##VIDEO ID:IkVlyLlDk2Q## okay I'm calling the Tuesday August 20th 2024 meeting of the isan metal planning board to order those in attendance are P hundson Russell D Terell and we're joined by planning director Rob Chiller thank you so the first item well before I move on um I'm required by m FAL law to ask if there's anyone in the audience who might be recording the meeting or on zoom and if you please state your name and the method in which you're recording the meeting I'm once again I'm required by Master our law to see if anyone in the audience or by Zoom is recording their recording this meeting and if so please state your name and the method in which you are recording the meeting hearing none we can move on so I would ask for a motion to approve the minutes of the July 30th 2024 Open Session minutes no move second motion made second any discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I and that that passes Mr clerk under public hearings case ZN d2241 proposed zoning bylaw Amendment regarding commercial candling allowing the use in an industrial Zone District by special permit continued from 618 2024 Rob do you want to kind of set the stage on where we are his process sure yes so attorney Robert FIS is actually in the audience right now um submitted some um exhibits of what other towns do in regards to commercial kenneling um some of the towns and the examples actually allow for in residential districts um he also provides some uh draft language to consider adding to the bylaw one of which includes um um kind of like a chart that shows the districts in which it should be or I guess they're recommending where it should be allowed by special permit they also include additional criteria to consider as conditions when reviewing um commercial Kling as a use so I guess um I probably turn over to attorney Ferris if you want to talk more about the changes that he's proposing to the board today I would Mr Ferris would you like me to come up Y and please sign in welcome back thank you good to be here so um a lot has I have done a lot since our last meeting I know I had uh requested an extension I was definitely short on time I was supposed to meet with a number of people um and had to reschedule so I had time to meet with everybody that I was going to meet with um I met with the uh owner of good dog spot I met with with which is a business in um Northampton and chapi uh I met with uh Beth trione of Clark's kending in Northbridge Massachusetts uh and I met with um can't remember her first name her last name was Pristine from um a overnight kennel in Milbury Massachusetts and I honed in on on Northbridge Milbury Westport Westwood uh because those all had um similar population sizes 13 to 16 uh 13 to 17,000 I think East Long Meadows in the 16 almost 177 um th000 Range so I spoke to them and I learned that um Beth trione the owner of Clark's kennels who I spoke to a number of people and they're all like oh talk to her she's like the person to talk to about overnight kenneling and special permitting and stuff like that so um I spoke to her and she gave me a lot of insight into what her town did and how it worked out and um for her town in in Northbridge it was really interesting she got a special permit uh and she was allowed to kennel in a residential district which I thought like that was like probably the worst Zone to to put a kenel in and I've seen some case law where there's arguments uh about not having it in residential zone areas um but she was allowed to do that and I apparently the the tax revenue was so good that they allowed a secondary candle to be opened where they put like hundred there's like a 100 dog um like 100 dogs in overnight kanding secondary location that opened up um good dog spot I know the same thing happened with them when they opened up their location um they opened up a second one in Northampton because I guess the business was was good and lucrative for them um I also did a site visit um at 15 Baldwin to me it it's an industrial Zone um but it's already set up for dog daycare so I don't actually think that there's going to be um a heck of a lot of difference with overnight kenneling it there certainly could um I mean if if we stick to strict pickup drop off times I'm not so sure that there would be a huge difference in foot traffic there's double doors accessible a big so can I just interrupt you for one minute so let's not put the cart before the horse sure so let's kind of focus on what are the proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw sure that you would foresee because then the issue of whether she would get a special permit is something different and that's when the location of the business the way the facility is designed would come into play sure so um we're looking for um the bylaw on to get the number I have it here somewhere but the bylaw that does not allow for kenneling overnight kenneling it actually doesn't I don't think it allows for it in any District um we're looking to just get amended to either allow [Music] in um commercial commercial or industrial or just specifically special permit by special permit in an industrial Zone he's referring to the uh Ed table Mr chair so three three das1 yeah that's the only 3-1 is the only um the only place that I believe really mentions overnight uh kenneling at all and it's either spa or n and special permit obviously they do have one that's grandfathered yeah there is there's one that's grandfathered but if it's by grandfather