Uh, good evening everybody. My name is Andrew Shepard, chair of the county planning board. I call this meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. I'd like to have a roll call of the board members present. Please say your name for the record. Carol is present. Partial present and Shepard present. Uh
would you please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the stands one nation under God indivisibley and justice for all like to thank all our veterans those who
are currently serving here and abroad their families and those who contribute their time of public service we owe them our gratitude this meeting is being recorded will be uploaded to the town of towns and YouTube channel. I do not have any additions or deletions. Uh tonight,
just a brief overview. We have a public hearing on a citizens petition that we'll have a presentation from the citizens citizen um shortly once the hearing begins and then it'll go towards
uh regardless of anything that we have for opinions. I believe it'll go to town meeting this upcoming Thursday to get voted on by the town. Um we have four minutes until the uh public hearing begins.
So let's see if we can do anything else on the agenda. Meeting business board 3.1 receives preliminary subdivision approval application submitted by Kevin Smith and Kenneth Polly subject property
map 13 block 9 lot 0-0 Mason Road. Um we have Beth on. We don't have that on. So I believe just double check my email. I think we just have to acknowledge receipt of it. Okay. I don't know if that requires a
signature or just saying we've got it. No, it doesn't require your signature. Just a notification that you have received it. We we've received it. Robert, nice to have you.
Uh, and let's see. 3.2. discuss and finalize board planning board reports prepared for warrant article two the MBTA communities multif family overload district and article six petition to the special time meeting um
I guess we can read on that just until we go through that welcome thank you to you thank you all for your absolutely sure um so just to bring you up to
Tonight we have a public hearing at 6:35. So 2 minutes on a citizens petition that will get a presentation for everyone here. Okay. I turned on the AC. It was pretty hot here when I first came in. We have two minutes. But if you
can't hear, just let me know. I think has any good jokes. [Music] Yeah, I guess I got to put down my to-do list. Get get some time [Music] though.
A good first aid joke to go with that one. [Music] Any jokes in your public hearings? Yeah. See if that's an open or not.
All right. 6:35. Let us let us open the public hearing. Um we'll open the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. like to introduce the board members. Darl is present.
Victorian present present. And Andrew Shepard. Uh there's a public signin sheet that's been circulating. I believe everyone here has signed in. I see we have some individuals on the online. Um to read the legal ad. Hartley, would you mind reading the
legal? No problem. Legal notice. Towns and planning board notice of public hearing. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 48, Section Five, the Towns and Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Monday, September
22nd, 2025 at 6:35 p.m. in the select ones chambers towns and town hall and via Zoom to consider the following citizens petition to amend the towns and zoning bylaw
to see if the town will vote to amend section 145-26 residential districts append text at the end of section 145-26 B14 notwithstanding any provision of this
bylaw law. To the contrary, an apartment/mult family building as defined by section 145-5 is prohibited on the following parcels. Assessor's map 10, parcel 52, Blood Road
and Assessor's Map 10, parcel 70 West Elm Street. Amend section 145-47 open space multi-panel development OSND insert at the end of section 145-47B.
Quote, the provisions of this section shall not apply to assessors map 10, parcel 52 and assessors map 10, parcel 70, close quote, or take any action in relation there too. Interested parties
may attend in person at these lect chambers or participate remotely via Zoom meeting. Okay. And the meeting ID this is uh under towns and planning board Andrew Shepard chair planning board published in the Groten Herald on
September 5th, 2025 and September 12, 2025. There we go. Um, now I'd like to give you guys time, one of you, some anybody to present on the petition.
If you want, you can come up here. You do whatever. Do you mind if I just sit here? Yeah, whatever you're comfortable with. Thank you to all the people who obtained signatures for this petition. Thank you to all who signed this petition to allow it to be heard at the special town meeting this Thursday. Thank you to the
board for this board for allowing me to speak on behalf of this citizens position. First, I wish to speak to the financial difficulties that have faced this town. If the town had offered this property to brothers or other interested parties to
purchase directly at auction, um the town could have been getting much tax revenue all these years, especially the years that the affordable housing trust has had these properties in their possession as other properties have been dealt with in this fashion. I am requesting a proposed change in the
designation of houses on blood road map 10 lot 52 and west street map 10 lot 70 for the following reasons that align with the goals of towns and master housing production plan. This would help these approach this would help preserve
the landscape of woodlands fields and other natural resources um unquote. There are environmentally sensitive areas and those are as evidenced by those pictures that are here on these two parcels. Lady slippers which were
picked or trampled never grow again. There were salamanders as referenced in the closed pictures. Uh a goal to help prevent to sorry preserve agricultural land and be good stewards of forest forestry forestry management. Two, to
help reduce our collective carbon footprint, keeping land in its natural state would assist with Townsen and Massachusetts green energy goals. Trees will contain greenhouse emissions and therefore help to combat climate change.
I believe the town of Townsin would suffer irreparable damage and harm if there is no effort to preserve land also for agricultural purposes. I would propose a permanent agricultural easement on these properties to protect farmland as a lettuce to these properties and owners of a small family
farm with roots deep in the soil with agriculture. I believe that the town of Townsen would sufferable terrible harm if this proposed change does not occur. The state of Massachusetts has a farming action plan to preserve farming and farmlands forestry to forestry
management. Also, the American farmland trust is active with its own. Also, the agricultural commission is trying to get reactivated to assist with this process of looking at farmland and preservation. Massachusetts agricult agricultural
commissions have also been empowered to buy land for these purposes. This is something that must be explored before it's too late. According to the enclosed GM Goldman reported for the town of Townsen, it is a report
sorry for towns and housing production 2022 through 2026. Regarding the soils of towns, most of these soils of town are broken down into four different classification. Looking at all the types listed are so poorly suited for sewage disposal. some
absorb but do not treat the waste from septic tanks. And I do have a map here from the soils I believe in that packet that says that um are the properties in 317 C.
I think we passed it. Yeah, has it. The one with the pictures. This is this the is this the map in question? Um that is the um that property with the um plan housing plan. Oh,
is this this looks like it might be it? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. You see? Yes. So anyways uh basically that is saying that that soil is extremely so uh stony has large boulders that is a high
water table seasonal water table in that that map right here and that is a drawback to put new developments there and also it's part of 317 B soils and that is also very poor for
septic system um sandy soil and the permeability is not good. It's is not suitable for development and the exact wording is on that paper with the map. Plus, that
first part in West Elm Street is in the groundwater protection district. So, I don't know if that's something that's been explored already with the site development. Sorry, I lost the train. And quite frankly, I think being downhill of everybody's septic tanks,
when we have a wet season, I think that whole hill is kind of developed to its faux honestly is in the spring if it's a wet season, you can smell it. And everybody's got up to date septic system. So, you know, it's got to be drains out of the
leechfield. I understand that affordability for renters and housing is at crisis levels. Currently, people are losing their homes even in town. I didn't mean to terrible. No, it's everybody. You have to better. Thank you.
I've seen arch notices online and in the newspaper. I've seen listings for short sales to prevent foreclosures that still mean people are losing their homes. It's it's not just a shortage of which is a big issue, don't get me wrong, of housing and rental properties that are issued here, but we're asked to dig
deeper and deep digger sorry dig deeper and deeper into our pockets. Sorry, I don't know. How much how many more overrides have we had in the past 10 years? Um I know the community preservation act or anybody else voted for it. I'm just
sorry everybody. Um potentially there are some that will be obliged to support this with increased asking for funding projects for affordable housing. The services will need to be increased proportionately the more need for teachers, more safety personnel, fire, police and ambulance. Um I would ask
this board to consider some of the properties that have notices on them and are uninhabitable. Other properties that could be reused, recycled, repurposed for adding to the affordable housing stock units and housing stock in general. Um, there's been recent zoning
board public hearings for reconstruction of the units at 159 Brookline Road, map 38, uh, block 9 lot zero. I understand that there was a building that the owner of Pride and Rich would like to replace on his site. This previous building had burned down. Had that been explored?
This could add to the housing struct as well as address the affordability issue because the more the more housing units there are supposedly the affordability is supposed to get better in town. That's what I've heard. Um, also country estates, and I know these places um
contribute much to Townsen's tax base. Also, this site does not address easy access to the town's amenities such as the library, the town hall, the restaurants of town. People who need affordable housing may not own a car. Um, these sites previously mentioned
would be walkable from areas such as Pine Ridge or Country Estates, not from my end of the town where there's nothing there and it's not easy to walk at this town. Um, easily accessible areas would mean much to patronage of these
amenities, restaurants, people would buy items or spend the money in town as opposed to just leaving to go to other areas for these the area. There's no public transportation available and there has not been previously a need for this. There was a bus at the library for
this purpose but no longer. U we talk about the MBTA but that's was another meeting. No easy access to the drain in either direction. There's nothing located near these two properties. Nothing that would attract people to this area. There are other areas that are in the affordable housing trust at
present that could be developed such as South Row Road, Hickory Road, map 25 um block five, no block five, block one. Maybe I got that mixed up. I'm sorry. There already is waterline hookup that is available to these properties. As far as
affordability is concerned, many current residents of Tanzan with its current high tax bracket and beyond may not be able to continue to afford in this area much longer for to live. Um to all the members of this plan board, I urge you to be considerate the usage of these two
properties. Thank you for your consideration. I also have one other piece of paper that was some input from some citizens. Um, vote yes on article six. Protect town from high density figure housing in
the sensitive areas. Why this matters? We support affordable housing. At a recent town meeting, we voted to put parcels into affordable housing. Given that the parcel on Westtown was suitable for one home and the one on Blood Road, potentially two, it seemed like a
reasonable request to put them in the trust. Now the housing authority is combining lots and proposing 10 buildings on the seven acres as evidenced by the we all have that right. Um it seemed like a reasonable request to
put them in the trust. Now the housing authority is combining lots and proposing 10 buildings on seven acres. These parcels include wetlands, critical wildlife habitats and other areas rich in nature and endangered plants. land that is essential to Townson's identity,
environment, and long-term resilience. Um, the town requires eight acres. I'm not 100% sure this. I can stand corrected. I'm sorry. Maybe you can correct me. Eight acres for an apartment and 500 ft of frontage. The Elm Street lot does not qualify in either either category. The Blood Road has the
frontage, but not the log lot size. Essentially, what the housing trust is creating is spot zoning. I don't know. You can correct me if I'm wrong. It would be acre. Okay. for this process but not others for it starts a snowball of large developments in what is zoned for single family housing unless you
have 8 acres under current zoning each lot could have a primary home and a secondary accessory apartment which would be fitting with our understanding of the vote and provide affordable opportunities and you have the picture of I think most people in the room have the um picture of um the concept
environmental risks of high density housing the wetland impact Wetland Filters water, reduce flooding, and provide critical wildlife habitat. Massachusetts wetlands protection act emphasizes that these areas are public resources that cannot be casually
developed. Mass General Laws chapter 131 section 40. Once harmed or lost, it cannot be replaced from that side. Wildlife habitat consists with a within a biodiversity rich Florida. High density housing in
this case highland coverage and impervious parking fragments habitats and threatened species ranging from amphibians to pollinators. Studies show habitat fragmentation leads to long-term declines in both wildlife populations
and native plant diversity. Adall science 2015 clients flood and climate impact developments in wetlands and destruction of wetlands. Increased storm damage risk homes and infrastructure placing financial burdens on taxpayers. FEMA
2023. Better housing solutions for rural communities. High density housing is an urban solution that does not fit towns in rural character or land use constraints. Towns and lacks transportation and other infrastructure to support high volume low-income
housing. Uh although the March 2025 land trust meeting only discussed 10% being affordable. Other innovative alternatives include cluster housing instead of building on sensitive land. Homes are grouped on smaller lots while keeping large portions of land in
permanent open space. It doesn't look like the current one does, but I could be wrong. That's my opinion. Um, this possessal character reduces infrastructure costs. American Planning Association 2022.
