Uh, good evening everybody. My name is Andrew Sheepard, chair of the Towns and Planning Board. I call this meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. I'd like to have a roll call of all the board members present. So, please say your name for the record. >> Cindy King is present. Carol Hus
present. >> King present. >> Robert The present. >> Andrew Shepard present. Would you please join me in the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the republic
nation under God indivisibley and justice for all >> like to thank all of our veterans those who are currently serving here and abroad their families and those who contribute their time to public service. I think we owe them our gratitude. This
meeting is being recorded and will be uploaded to the town of Townsen YouTube channel. So let's start with uh 1.4 uh the meeting minutes for May 4th
and May 11th. Did everyone have a chance to read them? Any comments? Okay, >> I move to accept the meeting minutes for both May 4th and May 11th, 2026. >> And I'll second it. >> Motion second. Any adjustment
or any discussion? >> Okay, because I can't hear you. >> Can you hear us any better? >> Can you hear him now? >> Did you unmute it or >> I don't have muted. Okay.
>> Um, Beth, can you hear us any better? Or Skip, I see your face. >> Yeah, I hear you guys. >> Can you hear us? All right. >> I don't think so. >> Can you hear us, Beth? Beth,
Lori, can you hear us? I guess Skip can hear us. So I think I mean we we know if one person can hear us I think that's I mean I don't know >> working if I'm hearing it.
>> Okay. Well I guess we can go with it and hope for the best. If somebody else has noise issues I guess if you can't hear me asking that then you can't tell me. But I hope hope you can let me know. Andrew, I'm sorry I didn't find my button, but I can hear you all.
>> Oh, nice. All right, that sounds good. Um, we have a motion on the table. I think we're in discussion. The only thing I was going to say is, uh, if Beth could hear us, my name is spelled wrong a few times. I tried to change it, but I'll accept it as is. So, um, let's go around for a roll call vote.
>> Cindy King, yes. Carol, yes. >> Yes. Yes. And your sheriff, yes. So, approve. We have a It is now 6:35 p.m. So, um I'm
going to be stepping out. I'll turn it over to Carol and I'll catch you guys when needed. Good evening. I'm Carol Hawker, vice chair of the planning board and
this is the continuation of the 22 West Metro Road modification of site plan solar installation of June 8th for today, June 8th, 2026. Um,
so I'd like to introduce the board members. >> I love this hearing. Here's >> Kind. Okay. Okay. Um, do we have to go ahead? >> We're actually going to have >> I'm going to move to continue the public
hearing on the SE road extension definitive plan and major storm water management permit application to July 16th. July 13th. >> Not yet. No, it's No, we're on West Better Road. I don't know if we have >> I'm looking at the wrong one. >> I'm sorry. Yeah,
>> I've got the wrong one. I apologize for my >> know >> I got Yeah, I was reading the public the public hearing guidelines, but it's I'm sorry. >> Okay. >> I can't read the legal act. Do you have a legal act? >> I don't have anything on your
>> Oh, okay. I know we read it at the last meeting. Um I guess >> continuation we don't have to read the legal notice. Okay. All right then. Um I could turn it over. I'd like to invite
the applicant. Um we're here. >> You're here. Okay. >> Yeah. So my name is Andrew. I recognize him. So, um I don't want to give you full background since I think everyone kind of knows what's going on. But any questions, please let me know. Um as
everyone knows, the last meeting didn't end successfully with approving something to modify the site plan. So, we're kind of here today to find a solution to that. Um I've spoken with Gary a lot about the issue in the last couple weeks and the solution that we've
come to is instead of replanting the trees which would um disrupt his agricultural and hay operation we thought that a IV screening on the fence would be sufficient to meet the vegetative buffer requirement in the
bylaw. Um we uh came to that solution by talking also to anyone who would be affected by it. So, we did get a letter from the abuter. Um, I believe that letter should have been submitted. I'm not 100% sure if it did. So, as the folks over at 519 Main Street, they are
on board with this option. Um, so we don't believe that there's any negative community feedback to doing that. Um, and we'd be able to keep the um sort of sanctity of the property and and keep it looking nice as both the residents of 519 Main Street believe it to be and the
landowner believes it to be. So, uh, the main question, I guess, is to accept the site plan modification amendment to, um, allow us not to include the trees in the current site plan and to allow the IV screening on the fence to be sufficient
to, um, sort of appease the bylaw. I'm going to ask the board member, were you able to read I know she uh posted it, but Adam's comments on the screen. >> Adam's comments in here.
>> They were on I know she posted them probably so >> this afternoon. >> I do have a question. >> Okay. >> Why did we involve that? >> Um why did we I I believe because of the
streeting issue and the vegetation being mowled down and um we we as a planning board cannot wave that vegetation. Um I so
because it's kind of a complex issue and it's been ongoing for quite a while. Um I believe that's why um it went to Adam for his comments. >> When you just for the record, attorney
Christopher Alvin Blackman, Nebraska as council. >> Okay, very good. Yes. >> Is that correspondence public? Can we review that correspondence? >> Um I probably can have >> We weren't sure. I asked talked to Beth about whether to send it to you or not
and I'm not really sure if we have to consolidate but basically um the bylaw does indicate that it's required as a buffer. Not sure the IV is really a buffer the
screening. So, is there, as I talked about a little bit, um, is there like synthetic bushes that you can put along the fence line that would be more
like a buffer? >> I don't think um, maybe you can speak better to Gary's preferences, but I don't think it's more it's that the plants are alive. It's just that they're on the property and kind of disrupting the hay operation. So yeah. >> Yeah. And just to add to that, I think
two things. One, I think the ivory on the fence being the vegetation buffer, I think this board has the discretion that says if you do that, that complies with the meaning of the bylaw and the intent of the bylaw. That's number one. Number
two, this is sort of a unique property where there is actually vegetation from the actual solar functions and every property boundary line. In fact, for the majority of the year, there's corn beef
grown there. So, the question is, is the board satisfied with ivory and the fact that from the fence to the property boundary there is vegetation? It may not be uh screening that you normally think
of, but there is vegetation between where the solar arrays are in the property battery and is the board satisfied with that on top of the synthetic uh ivory
and those two things combined. Is the board satisfied? I think the board has the discretion to make that determination. Can I ask what that first thing was? >> Yeah, I think because what the bylaw says, and this is under subsection F, is
it says fencing along the installation perimeter shall be provided to control access around the solar area with a vegetative buffer outside of the fencing. Um, the fencing shall not
include barb ride or rager wire. And I think the intent of that is really the idea that this was going to be on somebody's boundary line or right against the road. But this is sort of a unique site where the solar array is
like in a cornfield. So sort of what our pro our proposal is we have the solar thing that's in the middle of our farmland that's going to be covered with corn and then on top of that >> it's hay. Hey, excuse me. Hey, you are
right. It is >> It's cut to the It's cut to the quick right now. >> It is. You absolutely. I apologize about um and >> corn would work. >> Corn would be better. I agree with you. Uh but but it is heck and it is
vegetated area. And that on top of fencing that we're proposing, I don't know if we have images or the board see the images of it. Those two together, does that meet the intent of that last sentence in section A? I say it does
because that's really the intent. The intent is to have something that is screening it and blocks the way and makes it look better. And because of the circumstances of it being in the middle of a hay field uh on top of what we're proposing to put on the fence, uh we
think those things two things together makes sense and it could be something the board could permit. >> I'll just I'll just tell you what attorney cost. >> I'm reading it now. Yeah. Do you want me to read the letter?
>> Um yeah, why don't you Okay. >> Why don't we read the letter? I don't think there's any reason why we can't. Yeah. Um, >> if you want it. >> I've got it right here. >> You got it right there. >> Okay. Um, the original February 11th, 2019 decision references as exhibit H a
plan showing proposed plantings in quotes. Findings other under section 4586D1 in include that the solar installation quote shall be shielded from any town, road, or home. quote that existing trees
would remain to screen the array from nearby dwellings and that submitted documents. This is weird. And that submitted documents and plans detailed a customized planting plan prepared by a professional landscape architect designed to preserve
the neighborhood and town view. I view these statements as in effect conditions of approval, even if not so characterized in the decision itself. See applicable case law cited below. Condition eight as you say Beth contemplates submittal of a vegetative
screening status report annually for 5 years from startup construction and allows the planning board to require additional screening if necessary. But that doesn't mean in my interpretation that the screening requirement itself is limited to five years or that its
maintenance is limited to five years. That would be quite unusual. Condition 8 simply limited to five years requirement of annual status reports and further limited to five years the planning board's authority to require additional screening. In my opinion, the screening shown in originally approved plans and
contemplated by the original decision was and is a binding and ongoing condition. It is immaterial that the landowner, not the applicant, remove the vegetation in the years to follow. Removal was and is still a violation of the decision irrespective of who is
responsible for it and if the applicant wishes to continue to operate the project the violation ought to be rectified. It is also a violation of the zoning bylaw as I noted in my previous email. You asked Beth, can the planning board approve a synthetic vegetative
buffer as described in the revised proposal? I suppose the answer is yes, but only if the board considers synthetic vegetation to be vegetation. as contemplated by subsection 140-86F of the zoning bylaw requiring a
vegetative buffer. I would defer to the planning board's discretion as the allowance of f vegetation could be deemed to establish a precedent if not legally then practically. I will say that I am doubtful that synthetic vegetation is what the bylaw's drafters
contemplated. But if the board's authority to exercise, not mine. More problematic, however, might subsection 145-86F's mandate of a vegetative buffer that is outside of the fencing. This material
submitted by the applicant linked below are in black and white and therefore difficult to decipher. I'm not certain that the applicant's new proposal, i.e. its requested amendment, complies with the efforts mandate. The applicant proposes the installation of highquality
synthetic ivy screening along the western perimeter fence facing West Meadow Road in lie of the previously proposed trees. It is unclear to me whether or not the synthetic IV proposed by the applicant will be affixed to the
fence or as required outside of it. The applicant also refers to screening, not a buffer. So, it is unclear to me whether or not the synthetic ivy will be installed with some depth so as to create a legitimate buffer versus a more
or less two-dimensional screen. And that's it. I hope that is helpful. >> And just to respond to that, I think what turning cost is breaking this up into two parts, right? That there's a condition that we had to maintain those
trees. I don't think there's any disagreement about that, but that's why we're here. looking for a condition to sort of replace that with something else. So then the second part of this letter is about F and about whether we can use this fencing instead of using
actual vegetation. And I say given the unique state and I go back to my same argument that I just made that it's an discretion to make that determination. I think the one thing that's good about the aesthetic fake vegetation is that it's permanent. It's
not going anywhere. Can't be torn down. You don't need to worry about maintaining it and things like that. And I think the third part about his letter was concerned about what was being submitted. I think we provided them with colored photos and more details about
exactly what they weren't. They weren't >> Yeah, I didn't see any color. Was it like about what the ID would look like? >> It's just a black change color if we want. It's pretty >> Yeah, that's what we got. It's like a black.
>> Yeah. Well, >> that's great. >> Yeah. So, okay. So, >> I mean, it's nothing special. I'm sure you can imagine it in your head, you know. >> Yeah. >> We don't have a color printer, >> so Beth could have >> Yeah. done her best. >> Have you used this on other projects? We
haven't, but we did talk with the contractor who we use for a lot of stuff and they they've done it on other properties. Um, but I don't believe that we've had synthetic idea projects. I know we have had like tarps where you know a little more basic just a green thing but but yeah, you know K's
pointing which is a fair one is about creating a precedent of you know now is you know a vegetation buffer now we're going to accept you know fake vegetation. I think it's a project of project situation and this only applies
to uh uh solar farms under the subsection where it's using the term vegetative buffer. And again, I just think that you're in in the middle of a vegetated area. So the next time you have a
project like that, you might want to consider using this material. But the next time there's a project that's up against, you know, somebody else's property or a housing property, you know, housing project that says any vegetative buffer, when you have a 15oot setback, that's different. This is sort
of unique where this, I think, actually makes more sense. >> It's not going to die. >> No, it's not going to die. Um, it won't die. But are we good with PL, you know? I'm just concerned with
setting a precedent going forward um with fake regurgitation. >> I don't >> I don't I don't think you're setting a precedent. I think it's case by case. >> Well, I have >> Okay, let's
>> some thoughts here. Um one, the bylaw does not say screening period. a fence would be screening or any other object would be screening.
Um, and then the bylaw, as I understand it, identifies screening separately than the fence.
And the town also has a scenic roadway ordinance. Um so the question about artificial vegetation
is quite clear that it's artificial and so I don't think that would have been the intent of the original bylaw to begin with. Then the question comes with artificial vegetation.
um how does this board know how that maintains and how it's to me it's some sort of synthetic plastic um in my mind that I'm visualizing
and so if I were going to put ivy on a fence I would be thinking grape grape vines or things like that which are natural When we deal with artificial products,
um, do they fade? Uh, do they deteriorate? >> How do we maintain them? Um, it's certainly not what the public would have envisioned being there. And then the other question
is if we determine artificial plantings are acceptable. How does that apply throughout the town on other projects?
So I can't go along with an artificial plant in my mind. And then the board previously
suggested that the applicant consult with a landscape archite. >> Oh, a landscape >> architect to find appropriate vegetation there. And then my other comment is a
lot of this appears to be not so much plant survival as it is a conflict between the farmer and the solar operator. So on all those grounds, there's just a
lot of questions that don't seem to >> that I feel I can support. >> How was it approved? >> What how was it approved originally? >> With the vegetative, >> plants, trees. And they did they they
actually had a a row of trees along the roadway. So right up along the roadway there was screening all along the road. >> Right. No, this was like my first meeting that we came to. Sorry. >> And then and then and then some of them died. Some of them
got ripped out. So then they came and replanted again a second. They replanted a second set of vegetation. >> Originally there were 20 trees, >> but along the road is not where they're supposed to be.