then you know not sure um that it just applies to being allowed altogether I think it's just for that specific property at least that's my understanding yeah so you're so the amendment proposed is to change the existing zoning requirement that prohibits overnight kenneling and you would you would want to see it amended to allow overnight kenneling in industrial commmercial zones by special permit by special permit yeah You' also insert um some criteria into the use table as well so other types of uses sometimes have like a list of criteria that have to be met yeah so you know he would he gave us a lot to work with so I guess what I could suggest the board is that you know we could also kind of continue this again to September and then come back there with language that's actually ready to be considered by the Town Council if the board sees that okay up to you yeah I agreee with that procedural we do it but I guess I'd like to get your planning expertise on different conditions that we would put in so just not on the special permit but on the Zone yeah so on the Zone in regards to the use or okay I mean pretty much everything with that specific business is tied into the use okay so I think the the best way to regulate that type of business is through the special permit okay so there's not really a whole lot extra that goes into it so say if it was something that would require development obviously you'd want more underlying circumstances to be applied in the situation but I think because most of these businesses go into a space that's already built or they're tenants um I I would say just the criteria for the special parent would be necessary but again the board would want to be careful I guess about which districts they want to see this type of business going into and I think the industrial district would be an acceptable place for this type of business board questions comments I would if I even considered it would be industrial only I I was actually gonna put industrial only but I didn't want to seem redundant by being like Oh just put it in the district I wanted in in of opening so that that would be my what I was gonna that would been a good guess yeah I thought industrial made sense so that's kind of a strange area over there because the industrial Zone was made originally along where the railroad tracks were MH and and we have people living in really close proximity we've also had a problem in the past with uh sure Personnel not being properly utilized and uh a dog suffered a death and there was a lawsuit yep uh that stands pretty heavy in my mind yes point in time absolutely I uh I sympathize with that as someone who has dogs I uh I looked into that I don't want I'm not going to talk about that specific case but I did note that there is uh from a legal perspective a law that is proposed that has been P that's passed the house in Massachusetts it's going to go to the Senate that's going to put some some provisioning uh in place ultimately that's some time away but there aren't really any standards right now in in the in the business there's not actually any like real standard you like separating dog by size and that type of aggressiveness or so there's there's industry standard and then there's official standard there's industry standard and the industry standard is uh for every 12 to 15 dogs there needs to be one staff and I put some of these in my proposals but um they need to be SE uh segregated based um sometimes on gender sometimes on breed on size um and the small dogs are in one totally separate area versus um the other dogs that are in the bigger dogs that are in another completely separate area I would also say for what it's worth um that I know Miss curlyy and her staff have been working together for over 20 years and I know that they have at least six staff which is more than adequate and they again they've been together for over 20 years um and I like I I checked it out and it looked good to me but I know you're not take my word for it but I I can say that they're very experienced in in this field just gon ask a quick question Russell if that's okay um do you know what other type of Licensing is required I guess from like Health Department or animal control for these types of businesses so it's just a kenneling license um but uh animal control comes once yearly to inspect however uh because of the past issues I had proposed the possibility and and that's obviously up to animal control if if and when we get there but um that they could come every three months at first and then reduce it down to every six months then reduce it down to every year um as appropriate as needed what type of training or licensing do the people that are employed or have to have they typically have experience in that field they typically have some kind of Behavioral psychology of dog training in the past they have I've met people that work in these places that have um degrees in in animal psychology um I know that Miss Curley and and her staff have been doing this for for 20 plus years um I don't know their specific degrees they may probably have some certificates and stuff like that but I'll definitely inquire into that further I could just allow her to speak to that too today if need so the legislature has adjourned for the session so Ali's law unfortunately did not make it through again okay um and it would have been great to have standards are in there I think one thing so Ali's law really came up as a result of uh y the incident