##VIDEO ID:qhGJrHYcL90## good evening everyone my name is Laura shiffrin and I call the meeting to order of the planning board um January 9th 2025 at 6:30 p.m. could I have a roll call vote please not a vote a roll call please of the members present Carol Hopson pres Baran present sheff and Laura shiffer present would you all join me in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge of allegiance to the flag United States [Music] America like to thank all of our veterans and all of our emergency respons people and all of those that are working to um save those or put out the fires in California prayers is going out to everybody there the meeting is being recorded and will be uploaded to the town of towns and YouTube channel and is there anyone else in the audience or at home that may be online that is recording I know he that anyone is so okay and I do not have any addition circulations okay we'll go right to the 6:30 public hearing and I'm going [Music] to open the public hearing now at 6:32 p.m. and have the board members introduce themselves Carol hus Robert Daran pan Andrew and Laura shiffon has everyone signed the signing sheet from the public yes that it's there okay I'm going to read the legal notice now in accordance with General Law chapter 4 A5 the town towns and planning board will hold a public hearing on Thursday January 9th 2025 at 6:30 p.m. in the selectman's chambers at Town Hall um the address by um regarding certain proposed amendments to the town zoning bylaw chapter 145 of the town code as follows by deleting from article 9 entitled special Provisions the entirety of section 36 entitled accessory apartments in residential district and substituting a new section 36 therefore relative to the regulation of accessory Apartments AKA accessory dwelling units or adus two by adding article 9 entitled special provision section 42 entitled site plan review special permits subsection b a new further subsection three stating that site plan approval not a site plan review special permit shall be required for accessory apartments by adding a new section 42.1 to add article 9 entitled and establishing a process for site plan approval and three by amending article 9 entitled special Provisions section 54.1 entitled age restricted development so as to reduce the acreage requirement for these developments to one acre to eliminate the requirement of a permanent conservation restriction to authorize the planning board to Grant certain wavers the complete text of the proposed amendments above is available to to review in the land use office at Town Hall address above during normal business hours or by emailing a request for digital copies to Beth Von administrative assistance the planning board add and her email address remote access to is provided as a courtesy login credentials can be found at the Townsen uh website you are invited to attend the public hearing and participate in disc discussion any person wishing to be heard should appear on the date and at the time and place designated comments may be sent to the board Cara Beth bexon at the above Town Hall address or via email as for said prior to the date and time of public hearing Laura shiffer chair planning board and published in the Sentinel and Enterprise on December 26 and January 2nd 2025 okay so um now we would present the proposed uh zoning bylaw amendments and Mr Doyle did you want to um do that or have comments to that effect that's the next part of uh the public hearing oh okay um thank you for for joining us yeah you are welcome um to uh to sum these uh to uh sum the amendment up the or the purpose of this amendment up uh the um State Legislature passed uh and the governor signed into law uh um a new law allowing accessory dwelling units by right uh accessory dwelling units under uh and these uh um limits are described in the uh uh in in the amendment under 900 square feet a uh a single family uh the owner of a single family home now has a right under state law to get a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit on their lot and so what these basically the state deregulated accessory dwelling units uh the current law uh the current uh the town's current bylaw allows uh accessory dwelling units but subjects them to a special permit the uh in your bylaw you have a what's called a site plan review special permit towns are no longer allowed to um make to subject uh accessory dwelling units to special permits they're uh now Allowed by wri and so your existing accessory dwelling unit language is a dead letter what is being proposed here is to re-regulate uh accessory dwelling units to the extent that is allowed under the new state law this puts them under a um proper traditional site plan review procedure even when a use is allowed by right the community can still make it subject to site plan review because site plan review isn't deciding yes or know are we going to allow this uh use in this location site plan review is about imposing conditions and standards and regulations on how something gets done that uh when somebody is allowed to do it so this uh subjects them to site plan review it establishes um some standards and and regulations for them it takes the limits that were incorporated into the state law and um uh sets them as the limits that are here in this law as well and uh this is uh this is an an attempt by the community to respond to the um uh to the actions taken by the state so that the planning board will retain um some oversight over uh how these uh um accessory drilling units are um are built okay okay so next I'm going to do the um mandatory referral that we have received and read them into the record we have from the historic commission historic district commission um a note that just says no comments at this at this time um we do have a note from the Board of Health which was basically a typo that was caught and that was that subsection 14536 section C4 refers to a section B4 that no longer appears to exist and it doesn't so um I we already made well Town Council did anyway already made the note that that should have been removed so that was his comment and and that's been done um we have from the building inspector um Beth can you oh see it's on the back sorry uh one you should classify the spr under 145-40 1 as Adu site plan review as it is easily confused with special permit I thought from what you just said we had it clarified um I did didn't see the um could could you read that language again I think she might read that language again okay this came from the Building Commissioner and it said you should classify the spr so special permit review I think that means s well it says in h I'm reading what he wrote uh okay under 14542 point1 as Adu site plan view as it is easily confused with special permit um yes what we did to distinguish them what I did to distinguish them in the law is use the language site plan approval as opposed to your old site plan review that was the language effort we did to distinguish them okay and I also think that um Town Council may have uh responded to that uh that we have done that correctly and um Beth correct me if I'm wrong you know when I say that but I'll go on and so that is uh I'll go on now to his second comment section 14536 B1 what is the PB which I think is planning board thought process on the way they need to be involved in an special permit I think they must