>> No, they should have been along the fence, but for some reason that's where they ended up being. And I think some of us were new back then and weren't quite sure that's how it was proposed or that's where the trees went. They probably should have been along the
fence and they were along the road. >> Let me throw a hypothetical out there. If we had sort of the same proposal that wasn't artificial, but was as the member was saying, you know, ivory that grows
on the fence. Would that be acceptable? >> Well, that that removes the artificial component of this, >> right? which is one thing that's positive. Yeah. U so I I you know it's
I can only I can't suggest what you do here. You know you have to come to us and ask us what you'd like to do. >> Just trying to get some feedback. But >> would that be acceptable to you? >> But the the intent of the bylaw
was obviously about concern viewing the solar collection system. So I personally I can imply that's what the intent is and if there's a way to achieve that there might be a
variety of ways to do that. Most people simply just say, "We're just gonna plant a row of trees or a row of shrubs." >> But if you considered a landscape architect,
you might be able to suggest controlling the view to accomplish the same effect. So that that's something to explore. But also
you have another common problem between the farmer. >> But that's not No, that's their problem, not our problem. >> No, I know. So >> I don't know what you can come up with that will be acceptable for both parties that are using.
>> So we can't we can't get involved with the owner. >> No, we're not. I'm not. I'm just saying that what the intent is is to preserve some kind of scenic
roadway and keep a natural a natural what would appear to be a natural view of that property and shield the solar system from the viewer. >> Right. would would do you think that
would be acceptable to >> Yeah, I don't know. I'd have to speak to my client about it, but uh I certainly will try to make the case and I I understand the want for something natural. I think the problem is with a
lot of this what you typically see as buffer vegetation takes up a lot of space and the more space it takes, the more farmland he uses. And so we wanted to do something that limits the space. That's the biggest thing. And so that's why I'm
thinking if the concern is artificial compared to uh real stuff, can we use real stuff that is very thin? >> Well, I I know in similar
challenges uh that I've been not privy to. Um it's sort of a standard. Um this is what's been specified and or equal. Okay. So you can do and or
equal or you can demonstrate something that's even better than >> I understand we would have to propose something formally to make a decision. But I'm just trying to get some feedback. >> I like I like that. >> I like I'm not opposed. There's a there's a plan
>> doing some natural grape leaves of real ivy or some natural >> I think especially through the site where the equipment is it seems a waste of farmland and resources to put big
trees when it's sort of set back as long as there's something that's you know to your point it doesn't say screen but it says buffer and I think the intent of the bylaw is to put buffer So that when you look at it, you're not looking at
solar, right? And so I think if we came up with something that's thin and natural, that's what I'm hearing uh along the fence that doesn't take up a lot of >> space. I really feel without a lot of effort
having like the landscape architect give you some concepts that you can use. probably maintaining the trees that are still there. >> There were no trees there. >> Retaining. >> There's nothing. I went over there this weekend. There's nothing.
>> There's nothing component. >> There's nothing there. >> So, we just want a pleasant view there. That's basically what we have. >> There's a plant out there that has like eight trees. >> So, like I think this is I think this
would be better to be honest. >> Yeah. I'm I'm not opposed to putting some real ideas, >> but let's not make them spin their wheels either. Something the board's not going to, >> but if you can come up with a plan for something, then
>> and that I think we'd be >> looks like the board. >> Well, I haven't said my two cents yet. >> Okay. So, let's say her two in theory. In theory, I I originally liked the idea of putting the screening until I saw Adam's daughter. And I I have to agree.
I I can hear I could just see him saying these things and that the intent of the bylaw I I think I remember when the bylaw was being proposed many years ago and then there was a proposal to put this the solar panels up there and there
were some environmentalists that were quite vocal about not wanting the solar panels there at all and then de debating how to get to this point with the bylaw. So the the intent was to completely make
it the solar panels invisible and unfortunately I think even Living Ivy might only make this fence invisible not the solar p you know. >> Well yeah you're saying yeah you going
to make the solar panels invisible. >> Yeah it'll just make the fence invisible. Um or but just like sometimes I I make comparisons that you know when they were banning cell towers they put those fake what I call fake Christmas trees up it made them more visible than less visible.
>> Yeah. >> So they stop using those. But I see you know it's kind of it could be the same thing like we'll see the fence even more now. um if we use the fake the fake screening and a living screening would still be bringing attention to it as
opposed to making it not you drive by and you don't even notice it's there. Um and I I do feel that the point of setting the precedent I I I disagree with you to say that it you know it only applies to this bylaw. I think that
Robert's correct in that um whenever if this were to go to court or any future anything something later that we have no for foresight about ends up going to court or on future public hearings on different issues they're going to call up well you put fake plants
>> on this over here why can't we have fake plants to border our property or to block wetlands or there's all kinds of just quicksand that we'd be walking into by allowing anything artificial when the when our our attorney's interpretation
of our bylaw is that that's not what it's asking for. It's asking for a you know vegetative buffer and um so I'm really concerned and I I think this has been going on and on and on and on for I don't know how many meetings.
I'm sure somebody's kept a score, but we the way we keep debating this, we've really been pull we keep getting pulled into something that's more of a legal problem for the applicant as far as a landlord tenant dispute and we're trying
to we keep coming back and you're trying to appease the landlord. What what will the landlord not mow down? So, and we are being pulled in to keep trying to approve something that's going to appease the property owner. And I think that
that that's unfortunately unfortunately you that's a problem that you're going to have to deal with in order to we have the bylaw. We know what we've known what it said from the beginning. It was everybody was meaning it for a couple years and then when the the trees
started to come down now all of a sudden we've got to we look at what what can we do to keep the trees from getting cut down has become the issue and not to be in compliance with our bylaw. So I'm thinking we should still >> I I like your thought. I hadn't thought
of it that way but it is a landlord. >> Yes. It's not something that we should be we're not we're not the >> mediators thinking about that. This is this is >> we're in front of you on a modification >> and you have to make sure that the bylaw is being complied with and you have
certain discretion about applying conditions to site but you can now be thinking about landlord tenant is not your job. So >> no need to worry about the letter says it's at the end of the day it's the board's direction. That's what I got on the letter. And secondly, I don't even know why we Why are we involved in town
council? This is crazy. >> This is severely in need of town council. >> Absolutely not. Absolutely not. We can't make a decision. Why are we even here if we can't make a decision? >> If they follow the bylaw, then they have to put in vegetation that keeps getting
mowed down. >> Can I can I speak for a minute? We are here because the um October um submitted um vegetation report was accepted as is which is the way the
property sits right now. And it was direction from um planning board that we come back and ask for a change to our special use permit because the condition
of the existing vegetation was accepted by the board when we submitted our annual plan. And so there was no complaints from the community. The board at the time felt
that the property looked fine. So, we were instructed to come in and ask for a modification to our permit. That's how we ended up here >> because I believe we were told that we
could not wave the requirement for the buffer, right? That was that they that came along once we submitted the um application for the change to our permit. >> Yeah, we found out that we didn't have the authority to do that.
>> Just give me background on how we ended up here. >> Well, the applicant has every right to request a modification, but whatever modification's being requested still has to comply with the bylaw. >> And we don't have to accept. Just because somebody applied for a
modification doesn't mean accepted. Yeah. >> Depending but but I I'll say this um um so I I think I I don't disagree with anything that the court's just said there other than it is not a special permanent site plan approval. So there
is a certain discretion you have or not have to deny or accept something but there is a modification and I agree it has to comply with the bylaw. Having said that, I think we're at least my position as the land owners attorney is I'm understanding that the board might
want to see something different. Uh and that we just asked that you can see we're making a good effort here. Um I'm land use council that just got hired by uh by the property owner. So maybe you can just give us a little bit more time to try to come up with something that
makes sense is is sort of where this is. >> Thank you. Well, I again I think this is >> okay. >> We >> It's the applicant that's requesting a modification.
>> Robert, are you okay with the continuence? >> Well, if we don't continue, what happens? >> Well, then we have to vote. >> So, yeah. Vote >> one way or the other. or the other >> but they want they've asked for they'd
like a continuation. >> So we either vote to deny the modification. >> No, we can vote to continue. >> He asked for a continuation. Are you okay with a continuation? >> Right. No, I think that would be the appropriate approach. >> All right. So >> and just a little tidbit here because
you know I also saw council and there's been some conversations about a continuing violation. I would hope that the board can maybe in their motion just give us time before that violation gets a forth because we're making a good effort here. Okay. Like I said, you
know, we're having a conversation, we're having a dialogue, land council's involved now. So I I I >> All right. So I I think because we've had so many hearings on this that we will continue. suggesting that
we continue it to a very specific date with a finalized modification proposal and it ends there. Either that's approved or not. Okay. I think we can't
keep having these hearings and looking at every possible scenario and um we're pushing >> the envelope with the contingencies. >> No, that in my opinion that'd be hard to do because what happens if they come
back and they propo propose something we don't accept. >> Well, then they have to comply what was originally granted >> and that's trees out by the street. >> That's right. >> No trees alone. >> No trees alone. Just >> what what >> vegetative buffer, >> right? But if you look at the plan, what was approved is out by the street and
that doesn't meet. >> Okay. That's true. >> That doesn't meet the con that >> sure does. >> Out by the street. >> Yeah, it did. >> No, it did. It did. That's why it was approved in >> No, because it says along the fence line. That's got to be >> Well, the bylaw says along the fence line. So, somewhere when that got
approved way back whenever somebody must have >> Either way, it's a vegetative buffer. whoever it is for this >> the what was originally approved goes back into effect that's what was approved that was agreed upon at that time so >> kind of time at
>> I would say at least two meetings from now because you know we may engage the landscape architect >> we're scheduled for July 13th already is that a good date >> was >> that's two meetings >> was the 15th or the 22nd
>> with June 22nd but July 13th is the next one. >> Okay. >> Because we already have we're already planning on continuing another hearing to the time >> or would that's a little that's a little bit more than a month. >> And let me just say this. I'm going to
be here anyways on a different matter >> on the 22nd. I doubt that. So, as long as you don't put it that I need to have an answer by the 22nd, I'd be happy to take 22nd. with the idea that I may ask for one more continuance just because the timeline. But if you rather go to July, that's totally fine.
>> Yeah, let's just go to July so we don't continuing it. >> So it just goes through >> everybody. Thank you guys. >> So we need to continue.
>> Oh yeah, we got to make a motion. I' I'd like to make a motion that we continue this hearing um on 22 West Meadow Road >> until July 13th, >> 2026.
>> Cindy King second. >> Can you guys pick a date? Uh a time, please. Oh, >> date is July 13th and time. >> Do we have anything else? >> Anything else? >> We have
6.5 >> correct >> is seven. How long do they usually last? >> Uh fever road I anticipate uh at least a half hour. >> That might be a long >> hearing. Okay,
>> that might be a long hearing. the SA road. >> You want to go to 7:30? >> 7:30. >> 7:30. >> Yeah, I would go with the 7:15 and then, you know, because if things get continued, then you're sitting here for a half hour.
>> People are used to waiting. >> Okay. 7:15. Okay. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. So 7. Okay. So, yeah, you need a a roll call. Sorry. We need a roll call. >> Okay. Did our motion include all that? Are we good? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> We got a second. >> I seconded it. >> Thank you. >> Cindy King. Yes. For that date and time. >> Fred King. Yes. >> There he is. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay.
Is Okay. Is the Okay. All right. So, it is so back to this one. >> Yes. >> Okay. Was back to this one. So, I will
>> you can stay there. >> Okay. All right. But this is my You can take my demo that has Okay, I guess. >> Yeah, I mean open it. Continue it. >> I'm here on 33 Wheeler. If you can just continue that one while I'm here.
>> Can we have time to do that one? >> No, you can't until 7:30 >> when it's uh scheduled. Sorry. >> Do you need me here for that? >> No, >> it's just going to open and continue. Wheeler Road.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> It's a late a late request for continuence. Um just came in this afternoon around 2 3:00. >> Oh, we're going to get out early tonight. >> Yep. Get everything done between 6:45
and 7:30. >> So, I don't know, Carol, if you want to. I don't care. >> You can open up 6:45 2.2 and then >> Okay. Well, I guess I'd leave, but then you'd also Oh, you wouldn't continue it. >> Do I? >> No, I'm staying. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Are you staying? >> I guess I am staying. Yeah. >> And close it. >> Yeah, sure. >> Oh, I do. I need to close I need to close the uh public the 22. >> No, you don't. You don't close the hearing because you've continued it.
>> We just continued it already. So, >> yeah. Never close the hearing >> unless you're voting. All right. Thank you. So now it's your turn. >> All right. Thanks everybody.
So we've passed the sex 30 645 item 2.2 which is the continuation of the public hearing zeber zero sver road definitive subdivision approval and associated major storm
water management permit. So, I would like to open the continuation of the public hearing and uh like to make a motion that we continue the public hearing to July
13th, 2026 at 6:45 p.m. >> So moved. >> We have a second. >> That's for C or row. >> Okay. >> You just you got a second? >> I second. >> Second. Uh roll call vote. >> Cindy King, yes. Carol Hops, yes. >> Yes.
Robert. Yes. Andrew. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> We have a date, a time on that. 6:45, July 13. All right. So, now we're in our limbo
and we have MRPC here. We have Yeah. Good job. Excellent. Thanks, Joe. Good evening everybody. Um I believe I've met all of you. Met Sydney maybe she's here.
>> I've met him on watching videos but I don't think I've met. >> This is our first meeting. Joseph Bo, principal planner at the MRPC. I believe that it was your first meeting was uh uh the last time I was here. >> Could be. Could be. >> All right. Um I am here uh on the uh
site plan review special permit zoning reform project. Um as a first step I had forwarded uh to Beth who forwarded to you a document a uh
the beginning of a site plan approval regulations document. There are going to be a couple of steps uh to this project including uh zoning amendments to the z uh zoning bylaw uh but as well as creating this set of
regulations. So, uh they laid out the uh you know laid out the the attention in the memo and then um produced a uh a document that you know that that
um functioned as a uh a working document uh to discuss uh how you wanted your uh site your regulations to be and uh hopefully spark a broader conversation about substance.