here in Esa Meadow and so the individual who then took over that site I think we put about 24 different conditions on so we would probably as we move through the process look to what those conditions are uh as well but let's kind of just get back to the to the zoning component of it do you have any specific questions on the zoning uh no I would Echo I I think it's an industrial um that seems like a safe parameter to put it in and with a special permit right and because then you can I don't think we should not have it but I think we can easily condition it and make it the way with special per with special permit can I ask uh that case you were just referencing do you have like an address for that one or do you remember what the name of the business was well it's North Main Street and that's right across from Kelly for D yeah the are you guys referring to where that incident occurred previously yeah I just wanted to used as a reference see what type of conditions the board issued yeah to kind of see if that would help out with this I can't remember the exact address there's some great uh resources I will say um that have been put out because there's sort of a lack of real specific guidance if there's a couple resources that I had put in my uh packet that I think are really good I actually looked at them and I was like I'm like H you know there's always a websites that you can go to but this is like really comprehensive like industry standards what's best practice in this right here yeah by Highly Educated people there's a place called like ibpsa which is like a whole organization that dedicated to safety and of these kinds of places and the dog grp gurus and stuff but if you get a chance to look at them they're they're fantastic truly so I I'm gonna Echo what these gentlemen had to say I don't think residential is in appropriate use for that um so um moving forward we would ask Rob to draft the proposed amendment to the zoning bylaw sure which we can hear at our September 20th meting I believe let me get the exact date for you so we don't mess that up September 17th is September 17th yep um we can do that our September 17th meeting uh it then needs to go to Town Council yep for their action one way or the other I don't know how that they will act but if they um you know if they approve of it then Mrs Curley can come in and seek the special permit y great for it but this is uh you know we did continue this public hearing on this so I do want to open it to the public if there's no other further questions for attorney Ferris all right if there's anyone in the audience who wants to public comment from anybody audience Mr Paige thank you page 137 fees Road um I know a lot of the criteria if this goes through will be under the special permit which really needs to be done on site specific but I do think there is some basic criteria uh maybe size of kennels you know a large dog goes in a kennel no smaller than this size um that the dogs are U you know I know it's overnight kenneling but is there a limit to the length of time the dog can be kennel there um and again these are just questions off of the top of my head that are coming up um I would highly suggest that we reach out to the other commercial kennel in town and see what's going on there what works for them what doesn't um like I said I know they've been there for numerous years and I guess my main concern is just to make this as safe and as good as possible for the animals and like I said I'm sure it will be but it's always nice to have the criteria ahead of time again some of it should be I think in there and some of it should be under the special apartment thank you look forwards to what we draft thank you I did put um some of the spacing and sizing requirements um or proposals of of the kennels um they do range from and I I try not to get too much detail but small medium large extra large and they obviously go by dog breed and what people want um excuse me one are those State guidelines that you put in again I don't think there is any specific guidelines to be honest I know and I I understand that and that's why I'm using the the ibpsa which is the international sort of board where where they um handle what's specific and I got the the measurements from all the other places and they're pretty uniform in terms of so there is again there's a lot of Industry standard and precedent um there it just hasn't been formalized by law and I think it'll be it'll end up being the industrial standard that they use to apply to the law for my understanding and what they use to gather their parameters um I'm looking for specific things um like 10 dogs of 100 pounds here uh eight eight dogs of 50 PBS here um the length of kenneling like Mr Paige brought up um and also uh the licensing um not so much you know talking about the Integrity of people but the licensing of people that have the knowledge and can go into where there's five or eight 100 pound dogs and they start fighting how do you handle it you know that's that's not something easy to do so that there's a lot of things that there's just no guidelines forood we'll have to work our way through it yeah sure so is there anyone the audience who would like to address this I can probably explain the guidelines he's looking for things like that you prer another time so I I think it's more of a factor to go into the special permit process so so we still really have to vote to continue the meeting yes so um but I think we're making progress