means site plan review site plan review oh okay um when it's an addition to the footprint or height I think this is more red tape than needed sounds like they are T making a law designed to be um easier harder on the applicant if you put an addition or a second floor without an Adu you are subject to an spr because this is only for adus it could be considered showing favoritism towards people not putting in adus I understand possibly an spr for detach use the parking and access reasoning but see no reason for attached adpr okay yes this if you're we if you uh the board Rec calls uh one of the most substantive uh conversations that we had to have and the drafting this is what needs to be covered by site plan re uh site plan approval and what doesn't and work within the footprint of the building it wasn't subject to site plan review while work uh not uh that was an addition or the construction of a new accessory building was going to be subject to site plan review um Robert do you want to comment okay we had we did have long discussion about if it was interior versus exterior right so in considering all these things we have to think about the different situations that could occur so if you had a single family home and you had a garage already there that would be one situation and that would be allowed by right that's or detached huh attached or detached that would be a detached building then there's the option of adding on to an existing building and there's the potential of somebody using their basement or their attic as an additional Adu unit so the statute that's been prepared here for you to review and for us to consider is trying to be flexible enough to accommodate all those situations in all situations it any applicant is entitled to any of those uses or applications provided it meets a site plan review so site plan reiews incorporate question and concerns about how it's going to work with the community so there are parameters there about parking parking spaces uh setbacks versus a new building versus an existing building so it this has been designed to provide what the governor has promoted in this board supports okay however to still have Town input as to how it can be done and that's basic what it is so this board for example or cannot deny anybody a use but they can reject a proposed plan okay that's basically what we're all trying to here and um some conditions yeah or place some conditions right so that's why you have different language here so that the public as well as this board has some guidelines as to how to go about that okay thank you Robert I appreciate that the next comment came from the highway department or or lack thereof they had no comment and then we have um a referral back from conservation which does not have a comment then we have a comment back from uh Board of Selectmen um which states um please check the reference oh okay we took care of the first one 3D in the Adu bylaw um two I have a concern about the density in the 55 plus bylaw three what is the deed language for 55 plus units are they in perpetuity and four please add an affordability Clause to 55 by law um first off we did get um legal uh councel advice on this and or planning did and then on the uh the purpose of tonight's meeting is what the legal notice said and that would not be to add um the affordability Clause okay so that's not even um conv be considered at this point in time um M Mr Doyle would you like to handle the um any feedback on the other comments did you want me to do them one at a time uh yeah go go go back to the ones that weren't 50 about the 55 um yeah I have a concern about density in the 55 plus bylaw I I haven't been involved in in um the 55 plus bylaw well the language that we're putting in for 55 and the age restricted or there is no age in the bylaw Madam chair would you like me to read what uh Town Council Office yes okay um so regarding density as noted no density changes are proposed so a density discussion may be Beyond scope of the proposed bylaw revisions um the age restricted development bylaw does not require a recorded age restriction I defer to the planning board regarding addition of an affordability Clause to the age restricted development bylaw however likely beyond the scope of this provision mam chairman yes Robert um I just want the public to be aware of a couple of things here one prior to the governor's order on this this board already was looking at accessory use revisions in the current bylaw the subject of age units a restricted development and affordable developments have their own sections in our bylaws now this is exclusively to allow people single family home owners to have the right to have accessory units unrestricted by other prior statutes okay that link to affordable housing and linked to aging and linked to uh just exclusively for family use so this modification here has been done addressing those things um and some of those things were pre-existing before the governor's action um and so we as a board here removed sections of the older bylaw that had requirements that were linked to fair housing and other other um statutes so this really makes this a lot simple it benefits the public um and and again these other topics affordable housing and fair housing do not apply with this ad they don't I agree with you completely I just want to make that okay thank you um just a minute I'll get to public comment in a minute I have one more um well no that those were the mandatory vot for okay I have one more comment I guess um so okay so now I have um a written response that came in and then um I'll get to those who are in attendance um the written response that came in was are we sure that the site plan light I'm not sure if this is right but it's lit T light approach meets the as of right standard um and then two do you want to answer each one of these okay let me yes let me let me address that I can't say that I am 100% sure because the state is still formulating its gu and revising its guidance I attended a the webinar um about uh about the from the state about these revisions and one of the points that they made was that they didn't want and this this go this is um relevant to the comments from the Building Commissioner as well they did not want stricter requirements placed on Accessory dwelling units than on the single family homes themselves okay um now so that very clearly means you can't say that a uh a single family home can be H has a minimum front yard setback of 40t at an accessory dwelling unit at 60 ft or things like that you can't uh substant substantively imp ose stronger requirements like that um now the question about the it was a little ambiguous what they meant about the site about site plan review um site plan review is allowed for things that are allowed by right um and in the planning board's decisions they wouldn't be able in site site plan review they uh they wouldn't be able to impose conditions that you know that go beyond can uh what owners of single family homes can do but having site plan but having a site plan review procedure that doesn't uh impose greater conditions and is reviewing uh to make sure that uh the design and everything is consistent with a a uh how the how single family homes are built and you know holding them holding them to uh the to the same conditions would be and just making sure that the site plan is okay and meeting all