town that that consistently does come back to us not
having commercial space, us not having that >> that to me seems like a really good reason to have a restriction like that and and not pick on it being >> based on location and then just cover it
so that that we don't see especially if we're go our goal is >> mixed use. protecting the commercial makes a lot of sense >> and especially if it's already B. I mean, if it's already B, it's not we're not even changing the >> it's already zoned that way.
>> Yeah. And what we're looking for on on the Humphrey Street overlay, that's where all the business is is and then we don't have to worry about >> um the Burl uh excuse me, uh what street is that? Blyy street, >> right?
>> Yeah. Exactly. >> You know, the ones that big concern do feel sort of strange. Yeah. >> Um I mean I I think that would also be a very easy >> Yeah.
>> accessible from the general public that are voting in town meeting to understand that this was something that was done over here but it really should be covering protecting all of our commercial. Yeah. So, you know, a lot of this came up and we had this kind of that, you know, omnibus
zoning change in 2009 and a lot of this happened then. I'm not saying all of it. I'd have to go back and look at my notes, but that was the first year I was even involved in this, but um it was to, you know, it was more about we didn't
have other we didn't have like 40 Rs, we didn't have three A's. we just didn't have these humongous, you know, housing projects popping up everywhere and it was more to, you know, sort of generate infill housing and and relax some of the regulations around it. So, I really
think that that's, you know, has backfired on us in a big way. Um, and yeah, I think that we should be reversing it. And >> but it's not and it's not limiting the residential that's above. It's just saying what's already there doesn't go
away. >> Yeah, that's correct. That's correct. >> Yeah. So, Krista, do you want to get us some language? I think that >> I wish I could find the old zoning. >> Yeah. And I can do it for, you know, B1 and B2 to be in line with what we already have for B3 and B4.
>> Um, and I think, yeah, I think that there will be a pretty reasonable argument for that to preserve, you know, we can run the numbers for, >> you know, how many commercial properties we have. commercial base. >> It's not that many. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um I Yes. So, for next meeting, we can get some I'll get some draft language. We can talk through it, refine it, um and >> figure that out, you know, talk through any potential scenarios, things like that. But, um we can get that discussion
started so that moving forward if everything looks good, we can do that community engagement. And um I will have the all of the timelines for um what we'll need to do to get on that warrant um and everything for that meeting as
well. So um we can we can talk through and we'll have you know some draft language to review as well. But >> um >> this also feels shifting it from the Humphrey Street overlay to the B1 and B2
>> also aligns really nicely with the commuter rail 4R. Yep. >> Because that whole conversation can be these changes are being made to asssure that this doesn't become, >> you know, a giant housing project. It's
it's really about the mixed use and the commercial and maintaining >> That's correct. >> And valuing our commercial space. >> Mixed use is is critical for, you know, small neighborhoods for >> should write that down for meeting. >> Oh, I'll remember. Okay.
>> He's good at that. But but it is like I I think that that alignment is great. >> Yeah, I do too. >> I do too. >> Great. Um so I will get working on that and for next meeting um we can continue
the conversation and refine it and we will have all the deadlines and timeline for you guys as well >> for what that will look like. Um, one one quick question just looking at the some of the 3A is already overlaying some of the B. Is that a problem then? Like can does 3A allow business?