Accessory dwelling units, ADUs, allowing small smaller apartments or in-law units on existing residential lots. Expands housing options without consuming new land. Massachusetts Departments of Housing and Community Development 2021.
Low impact design. Smallest scale housing integrated with green buffers. Perville surfaces and conservation subdivisions protects wetlands and preserves open space. Problematic process. Town residents were not fully informed before lots were proposed for
transfer that a high density development was being proposed. True community planning and development requires transparency, open hearings, and resident involvement, not an after the fact process that deviates from the single family nature of the area and
zoning by be. Please vote yes. In the short term, reject highdensity housing on environmentally sensitive town lots. Affordable housing can still be bu built in adherence to the current zoning bylaws. In the long term, require transparent community engagement before
any land transfer the housing authority. Pursue rural appropriate housing solutions that expand opportunity without destroying wetlands, wildlife, and open space. Let's ensure Towns's future depends on smart grow and art development that threatens our natural resources and rural characters. Thank
you. All right. Next, I'd like to and thank you for putting that together and um very comprehensive. I'd like to go through the mandatory referrals and then we have town council who's also commented as well. So, I'll just read the um what we have in front
of us first. So, this is from the zoning board of appeals. Um, no comment. This is from the board of selectmen. Um, each board of select person submitted a comment. So, this is from the select board chair, Lori Shiffron. It says, "I
do not recommend the restriction on individual owners property rights under the law. Restrictions that are not otherwise governed by conservation commission, board of health, and government inspector." This is a little bit longer. This is
also the board of selectmen. This one is from I believe Veronica Kell select board vice chair. Uh this says the two properties referenced in article 6 of the special town meeting warrant for the September 25th, 2025
are properties that were transferred to the affordable housing trust by vote of the town's people at the May 2022 annual town meeting for the specific purposes of creating affordable housing. The citizens petitioned article is an
attempt to prevent multif family housing on these parcels to provide a historical timeline of the affordable housing trust. Uh January 2020, the affordable housing trust created by vote of the town's people at special town meeting
October 2020 2020. First the affordable housing trust. Okay. So then first the affordable the towns and affordable housing trust board was seated uh May 2022 and then six
maybe I'm working this then it was May I am going through this so January 2020 towns and affordable housing trust was created by a vote of the announcement October 2020 the towning and affordable housing trust board was seated May 2022
six properties recommended by the town's people. The town properties committee transferred transferred to the towns and affordable housing trust by a vote of the town's people at the annual town meeting
fall of 2022 a DTA grant awarded by MRPC, the Monusa Regional Planning Commission to write a five-year action plan for the Affordable Housing Trust. April 2023, a fiveyear action plan was
completed. January of 2024, the Affordable Housing Trust works with the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, who provided technical assistance grant for a site feasibility and pre-development activities on the six properties the Affordable Housing Trust
owns. After reviewing the five-year action plan, the Massachusetts Housing Partnership deemed the properties at Assessor's Map 10, Parcel 52, Blood Road, and Assessor's Map 10, Parcel 70, West Elm Street, as
the most advantageous for the creation of affordable housing. And pre-development work was done on these properties. Example, checking for the presence of wetlands in February of 2020. I'm sorry. What year did they check the
presence of the wetlands? Uh, what what month too? That said, what did I say? February was likely done last spring. Yeah, I don't know if this, but I got to finish reading these and then we'll get
to comments and such. Hey, hey, no, no under the breath. I got to finish these comments before we get into comments. In February of 2025, the affordable housing trust received a concept from
the Massachusetts Housing Partnership for housing on the seven acres at the property at the corner of West Elm and Blood Road concept attached. The affordable housing trust's planned next step for this property is to go forward
with community meetings to inform the request for proposals process with the intent to have a RFP request for proposals out in the spring of 2026. With any development, the affordable
housing trust goal is to ideally stay within the current bylaws and regulations of the towns. I am requesting that the planning board not support this article as it removes the ability of the affordable housing trust
to meet this goal. In addition, please note that there are no there is no option for affiliability in the proposed bylaw for the MBTA communities. Restricting what can be done on properties designated by the town for
affordability does a disservice to the residents of the town both those just starting out and those looking to downsize and remain in town. Signed by Veronica Kel select board vice chair and the selected representative to the towns
and affordable housing trust. We got a copy of the plan which we've already seen. This is Is this the same letter? Oh, this would have been easier to read. I believe this is the same letter in a better format.
I'm not going to reread it. Um, this is another comment from Valerie Goodrich, the select board clerk. The comment goes, "In a town with growing home prices and a lack of affordable housing options, both for working families and senior citizens, the town voted at town
meeting to establish an affordable housing trust, enabling the construction of more affordable units in Townsen. This amendment would inhibit that effort as previously determined to be important to the town. retirees, school employees,
and municipal employees could all benefit from the creation of more affordable housing in towns. The conservation commission has no comment. The highway department also has no comment. And then I would like, Adam, if
you could take a moment and just kind of talk through the memo that you shared with us earlier on your thoughts as town council. Um, so I'm going to stand up just so I'm not hiding behind the board here. Um, so I was asked uh just at the end of last week, so it only was provided today,
though it's public record. It was not uh presented in attorney client privilege format. So anybody who wants to see it after the meeting certainly has access to it. I provided a very brief memo. Uh the question that I was asked and I'm referring here to my phone because I prepared this and finalized it today. So I didn't even have a chance to print it
out before I came to the meeting tonight. Oh, look at this. you've got it printed. Yes, sir. I think that's the for us to email. I have something more comprehensive not seen. Beautiful. Um, so the the request that I received was to comment on the quote potential legal impacts and consequences for the
town and its residents should the proposed zoning amendment be adopted. That's pretty standard language. I get those requests very often when it comes to citizens petitions to to chime in to offer my legal perspective. So, what I'm not going to talk about tonight is I'm not going to address the affordable housing trust uh objectives with respect
to this site. Uh any development proposals that may have been discussed or may be possible on the site. That's not my role as town council. My role as town council is to review this from a strictly legal perspective and to apply on whether I believe this resoning can happen legally, whether it will pass
muster with the attorney general because any town bylaw amendment has to be submitted to the attorney general after it's voted upon at town meeting for approval. uh and then whether I think it would be susceptible to challenge in the event that there were to be an after the-act challenge. So um where I started
in my memo is addressing the home rule authority that municipalities have. Many of you may know this, but in Massachusetts where a home rule authority state, what that means is that every one of the 351 cities and towns have it within their authority to adopt zoning that they deem appropriate for
their communities. Zoning is not done from the top down as it is in many states in the country. Zoning is a local matter in Massachusetts. So, cities and towns adopt their own ordinances and bylaws. Um, but there are some there are there is a framework and there are some limitations upon that because the state
does have a zoning act that provides for a baseline of protections that are afforded to individuals throughout the Commonwealth and certain restrictions on what a municipality may and may not do. And one of those restrictions is in chapter 48 section 4. It's often referred to as the uniformity provision.
And what the uniformity provision says is when you as a municipality are adopting zoning and you're dividing your community into zoning districts, you have to be uniform or consistent with respect to each class of use or structure that's permitted within the same district. And I heard a reference
made already to the phrase spot zoning in a presentation that was done a bit earlier tonight. I think it was used incorrectly because the reference to spot zoning was whether a developer would spot zone. Developers can't spot zone. Municipalities can spot zone. And what happens when you spot zone, it's just like it sounds, is you as a
municipality choose to single out, usually it's one parcel, but it can be a group of parcels, but a relatively small number or small size of parcels. You single it out, and most often what is referred to as spot zoning is when you single this parcel out or these parcels out for more favorable treatment than
what surrounds it. So, the idea is a well-connected property owner in a community comes to the planning board or to the administration and says, "I'd love to be able to do something much more intense than my property than the current zoning allows. Can you please reszone my property and only my property and nothing else that's around it? There
may be 400 acres of residential zone property properties around me, but I want you to reszone my property for a commercial strip plaza because I want to put in a shopping plaza." Um, and that gets done. Well, that's showing favoritism toward that particular property owner, and it's also allowing
for uses on this single site that would be prohibited in all the surrounding sites on similarly situated properties within the same district. So, again, going back to this concept of uniformity, you're not providing uniformity. So, the courts have said, and there's a whole body of case law, 40, 50 years worth in Massachusetts,
that says you can't single out parcels for more favorable zoning treatment. But there's also the flip side of this spot zoning context which the courts have referred to as reverse spot zoning where you single out a parcel not for more favorable treatment but for more restrictive treatment because the
opposite happens because maybe neighbors show up and say we really don't want this to occur or that to occur on a particular property. So please please downzone the property. Please make it more difficult for somebody to do that on this property. We don't want you to zone all the properties around it to prohibit that from occurring, but just
prohibit it from occurring on this one site or these two sites or these three sites, this spot within the larger zoning district. So, in my mind, when I saw this proposal, the first thing that came to mind was that it looked to me like it could be spot zoning. Now, I'm not offering an opinion here that it is
spot zoning. That's an opinion that only the attorney general can offer or a court of law can offer if there's a challenge. But what I will tell you is that when a proposal like this is put forth, it's an immediate red flag because you're singling out in this case two very specific properties. So much so that the zoning they're connected in the same wetland
zone. Even though they're not wet now, they have been in the past. And one of the reasons we didn't do the roads in blood road so far was because of wet, right? And that's fine. And I'm not I'm not going to speak to wetlands because that's even beyond the the perview of
this planning board. Wetlands is a conservation commission issue. Wetlands is under a Russ is under a whole different statutory scheme. I've heard reference already to chapter 131 and section 40 uh excuse me, chapter 40 section 131. That's the wetland protection act. That's the conservation commission's jurisdiction. So if this property can't be developed because it's
wet or because it has environmentally sensitive resources on it, that's an issue for the con. It's not an issue for the zoning bylaw to address. Not an issue that's even within the purview of the planning board and not something that the attorney general or any court will consider if there's a spot zoning challenge. So again, my perview is very limited here. I'm simply looking at this
question as does this constitute spot zoning or more appropriately reverse spot zoning or does it not? And and I'm concerned I'm concerned that when this gets to the AG, the AG may either reject it or may issue an approval subject to a caveat that could be reverse spot zoning. And I'm concerned that if there
were to be a challenge by some citizen or some developer or proposed developer of a property like this that they would elect that this constitutes reverse spot zoning because to me this is sort of a textbook case of reverse spot zoning. The way that you typically get around reverse spot zoning as a municipality is
you show that the effort to reszone a particular parcel is a consequence of some sort of an extensing extensive planning process. And so if you can show that well actually we look very carefully at this spot that we're resoning and you can look at the last 6 n 12 months worth of planning board meetings and uh discussions that were
had at town meeting and select board meetings and we've engaged in third party outside consultant and we've determined that for planning due to legitimate planning rationale this site can't be used for this particular purpose then maybe you could just justify the what would otherwise be spot
zoning but that's a concern I have so that's the essence of what my memo said that I have the concern I think it would be subject to challenge. But again, I'm not I'm not expressing an opinion on whether this is the right thing to do, whether town meeting should vote in favor of it. That's beyond my purview. That's for town meeting voters to decide. And ultimately tonight, it's for
this board to decide whether or not to to support it. Thank you. Well, I'm speaking from a geology geomorphology. So, we're going to get the public comment or we're going to get to more discussion shortly, but we I got one more um community, what do we call it?