the standards uh I think that that would be allowed um but like I said I can only say this to a certain degree Ree of confidence because the state itself is only is is still formulating their own interpretation and still taking comments on it I I think so I think that as this was written it would it it would be okay um has the Town Council weighed in on this on this particular question um I think I'll ask Beth that but I think that we all discussed the in the other public meetings that we had um that the fact was that the real um solid guidelines won't be down until the state does their mandates and no matter what we have we're going to be able to we're going to have to follow what their mandates are yes yes that's basically what the discussion has been from my recollection yes any let me get through this um two more statements here um the drawing requirements seem to exceed the desired affordable goal just like the title five requirements I think a lighter drawing requirement would suffice in most cases I don't know not sure what is meant yeah the the the the requirements that the uh for for the drawings that you're requiring uh uh I I believe there there addressing that and saying oh do they really need a uh certified architect uh you know drawings at scale and everything for uh just the this site plan review well the drawings that they're being required for the site plan view they're no more um strict than what they're going to be required for their for their building permit anyway right ex so it's not like a separate uh uh cost and hurdle is being imposed here on them that they were aren't already facing by your site plan review the requirement to have have these drawings drawn up okay good point good point um and then last comment here was the part about Disability should provide for future access since it will happen to most of us I keep thinking about this and will keep you posted I don't know that's public comment yeah okay for for the next part I think it's that's just a comment um for the next part um Carol can I have you take over please which would be now at the public questions I'm gonna this is the time for the public questions can I just add more to this so that maybe we can offset a lot of questions from the public okay five minutes okay so the bylaw that we've work together to develop here basically allows up to 900 square feet so in the different situations and in terms of site plan review suppose you have a property that has a garage that is right on the property line and the individual wants to that garage only has 450 square feet and he wants to get the benefit of 900 square feet so he wants to use the garage and add on to the garage to get the full 900 feet so that would bring questions about setbacks for the new edition it would bring questions about the distance between the existing house and the detached garage unit so all of that is Incorporated in our bylaw and is and and and makes those applicants subject to site plan review also included in that bylaw that we're proposing is uh so that gives you an idea what the site plan would be about the review would be about and also within that there is language there about the uh trying to maintain the architectural styles of the existing buildings so um so th that language has been in Incorporated here so for for planning boards and anyone doing a s plan review um would have those things to consider and to make recommendations or changes or even deny a specific proposed layout um so it's not denying the right it's saying that that doesn't work for what our intentions are um so I just wanted everybody to understand how what the roles of this board or future boards would be and everything else that has been stated is already covered by building codes uh and what you need for a permit um so other than that it's no different than getting a building permit for your home um um and so that gives this board some latitude as to what could or what would be better or not better on a particular applicant's proposal thank you Robert okay thank you I can entertain comments from the from the public now who wants to go first I I'll go because I'm the one that wrote the comments the select board only my first comment applied to the Adu bylaw the 3D or whatever that that reference that went nowhere um the rest of them were for the age restricted development so we're not talking about the age restricted development at this moment we no okay so the other three comments about the Imp perpetuity Etc were on the age restricted not on the Adu the Adu I'm good with okay I I like that we're only talking about adus yeah okay so just to make that clear so I do have a question for Beth about what Town Council said when it went to age restricted um but we'll talk about that with the next yeah that's a separate subject it is okay thank you yes ma this may sounds silly because I don't understand everything everything that's going on I understand some things now the adus I'm talking about like one Adu per property yes oh okay okay per single family you dwelling oh okay that's C right so we discussed that because I wanted a clarification so if there was a building on a property now that was a duplex is that one or two families good question all right so we have to work that out and it's only one that's considered one building one only one Adu could be allowed because we're talking about buildings versus ownership okay so we have to address that in terms of condos and apartments and everything else Mr Boyle go ahead yeah yeah I I uh wanted to bring this up they uh the way the law is written is that you can only have one Adu per Primary Residential structure okay so uh but or I'm Sorry by right you the town must allow people with a Primary Residential structure to have one Adu by right towns have the option of um making a second Adu by special permit or making or Banning spe uh second adus Al together or making them also it's that there on multiple adus the town has uh a lot of flexibility and the town here is choosing to only allow one uh one interesting Quirk here is according to this uh these still being developed this still being developed Guidance the Adu bylaw isn't limited to single family homes and the owner of a two or three or multif family home might all could uh uh also uh have the right to produce one accessory dwelling unit um we'll see where that ends up but it might be yeah it might be imagine somebody has a three Decker and there's a garage in the back and uh they can add a unit in in the garage uh um by wri um not sure really this is something that's going to come up in Townsend but uh might come up in some of our communities as this has been prepared now uhuh that option is not available yes as it as yes the town's bylaws uh limits this to single families uh uh um owners of single family homes thank you any more questions is there anyone online that needs to ask a question there no further questions or against okay then I do I need to make a motion to close the public hearing may I make one further Point yes um look looking over this document and reviewing it and everything um I I think it might benefit from one further minor um change in your existing definitions section you have a definition for accessory Apartments um just just give me a moment here uh it reads a ex your very first uh definition under accessory us or building you have a accessory