Roll call of all the board members present. Please say your name for the record. Please join us for I would like to thank all of our veterans and those who are currently serving here and abroad, their families, and those who contribute their time to
the public service. This meeting is being recorded and will be uploaded to account. I do not believe I have any addition oil if you confirm.
Y'll be coming up. Oh, there we are. Okay. I have looked at me. All right. Okay. probably make it and second it.
How are you, John? Hi guys. Nice to see you all again. We have to wait at all to start with. Welcome back. Maybe if you don't mind sharing for the board. I know you and I have talked a little bit, but kind of
where we're at. Oh, okay. Have you done You've done all the preliminaries. Come on. We've done Yeah, we've done the preliminaries and you're you're up. All right. So, we finally heard back from the uh got the uh response letter
from the uh from the state and they identified a couple of issues. Uh neither of them are that bad though. Uh first, one thing they identified, they've been flagging this on a lot of people's uh a lot of towns. They have
language often in their definition of family uh which limits it limits the number of unrelated people. Uh you did not have that in your definition of family. However, you have similar language in your definition of dwelling unit. So we're going to have to
uh modify that. Your definition of dwelling unit uh currently in your zoning uh ends with comma but not more than five persons unrelated by blood or marriage. Uh
law uh zoning laws like that have been ruled unconstitutional and in violation of the uh of state law. Um, and more relevantly for what we're doing here, they uh are non-compliant with
MBTA communities. It's viewed as interfering with the uh the regulation about FA where uh subject for for families. So I'm proposing in what I've sent you, it's the very top a uh item is one more
amendment on the uh you know on the items to implement it is uh just striking that language that takes care of it. Yeah, that'll take Yeah, we'll be good with just that. Yep. So you guys have in front of you the
proposed bylaw amendments. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Uh they raised a question, a technical question about our modeling and that's all taken care of. Um basically the question they raised the issue they
raised was the way their model works. They need to have an area of the district that is drawn that includes a some public right ofway so that the uh it can then calculate the area of that right ofway and then fill in a number in
its calculations and if there's no literally no right ofway included then it uh it it can't work. So they need when uh drawing the boundary for the purpose of the modeling to reach out and grab a little bit of the public rightway. uh it uh we have clarified
that the uh modeling that we submitted to them does include some of the rightway along Route 13 and they realize that it's that it's okay. So that one is now all set. Um number three, they suggested removing
the term uh compliance uh uh the definition compliance guidelines from the uh uh definitions that are being added. Um there there are no longer compliance guidelines. As you might remember from the lawsuit and its
outcome, the guidelines have been reissued as uh a actual state regulations. And in addition, we never use language naming compliance guidelines or the state regulations anyway. So, uh it
doesn't really need never needed to even really be in there in the first place. And uh the fourth item on the letter is about the site plan review. Now, this is kind of standard language
that they uh send out to everybody on their site plan review. I first saw it when I was uh working on Lawrence's Lawrence's Lemonsters's MBTA Communities Act, which was due a year before yours. And I saw that language and panicked and thought, "Oh my god, we're going to have
to go in and revise the whole site plan uh section." And uh it I spoke to them at that time and it turned out that no that's not what this note means. The language in this note is a reminder, an exhortation to the town and to the
planning board about the application of site plan approval. Make sure you're not using site plan approval as if it's a special permit. Make sure you're not using your site plan repro uh approval uh to impose burdensome standards that
make development impossible or a particularly burdensome um uh uh application process uh to scare off developers the way you you know some 40b projects will go a year a year and a half two years in front of a planning board. That's not really language about
anything needing to change in the bylaw. It's just a reminder to use site plan approval as site plan approval. It does and does not require any changes in the by in in the bylaw. So I didn't make any changes in the bylaw. I'm just uh
explaining this uh passing on this exhortation to the state. So um in the event there's the site plan presenters. Mhm.
What role does the planning board have in the site plan review anyway? Oh, it's the the normal site plan the normal site plan review process that uh that communities have been going through and
and have been doing for decades. They're not normally reviewing something under site plan review. they're comfortable with. They don't want people to take their site plan review authority and use it in an abusive manner.
That's that but but site plan, you know, ordinary regular site plan review, you know, make sure the driveway is laid out, have a street tree here, uh it' be better if you move the curb cut 40t to the west, you know, things like that. Okay.
All right. I wanted to be sure. Yes. Yeah. I realized that language on that item looks scary, doesn't it? It's not I you Yeah. The first time I saw it, I I I thought I thought my Lemonster project was dead in the water. It's uh
It's not as bad as it looks. It's okay. All right. All right. So, um if we are okay with if is there anything else about the letter and about my proposed um uh um responses to the
letter? Not that I'm hearing, Joe. Okay. Okay. I have one more thing I want to bring up, but before I do that, I want to give the board an opportunity. uh if you have you got anything you wanted to ask me or is there any other discussion that you wanted to have
coming in? I think one of my questions for you, Joe, that I did share via email and I'll share with the board is um I had sent Joe and Beth a message thinking that it might be valuable to try to create what type of tax revenue a
project like this could bring in just for the when we get to the point of um and and like with a background in economics, I recognize that's like a sticky wicket like you could project anything, you know, based on there's so many different variables. rules there, but I
think it could be compelling when we get to town meeting and just saying to the public, you know, this is maybe if we can come up with something what we could expect. Um, but I don't know if Joe I wanted to ask you Joe if you had any if that's a thing you could put together or
if you've done that or Um, we haven't. And my thoughts on that are that uh if the if the board and if the proponents were to bring up that point about uh tax revenues,
the opposite side would be okay. Well, did you calculate the expenses? Did you estimate how many new kids would be put into the schools? Um, now and I feel that that's an argument that frankly people that this
is a topic uh to that is uh worth discussing especially because we should we are in a position where we should be where people's minds uh can be put a little bit at ease. Um the fact that this is multif family housing
means a lot fewer kids per unit being put into the schools compared to large lot single family housing. People in two even threebedroom rental apartments are a lot less likely
to have four or five kids in there than people who have a large single family home. And there we did a we did a study on this actually when I was uh working in the city of lol and uh the the the numbers are dramatically different. In
addition the state itself did some work and found that for some that for uh various reasons the even looking at single family homes housing units are putting fewer kids into the schools than they were even 20
or 30 years ago. something like uh something like a quarter fewer kids. Um the it's just that families are smaller and there's a larger percentage of uh these homes that are occupied by non-parent families either you know older people or um
couples with couples who don't have kids. So, um, look, I I feel like the the the fiscal argument is not a selling point for the MBTA
Communities Act for Communities that we can be ready. It's it's good idea for people at time meeting to be ready to discuss it. And I've got some I've got some studies and stuff that that I could share with you, but um I strongly advise
against trying to use revenues as a selling point because I fear of it blowing up in our face. Sure. Just going to say um with the new housing, of course, we'll have we'll have new property tax revenues, will we not? Yes.
Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. There is absolutely Yes. there would be an increase in tax revenues from uh uh from the construction. Robert, one of my
objectives here is not just the tactical requirements that have to be achieved but the quality of housing that will be delivered. Okay? And I don't mean in terms of material
quality. I mean in terms of social quality and so when we say personally um I don't want this whoever developed
this to create a bunch of boxes that limit people's identity and does does not allow for access to outdoor space. So, one of the things we've been talking about in this board
in terms of our bylaw are requirements that every unit has access to a private outdoor space, whether that be a patio or a deck. Um, I think that's a human
element that needs to be considered. And the other thing is um I understand um one and two bedroom units um but there is a large
percentage of those types of units available. So to me to have a matrix of different unit sizes would be desirable rather than have a repetitive unit over and over. Um and
that way we could make housing available for more family profiles and that's what my major concern is. And and if you listen to the lay people on the street,
they all talk about not having a project in terms of what they you know envision may envision mentally that this will be. So in our bylaw excluding this special district
um we have been incorporating wellness philosophy in terms of you know lifestyle and quality of life in the universe and so I don't know
I I don't feel confident that what we're doing now addresses that adequately. Um, and if the state will find that acceptable, I would think that the idea of having
requiring multi-units diversity in terms of size, one, two, and threebedroom. I know the social aspect would be very desirable and appeal to more family
prototypes. So, I can't imagine that they would object to that. And then in terms of these new citizens that are going to be in our community, um we want them to be happy where they
live and that having access to an outdoor space I think is a big impact and particularly becomes a seasonal living room for many people. So those kinds of things I would like to see that
at least we're as a board um looking out for the interests of the future occupants and um to me happier people in their unit whether it's a multif family unit
or a single family or duplex or what is what we want for our people in town. We want them to be welcome members of the community and participants in the community and not be labeled in any way like
um you know based on a specific category or family profile. If I could uh if I could pick up on that, uh would we as a board or someone else have an input as to the
architecture of of these buildings? Well, that's another concern, too, right? Because I think that would tie into what you're saying. Both the architecture and the uh the layout of the ground. So, there would be sufficient uh space for outdoor
activities. I mean I don't know in terms of how how big the yards would be but of course we are proud of our status as a green town uh and I think these days taking into taking into account u the health of of
the uh residents and uh exactly uh you know what would be a healthy happy uh architectural layout of of these buildings. I think that should be considered as well. Right. From my perspective, it's not our
we certainly have a housing crisis and we have to meet that need. Um but in that intent not to abandon the needs of the occupants and um and so
you know being having some control on the archite that come before us their objectives very clear the maximum number of units possible in any program. Um, and whether
they don't care who lives in them, it's matter of what kind of zoning they can get that's beneficial for that particular project. And so we've seen that with um housing for the elderly and
and uh you know different kinds of prototype projects. So, Robert, I don't I'm not trying to cut you off, but I want to make sure we stay on track timewise, right? And give Well, I just want an answer to that question. Do we have those
provisions available to us in here? I I I saw a couple heard a couple of topics brought up. Um, unit the unit size mix and uh access to outdoor space.
Um, Yeah. Oh, and architecture too. Okay. On the units size question. Um, I have not seen any towns do that, but I really fear that they I don't think it
would go by it would be acceptable to the MBTA community's office. I fear that their reasoning would be you don't actually have by the buy right status to build multif family housing if you don't have the byright status to build four
two-bedroom units. You know what I'm saying? No. that if if we have laws that require somebody who builds uh four units to have at least two of them be three bedrooms,
uh I don't think they'd consider that uh um legal. I think they'd say you've taken away the by right status. You're not allowing people to buy multi to build multif family by right. They if they've certain multif family projects
are not are no longer by right. I I haven't seen this question put to them specifically, but based on my experience, I fear that would be their reaction that I know that I know that if you that they're not allowing people to go in the other direction. some communities
uh communities in towards Boston might have wanted to like limit apartment sizes to only one and two bedrooms in order to prevent them from being uh useful units for families with kids who
might live there which is what I just said about apartments obviously if you're in right in Cords Boston in the more urban areas um that's less true and there are more families renting housing in in mult multifamilies. Uh, and so there might have been communities out
there that wanted to put a cap on the unit size and the MBTA is is not allowing that. So there don't think they'd allow it to go the other way either. All right. Well, this is very critical here. Okay. First of all,
on the counter side of that argument of what their position is to make different housing units available for different family profiles should be something that the
Commonwealth should seek. Okay. um and not have or a a prototype applicant for any particular union. A two the commonwealth as well should be
pursuing quality of life in these units and three um the architecture by having a variety of unit types. the architect most probably will be
diversified as well. Um so I personally are very strong on those three topics and Mr. Yes. Lori, can you hear me? I'm sorry. I have to go
into the water department soon, but I just wanted to make this point because I haven't heard it if you don't mind. Um, MBTA communities, MBTA communities,
this is coming about because they want things or homes that are closer to proximity of the MBTA. So in other words, I thought one of the reasons for this was commuting to
Boston, commuting to commuting to their places of work where they couldn't afford to live where they worked. Is did I miss that point totally? That isn't totally wrong. The MBTA Communities Act, I think the name is a little misleading. It makes it sound
like the goal is to promote transit oriented development. It's not a transportation program. It's not even really a a transit oriented development program. It's a housing program. Now, in some comm in some states, uh, California
and Vermont, they have similar situation to, uh, to where we are in Massachusetts with a serious shortage of housing and in particular a serious shortage of, uh, rental housing. And so, they responded by getting rid of the single family
district. There are no longer suburban zoning districts in which you're only allowed to have a single family home. You have to allow up to four families on any on on lots out there. Now, that might be a good idea in a very rural place like
Vermont. I don't think it's a good idea for California. Um because you've got that autodependent suburban sprawl type of development that's already overloading the roads and now you're just bumping up the same number of units
that are all auto dependent spread all across and uh putting all of the cars on the roads. I think the the intent of the legislature in passing this law was to address the um housing shortage, address the rental housing shortage, especially
in the suburbs, uh in a way that wouldn't have such a heavy transportation impact. Uh in a way that would lead to more of the residents of the new units using transit and using the MBTA and not just only having to
drive anywhere. So that's why it's called the MBTA Communities Act because they li they uh limited it to communities that have an MBTA uh station or are right next to a community with an MBTA station.
So it it so getting people to use the MBTA was kind of a secondary uh objective of the bill because of the potential potential negative effect of doing it the other way.
Well the same subjects architecture family profile and wellness. All right. So, let's get back. I was gonna say, do you see any I and I know this discussion has come up in the past as we've worked on this at
different times? I believe it has, but I I don't know. I can't remember the exact resolution we did or didn't come to when this did come up, but is there any way that we can attempt to incorporate some semblance of these? I I do think there's what you're acknowledging
there's some there's only so much we can do when they say they want it by right. It's tough to limit by right as they want it. But you know what way could we attempt to do some of this? Look I don't think you can mandate a a unit
mix. Um now I was going to go on to the other subjects about uh access to outdoor space and uh about uh uh appearance of the buildings and
architectural styles. you have a certain amount of uh influence over that through the site plan approval process particularly as I'm doing your next project of uh the uh changing your site
plan review section um incorporating standards incorporating language which establish standards for site plan review that
discuss that identify those purposes as goals of your zoning would give you uh would give you a little bit more flexibility in these site plan review um procedures
in the you know negotiating uh with the developer about what the town wants to see. Uh I would suggest go rather than incorporating uh rules,
regulations into the MBTA Communities Act zoning itself here to address it that way. And when when we re rewrite your site plan approval. Okay.
So we can address these topics in terms of the site plan review. Yes. To an extent. You you you do not have all the hand you'd have over these
questions if uh these if this was by special permit. You but you you do have some hand in negotiating with uh developers under site plan approval. Now, especially things the second one you brought up about the a
about uh outdoor access uh and access to green space. I think that that is that could be written in a way that would be fairly robust and uh that to uh that that developers would have to take that
into account into their design. Um architecture uh man having some language in AR about architecture we can't it can't be too too too tight
uh you know it can't be too prescriptive or that will I I've recent I've discovered or that will won't fly with the MBTA community's office but uh having some standards in there about
what you want to see can increase your hand during the site plan approval process. Okay. So what has been presented to this board was this outdoor space concept
and we had a minimum square foot standard of 80 square feet. So if per what per unit is this one of the letters you shared with the board? Yes, it was.