concerned citizen comment and then we get to the planning board questions or comments and then I think we can open it up I believe and then we have planning board discussion and then question. Um this was submitted
um we received a comment from select board chair Lori Shiffron but now we have a comment from citizen Lori Shiffron. Um this is via email. It says, "I'm unable to attend your public hearing on Monday the 22nd. I am writing
my opinion as a resident and voter of Townsen regarding the attempt of spot zoning on this warrant article. The townowned property was transferred to the Townsen Housing Trust by a town meeting vote. Grant funds were used to
assess the options for the future useability of the land to gain funds for the trust. There was a great deal of discussion at that meeting for more affordable housing for all town employees i.e. firefighters, police
officers, teachers, teachers to have more opportunities to purchase in towns. Affordable housing does affordable housing. I believe it's doesn't automatically mean section 8 housing or
changing the flavor of our town community as some of the petitioners have voiced because these town owned parcels adjacent to other privately owned properties does not meet the abutters or any other petitioners.
Um that because these town town owned parcels adjacent to other privately owned properties does not meet the abutters or any other petitioners have rights to use this land recreationally. Respectfully Lori E. Schiffer 28 Parker
Hill Road Towns and Mass. Okay. So we've we've had the presentation from the public. We've gone through our mandatory referrals. We've had one question. There's should be one of the packets from Mr. our side of the building. Commissioner, did he say something? I thought he said
it. All right, let's let's see if it's in the Beth, do you know where it is in the putting it on the screen now? Okay, thank you. I put it up on the screen for you.
Ah, well, all right. I get to cheat here, I think. So this is from the building commissioner and comments. I see no reason that these two lots should be singled out as not to allow multif
family. The table of use allows multif family within the rav districts with special permit from the ZBA and should not be expected by Garcetti. So we've gone through all of our referral comments to my knowledge. We've gone
through the one citizen uh submission comment and now we're at the point where uh planning board questions or comments relative to the rationale for the proposal applicable code impacts uh etc.
So open it up to the board any questions or comments or initial thoughts. I think it would be helpful if they have town council describe our perview here so the public's aware of that.
Um just so everybody's on the same page of where we are our involvement the limits of our involvement and stuff. Adam would you mind commenting on the scale the scope of the planning board in this matter? Sure I think I can do that briefly. So
the role of the planning board with any zoning proposal, any proposal to adopt new zoning or amend existing zoning uh is simply to offer a report with recommendations to town meeting. It's not the function of the planning board to vote to approve a zoning change that
requires action by town meeting uh and approval by the attorney general. But under chapter 48 section 5, whether the zoning amendment arises as a consequence of a process that was undertaken by the planning board itself or some other board of commissioner committee or through citizens petition, every zoning
proposal needs to make its way through the planning board as a prerequisite to town meeting action. So the role of this board is simply to review the proposal and to either offer its support or its opposition to the proposal and to ultimately vote on a report and a recommendation to town meeting. And
presumably you would do that at the conclusion of tonight's meeting and that report would be uh is typically read aloud in town meeting prior to a vote on the amendment. I would also like Adam to address and define the term affordability in its
legal nature. Sure. Um, so I'm gonna I'm gonna caveat this by saying that the opinion I offered earlier relative to potential reverse spot zoning is an opinion I would have offered whether this prop this property or these two properties were owned by the affordable housing
trust as I know they are or anybody else somebody I don't know some resident or citizen of the community um has nothing to do with who owns the property. I understand that that may be the impetus behind the proposal because there is concern about how the property might be used by the affordable housing trust, but the spot zoning analysis applies
irrespective of who the owner of the property might be. Um, so I'm happy to offer a definition of affordability, but it hasn't really factored into my analysis. Um, when it comes to affordability, there are different definitions in in Massachusetts law for what constitutes affordable housing.
When most of you think about affordable housing, you think of this state inventory that's published, the subsidized housing inventory. It's on what used to be DHCD's website. It's now known as the Executive Office of Housing and Liverable Community. And they keep this tally for every one of the cities and towns in the state. And they determine the percentage of your
dwelling units that constitute affordable quote unquote housing. And there's this 10% standard that you're supposed to satisfy. And once you meet that 10% standard, you are immune to unfriendly projects like chapter 40 projects. To qualify as affordable
housing on that inventory, a particular housing unit, whether it's a for sale unit or it's a rental unit, has to be affordable to a household that earns 70 to 80% of the area median income. Doesn't mean that that's a
maximum. That can can be less. It can be section 8 housing, which is 30% of area median income. It can be in the 50 to 60% range. Uh so there's no there's no bottom limit on what cost is affordable but there is an upper limit on what cost is affordable and so the area median
income is calculated based upon these metropolitan statistical areas that uh the US housing and urban development department has has defined um and they include many of the communities that surround you and it's based upon household size and so there's a there's
a a sliding scale from a household of one individual to a household of eight individuals um and they determine what is affordable to a household that is earning 70 to 80% of that area median income and that's considered to be affordable. So there's no simple answer
to that question. I try to give examples when I'm asked the question because often there's a a request for a comparison between what many people know as section 8 housing um and what affordable housing typically means these days in the context of chapter 40B
developments and local inclusionary uh zoning bylaws which is that 70 to 80% range which is two and a half times that 30% mark um that would apply to section 8 housing and what I give as examples typically are you know family a family of three or four, maybe a single parent,
maybe a maybe maybe spouses um and with professions like um police officers, firefighters, school teachers. Um those are the professions that very often in my experience fall into the categories um and qualify for the support housing. I'm involved on behalf of many of our
communities in assisting and conveying these units. And I I see many of these units purchased by those sorts of individuals that maybe want to reside in the communities where they're working or nearby um and they qualify for this type of housing. Um that's about the shortest answer I can give to a question.
Any more questions or comments from the board? I just have a what a clarification question. Um I know where Lori said it'll be affordable housing for all town employees. Can affordable housing be designated only for town
um employees or town residents? So, not only for town residents or town employees. Um again, this is actually a a very very much a hot button topic and has been for as long as I've been practicing. I can remember I I had meetings at the state house 15 years ago
on this issue of um local preference is what it's referred to. a preference that is provided for new affordable housing built in your community for those who are already in your community or those who work in your community or those with children in your community school systems. And it used to be 20 years ago um that municipalities could require a
local preference for up to 70 or 80% of the units within the affordable units within a development. Um the state has been uh has cracked down a bit on that and has made it more difficult to establish that local preference. You have to show that in imposing that local preference or in providing for that
local preference, there will be no disparit impact to protected classes that you're not going to have there's not going to be a discriminatory effect by virtue of you providing this this this local preference. What was noticed in many communities was that if you're in a community where the demographics
are such that maybe maybe your community is 85 or 90% white, but when you take 70 to 80% of the units in development that are affordable and you designate them local preference by virtue of basic math, you're providing 70 to 80% of
those units and great probability to white people in your community. And that has a disparit or a discriminatory impact on protected classes. And so there's now a process that needs to be established to show that your imposition of a local preference won't have that effect. So the the short answer to your
question is you can't limit it to people that work in the community or people who currently live in the community. You can try to impose a local preference if you can meet that hiking standards. So because I hear this all the time about, you know, this is going to be for
county town employees and in actuality it may not be. That's correct. Count employees if they meet the the if they meet the income limitations and the asset limitations to qualify for affordable housing would have the ability to uh sort of throw
their h their hat in the ring, right? But there's no specific saying guarantee that they will get that house. There is no guarantee. So that's why whenever I see uh people saying well this is all for
the tone of belief that's really not a true statement I think to say it and I I didn't I know you referred to Lor's email or her letter I think Veronica said the same thing but um because it's it may provide opportunities to those individuals but
it certainly couldn't be limited um or guaranteed to those and I just want that particular Thank you. Do you have any more thoughts, Robert? Or how about Heartley before we get to Robert? Um, okay. Nothing at this time. Thank you. All right, Robert.
Yes. Um, well, I've been on this board for over three years, I believe. And prior to my being on this board, um I as a lay person felt the portable
was for us and was told it was for our teachers and our firefighters and our policemen. So in the course of my position on this board, I've learned otherwise.
Um and what I have learned or or what I was made may aware of is the affordability value is priced upon what I found in this town
um Middle Sex County. And if you consider the towns within Middle Sex County, there are a lot of very affluent towns, much more affluent than Toms.