Apartment A distinct portion and you have your definition it's a perfectly good definition um where we've been using accessory dwelling units perhaps add language amending 1455 to make that read accessory apartment or accessory dwelling unit just to make that clearer to read yeah and you might want to Define accessory dwelling unit just right um in the in the language of the Adu section it says accessory dwelling units I also known as uh um accessory apartment so it sets it up that the the bylaw is going to go back and forth between the two terms I think that therefore having both of those terms in that heading is just be will just be that make it that much clearer that that's my that's my input can you just clear I it took me a minute to get to the right document what document you want to make that change to uh in in in the zoning in uh uh your zoning is 145 and 1455 is word uses uses definitions yep section 1455 and then uh the very first um thing you have under it is accessory use or building and you have uh a and you have uh four thing four definitions here uh accessory apartment affordable accessory apartment floor area pre-existing building I would turn that first one where it now says a accessory apartment to read a accessory apartment or accessory dwelling unit to show that they're the same thing the confusion here is the accessory unit so that when you say an accessory building I'm not saying building it doesn't necess a necessary use does not necess mean an apartment or a dwelling unit and that's where this is coming from yes and I'm looking at the one that is spe specifically says accessory apartment so so it's already talking about the dwelling unit can't we just eliminate the term apartment the reason at the last meeting we decided we uh not to do that not to hunt through the entire document and turn every accessory apartment into accessory dwelling unit and that the better way to handle that was just the language that we have now that says accessory dwell units or accessory apartments and just go you know make it clear that the two are synonymous and so this is in keeping with the decision that the board made last time so I think that's a fine idea I'm just trying to wrap my head around what the motion we're going to make would be to to make that change that would be right now the I'm not seeing it you know what I will um when this uh when we end uh this conversation I will uh type up an email and send it to Beth that will have that language so you can look at it yeah and you can make your Motion in your deliberations after the public hearing I can help you with that thank you and can I ask something so that will be part of article 17 in the special town meeting it'll be the definition change and the Adu change correct correct um there's no special permit here I did I say special per I said the definition change and the Adu bylaw change would be part of article 17 correct which is um just because we've already approved the warrant yeah waiting Lang that was part correct okay very common very common yeah okay good administrative yep okay okay last I just have a question so are you ending like the hearing and then you're going to be ask everybody to leave after this or how does that work I have another hearing don't you have another hearing for like the age restricted development everything I mean two more points or at least one more point to go the a restricted development about the a bridge okay right we had two topics okay then all right then we go to so we're specifically on the Adu right right now we're on the Adu yes then the AG restrict okay you're correct thank you thank you oh no problem no you are correct so now we want to go to the do I have to no I just can keep going to the age restricted no I think you have to clar yes is everybody on page here we've completed the Adu topic okay okay so is that true Beth I can close the public meeting no um did you no you want to discuss any uh public comment on age restricted um amendments just ask for a public comment on that topic okay I think we should read that section the whole two pages three pages all right I can read this this is from the um the legal notice and this is to let everybody know what we're talking about by amending article 9 entitled special provisions section 54.1 entitled age restricted development so as to reduce the acreage requirement for these developments to one acre to eliminate the requirement of a permanent conservation restriction and to authorize the planning board to Grant certain waivers the complete text of the proposed amendments above is available for review in the land use office so um B basically we're reducing from two acres to one acre so let me discuss this a little bit with people our zoning bylaw allows an exemption to the regular bylaw designed for age restricted use the intent of that bylaw which was passed years ago was to provide an accommodation for older people in our community um and to make it a cost you know uh incentive program to keep our oldest citizens in town so that was the pr that was presented at the original town meeting where this bylaw was even adopted so at that time it was established certain criteria for developer in being allowed to use that right or use that use what's happening here now is asking the community to reduce that standard from two acres to one acre okay in other words increasing the density that would be allowed when we talk about that you always have to bear in mind that all the other standards from the health department and water and sewer and building departments still apply okay so what we're talking about primarily is density allowed okay and so in the the social climate today we're trying to encourage as much housing as possible and so this article is being prepared for the town so that they can increase housing for that use increase the number of a of um units for age restricted uh development so that's what this is all about um and I don't think there anybody I think our board finds it a very favorable approach to do uh one that could be beneficial for the town um and for the need for more housing it also helps in regard that the town has to provide so many housing units uh as a quoter or as an incentive um so I'm not quite sure statue on that there isn't one on that there's MBTA communities that and that's different from this that requires a certain number since there's no affordability built in here it doesn't apply to the quota required for affability thank you not true I'm sorry oh that's okay she's the authority of that okay all right so now we can go turn questions on the age restricted I do have a comment um for one um as far as the AG Bridge my my husband was on the water of Health in the 90s and I uh he's talking about different things and and I talked to him about this and he feels one acre is not adequate enough for a septic and if it fa ever failed you have to have room for and he was try to remember the terminology room for expansion or backup or something um it has to meet the title five requirements right but there's a c well he was on the board of he all that he knows all that stuff and he just said that's that's not enough room for adequate Stu I know you know all the talk of that stuff and so that was my concern one of my concerns and as far as the uh the I refer to it uh eliminate the requirement of a permanent consolation restriction what