Okay. I'd have to relook at that, but I keep going, Robert. Um and so um we would
I would like to see that as a prerequisite in meeting the site plan review requirements. So whether it's landscape patio below or an outdoor porch or a balcony,
I'm not trying to control what profile it should take. Okay. Um but I think it's important. Um, and then as far as the architecture, I don't think we want to dictate the
architecture, but a general phrase such as similar to existing structures within the community and that works well for Cambridge
as well as it does for town. And um so I don't see why that's an objectionable thing and it's something and I also feel you know this was forced upon us and they are
very reluctant to give us anything that we would like to see and that brings a lot of resentful people and voters and so I don't want to be in front of a town meeting and have these topics come
up about architecture and about how many what size units are going to be there without feeling confident and I can endorse it and um so that's the object here I'm not trying to strangle people
or burden the developers but Robert I want to if you don't mind I'd like to take a minute and just hear Carol thought Carol's thoughts and Hartley's thoughts and then I I think we've got your point down and just hear from the rest of the board and then see if Joe has any more thoughts.
No, I I like the idea of the outdoor space. Um it would be nice to have something that's architecturally I agree with you if it was like kind of picked up the architecture of the surround communities rather than those brick square boxes that we have in town that
are all ugly. Um, but it's and it can be done because I've seen, you know, these kinds of town homes or apartments that kind of blend in with the historic architectural design, you know, to make it look more
like a house with a unit, I mean, it can be done. Um, but can we force it? That's the problem. So, um, Joe, if you don't mind, I'd like to hear Hartley's thoughts. I I just, uh, I I totally agree with
Robert and Carol. I think that, um, yeah, we should try to incorporate, um, structures that are consistent with what we are having already here in Townsen and also incorporate
um, the uh, the consciousness in terms of uh, it being a healthy place to live, you know, in terms of enough green space, enough fresh air and also uh you know, keeping in mind uh necessities for the
house. These will obviously not be any uh these will be no frills situations but we we should also make sure that uh uh they are put together in a way that uh enable you know convenience safety uh
livability on a long-term basis and I think if we can incorporate those things into this whole matter I think we will we will have what we want. Sure. I mean some of the supporting arguments here is first of all almost on
every uh multif family project that I've witnessed in this as my experience on the board here pretty much has been a product of another building that was built in another community.
it's uh they want to recycle the plans that they already paid for. Um that benefit doesn't show up to the buyer. Okay? If there was an economic benefit that you could say that it makes sense,
but it doesn't. The buyer never benefits from the money savings of using an existing drawing. Okay. Secondly, we have to think about the people that live in here. So, we don't know who they are. Okay. Some of them can be young married
people that have a baby while they're living there. And they might have thought of it as the start of home, but now they have a child here. And if you brought up a child, sometimes you need to get out of the house for a minute to
take a break. Um, and so that's it's the human element of this that I'm concerned about. And I just want to share my thoughts and then I want to turn it over to Joe. Um, I I think what I've heard
Joe sharing about, you know, attempting feeling I I I feel like I agree with them and maybe we need a legal opinion, but I I struggle to think we would be able to um really dictate the variability in size even though the way
the plan or the way we have it set up it it provides for the option to have variability in size. And then the other is I think it what I've heard Joe saying is trying to solve these problems through the special permit process opposed through from the bylaw of the
MBTA. I I my my response to this. Okay, let's put it in there. Let them reject it and then if it comes up at town meeting, I could say then you rejection.
I think I don't want to turn over to Joe too because I know he has he has a lot of thoughts. But I think by doing it in a special permit process overall, I think that would give us more latitude or site plan, you know, anything else that comes up or
comes towards us. But can that be done in site plan approval? Those three elements. Uh yes, each of them to an extent. Um it's it's once again it's site plan approval
not not special permit so your hand is less um but each of them to an extent yes you we you can uh we we can write standards and uh we we can be careful with them and you will have a certain amount of ability to
influ to influence the developer through that. Um, on this topic, there's one other thing concept that I'd like to bring up here. Developers like certainty. Developers like to go in knowing what the town
wants. And so we, this is a one parcel district. there's one potential owner, one potential developer to worry about here.
And he and so the production of st of standards that the town would like to see the production of a vision of uh what the town would like to see there.
You know, if the town had produced that and was able to give it out to a developer when they came in the first time and developer could know could know if I do this, I'm definitely going to get my site parent approval real fast. That could you know carrots helps too.
And especially where you only have the one parcel. And so you might you're probably only talking about doing this once. The town might be in a position to uh exert further influence over the ultimate development by being proactive
in that manner. So, what I'm understand, you know, that that sounds like something that would be in Bet's office and that if Beth were to be approached by a potential developer, she could, for lack of a better word, have a one-page statement from us
that says, you know, those are the bylaws. You know, this these are the main things that are most important to us. Maybe maybe maybe with some pictures, maybe with some drawings if you're really concerned about about visual things. Um, and you know, in Beth's
office, yes, it'd be good to have Beth's office for when an uh for when an applicant comes in, but there's one owner and you know who he is.
So, uh perhaps the town could even be be more proactive than that and uh sit down with this property owner once this is passed and uh and and and talk about these things. I I don't want this challenge. Do Do you
understand? I This really has to be embedded in the requirements as not a not a subjective thing. Um, yeah, you're okay. So, yeah, I know.
So, if it's in the requirements for site plan review or site plan Yeah. then that was a requirement. And when the applicant comes in, if it didn't meet it, then he has to resubmit.
Yes, that's exactly true. with a uh with a little asterisk on the word it. Exactly what it that can go into these requirements and will be enforcable and will stand up under the MBTA communities
act uh is not the entirety of what you'd be able to put in if they were special permit regulations. Okay. There's uh so there's a certain amount that we'd be able to put in on each of these topics that would be hard
and fast uh requirements. There's a certain amount that would be uh guidelines and things for you to take into account and to influence the uh developer in the specific over the course of the specific site plan
approval permitting process. I mean we we can yeah we can do these things. We can do a certain amount in hard black and white text, certain amounts as as guidelines to go through the process and then a certain amount even less formally
than that in pre-development conversations or outreach to property owners and things. Um, we should think about it as a threepronged approach. Joe and uh and Robert just in a on a practical matter, this has already been
submitted for pre-approval or approval. If if there were to be any changes, I anticipate it would have to be resubmitted and re-evaluated by EHOL. Yeah, we're not Yeah, we're not going to
be able to do a formal another formal one. We're too The time's too tight. We're not going to be able to submit another um pre uh pre-approval compliance review and have them do the whole review. So I might I I I I'm in a
position I might to be able to run a couple of ideas by them um for minor changes, but we're not we kind of have to finish off unless you want to bump your timeline. If you're bumping if uh it going back for another
pre-application review for sizable substantive changes is going to require that we bump the timeline for town meeting. Let me let me toss a couple of concepts to you. Okay, instead of having a minimum square footage requirement, how
about just a generic requirement for an outdoor space or of a unit? Okay, that might be easier, right? Um, what Holly already suggested about compatible
architecture existing within the community. sounds like a reasonable thing that can be done. Um, and the other question is
um the diversity in unit profiles, family profiles. So, um, I'm I'm really upset because we've been working on this for two years now and the same subjects have come up
several times and um, so you you see when you're a member of a planning board, you you you're trying to do your best for your community and you try to predict the future. Um, and you want to
be as comprehensive as you can be. And that's what this is all about. And I don't care what the community votes pre and a on on this district or not, but I certainly want them to be aware and I
want to be prepared to address any of these topics if they come up on the floor. Not that I'm going to tell them what I think or how I think they should vote or what they should consider. but be prepared to show them the full
transparency of what this is all about. And that's where I'm at. I I don't want to be embarrassed up there. So, Robert, I just I think this will be a difficult pro. I mean, this has proven difficult in a variety of communities across the
state to pass at times. This has in some communities gone over very easily. I have no idea how it'll go over in Townsland. I I am personally, you know, mentally trying to prepare for the worst that it will be challenged and challenging. Well,
but we don't know. And I think I could I could I'm not going to be around in the future to begin with, but personally, I think I've presented some very legitimate concerns. And I
think that when this comes to town meeting, it's not going to be settled in one day. I I think there really going to be a lot of questions that we have to respond to. And the worst thing that happens at a town meeting is the minute
that the pos the the governing body that's presenting an article, no matter what it is, doesn't have an answer to think. So, I think there's a we I think there's a few way you know the way that you're
pushing and proposing would be to have it in the bylaw, you know. Yes. In the I think what Joe has in identified rather early on is to put it to put what we can in the site plan approval
process. And I you know whether that will be acceptable or not. Can that be done? Can all of these it can these items be put into the bylaw into the site approval process? Yes. Into the site plan into site plan
approval standards. Absolutely. I think and I think that's your answer. when people if people uh bring uh bring up these issues that we have another process going to uh reform the site plan review section uh uh in in the zoning
and as we do that we are very much going to be taking these cons this consideration into account and writing up site plan review guidelines to address these exact topics of the architecture open space and Uh uh what
was the third one? Oh and and oh the AR certainly the architecture and open space. Um this third the third one the unit mix. Listen we no I don't think we can put that one into site plan review at all.