Uh in here there's a lot there's procedure and I wanted to make sure I covered all the bases that were comfortable with that. But I also was hoping tonight to hear from you about what you wanted to see in terms of the design regulations uh and other uh the
actual site conditions uh you know that you wanted to make sure work made its way into these documents. Uh by way of example um at the end of the MDA project um Mr. Arian had brought up his idea about u multif family housing the units
in the m and any multif family housing built there each having its own outdoor uh fresh air space whether a balcony a porch a deck or a yard >> um I'd like to hear more of that sort of thing what in terms of
these thing things being built what you wanted to make sure was in the document uh in terms of design uh don't need you and go into whatever level of uh detail you want. We can you know we we can fill in a lot if you you
know as you know based on your on your instructions and your guidance. So uh Mr. Chairman however we wanted to start this uh however you wanted to start this conversation we could whether go over the document or Yeah. So did did everyone get a chance to review potentially the MRPC? There's there's
the design standards and then there's the regul or I guess both are under regulations. Um yeah, you know, I I guess just the uh the order would probably be talk if there's any comments on the regulations and then go into the
design standards. >> So uh yeah. So the beginning of the document are basically just are are zoning changes to allow you to adopt a set of uh uh site
plan review regulations. Your regul this regulations just like you have your special permit regulations. Your uh special permit section discusses that. So putting in uh some language about that. Uh this is you know that first paragraph
there amending uh 145 421 uh it's just sort of enabling the board authorizing the board to create its own regulations. >> That's right. >> Yep. Um guess I have a question. This might be more for Beth. While we're looking at
these regulations, and I know this is for the permit process, um when it talks about like the employment of the outside consultant, do would it be worth having in there that we require or we try to get three bids
at a time or two bids or something or is that a town regulation for the outside consultant and stuff? I know sometimes we've had trouble in the past and I just I'm not sure if that'd be >> very much that's never been a policy. No, it's not it's not a policy. It's,
you know, if you want to use best practice, but doing three bids for um a peer review generally is a bit of overstep in terms of Yeah, you generally
work with one or two, but I wouldn't recommend it. I wouldn't recommend it in the regulations, but perhaps there are other towns that do that. I don't know. So >> I would just think that I know we had one case where we only had one and it
felt high be and I know in the future you know certainly if we can get two it's always nicer. >> Yeah. But you can reject it if you only got one right. >> Sure. >> Reject you can but then you're in a quandry >> then you have nobody. >> Yeah.
>> You might want to Yeah. create a whole process but it doesn't have to be in the regulations. It would be an administrative process that anybody could pick up and put down. >> Oh, okay. Typically you most places go out with at least three bids. I mean
>> I mean that's the typical >> what we should for >> Yeah. But for $1,000 or $2,000, it gets a bit excessive. leave that poor wives guy. I think the
last one we did was excessive in in the other direction. >> I think they >> so you adjust the policy that over certain amount you want three bids under you know what I mean? You can adjust and create a policy but it doesn't have to
be in the regulations. >> Okay, that's >> maybe we maybe we can put that on our agenda, Beth, for a for a future meeting. Sure. >> Yeah. >> I I personally don't think it needs to
be addressed because I think any public expenditure exceeding $3,000 um is subject to public pro procurement procedures. >> It's not a public expenditure though.
>> Well, it's public funds. >> No, it's not. The client pays for private. That's right. Good point. All right. I don't We'll put it on our to-do list. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> That's not the nature of Joe's being here.
>> Trying to think back. I believe that a lot of this was taken from your um special permit regulations >> and turned into um cyclone approval regulations because a lot of it's going to be the same. So I think a lot of the language you're looking at like this
language about the 53G account >> I believe I taken from your that right Beth. >> Yep. >> That's what we have now >> is in there now and you know other towns should uh should actually make more reference that's wise of you to have
that. Um all right. Uh so the first the first two items in uh on on the first page that are in italic those are zoning that would be zoning amendment language and like I said it's just basically authorization
language to have regulations. Now we move in amending chapter 175 planning board regulations by adding 17551 after after 17551 the following article
6 site plan approval. Okay. So right now you have 175 and articles through five. This would create article six recycling including regulations. I can't off the top of my head remember what all of them are. I
think one of them is your subdivision rags. One of them's your special permit regs. Probably is it storm water? I don't know. But but so these are the same regulations adopted on the same authority. Um okay.
This language is directly from your uh from your special permit and and I wanted to ask about it. Those appendencies identified as auxiliary and I believe that that later on I came across an
a reference to an appendix E or something and I wasn't able to find that. Do you have appendices like that's like referred into here? Beth, do you know what this is meant to refer to? >> Uh you talking about the fee schedule?
>> Um about uh >> the uh what's here? 17551 title authority dependencies purpose. This is and this is taken from your special permit C. Those appendies identified as auxiliary are not part of
these rules but are published together with these rules for the convenience of applicants, general public, the town of the planning board. Uh >> I think those are like old applications that just got codified years ago because I I did look in there and yeah, so they
could be potentially an old site plan review application or an old subdivision control application. I think that's what those appendencies are referring to. So, they're just kind of like not they're not being used. We've updated them and stuff, though. I don't know.
>> So, they should be deleted. >> Yeah, they might should be removed perhaps. I think I I'd have to look at them before you officially strike them, but yeah. >> Okay. >> The only appendance we use is appendix E, which is B schedule.
>> Yeah, >> I think I'll check it out though. I can go through that. >> Yes. And uh I remember coming across is uh well while we get get to that uh yeah your fee schedule
you might want to do something about that because it if I remember correctly it appears in one section it might be your special permit rags or your subdivision rags and it's the entire fee schedule for special
permits and subdivisions and everything else not one section it's in. Um >> yeah, >> there's a there's a top level in here, isn't there, of um before you get to
subdivision regs or before you get to each individual set of regulations, there's um there's something more general above that. I think it would probably be a good idea to move your free schedule up into that beginning introductory area. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Okay. Uh that was going to be one of my recommendations scheduled to begin. Okay. Uh see the way I have this written up. I just stuck
a little uh as 175 54 H. The following applicant fee the application fee is hereby established. residential site plan approval. Okay. Um
and uh >> we do see the fee schedule and then put that into the B schedule. >> Right. I was thinking, you know, what would actually be better is to not have this in here and to have it go up with everything else. >> Right. Didn't Didn't we already address
a lot of fee schedules so that we wouldn't >> have to modify the bylaw? That's why we took out the fees out of the different bylaws and put them in a table so we wouldn't have to modify the the bylaws every time the fee changed. >> Right. So, we shouldn't even have that
in here now, >> right? It'll be we'll put we'll put that in the fee schedule in where what you did was take your fees out of the bylaw so you don't have to go to town meeting and amend your zoning every time you amend the fees and put them
into your Rex. >> That's right. Yeah. And uh now we'll put them all into a better place in your race. >> Right. Okay. >> So that's item eight should be removed. >> Yeah. All right.
>> Can I just interrupt at one point here? Um it is 7:30. So would you guys open and continue the hearing? >> Just to stay on track. >> Okay, sir. because there could be well there could be people coming in to see
that uh hearing at 7:30 >> 7:30 7:30 >> it just take five minutes I don't see anyone on but I don't know if people are
are going to come in and What happened? I lost everything. >> I had it. I had everything here. >> What the agenda? >> Oh, there it is. >> Yeah. So, there should be a public hearing guide that tells you Yeah.
>> Okay. Can I open it now or am I waiting for someone? >> 7:32. >> It's 7:32. Yeah. >> Okay. Good evening. This is Carol Hoses and I'm opening the uh public hearing for free road for a modification to a
major one management permit application number SM2022. Um, I would like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for modification to major storm water management permit application number SN
2022-02 to June 22nd 2026 at 7:15 p.m. >> So move >> what date? >> Um, June 22nd. >> June 22nd >> at 7:15 p.m. Can I have a second?
I second. >> Um, moved and seconded to continue the meeting. >> Second to continue the meeting. And >> all those in favor? >> Oh, well, you got to take a vote. >> We'll introduce ourselves while we're
doing that. This is Cindy King. Yes. there. Yes, >> Robert. Yes. >> There you go. >> Okay, >> there we go. And then we're back. We can go get Andrew.
>> All right. So, um out of your way. >> No, a bunch of this stuff was yours. >> Okay, this is me. This is me. That's you, I think. >> Uh, that was 22.
So, I whether it's you or Beth. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, one wild card that's uh I I need to let you know about the state legislature has
been discussing codifying site plan approval into the zoning act. As of now, not sure how many of you know this, the zoning act is silent on site plan approval. site plan approval was made up by towns and courts
and it basically the law that controls it is basically common law basically the judgments that have been uh come down from the courts and it's had never actually been codified in any way the legislature has uh partially taken up
and is working towards putting site plan approval into the zoning law the zoning act finally to provide a little guidance because it towns are all over the place. They don't know what they can do and what they can't because they've got no guidance. So, if that happens and that comes out, then it may have implications
for what needs to be in here and not be in here or anything. And I'll keep you updated on all of that. Um, so far that then again, it might not even happen um this this term. And so, you know, we're not going to sit around
and wait uh for another legislative term. So, we do what we have to do and then happens. And so, >> yes, if we have to, then we then worry about that. >> I think the intent of all of that is to to to take away some of these steps. And I mean, some of it the state wants to
make it easier. In some towns, it's still impossible to do an ADU because or it's so delayed that they're just not meeting the numbers. Some Yeah, some some towns are using their site plan approval almost like it's a special permit like it's a
discretionary permit and they can use it to stop projects. That's really not what it's supposed to be. >> All right, so back to your >> All right, back to the document. All right. Uh >> so we're going to take H out and move it to the fee schedule,
>> right? Yeah. And I'll have a I'll have another it'll it'll be more than uh just taking H out. Uh I'll amend your regs and take that whole
fee schedule out of wherever it is now. I think it's in your special permit section and put it up at the top so that it applies to all of them and we cover all of them. And then this that H will make its way into that okay >> new feed. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. uh fees do your own expenses.
Yeah. And this is basically taken uh directly from your uh directly from the uh special permit stuff.
Okay, this just procedural things down through H. Same with burden of proof. Okay. >> Um, license here. That's the That's the same. So, that's the procedural stuff. And there are a couple of things that
are surfacing here. We have a disabilities committee in town. >> Yes, we do. >> And um they're suggesting that we do something
um requiring sidewalks from a disability perspective >> that's in our Bible >> on I think it's only multif family housing is that correct? >> No, all new developments. >> All new developments.
>> I think it's in the subdivision. But I will tell you one problem with having sidewalks because they are in my neighborhood and because there's a lot of town owned land. So in the winter time you can't use the
sidewalks in the fall. You can't use the sidewalks because the brush the brush gets so high it in the trees. And so I have to call the town. I usually call the town twice
a year to come cut the brush back from the sidewalk. But then the other issue is we have a daycare center and on my street >> and when and they go down to the woods. Well, when they come with the thing, it comes like spears and then I have to
call them to come back because I says you got to come trim them because I got little kids that are gonna fall and kill themselves on spears. Well, the reason the town is according to the ADA, the town is required to maintain the sidewalks 365 days a year. So, the town's required to
>> shovel the sidewalk. The town government is required to maintain the sidewalks including during winter and during all that. So, >> we don't have any money for that. >> Then we have to change our bylaw >> because >> to require homeowners to do it. Then the town would still have to do it on town.
>> We do the homeowner. Well, not all homeowners do that. >> The town the bylaw we do not have a bylaw requiring homeowners to maintain sidewalks. >> Well, this a lot of different >> So, the town is required to do >> subjects here. Okay. Okay. Robert, how does sidewalks or the ADA relate to what
we're talking about with Joe right now? >> Well, it will because um we're going to be dealing with site plan review and guidelines. >> Design guidelines is connect >> design guidelines. So the big the big
topics here these aren't easy decisions because you have different interests for different purposes. So we have a lot of incentive here to reduce development costs on these sites.
Um and then we have other incentives to increase costs for things like sidewalks and things like that. So, I don't know how to address all those things and make everybody happy, but it would seem to me
that projects would it be have a greater impact if we only focused on multifamily housing in terms of sidewalks
rather than one and two single family units. That's would sort of it would seem that the greater demand would be in the higher density complexes. >> Disabled people live in all kinds of
houses. >> I know. But they have to pay to live in them too. >> Yeah. Um so first of all the design guidelines that I that I have here it is titled design guidelines for the multif family overlay district. Okay.
>> Is it exclusively for that? >> It's as I've written it now it is. Now that's a conversation. >> Yes, it is a conversation. >> Okay. Because what I'm thinking I introduced
a year ago this wellness concept >> which fully needs to be defined so everybody understands what it is. Okay. But it the intent of it is that the occupants more attention be paying to
the occupants of these buildings in terms of physical and mental wellness. >> And so right so that's why I introduced the uh 80 square foot outdoor space for
every unit. Um and so then when we look at different sections of our bylaw and special uh applications like age restricted
>> and other similar ones um I'm finding that there's not enough um concern concern about the occupants
of the buildings in terms of even talking about right disability people mailbox is not handy for elderly people and things like that. Um, and I've seen site plans that we've
approved where the common sector for all the occupants is a picnic table and dumpsters are located remotely from where it would seem convenient for
occupants. So there are a lot of I don't know if we can address every particular kind of situation that could occur but I think it's some general language that would give a planning board
uh a focus interest to look at what the occupants are getting out of this special arrangement that's been provided for them. Um so um so the main thing is for everybody to
fully understand what this wellness concept is and then then to find without being specific about mailboxes and picnic tables and but there's a lot of different kinds of functions that happen
that service those kind of buildings. Not just the occupants, but people have now electric bikes and they have other things that make their life happier there um but impact the community as a
whole. And so some type of language that would give um some focus or attention to reviewing for the use of the occupants
and their in other words we want whoever is going to be a citizen this time we want them to be happier. >> Yeah. >> And we don't want to be doing things that are making them unhappy. Um um so we have
uh a multiple of building types of course but we have a lot of special permit stuff um that comes through and um not having that opportunity.
It's very difficult to incorporate something into a project without there being a guideline and position. >> Yes. Yes. Uh this Yeah. I like the way you put that. Providing some focus for the board in it review. You're given
these instructions to ensure that the project is advances the purpose of the zoning. Well, what is that? What does it mean? And how do you know whether it does? So you know by providing guidelines saying look at this look at
this look at this >> it uh perhaps providing at you know some solid uh numerical standards but but maybe not providing specific standards just directing the board >> this is a consideration make sure that
the project does this. What that also does is provide to the applicant right up front as they begin their design process something to design towards. >> You can also do some of the topics in percentages.
