okay it being 10:15 on April 1st 2024 I'm going to call this special uh meeting of the select board uh to order and if you would please join me in a pledge of allegiance to the flag United stat States of America okay just as a little background for those tuning in uh this morning uh if you saw our our meeting last Monday we talked about some proposed new legislation for accessory accessory dwelling units uh there were some concerns raised about um and it turns out we were going to wait until our next regular meeting on April 8th to talk about this in more detail but um we found out the end of last week that there will be a public hearing on this on April 2nd so we um uh intend to give some testimony there and the deadline to provide any written testimony is the end of the day on April 2nd so that's why we're here today to uh finalize a letter to be sent to the um subcommittee that is uh holding the hearing on this so with that um we can talk about the letter that um was drafted that notes uh the five bullet points on it on our major concerns um I'll just briefly talk about those and then we can open it up to the other board members for any additional or edits that we want to make um we have a strong concerns about the impacts to infrastructure particularly in chood where as everyone knows our SE capacity is limited um and increasing the sewer usage even on an incremental basis that accessory dwelling units would cause um would would force the town to look for other resources for wastewater treatment this proposal takes away the rights of each municipality to set criteria for this type of usage uh the town of chood already has bylaws in place for adus which um personally I don't feel are overly restrictive and they are generally granted uh when reasonable this new legislation does not require the property owner to live in the main unit or even in the accessory drawing unit uh it almost is a in in again in my opinion it uh effectively allows an investor to buy up multiple homes in a community and turn them into single family homes in family in single family zoned districts um um it appears that there's a the the state seems to think that there's a limited supply of possible residents that this would be um used for um in chelwood though um I don't know exactly how many properties that we have that would fall into this category I'm hoping that we can find that out before we send this letter and and lastly uh homeowners who who choose to maintain their traditional single family home would be a the impact of surrounding properties that effectively become two family dwellings which could severely impact the value of their property um based on um The increased density in their neighborhood so so now I'll open it up to the the other board members anybody have any comments on these five or additional ones that we would like to see didn't you want to you want to begin um sure so um in the first paragraph on infrastructure the only thing we cite is sewer capacity and when we discussed this before and got inputs from some of the other um boards and the Housing Authority the other pieces that were brought up were um there's no additional support for the schools the roads or the electrical grid and I think we should call those out as well you want me to just keep going sure okay um the second bullet I'm wondering if that should be the first bullet um that's really even at the planning board and you know they're just really making single family zoning obsolete um so then on when I was looking at the third bullet on the property owner is not required to occupy the main o unit or Adu I think I think that's important um do we is there anything well I don't know if we want to be more explicit and so I'm kind of thinking out loud here but I I went back in my notes from the planning board meeting and um their three main or main points were one they were opposed to the state mandating it and taking away local control which I think you've covered M um the specific aspects that they were opposed to that they wanted to specifically ask be changed assuming that under the assumption that we we're not going to stop this right so let's try to change it um is one that in the proposed legislation the Adu no longer needs to be attached in our local um I actually brought the local bylaw if you guys want to look at it for reference um you want to start on the second page at 1956. one but our local bylaw requires that it be attached and then so there was there was that comment it no longer needs to be attached the second comment which I think you've touched on and I just wasn't sure if we wanted to say it more explicitly is that neither dwelling in the state legislation needs to be owner occupied so um they wanted to be sure that we're requiring that at least one of the units be owner occupied and in our own in our own bylaw um if you even just look at the objectives list on the second page for 19561 it's totally geared toward providing options for extended for extended family members and so I don't know if there's anything specific that we want to be saying about um in this in section 12 of the state law it says that they don't want to restrict the creation of a rental accessory dwelling unit that's not a short-term rental which to me says you know this is definitely not just for family members and then in section 13 of the state legislation it specifically says shall not require owner occupancy of either the accessory dwelling unit or the principal dwelling so um I don't know if you guys need a copy of the state stuff I brought that too but um yeah I think I you know I I guess Pat my comment was I do we want to call those those out specifically and reference their sections section 13 says that it shouldn't neither unit has to be owner occupied we need one of those units to be owner occupied um so my just kind of to summarize the specific areas of planning board no longer needs to be attached neither dwelling one of the dwellings should have to be owner occupied and the family use has been removed um from what we currently have and then with that I don't and Paul maybe you can weigh in is there any kind of statement about this is going to force local governments local municipalities to go rewrite their code it's she going to over overwrite it right it's going to yeah it'll it'll supersede the local by just just like a 40b would um the Housing Authority have made a comment about preserving the neighborhood character and so I thought maybe we want to put a bullet in on that and our um if you look at our bylaw there's actually language in there about that so we could just sort of kind of lift that and borrow it I think that's part of the previous bullet kind of talking about the right of the municipality to set criteria should that be the same bullet I I think that when people are talking about taking away the right of the municipality they want that emphasized like this is our right to do this well and also part of that is to maintain the character of well that's almost in I would say that's somewhat covered in the in the last bullet about you know maintaining a traditional single family home um the one two three the fourth bullet where you have the proper you said you