um talking about I I want to have I want to I don't think that that that that's going to fly, but I'm not I'm only moderately confident in that assessment. I haven't had a conversation about this topic with the
MBTA community's office. Um it might be ultimately what you said, Robert, they're on board with that. they would very much agree with the vision of, yeah, we want to make sure some of these units are large enough to potentially be family sized. That's why they put that
language um uh uh suitable for families with children in the MBTA Communities Act. now, but what you're allowed to do to require it uh to rather than just not getting in the way of it, but or and uh not forbidding it, but what you're allowed
to do to require that is an open question. Um so Joe, would you I'd like to go back to them with Yeah, could you please check on that? And I do want to be mindful of our time and I don't want this discussion to derail too too much. I think the points have been really I think Robert, your
points have been made. I think the board largely agrees within reason. I it's I I believe that I know we have discussed this at past board meetings especially while we've been working on this and I I suspect that what we decided was that we were we were interested in including
that in the site plan um approval process. That's that's what I feel like I recollect. Okay. Um so I'd like to go forward with that. And Joe, have you now Joe, when you started when you asked us if there was anything else and then we went on a 40-ish minute diet tribe here, it I felt
like you might have had something that you were going to bring up that I do. Westminster has based their um MBTA communities bylaw on this uh on yours.
So, it's very similar including the second uh the second ramp for the small lot single and two family homes there. Uh town council flagged something.
You know, the um simple majority requirement, the simple majority requirement uh for passage instead of the normal 2/3 vote for a zoning amendment, this can pass by simple majority. The reason it can pass by simple majority is because of something called the Housing Choice Act. The
Housing Choice Act designated that certain types of zoning amendments that are done for the purpose of promoting housing can pass by simple majority instead of twothirds votes. And the one that the MBTA Communities Act leans on is language that says
um amendments that make multifamily h that authorize the construction of multif family housing or that reduce uh dimensional requirements for the construction of multif family housing. Now uh that a second offramp
that's reducing dimensional requirements. It's reducing dimensional requirements for single family and two family housing. The town council in uh Westminster is of the opinion that the single family
housing doesn't that that that doesn't apply that you can't that reducing the dimensional requirements for a single family home doesn't satisfy the requirements of the housing choice act to pass by simple
majority that that has to pass by 2/3 majority. Now, no one else has noticed this before. I the this hasn't this is the first time
it's come up with us. The uh your town council uh it uh didn't flag it. None of the M the MBTA community's office isn't flagging it. Although the MBTA communities office is only looking for compliance with the MBTA communities act. They're not the whole overall. Uh,
Beth, you're angers everybody. Beth here. Yeah, Beth's here. Yeah, we were you were getting a a a uh an informal uh look taken at this by by someone in the uh at the AG's office. Have you
heard back from them? Not yet. Uh just the one comment about the storm water, but that's it. So, I'm waiting on notes and not this. not this issue about the single family thing. So,
so I really need to throw it to you. There's a chance, and I don't know how big that chance is, that a your town council on taking a last look at this will say, "Oh, that single family thing, that's that that that
needs that that's a twothirds vote. That can't be in here." And there's a chance that the uh that someone down the road could make a trouble, could file an appeal on something. This this was
passed with these single family homes shouldn't be allowed to be built because the Now, like I said, nobody's flagged, this is the first I've heard about this other housing war, whatever you
mentioned. Oh, there well we've discussed earlier why it's single why it's simple majority right the goal here is to pass this at town that the the MBTA communities act can pass town meeting by simple majority rather than twothirds I remember
discussing that with you before early on maybe I don't yeah yeah early on it hasn't come up since then um so and so uh that's the question. So, what they're doing in uh Westminster just to be especially safe is that
second ramp with the smaller lots, they're applying it only to two families, not to single family homes. Okay. if it was a and I think there's a lot there was a lot of merit to the idea of
also applying it to single family homes if you uh were determined that you that that you want it in there and you and you do share my concern that this might not go through smoothly and could be a problem in the future. Another option
would be to pass the MBTA uh to pass the multif family overlay district as I have it written here and have that uh that second section with the smaller lots only apply to two family uh to two families. That passes by simple
majority. If that gets 50% plus one, it passes. And then to have a second item on the warrant saying, "Let's amend the multif family overlay district we just passed to also allow the single family homes on the lots where we are allowing the two families." And that would be a
twothirds vote. That's that would be an option for uh that would be an option uh for how to approach this at town meeting. I can do whatever you like on this and I could talk through uh what would be the best what would be the best
way to do with this. I would think um unfortunately that this is a question I feel beyond my skill set and I would be interested in reaching out maybe with Lori. I don't she might be in the water department meeting now
but um we reach out to town council and just ask their perspective. Um yes, my mind is going all over the place with this stuff. I um you know I I my first for you know as a
lay person is like where's the constitutionality of all this you know let alone the the sovereign rights of a community and um um to apply another
standard on a single family home is a real intrusion and and it's Uh it's people should be able to have the kind of house they want, small, big, or
medium. And um you you know what I mean? I I just this is so overzealous. Uh this is this is just procedural about how to pass the law. This is just about whether it requires a 50% plus one or or
a twothirds majority. I want a two/3 majority. So, so look, we've got some options here. Like I said, I mean, they've the MBTA community's office has sent back this letter. So, it's compliant. It's
MBTA communities compliant. It's more the attorney general's office that I might have a problem with. I mean, I if we can, would would there be a problem with us deferring this decision for two weeks, would we be able to if we
were to get opinions from town council and potentially nudge the attorney general who's reviewing this? I look, it's your timeline. It's is is the your blowing your timeline is the only reason that might not be a problem. Um,
what is there a date for publication of the ad? Wait, first of all, this community is familiar with the amount of votes required to pass any article, let alone this
specific one. It does change, huh? It does. It does. Yeah, it's not always two. It's sometimes it's majority and sometimes it's two3 depending on warranting. Well, again, doesn't don't you see that all becomes a big problem and when you're presenting this? Just take a
minute, right? I want to make sure we're concise and we don't ramble too much. So, let's go around. I think I I heard you guys say your opinion, but just say yours, Robert, and we'll keep going. We'll get to Heartley. Okay. And we'll see how Sorry. I don't want to take dominate this at all.