>> Some of them are percent. Yeah. >> You know, like a score rate. Um, I think I'd like to try to take a moment and let's just maybe go around the room quick and have everyone just weigh in on what they've thought about what Joe's put together or if they
got any initial takeaways. >> I'll start with Cindy. If you >> I'm going to pass at the moment. >> Okay. >> I didn't have any additional comments. >> Brett, >> um, I think it's a good start. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I guess my I wonder if it's I I think
it's very comprehensive. There's a certain place where I think it's an inclination of us as board members or a public to try to control some level of the project and you just got I just want to make sure that we don't try to control too too much but have you know
the right you know I don't know if this is too long or this is too short. >> Well I I think >> I like opening it up to other projects. >> Every site's going to be different. >> Yeah. Right. I mean you need to handcuff yourself to >> Yep. >> Yeah. You have to have some flexibility.
>> Yeah. >> So I think they have to demonstrate some design features that would be beneficial for the occupants.
>> Yeah. Uh uh and so excuse me I think we get into that in um bicycle access. >> Hey Bernie you mind. So just real quick um Bernie was here because I think if we
have questions and I know they came up previously about the schedule or budget. Sure. >> Is that right? >> Yes. >> And I just want to open it up to the board specific to this project DTA. I I think one of our earlier meetings we were given a schedule about this >> project and we had some questions or
concerns if it was a realistic schedule or how long it would take >> and just I guess before Bernie leaves >> I don't think we need to take you that long. >> Sure. >> Bernie came first of all for the public since >> um development director at MRPC. So I
only wrote that memo to you about scheduling a payment and a payment funding >> um through September 30th which we have the extension on from the state >> for the deliverable and even though the what was it was a world development fund >> whatever the original was
>> funding assistance grant I can't keep it all straight too many acronyms um is going to be expired June 30th we have a pot of money called DTA district local techn assistance which we have promised
the town to make sure that the project gets finished because we want to finish this project. Um we don't like to leave projects on the table half done and three quarters done. So our commitment to the town was I said you don't even have to sign an application. We're committed to getting this project done
and we have the funding to make sure Joe's got the time to help all of you and everyone here um get this done. So >> So we're going to just keep going on as usual. Don't worry about the funding. Uh we've got it covered. >> And Joe's here to work.
>> Yeah. We no longer have a June 30th deadline. We're going to finish the project. >> Um our internal account is drastic. >> We're going to be there for you. >> Uh June 30th was the planning assistance
grant. They run uh the state fiscal year. >> Yeah. the next the next round the year. >> Oh, I mean ours go through the calendar year, but we did tell the state we try to have a project done by September 30th just because it's still their project. >> Sure. >> It just means on the books it's open for
them and then we'll hand them what you get what your final product is is what we'll hand to the state and say here's what you guys came up with and this is the final product. So they just like to keep a record of all the things that have been done under project names >> and you're estimating that September
30th. Yeah, I think we're going to aim for that. I mean, worst case, you have to do it. Like I said, our funding goes through the calendar year, so that's not a problem. Okay. But we're just trying to set some deadlines. Okay. >> Process is I've been a town planner for many years before this job and I know things can go on forever if we don't set
deadlines. >> I'm that way at home, so I need a deadline. >> So, we revised the uh the um timeline on the scope, take this into account, and September really was uh what the project needs. Yeah, like I said, worst case
scenario, you decide you need two extra rings, that's fine. >> Okay, cool. Thanks. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> So, one thing I'm hearing is that this should not be uh 17557 should not be design guidelines for the multif family
overlay district. I should change that to design guidelines for multif family housing >> general. And the overlay district would be included, right? uh and uh so then this next sentence the purpose of this section is to provide a clear set of
standards for projects for and I'll just change that to for multif family projects which requires site plan approval so that future development blah blah blah um define a multif family project >> a project that includes multi family
housing >> right so >> so not no not not three single family homes >> right but so a duplex Uh no I think it no three and above is the way your zoning defines it. I believe almost everybody zoning has single family two
family multif family. >> So the building code is separate. Anything beyond two units is called more serious code requirements. >> Would it be too much to say 10 units or can we put a threshold in here? I mean
>> I think we should do a project, right? Because we what are we going to do? We have We have a three family. Let's have a threewalk the state uses now. Okay. Let's not reinvent the wheel. I like it the way you have it. >> No, I don't. Oh, I Oh, I hear what
you're saying. Um >> Well, you do have a three family that they built on on the three units there. >> I like it how you have it now. I don't I don't think it should be changed to a multif family. >> Oh, okay. You're worried about it. Okay.
You're worried about it being applied to one building lot where they put a three family on the Okay. Uh >> if you change it, I think I could read that in. >> But what you're right, what what we're trying to do, what I believe what the rest what other members of the board are
trying to do is to make sure it applies to another big uh multif family campus project. Sure. That isn't just in the MBTA district. >> No. Just just so everybody's comfortable with this,
the building codes to get building permits have two definitive sections. >> Yeah. >> One and two family units which means low density housing >> and everything beyond that is considered multifamily or high density housing.
>> No sprinklers versus your sprinklers. To breast point, if you're doing a three family, I mean, I think this would be excessive in my opinion. >> Yes. Well, I I don't control the code, but if you build >> a three family >> three levels up right now, you have to
put an elevator in and you have to put a sprinkle system. >> And that's building code, but but if you change this, you're going have to put a sidewalk in front of it. >> Yeah. So, so let's think. >> I have no complaints about a sidewalk. >> Let me stand my ground on sidewalk.
>> Let Yeah. I want to know where it was. >> Let me this question. Let me face this issue in a in a different >> These are site plan approval regulations, >> right? >> Uh
>> they're regulations, not guidelines. >> Well, well, they're regs. The And these site plan approval regs occur when you would do a site plan approval. When do you do a site plan approval for multif
family housing? One, anything that's in the MBTA communities district. >> Um, >> no, >> no, it was the triggers. It was your existing triggers. It was when you do more than eight >> um eight parking spaces, for example, or
I think as a square foot. All right. So, >> your concern about it being applied to um projects that are really too small and it wouldn't be right to apply. >> Right. Once again, I don't want to handcuff ourselves to something that's not realistic. >> Right. I think that the exist the way
that this is triggered uh will take care of that. I don't think your three family I don't think your new three decker on one lot would trigger it. Uh because that would probably come with six parking spaces. what we're counting on.
>> I've got my laptop. >> You can't. >> Okay. >> Leave it like you have it. If you if you leave it like you have it, I'm good with it. I'm good with it. It's changing it to what's what's the verbiage you want to change it to? All >> to all multi to uh guidelines for multif family housing projects. Uh and and the
language is the purpose of the section is provide clear standards for projects which require site plan approval. So what I'm trying to say here is we should just not apply site plan
approval to multif family projects under a certain size and apply site plan approval to m all the multif family projects above that certain size. Right? The way to take care of your uh concern about
your concern is to establish a cutoff to make sure that those a project like that doesn't trigger site plan approval. In other words, what I'm saying is we can design these guidelines to be
appropriate for the big multif family uh type projects that we're envisioning and make sure that it only applies to those multif family projects. >> I do have a small >> uh I don't have a particular um number
in mind. I wanted to go back to your zoning and look at your triggers and talk about whether those triggers >> How about that? Could you do a little more research on it first? >> Yeah. Uh >> well, let's get let's take some specific things that we already know right here
in town. Okay. We have age restricted units up on Old Fitsburg Road. We have them at Depot Street. Um so one of them is a three-unit building. It is one building, three units connected.
Would sidewalks make sense there? Probably not. I don't know. Uh now then we'd have go to depot uh depot extension there. >> So now you have
I think there are five >> five units >> five units that are duplexes. is a single and two duplexes. >> Single, right? >> So that's a higher density. And
so >> but the reason that was approved >> was it we not only changed the zoning there to allow it to go in. All right. Um but it was age restricted housing.
And the reason that was done was because it was convenient to the town center. So we gave up commercial space for residential application was close to the town center and public transportation if it were available
would be available in the center of town. Okay. So that project does not have sidewalks. Okay. Um, so I think
a way of controlling that might be on the number of units and the density that we're talking about. >> Yeah, I do think it has to go beyond the MBD MBC district,
>> right? I this has to apply throughout the town because there are other housing project types that would would have to be considered as well. >> Yes. >> I almost think it should be based off
the the footage of a road you're putting in >> the footage of the road. >> Yeah. >> I don't think there's any intent to do that. >> What do you mean? >> It's got nothing to do with the footage of the road. If you're if you're putting in 200 feet of road, are you going to put
in 200 feet of sidewalk? >> Sure. >> Does it make sense? >> It's based on occupancy. Who's in these buildings? Not on a road. >> Where's the where's the sidewalk on the ground? It's basically the subdivision you're putting it in, right? If you're going to put in a subdivision with 20 units, right? You're going to have at at
that point I guess unless it's 20 unit building, but if you're having duplexes >> No, no. You're trying to make it sound like you have a 20 unit subdivision with single family homes. You got to put sidewalks everywhere. >> No, no. This is multi family. We're talking We're talking multi. >> Right.
>> Right. >> Can I ask this question? Um, we're talking about the cutoff below which we don't worry. Are you talking about below that cutoff not applying site plan
approval? Well, we have two two things we're trying to achieve. >> We're trying to get sidewalks for disabled people. >> Yeah. So, are you just talking about that cut off being about the sidewalks like they still have to go through site plan approval, but this condition doesn't apply?
>> No. I think there's two contradictory needs here. One is sidewalks for disability. >> Yeah. And another one is to reduce the cost of housing. Okay. So putting
sidewalks in is a an expensive burden on a developer to to put the units in. So in order to come up with some kind of arrangement,
the question would be would it make sense? And it would seem to me the logical approach to address both issues is controlling kicking in over a certain size project.
The number of how dense the project is. >> Yes. >> So the higher the density, the more likely you're going to need more sidewalks. >> Yes. You're only talking about sidewalks. >> No, I'm not. I'm talking >> about site plan approval, >> right? >> Okay. I think site plan approval is a
little separate conversation than sidewalks. I think >> exactly. >> So I that's one topic within it, >> you know. I I think I I think I mean I'm going to advocate for sidewalks no matter what, >> but but I think my opinions about site
plan approval are a little different than >> absolutes. You know, I >> So I don't want to have a conversation necessarily that sidewalks are going to trigger a thing about guidelines and requirements for sake
plan of view and that also has to address all the different building types that would be coming in. >> Right. >> So, a we're not talking about single family homes. We're not talking about duplexes.
However, if there's a subdivision that has 20 duplexes, that's a different subject. >> I don't want to get lost. I think I don't think we have like uniform agreement amongst the board and I think this is meant for like a brainstorming session for Joe
>> and then to come back with research >> this issue of triggers what triggers this okay um first of all what I'm hearing from the board is that what you want me to look at is a yes or no trigger for site plan approval
that below a certain size no it doesn't require site approval above a certain size. It does require site plan approval. >> I don't remember what our current thresholds. >> Yeah, your th current thresholds are about um parking spaces. I think parking
spaces was the one that was going to trigger uh site plan approval for your MBTA uh projects projects in the MBTA district. That's what we were counting on triggering it. >> Sure. Well, you got to be careful with the MBETA stuff now because they keep
uh reducing the parking based on public transportation locations. >> Oh, yeah. That's right. You don't have public transportation, >> right? Well, that's today, right? >> The minute a bus line goes and has a bus stop there.
>> We had a bus stop, but no one used it. >> I know, but that day is going to come, >> right? that they'll all be gone. But >> so you're a little worried about using um parking spaces as as your trigger. Um all right, I can I can look at what the triggers are going to be, but I want you
please answer this question. The triggers that we're talking about is about whether or not there's going to be site plan approval required, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So Okay. So if some Yeah. If somebody's building a three family, one three
family on one lot in your MBTA district or somewhere else, you don't want things like that. >> All districts, we can't. >> No, I say it sticks to the MBTA district. >> I We're not at a point right now. I think we're making a decision. Robert, I think I think I hope Joe will come back with options
>> and kind of a deeper dive. I I think your concern is if it's expanded um if it's applied elsewhere besides the MBTA district, it's going to be capturing all these little projects that don't really need site plan approval. And I hear that concern and yeah, we
have to write the zoning in such a way that it doesn't do that. It doesn't grab up the individual little three family and two family projects in this. What I'm hearing from the others on the other side though, what I'm hearing from other members, Gordon, is let's say there's another big project that's done, a big
elderly um project. You do have other >> not a lot, but you do have some other elements in your zoning which would allow for multifamily housing in other places in town. Um, if somebody does do a sizable multif family project, elderly
or otherwise, somewhere else in town, I uh do you not want that to go through site plan approval? >> Of course, we would. >> No, you definitely want it to go site plan review site plan approval. But every site to me is can be is going to be different, right? Like I I just don't
want to handcuff us so much >> that like like we definitely should have sidewalks. evolution, you know, but I just I like what you had without the change. I'll say that. Like when it came to the >> Well, >> it's when you start writing it for the
rest, I think it's got to be looked at. I think we really have to look at it. It can't be like boiler point. >> No, we have to make some decisions. Okay. >> Yeah. If if if it if it is expanded beyond the multif family overlay district, we are I am going to have to be a little bit more careful about the
triggers because multif family overlay district is just unbuilt raw land and if it gets built there's going to be one a bigger project down there either. >> It might be much smaller. >> So yeah, I >> it depends on the ownership of the
property and how it's broken up. But >> so let me I hear you. Let me work on that. I think I'll probably >> Joe, I think the only in a technical sense idea that I had looking at the the your design standards. Um I think uh I
guess two things. One that I like that I think Robert mentioned earlier on in the MBTA is having or or looking for some variety of either design or such. >> And I think you may have a suggestion or something like that. But I think the other one that is is vague when you is
kind of in there, but you talk a lot about bicycles. I'd like to see like if there's a if we expand it and there's a parcel that's on the rail trail or something, some level of integration to the or some detailed thought to it
because I in my mind if and when that gets completed, you have like such a perfect sidewalk. I mean it's not it's gravel. there has challenges to it, but I mean such a great integration to like the through line throughout the whole town. >> Yeah, that's something I would
>> Let's look at some some situations so you can get a better understanding here. So if we have a complex that's designed for elderly people, elderly housing, okay, the occupants of those buildings have
certain needs and they need supporting amenities for the building, not just what's in their unit. Okay. >> Now, we have another complex that is for lowincome housing where we have families with children.