And so the average affordable housing for us locally versus what it is on a county level is significantly different. And so it ends up
um for example um the mean market value of property in Cambridge or Arlington or Lexington is far more higher than ours. So relatively speaking, if you're from
Lexington or Arlington, uh this is truly an affordable house. But from our perspective locally it is not and we don't have any control on
that and we are subject to our county values or how they determine the prices. So in terms of what I want the public here to be aware of is affordable is not
the way you think you know buying an automobile is affordable comparatively. Um um and so I've been very disappointed with the program at large and um and then the other thing that I've
experienced here um with these proposals that have come before this board and as you understand our board our role as a planning board is to not get involved with conservation
and the other um jurisdictions that other uh regulatory agents have but in looking at the actual site plan. So um and then I find that developers
um repeatedly use the same plan over and over um which makes pretty monotonous looking buildings. the there's a lack of concern of the actual
occupants. Um their focus is building as much as possible for the most profit. And so through my course and my presence on this board, I've been trying to
implement zoning changes that and you'll see coming forward with terms like wellness and well-being of the people that are occupying the buildings. And um so um I just wanted
the public to be aware of what affordable really means and that's why I asked Adam to speak on that and I wanted the bo the public to be aware of the jurisdiction
that this board has. Um so um so again I have no other comments than to move on with this discussion in the article without getting into a lot of emotional language. Um but I think I got those two
points across. Thank you. Thank you Robert. Anything else? Anything else from the board thus far? All right. I think my only comments is I I am concerned hearing uh you know the potential Adam's review of this being
potentially spot zoning. Um but ultimately I do see it as a decision that will come up at town meeting this upcoming Thursday. So that's you know that's kind of where my head's at right now. I I have an issue with the spot zoning question too. So I think we're now at a point we can open it up for public comment or
question. Um, my first comment is quite frankly I I've been involved in other things and didn't even know that they had zoned that poor building at all. I think that whole area is pretty much the bottom of a hill and because of the number of people the
septic leeching it does move downhill and it isn't all filtered out. we're in a lot of sand and there, you know, the less vegetation there is to process this stuff, the more further downhill we're going to get the smell. And um I don't
care who's going to build. I don't care if it's portable. I don't care if it's a mini mansion. I don't care if it's just one person going to build on the whole thing. I really think that that this side of that hill is done. The other side of all of the city in New Pittsburgh, that drains different. So I
I don't think we're spoting. I think we're eliminating a potential future has it with the downhill water and um and it's an it's a migration path to wildlife still has a migration path there
and um I think those those are the main things I wanted to point out. I don't care who lives there. I don't think we should be developing there. I think there's more suitable land somewhere else in this town. Sure. All right. And I wouldn't if I could afford it, I'd buy it myself and let the town have the money from that and just
I think I saw first and then go. Okay. Um I I'm just going to respond to something that my sister said. Um Cindy said something about there are numerous houses being foreclosed perhaps being
abandoned. Um I would like to see those explored before we attempt to develop the land such as the blood road properties, the parcels. I mean there are more avenues and in my opinion and I think a lot of
people see it too. And as far as the affordability aspect um I'm really not happy about the fact that any affordability is not going to be advantageous towards the town's people who want to stay here. That's
That's my take. Thank you. Oh, I just have a question. Excuse me. This is the first time I've seen this map. Sure. Is that an actual proposal from the housing authority? So,
uh I that is from a concept. Yeah. I have one question about that too. So we haven't received as the planning board like any formal submissions for conceptual preliminary plan.
Okay. So it would essentially be another road that runs parallel to blood road. Note that the houses would be built on it would be 10 buildings. 10 oh 10 buildings.
10 buildings. I don't Does anybody know how many units that it looks like? It's 20 per building. So, two per 20 units. This is see like
I think Kim has some comments. So to clarify, the concept was provided by a consultant to the housing trust on March 20th, 2025 without any input from community
members. And it is uh 10 units. There are 20 units with three bedrooms, five units with two bedrooms, and five units with one. They're proposing the driveway off of Elm Street West. In our zoning bylaws, it says that if you're to put in
an apartment building, the frontage is supposed to be 500 ft. And that frontage is 318 ft. It also says if you're to put in an apartment building, it's supposed to be 8 acres. Parcel is 7 acres. Under 14537, it also says that a driveway is supposed to be,000 ft. I haven't
measured yet what they are proposing on the driveway shared. It also said if you're put in an apartment that there's only supposed to be one and not multiple. So while says that what um as King has proposed is spot zoning or reverse spot zoning, I would also say to
our community that what is proposed by this consultant is also a type of spot zoning. It is an allowed use of overdevelopment of a parcel that is wet perpetually wet outside of the wetlands. I would um challenge that there's pools
on there that are not accounted for. Um there's ladies slippers growing throughout that property. Um there's other floral fauna that lives there. You walk anytimes on the property folks that live there and there are critters around
that um call that property home. Um, so from a perspective of that, there was a builder that build up to that property that did build on that property. Just like when we spent a lot of money to buy some other open space that builders were not building on,
often times there's not. So when this came before our town um um in May 2022 [Music] um I actually walked up to the microphone um mostly was on the other side and said I'm going up against you
and I think we're actually on the right on the same side of this one because environmentally that property is extremely sensitive. It actually flows down to a perennial stream. So it's in the 200 ft. The driveway that they're
sighting is right on the 200 foot mark of that perennial stream. So it's an extremely sensitive area. And I say this having grown up of one of the biggest developments of high density housing on West Mon Road. I say this having lived
at Pine Ridge. So I am not in my backyard. I appreciate housing. This is just an extremely sensitive lot. I happen to live close to it, but it's very sensitive. Um, when it was being
transferred out of town into the housing trust, why are we doing this? This is not a viable option. I was on the master plan, I advocated for high density housing that we rethink. I actually since our last meeting and took some
pictures to bring to a planning board of some communities that are really doing some clever options to bring affordability and when I listen to all the tapes which the amount of time that I spend listening to tapes um is inordinate and to hear the housing trust
say that 10 of these are actually low income which low income is for our our peers our community members it's not um low income Attorney Costa said, um, affordability is based on all of Middle Sex County. So
to only have 10% of this proposed site for folks can actually afford it in our community flies in the face of what we're actually trying to do. So it's not a good lot for multiple
properties. when it got voted on. So, good luck to whoever tries to develop that. Um, the fact that this comes before us as a concept without input. Um, I don't know what happened at the July meeting because it wasn't taped,
but I understand that that was meeting to talk about the cost to the consultant to develop the RFP. But in our fiscally trying times in your community, different RFP. Okay. Okay. So that was the RFP for the
the sale of the parcel on H on HS road. So what happened to the discussion of the RFP you were going to be for the consultant to develop the RFP for this because the last meeting that was taped the feedback was that um our our town council was not
going to be able to develop that RFP. Which RFP the RFP to get the bid for this? the consultant had said in a meeting that you need to have funding for it because we don't have the funding for it, right?
So, it's just sort of so it's just thank you for clarifying because that July meeting taped so you don't we don't know the results of that. So, I don't know if we can deviate and have them explain it. It costs money to develop the RFP to go to bid to have
someone bid on this actual property and where you said that this might happen in the spring. the actual cycle for funding for people to get in, doesn't that actually start this law? So, we would miss that cycle. Technically, it was an RFP to request to
solicit public input and feedback, right? That's what we're going to hire a consultant for and then bring that feedback back and then design the RFP in what the public were hoping for. Right. So if that's So if that's not happening in your this is like your bayware, but
because that didn't because we didn't see what happened in July. If that schedule is off, what would be the trajectory now for this project and I know that's putting you on the spot. You might not have it. We have that funding. So we have zero
dollars and until we have $8,000 or so for a study, nothing happens. help me on this. Um, housing trust money, can they fund it without a town meeting?
I know the amount picture with your town administrator. Um, and and I'm asking that not to not to bug you, but to give perspective for all of us. Can this even go forward at
this point? Um because while I don't think it's the right project and I'm I'm always game to roll the dice of litigation, no litigation, um if it gets shot down um with a no instead of a yes
vote, it might be delayed that there's time to try to fix something in our bylaws. um we should be protected under 14537 except for it can come under 40B um to try to to develop that site
through the housing trust I would guess. Um so so there's that that potential. Um it also gives us time to try to figure out how to target harder than that but you can't against 40. if if if someone comes
in with 40B, it doesn't matter. Um, but that's why I was asking those questions because I I didn't know what happened with that July process of where we were with that cycle, but it sounds like we different. We're kind of a year away.
Yeah. I mean, affordable housing projects and plans take years to even getting shovels in the ground. Yeah. And you're seeing it in like communities nearby where you have 180 apartments in April. It's going to take them seven years before they actually go to shovel and the world will probably four or five
times and that's been four or five years in the making, right? Yeah. Um yes, um like previously stated in the citizens input that um this probably has
no real planning board, but I don't fully believe either as opposed to as to people really knowing what they were voting for. And the fact is that um like Mr. stated, people thought affordable in theory that's a wonderful thought. I'd
love to see affordable housing, but in theory, this is not intending to go where it's supposed to go, either in sight or in theory. Um like I say, I mean, we picked those two spots, those two spots supposedly were feasible for all those reasons mentioned. But again,
when you mention for people with moderate income or accessibility to sites, it's, you know, who's going to walk from Blood Road to uh the center of town, you know, that kind of thing and all those amenities. But plus, when the uh when it was voted on at town meeting
again, people did not know and that it's affecting us this way forward. I believe it's probably not even with uh just regarding those two properties to tell you the truth. I mean all those properties people had no idea about any of those properties being developed in
such a way that it might be counterintuitive to the whole purpose. The um the fact is this is like the start I think of a of a way for people to to try to get to more creative solutions as far as having more housing stock in general
that's supposed to decrease the um the prices of housing. So that in itself would make towns a more of affordable place to live. Never mind doing these kind of spot zoning or reverse zoning or whatever you want to call it. It's not that anybody's against affordable housing. It's got to be affordable for
the people who live here and not cost the citizens more and all that followup that I was describing, but it's got to be affordable for people coming into all stages of their life. coming into town, drying out, people aging in place. There's got to be a a better mechanism than this. This stuff is that is
dividing the town because that's what it is. This is very divisive and it should be that way. Uh there's got to be a better way. Thank you. Go ahead, Robert. I think being on this board and being in
tune with a lot of different housing programs that come before this board, um I have a general observation that I would think
that a affordable housing can be achieved and um directing this to housing authorities about re how they approach these projects.
And it seems to me that it's a quick remedy to have a massive project um and get it all out of the way it wants to deliver an objective
established by the legislature for 20% affordable housing. So when you deal with projects of that magnitude, it generates all of these issues. Um so
I think housing authorities is my opinion should be more focused on smaller projects with less densities in multiple areas instead of concentrating them in one large project to make the
problem go away. Secondly, the town's not aware probably of how many housing programs are subject to communities here. And when you look at them, all the different
ones, 40B, affordable housing, age restricted housing, elderly housing, um, and there probably more that I can't even mention.
So all of those are available to developers. Okay. So why? So if you imagined that a developer
went into a community and implemented each one of those programs, how many housing units you would have at one time? The other thing is I get very upset because this is all
um a bureaucratic view on things when the bottom line is through technology through construction practices and if affordable housing can be done in
real economic terms rather than subsidies from communities and state funds and grants. Um, so in that respect, let my opinion is let it go.
Let the let the let the devel find a way to provide less expensive housing instead of coming to us to provide it. And there are other incentives a town can use besides
uh to encourage more housing or reduce cost. And I'll give you a couple of suggestions. I don't know. Somebody's got to implement them. I don't have much life left. Okay. But there's a lot of
properties in town that the town owns through tax revenue or, you know, or what's considered unbuildable lots. Specific ones of those can have a lot of relief and support from the town by
relief from per permit cost, uh, tax incentives to have something there to meet a quota of 10%. Uh, and there's a lot of distressed properties could that be could be recycled. The problem is
nobody wants to spend the time and money to do that when they can do a big project at once and get it all done. So I those are my personal comments. Those are coming to me as a member of the planning board. Those are coming to me
as a professional architect. Okay? because construction technology and it's developing daily can really deliver affordable housing without a without all of this other baloney. I'm sorry. That's my opinion.