does that allude to well it it from my perspective or my standing this is simply to allow that possibility to happen Okay um and the all the other requirements from all the other departments uh and Boards would still have to apply all right um what this does is allow the right to have that many units in that that group um and that classification it doesn't mandate that they can happen because they're all subject to other regulatory requirements so everything about conservation everything about um would still have to apply on a site plan that would be proposed uh to this board and as well as to any permitting requirements so in that regard everything that we're accustomed to now is still going to be enforcable um we're really basically saying that if a project can meet all the other requirements and all the other boards and all the other people are looking at everything on a project they can build that number of units based on the acreage they're working with can I comment yes you may I I have several comments but since we're on the CR this was I was on the planning board when this was introduced to the town as a bylaw and it was five acres I'm sorry it was five acres it was five yeah and then it was modified down to two I think we even started started with 10 but it it came down to five then to two um and so I'm good with removing the CR on two acres a CR really doesn't make sense on 5 to 10 acres it would but on two acres it doesn't um I had um so that's my CR comment I'm I'm good with that going away on the um uh the things that lri read that Beth commented on one of the comments was the in I had a concern about the increase of density um I I don't support going to one acre on this um uh and it is an increase in density even though apparently Town Council said it wasn't so Beth were you talking about adus when you were talking about this with Adam or were you talking about the age restricted that's first question second question is I wanted to know if this was deed restricted in perpetuity what makes it age restricted and what I heard best say was nothing there's nothing that makes it age restricted and if that's the case I have I I think this needs amended again and I don't know that this should go to the board because it means that we are creating quite the density for non-age restricted um I I agree with Veronica here and with this board is experien a lot of this type of applicants recently and not only these applicants have not complied with what we currently have but ask for more relief on that and I have a very tough time with that situation um and only because when it was presented to the town those who were established as the minimum requirements just like Veronica was saying that's what we decided they reduced it again and so um I look at that as a minimum standard this town would upet so um so that subject is applied right now to age restricted projects okay which implies that those structures will be designed to accommodate a specific profile and that profile of the individual what it was planned for or who we were trying to accommodate should be evident in the applicant's application not just it's a house or a unit that it's a unit that we're allowing to happen with relief from our regular bylaw for a specific profile which is people over 55 so that's oh um Madam chair may I just respond I know Miss Cal asked about what Town Council wrote um and he he basically said that um he defers to the planning board regarding density which the planning board has discussed in numerous meetings um and he also says that no density changes are proposed if you look at the table in the age restricted bylaw the density hasn't been changed the size of the acreage has been um is proposed to be reduced so that's where the density discussion he States may be beyond the scope of this hearing um so again this has been discussed in in multiple planning board meetings and he also does say that yes the um age restricted development bylaw does not require a recorded age restriction that is fact um and then the affordability Clause he um also mentions that he defers to the planning board however as Mr theion noted it was discussed uh many many times over many board meetings and um it's likely beyond the scope of the proposed revisions here tonight does that answer your questions Kath yes that answers my questions a little does create more confusion it doesn't create more confusion for me I understand exactly what it just means that we either need to come forward with a um inclusionary zoning bylaw that um that requires either a payment um for affordability or um a unit that is Affordable you know some sort of unit um proposal on that we we don't have incl AR sounding in this town so uh you know so it's that yeah and there is the option to allow it in our bylaws but it's never been invoked by the land on open space and multif family developments it's um provided age restricted is a little bit different I have a concern if our age restricted bylaw is not AG restricted it means that what we're doing is um not what the intent of this bylaw was I agree and so um I would not change the I would not change anything here I wouldn't change the minimum lot size I wouldn't um because it it means that yeah you can still have four units per one acre so yeah that but I'd rather we're on a bigger space you have more opportunity for number six um the common open space in the development you know if you have common open space of if you have a one acre lot that you have to leave 30% of it open and 25% of that can't be wet okay and we do have a lot of wet land in this town you're looking at just under um uh three4 of an acre where you could potentially put eight units um in one acre um that's not so good so I would leave it as two acres because then you would be 30 it may not be a good use of that right I'm sure a developer would have a really hard time to I don't know I spent time on the planning [Music] board you'd be amazed at what can happen agree with you um so I I wouldn't change this but and if it's not age restricted if there's nothing that compels age restricted I think we need to look at the whole thing all together I agree with you I I I think it requires more work you mind just um could you mind if I share just a little bit of what Town Council said that I think pertains to what Veronica is mentioning okay so um it sounds like in 2020 or 2021 was when from the planning board that's when that decision took place what I have Beth you can correct me but the email I'm reading from Adam is he said that these bylaws are typically now referred to he does say the titles of misnomer the name of it but age oriented or age targeted bylaws but not age restricted and he says that the existing age restricted development bylaw does require age appropriate design limits bedroom count Etc which does make it structurally less likely that these developments will become overrun with families again then he says these decisions weren't his they're from the planning board back in 2020 or 2021 exactly a structural component that it but you can put 10 people in a bedroom I mean you can [Laughter] um um you know so I I just have a concern about that B you had a question oh I'm just trying to get a handle on this now we're talking age restricted we're talking about moving it from I still would like to see it two acres at least just judging by everything