So we want amenities there for families with children. In other words, playgrounds and out open space for them to have their toys and whatever and more requirements for a bus
stop shelter or things like that. So what we're trying to do is compel the developers to provide things for the building the intent of the project. >> Okay. So if the project's intended for
lowincome families with three-bedroom units in it, we know they're going to be children here. All right. And so we need that developer to say, "What are you doing for the people in this complex?" Yeah, right. That's what my objective
is. And so it applies differently with different project types, not locations or anything else. The MBJ district is only one exclusive area
where you'll be talking about. I don't want that. I want across the town. Any of the >> I think we hear what you're saying. >> I got you. >> Yeah. So, so >> I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of uh to some of my language here. So, second to last page under
pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access. Then you flip the page and you've got 1 through 10. Okay. Uh take take a look at numbers four, eight, and nine. Think I'd like to talk about those.
>> Yeah. Encourages the creation. >> The word encourages was >> Yes. Yeah. You're right. that. Now, >> do keep in mind as I was writing this, I was envisioning it as regulations for
the MBTA district, the MFOD. Uh there aren't there there aren't trails and things there for it for a development there to connect to. But other parts of town
where somebody might may produce a multif family development could well be right next to one of the town's trails or something. Uh where where I'm going with this is if this is expanded beyond the MBTA
district, I'd want to strengthen this language to require to allow the board to require providing connections to those things. Um, >> back back to I don't want to handcuff ourselves. >> I don't want to empower you to handcuff.
>> I No, but I agree with you what you're saying. But what I'm saying is if we we have to be flexible. >> It can be written that way to give you the authority to require these things. >> I I totally agree. >> No, but I don't think we want to get
specific like that. Okay. I think the best way to do it is when a project comes in, the developer of the project has to present a certain percentage
of what he's proposing for these specific functions. Okay? We're not going to tell him what he has to. All right? But if this is an elderly building, what are you doing
in this project that meets the needs of elderly? So, do they congregate? You know, if it's a a high density building with uh 30 units in it, do they have a meeting place? Do how how does
how does that building function? So I'm trying to get have the site plan review focus on the occupants and what the ele what the developer is providing for it.
So that can be in general language. You know what I'm saying? In other words, I put sidewalks here because this is there. Uh it's a circular driveway because they might need an ambulance. That's what I want to see. All right.
things like that. All right. Um, so if it's a multif family building that has a lot of families and they're taking the school bus, is it I want the developer say I gave you a school bus stop here and a playground here. In other words,
so we don't have the wrong buildings for the wrong occupants. That's what I'm trying to achieve. Robert, in my mind, I'm just trying to rephrase what you were saying to see if I understand it. What what I'm
envisioning if I were you or if I were Joe taking your advice, it'd almost be like scrapping these three four pages of line items and just saying like children, elderly, middle like interested parties, what are you doing
to support them integrating into the >> they have to demonstrate a percentage or some kind of um a focus interest on the occupants, not just come up with a plan that was
used in Wisconsin and they got so many units per acre on. Okay? And so I want them to be responsible for providing the amenities appropriate for the occupants. Okay? That's really what I'm talking
about. And one of those in a universal one in all multif family buildings will be access to outdoor space like I had suggested. That's one specific thing that can be used uniformly. Questions about how much playground and
how much uh >> bike parking spaces. >> Huh? >> How many bike park bicycle parking spaces? >> Well, that was going to be providing your elderly. I don't think we get into specifics about that. Show us what you're doing for those people. Let this
board review and say, >> you know, I want to get the board's reviewing this, thinking about the people in it and and they'll ask the questions and they can say we need more of that or that, you know. >> So, that's really interesting. So, all right.
>> I think some of this also I mean I'm looking at number eight >> and I'd have to look up the what Where did you get the at least four feet in width and the the board may impose a width greater than five? Is that something you came up with or did you >> No, that's that's that's pretty industry
standard in planning. A 4 foot sidewalk is uh is basically you you you're not you don't expect there to be people passing on a regular basis. But sidewalk is adequate for two
people walking past. And uh if you've got if you expect lines or crowds or something then you go uh wider than >> I was just I know within the ADA or we have the the Massachusetts architectural access board that requires that this how wide that
>> intern even the internal and no you can't have just grass from somebody's door to the street right >> to the from the door to the sidewalk you're required to have >> an impervious service so that you can get from the door to either sidewalk or the street. So, I just wasn't sure. I I
mean, I've got the I have access to what the actual >> I think some of the >> some of the the parameters you're going to use are the building types. All right. >> Yeah. Um because there's going to be it
has to be based on how dense the project is. Okay. The more units there is, the more significant our oversight is. So, you're going to have things like lighting, you're going to have things like
landscape, you're going to have things like sidewalk, you're going to have things like debris removal, rubbers removal, you're going to have things like ambulatory services. All right. Um so this planning board is already astute
enough to ask all our building departments have the fire department look at if a fire truck can get there and get reviews on that. So I think it has a lot to do with density of the building. Okay, that triggers certain
things to happen. And then the next thing is focus on the building occupant and use and intent and that the amenities are provided for that occupant. Okay. And then there's a
general one that I had that would seem to be nonrestrictive to any building type would be the open space requirement. Um so that's just mental health. Um >> Joe, do you feel like you have enough um
spurring you to come back with potential options or >> Yeah. What? Yes, I do. And I I I want to fill out the rest of the board on Robert's idea here. Uh let's go. I can establish this. I can I I could write
this write your site plan approval design guidelines in a way that is objectivebased purposebased um basically the >> performance based
>> instead of saying you need to have let me see here bicycle parking areas shall be provided in all developments of 30 or more units the bicycle parking shall be easily accessible with no more than 200 feet from a building entrance. Um,
we want to apply bicycle parking requirements to a multif family project in the MBTA district. We probably wouldn't want to apply them to an elderly housing project. Uh, and so having this on here that you have to provide this many parking spaces, uh,
I'm I I want to take that out and replace it with some sort of statement about the uh, uh, the developer having to provide adequate access for multi uh, for for uh, use of multiple modes or
something uh, access by the residents. what that means in the MBTA but leave it in such a manner write in such a manner that what that means in the MBTA district you can make him provide bicycle parking. >> How old how old does the elderly housing? >> What
>> how old do you have to be to go into elderly housing? Is that 55 and >> I think they ride bicycles. >> It depends on the project because some of it depends on what they're define what they're built for. Some of if it's an assisted living type of it's an assisted living.
>> We're not talking about assisted living. >> It might be well you might be if you're building in a for if a particular multif family project that's designed for that's that's that's you know developed for that you know with with the vision
that this is assisted living for people with mobility issues. They're not going to want you know they're not going to want to fly. I think if actual assisted living places I think would require license. It's a licensed facility to have an assisted living.
>> Yeah. >> Be a separate thing that I think if we're going to have a separate >> I want to point out something to everybody right here. >> Yeah. We can't but we can't come up with a set of specific regulations for each different type of what an afford a
multif family housing project might be. What we want to do is give the board the power to require what this type of multif family project uh needs and require the different things that this type of multif family project needs
without handcuffing you so that >> you're trying to stuff in what this one needs into this when it really doesn't. >> Let me suggest something here. Okay. If we get if we get specific, >> you just take a parking by law and apply
it on all the different building types. >> Okay. What you're doing is you're telling the developer what to do. >> What we want to do is turn that around
and ask the developer what he's giving us. How are you going to that has to be in the >> So how you going to enforce that? >> No, no, you enforce it >> by giving
the local authority the opportunity to request something better or to change something without being locked into a specific performance. >> You can do that. You can
>> I don't think you can Legally, >> there are ways. If it's a piece of property that you want an RFP on that the town owns, it's a different story than if it's a private developer >> coming. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, if it's town only, you send an RFP out, you say, "Okay,
best value. What are you going to offer?" It's a different story. But if it's a private developer that says, "I want to develop this land." >> All right. So, >> here's what I want to do. Robert, I I appreciate your passion and I think you talk very well and often, which is okay. But what I want to try to do is maybe
give the floor to Joe, have Joe present where he's at, and then I want to go around the table and each person kind of say where their head's at because I think we could easily get Jerry, I don't know, whatever, hooked on some micro topic that could keep us here till 9
10:30. >> Can I suggest something? >> You can, but you have a limited window to speak. Go ahead. >> How about if Joe and I communicate back and forth while he's working on this? I have no issue with that at all
>> because I might have some suggestions >> that may address a lot of these things. >> I think that's up to Joe. >> Yeah, he's got a job. He's going to >> I'm not No, I'm not going to be
dictatorial here. I want >> because he's going to understand the objective date. >> Yeah. In a delivery date. So, >> there might be some, you know, one thing I I I want I don't want to do is I I know we like to go home,
>> you know, go to bed before it's too too late, but >> we don't want to have I like Robert, of course, we like Robert, but we want to make sure we have somewhat equal contribution from everybody, >> right? Yeah. I'm all in on that, but I don't want to prematurely end this either. No >> until Yeah. I want to make because if we
don't >> get enough out of our if we don't >> go back and forth enough, >> then Joe's not going to have a complete picture and when he comes back again, he's going to have, you know, we're just going to keep going and and keep adding small little items. I mean, I'd rather
spend maybe too much time >> early on rather than finding us in a in a pinch in September with oh, we didn't work this out and oh, this big thing. I saw that. I watched the video. I watched the meetings when you guys were doing the MBTA and it just, oh gosh, this
happened and something got missed and and you're almost back to square one and then in a in a time crunch. So, I'd rather stay late. I mean, I I understand getting everybody a chance to see, but I'd rather stay later and get as much
minutia >> in the on the table early than late. >> I I just getting to get to that direction. >> Yeah. Instead of having item A lighting, item B sidewalks, item this, I think it
can be more generic that to put the responsibility on the developer to show the site plan review, >> but we have to work out these gigs right now. I mean, I think >> No, I know. But in other words, it's going to reduce time.
>> I mean, I don't want to have a regulation or a rule that is too finite. I understand. I I do I am in favor of a bit of generic nature, but sometimes you can get too generic. >> Yeah. Actually providing guidance that's helpful.
>> Even if you have a long bylaw or a long process with a lot of detail to it, it makes it easier. I I spent 23 years in the army. I I know about regulations. >> Yes. >> Okay. And I know the more detail, >> the more
>> it's checklist. No, no, no. the more everybody no matter where you are >> you can read it and go this is how it's going to be whether I'm at Fort Devs or Fort Wuka you know it's the same I I can read it and a private can read it or a colonel can read it and and that's I
think that's the same stuff that we need to be able to do so that in the future when somebody else is sitting here or even when we're sitting here that we're all going to agree on what something says and that when a developer comes in here then nobody can say it says something different than what's written
on the thing. So having already all this done, okay, a lot of this has already been done. Okay, in our current bylaws about parking and buffers and everything else, >> but this is a site plan process, not
what's required necessarily. I mean design. >> So >> yeah, >> what's important is it's not just limited to the MBTA district. Right. >> Right. and two giving
an additional requirement without being specific about providing the appropriate amenities for the occupant and that can be a very general statement where it says
this is what's required by our bylaw and we also want to see what you've done for the occupant. Okay. And that could be you can break it down into the I can help with breaking that down.
>> I think we can help right here. >> So that would give the planning board or whoever is reviewing this an opportunity to look, you know, look at a specific project and determine if it's been
tailored more for the occupant, right? for the intended use. >> Yeah. >> All right. All right. Can we get back to >> I do I don't you know I'm not trying to kill the meeting yet. I'd love to stay here till midnight with you guys. There's nothing that's more enjoyable. But I do want to check in with Joe and
then go around the room and just check where everyone's at and then see see where we go from there. One of the most important things to achieve with this document is to allow
an applicant and a developer to know what the board's expectations are so they can design to them and hopefully make you happy the first time. um if we're insufficiently specific, they're not going to know what they're
supposed to design to the I mean there are some site plan reviews that are just that are ju just contain such generic language as you know consistent with the neighborhood and um
you know provides b adequate positive outdoor access and just leaves it at that. And neither the board nor the applicant knows what sufficient outdoor access actually is. So providing
guidelines about what you actually want to see, even if it's not specific 200 ft, you know, specific numerical things. So the reader needs to come out of this knowing what the board wants to see.
>> So let's go around the table. Robert, I know. and then let's just gut check with everybody with what we've discussed, what you are seeing or what you're thinking. We'll start with Cindy and then we'll just go one by one. >> Yeah, just as far as far as I mean I like the more detail the better. Um I completely agree with what Joe just
said. Um but number five and six um one I mean I don't know what we're going to decide on the on the bicycle parking areas. I don't mind having a bicycle parking area in in older I I don't mind. But um five and 60, one
has 30 or more units, the other has 40 or more units. I think trying to make things more a little bit more streamlined like why don't we just say that five is also 30 or more units. I don't having directional signs for 30
units is not a problem. I don't think if you got a 30 unit, you might not need as many signs because of area or scope of the project >> or because of how much stuff you might have within a project. But I think having directional signs 30 especially
if it's in well it says commercial and mixeduse development looking at that but I mean 30 units in a commercial and mixeduse residential development. Okay, that's both. Okay, so I think having
signs for 30 units would be beneficial as well. >> Okay. >> So rather than having we got 30 units for this rule, 40 units for that rule, I think it also makes it easier for somebody to say, well, our magic number
is 30 units for certain things. you um >> I think for tonight unless we go around again, but I think focusing less gener generically when it fits, but we need to be I I do think we need need to be pretty
specific on some things as Joe explained how so that developers know exactly what rather than be wishy-washy. Those examples were hilarious, but but hopefully we don't get that generic on our >> So,
do we already have building codes that address a lot of this, but no, no, >> maybe there's building codes that may address some smaller parts of this, but not >> the codes address very specific things,
>> but most of this isn't about buildings. It's not about building. >> Most of this is about bot land and and and um uh >> what you want to have. >> Yeah. Amenities on the lot. >> Amenities on the lot. >> Uh
I I think simple language like in the separate multi-family building groups that we have allowed in our bylaw. in each group. If you want to make it easy,
that you have the bylaw as it exists now and you add to it and showing specific amenities beneficial to the occupant. I want to stick with the intent of going around the table and just
>> if Carol's still got the floor, I want to >> just like broad overall comments of what we discussed, where our head's at and we'll get to you, Robert. >> I mean, I don't want to be I want to be at least somewhat flexible and I
understand what you're saying about having the developer tell us how he's going to incorporate that. Um, which I kind of like that idea rather than dictating. But then again,
if we're too flexible, >> Yeah. >> we might might not be able to make the, you know, >> we can't hold them. Yeah. >> Yeah. You can't. >> Exactly. So I >> you know because we don't want just
something thrown up that's just >> so I hear you I don't think we can answer this question in any way except having the actual language to look at and deciding is this too specific is this not specific enough and then
settling on the language the principle there is yes I need to keep that in mind Carol any >> so I've said a couple times, Joe, like we can't handcuff ourselves. But for me, I mean more like sight specific, right? Like we talked like everything, you
know, we need to have structure for sure, but like an assisted living is going to be different than, you know, anything else. So, we definitely need structure, but I think it'd be hard to to encompass that in one
document. I mean, you do this for a living. I mean I I would hope that you could give us some some good guidelines and some good ideas. Uh yeah it's we definitely need structure like we
it's question of providing the a vision for people to build for people to meet and uh >> all right let's talk about this issue Robert we'll go continue around Robert now it is your Okay. Okay.