Where where are you at, Robert, with this? I think it should be a twothirds majority for the whole. So as Joe mentioned it the bylaw itself under the MBTA communities law
the multif family part has to be a half has to be 50.1 plus one but the the sticky part is the inclusion of the single family which could be why do we have to include single families I don't know I mean who put that in there no we we I believe that we are trying to
include it to encourage the variety in that Okay. Yes. Yeah. But it's a reduction in size. Yes. It's a reduction in size. How does that help a family of five? You want Robert? Right. We're still on
you right now. But you want variety in the multif family overlay district. You want some triple or um well, people haveies, two families, single families. I do. And part of that, you know, having one neat bylaw for the town to vote on would say,
you know, by right you can build a three uh three family, by right you can build a two family, by right you can build a single family. Right. Yep. Yes. And and the reason we adopted this was for that diversity. If you remember uh
we we wanted to give developers options. Um they yeah they're allowed to build multif family but they also have the option instead of doing a multif family campus of doing some small lot two families maybe some small lot single families.
I remember yeah you remember when we thought we were going to be on the really tough site. Yeah. Okay. So that's why you reduced the size for singles and tubes. But procedurally the issue with the bureaucracy of the
government is that okay it seems that single families don't have that same by right like town meeting passing law you know they may have to be by twothirds and
that's why you may have we may have to separate them okay or choose to go forward I withdraw my all right then and we just go with whatever ever whatever it has to be just make it simple. Okay. Whatever it has to be
I strongly recommend writing this bylaw for so that it can be passed with a simple majority. That has been what I've been working on from the beginning. It's obviously we have a much greater likelihood of success at with a if we only need 50% plus one. Okay.
I hope I Go ahead J. I was going to say I I look if if if the board gives me directions to uh write this bylaw uh and uh we're going to bring it to the uh town meeting
and it's got uh for a two-th3 vote, then those are my instructions and that's what I'll do. But I don't think that's the wisest course. I agree. All right. Okay. I'm sorry. I just Yeah. I I remember now going through all that
and why we decided that was true. The the other issue is that uh it might not be developable for the multif family because of the distance to the sewer and the water the public water supply and that uh rather and that the town
genuinely acting in good faith didn't want to just adopt a phony paper amendment that wasn't actually going to make development possible and giving them the second offramp. you know, if multif family didn't turn out to be feasible, they'd still be able to get some
some rental housing built on on the sites and you know, that was very admirable of me to look at it that way, I think. Okay. So, sorry that I think the biggest I think we have a consensus, right, for us as a board. So, we're going to
work to go through it with a 50 plus one simple majority. which as Joe has acknowledged is different than is it Westminster or Wendon the way they're uh yeah Westminster uh well Westminster
has done the same thing they dropped the single family element so that their um bylaw will can pass with with a simple majority but now are we asking Joe to drop the single family the single family part has
been I believe important to us in our discussion But I guess where I'm at is I'm not I don't think we have enough informationally about whether that works or doesn't work. Well, you do.
You can keep and keep it at 50 plus one. Oh, no. I I I No, I don't know for certain. I think district is just a bureaucra bureaucracy part. So, so then Joe, you would propose keeping it doing two different items on the warrant?
I I I Yes, I would propose taking what I'm proposing is taking out the single family uh section from this bylaw so we can pass it with a simple majority. And now step two, totally up to you. Should
you uh do you want to have a second zoning amendment to add the single family back in with a two by two/3s majority vote? So I I mean personally I think I'm actually more interested in it all being one
package one package that gets voted on. But I hear what you're saying. There's a technicality here that goes beyond our skill set as board. Yeah. And this is where the temple for the community. Yeah.
As in go through as in one one. Yeah. But that also exposes us as a board and as a town if that's not legally due to a technicality that I think Joe was saying could be um I don't know challenged in court if
someone doesn't like single families going in there. Yeah. I'm trying to Yeah, let's think about this. Could it be as simple as just striking single and going ahead with the family on this section? I mean, oh yeah, that that
and then that's the then that would be the, you know, majority vote, but the single family dwellings would not be allowed. I I still am confused why there's a difference of the housing, why the vote has to be different.
I I think I can explain that. Okay. Yes. Why does it have to be Why does it have to Normally any zoning amendment needs a two-thirds vote? Then they passed a bill that made some exceptions to what needs a twothirds to
zoning that needs a twothirds vote. There are exceptions for uh zoning amendments that uh allow multif family housing. You know, for example, changing an item on a table of uses from N to Y or from N
to special permit. Or another one is allow changing dimensional requirements, reducing the dimensional requirements in a way that allows multif family housing to be built. Everything I just said says multif family housing. They didn't change the
law for single family housing. They changed the law for multif family housing. The reason they did that is because they changed the law in order to um promote the development of rental housing. I think that you know
four or five or six years later as they're thinking about it they probably you know we could have just said residential there instead of multif family but the language is what the language is and it doesn't apply that to and it specifies multif family. I got it. All right. said we're talking
about single family in a multifamily zoning district. Right. Right. Right. Okay. They were thinking about single family. That makes sense to reduce the size of the units, you know, square footage requirements, right?
Okay. So I so the only so we do want to have that option for single families within a multif family district
and so that's going to be voted on as an amendment to so we get what we're doing. Okay. And then the only question remaining is it a simple vote or a majority vote? But I think I I I'm I'm hearing a strong
enough preference from the board that we want we we definitely and I I think personally agree, you know, want that single family buy right in there. And yes, as the way Joe has described it to us, I think the the soundest course of action based on Joe's
experience would be to separate out that single family section. Yes. Right. And it's going to have to be two votes at county on that. Yeah. And unfortunately, it would have to be twothirds vote for that. The single family. The single family section. Oh, it's the only way it can be done. Yeah. So,
he said two votes. He said two votes. He didn't say twothirds votes. He said two votes. Meaning it's two separate votes. One being one, but one is a simple majority, right? Yes. the hard other one is a twothird majority
which everyone will vote for which I I think the making the case when we get to that second vote and saying hey you know we really prioritize diversity and housing types and this is why we want this yes um and maybe even when having discussion
on even though I personally would rather have it allin one I it seems like we're confined here or constrained and I think Joe that's pro that's going to be the I'm going to give I'll give I think we as a board are giving you that direction, right? Yeah. Okay. Okay. We'll do Okay, I'll rewrite this
to do to make it two. Simple majority. Two. Yeah. Yes. Sep two separate votes. One simple majority. One two/3. Two3. That's right. Yep. All right.
So, procedurally, each one of these have to be voted on. There's like nine different votes. Oh. for all the amendments that were made. We have to make Joe for these amendments. Um,
I take it you want us to vote on them. I don't look um all of these amendments need to be voted on, but this Ken everything that's on this document I would think would be one lump vote to make these amendments.
Two vote for zoning. You're amending a um a zoning bylaw. So, it's twothirds vote for a lot of these talking about amending section 1455. That's a zoning bylaw that requires two/3 vote. So, you've got it all sectioned out anyway.
You know, one more thing. It's probably not a big deal. uh everything that is related to passing the MBTA's the zoning amendment that will uh legalize the multif family is
covered by the housing choice act and is a simple majority vote. Everything on this page uh is uh can be once I remove the single family homes which are not allowed in there. Everything else is
part of adopting your multifamily zoning district and authorizing the multif family zoning. So it would all be simple majority. Uh, this is the way all of the bills, all of the MBTA bylaws and ordinances that we've worked on and
gotten passed have included things like the definitional changes and ch other changes in other sections in order to implement it and it passes and it's been included in the simple majority vote because it's all being done for that same purpose. Great. Can it all important question?
I don't know if any it has to be a separate vote for each. Yeah, for at the town meeting each one of these articles have to be voted separately. It shouldn't. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's good. So, we we never get
it should just be two warrant articles, right? It should be the main one and then the one that says single family. Okay. Right. Right. Right. Good. Good. All right. Yeah. I know what you're saying, Beth. A lot of these um changes being made here
don't don't in and of themselves legalize multif family housing, but because they're all part of uh the MBTA community's package doing that, they count. Okay, we understand. Okay, great. Okay, good.