>> It does. It allows mixed use. Yep. That and that came up. >> That was a change recently, right? >> That was one of their later changes. They've changed, you know, >> we started working on the zoning and and supposedly with the the draft guidelines, you know, in place >> and over the following year, those
guidelines were constantly shifting and and we, you know, that was our issue was, you know, we have spent hours on this already. How many more I mean, when are you going to be done? >> You know, when is that goal? and and they said, "Well, whenever you began the
process, when we ever we started working with Bowler, we were able to to, you know, continue under those guidelines, even though something like being able to um uh um allow >> allow mixed use, which initially wasn't
allowed." and also being able to respect our um inclusionary zoning, which they at first said no because anything that was going to detract or discourage uh an investor, a builder from building like you have to have affordable, you know,
>> they they didn't want they didn't want anything in the way of somebody who wanted to go and build. >> Yeah. >> So, uh but then that, you know, that shifted as well, which was that's all good, >> right? But that's a really good point, right? So it's an overlay. So what we'll be proposing will be for the underlying
district. So the 3A district to comply will still kind of override what we're what we're talking about for that specific overlay over the B1. But >> we still yeah changing the underlying it will just the MBTA overlay will um
override it by allowing by right. >> Got it. >> On top of it if that makes sense. Just as a question, is there talk of expanding the 3A requirements or um >> What do you mean the requirements >> at the state level? >> I mean,
>> I have no idea. >> I'm not sure. >> I mean, so many of us have zoning in place now. Is the thought is the thought of just the the expansion of the 3A was that to like get ahead of the game or
was it that the goal is worthy but we could also do the goal through 40R we just need to figure out what's going to be the easiest >> yeah it was figuring out the best mechanism for okay allowing for mixed use >> 40R is it's all about affordability >> and when you build these things and and
as you build them the state actually reimbures you for every unit that gets built. >> Yeah. >> Um because it's specifically targeted at, you know, at a at a population that needs help with affordability.
>> Um so, and the regulations are pretty rigid in terms of, you know, design, number of units per acre. I mean, it's it's um you know, it's a process. But do we know I I have no idea, but does does
the town know how well the Elm Place uh occupancy is? Was that a very >> I understood that it's pretty full. It's it's >> Yeah, I don't have the exact numbers. Um but >> I see I see the commuters. I mean, it makes me really happy when I get off the
train or when I get on the train and I'm watching >> a a considerable amount of people walking to the train station >> from that direction to cut through. >> Yeah. >> I mean, it's like that's that's what we want. Yeah. >> Right. >> My understanding was that it was pretty
well subscribed. So, um but you know, that was like I don't know months ago. So, I don't know. >> Yeah. When when we continue these discussions, it it will be good. I can pull those numbers that way it can support you know the argument
>> that we'll be making. Um to continue this conversation going I did have the one last topic of conversation which was the um ADU site plan special permit discussion >> um that I wanted to touch on unless
anyone had any other thoughts for Humphrey Street or 40R that you want to talk about right now. Otherwise, I'll get moving internally and next month we'll have a lot more to talk about. >> Beautiful. >> Um, and that timeline together so we can
continue to ideally shoot for December. We'll also have had that conversation with MAPC so potentially we could have some technical assistance on some of these as well, which would be really helpful because um there's not that much staff capacity, but we're we're doing
our best. Um, the third one is for the ADU site plan, special permit zoning amendments. Um, as you've all probably noticed, we've had quite a few ADU applications come through, which is exciting. >> Um, and it seems like people in Swamot
have been taking up, you know, taking up permitting, you know, once they're allowed. We've had quite a few come before us. Um, which is a good thing. Um we just would want to address the conflict currently in the zoning bylaw which is site plan special permit
is requires review requires 500 square ft um and it's 900 for allowing an ADU by right um from the state and the discussion that I wanted to have today was
how do we want to approach this because I know it was very recently that it was changed to 500 ft for review um from 800. So would we want to amend because we're going to have to amend the zoning bylaw. So do we want to amend it to
exempt ADUs from the existing 500 square foot >> um site plan review requirement or do we want to amend the zoning bylaw to change site plan special permit review requirements um to comply with the 900?
>> You could just all ADUs. I mean, if we have an ADU that's 750 square ft, you know, and people are seems like they they're trying to make them as big as possible, but um you know, I don't think that I mean, essentially having a a site
plan special permit, we're not because it's allowed by right, we're not going to the only thing that would knock it off is if it was grossly out of compliance with zoning or or there was, you know, maybe there It was, you know,
it was just um, you know, it was covering up every little bit of open space. I mean, I think that there are I don't think that the state bylaw precludes us from looking at it. It just says you have to allow it by right, but
it doesn't say it it can violate every provision of your zoning bylaw. >> Right. It's just basically is adding this additional review. Yeah. so restrictive where they could argue that it's not by right
because we are, you know, adding so many restrictions onto the approval. You know, it isn't by right if we're >> Well, it's a it's a by right use, >> right? >> Why does that have to >> It's by right for for 900, but we're not allowing 500. >> Right. Right.