>> Okay. Let me just point out a things. Just think, bro, if you had an opportunity on a table to review what's realistic for a project
rather than what was required, whether it was realistic or not. Examples, commercial shopping malls. People think that they can decide how many square feet, how many parking
spaces there are for the different types of merchants that are there and we end up with asphalt fields that are underutilized and what did we do? Okay. So that kind of approach where
individuals think that they can plan everything for every different type of use and project is absurd. Okay. So what I'm proposing there are certain standards that will be needed for bu
different building types but I would like a regulatory board to be able to look at a project and say this is reasonable even though our bylaw says
we need two parking spaces per unit in this instance because we have public transportation or whatever ever we can waver that. All right. So, I understand where you're coming from. Developers want to know everything they have to do,
but we in many instances probably would be better off if we had a more creative approach to the building type. And that's what I'm trying to point out. We've learned from bylaws and the things
things that don't work. And so just as everybody here has had a little legitimate concern and different focuses, okay, if we give some latitude
in terms of the benefit of the project and the occupants without putting mandates in, you get all caught up with how what you know how many street lights you're going to have and how I decide what's going to be and
all these other things trying to control something that may have been done better creatively and that's what I'm trying to say is why don't we trust our own people
to look at a project if it makes sense you know what I mean without item 18 item 19 and there are certain number of those that would make sense. All right. I don't want to be coming in
here and laminating it because a project that needs certain function here um because a bylaw said this and look at us, we're changing bylaws all the time because they become archaic and they
because they're not practical anymore. Um, so I think rather than, you know, putting down laws, you know, show us why this works good is a much better approach. That's my
personal viewpoint, you know, only because I deal with zoning regulations all the time. And, you know, you can't take 20 squares and all make them fit in the same circle and it just doesn't
work. So there's got to be some relief there for the reviewer and the developer um so that you can come up with a a realistic project that's that makes sense. So >> so I'll try to write to that. >> I know it's hard
>> and it is hard but I'll try to write to that. >> Right. But I think in more generic language there are specific things in our bylaw we already know we want two parking spaces per unit. Da da da da. Okay. Now the rest of it is on these multif family building types.
All right. A generic phrase in there, you know, with other amenities appropriate for the occupant or the use of the building. >> Yeah. >> And that gives a planning board a chance to look and say, I don't think that's
appropriate or I don't think that's practical. So, I thought Brett raised a hand and Cindy has some thoughts as well that and I think instead of going around the room one more time, I think I'd go to Brett and then let's go to Cindy. >> I'm done. Yeah. >> As as a builder, I would come in here with something as cheap as possible.
>> Right. >> Right. As cheap as possible. And now I'm going to put the onus on you >> to say, "No, you need to do this." And if you miss that, >> guess what? I just >> I just saved money. I I just I'm not
putting in sidewalks. I'm not doing bikes. I'm not doing >> How do you think this is going to be as cheap as possible? >> How do I think it's going to be cheap as possible? Because if you don't catch it, I'm not going to do it. That's how it's going to be as cheap as possible, >> right? No. >> Hey, you're a developer, so you got to
be able to make money on a project. >> It's going to be a debate between a developer and the planning board over and over and over again on each project. I mean, we're doing that now. But if we, you know, you need to have as much detail in order to so that the developer
almost like a checklist. I >> I don't understand >> exactly. And that's >> the projects we're getting now projects. >> Who the arguments are when you put something in there that says depends on the occupants of the building. Well, the occupants are going to change 50 or 100 years from now. Let me tell you, at 69
years old, I can tell you 50 years goes by so fast that you won't know what hit you. And these buildings that we're talking about are going to might not even be built for another 30. So it would be nice to see some of these that don't need a lot of change. And
regarding bylaws that need to be changed, sometimes bylaws need to be changed because life changes, you know, I mean, how transportation they're talking, I mean, not to go too off topic, but they're talking about requiring licenses and registrations and
helmets for ebikes. So I mean but I mean laws change because life changes and we're going to hit those. >> Cindy, what if the what if the usage of the building changes? >> Exactly. So you can't you but you still have to when we're going to design a building that's for multif family if it's if that's what it is unless it's in
a neighborhood commercial district and then we're going to talk about well what business is going to move in on the first floor. But the but I mean I I like more detailed but one of the things I I saw as I'm just going through this again looking at >> I understand her regulations because I work
>> she works government so she said oh yeah that was good that works there lots of regulations so see building and lot design looking at number two uh when multif family buildings are included in a project requirement approval each unit shall be provided with a dedicated
outdoor area such as a yard porch patio or balcony This area shall be directly accessible from the unit. I think this is way too generic. >> Too generic. Too generic. Too generic. And I wanted to modify that. >> I want a lot of detail here. I want A B C D.
>> I want I was just going to add in um an outdoor. >> The problem is we've never had that requirement before. >> I'm sorry. What? >> Are you adding in 80 square feet? U which that's what I wanted a question I had tonight. Uh I did say
>> adds uh commission of 80 square feet to that language. An outdoor space of at least 80 square feet shall be provided for each unit. >> I think that there's potential well I mean 80 square feet if that's what we want to go with. >> Um but each unit I mean some lots
depending on what is going to people are going to want to build on. We don't we don't want to restrict oh well that lot now becomes too small to build a multi field. Exactly. So, I'm concerned about the 80 ft. Um I I I mean I have I can't really picture that. I have to get out with my little to figure out 80 feet. Uh
but I'm >> 8 by10. >> Okay, that's not too bad. >> So, every unit has to have an 8 by10 porch or an 8 by10 balcony >> or or a patio. I'm thinking that some units might be configured on a lot where
having if there's a yard that is for let's say it's a three family it's a three unit >> okay >> one building and just the configuration on the lot makes it the you'd have overlap the 80 ft per unit can't be done
because let's say they have to build an L and so the 80 ft has to overlap or they can't build they lose a whole unit because they just it can't be configured. So, I'm thinking >> no balconies. >> Each story gets a >> but then your developers say that's
expensive. We're just saying if we don't have any rules, >> but I want to but I want to establish rules that say, you know, that give you steps as well that to say, okay, we we prefer a yard, we prefer somehow, I mean, I'm kind of kind of guessing here,
but if there's a yard that's large enough that meets certain minimum requirements that can be shared by all three units rather than saying 8 by10 will change like designing the yard to be 8 by10,
you're actually designing the the whole footprint of the entire unit. You know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. I just don't understand why it's bad. >> Well, Cindy, >> let me I mean, I don't want to have one 8 by10 spot for three. >> I would say, >> you know what I'm saying?
>> I know, but if I'm a tenant, say I I want my little space. >> Yeah, that's the purpose of it. You do want individual but either way I mean but I think that's a separate uh uh having some common
space would be a separate >> yeah okay but I mean but the common space should be here too then we need to have some integration between common space that you know and not doesn't have to be in a separate place it can be >> close to this but I mean it depends on
but we should design I think we should be specific in here And then be specific about yard or when is a porch appropriate, when is a patio, too. I mean, if we can get detailed here so that a developer can say, well, let's
see, the patio's cheap, >> but if you're if you're in a multi-story building, so you have different building programs here, affordable, aging, and low income. But we need to be detailed about what this
>> all of them now require and I'm this is this is not in our bylaw the 80 square feet. You know that >> right? >> No we're proposing that. >> I know that. >> Right. All right. So now all of them will have that private space where they
can vent. Okay. >> I think I need more than 80. >> Well well right now a lot of them don't have anything. Okay. So, that's >> you live in a single family home. You have a yard. You you bought into that license. >> I have a quarter acre and my neighbors
can hear me yelling when I'm >> We're talking about people who move into a multif family building. So, I want to I want to I mean, they're not going to have as much dedicated outdoor space as here. >> I know I'm I'm kind of joking. >> I want to check back. I just want to do a gut check. I think there's some um I
guess some philosophical differences amongst us as a board and I think that's good and that's leading to healthy discussion. But I want I think Joe came here. We're not going to solve these problems. >> They're ultimately insoluble problems between those two there. It's they're often two considerations that have to be
balanced against each other. >> And I can't answer each case you're going to face in my in the regulations. I just uh but all I can do is set up set it up so that you can answer each individual case each time. So, I want
just some give some direction here. >> Yes, I've got some direction here. I've got some goals to work for it towards. I'll see what I can come up with for you. >> Let's just take each building types that we have allowed in our multif family uses, okay? And take the rooms that are
there, add this little outdoor space thing, okay? and then another requirement to demonstrate what else they have done for the
occupant. Okay. >> So, Robert, I think I think we hear >> So, you're not changing anything. You're adding the outdoor space and a requirement to show what else they've done for the occupant. So, Robert, so other
members of the board have expressed a desire to have more specifics, I think, rather than that. >> I don't want that open-ended. >> So, I think we >> we're giving them an extra trash barrel. I mean, that's I mean, that's asking for
>> No, that's that's anyway. >> This board, >> I think you're setting yourself up for failure if you do that. I can partic I I I can enision I >> I can envision these most these projects going every every one of these being the
developer coming in uh you know you you you got your six or eight or or 10 different uh standards tell us how you meet the standard and him coming in the lowballing every single one of them and every single one of them you having to
fight them to get to uh uh where you want to be where there was get any applicants that are putting picnic tables for elderly people. All right. >> No outdoors common space at all. No meeting rooms. All right. That's what we're getting in our planning board now.
We're getting mailboxes way at the end of the rideway with somebody in a walker. We have dumpsters that are not even near where the units are. >> You know, if these are special projects, you already have the authority to hire them to have to make them move them. I
you're getting the Are you approving these things? >> Three approved. I can take you and take you for a drive. >> It was contentious. I think there's some differing opinions specific to some of the things that have been approved and I think that's okay. And there's been healthy discussion about it. I think checking back in with
you, Joe, do you have enough? Do you feel is there more you'd like from us specific to what you're working on? And when do you think we can expect? >> Okay. one thing I that were for you that's specific for that you can give to me this C building and lot design. I
think I'm going to change that title to something better. >> Okay. >> Um but uh what I've got on here are there's this generic language about uh number one mix. We're on the very last page. Let's see. Uh mix of uh building
types and sizes uh with with with uh varying numbers of bedrooms. Uh okay. Mix of building types in terms of what they actually contain. >> Visual variety. >> Next use project. >> No, I'm No, this No, this is still all
multif family. >> Okay. >> So, um mix of building types so that it's not one house cookie cutters. >> Yeah. Not the cookie cutter. Right. Uh second, secondly, all right, variety of building type and
aesthetic visual consideration here. Okay, so you don't get that cookie cutter look. Variety of building type in terms of actual um land use. We're talking about ideally in the MVTA communities district, they would build a
mixed residential neighborhood with small lot singles, large lot singles, twos, and small multi and the large multi. Uh that type of variety. Uh number three, uh individual dedicated outdoor common
space and number four, common outdoor um space. Those I think are those the four that need to be here under this category under the C right >> are there are there additional ones >> so we have words already called open space right
>> percentages of block coverage and things like that already >> uh yeah yeah but um I'm but terms of actual design guidelines here about what it's what what what it's supposed to be
>> let's just let's go on that what Joe's brought up. Let's go back around. >> Okay. Um number one, on number one, it says um contain a mix of unit sizes and building types blah blah blah with a variety of number of bedrooms, square footage, and units for families. I think
we need to be more specific. >> I'm afraid we can't. This is only ever going to be uh this one here can only be suggest can only be a suggestion if somebody comes in in the multif family um overlay district and wants to do all
two families or all ones. Um that's legal. >> This is one this one is encouraging. >> The board would like to see it. Now when the the where we get to like the visual you can require
you know you can mandate that there's some variety in the buildings and you can say this hasn't met our standards for you know uh for for building variety. >> Do we have to specify the building variety? >> See this is the question that we've been
talking about all night. How specific do we have to get? We don't have >> I'm thinking percentages like based on this I'm not necessarily in the overlay district. I mean, I'm not quite some of this gets kind of confusing for me, but if for the areas that we can make definitive
changes or recommendations or whatever we're going to call it for for this when I was thinking to be more specific, I was saying, you know, if you've got a 40 unit something built somewhere else and you you know, it says units for families,
that would be units is plural, that means two. But I mean, if you depending on the size of your project, I mean, if you're just talking about one three family building, then I I'm getting a little bit too specific. >> Yeah. When you're talking about one three family building, there is going to be a trigger.
>> But if it's something a larger development >> Yeah. >> system, >> yeah, >> then I would rather like say a certain percentage. I don't have the percentages in my head, but a certain percentage based on the the size of the development, a certain percentage would
need to be for families. A certain percentage of two two bedrooms, a certain percentage or single a single like one bedroom. Um, and based on the the needs of, you know, lower cost rents
for people, I'm all in for some studios um to to cover the people that need a place to live and they just don't have any money. So, you I mean because of the financial constraints that people are under today that I mean the studios should be back
>> and but that also but families so >> I'll look into this. I'm not sure what you're allowed to do. Um I'll I'll look into this what if if you're allowed to require certain >> just the percentages just to make it reasonable for >> real people
>> not real developers real rather see yeah and as we're going around the question that I really wanted wanted answered was are these four uh correct and adequate or do I need more categories here so once again the categories are variety of building type
and size um individual unit dedicated space, common space >> and building visual variety aesthetics.