I've always heard all these years about SE system and also I've been talking with different people as far as um amount of building going on in the surrounding communities I spoke with a gentleman from chamford and he he's like yeah move out this like the acre there one acre and and for their building lots and regular building lots and chord and stuff it's like you won't believe how much building it's like it's unbelievable he said I know people who moving away they start out one yeah I I I used to live in ch and I was there recently and it's like not one square inch of Le it doesn't have both huge apartment buildings on right I mean it's really lost a lot of its character and that's one thing I'm woring about the the future PS of and all the documents I've read about the housing plan and the trust whatever documents are out there it talks about the keeping what makes towns and townsed and that's what I'm really concerned about too it's a beautiful place I moved here from Dougley which is very similar to towns in um it's a great place to raise your family and it should be a great place to retire as well so we you know but the thing is I don't want to see it lose its charm you build on every square inch what do you have a mini City that happened to Newton I know someone lives in Newton that happened to Newton I don't want to see us become a mini City try to meet requirements and Anchorage and stuff everybody in what's the point you're losing the Integrity of your town and I feel very strongly about it thank you for your comments anyone else have comments thank you are we done anyone online have comments I do have one more com sure sorry as well as boards everything um okay let's see how to phras this I appreciate your comments thank you I'm not trying to be personal or rude to anybody I hope you appreciate you know like don't think I'm trying to I'm just I just feel very passionate about this and um I I don't know what the answer is I know that some towns have actually gone against state regulations and stuff because they don't want this to happen many people many towns voted against CPA when people voted the CPA and they did not realize all the components they just said you're going to see this happen and this happen they didn't read the fine print they did not the taxes for one they didn't read the fine print about you need such and such per okay get top I'm sorry my basic thing is off we my basic thing about the um the building is uh the acreage and stuff I mean I don't know if you need 10 acres per building I'm not asking for that but I just think the need thank you stay aboard there's more of this coming these are just two articles that we're considering here tonight there are many more coming so got a roller coaster right yes we need your input and we need from a Housing Trust standpoint we have a 20 acre piece of property um and we only need 100 feet Frontage correct so we could potentially put 160 units on that 2 AC is that correct that's correction yeah okay so in from an affordability affordable housing standpoint this is great I mean could put 160 25% of those are affordable and the rest of are market rate that's that would be our Max yeah when that what Acres goes away we're going to need that well we are exactly would that be the MTA close close it's 175 something like that close Okay so just just making sure I understand this so you only need 100 feet of Frontage and after that the density kicks in yeah so we have which we do have with no environmental restrictions we could put 56 units on that and again I think in that light we have to look at our subdivision requirements here and how we're doing that not a subdivision though really it would be it's age restricted oh yeah you're right and and age restricted isn't really age restricted because we don't restrict the age we only say it's intended for what's the word that he used iated for mon IET what the name of the thing is Mones at something or other and I was um online ass zoom and um I know we have had an aging population but this one lady representative one of the towns did State now we have a baby boom bursting through the l so at one point we're going to have we're having more babies born and I have been researching that as well okay so that is concerned you you know you might have too much elderly housing you know oh yeah no that's that's true but there's a baby boom I mean for a while there weren't a lot of babies being going and all a sudden there are any more comments more comments from the audience Mr Bo you look like you have one last comment well yes this this this discussion has sparked a couple of thoughts uh um in my head my first is um this issue about uh this number of units being built uh the you know this discussion that just that uh just happened um where uh the member of the select board brought up the potential of one entrance and 160 units um brought up the issue of U Environmental Protections uh I don't remember does your site plan review your site plan review special permit section does that have um triggers uh like based on numbers of units and impervious surface if you if you're a certain number of units or certain number of parking spaces that triggers your site plan review uh because if there is a largish project like that it triggers site plan review uh which allows uh you know allows some oversight about those things it's it's not entirely uh this isly something you're not get that doesn't a require special permit it's a potential you have the potential for it okay oh yeah yes uh so yeah it is important to um it that that potential where something uh can be allowed uh and uh um but it's there's a special permit or a site plan review or or something one way to provide a little more Assurance about these concerns uh is that the town can adopt standards within its zoning um as uh standards for the issuance of that special permit which become black and white language in your zoning that the planning board has to find and the planning board has to think about so if there is if there is that concern about that that is one way to strengthen the language in this that the town might want to consider um and what was the other question what was the other question uh I think that I I I think that was my major uh my major point I would just like to say uh at the end of the meeting there's a couple of um other AD ministrative things I'd like to uh talk to the board about that aren't aren't directly related to what's on the agenda okay thank you thanks everybody more comments I like to be I have to have a motion to close the public hearing or GNA just close the public hearing you should um take a motion to close a public hearing formally okay can I get a motion to close the public hearing second okay okay can I take a call Vote roban Yes Yes Andrew Shephard yes Carol H yes this closes the public hearing and now we'll go thank you for coming thank you thank you thank you thank you you have a good night okay Mr Bo we're good oh I think you're on mute so there we go all right I did send Beth that email with the language um about uh adding that uh accessory dwelling unit okay great okay if you wanted to look at Beth do you have that to forward I'm looking at a B right now hold on I see yeah oh gosh got buried where did it go oh oh fig one second okay yeah I can put that on screen if you want or good way to do it okay yeah let me