were trying to get the number of properties I'm I'm trying to understand where the so what of it is for that paragraph I wasn't quite getting it and I in the planning board meeting Evan was asked how many are affected and he said he thought there were about he said he sent an email which we don't have but he said there were 9500 um single family homes worst case and maybe half of those were like on 30,000 square ft or more so you're still talking um over 4500 homes which is not insignificant so can can you clarify where is is it that the the state hasn't really St studied how much they can get out of this well that at the um the uh what what was it homeless the home the the seminar that we went to recently the N Strate housing strategy correct I thought there was somebody uh that mentioned they they anticipated 9,000 units would fall under this in the whole state I mean that number is oh I see what you're saying so that number is way out of whack as far as I'm concerned I mean if we can do 4500 in chsw you know yeah we could do that in just a great lower region the the 9,000 so I think the number that they're they're saying is just um there's no basis behind it I don't think so is the comment is it comment that there hasn't been they haven't adequately studied what the what their the upside to this is or what what's I yeah I guess they haven't considered the consequences about how many units are going to be um yeah converted I like the way you said that that they haven't considered the consequences of it because that was my whole I just didn't get the so what of that paragraph So I think I would just clarify that okay and then um I think my last comment is on the CC block below the select board sure do we want to add someone from the MMA yeah I I had noted yeah I was going to do yeah the executive director and a legislative director both great and then do we want to add um Nim Cog so they know what our position is since they've been speaking on behalf of the municipalities okay and then my only other thought and I know it's Federal but do we want to just copy Lori Tran so that she's aware as an because I think she's not without influence MH sure okay so yeah I would say copy every everyone yeah as just as an FYI why not right it's going to probably come their way eventually should we do the Govern or two and the lien sure yeah okay it's her bill yeah yeah it is yeah I mean I I do have the executive office of housing live livable communities which I think is the the you know the the one that let's be bold okay sure if you're going to put it out there right it's a good letter okay that's all I have okay I think um George any thoughts yeah well a l a lot of my sen were already mentioned but uh first of all I think she's jumping into this way too quickly you mean to have a meeting like this and just force us to make decisions should you always make mistakes when you do that you know what I mean and so then if you could down the RO we have to consider we have we have and I'm sure other towns have the same problem with so I mean and and other you know other other types of infrastructure number one uh I I would like to have more local initiative involved in each decision as opposed to you know them telling us what we have to do you know I mean she become it seems like everything is getting forced down our throat they're doing the same thing now I mean hearing there's a big problem with the uh with the MBTA I don't know if it's true or not but I'm hearing that they're disallowing a lot of the things that we were going to count on over there so I mean the same thing could happen here again and we could have and you're going to ruin neighborhoods you're going to I don't like the idea that somebody doesn't have to be part of the family or you know whatever where or owner occupied I mean somebody has to have some responsibility in there or else they're going to tear a couple of houses apart and and then the whole neighborhoods I mean it's not just your your investment you you know you're jeopardizing the whole neighborhood more or less you know uh um uh let's see what else and then because if there was something that you know there was a question I would assume that they would be allowed to have a variance uh you know something a bought an an app pellet uh position if they had one that didn't meet all the criteria but was probably a decent one that that the board of appeals could maybe step in and that's why I'm saying maybe with local initiative that would we could get that in there because I mean somebody could be just you know a few feet you know the short of a setback or whatever and it could be a family or whatever and somebody good and somebody we want to live in town or whatever and and they'd be they'd be left out and other people getting in and don't have maybe shouldn't be so that those are my comments I liked I like all Virginia's comments and yours and young lady here that made a few George made a good point that it it may be a nice segue to put a bullet where you have the last paragraph We implore the legislature to defeat to put a bullet before that stating that there has not been sufficient time to vet this and or and provide more opportunity for communities and stakeholders and citizens to input into the process well and I was going to say I think that that was another thing that came up in the planning board too and I think that would be a great place to say it right before you okay close and part of the reason why is because we're dealing with these other housing bills right so to have them kind of all in a row coming down the I think that yeah it would be good to add something kind of indicating that the administrative strain on the towns to keep up with the number of bills that are coming through the legislature is is tough right and and it's and it's making it difficult for us to plan accordingly the development of our town because we're trying so hard to keep up with the stuff the pace at which they're pushing it through is unacceptable yes and I think that that's worth worth saying like we're trying to keep up with this stuff but it's too much you're throwing too much at us you know it's too much I don't know yeah we need to say that in a better way but but I think that's worth yeah I think that's kind of what you were trying to get it too it's um it's it's creating a little bit of chaos and making it really hard for us to plan accordingly like we're going to go into building a new school right how big of a school are we going to build how many more bills are coming so how big of how do we need to build it twice as big as we think we need to or three times as big or how do you plan when you don't know what else the state is going to send down the pipeline you know it's interdependencies are a really good point right and and I don't think they've considered them quite frankly at least not sufficiently it probably should be a limit as to how many people can live in in the unit I I mean our bylaw says no more than two that's that's what I'm saying they could put four or five in there and all of a sudden it's got three car you know what I mean because our fires are intended to allow for in-law apartments essentially right or