because you've heard kind of the districts that we think is more appropriate and some of the possible conditions moving forward down down the road did you have something you want to add Pete well we just need to vot to keep the the the meeting open hearing so do I have a motion so moved a second motion made and second it any further discussion hearing none um all in favor say I I I so we will have you back on the 17th there will be an an official uh amendment that we will draft yes draft and publish and you know if you have other things you want you believe are appropriate please you know reach our planning director in plenty of time but I do think that we're kind of moving the process along and yeah fantastic all righty thank you so much for your time next month thank you for thank you for all the information yeah definitely read all this can if you can look through it please do I think that it answer some of the the kind of basic concerns and the direction that you guys are heading so uh give it a shot if you can and I I certainly appreciate the time and hope you guys have a great night Mr Terrell we have to to continue it we did we did with the time and everything yeah September 17th at six o'clock next meeting yeah uh case sp-202 4-08 request for amendment of special permit sp-202 2009-11 or Frank rilla fora thank you Landscaping at 329 Westwood AB assessor parcel ID 5-2 d0 for homebased trade located in the RB zoning District applicant Franchesco sha sorry 329 Westwood AV Easton metal Mass 01028 Rob do you wanna sure yes so um unfortunately since um Mr Fon and Miss sarell weren't able to make tonight's meeting uh we only have three members present from the planing board state law requires that special permits have a super majority of the board present in order to hear a hearing because of this the board has no choice but to continue to the next scheduled plan board meeting which will be September 17th you don't have to announce the specific time because that allows for us flexibility of scheduling it within the meeting parameters when convenient thank you so just uh on behalf of anyone who is here on Zoom or in the audience who wanted to discuss this issue unfortunately technology doesn't always cooperate one of our members was going to zoom in and is the technology where he is is not available at this time for him to be able to do so he had every intention to to participate so so a motion to continue is in order until the meeting in September 17th yep so moved second any discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I next item case ZN d224 d04 for the consideration of am M ments to sub uh 4 45010 3 definitions and article X ground mounted photov Valic installations of the East metal zoning bylaw petitioner Bea lissy 60 Center Square East ladow Mass 01028 so I'll make a mo someone give me a motion to open a public hearing on this one make a motion open do have a second second um any discussion hearing none all in favor to open public say I I um should I approach yes you should approach the bench thank you all for hearing this item um in our work in town hall um we are trying to accommodate folks that are trying to come in and do business and we have been approached several times by folks who want to um create some solar arrays um but there was a conflict in the language um um in the definition section um among large scale ground mounted solar v um installations and then also uh the dimensional requirements um and the definition of roof mounted so if you go do you have the um so I see you have a letter from Jessie Bel Timmy yeah um changes are in the email I they should be I want okay you do have an a copy of it for yourself yeah do I have it in front of me I want to make sure you have it so um it's the copy that has the email has a cover letter uh email and then at the end you have the changes to language that's what the board members have right now right so if we look at um bylaw 450 section 101 for area dimensional and density requirements we're looking make amendments that strike roof mounted from the definition of um medium and large scale ground mounted solar Ric installations because by definition um the ground mounted um could include a parking capacity but we have roof mounted defined elsewhere so we don't want to create confusion um when we're making a distinguish in the definition section between ground mounted and the roof mounted uh and then additionally um they should be allowed not only as an accessory use but as a uh yes General use so those are the amendments um there and then just to further uh differentiate the definition of roof mounted solar rics um if you go to that definition we specifically call out that the solar voic system that is structurally mounted to the roof of a building not a structure um because a building uh when you're looking at like procurement law and and things like that is uh something that has four sides and a roof whereas a structure doesn't necessarily have to have um a roof so we slash structure and replace it with building to distinguish that this is a roof mounted um how about the parking lot once that that would be considered a canopy okay and so um they are explicitly identified in the um medium and large sale round mounted definitions below canopy bount it okay parking canopy just you have four right you have four sides and it's not a roof it's the right just to want just want to leave them out that's all leave them out all together um any other questions and