>> Exactly. And that's where the the conflict >> for the two options you just put out. >> Right. So, if this is the discussion that we wanted to have tonight, because I know it was recent that the change was made for allowing it to go down to 500
ft for >> um site plan special permit review. I think first um maybe we could talk about the intent of why that change was made and if the board feels that the types of applications that you've that have come
in front of you since that was made are the types of applications you know that you think are worth the the board's time and reviewing. um you know as minor as being being 500 square f feet because you know it is relatively unusual
looking at other towns around us. Some municipalities do go down to as small as 500 square feet. Specifically, Nihant does and Marblehead in their shoreline harbor front district, but other than that, most of the surrounding towns
around us require a thousand square feet for site plan review. >> I I can talk to this because I'm the one that fought for this. >> Okay. Yeah. No, I'm I'm very curious. >> The 500 square feet had to do with the density, right, >> of the town. >> It definitely does. and the huge number
of non-conforming lots. >> Yeah. >> Um and that as we reviewed it, um a a thousand square I think it was set at a thousand before >> it >> it was 800 >> 800 >> it was very easy for that to in many
situations and in many areas of town be the doubling of a house. >> So it really had to do with adjacencies >> um because of the non-conforming laws. setbacks >> and and that's why we came to it and we came to it after a lot of discussion
because it felt really restrictive but um you know and I I still agree with myself that it is we've seen so many situations where what isn't a huge addition really impacts uh neighboring
structures >> I agree with so forth >> but I guess I mean maybe what Kristen if I'm putting words in your mouth let me know but what you're saying is like tonight or any other night we've got an ADU if as long as they stayed under 900 in in the end and they you know met met
all the setbacks and everything else we yes we can comment but they are hitting all the criteria. >> Well we we can comment and often adjustments are made based on >> just based on our comments. Yeah. Um, but there's also the like if you think of that list we went through,
>> right? >> We're sort of the checkers of of that when it comes to >> the list. >> And we're a coastal community. Like if somebody's in a flood zone, then >> but if they but they checked it all off and they said,
>> "I don't think we can have a we can't have special permit for an ADU that's under no 900." I don't we're not looking to have a um >> but it's it's a it's a site plan site plan review which is not the same it's like a a section it's not
>> this gets into the legality problem with site plan special permit >> because it's whether it's discretionary or not discretionary approval >> right >> and that >> because you have the ability to deny a special permit which the board if it's allowed by right shouldn't have the
ability to deny >> right >> that you know Even if you you aren't denied >> if something's allowed by right that it it should be implies it implies that it beats all our regulations >> and that the staff has reviewed for those compliance issues. And so that's
kind of where the this discussion is stemming from just because um basically it's supposed to be allowed by right and when you get into um being able to deny that rather than just giving your recommendations. It's it's
the mechanism of how um >> did we did we the site plans but we didn't >> No, that is still you know and that's part of this discussion. So that's that's part of it. Like we I think I think we could >> well I I actually don't actually know. I
think we could have it be where we have site plan review totally uh just a review where we can comment but we have no actual authority to approve or deny. I think that would probably be okay, but I'd want like KP Law to probably check.