elderly parents they're not intended to be multif family properties which is kind of what this is right and they're trying to also address the younger generation not being able to afford but again that's family right so that's yeah so I know you got it all down pad you're all set do you have anything else U I know I mean obviously you're G to put today's date on it because it oh yeah yeah okay that was the first thing I saw was the date at the very beginning sorry can I just make can we get that that housing number can we put a number in there where the XXX is I mean or say over 4500 yeah right yeah okay and the only other question I had is was water do we know if there's a water in our case if there's a water restriction in terms of we have the water capacity yeah you have to go to three so that would be part of that first terms school's road yeah and I could say something you know not definitively and possibly water possibly water yeah CU I just you know I mean we know well police officers firemen I mean staff Public Safety infrastructure okay so um I I have signed up to be um to give testimony tomorrow during the public hearing and I know there's going to be a lot of people that are that are going to be there so rather than read the entire letter I just wanted to ask what maybe the two or three major points people feel should be focused on during that public hearing and then I will follow up obviously with the letter by the end of the day tomorrow the MMA is GNA be testifying they're gonna obviously focus on the local control issue local issue so I don't know you need to dwell too much on that because should say it right right you should say it but I'm just saying don't you don't need to hammer that because the MMA is goingon to hammer that because that's their big issue is the local so I think you mention it but I think if you're going to emphasize I think you go to the bigger issue in terms of how this would impact the infrastructure of the community just don't you know in terms of having sewer capacity and school capacity in particular big issues of what are the impacts and the time to address those issues I mean that you know the time to address those long term investments in schools and and Sewer infrastructure you know is going to get outpaced by the in the accessory Apartments would be clearly and I think that's the issue is then the chaos or the difficulties you have during that during that that you know Gap yeah I think the the kind of chaos and the overwhelm I don't think I don't think that the state sees that the towns are scrambling you know we're dealing with the 40b things we're dealing with MBTA right which is still relatively new and now we have this too I mean in the towns are scrambling to to figure out where you're going to put all of this this property it's a it's um it's really difficult to keep up um if if you were to make the three key points the short statement about um usurping the local control and making single family zoning obsolete Paul's comment about the infrastructure and the time having the time to address it is there a third point that would Encompass some of these like okay and there's some other things that we're concerned about like owner occupation versus allowing this to become an opportunity for develops developers to come in and Destroy single family neighborhoods like is there a statement that we can kind of make that covers the rest of the stuff and I yeah I think it's I think it's around that that overwhelm and that lack of ability for towns to control their growth and plan accordingly for it you know and I I feel like that might be a good wrap up to just say you know we're trying to to plan for our futures and it's really difficult for us to do that I agree I'm trying I'm trying to get it there's we want to call attention to there are some speci specific suggestions we have to change this if it is going to go through like and we want you to look at those I think limiting the number of people the res people can live in arents uh because you could get people where we live so close to the university you know people kids are always looking you could get somebody to rent that and put five kids in there sure you know what I mean if we don't have but if you have the own Arcy that's got that may cail that I think the biggest one is the issue of the lack of owner occupancy in one of the units because you're right if there are those things that happen Jord it's different if you're there living next to it or if you're owning it you're even if you have owner occupancy in one unit that doesn't derail investors from coming in and creating moving things into multifamilies because someone will buy it and they'll rent out the back apartment owner occupancy in one unit with a non-related party in the other other unit does not maintain any of our our better than no owner occupy which is how this is written well it's better but it also it also does not kind of I don't in my opinion I don't think it derails a lot of the concern that we have about things being turned into multi well we can we can we can say owner occupancy and family use yeah and family use which is what our bylaw is issue of the old in-law apartment is the idea in-law was relative but yeah but occupancy in one unit so so it would be emphasized the local Authority quickly the infrastructure and the time to address and then there's other specific changes we recom and please review the letter and one of the most important is owner occupancy and family use is that is that what you're looking for yeah that's y exactly yep I'm sure you're going to handle you'll handle it superbly F I really I really liked your first draft so yeah I think okay well this covered so how are you you're just going to put from the select board in our names or oh that was going to be my next question do we want everybody to sign it I mean you know that would be kind of tight to be able to do that well can we just sign it digitally yeah PDF does James have our digital well he does obviously yeah because he's they do um licenses and things like that so yeah we could do that I I'm okay with yeah with that if you have to come oh no you don't have to tomorrow yeah what did you say we don't have to Comm in right right we can use the is if everybody's okay with using the digital signatures yeah I'm fine with that too yeah yep okay all right anything else do we want do we want other boards to sign it also does the plan we can at this point we don't have time yeah okay that's why we have this meeting today yeah yeah and do they have their own letter are they submitting like I have no idea okay just curious I didn't know if they had kind of asked you to submit something on their behalf or no okay all right is that it thank you we know if anybody else is going to testify I don't know that either from the area no okay we'll we'll find out it's going to be live streamed so you could watch it and see and see who uh who shows up four hours one to five just see you know I mean I'll just my I'll just have my earbud in all afternoon listening yeah thank you you want a motion sure it's 10:40 I will make a motion to adjourn I'll second the motion okay you all in favor thank you can we one