Thank you. Hardly I say. Yeah, I've noticed several people here tonight saying that uh this tends to be a wet area. Uh, and uh, the woman in the Rocket Club shirt mentioned the problems with uh,
potential problems with sewage and I was just wondering has anyone taken any um, ratings or done any research as to the groundwater situation in that area? Yes. So, uh, I mean we as a planning board
like this is only we have a citizen petition in front of us, right? And to my understanding, it's based off of a concept from the affordable housing. So we don't have formal plans in front of us. Okay. I just I just I'll just talk about
water and stuff, right? Flowing as was addressed earlier by Adam. There are other regulatory boards that have jurisdictions that we don't have. So I don't want to go totally off the rails here, but I see Tammy's hand and I see Kim's hand as well.
So, I wanted something clarified on these properties. Somebody went to each of these properties and looked at them and did the um the surveying around it and they find them to be completely fine to build on.
Is that what it said in there? No, that's not the impression I've gotten. You need to read the bottom right of what it says there that actually says to the contrary of that. Oh, okay. because on the coming off of Indian Springs which is on top of a
berry hill that whole thing that is one unit of water that flows down in my particular property which abuts both properties cuz I'm on the back side abuing what 52 is on this side and the other one's on this side. I have ground
water that shoots in the spring right out of the ground and flows right down to West Elm Street. I also have on the side of my property um off of Lunenburgg Road no West Elm Street side there is um
right by the rock wall it's almost like a pond about this big and it's goes right down. It's just water. It's like a well. It's like a well and I'm positive that other parts of these properties have the same exact thing
on this. There are old wells or at least there were old wells. I don't know if they're still there. Do you guys want to just I don't want to get we could easily have a long discussion about every individual property and such but Kim had end up next. I want to keep them as general as we can. My dad's not here to tell you the
whole story, but there is a story of a whole a well in that area that is for everybody's water taking. I think it's actually on my property, but he can tell you that whole story, but the the spring does run all the way down and everyone that lives in that area, even in the
winter, we probably responded there. Um the tree in my front yard gets hit every winter from the ice and the one across from my brother gets hit every winter because of the ice. It runs pretty much year round coming down there right to right where they're proposing that driveway right down past that.
I saw a hand from Cindy King online. Cindy King too I believe. Oh no that's one. I am trying to unmute and all this other stuff. Excuse me. Thank you for calling on me. Um I just wanna God I had it all
in my head. I'm in I'm against this this petition, the citizens petition. Uh for one reason, I have to um I do I'm I'm thankful for Adam speaking about the concerns about this being spot zoning, which as soon as I saw the petition, that's exactly what it seemed like to
me. And I I think clearly based on the conversation that almost everyone has had since we started this public hearing tonight is that, you know, I think we're getting a little way away from the fact that this is a citizens petition regarding zoning or or changing the
zoning on a particular lot. And without regard to what's going on on that lot and clearly by the conversation and even the purpose of someone getting this citizens petition going is to restrict
something that is perceived that the towns and affordable housing trust is doing and it is nimi to that we don't want this here and that I mean I'm kind of overwhelmed by this that and there's almost all the conversation keeps
finding ourselves into the jurisdiction of the consom which you know whether it's wet or not is not part of zoning that's part of you know conservation and following I mean I've been following a lot of
board meetings but I follow the town affordable housing trust and I know that a lot of what they've been doing is is very preliminary they're they've got the they did do a concept which they're looking at if this is not the
the plan like they're going to it's not shovel ready where they're going to go in there and they got to they're going to get a developer to start digging and building these homes that are on this concept. I think some of the things that they've talked about sound really cute and they sound like a really great plan and but it's way early and even I mean
Karen talked about well we don't have any money right now which is okay that's good that delays everything if for those that might be concerned but part of the the plan or the um procedures for moving forward with this is that the Affordable
Housing Trust has to have their own public hearing to get community input. but on what can be done up here on on on this property, which they haven't gotten to yet. And I'm concerned about it because based on how we're all reacting
to a citizens petition for zoning change, which isn't really the plan that the housing trust is doing, we're fighting over the housing trust plan that they don't even have that this is strictly they're in discussion. They haven't gotten there yet. They they want
to do some RFPs, but a lot of that is still part of the discussion with, hey, we we got this great idea. Is this even doable? They haven't gotten to the stage where any plans would need to be reviewed by people like the conservation
commission and water. I mean, water department, I don't know if you're aware of it, but they got a um I forgot what you call it. um where they they're going to be putting a water tower on that property as well because uh they want to put um that's already been um delineated
in its planned that because they want to provide water to go up Lunberg Road on town water. So this property has been designated as a spot to be able to put that in. So that is coming into the neighborhood and there isn't a public hearing about that. That is and that's a
good thing for the town. But um but this pro if there are all these concerns with the property whether it be uh ladies slippers or ledge or or water or whatever then those those issues are well on the road. I mean those will be
reviewed. The Thompson Affordable Housing Trust isn't past that. They're not in a plan where we don't care about that and we're just going to start building. Uh you know we've got these fake plans or something. There's nothing nefarious here about what the this the
place where the the trust is on trying to figure out what they want to do with this. I know they've worked on a lot of properties and trying to figure out their best options and right now they're on this one. They a lot of the other properties um don't have any potential for things like town water and it it
makes it impossible to develop any at all right now particularly where the place where towns is. So, this is I think we're very premature with trying to do a knee-jerk reaction and have this type of citizens petition to just block everything that you don't even know what
you're blocking yet. And and I think that causes harm to the future of towns and when something may be able to be done, you know, 50 or 100 years from now. And we got to go back in history and say, well, what happened in 2025?
And I I think we're restricting we're we're restrict we're restricting I don't know if somebody's talking over me but you know we're restricting the opportunity that we have as a town to do anything with this property that might
actually be beneficial. So I I think that we're just premature in this type of a of a of an action. And you know and I think Adam's correct. I I mean I think Adam's absolutely right. I think he's really talking softly on it. But I think that there is it is to me I mean right
away it's spot zoning. We're just going after not because of what the types of things we don't want in this property, but tonight everybody's talked about what the affordable housing trust is doing. This is absolutely clearly to prevent what the the trust is doing. Not what you want on the property, but it's
a reaction to what the trust is doing. And I I have to say that we this is we shouldn't be doing this. And that I think that not passing this petition article will not cause the bulldozer to start coming down West Elm Street. It's just not going to happen. So I think
that we should that I ask the town to hold off on this type of an article and wait and see and give the trust an opportunity to have their own public hearing so that we can discuss these issues and even calling in you know whatever steps. I don't know what's how
you develop anything around here. I don't know how to get permits and things, but whatever the process is at at some point there is a conservation commission issue and maybe, you know, there's a way for them to get ahead of that. And if those things are true, then the trust would be in a better shape to
find that out sooner than later rather than deal with it just as a this type of a petition that if it's not buildable, then I'm sure they would like to know that sooner than later. All right, I'll stop now. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you. Um I understand what the other city can say. Um however, this is my take on it. Um sometimes if you it's hard to stop the ball from rolling downhill. Things keep snowballing snowballing. I mean I
support this petition fully and I understand what what they're everyone here is trying to say. Um, let's nip this in the bud before we get more more and more expense in looking at this. We know what the propertyy's like. All the
neighbors know what it's like. And to keep going on it, there's going to be more town expense. You see what I'm saying? So, let's not let's stop it before it goes too far. Thanks. Um, Robert, before we get to you, I want to see if we can wrap up public comment and then get to a point where we as a board make a decision. I
I just have one statement. Okay. All right. What did we learn from this tonight? I think we know the housing's authority and the housing trust has a duty and a
cast to the town. We recognize their effort to do something to help that. What we did observe is that this scope of project
is so ambitious. I and so we have to work with the housing authority so they can do what their perview is. But if we observe what's going on
this if these projects that the housing authority wants to entertain instead of having such a big scope if they were a much smaller scope and there were more diversified in town then the
magnitude of concern would be far less. And so I think we all learn our lesson from this tonight. Uh the housing authority probably should look at not
doing as many units at a time and doing smaller units in different areas of town and I think it would be more palatable for everybody to understand and support. Um, so,
so, Robert, I want I appreciate that. I think those comments fit in my mind, particularly when we're going to discuss if we're going to support or oppose the citizens petition. M so I just want to you know I love spending my Mondays with you guys and I would love to spend your longer but do
we have any other I know this is only one part of the discussion and maybe this is future to discussion for other boards and other but as far as the town properties once they get developed in general each property only allows us to be in a safe
harbor am I correct I'm sorry can I direct the attorney about uh that makes us go into a safe harbor for a couple of years, right? In order to get to the affordable level that we need for 10%. The challenge is at four right now around four. So, so
say one project takes two years, then we go through the next four or five properties. So, how many of them are going to be what is our limit going to be reached? And but what if we don't reach the limit and we still have to go what do we do then? M attorney attorney general not attorney
general governor Healey said that we can use state land. So I mean this is projecting but once we go through all the town property do we you know where do we go from here? This is just a small scope but where do we go from here? So I happy to have Adam comment. I don't
you know we're running the planning board right now. I think the engaging in hypotheticals can get far too far yeah extreme and outrageous but if you have any initial comments Adam I mean I I'll I'll comment courtesy briefly um you know once the 10% standard is
satisfied it's satisfied until the next census which of course occurs every 10 years right um there's a a bit of a trick to how those those numbers are calculated because over the 10-year period the Commonwealth doesn't calculate the baseline growth it has affordable units
is consistently to the inventory, but then every 10 years the uh the the the denominator changes and suddenly you drop below where you thought you might have been. You're a long ways from 10%. So I don't think that's even really a realistic concern for Townsen unless you had a 500 unit 100% affordable project
that you were considering building tomorrow which could put you immediately over 10%. Uh and provide you with that safe harbor. There are other shorter term safe harbors, one year, two year safe harbors if you create a certain amount of affordable housing within one calendar year. You can get a short-term
reprieve from uh 40b developments. The the real objective in satisfying your 10% standard qualifier for safe harbor is to be able to fend off unfriendly projects. So to to to Robert's point before pursuing it multiple smaller projects versus pursuing one larger
project, I understand that that may be more palatable in some sense because you don't see these gigantic projects on sites that maybe you think shouldn't have that number of units. The downside is that it takes quite a bit of time to develop a number of smaller projects and in the meantime you are susceptible to
any unfriendly developer coming in choosing a parcel that's far worse than any parcel that the town owns or the affordable housing trust owns and saying I'm going to put 50 units or 100 units or 300 units on there and you can't do anything about it because I'm going to do it under chapter 42. That's sort of the driving force between some
municipalities opting for this larger is better approach. It's they're two sides of the same coin and it's a just a question of preference as to which direction you go in. But um unfortunately you're a long ways from your 10% standard and so in the meantime you're you're just subject to the chapter 40 law like most municipalities
in Massachusetts are. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Do we have any more public comment on the floor and here? Can I ask a question? Sure. With this petition to zone these parcels, does it change any of the tax
liability from the zoning side for the town? Because it's a zero, it generates zero dollars in tax right now, whereas an apartment building would generate $150,000 a year, you know, in optimistic world. Sure. I think that's an important part of
people to recognize. as someone who does this in the town I reside in. Tax revenue is the lifeblood of your I saw uh Chris's hand first. Um I'm new to this guys. This is the first meeting I've been here and I've
just been listening trying not to say anything but everyone has concerns. My concern is completely different than theirs. Um, I'm looking to the future of of if they do these projects.