>> Yeah. Well, we also >> we can have the current the current situation is creating we've had like what three now each time I'm kind of like >> oh okay you know I mean I'm glad that they're coming in but it would be great if we could have a bylaw that just makes it clear and also makes it clear you
know how does the how do all of these ADUs are also coming with extras right and how do those fit into our review do those >> define extras like a breezeway >> like a breezeway and all that sort of stuff. Are those a totally separate thing and they fall under the 500 square
ft? >> Or if we're improving a 900 an 899 foot ADU, but then they add on these extras, is that then building in addition, we'd be we'd be adding on the square foot. >> And I have to imagine that KP Law has
already come across this >> Yeah. >> question. So we we we have a couple of of things I could say to that just in terms of site plan approval versus um administrative site plan. >> We do have administrative site plan in
the bylaw which is just for um some telecommunication something and plan development districts. Okay. So that's administrative site plan. Um, and then we have site plan review
for um what was once the Glover the um Glover 40R district. I think we used to call it the Venon Square 40R district before it became the Glover um whatever we call multif family overlay district. That is not a special permit. That's a
site plan approval. Um so they do have to go through all these criteria. We can certainly make it difficult for them to meet the criteria, but it's not a special permit. >> Okay. >> Um neither are the plan development
districts. So we could shift ADUs into that category. Okay. >> One or the other um under site plan approval, which is generally under a large development. So we since an ADU is more similar to a PDD where it's a plan
development district, it's a very specific use, >> maybe easier to shift it over to administrative site plan review. >> Okay. >> Um look under the site plan review section. I think that's where it is where def um
I think it when it first talks about site plan uh in the bylaw and it'll say at the very end administrative site plan under what was that tech was it like a technology thing I can't even remember
that it was PDDs and yep Let me try to find it. I can look up. I don't think it's under the Well, maybe it is under the regulations. Look at 5400. Oh, what did that say? Just want to make sure I'm looking at
the right. Okay. 2230. Um, hold on. I'm thinking it might it wouldn't be under 5,400, would it? Haven't looked yet. course I don't have internet here.
Let's just say right because I was under the impression that there was no site plan review site plan special permit >> the site plan approval >> approval >> and administrative site plan review I
know it's like find this. I can, you know, pull it up someplace. I don't know why I can't get into this anymore. You know what the password is in here?
>> Used to be so easy. >> Yes, it's capital. Sorry. Capital SHs >> exclamation. >> Yeah. SHs all capital. >> Yeah.
>> 2017. >> Great. Thanks. >> Yep. Great. It worked. Easy. Christrista, have we spoken to KP Law at all about this or >> um only when we were proposing the administrative site plan special permit
approval because that's where they brought up the potential hesitations with site plan special permit in general as an approval, especially for an administrative approval. >> Yeah. Um so we have spoken to them about
that but not um about this specifically yet. So um what what we can do is take a look and um basically prepare some to sort of
administrative you know site plan review language for ADUs rather than site plan special permit. >> Yeah. in the ADU section of the bylaw um and see what KP Law has to say about how that um meets the requirements.
>> Yeah, let's if that works for everybody. Let's see if KP Law can get us like a >> Yeah, >> like a short memo on just what kind of review is actually allowed given this date, given the statute. >> Okay. >> Um >> Right. Um,
>> I don't want someone to come in here and file for an ADU and we impose conditions or deny it. >> Exactly. >> Yep. Right. >> Turn around and have, you know, I want all of our decisions to have like a sound footing.
>> That's funny because in here we have like Oh, there's there's a second SPR. So our our code, you know, in our key, we say SPR is a use authorized as a matter of right subject to plan review. We have it for multif multif family
dwelling units, but we don't show it for the accessory dwelling units. It's only used twice that SPR designation for parking structures and multif family. more than eight units
in B4 only. Yeah, >> I think that's probably the next step, right? Regardless of what we have Yeah. >> in our bylaw, we need >> we need we need someone to tell us what we can legally >> Yeah. >> approve and at what thresholds. And it
and it makes sense and I appreciate the board sharing the context as to why the 500 exists because I know that was a recent um change. Um so potentially something that I could put forth to KP
law would be um ADUs between 500 and 900 would be subject to um site plan review. >> Yeah. by the planning board. Does that sound good to everyone? Um,
you know, and then anything over 900 would be a normal site plan special permit. >> Yeah. Yeah. I would just want them to tell us like, you know, >> y >> what what can that review >> Yeah. >> look like? >> Yeah. >> Like what kind of conditions can be put on it and that sort of thing.
>> Yeah. I'm I am curious with the I mean the way our the way the the fact that we don't really have a design review in our town.
How do towns that have design reviews um deal with ADUs in the sense that like there's things that might really be difficult because an ADU could be a manufactured home.