take care of that everybody knows what they're voting on [Music] all right there you go oops over so in section 1455 word uses and definitions add the words or accessory dwelling unit Adu after the title A accessory Apartments it'll Now read a accessory apartment or accessory dwelling unit Adu that sounds fine yeah that's fine so move to oh I guess I guess we have to make a motion to approve changing the definition of 1455 um add the word or accessory dwelling Unit A after a accessory apartment sove I second yes yes and Carol yes okay that takes care of that all right um my uh uh item two was the uh next year's DTA applications are uh due in February um I wanted to talk to you about uh whether we were going to be working together again next year I know you're we're still going to have uh the MBTA compliance application once it once it gets approved uh was uh and we let's see we're still waiting we're still waiting here on that pag yeah I'm sorry um Madam chair could you finish the bylaw uh there was another I just didn't want to to interrupt Joe but um back to the bylaw there was another problem that was brought up in terms of remember the there was a bad reference to a 3B or something exactly can you guys vote to um to make that change and can you point that out to the board so we're sure because we're gonna the board is going to be finalizing their decision tonight so I just want to make sure they have the right wording of what they need to delete do you recall it's in the comments it says it's in the um comments 135-36 accessory dwelling units and residential districts in paragraph C4 um it's down uh one23 the third line down it says and could as indicated by the report required in for point B above there is no um B4 okay so I I guess it should just say in accordance with the requirements of the Board of Health period and get rid of the words as indicated by the report required in4 above correct yeah is that sound good Joe we lost you Joe we just want to make sure if we're doing the right thing um I think so I think so just give just give me one more moment thank you yeah take you t uh now you're uh are we in I'm in um D1 okay if I'm in 14536 and if you go down to C4 C C4 and then if you go down to the third line it says by the report required in B do4 above okay and if you go above there is no B4 okay um where okay so where does it re require that report now uh it I see so I don't know do is there a report required or can you just put a period at the end of the Board of Health in accordance with reement of the Board of Health period I don't know what the report is uh the okay if you remember the report was these people going into uh the Board of Health and um checking to see if their property was even was going to qualify under the state sanitary code and uh the point there is that these are regular homeowners and that's really like the big controlling thing and we want them to have to know that they have to face that issue right up front immediately before they even get too far into this and so there be and so it confronts them with uh W with the need to look at the uh with with the need to look at the to talk to to look at the septic and go in to talk to the Board of Health right from the beginning okay so do you need to add these four I don't no no the reference doesn't no no it does not um so can we just I'm sorry could you could I I'm I'm trying to pull up I've got the the um 14536 uh amendments up thank you the clean copy yep okay [Music] before above yeah yeah okay uh I just no so the reference has now been put here in C4 itself so yeah uh [Music] requir from the Board of [Music] Health yes I yes I think that's right I think just end with a period after Board of Health there's no longer need to make any reference anywhere else because it's now in this section okay okay so we need to make a motion to remove the reference to B4 above yes time the motion that we remove the reference to B4 in the statute I would you like a second I'll second that all right okay great thank you everybody voted yes yes roban yes yes Patrick Carol yes and Laura shiffrin yes thank you welcome back um so yeah if you would do you want to finish Joe I'm sorry about that I I didn't I just wanted to make sure that the technical stuff was addressed in the bylaws before right right yes all right so what I was bringing up was the DT applica uh application period is in February and um uh has the plan has what what are we going to work have you been talking about what you would like if anything me to uh work on with you next year all I should say us mrpc well that is on the agenda for the 13th if you'd like to come back oh uh okay then we'll have that conversation on the 13th looking forward to it thank you the 13th wait wait wait the uh which 13th Monday Monday January oh January okay oh oh okay uh yeah planning board meeting yeah cool I will at least join you uh join you by Zoom for that then thank you all right thanks ni see you all have a good night thank you okay and all you guys got to do is vote to um if you have any other changes if not then approve what you have and you're all set do we need to talk about the age restricted and whether we want to keep the one acre go back to two acres or how does that work I think we I've already we had that discussion on trigger so say what we had that discussion on trigger so if a hypothetical developer wanted to build 56 units on Seven Acres okay wouldn't that trigger a site plan review Joe but that was my impression but I guess we got to double check that okay yeah so we can it's a concern but not valid it's going to be voted on at the and this doesn't change Board of Health's requirements for septics it just yeah it's not like we I think the comment I wrote down was trying to build on every square inch we're not going for that that's not how it's proposed no so okay 160 units would require a water treatment plant oh yeah that's not yeah those are $3 million yeah you know in those kind of things the only place you're going to see it is if after you do the MBTA uh whatever bylaw in in that area they number one there has to be Town water number two those I believe you will be adding the affordable units to and three you still have to go by border of Health if you can't get your sew system in there for what you need for bedrooms or gallons or whatever it is it isn't happen and I think Robert was saying who whoever was saying before you know all the safeguards are in place via conservation Board of Health water department that we don't have any control over just look what's going on on Cape Cod the state is coming in and mandated they do this stuff with their septic and their water all right Cape Cod has a septic and water problem the state has come in and compelled these towns to do it so at any given time that could happen so yeah but we still have other regulations rely on what we have control of because there are people have greater control than we do so the state can mandate what that we install a water treatment plant yes just at that point though you get no control over anything else well again we didn't have control of this MBTA thing either and and then I've been watching this okay and and and this Governor has approved money to subsidize the developers to do this okay so that means that they're going to be making this happen it's not going to be in the future or 20 years from