Are those the four categories here in this is basically going to be building design. >> Okay, >> type in design say >> I'm good for now. >> Okay. Are those the four? That sounds good right now. >> For now,
>> at the at the end of the day, these are only what we'd like to see. They can propose something. >> Where does density fall in >> or no? >> Right. >> Wait a minute. Let's finish with Brett. >> Is is that the case? >> What's that? >> Like this is what we'd like to see. They can come in and
>> No, I'm saying what we're doing here is establishing the standards that they an applicant will be expected to meet in order to get an approval here. But didn't you say we really can't change this in the beginning?
>> Oh, this Oh, yeah. The one about Yeah, the one specifically the the number one here. >> Yeah, >> that one's going to have to just be a suggestion and it'll be phrased as as you know, the way this says encouraged, >> right? >> You know, that one's going to have to be
just just encouraged. I still think it's worth worth putting in there because it's really something really worth pushing for, but >> Sure. if they want to get points with us. >> I Yeah, I mean, >> yes. It would, for example, let's say
they wanted something or they wanted to not have to do something or they had a little problem with something. Putting this language in here might make them think, you know, if we mix up the buildings and get a little bit more of a mix of new and they'll like us better and they might be able to get this. >> No, Robert, you're next about those
four. I I think we're all on the right page here. Um I think Yeah. Yeah. I think I can come up with better documents. So I I have no wishes with what they are. What what I'm
trying to point out is it's pretty hard to envision what kinds of projects will come and what the needs will be. Um, so having very specific requirements for what we do know is good.
Um, and having more amenities being provided for the building type we're looking at. So if it's uh let's say it's a elderly housing complex as an example,
each one will have their private balcony and they will have a common space where they can meet and play bingo or whatever. So what we're trying to do is get the the the elements in that project that suits the
needs of the occupant. Okay. So, you know, and it's so a lot of it we can make a definitive requirement, >> but a lot of it can be subjective.
>> Yes. It should be. Yeah. >> Right. And gives the the board the flexibility and the developer to do something different for those occupants. But there is a requirement to do it. You understand that? That's all I'm trying
to achieve. >> I I I feel like you I think I get your point. I I think that point's been made. I think Joe hears that point from your perspective. I think there's a uh he's going to come back to us with some more framework. You know, I don't we're not
aligned, I think, on framework as a board yet. Um so Joe, where what else do you have for thoughts or questions at this stage? Um, if I could give you you all some homework. Uh, if you could and there's sort of a Beth showed it to
me. I I sent it to me even sort of an unofficial table of uses. You know, your uh your uh they created a table. >> I've seen lots of tables.
>> Uh saying what's Yes. What's special permit? What's no? >> See, right now the way your uh um zoning bylaw is written, it's all textual and it describes and you don't have a real official
um table of principal uses the way. >> Won't that be developed after we complete this? >> No, that's not No, this I'm I wasn't going to make you whole table of principal uses. >> Say what? No, I wasn't going. No, it was not part of this project for me to uh produce a table of principal uses for
for the town >> what you're recommending. >> There was one that was drawn up as a for a project. >> Yeah. I don't know if Beth is still on. She texted me that she was going home. Oh, >> okay. That she that uh if you could um
talk get a look at that. >> Okay. And which uses on that do you think should be site plan approval? Okay. Uh what >> I think we'll make that a discussion
item for our next meeting for us. >> Maybe Beth could send out the table that he's talking about to all of us. >> Yeah. And and you know get back to her if you have any notes about what of those which of those uses do you think should be site plan approval as opposed to a special permit.
uh especially the site plan the uh site plan review special that would be uh any input on that. Um secondly,
>> didn't we just change that >> ADU? >> Yeah, >> in the ADU bylaw that you adopted, uh some of the ADUs are um subject to site approval. Oh,
>> the new construction, remember the uh it's written up so that if the ADU is put entirely within the footprint of the existing home or within a an existing accessory structure, it's not site plan
approval. But if you build a new accessory structure or you build an addition on the single family home for the uh ADU, then it is site plan approval. >> Shouldn't be. Well, that that's what was what the town adopted. >> That's what your zoning is. Now,
>> what would you like us to do specific to that? >> Well, do you need the question is do you need regulations for ad use? >> No, >> I mean I mean you we're creating a site plan approval regula uh regulation
document for the planning board to use and it's site plan approval. We should have cases right now. What site plan approval applies to is projects that get triggered by your triggers in the uh uh that's in
your zoning and what that basically amounts to is large housing developments. It's basically gets triggered when you have more than uh eight parking spaces I believe is the one that was gonna that trigger multi family housing
>> any No, that the ADU applies for one and two family home. >> I know that, >> right? >> But if you have a large complex, >> that complex is entitled to one additional one. >> Yes, that's Yes, I'm talking. But our ADU bylaw requires a site plan review
for certain ADUs, but we don't have any site plan review process for us to go by. >> Well, you have somebody's going to say, what what is this going to include, right? >> Yeah, you've got some pro Yeah, there is some process that's there in the BLA, but there's not now you're adopting site plan approval regulations.
>> We need a reference. It might be a good idea to have to think about whether you need to have some regul something in the regs that uh you know specifically to address ADUs. >> What why wouldn't we have a site plan review for one?
>> But we already put it in our bylaws. We have to have one. >> No. >> Yeah. It's already in there. >> It's there for those if you're building say you're building a new garage with an ADU on top. That would be a site plan. We we as a board the way
>> because that's what you put in for the bylaw. >> The discussion from that I remember Robert from the board was that when that came out from the state we elected to have a approval process when there was a new structure put in because we wanted
to feel confident that adequate parking or flow or access from emergency services would be appropriate. We've had a few that have come before us in that capacity. Mhm. >> They've been pretty simple. Normally, we just look at them and we just approve
them. >> You've had ADU special permits. >> No, ADU site plan approvals come before you. >> I think we've had two >> Oh. >> that have come before us. >> Oh, cool. >> And I think whether I mean I think the goal
>> I think a lot of that was before we >> I'm pretty sure >> before we put the got the zoning change in the town meeting >> those like put those AD units. >> No, I don't think so. I because we didn't get them before. Once we put the the rules in, then we ended up getting the ADU.
>> ADUs are almost impossible before. >> Yeah. So, but I think, you know, to Joe's point, you know, maybe it's worth reconsidering. I mean, it's relatively new. >> Whether we want them or not, we that's that's up to us to decide and then repropose a 10.
>> Well, the other thing about that is what I see is these requirements are changing. frequently um coming from the state house now. Um so even what we had then
they've reduced it. They want take away more of the >> So I think all we're going to end up is enforcing our regular zoning by law as far as setbacks and heights and things like that. So I think if that would if
the outcome of if the answer to this question from this board is on second thought we don't really need site plan approval for uh for those ADUs. That would be f fine with me. Um but we got to do something with this. Right now
there is uh in your zoning uh site plan approval for new construction ADUs. uh if that's going to stay, do you want to have some regulations
around it? What sort of issues have come up in your projects that uh that that you'd want those to be or uh if you know and if you So, I'd like this to be um homework. >> Think about that. Do you really need that spec do you really need that uh
site plan approval for those ADUs? And if you decide you do, what sort of regul do you need? Do do we need a regulation section for it? So I think for us uh whether it's the next meeting I mean we certainly want to do these things in line with the timeline so Joe can
continue this project and get it done by September but I would I don't know what the agenda is for the next meeting but my hope would be that we talked about put discussion item for >> um the table talking about the table and the triggers and then the ADUs amongst
us whether we think we want to continue >> what do you see most >> um actually I before I answer that question. If the five of you wanted to individually consider those questions and send some feedback to Beth to get to me so that I
don't have to wait till the next meeting to hear it, that would be great. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Um remember you your open meeting law. So you >> I was just I'm just question that you're supposed to have outside of this. That's why individually I'd like you to give the feedback and then it can come on to
me and that's perfectly legal under the open meeting >> as long as you don't give us feedback >> outside of a meeting. >> Right. And right >> respond to us and say well the consensus is you can't do that. You can just receive and be dead and then only bring
it up when we're together. >> Exactly. It gives him runway to move depending on our opinions. Um yeah, I was wondering if it might make sense to just um on our meeting agenda
have a line item at the end update on these topics so we can >> I think put it on the agenda even if it's a full agenda. >> Yeah, why don't we do that so that will keep us on track. >> Even if we don't do anything, it'll be on the agenda. >> Keep us on track. Joe doesn't have to come to >> have a scope in front of me. I don't
remember if I'm um due to come before you. uh at the next meeting or not. But >> no, but we we can make sure >> not I'll get you. >> I think that's just a good >> Yeah. >> reminder for us that Okay. Did you look at Oh, I forgot. Yeah. >> You know, so that if it's on the agenda,
we can look at the agenda before the meeting and go, "Oh, shoot." >> And so, let's let's tackle the next agenda. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, just put it on the agenda even though you're gonna Okay, we're going to move on that one. >> Nobody remembered to do it. >> That's been pretty good. I think typically the MRPC
uh site plan special permit has been on the agenda. So, but I'll make sure that it continues. >> So, Joe, do you feel confident? Do you have enough? Do you have other homework you want to give us? >> No, no other no other homework. Um that the question going around about the four categories um in this memo, in this
cover memo, uh landscaping and planting standards, >> do you think that needs to be the number five? >> Yes. >> Okay. landscaping and planting standards. >> I want a pollinator garden. >> Yep. >> Obviously not want a pollinator garden.
I thought that wouldn't say >> I'm a beekeeper. >> Open to. >> So, I really want a pollinator garden. >> I'm going to see how the framework develops for what we're applying to where before I feel more confident with some of the line items, I think. >> Okay. >> All right.
Um, you had a question. >> What do you see most times with ADU? It's really just starting. Um, it's different in every town. There's they're more they're more popular the further
east you go. And I think contrary to a lot of expectations, they seem to be more popular the more urban you go. And I think people were really envisioning >> saturated. They come in every day. bigger
uh more urban places tend are you seeing them more in more urban places? >> Oh my god. >> I think the expectation was that there would be mostly a suburban phenomenon. No, >> but no. Lots of >> three deckers in in Arlington adding one more unit.
>> I read that modulars are big. >> Oh yeah, >> the modular units are getting because they're cheaper to design. You don't have to do all the design. >> Oh yeah. But between drop them in the thing like that urban is uh anywhere where it's on septic
>> I mean that really really really makes it diff uh expensive to add an ADU a lot a lot a lot of septic engineering and work for tiny little amounts of square footage it's I think that's really being a bar a burden a barrier to them being
built in >> not really because of the cost of housing now has just escalated so high. Everybody's looking for a second means of income and um >> the cost of housing is related.
>> I mean, I'm getting single family houses that are building two family twocar garages and with an ADU on top, you know, and what are they saying? You know, it's like, I'm going to get a garage. I need one anyway, but to pay
for the garage and putting an ADU in. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you, Joe. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Nice to see you again. >> Thank you, Joe. >> All right, so that >> was 3.3. Um,
let's let's jump to 3.5 uh which was to review and approve a certificate of completion storm water management permit uh number SM2023-2 Harbor Trace Water Treatment Plant. Um,
I believe from talking to Beth that everything has been submitted and is in order with that for certificate of completion. I'm not sure. >> Yes, but I thought I thought I saw that there was a couple of things missing or did she get them later today? >> I was on So, I was on the phone and I I
guess I have to pull my computer back up. I was on the phone with her this afternoon and she what she couldn't find at the time was the recorded original um decision. >> Oh, decision. Okay. And then so I don't I think um she hasn't gone through the
registry of deeds website but I went on it and I sent it to her and I that was right before the meeting happened. So to my knowledge that was the only thing that was missing >> missing. Okay. >> And then she had it but >> Okay. Certainly. If there's other questions or concerns or
>> No, I that was the only thing was when when I looked there was a couple of pieces missing, but if they got them now then Okay. So, any other questions? No. No. Entertain a motion to approve the certificate of completion for the storm
water management permit SM 2023-2 harbbitration water treatment plan. >> So move to second. >> So move the second roll call vote. >> Cindy King, yes. Carol House is yes. >> Brett King, yes. >> Robert, yes. Andrew, yes. Okay. So now
the next items I think are more discussionoriented and let's go to 3.1. Cindy as clerk and our resident I don't know the official >> I'm the chair of the commission on disability. >> Did you read the towns and ADA?
>> I don't have it. >> You don't have it. >> I saw it. >> There it is. Okay. All right. This is um just to give you some background. This is required by the ADA that this be posted on any in every building and we have there's one posted outside the
where public meeting notices are posted and it's also on the website. It's posted on the website underneath the commission on disability. Um, all right. The ton of towns does not discriminate based on disability, program applicants on disability, period. Program
applicants, participants, members of the public, employees, job applicants, and others are entitled access to all programs, activities, and services without regard to disability. Copies of this notice are available upon request in accessible formats, large print, audio, braille, online, etc. Our
grievance procedure, self-evaluation as well as ADA policies, practices, and procedures are readily available upon request. If assistance is needed, the ADA coordinator will provide it upon request. The not this notice is posted promptly at all of our sites and the
town of Townsen has designated the following person to coordinate its efforts to comply with the ADA. Inquiries, requests, and complaints should be directed to town of Townsen. ADA coordinator Robert Garside here at town hall and his number is listed on
this thing as well as his uh email address. >> Thank you. Um so 3.2 is to review upcoming training sessions offered by the Citizen Planner Training Collaborative. I don't know if we have a list of those. Do you have any? >> Uh I I know the list. One is tonight.
The next one is the 22nd. These are both our two of our meeting nights. And there's one on the 18th. The one on the 18th is roles and responsibilities for planning board and zoning. I have signed up for that. >> 18th of June. >> 18th of June. I did. I've signed up for that one. It's the only one that I asked. Beth wouldn't let me go on either
one of these two. >> Sure. Sure. Good. Excellent. >> I don't remember what the title tit does. I I asked her if it would be too much if I went and she said you can't. >> Do you remember the time for the one you signed up? >> I don't remember the time, but it's on if you go to the CPTC.