Like you said, they were putting in 50 units or something or other that they were proposing. 70 It's 75 bedrooms. 75 bedrooms. Okay. That's 75 more people in town. We'll say times two for
kids and everything. We're a town with no money now. If we do these projects, the money we lose by not doing them, does that going to make up for, you know, the more firemen we need, the more
infrastructure is it going to cost the infrastructure every everything everything that this is going to cost the town. You weigh the pros and cons of it financially. For me, I look at it as going, "All right, we're going to lose.
I don't I don't even know what the number is. I'm gonna make up a number because like I said, I'm new to this. $6 million, whatever the grant money we that we've lost. Is it going to cost us5
million in school costs, all the other costs that we have to occur to do these projects? I don't know. I And I don't mean to be, you know, going off on a tangent. I'm just curious
because I don't know. I I just want you guys to consider that as part of planning because it does involve everybody whether it goes through or not. Thank you, Christian. Yeah, Sandra. Again, thank you. Um that was my one of my
concerns with the MBTA was like the cost of more students in the school. We want to close down Ashby potentially. Okay. Where do we go from here? We cut staff already. We have high ratios in the school. the infrastructure. The state does not seem to address our concerns.
They're more they just want to smush all this housing in. Um I heard that the state knows all the environmental concerns of all the towns and stuff. No, they don't. They do not. How can they? They don't live here in our communities. The governor does not live in our
community. She does not know the state. You know, I don't want to cut off so long to get our funding. I don't disagree that the state doesn't know much in general. Uh I'm not sure how relevant uh how that applies right now to this petition that you guys put together.
Well, the fact that the it's going to stretch everything, all these housing projects, the infrastructure, the environment, it's going to be impacted. And I think Lois was going to say something about the oxygen trees. You cut down all the trees, your air quality is going down.
Sure. Sure. Okay. All right. Thank Do we have any more comments? I have one just reiterating the lack of the frontage, the lack of acorage and the reverse um zone. What do you call I'm sorry
spot like wouldn't we want the answers to that from the zoning board before anyone continues the lack of the wetlands? I think that we said at the beginning that we did delineate the wetlands but when and does that have to
happen again? all this effort into this plot of land which might not meet the needs unless the zoning board makes a decision. Correct. Planning board mean so um so that's I guess why I'm just still
like all right I'm hearing all of all of the arguments. We're still left with some of those questions. Where does that leave us? I think so. My reaction just as a member of the plan board is I everything we've heard tonight I think is very valid concerns from from the neighbors from everybody
in general how it affects the town and whatnot. I I think to my knowledge as Kieran said you know this is just a concept that's been presented. I don't I don't believe I I mean sure I it sounds like I'm not a member of the affordable
housing trust and I haven't necessarily read or watched all these meetings but we as the planning board and our like statutory authority to review plans and approve something like this we just don't have any hard plans on this nor to my knowledge has it been reviewed by the
board of health for septic or soils or the conservation commission at all and I think as Kieran said it's the affordable housing trust hasn't even this seems to me to be the for first moment of public comment significant public comment on
this matter in general which I think really should be at the affordable housing trust while they're considering you know this in you know further and such that that's just my reaction as a member I tend to agree the housing authority or
the housing trust should have had the initial public meeting on this. Um they did they did. Oh, but they would continue to like they're not it doesn't money to pay for the study. Sure. So once there's funding then it will be
public forum and interact like it'll be like come all out. We did this in school. everyone come and give us your feedback and then they retoolled the project, did it again, presented it again and then allowed the different boards to vote on it and through the
process. It's been three years since we did that and there's still not a shovel on the ground post office on 113. I have to give you thought in terms of how long it takes and the process takes forever. I think because I want to segue into us as I
believe we've had pretty substantial public comment. Sandra, I see your hand again about funding. Okay. Okay. I don't think we've talked that much about funding other than they still money zero dollars. Once they do the forest I don't know if I get the right track for station on Wallace Hill Road.
There will be the money from there. So it's going to go quicker than what people think. Sure. I I don't want to get into semantics, but I think that would still be part of the public process to which the affordable housing trust would, you know, if they however their Kieran expressed that they're going to go through it, they're have some fun,
they're going to put out a study, going to invite all the public for feedback before they have, you know, something more than just a concept drawing. I, you know, going I think it's time for us to make a decision whether we support, oppose, or have no comment for the public um for the town meeting coming up
Thursday. But I I would struggle to say that we should prevent this process from happening by preventing any zoning on any zoning like this on that parcel. So I mean that's just how I'm thinking about it.
Say that again please. I would think if we I mean this will be the decision of the town meeting. Right. Right. So our job as a planning board is to comment you know make a recommendation or not. Yes. And and I think all of the concerns brought up here are incredibly
valid. But I would think that if us saying yes, let's prohibit this and I understand the, you know, more of the residents and the neighbors approach, let's nip it in the butt now. But I I would struggle to say as a a member of the planning board representing the town that we shouldn't
let it go through the other processes. You know, I as a as a neighbor, I could say, "Yeah, you get rid of it. Stop it now." But I would think as a town official, I would want it to go through the other formal processes to get evaluated by the other departments to to think and to have a serious proposal in
front of us as a land board. That's how I'm feeling. That's how I'm reacting at it right now. But I want to see what you guys think and then I want to make a decision and vote and then it'll be up at town meeting for the public. Okay. So, any what thoughts, reactions, how you guys feel?
Okay. I mean, I do agree there's a lot of issues with this parcel. Um, so as as a resident, I have one thing, but as a planning board member, I agree with you that
um I would like to see the process go all the way through um and see it go through the conservation commission, go see it go through the board of health because if you have a lot of these issues with the water,
I don't see a a septic system going in for this many units, right? So, we're trying to nip it in the bud, save everybody time, energy, and money by saying, "Look, these are the problems with the property. Can we stop this now when we select another one so that what we submit is valid?"
And I I understand that. I understand that. And as a resident, I agree with you. But if I put on my planning board hat, I probably would go and vote not recommending it only because I feel
it needs to go through the complete process or I'm fine with no comment from the planning board either and just be neutral. And I'm I'm fine with it being neutral because part of me is one way and part of me is
the other way. And it would be hard for me to say I support it or don't support it. I'm kind of like a politician. Yeah, I'm a politician. Sorry. But no, you guys got to give me duct tape for
the next I do. I because as a resident I feel all your concerns and from what I understand the state's now saying we can build on wildlife refuge which doesn't totally as a citizen supposed to but um so that's
my two cents. Okay. My quandry is um I don't want to devastate the efforts that have been put here um to find ways to achieve affordable housing
and um and want to support our housing trust. Um, and then the other part of this is the concern about the spot zoning, which I think is a serious question that needs
to be resolved. Um, so I think I'm feel that I would have to support proceeding with this
and let you say this Robert, you mean the petition? As far as a as a member of the board and the board's recommendation, I think we should put our comments of our concerns
and still support the housing authority in pursuing more housing and let this specific concept play out because I feel pretty confident it's a very challenging
ing project for them to actually achieve and that's where I my position on it. But we should not deny them the opportunity to go forward and let the
town meeting prevail. Let the regulatory regul regulatory agents put their review and comments on it. And if that all can be remedied, well then the project might turn to reality. Um, but I think they
have a lot of challenges on this specific concept and that's my recommendation to the board. Well, I'm certainly in favor of more affordable housing. We have a problem with that in the town
and we have a problem with that in the country. Um, but I have uh, you know, I've heard the, uh, comments here tonight about, uh, the question of exactly is this
the best place environmentally for this kind of project at this time. Um and I I am I I I have heard the concerns about things like
the water situation uh the sewage situation and my my overall thought here is uh I would like to see more studies done on this
more research done on on particularly the environmental aspect of because uh if it turns out that uh this is or could be a favorable place to build housing then we can always go
ahead with it in the future. But if if uh you know if there is any kind of uh question as to uh how this will affect uh the buildings themselves once they're built or the surrounding neighborhood
in terms of where the water is going to go, what sewage is going to go hard to correct something once it's literally in place. So, I guess I overall I'd have to say uh
I would uh I would approve this uh recommend an approval of this article for now for this town meeting, but I would certainly favor uh looking into it in the future and I don't want uh the town to turn its back on all
possibilities of affordable housing. We definitely need more of it. The question is where we're going to put it. The question is what effect will it have once we build it whether it be positive or negative in terms of the environment and and other issues traffic that's
another issue but certainly should be considered. So I would uh I for right now anyway for this year for this particular town meeting I would I would support a uh a recommendation. Okay. So I think I heard I think what I
heard from the board is that we feel like we would like to not have the zoning limited by the pet as the petition proposes and allow more of the town process to go through have the
affordable housing trust have their day in court per se have it be truly evaluated by the the respected boards and such. That's what I've gathered. I've heard different language saying approve or pro or you just specific to the way this is worded. That's that's
what I've heard is that I guess what and in that spirit I think a motion would be in opposition to the citizen petition but the way because the citizen petition wants to restrict the zoning prohibit the zoning for any sort of anything the
affordable housing trust is trying to do. But then we are tasked with putting together a planning board report for the town meeting. And I think in that we could identify or highlight the concerns that the residents and the community
brought up in that report in the spirit of just explaining our perspective. My understanding is the town has already voted to have this area under the affordable
housing trust jurisdiction. So previously at town meeting that was done they have taken that role on so
no one ever told us that it's going to be multif family well we have all we were told to vote on here we got to get back we're going to we're going to try to get back on track. So, we as a and this is our task as a planning board to make a decision on if we support the citizen petition or we
oppose the cit citizen petition. I'll make a motion that we as a planning board oppose the citizens petition and in our report to town meeting highlight the concerns that we have that the residents brought to us.
I support that. I would support that as well. Okay. So, all those in favor? I I We need a second on the motion. Oh, we need a second on the motion. I second the motion. Carly seconds the motion. All those in f. Okay, the eyes have it.
So, with that, I'm going to close the public hearing at 8:15. And I want to thank you all for coming and sharing your concerns. And when we get to the town meeting this Thursday, you know, that's when the town will decide on your your efforts. But thank you very much. We very much
appreciate it. I think it's a high school. Thank you very much. I think you're going to have a lot of hearings ahead. Lot of what? A lot of hearings ahead. Sounds that way. See you Thursday.
I'll make a motion to close. motion made. Second. All those in favor I public hearing. Thanks for coming. Thank you. So we don't no hold everyone who's there for the town meeting.