you have a letter and there's a letter from Town Council who is endorsing these changes believe it it'll make it more clear for uh the town yeah right and and for the applicants and that's what's most important um so that we are avoiding conflicts and that we're able to move forward in an expedited fashion to make sure that we retain our reputation as a business-friendly community and we can move forward without um complications problems or conflicts is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this or on Zoom again if there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this yes please thank you um did did I recognize you so currently there is a definition under 11.2 for building it's any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for the shelter housing or osure of any individual animal processed equipment Goods or materials of any kind or nature for the purpose of this definition roof shell include an awning or or any similar covering whether or not permanent in nature word building shall be construed where the time context requires so if I'm reading building correctly that includes canopy um for the purpose of this definition because it doesn't say permanent roof I I mean that that's the way I am interpreting in it um and again if that's the case it just seems I I understand what what we're trying to do I'm just not sure switching the structure to the building definition that we have actually works um so what you're saying is it might take away the canopy type of issue yeah what I'm saying is it sounds to me like um under the description of building it includes canopy okay then why can't we just change it to building then from structure well that's what we were just saying but it was specifically said that ground mounted like a carport or whatever that's not considered a building but I consider something with a roof and four Poes holding it up to be a building based by that definition okay all right anything else would you like to add so there's a few things um okay I I would love to see a bylaw cre created for photo voltaic arrays instead of just the article 10 ground mounted um and just list and say photovoltaic arrays roof mounted Allowed by right bu up up ground mounted here's the regulations and that way there when someone actually opens it up and they're looking for something right now the only thing they can find is ground mounted and they're searching for roof mounted going well is it allowed is it not allowed um where if we have it all under article 10 I think it' be a little bit easier but with that I also understand that this year ends in a five which means all the bylaws have to be looked at so good point I mean I I see no problem in in that type of language just a suggestion like I said I have nothing against you know changing the definition and whatnot I'd just love to see something added to it yeah anyone else goe can I say something so he does bring up some good points um I think the bylaw itself is pretty good at the moment as written but I definitely think we should include language that exempts solar rays of a certain size from needing review because um chapter 48 zoning act section I think it's 6A talks about exemptions and one of them is solar so you're you have to allow them by right you can do site plan review we learned that yeah exactly I'm sure you were aware of that um but I think um you know medium scale it says the smallest is 2,100 square feet for an array so we can make we can add language that states clearly that anything less than that is allowed by right um because we can't really touch it at that point I do want to make the comment in regards to the definition of roof mounted solar volt installation I think the definition as presented taking out the word structure replacing with building is probably the best move um I guess in terms of the parking canopy for medium scale and large scale I know in other towns so I come from ammer before this where they regulate solar via special permit still and usually for parking canopies that kind of fits within a sphere of types of arrays that would fit into the permitting category of ones you have to regulate usually they don't make them as small as what would constitute a small scale solar array if you're making a parking Camp it usually they're pretty big like they C I don't know if you've been to the ones at UMass but there's a parking lot right off of uh it's near the dorms I forgot which street is mull Center not that far from mull Center they cover like 100 200 spots in sections won has one exactly so whoever is doing these whoever does these parking canopies they're not going to be they're probably G to fit within the definition of medium and large scale ground mounted solar anyways but the definitions kind of been expanded to include parking canopies within them and the reason for that is to kind of make a mechanism that allows for us to regulate them because they fit within this definition but I do think it is important to kind of distinguish between roof mounted to where it's bigger than 2,100 square feet so say you have a giant Factory building that has full cany roof mounted solar I think we should insert language that talks about the threshold for where we regulate that usually towns don't do that because it's on a building footprint you're not taking away area outside the building to put these things that's usually where the biggest Trouble Comes because of how you're going to design your storm water you know how