now there's a definitive pressure to do this now so that's my anxiety I'm not concerned about what our count has control I'm very upset about what the state mandates and right now in this MBTA thing it's being challenged constitutionally but I lo I thought I heard that they lost I'm just reading it came out yesterday L Milton lost Milton lost Milton lost Milton lost the case what they we just talked they just talked about it in and Karen Chapman knows they just talked about it in mrpc that um the I'm not going to say the word right promulgated their constitutional rights the way they wrote what they wrote Because part of the thing is if you don't Institute your bylaw they can take your grants away and they can hold back money that you would normally get if you're not you know adhering to their policies that part of it with what the court did was they sent it back to the state and said you have to reward how you're doing it because Milton said that the way they were doing it was unconstitutional the court said just change your verbiage and they're expecting to see something in 10 days back to the back to uh whatever their verbiage is that they're going to be using Madam chair would you please um continue with the public hearing um topic so um I can go I'm tired oh I'm sorry I'm sorry car are you you did close the public hearing right because I didn't hear that part and so now we have we have to vote we have to vote I just want to ask a question maybe to clarify because I've been thinking about the four uh building Commissioners comments about he was delineating I know we had a heavy discussion on um setting it up such that if it's within the structure at all it's by right we don't even see it never comes to us it's just regular building permit stuff but if it's like say it's an addition you know then it's our special permit review but if you don't call it an Adu it's just regular building stuff building department permits but then after you already built the addition then you could just make it an Adu if you wish to is that is that an accurate interpretation as I think yeah I I don't I don't understand special permit at all yeah there's no special permit that's what I think we're getting caught up on it's a site plan approval it's not a special permit doesn't mandate they build anything or make any improvements they can take part of their house right now no no no yeah but I guess what I'm hearing the Building Commissioner say is oh sure I guess the way I interpreted was like if let's just say the person has decided that within the existing structure of the house it's not a good fit for them so they want to do an addition now why come to us and say you're doing an Adu and then you know add one more layer of go through the special uh what do we call it a special permit just get a permit for a second story yeah just just do just get a building department permit and then just build the unit and then say now I want to turn it into that and eliminate that's kind of what I hear the verbi now as I think more about it that's what I'm hearing the bage of what you said it sounds like the I mean the building official could probably put a stop to that if you review the plans and you see like hey this looks like this looks like an ID you got a kitchen out here you got an extra bedroom yeah and then he could refer it to us he's got know whether it's being built as an apartment or not they did that to me yeah that's true so what do we have to vote on what do we have left to vote on the the wording of the bylaw that you're bringing to town meeting the Amendments that that you I mean you made some changes the technical changes the clerical changes were made um the addition you already voted on the addition of the definition so at this point I would just recommend that you are in agreement with the wording of the Amendments as they are that's in the legal notice is that what we're voting on well I think we're voting on all the documents that were before us oh correct oh just accept them in total with whatever changes or amendments you did and then it has to be approved so that it can go on the warrant and the warrant will then be posted as you know and if for some reason something would come up or there was an amendment on the floor or even if something is brought to the attention of the planning board that perhaps on the meeting floor you might amend it someone from planning would amend it okay but as long as the body is is substantial is the same if there has to be a tweak which is not substantial it can be done on town meeting floor yeah okay right so what we're doing is what the planning board is recommending for the town to look at is basically vote as a a bylaw Amendment right and you can do them each individually or you can do them all together you know if however you want to make your motion we just move to accept them all as I want to know where we stand with the um not the Adu component but the other one yeah we we didn't make any more changes to that we didn't make any changes no changes in what we've already made yeah what right so are we recommending the two acre change no if we accept it as one one acre it's one acre one acre we're just gonna leave it okay we had a large discussion before before the change was made because remember remember again the one acre is still whatever the board approve Board of Health would approve for that lot and I don't see it being um anything but like a Sandy lot with Town water sandy soil and town water that's the only thing that's going to get approved on an acre remember you've got homes in quarter acre or seven whatever 7,000 square fet is on Main Street and they have septic systems all right okay so do you want to accept them as a whole I'm sorry do them all together yeah so yes do them all together I move that we accept the [Music] proposed do we call accept the bylaws as proposed and as amended from today with the um noted um changes changes yeah yeah the noted changes you can be specific with the noted changes I second that yeser yes Robert yes Carol yes Laura shiff yes thank you see you guys Monday I know meeting but since since we adjusted from 10 to 5 to two has that resulted in any meaningful change in the amount of multif family or age restricted units that we've had in town to my knowledge only this well now last year was the first time any have ever been built yeah sitting on and we have one that's almost approved right restricted there's um all three all three have been approved yeah so there are three age restricted developments approved and one's been built right yeah do we wish to revisit the actual requiring of an age restrict restriction opposed to uh like kind of structural encouragement of age restriction at this time no um if you want to do that at Springtown meeting that would be a good time to do that just for a board meeting in the future oh in the board meeting we could certainly have a discussion again oh yeah definitely um so anything else can we make a motion to adjourn motion to J um thinking I can see his wheel wrote a letter to the board of Selectmen I mean to this planning board have they received it I'm sorry I don't know what what was this question can I answer it did yes did he did you get a letter written from Robert I did Robert and that is on the agenda for the 13th on Monday okay yeah thank yeah now we can return okay that and everyone okay