Oh everyone meeting. Okay. Yeah. So we we as the planning board will say we had a public hearing. We heard the residents concerned. We are technically opposed to the efforts that has been proposed. But we are concerned about
we have to make a recommendation meeting. So we just voted. I just had one quick off the record question. We're still in a publication. Okay. So you could ask on the record. Thank you. Um these buildings, so they're 10 buildings with two units in
each building, right? We don't know. Are they going to be are they rentals or are they owner occupied? We don't know that either. No, we know that there are different bedrooms to my knowledge all three bedroom
collecting rent month after month or they could be purchased. We don't know. We don't know. Living up the hill. Sorry. Thank you guys. So, we got to get back on track. Thanks, Beth.
Thank you. Uh chair um chair Shepard, just one thing in the planning board report. Um I have you voting either unanimously in recommendation of the article or not recommendation, you know, not
recommending the article. So, I'm wondering if you could revote when you get a chance and just sort of change the verbiage a little bit because what I want to put in the report is the planning board voted unanimously to not recommend adoption of that article at
town meeting. So, it's very clear to the voters that you're, you know, you're not in you don't want to use the word opposition. You want to be very clear in your report. Okay. I was just going I was reading the public hearing guidelines when I read
said that. Um which is just that the I got you. All right. So we need to reframe because that's the same the intent of what you just described is the exact same thing that we voted on and said ourselves. So we need to say again say so move second vote.
Beth, will you just reframe it? Will you say it to us how you'd like it? Oh, are you talking to me? Sorry. really quiet for you're not coming through very low. Uh oh. Basically, you want to um to vote
to to not recommend adoption of article number six as printed in the warrant um and the and the associated proposed zoning amendment uh for the following reasons. And then we can go into reasons, but just some sort of vote that
you're not recommending the article Not that you're opposing the article, that you're just not recommending it. You know what I mean? You need our reasons in the motion. No, because we can you can work on the um report after and then we're just you
know so Okay. So per we're rejecting the petition. You can't you can't reject it. You can make a recommendation to town meeting and that will be either one of two
things. Either you recommend the article or you don't you do you do not recommend the article. That's all you can do and from there you present your reasoning. So let's Is town council still there? No we left. So all right I'll make a
motion. Um we'll make a motion to not support article six. No no recommend. The word is recommend. Oh, we do not recommend article six. Got it. Protect town from high density housing
in sensitive areas. [Music] Any second? Is that okay, Beth? Or I wouldn't put in the extra wording about protecting All right. Housing in sensitive areas. You
I I I You're just not recommending article six as proposed in the special town meeting warrant for September 25th 25th. You're not recommending it. You get a motion and a second. That's all.
So Carol, thank you. All right. I'm Forgive me. I'm a little confused. I am too. So I'm gonna take a step back. So when we voted, the way I framed it was I said in opposition, I think I used
the words in support or opposition. And what Beth is saying is that, and I don't think she's wrong, it's just that my brain was working, is that we don't want to say that we're opposed or support. We want to say, what's the right word to end up?
We don't recommend. We don't recommend or we do recommend. Right? So recommending is okay with me rather than supporting or not supporting. So we we are not recommending article six as stated
stated in the warman article. So that's right. Carol has made that motion. I second it. Second. I guess we're at discussion. Hartley, do you have a question? Well, forgive me. Maybe I'm I'm not thinking straight, but I thought
that collectively we had reached the idea that, you know, that that we uh would actually be uh supporting article six because we
were not totally uh sure about going ahead with the housing project. So the difference is is the way the article six is written. We're actually opposing. So the way Yeah. So what Robert is saying is the article six that the
citizens petition says we want to prohibit any zoning any multif family zoning in these laws. And what I recall that we were in agreement on was that we don't want to support the prohibition of any type of
housing on that lot. Right. multif family housing. We want it to go through the processes. Okay. The town processes with the board of health. Understand? So, the way it's written is what? So, if we if we uh do not recommend article six, that doesn't mean
we're giving a go ahead to building on that. Okay. We as the planning board, we have no credible proposals in front of us at all. If it ever gets that far, our purview is only to review what's submitted as real work because what I
what I said earlier, I I want I want to stand by that. I haven't changed. I do have some questions about whether we should build there, but the way you're phrasing it and the way we've boiled it down. Okay, I'm with a motion on the floor. We've had discussion. All those in favor?
I I All right, the eyes have it. The motion passes. Okay. Um, so now I guess getting to item 3.2, which would be discuss and finalize the planning board's reports
prepared for the MBTA communities and for this partly. This is where I think we say, you know, we we don't recommend it. Um, and then maybe a short line that says, you know, we we've heard our residents concern at a public hearing. Um, we want it to continue through
regular town processes. We believe they have a valid concern. Okay, great. Something something to that effect. Okay. Um, do we have uh I don't know if I had a chance to review it. Do we have a draft report? Uh, yes, we do. I think Kieran printed
out copies for you. Did he? Yes, they are floating around on the table. There are two of them. Y the first one is for um article six. If you want to do that one, it might be fresh in your mind.
All right. You have it online. Yeah. Um, so from the town clinic board, so as you can see on the first page, like third paragraph from the bottom, it will say the planning board voted unanimously to not recommend the
adoption of the proposed amendments for the following reasons. Okay. If the board decides to not recommend that has given us these for consideration the one the comment from the town zoning enforcement officer which states I see no reason that these
two lots parcels should be singled out as not to allow multif family. The table of uses allows multif family within the residential RA and RB districts with a special permit from the ZBA and should not be accepted. Robert Garside Towns
and Zoning Enforcement. And then two, inconsistency with the Townsen's affordable housing goals and plans. The parcel in question, map 10, parcel 52, and parcel 70 are under the care and custody of the con and control of the
towns and affordable housing trust, which specifically transferred these town properties in May 2022 via a vote and desired by residents to and for the purpose of developing or selling them to support affordable housing. Prohibiting multif family apartment buildings on
them would directly undermine the trust 2023 through 2028 action plan which prioritizes evaluating these parcable parcels for affordable housing development including issuing RFPs for developers in fiscal year 2025. The plan
emphasizes creating affordable units to address towns in zero. Oh, wow. These are Oh, okay. Um percent rental vacancy rate, severe cost burdens on renters and need for smaller accessible units for seniors and low incomes. Three, inconsistency with the
2022 to 2026 housing production plan. The proposed amendment to prohibit apartment multif family buildings on assess map 10, parcel 52. Um, have you you guys may be able to read quicker than I can. Yeah, just skimming. Okay. Um,
let's I would suggest just skimming rather than Okay. So, we don't have to do the recommend section. So, well, we just have to decide what we want. Yeah. The not recommend rather the recommend. So, we we don't have to do the last page. Yeah.
What do we have for comments? I'm okay. I feel like I'm okay with the first one. Um, with the comment from Bob Garside, I agree. Yeah, I feel like I'm okay with the fourth one, which is the concern that this
would single out that lot. Yeah. And prohibit it and it could be challenged if someone did wish to develop it. I agree. I agree. The two and three I I think are okay. I don't know. Um,
I don't know if I I don't know if I I don't really care one way or another on two and three. I'm not really loving three. Okay. Certainly take those out if there's too if they're too wordy or, you know, specific.
Yeah. Um, I guess I would pick I guess I take out number three. Three. Yeah, you got it. If everybody's okay with that. Y
is gone. [Music] Okay, I'll go with six. I'm not sure about five. What do we think about number five? Quite lack of with the master plan, comprehensive plan. [Music]
I mean, I don't I'm not But right now, I think we've fully as a group said we're okay with one and we're okay with four. We've asked three and that kind of leaves five, six, and two.
Um I I don't um this is just me. I don't find the references to the like the plan like our our master plan or our housing production plan or I don't I guess I don't find that anybody's that interested in references
to plans. I don't know. Sure. I mean, I know me personally, you know, at town meeting, I could care less about Sure. Sure. what's in the if I'm voting on something, what's in the FL? Sure. Um, but that's just me. So,
Robert Heartley comments on either of those. I don't really No comments. I would be okay. Just I just find that sometimes we get so much material. Yeah. I think Yeah. The shorter the better. Yeah.
Make it more concise. Okay. I would I would So, I'd probably cut five. Yeah. Cut two. Yeah. Want to keep six. You want to keep six? What's What's number six again? Because I lost my numbering. Okay. Approving such a petition could
set a precedent for ad hoc zoning changes undermining the planning board's ability to guide quarterly development and potentially complicating future housing initiatives. Okay. So, you want to keep that and you keep that one or Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. I think I don't know. It's all right. It's all right. It's short. It's a tiny point. Rewrite it if you want. We're keeping the one the spot zoning one, Beth. Um, and then we're also
keeping the uh Robert Garid's comments. I would like to have put in one more which I think was the intent that we expressed in our meeting. Yeah. that says um something to the effect that um
you know while we um while we hear the concerns of the residents in this petition, we believe that the the proper format for um addressing these concerns are through the established um
procedures agencies procedures and regulatory agencies. Yes, that's right. I like that, too. Okay, Beth, are you okay with Do you need me to send you like a a draft of that or do
you think you could word something up on that with that sentiment? I got what you said, which is really good. Um, well, we the planning board hear the concerns of the residents of this petition. The proper format well proper format
maybe the proper agency for addressing these concerns is through the property reg proper regulatory agencies or something like that. What we're trying to say is we um want we don't want to obstruct the
process of the housing authority um and and let it play its course with the all the regulatory agencies that would be involved. Right.
Yeah. [Music] Let it play out. We want the process to go through the process boards, committees and departments to review as such. We do for all I don't I don't think we have to
identify specific ones all they are boards committees and then your building but but they're all regulatory agencies. Yeah. Okay. regulatory department and agencies oversight. Do you want to keep the inconsistency
with Towns and affordable housing goals or No, I think we're okay with getting rid of that one. Yeah, okay rid of that. I think the specific references to the master plan, the housing production plan, and the
uh affordable housing goals and plans we felt were too too much. So nothing on the master plan either. Okay. We don't even have to address that. I don't No, we dropped that out. Okay, cool. I think
would it be worth Beth, would you pref would you want a motion to approve this as it is written or or as edited? Yeah. Or as edited? Revised. Revised. Or are you comfortable? I guess what I'm
the other I guess what I'm trying to say is would it be worth you sharing I don't know if you're live editing it and would it be worth you sharing a screen and then me saying we approve or do you feel comfortable? I am um I'm actually live edit editing
it right now and um if you want I I can put it on the screen if you if you want. Um, I guess what do you read from us? Do you want I could just read it back too. I would say screen sharing it. I'd love
to be able to see it the way my brain works and then we can just Yeah, let me just circulate it tomorrow because we have, you know, it has to go to print on Wednesday. So, tomorrow is fine. I'll just circulate. I'll email it
out tonight. Is that quite All right. So, you don't need to really vote on the report is to your question. I apologize, but um yeah, you you've done your vote. This report is just a reflection of your vote and your reasoning. And so, if you're satisfied
um okay, so we're good with article six. And now, excuse me, article three, I believe. Article three. Okay. So, that is this one.