All right, Joe, do you have anything else for us or questions for us? Do I have any other questions for you? Um, no, I do not. that uh fixing this and then that uh that oh boy
that little last wrinkle that was my last thing. Okay. Okay. And I guess being how we started this and I'll just close the loop on it to get thoughts on the board. I know initially I brought up and we heard Joe's thoughts about deter estimating an
economic value and Joe recommended not to do that. I just wanted to hear your thoughts. I agree because you can't just do the economic values. You also got to consider the the costs and then what's this and then you know you throw this out at the tax.
Sure. Sure. You're just going to fall down a black hole of Yeah. You're going to go down a rabbit hole and it's Sure. Sure. What do you think? I agree with Carol. We should and you
and andrew. I think we should uh keep these you know within the confines of what we've been dealing with in that would be the best I think the most sensible situation. Sure. Yeah. We got to keep it simple and you know
you got to pray that you have a quorum for this because this is not a something that people are riled up against you know like the tax is being raised. Sure. So people are going to look at this and say why
why does it how does it affect May? We even have poor turnouts for contentious meetings for contentious even the override. Sure. I mean we had a poor basically we had a poor turnout. Yeah. Um considering how many taxpayers. So
we just have to hope that enough people show up to have a forum to pass. Okay. So, I think we're we're aligned then as a board on that. I think we're good, Joe. If you're good with us, I think we're good with you. We appreciate you spending an hour of your evening with us. We always enjoy it.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, if if I could, I just want to uh go over my marching orders to make sure I've got I've uh uh got everything. Uh, I'm taking single family uh language out of the existing
bylaw and writing the existing amendment proposal. I'm creating a second amendment proposal to add the single family uh back into it. Right. to go on the same uh as we go forward with the site plan approval um
project um we are going to incorporate we're going to be thinking real hard about the um the multif family overlay district and writing standards um uh about the issues Robert brought up
um that was it right and that was it. Those were the two I we didn't end up simple the the simple majority vote on the uh single family. Yeah, that was a three.
That was Oh. Oh, yes. Oh, yeah. I'm going to I'm going to see if I can get a uh uh we are going to wait. And this isn't actually a uh an item for me. This was an item on your end. you're going to ask your town council as well
as that your back channel to the attorney general's office this question about the single families being in there and if that's going to be a problem if they both come back and say don't worry about it then we probably don't then we might not even have to do this with the
second vote oh will you be it I it concerns me okay all right that sounds good while the attorney attorney general is sympathetic with the governor, so I don't think there'll be a problem.
All right. All right. All right. Thank you everybody. I'll let you know if you hear anything on your end about that. Thank you, Joe. Thanks, Joe. Talk to you next time. Joe, you still here? I am still here. Haven't clicked yet.
Um, do you have a recommendation for the board on public hearing? Yeah, we do have um we do have town meeting officially set for the 25th. Uh the warrant opens on the 19th and closes on the second. So um is the board has two
se September meetings. Um and I I would actually like to change those meetings if it's all right um to the 8th and I think the second one is the second Monday there. It's the 20.
It's the Monday before town meeting. Let's see if we can date the town meeting. 25th. Is the town meeting the 25th? So, when is the So, the 8th and then the 22nd. Yeah. Thank you. The I would recommend
the 8th for public hearing if that sounds good. Okay. Okay. So, we're in September, right? Yeah. September 8th for the And what dates are what?
So, the public September 8th would be for the public hearing. Public hearing. Joe, could you make September 8th? I I have to make your public hearing. I will do anything else to make your p the MBTA public hearing. It is the most
important thing on my in my year. Okay, that's good. But I guess that means you don't have any crazy trips planned to the Galapagos or anything like that. You you anticipate being in America, correct? And the meeting itself is what day?
The 8th and the 22nd. Well, the public hearing is the 8th. And then the next meeting is the 22nd. 22nd. September. That's the town meeting. The town meeting the 25th. Wait a minute. The town meeting September 25th. Oh,
Thursday. Thursday evening May 7th. So, let's think about this. If you're putting your public hearing on September 8th, that means the advertisement has to go in the paper. What is it? Two weeks before that.
Yep. Which is this week. No, next week. Okay. which are you going to be able to get uh the ad in write the ad and send it into them in time for it to appear then
now your chair you going to have a final are you going to have a final version of the bylaw so I can write the ad sis I yes um that's the thing the the language of the bylaw obviously doesn't
have to uh appear in the ad, but the language needs to be ready and available for inspection by the public when the ad goes in. So, that's our drop deadad date for finalizing this language about single family being in here or not is
when the ad appears. I just want to Lori as our select person, Lori made a brief comment. Go ahead, Lori. Yeah. Um, okay. So, the select board is avoiding the 22nd and 23rd, which is why we're meeting on
the 24th. Um, the water department is meeting on the 8th at 7. So my suggestion would be I mean you're not held to anything and this is obviously up to all of you but perhaps
the 15th might be the better date if you could for the public hearing on on many counts. Um, and then you should be okay with between the
opening being the 19th and the closing being the second. Would that help you, Joe? You think that that would be better for getting the verbiage that you want if it was the public hearing was a week later
on the 15th? Uh the changes I need um because we'll have to have final. I'm good. I'm this neither of those uh dates impose a burden on me. I could e I think I can make the September 8th just
fine. Um the se the well let's see September 8th September 20 something. Yeah, even then I think we'd have no problem getting an answer. and um and having the final language ready to go in time for the ad.
It's up to the board. I just gave you my two cents. Lori is suggesting due to some other town business 14th to the 15th have our meeting on the 15th. How does that work? Our meeting or our meeting which is our going to be at the public hearing
for the MBTA community. Oh, so the eighth meeting will not be anything. Nothing on the We would move it from the ETH a week later to the 15th. Okay. Wouldn't we be having a regular meeting on the on the eth? I don't think I think we would move on.
Do you want have them both, but have your public hearing on the 15th is my recommendation. You can do what you want. Okay. You think we will be having a meeting on the 8th, but it won't be the public hearing. That would be planning on the eth. No meeting on the eth.
Okay. No meeting at all on the eth. I'd say I'd say let's do it. I you know I I guess no I'd say no meeting on the Okay. Let's just focus on the 15th. If we hopefully if we have any business we may be able to take care of it.
Um we've had public hearing and also business. Sure. Sure. I guess it depend on the length when we start the usual time 6:30. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Does that work thus far for your calendars as you know it?
As I know it. Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. I think we're okay with that. Beth, is there any other timing that we need to Okay. Yeah. I will um actually probably need a vote to actually get the
um amendment onto the warrant from the planning board. And I don't know what at what point you want to do that. It closes September 2nd. Next um your next meeting is August 25th. So if we wanted to wait, we'd have all the answers and
you could vote to um to move it to the warrant so I can bring it to the book on the 25th. So on the 25th of this month, correct? We're doing what? We'll have our another planning board
meeting on the 25th of August. I can stay put on the wire. Okay. Okay. I think we're officially good now, Joe.
Okay. All right. Uh, very good. Um, I think you'll be very I'll get the next versions out to you. Um, making those changes and you know, we talked about uh putting all of the uh putting all of the standards uh everything Ron Robert
wanted to see uh into the site plan approval. You know, we've got the section E development standards. Uh I'm going to I think you'll like to I think you'll be happy with what I do with that when you see the next version. I'll put a little bit of reference into that and it'll just make make those site plan
approval rigs that much stronger for you. Okay. Thank you. Nice talking to you. Thank you. You've been a good help, I'll tell you. Thank you. Okay. Excellent. All right. Let's go. Let's keep going.