it's going to affect the natural environment Etc um at least with roof mounted there's already that building footprint there you're just building on top of it so I think that's something else the Board needs to consider too and my personal advice would be to just allow roof mounted by right and to regulate the ground mounted and freestanding parking can if be solar RIS the problem could be I mean I I have no problem I like solar yeah I'm went to school for it did all that stuff um the problem could be is adjoining properties with this huge reflective material yeah that's one of the things that we need to regulate or need to be able to put in a special permit so that's why if you stuck to so if you included roof mounted into the category of medium and large scale it has to be of that certain size to where you'd want it to be regulated by you can't do it by special prer but you could do it through site plan review and which you can instill conditions for a use that's a lot by right that's probably a good path you can take with that you could also add a condition to another section of the bylaw where it states that you know outside of allowing this one specific array by site plan viw cart blanch across town you have to have some sort of screening in place for roof mounted solar so it doesn't cause issues to traffic or vehicles and stuff like that or people that live near it yeah look at it all day long exactly and solar glare can be dangerous like if you're going on route two near lemonster it's I think it's the array that's like on that Hill directly faces route two as you're driving by I mean screening could definitely benefit that type of Ray but I think when you put extra restrictions on roof mounted solar it gets really tricky because people can challenge that in court and just say well we're not really taking away any vegetative areas we're just putting us on top of the existing building like they can come in and say we want to put panels that cover this 10,000 foot building and the Court's going to look at that and say well you know it does promote renewable energy and you're not really taking away any sort of vegetative areas around the building so we're just going to overturn this and a laot by right I kind of seen other towns skirt with that idea but the Attorney General didn't really like it very much so what I'm hearing is um that I think we should continue this oh yeah because there seems to be other things that we should probably incorporate all at one time I think um have further discussion of yeah and I think we should clarify what types of projects are exempt from the bylaw too um just to bring up Ralph's point because that would make it less confusing for folks and we should also discuss how we want to regulate roof mounted solar arrays because they're typically the ones that have the issues with the glare um as opposed to the ones on the ground so so if there's you're you're not going to win in court anyway but you can try as we learned um yeah anyone else wish to address this before we make a motion to continue I I have no problem with what's been brought to us today as far as those terms being changed but evidently there seems to be some other issues like what Ralph said we should make it clearer and easier to deal with when somebody walks in our door and deal it and here it is one time yeah right do I have a motion to continue so moved second you um say the date you want to continue that to sorry I'll do it the one after the 17th uh the one after the 17th let's see you're on vacation I will be out of the country on that day but the 15 I knew you were going away at some point in time the 15th of October the 15th I will be back for that okay it's okay with you it's fine I am I am going to be at the meeting in your place 15th if you wanted to do it for that date anyway since I'm the uh applicant quote unquote uh so you mean the first right yeah if the board wanted it to be done the first I could provide the language beforehand and then um deput let's the 15th yep sounds good to me all right motion made it was second it any further discussion hearing none all in favor say I I okay thank you thank you good discussion Mr Terrell business case an anr d224 d06 request for endorsement that approval is not required under the subdivision control law applicant Michael Smith 177 vinava Mass 01028 so um Jamie can I ask you to make me a panelist I'm actually in the attendees right now on Zoom I was gonna screen share some stuff make sure you're on mute I will make sure I'm on mute uh once I'm let in okay so I don't kill people's ears all right I'm on mute now what are we moving here I might have to allow this is the anr under new business oh just did it oh all right so I'm G pull the anr plans on your screen um just so people in the audience can if they turn their head that way a little bit um okay so in this case um he's creating three New Lots uh let me try to zoom in a little bit more here so Lot C D and E um after reviewing this when it was submitted to my office all three lots comply with the minimum square footage requirements as well as the frontage requirements um they're removing existing shed that was split between kind of this lot right here um and I believe one of the buildings encroaches just a little bit on the setback I think it's this one right here but at this point you know you can't really deny it because they're making the Lots conforming and the lot line that's closest to the building I think it's