What's this? This was the MBTA. Oh. Oh. The one that was ting really for correct. Oh, this the accessory used for not really. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. MBTA
meeting about this is the Warren article for the town meeting. We we're going to name it the Robert Thean MBTA overlay. Um okay. So um and this front this subject this seems
that this is the legal ease of what we're doing. Um let's see two things are two and three. Okay. Um so let's go to the bottom of the second page. So
it's more legally in accordance with X bylaws. Um the planners are going unanimously to recommend adoption of the proposed zoning amendments as written in the September 25th, 2025 special town meeting as articles two and three for
the following reasons. So okay, we got six total reasons. The first one, so first one is that it aligns with state mandates, community needs, and sound planning principles. I don't have an issue. What do you think, Robert? You have
I don't think it's got sound planning principles at all. I think we protect in sound planning principles to to put it forward. But um I mean this is where we can make changes or edits if if you want to make any changes in that regard. I'm okay with
number one. I think yeah. Yeah. We don't have to agree on everything either. If you we I don't agree on that part. What would you think, Robert? What would you propose? I'm trying to think of what I would say,
but I can't. I would you just if we say something you know well first of all I'm a member of plans you can put mass planners association you could put a period it doesn't come up with that those okay so you could put a period after
state mandates because that's what basically yeah you could you could do that but it was pretty sound planning principles too so just take out community needs would that make you feel better I I mean, me as a resident, I feel like
I'm being held hostage by the state that I don't even know why we're voting on it because if we vote no, we we lose all our money, which is our tax dollars, which we pay to the state situation. The last said they could sue
us. So why are we even voting? I mean, it's like a state mandate. Why don't they just say thou shalt? I mean, my recommendation on this is based upon it's required by statute pretty much. So, that's right. Yeah. Let's focus on these last three commas
right here. Right. So, I would just put a period the state mandates. Period. I So, I I do agree with Beth or at least the intent I think that it was written that I think we engaged in sound planning. Okay. in the two or three years.
I mean, I'm okay with not having that language or that but I do think there is a community need for more. Well, I think this board did a diligent job with trying to I think that that's the that's what that
means. Okay, that's the way I fine. All right. That's the intent. If that's the intent, I'm fine with it. You can just leave it the way it is. I don't I think you your concerns are reflective of concerns we'll get on Thursday. So I would think if we strike
you know uh sound planning and we just go with state man it's going to go down in a ball of flames. Yeah. I don't want to say more than that. Let's I'm serious.
I'll see you later. So, we're going to say that we're going to end it with as they align with the state mandates and community needs. Period. Oh, you're not going to put in sound planning principles or you are.
Well, is that wellness part of this? Yep. I think so. That's going to be part of our general bylaw or this specific one? So, that's going to be part of when we do our special permit. No. Yes, special when we ch make the changes to the
special permit especially the ones specific to the process that community districts would go through the past that's to which it would be included. I I think uh but I do I do think we as a board spending two to three years on this is
have done quite a bit of diligence. I if you ask me state mandates period okay Harley we haven't heard from you. What do you have for um I I'm in concurrence with uh with with my
colleagues. I think we can we can we can do that to this uh to this. I want to tell you know we're we're under the bullet. We have I think we're saying that when we say the state mandate. I think that's pretty clear. That ends it right there. I don't want
to say I support any other. So, let's let's if you guys will, let's delete sound planning principles and we'll just say with state mandates and community needs because I I don't think the need is not there. No, the need is there. I'll agree with that. Okay. So, we're good on one, right?
Yeah. I'm actually good with the rest of it. You're good with the rest of it. Uh I haven't had a chance to read it. So, that's So, I was reading it while you were discussing. Excellent. Excellent. Yeah. I'm number two's fine. Okay. I I don't care about the $100,000 sports
grant at all. Um, is is that so that's uh is that too small of a figure or I guess I worry about listing a specific a number three. It's a such as. Yeah, it's one instance.
Um, so we can strike anything if you want about state grants, but you know, unless you take the dollars out, didn't somebody say at some meeting that our grants total like $2 million or something? I think K did a lot of work putting it
together a spreadsheet that had over some period of time, you know, could be millions of dollars. Maybe just take you out the dollars in because thousand dollars people might just say, "Oh, well, you know, that's not I would worry in the spirit of this law
that someone would say, oh, I'd forego 100 grand to eliminate this." Yeah. I would say we would lose our grant money. So maybe, okay, so on that that line, it says recommending this amendment cons recommending this amendment secures access to state grants. And then I'd
like to delete that. It avoids penalties of all. Yeah. So just just that section between that first comma which is the such as $100,000 community one stop. So we'll delete that and then continue and avoid penalties like the loss of funding eligibility which supports
infrastructure and community development. So I think okay I got it. Yeah. You know what I even reading this thing I I just not there. Well, in terms of
we have I I mean this is my official statement as to why the down shouldn't endorse it and I don't agree with that. Okay, then you have to then you change it or you delete it. That's perfectly fine. This is just a suggested uh document.
You you adjust it. So the way I'm viewing this, Robert, is I think our job as, you know, sworn town officials and under the sworn laws of Massachusetts is we're following the the process that as the laws exist to the best intent that we can and then it'll be up to the town
to vote. I don't mind us recommending this to the town because it's a state mandate. Sure. Period. Sure. to expand on that is not where I am.
Okay. So, you want to strike number four and five then? I don't know if we're there just just yet. So, I think we're are we be okay? I'm okay with number three. I recognize where you at, Robert, but I think just I think we do need to highlight the the
enforcement portion of this effort from the state, which would be the loss of funding. All right. Well, the public should be aware of the implications of it. I agree. Sure. Um,
so another thought I had, if you don't like number four, is to add in um a comment about the fact that the work the planning board did on the bylaw and the overlay district did get pre-approve pre-adoption
approval from executive office of housing and livable communities to tell the town that yes, in fact, the planning process was vetted. if you will, and it's it's ready for it's ready for voter approval that they shouldn't have any
worries about the process. So, would you like me to put in a sentence about that? I mean, it was pre preapproved. We think all this is great and it's not I don't I don't think that's what we're saying. Well, I think
expand housing flexibility. That's fine. I don't mind that. For number four, are you Where are you? I'm at the bottom of the page. Oh. Oh, okay. That's amendment two. We're still on amendment one. Yeah, let's just let's let's go one by one.
So, let's look at it. So, I think we're good with three. I'm okay with let's go with as it is. So, four, we'll take it off the 100,000. We're take you're right. We're taking off that that section in between the commas. Um so, number four, um promoting
orderly and predictable development. The multif family overlay district provides a structured framework for multif family development. um ensuring it occurs in designated areas with clear dimensional standards and regulations. This aligns with the master plan emphasis on balanced growth
and preserves towns and rural character while accommodating housing demand by allowing multi family housing as of right. The amendment reduces administrative burden on developers and the planning board streamlining approvals while maintaining oversight through the site plan review and other existing regulations. I'm okay. I feel
like I'm okay with that as it is written. Okay. Okay. I'm okay. A yes. Carol's a yes. Robert, I I understand your general feelings. I don't know. I wouldn't even put the word structured. I just put word framework in.
It provides a framework. Not that it's structured in my eyes. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. It's very structured actually, but yeah, that's what the planning board did. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I can strike that if the board wants that stricken.
Yeah, let's we'll we'll strike the word structured that um otherwise I think we're okay with that. So, let's move to number four. All right, number four is okay with that structured uh word deleted. Yep. Enhancing community resilience and
economic benefits. So expanding multif family housing options supports a diverse population including young families, seniors, and low-income housing, fostering a vibrant community. The multif family overlay district can attract new residents and businesses, boosting the local tax base
and supporting services like schools and public safety as noted in the 2022 2026 housing production plan. The amendment creates the amendment facilitates access to state and federal funding such as the lowincome housing tax credits for affordable multif family projects aligning with the affordable housing
trust action plan to leverage town parcels and partnerships. I um I think I would actually I I I just feel like when we get to town meeting this this is just going to be a contentious subject no matter what.
We can do some edits on it. I would I would remove it the entire number five. Yes. But maybe Okay, it's all gone. Agree. Fine with me. Okay. So, we'll move five now for number
six. So, six I think is one of the functions that we really liked about the multif family overlay district, which was to have single family by right. So we could encourage diversity of housing. That's right. units. Yeah, we did awkward job on that.
That that exactly. So um assuming the first amendment is approved, the planning board recommends the secondary amendment, which I did have no issue with that. One, expanded housing flexibility allowing single family dwellings within the multif
family overlay district by updating permitted uses, dimensional standards, and definitions, broadens housing options to better meet towns' diverse needs as outlined in the housing production plan. This change supports demand for both multif family and single family homes,
especially for families and seniors seeking affordable ownership. It also enables developers to design mixed housing types, single family, two family, multif family within the district, propos promoting cohesive and adaptable neighborhood plan. That's okay. No issue there.
No issue. Two, consistency with community character. The master plan highlights the importance of preserving towns's rural low density character, allowing single family dwellings in the multif family overlay district, supports this goal by enabling developments that
align with existing neighborhoods and addresses concerns about highdensity multif family projects. This amendment balances the MBTA community's requirements with residents preferences, offering housing options that maintain neighborhood compatibility. Well written. Excellent.
Yes. Okay. And then number three, Beth, I would just think we need to uh bold that title as you've done with the other ones. So, zoning over consistency and it says overlay districts like the multif family overlay district are meant to adapt flexibility
uh including single family dwellings in its framework ensures the district remains adaptable and aligned with both state mandates and local goals without needing separate zoning changes. This amendment also streamlines administration by integrating single family standards into existing
regulations. Back. Okay. And there we have it. Well done. Okay. Do you have any questions or comments based on what we our Oh, I think I think I got it all. Um, I think the important thing for the
moderator at town meeting is to remember that article two requires the majority vote to pass and article three is going to require the twothirds vote to pass. That's not in the warrant, unfortunately. So, um, you just have to
keep an eye on that, you know, because I don't think the moderator automatically knows that. And um it didn't get caught before it got printed in the warrant. Wait a minute. Where's So article two requires majority vote.
That's listed in this in our report that we will send. But what it says, Robert, is that article two, the MBTA one, yes, that requires a majority vote to pass. And then article three, which is
which we think is a bit more important, I think, or equally as important, requires twothirds twoird to pass. It's right there. Oh boy. Right there. Two3. But if if one passes, I would hope that we would be able to artfully explain
that we want two to pass because three to pass because we want the diversity in housing profiles. We want to be able We're attempting to encourage the diversity in housing profiles. That's just perfect.
Okay. All right. I think That covers 3.2. Um, you know, prior to the public hearing, we received the 3.1. Um, and Beth, you don't need any signatures on any of that. Do you need
me share partly as clerk? No, I'll email those two out to the board tonight. Um, and then they'll go to print on Wednesday. Okay. So, any um like to entertain a motion to adjurnn?
I'll make a motion to adjourn at 8:53 p.m. I second the motion. Thank you for your patience and tolerance. All right. I think Thank you very much. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you, Beth. Appreciate. Thank you.
Thank you. And good night. Have a good night. So next