>> Sure. Yeah, it's the website you can sign up for it and they're $35 >> to attend each of the classes. So, >> so the next one is 3.4 which is the understanding exparte communications and planning board members responsibilities
Q&A. I think the originally uh I heard from Kieran that he was traveling today. he had planned or hadn't intended to come this evening and I think Beth was even potentially going to speak on this but given the lateness that she is not but I think it's something we can talk
about and just read over. I don't know if this has been in our portal before >> um it's just a little bit revamped with a different heading. I think the the big thing I think there's a few big things and I think for us in a way it's almost like you know refreshing on this
refreshing on open meeting law refreshing on state ethics and kind of like those those things that uh can sneak up on you as board volunteer board members where you come in you're doing your thing and then you know you forget what you're trying to do. You're just trying to make it to the meeting and stuff. So I think that's kind of what
the goal is. >> Yeah. I think these things I mean it's really the open meeting law is probably the least important of some of these because it's the least um penalties for messing up on the open meeting law. I mean we should all know the open meeting like each of us as individuals and not
depend on like Beth to take care of us. we each are responsible for for that and there's not that much to it >> and I and Cindy can correct me if I'm wrong but I think part of the open meeting line and we just went through an experience which I think is a good learning experience for all of us as a board with the complaint but the the the
goal in my mind the way I've interpreted is for the public to be able to see our discourse and the development of our thoughts right as we >> transparency basically one word is transparency as open as we possibly can >> and and that involves you know we're not getting together for ice cream and talking about
>> we can all go out for ice cream, but we have to talk about our private lives. We can't talk about things that even could be under our jurisdiction, which for the planning board, it's really a lot. There's a lot of things we can't talk about how we feel about housing and housing because even though we're not the housing board, what we're going to
be part of the regulations on >> on like >> for open meeting law amongst individual >> but we can't because that's going to that's something we we're really find ourselves deliberating. Yes. >> So we need to avoid that >> be deliberative. And the exparte I think
exparte I see is falling under ethics because that's where we're if we if we're meeting with a member of the public you know and talking about something that's before us we can really I mean it not just hurts us individually
but it it makes our decisions suspect like you know can we be trusted to make decisions on our own and it it's considered Our board is considered quasi judicial. So that like in a court, a judge can't go down to Dunkin Donuts and
talk about to people in the in the coffee shop about cases that are before the judge. That's against the law and it it makes the judgments like where are you getting your ideas? It needs to be based on what is presented. And that's the same with us. It what's presented to
us, not things that we find out in the community. If we're on the select board, select board members, it's more political and they it is their job to go out into the community and talk to everybody about what do you think. We can't do that. We have to make our decision by what is presented to us in
public hearings or in our meetings. And so when we don't then that makes it >> that's actually more open meeting law in the sense that within the public setting of the meeting. But if we're we can't make our
decisions based on, >> gee, I got all my information because I was hanging out at Starbucks yesterday morning or I was hanging out at um at the fire station. Yeah. And or you know, I need to make my decision based on what's presented in, you know, in each
any of the any of the things. And we can't we cannot talk about the exparte says we cannot talk to any of the applicants. We can only talk to the applicants if they're when they're here. Even if we know them, if our friends um are involved or um well, if they're a
butters or friends, we probably might not we might need to recuse. But if but if we know people that are involved and they want to talk to us, they want to call us up and say, "What do you think?" You know, I want to gee, Cindy, I want to give you my two cents about this
project that's before you. I need to tell them I can't talk to you. you can come to the public hearing and speak at the public hearing so that everybody gets this conversation and it's not open meeting law. It's it's the part of the decision-making process on when an
applicant is coming before us and there are times when this can actually get into conflict of interest law depending on what the issue is. Um, I was reading some of the other cases on exparte communications and basically what
some lawyers recommend is that you need to recuse if if you've had exparte communication on a particular project, you need to recuse unless it's something really really insignificant. >> Well, what happened to me? I didn't even
know who this person was. I think that's where best practice is, >> you know, and I think that's somewhat the goal of this, right? Is if if we're operating under the assumption where, you know, if someone does approach us or someone is asking us, we just say, hey,
you know, so glad you're engaged, so glad you have an opinion, you know, come to our board meeting and talk to it, right? And then we're also not rendering an opinion with the perception of a bias or the perception of a conflict inadvertently, you know, out at the
grocery store or or, you know, taking a break outside or anything like that. >> And whatever our opinion is, just like the public should speak to us about a particular issue, that's our obligation to the public. The only time we should be speaking to the public is here on
those things that are before us. Um, so what did I do that was so wrong? >> I think I think Brett when you brought up the uh when the resident came to you, I think the concern >> wasn't I don't even know it was a
resident. It was an anonymous anonymous complaint, right? >> I I'd have to go back in my head. I I think the >> I basically told them I can't talk about it. I don't know who they are. wouldn't give me their name and I just came to
the next meeting and asked, "Hey, this is what happened. What should I do next time?" >> I I can't remember the particularities of that day exactly, but I think I think it I I I can't remember if it was right before the meeting ended or right after
the meeting ended. And I think if it was after, then that would be an o violation of open meeting law because we're not in a public setting in a meeting. And I think the goal would be to make sure it be before or at least even in the public hearing. >> I think what you brought up at the last
meeting about that was that it happened you brought up the issue in a meeting but it wasn't on the agenda. >> I think that's what you >> I think I I >> that was one issue. >> I think the project might have been on the agenda but it might have we we might
have closed it. >> Yeah. I I'm thinking like sometimes if if we get a this is happening on some other boards too and it's my opinion that if we get if somebody says something to us that we think is significant and we don't know what to do with it I
think calling back either calling or coming to see Beth and say okay somebody called me and said this I don't know I don't know what to I don't either understand it or I just don't know what to do with the information and I think Beth can guide us on whether
it. She can put it on the agenda if something needs to get put on the agenda or or or give us guidance on if we don't know what to do. >> Yeah. I mean, I just What do I do when I got an complaint? Because anonymous complaint isn't isn't a complaint to me.
>> If someone's not, >> right, then I mean, maybe not. >> I mean, that's and that's up to you to But if you if you don't want to share it, then don't. It's a private conversation you had and it's you just eat it. But if but if it's something
that you think is concerning and that you you you don't understand something but you but it sounds serious to you, I think bring it up to Beth and she I think Beth has a lot of knowledge about what's going on around here and I think she could guide you and it's not you're
not into open meeting law with her and you're you're getting some kind of feedback and then she can also take feedback from you like what do you she can ask you do you want this on an agenda? because we can go to Beth and say, you know, we really want something on the agenda and but
but you you get out there's no trouble by talking to Beth. >> I remember Brett, I the way I understand it now that I don't know if I fully understood at the time was I think it was more on the edge of open meeting law in the sense of like the deliberative or non-deliverative with new information
and whether like the timing or how that that's my interpretation but There's a truck block in the road >> and I don't even know right now, >> right? Because it's a project in an active hearing. >> Oh, a project that had a truck,
>> a project belonged to the project. >> A truck was blocking the road. >> I don't Maybe this would even be worth. So, it's about a project that we're currently hearing now. So, >> in the spirit of not being deliberate, >> I would ask. >> Well, I guess maybe the next time
>> we shouldn't talk about it. No. Yeah, you can't talk about you could talk about it maybe during when it's on the agenda >> or ask before the next >> at the end of the day I was just like I don't even know if this person called me because I'm in construction and it
wasn't me like I don't know why this person called. >> Okay. Okay. >> So it was over with >> I basically just said I couldn't talk about it and that was it. >> Yeah. But >> yeah. >> So I I think that's the goal of this right and I think it's always good and healthy for us. I just add one more
thing. I mean, transparency and ethics really get my goat. So, I I think another thing that's really important to us is understanding the conflict of interest law. >> I'm sorry. >> Understanding the conflict of interest law. I think that all falls into this conversation. I don't think I'm venturing outside of it,
>> but I mean, we all took the the conflict of interest training, right? >> Right. And I mean, making sure we if we need to take it again, take it again. When I took my class, I took it like last October, I think. When you're in the middle of taking the class or at the
end before you log out, you have an opportunity to download a transcript. And I did that. You might not you might miss it if you're if you just and you log out and you can't go back and get it after you're out of the training, but I downloaded it, which is not it's really
just almost a guide book is what it was. It wasn't like a boring transcript. it it's really got chapter, you know, table of contents and explains in English lay person type language. I I emailed it to Beth over the weekend. Um, so I mean I
think she could probably send it to everybody which I I think is a good thing to go over some of the things that we might not because it's the conflict of interest training is pretty >> got a lot of stuff in there and it you can really run into trouble or you might
not remember things but I when we have questions we're not sure about something we can look at the guide book and also regarding conflict of interest the ethics commission wants to hear from people before they screw up.
>> So, we can call them and ask questions, say, "Gee, this is I don't know if what I'm looking at is what I need to do a disclosure or can I do this? Do I need to recuse? Do I need to do this?" We can call the ethics commission and they will call us back and talk to us. And I
called them when I got elected. I said, "Okay, what do I need to know?" Because I already knew that. And they were on the phone with me for like half an hour >> going over all the pitfalls and the things that I because of what I do in my life, what the things that I need to be concerned about and how and and some of
the things that generally is different about the planning board. And I was like really thrilled and like thank you. I'm glad I called to get really good information. And so I think that it I I just think it's a good idea for everybody to >> that we understand these things
>> and >> and not just make assumptions. >> Yeah. And I've called them too >> and they don't want to hear from you after you screw up. They want to hear because then you're confessing to crimes. So you want to call them before you screw up and say, "I got this thing
coming up or I'm involved with this and I don't know if if I'm, you know, what do I have to do?" and they'll say if you need to fill out a disclosure, they'll tell you exactly which disclosure form >> and if if you don't, they'll say no, you don't need to do that. Or they'll say you need to recuse.
>> You they'll give you this advice and they're very friendly about it. >> Yeah, they're very helpful. >> They tell you things you weren't expecting. That's happened to me every time. So, I mean, I don't know. That's just my >> because I've done I've called the ethics, too. >> And they are very helpful. I've also
called the the election people and they're very helpful. Um if you're running for office, you can call them and they'll they're very helpful. >> Finance is good, too. >> Um so all of those >> agencies are very good.
>> Y Okay. All right. I think we're good there. So that covers all of the meeting business correspondence notices from CS and budding counts. >> Okay.
>> We got this. I don't think there was much. At least it wasn't the whole >> we got 108 West Meadow here. >> I know that's not on the agenda, but >> storm water report. >> Is this annual inspection checklist? >> Okay. Um, is this part of correspondence
or is this something we need to >> Um, I don't know exactly, but I guess speaking that you have it and I think it's in our portal as well. >> All right. Storm water management annual inspection checklist by property owners. This form must be completed and submitted to the storm water authority
at least 6 months and again at one year and at least annually thereafter. Okay, so this is 108 West Meadow. The owner is Kimell Family Trust and there was an inspection date of 63. >> I think it's general enough to I don't
think we need to >> go. >> Looks like everything's working. There's this checklist. No changes since last report. Biggest noted difference is the natural changes from last the natural positive changes from last year. All right.
Then I have notices. Let's see. Grten Planning Board. They voted to grant a special permit and definitive plan approval for flexible development subdivision um for
the Shoba Homes development. It looks like on 126 Wyman Road and they did that at the end of May. Okay. The next one I have is from Lunberg. It's a notice of public
hearing um uh scheduled for Monday, June 22nd at 6 PM for applications for site plan approval and storm water permit for a commercial office building at 1325 Mass.
And that's it. Tana Shirley ZBA they are having a public hearing on Monday July 13th for let's see 7 p.m. Let's see. July 13th, town office building and it's by Timothy Coughlin.
712 Old Union TH Pike. They want a variant of minimum frontage on six at 64 Walker Road. Notice of decision from the town number 149 State Street. State Street. Where'd
I get that? Summer Street. Site plan approval with conditions for five Hunt Road. What? Oh, no. That's their home address. Wait a minute. That doesn't make sense. >> I got the It says an address in a
different town. >> Uh that could be it might be developing somewhere. site plan approval for storage, display, and sale of 12 motor vehicles. I remember reading a notice about this for their meeting, but it doesn't say where.
>> So, I think the site approval was on. >> It's getting late. >> It's getting late. You're right. You're right. >> Yeah. >> I had read I read this. It's 149 Summer Street and they're doing I guess they're selling cars. All right. So, notice of decision 60
crossroad. I got the address right 60 Cross Road and storm water permit for four residential lots and a single family home on 30 Pine Grove Road a single family home at 64 cross and duplex at 68 cross and in addition to a
dwelling at 60 cross it's stormwater permit approval with conditions and then we have 222 west towns west towns and road in Lunenburgg storm water approve a permit approval with conditions
um for four residential lots. Okay. Town of Ashby notice of public hearing from the ZBA on June 16th at 7 PM Ashby Town Hall for a special permit for additional antennas
on the cell tower on 603 Fitsburg State Road by SBA communications. Uh Lunenberg again notice of decision zero reservoir road storm water permit approval.
Yeah. Planning board public hearing on June 8th tonight for storm storm water permit application to upgrade existing unitil electrical substation through the construction of a
new facility immediately adjacent to the current one. Um on on Yeah. Okay. But 9:34 now. Okay. All right. And then one more for another one for Lindberg.
Public hearing again tonight to storm water permanent site plan approval for redevelopment of the Subaru building at 757 Chase Road. And Pepil notice of decision received May 26th.
special permit for the purpose of using an existing space in the residence as a home office to see clients for one-to-one energy healing work as well as hold monthly wellness related events such as meditations and group energy healing for 10 to 15 people and that's
at 57 to 59 Park Street in it. >> Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn. >> I'll make a motion to adjourn at 9:30. Second. >> All right. Roll call vote.
>> Cindy King, yes. Terrell Hoff says yes. >> Brett King, yes. >> Robert Theion, yes. Andrew, I'm going to say no, but it will pass anyways. >> Yeah, >> just for the heck of it. >> Just for the heck of it. Thank you everybody.