So, that's 2.1. We've done 1.4 4 2.1 uh 3.1 the mandary mandatory referral from the zoning board of appeals for 159 Brookline. Did you guys get a chance? It looks
relatively straightforward. I don't you know basically it's labeling reabeling what's what originally was assigned to it to the special comments. um just changing it to um a long-term
rental, which is calling it what it is, the actual use. Um it it was an old special permit and the cabins were listed as motel motel and they're not. They're actually long-term rentals. So, okay, this was just an attempt to
correct the special permits. And I think it's going to be a matter of strictly striking uh the first condition on a special permit. Yeah. Okay. All right. Sounds simple. No, no comment from the board.
No. Okay. All right. Excellent. Um, do you need a vote? You don't need a vote on that. I Well, I do have one question. Um, because the ZBA is holding the public hearing on 3 September.
If if if we vote tonight on whatever and something changes at that public meeting, does that do anything to our vote? I'm not sure what you're voting on. I think so. The no different than when we get those referral documents.
Oh, okay. I think this is just an ask for if we have any comments. Comments. Okay. And then if certainly if any new information comes up to them in their meeting, we wouldn't necessarily be aware, but we are aware that they're having one. Okay, then I'm good with whatever.
Okay. All right. So, we'll we'll we'll go for no comment on that from the planning board. Um 12 Ball Road cell tower permit extension through the mass permit extensions act. I did read that. Yeah, that's just formality.
Yeah, that just Yeah, that's just that's just Yeah, formality essentially. That's fine. Yeah. Okay. Um and conveniently, I already signed it. Um thank you. So, um I think we're good there.
Um let's see. So, regulation revisions. I did not have a chance to go through all of these with the as fresh of the mind. So, I don't I' I'd prefer to postpone these. Okay. But if I'm happy if you guys had any
thoughts or comments. Um I haven't had a chance to look at it. No, I haven't either. And I only I only did like I kind of glanced through them. All right. So, we'll postpone that. If I could, one of the thoughts was at that
public hearing on the 15th, if the board has any regulation changes, that could be included in that public hearing and we would save the cost of postage. That was kind of my thought process. Now, these are design standards, so we're going to need your expertise. Oh, boy.
So, so you need to read them really good, Robin. This is no drill. All right. You're the designer now. Yeah, maybe it's too much for for you to tackle right now, but it's kind of came to mind where to your comment, it's not going to
be the exciting special town meeting. Another thing the board could consider is uh one of these older amendments that has been sitting on the books and not really taken care of bringing it forward at this public hearing. if it's if it's
an easy amendment that you had kind of in your mind. I know you've offered a few remember um the amendments a while ago, right? Maybe there's something like that we could add to the mix and and put it in. So, we want that for the next meeting.
Well, if you can do Yeah. design standards because we could include that on a public hearing. Okay. But the other idea was Yeah, we get it done. I just to read you briefly, right? So under the design standards, it says general the design the general design of all subdivisions
shall be consistent with the goals of the town's master plan with and with the character of the immediate neighborhood. So that right off the bat, I think that's working towards what you've been talking to. Yes. And and I think definitely we just add more specific things I think
to it within reason that's legally allowed to us. Certainly for shred. I need to do this prior to what date? Two weeks. So 25th 25th of August. That would be great. So we'll give our you know we'll call it
out now the the three that we're going to try to work on which are um you know as listed in the agenda. 175-14 plans for a definite subdivision. 175-15 uh required submissions for definite subdivisions and 175-16
designs at least 14 and 15. Anybody wants to take home Would you like a print out, Robert? Say what would you like to print out? Yeah, that makes it easier. I I would too. Thank you.
Okay. Okay. Um, and even though I know Beth is working through this or working through that, um, next up is the administrative updates and reports. Um,
you want me to try to read it while you're going through that? That Okay, you go ahead. There's a lot. I I just updated the board. I did have the opportunity to go through some older permits. Um, and I do have notes in here about compliance in terms of your permitting. Um, let's see.
The planning assistance grant, you can read that and discuss it at another meeting. Um, the Oh, next steps for the economic development grant. Would you like me to invite um MRPC uh planner Tracy Murphy to the next
meeting to have like a next step session? Right. I I would. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I'll definitely do that. Let's see. Planning board application. I'm working on the new flood plane permit process because the um the maps
were approved. Uh this is kind of an important update. The zoning amendments to accessory dwelling units and site plan approval approved on January 28th town meeting. The attorney general has yet to approve those. So, they are still
out there in space. It's been almost eight months. I know. You know, so anyway, it is what it is. But there is a comment in your in your notes about that um master plan update. If you could think with me on this one about the best
practice on updating that master plan so that we can do it not only with the goals from the energy committee, but for any other amendments. I want to do it systematically, but I'm not sure how to tackle it. So, anybody can kind of let me help me out with that. And I think
that is all that I was kind of announcing. Does Does anyone have any thoughts on how maybe systematically to go about updating the master plan? I don't know. Maybe we'll I can ask Beth to have a
separate email about that where she sent that out. Well, I know the energy sector is going to be Yeah, they're going to what? Update that section. The energy people. Um, so they came while you were away. And then when we reviewed um
uh we reviewed I believe we voted and approved the updates that they had those that were here. Um, but there was we did acknowledge that we thought that would be of particular interest to you. Um, and I can't remember exactly why or what you've done. You've done something with
it or related. Maybe you haven't. There was some component where we thought Carol would like this and be interested in this. It might be, but we felt like we had You should You should have just got it. Well, we did. We felt like we had enough agreement on the board that we could
agree. And uh so who's physically updating the master plan to incorporate those changes? How does it physically get updated? Now what those I suspect that it would be Beth as the
admin of the planning board and to which it's the planning board's responsibility to oversee that maybe. I don't know. I mean because that's I mean if it's been approved they need to be well even if it's been modified or altered people have to know
you know incorporated and then uploaded to wherever it gets uploaded to but I don't know how I don't know how the mechanics of that work. When when Beth comes back in I think you can ask her but I think I'll also ask her to send just send out in an email specific to us just the master plan. we
can review it and then come up what we think is the best way to go about updating it. I will say on my river cruise along the Columbia River Snake River, the windmills were everywhere of the mountains. Sure. Sure. Windmills everywhere.
And I said, "Boy, does this mess up the scenery. They look so ugly." And then they said they shut them down. Once the winds hit 16 miles per hour, they all have to be shut down. Really? So the the last uh point would be communications. Hartley, do you have
any Oh yes. Oh yeah, we can read. Yes, I have a nice nice full folder here. Okay, folks. First of all, read this before. We'll read it again.
Public notice planning board vacancy. The towning towns and planning board is currently accepting volunteer response forms for the following. One planning board member to serve for one year until the next annual town election April
27th, 2026 with an option at that time to file nomination papers to run for an elected position on the board. The planning board is responsible for hearing and approving subdivisions site plan review. approval not required ANR
lots and applications under the scenic roads act also serves as the storm water authority overseas updating the town's master plan and makes decisions in recommendations required by the town's zoning bylaws and the state zoning act
regarding zoning amendments and reszoning petitions. The planning board meets in person at Memorial Hall augmented with TCAM hosted Zoom meetings at 6:30 p.m. usually the second and fourth Mondays of the month or may
schedule an additional meeting if needed. Volunteer response forms are available online at www.townendma.gov. Click on the jobs and volunteering button. All interested parties are encouraged to apply by completing a form
and submitting it online or to the towns and select board. We welcome adults age 18 and older from all backgrounds to join this dynamic and exciting board. Training is available and we encourage everyone to apply. Okay.
Town of Shirley Planning Board legal advertisement. Town of Shirley's Planning Board will conduct a public hearing at 6 PM on Wednesday, September 17th, 2025 at the Town Office Building, 7 Kyway,
Shirley, Massachusetts. Applications submitted by Markdale LLC, 25 Main Street, Shirley, Massachusetts. A public hearing for a site plan review per section seven of the protective zoning bylaws for a change in use. The
applicant wants to open a takeout restaurant. The parcel is located at 25 Main Street, Shirley, Massachusetts. Parcel IDs, 16C5 in the Shirley Village business district. Copy of this
application can be obtained from the town clerk. Please check the town of Shirley website for full agenda, possible virtual information, updates and or changes or call the office chair of planning board Sarah Whiting.