>> Um and there's no reason. So if it's by special if it's if it's by right >> today's project in the front yard could have been a mobile home. >> Yeah. I mean >> a 900 foot mobile home. state statute, >> you know, >> but if you if you have a design review
that relates to aesthetic, then you know, until this one, it had never crossed my mind that anyone would ever put an ADU in the front yard. Um, so >> yeah,
>> you know, at what point in time >> are towns allowed to have aesthetic reviews or is is this overriding that when it comes to an ADU? >> I mean, that's something I can look into for the for the next meeting. Um,
>> a lot of towns have design review. I have so many examples I pulled ages ago, but when we brought that up, we didn't have any um professional staff >> that was able to to >> But I I think
>> that and now we do. >> But I also think that there's >> you may be opening the door for this. >> Yeah. >> Um because it may be the only way to design. >> Yeah. >> Um >> and that's part of um when I prepare the
question for KP law, you know, has a line been established, you know, by other um yeah, municipalities for enforcement, you know, what is allowable and what's not? >> Um >> because I mean, I've I've I've done
projects in towns where they are doing design review on property that's not visible or on projects that are not visible from the public way. >> Yeah. I don't >> in California. >> Yeah. I don't think you know, having an ADU be subject to
design guidelines necessarily is, you know, limiting it by right use, right? Um, >> is that that by right is a use by right, >> right? Yeah. So, the ADU 900 ft,
the use is allowed by right. So, you can still review what it looks like. Um, as long as you're not being so prohibitive that it can't be built. Um, but again, it's a review. It's not a permit that you're granting. So, it would be allowed
by right and then you can regulate, you know, how it looks within the design guidelines that, you know, the town has adopted. But when it's a special permit, you know, and you have the possibility of denying it, I think that's where our um
current question lies and what we're trying to fix. But I do think that you can have design guidelines for by uses to regulate, you know, what the form looks and what it looks like and all of that. Um but it's we can't prohibit the use. >> Yeah.
>> If that makes sense. No, I mean I think that's a that's a from my standpoint um I really think that we don't have any tooth and design in the town at all except for the the properties that land in the historic district and then we
actually have >> guidelines. >> There is design review for Humphrey Street that's required. Um but the residential >> yeah that's the residential is the use you know the use end of it and you know
what's uses are allowed in the district what aren't but the design review gets triggered in terms of what does it look like from the planning board >> but does that make sense >> so for instance there's a property on
Humphrey Street that we approved and it was built and it doesn't match what we had approved when it comes to detail. >> Where's the tooth? >> Yeah. >> You know, it's a it's it like we approved something that turned to be an
estimate of what the building how the building was going to be detailed and then the building got detailed and it doesn't match. So, that that's where I'm sort of curious how we can start having >> um a positive impact especially on
properties that are street, but actually everywhere out of, you know, when you have a property um when you have a property that's poorly executed, it impacts the value of the neighbors. >> Yeah. >> So, I think it's
>> I mean, the ADU last week too was front frontage, too. I mean, it was viewable from the street, the one on um that one uh Dead End Street. >> Yeah, Robin Lane. That one also was kind of same kind of
>> but it was that was that was fully at the back of the house though still visible from the street. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I guess it kind of came off side. Yes. >> I was sort of sort of >> you know this was the main house here. So it was it was stepped back.
>> This this location today is is in the front yard and uh >> Right. But I I think it's interesting because we haven't had anyone come forward. But I can't turn my phone on and not get four, you know, senior living pods,
which I'm not very happy about the algorithm and my phone uh right now because I don't think I'm the age that it's for my parents. Uh but anyway, the uh the reality is there's a lot of product out there.