Okay. Town of Shirley Zoning Board appeals. A public hearing was held on Monday, July 7th, 2025 at 700 p.m. at which a decision was reached. The applicant Martin Karanja and Talu Mugam
Gambi, hope I'm pronouncing those right, came seeking a variance for section 3.32C2 of the town of Shirley's protective zoning bylaws, legal ad. The town of Shirley's zoning board of appeals will
conduct or I already did have that on July 7th. I need to read that. Yep. Okay. Uh just to finish up here. Uh in arriving in its decision, the zoning board of appeals considered the comments submitted by the town of Shirley boards, commissions, and departments per the procedural requirements described in
section 9.2.4 of the protective zoning bylaws as well as the materials provided by the applicant, their engineers, and conversations via telephone and email with representatives. These items are part of the public record and included
with the minutes of the public hearings or by request. Comments received from town boards, commissions, and departments are as follows. The board of health, no comments. Fire department, no comments. Water district, no comments. Building inspector, the offsets for the
lot are 15 ft for all sides, front and rear. This should provide enough space to put the shed in the rear of the lot. Conservation Commission not within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. Tax Collector, real estate and trash, all good. Sewer commission,
no comments in good standing with the sewer commission findings as a result of oral comments and written submissions. The board of appeals made the following findings. The number one, the applicant provided all necessary documents and the plan for layout and address the reason
for the placement of the shed in the plan location. Number two, Noah Butters have expressed concern for the placement of the shed. Number three, the shed is considered a temporary structure because it would be placed on gravel, not a
foundation decision. A motion made by Mr. Swain to approve the variance section 3.3.2C2 2C2 of the protective zoning bylaws related relating to maximum side yard setback for the property at for such way as presented
one foot off the property line for a temporary structure sucketed by vice chair Gersio. The roll call vote was taken. Sher Kelly voted yes. Vice Chair Gersio voted yes. Mr. Swain voted yes. Mr. Sears voted yes. Mr. McCovit voted
yes. Motion passed unanimously. 5 to zero. Any any person agreed by this decision may appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to MGL chapter 48 section 17 and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing
of such notice in the office of the town clerk and just various ends with the various uh town officials and their signatures. And I think that's all I have for tonight. Uh yes. Excellent. Thank you, Harley. You're most I think you've probably
heard this before. You could be an announcer. Well, that's why I have my radio job to tune up for these meetings. Excellent. Okay. I believe that's everything. Um I don't know if Beth, is there anything you're aware that we may be missing that you need to decision or
vote? Nope. Okay. Like to entertain a motion to adjurnn. I I make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second it. Second. All those in favor? Hi. Hi. Nice to have it. Thank you. Thank you guys very much. You're very welcome. Um, Andrew, yes. Lori,
did you ask the question about the update on the master plan? I did not. So, Lori, we had a question while you were or sorry, not Lori. Uh, Beth, while you were away, Carol was asking how the master plan
how the master plan does get updated. Is it you? Is it who does the updating? It's it's been me in the past, but I didn't like the way it was done. So, I wanted to to have the discussion and make sure that it's done like it's indexed properly, you know what I mean?
So, I could use a professional input on that. I don't want it to be halfhazardly, you know, adding a PDF, you know? So, that's where my head's at. Just want to make sure that we have a process because it's going to happen down the road a few more times before we
have, you know, a total update again. So yeah, I guess uh maybe consulting with somebody who does uh planning documents and talk about how to do it in an organized way. And then I would like to bring another sheet for all of you to
sign because you approved the amendment that it's new to me. So do we have the funds to approach someone to consult us on that or would that be supported by Lori? Maybe. Um,
okay. If we go back to when we had Carol, I don't know if you were on the board then or not, when we had the master plan committee. Yes. Okay. Um, and then of course it was Lance and um, Veronica
and there was a big group originally. Anyway, that process took two and a half, three almost four years because it took five years to get the approval from the time started it and we didn't want to go through that again.
So, we had discussed in in the board that we would periodically take a section and do the section and update one section and send that to the state. meaning that our plan would always have
some adjustment and it would never be five years late again. We ended up with the MBTA and so that took up most of our time basically in meetings and stuff rather
than working on the master plan. So I think that some guidance has to come as to what portion of it do you want to tackle and then you the board would approve it. It doesn't go to anybody else to approve
and then you send that portion to the state and then see if you get the update approved. I can't remember if we did Beth, did we have a public hearing when we did master plan? No. And u
the plan does not go to the state. Um and I and I and I don't know Lori if you already know but the board did approve um the changes. They did they do have some in process. It's already been approved. It's just I need to know how to implement it. That's all I'm talking about now.
We have an approval. We have a vote. I have a document. You know basically what they approved. I just want to make sure I put it into the master plan in an organized way and index it. What did we wait so long for to get the approval from the state?
We don't have any approval from the state. There's no requirement at all for a state approval for this document. Am I confusing it with the charter? Probably. No, there never was a state approval for
a master plan. I Okay, I agree. I think that that state approval is required for the language of the zoning bylaw change. Yeah, I I understand that. But Robert,
you were on when we did the master plan. Yes, we did sections of it. We did But those updates after the plan was approved. Beth, I don't know. I'd have to look at the
meetings and Lance was chairing then when we did it and when when we had the board. Um No, you were on. You were chair. Yeah, I was on but but Lance was the chair. It was a very frustrating time for us. Yes, Lance was the chair when we
had master plan committee when I was a member. Yeah. How long it took for the plan to um Right. So, could be developed. I didn't become a member until Lori was chair.
So we worked on sections then. Yes, we did. That was after the approved the after the first committee and we decided we were going to do it ourselves. Right. Carol's got a question. So is the energy section is this a brand
new section or is it an update to an existing section? Well, he took um and he took the master plan and basically put it into Word. Um so that the gentleman, Mr. Brown, came in and he actually went into the document, put it
into Word and inserted the edits and then the board discussed it and approved all of them except for one strikeout. Okay. So now I'm I'm a little confused because I guess I have to go back and put the master plan into Word and incorporate them or you're pretty good at planning
documents. Maybe you and I could sit down and make this. Yeah, I could do that. I remember I remember some specific articles only because I did the open space or recreation place for years. It seemed like years and years and years it took
to get that plan approved. Yeah, I know you're great with documentation. I just want to do it right. I mean, I don't necessarily have to go and put it in the whole master plan, which is 300 pages into Word and then start messing around. No, but is it in word now?
Well, apparently it is with Yeah, somewhere it would be somewhere. Um, who has the best? We took specific articles and edited them and modified them. So, I think let's stay on track a little bit because I don't want to go till 9.
So, Beth has asked for help. I think Carol has offered it for sale. Yeah, I'll come I'll come sit with you. Carol will help Beth. Okay. I think right now we'll focus on getting the MB MBTA community stuff done. I think Lor's point um well making
sure we are reviewing it and updating it. I mean fortunately we did update the energy stuff at our last meeting. I think once we clear from the um FBTA stuff then that'll give us a chance to continue with bylaw review and continue with the
and we'll we'll find some section to bite off. But you might want to uh as chairman you might want to um some of the modifications we made came from different department.
Sure. Sure. Yeah. And then you might uh want to assign individuals. So um and get them initially to do an overview and
Sure. Sure. Yeah, I think that's fine. I think that's fair. I think we'll cross that bridge when we come here. So, let's I think I know the we did have a motion to adjourn, but we did continue meeting business. So, let's do another motion to adjurnn. We'll make a motion to adjourn at 8:21.
8:21. I second the motion. Second. All those in favor? I. All right. And the and the meeting is a jer.