>> Yeah. And you know, some of it is probably fine, but some of it's going to look like, you know, a temporary classroom stuck on someone's >> right >> front yard, I guess. >> Right. So, let's see what KP Law says in terms of what they can do. And then,
>> yeah, and if we can, you know, impose certain levels of standards on them, um, that's certainly something that we can work in. um especially, you know, if they're going to be visible from the street um
and things like that, that could be potentially something that we could work in as well. >> It's also very confusing uh still certainly to me and it's going to be if we have to put this out in front of any and town meeting or anything um the
special permit, the site permit, the special permit site, all these things that are sound the same but they're not. And then what's the 500 really mean? Does that mean site plan special like where does the like a chart or something? I'm not sure
the best way to kind of lay everything out so it's kind of intuitive. >> Yeah. >> No, that's a that's a good point and that's something um that we could work on in like an easily understandable table of you know
what type of review and approval is this and when does it apply? Um I think especially when we're getting to the point of community engagement, um >> we definitely can make those graphics so that it's, you know, easily understandable because this is very
dense and there's a lot going on in here that um I can imagine would be very confusing. >> I think also where the 500 900 falls into that chart and I know there's a lot of debate about it either way and
what KP law says will even allowed what we're considering or not. Right. Yeah. And then maybe we have special section of the chart for 500s and special section for 900s. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And tonight was under 900, right? >> Kind of.
>> Kind of. >> Yeah. It was right. >> Technically under 900, >> but the breezeway and the covered porch were not included in the calculation. >> Right. >> So where when does the 500 rear its head?
>> Yeah. And that's something um I know was mentioned earlier when it includes other things. You know what you know the way that they measured it was just the ADU itself was under um 900. But um that's something that we'll need to take a look at.
>> But going back to the the fact that an ADU is a use >> so I mean >> just looking at that from a design standpoint, I didn't disagree on that breezeway and that porch. Oh no, >> those are additions on the house >> and was lovely >> and they're shared. So I I do think that
that's a reasonable way to do it and you know >> Yeah. No, I >> it it's but it's it's a case where it's the by right piece of it is like we could have said, you know, we're going to review the breezeway and the porch separately.
>> Well, right. That's what I want. That's part of what I want KP lot to tell us is like how do we have to >> are these are these one big package are these actually two different >> addition >> additions uh how how could we think about this >> sorry
>> how do we have to recent the fact is going to depend on you know you could do an ADU that fit within >> setbacks but >> did that's why they're before they wouldn't And these pieces that are
attaching them >> might have to be removed when it comes to lock coverage without going. >> You've got to comply with something. >> But again, most of our >> just build a box, >> right? Exactly. Yeah. Just >> and that's not
>> I'm sure there's dealing with this because it's so >> achieve with this. I I agree with everything that J was saying about >> specific thing. >> Yeah. Under >> But I think that I think that other towns to come here for >> you know we have
>> and because of our >> density huge number of non non-conforming lots >> 900 and above is still different >> we're almost more like bill than we are like Lexington right >> yeah right >> definitely >> okay but it is it's going to be
interesting >> yeah um okay thanks Christa I think we've got a plan on uh >> the zoning bylaws and our next meeting we'll have a lot to >> discuss. So >> hopefully there's not too many ADUs that
>> and there's nothing rolling over to it. >> I mean no nothing rolling over the first time in quite some time. >> Um >> uh I think just one thing that I wanted to mention if we're okay moving on uh is
that for next week we have the joint meeting. >> Correct. >> And and that's on Wednesday, >> right? And do we know what time? >> At 6:30. >> 6:30. >> 6:30. >> Um, they haven't said specifically in the agenda where we're going to fall yet, but as soon as I know, I will let
everyone know like the anticipated time within the meeting. >> Okay. >> Um, because the consultant wants to know that as well. So, >> yeah, of course. >> And can that be I have a problem out of town. Can that be done? >> Yep. >> By Zoom. >> Yeah. So, just um
>> so I believe I already sent you guys the um Zoom the team's link to the meeting. Just let me know if you're going to be in person or not. Um because we're going to set up the room for whoever is planning to be there in person, but you >> I'm planning to be there. >> But you are totally
>> 17. >> Yes. >> Oh, perfect. I'll be here. >> Okay. In person. >> In person. >> Okay. Um, yeah, if you're planning to be here in person, just let me know. So, Shannon and I can set up the room to accommodate everyone. >> Consider yourself self notified.
>> Okay. And this is So, everyone is in person except for a kid graduating. >> Oh, yeah. That's >> completely understandable. >> Eighth grade, not real graduation. >> Oh, this is uh unless anyone has anything else.
>> Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So, moved. >> Second. Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I Right. Thanks everybody.