this one right here you can't really do much about changing that because the building is already in existence and if they were to modify even further it would make the Lots not conforming again so I guess from my comments I have no issues with this anrs presented and uh I recommend the board move it forward to the endorsed what did they look like before so just curious I can pull up a sight view I did not look at the Lots before so I think last year or the year this board voted on establishment of uh three lots M that started on vinin and wrapped around to Donald on along worthy yeah um so so that' be these yeah on two three yeah so I just want to just uh make note that um uh my deceased brother and his wife owned property at 46 Donald AV I spoke to Mr Smith to see if they were a Butters and whether I could well whether they were Butters and subsequently whether that would take me out of voting on this and it does not okay so just wanted to make note of that and where were the original lines so uh it looks like it was I'll pull this back up on the screen but it looked like it was one parcel oh I'm seeing so they're they're creating three new Parcels okay um and just to make a correction what I said earlier they actually comply with the setbacks for all three buildings okay so that's a mistake on my part but I would say Mr chair that the uh division of land here um is definitely acceptable for approval not required and to be endorsed by the planning board I have a motion on to endorse the plan so move a second motion made in second any further discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I fin Cas an-224 d07 request for end was not required under the subdivision control law applicant Michael Smith 76 Alpine a e metal Mass 01028 I'm going to pull up the other set of plans same applicants so this one actually has the historic lot lines in dash so you can kind of see like all these little Lots right here oh that's what the lot used to look like 5,000 square foot Lots exactly so they're combining all these Lots each one is about 10,000 square ft um I believe it's in the res sea so it complies with Frontage it complies with square footage for all three lots that are being created here the only nonconformity that's being created is the house it's really close to the street but they can't really do much to move the house away or to change the lot line there so I would say this is another example of uh the Lots becoming conforming um it definitely would fit the anr um approval Mr chair I think it clears up a lot lot of really you know unbuildable 5,000 foot lots a good plan you have two buildable lots to the right there and they have the appropriate Frontage so they can construct as long as they meet the setback requirements yep y have a motion to uh endorse the plan so move second motion made in second any further discussion hearing none all in favor say I I passes next item uh violation of special permit compl received about petitioner for sp-22 4-04 Sasa cot 280 North Main Street exceeding the allowable area in which she could operate her business so um Mr chair the reason why I brought this onto the attention of the board is because we receiv received complaints to my office um in regards to the individual who had that special P approved a couple months ago for massage therapy um they're exceeding the allotted area that the board approved they're actually conducting their business in shared common areas in the building and we had one other business complain about that directly to the building department but since we're now without a Building Commissioner I figure I brings attention to the plane board who could authorize staff to issue a letter to them having them comply uh with the special permit I don't have the exact um conditions that they are uh violating on top of my head but I know on the approved floor plans there was a room circled in which the applicant indicated that's where the business would be operating out of within the building overall according to what this uh complaintant told us that applicants kind of going out above and beyond that room into shared common areas that other businesses utilize as well so I was going to ask the board if you would like for me to start drafting this letter and send it to this applicant asking them to comply um and then go from there or approach the board want me to take in the situation who's the owner of the building that the reminder building I think it's the over Miner building yes but I don't know who the owner is off top of my head so the owner is press and uh Dan buend okay I think probably they sawell the building for no I don't think they did we were also informed that um the complaint there's a sign yeah I went by it today there's assigned saying you space for lease call Chris yeah so I see him at the gym all the time it didn't go through so I think I would start with the owner of the building okay indicate that and if you don't get anywhere within a week then I would follow letter indicating they're out of compliance and we'll hold a hearing on it Rob what part of the building is this happening in the walking in the back or the the walk trying to think where it is it's like um I I would have to see the plans in front of me it looked like a small maybe a room about half the size of this one so it wasn't like a huge space already so I think this person just kind of went out and they're do like group classes and stuff like that from what I've heard oh okay um I will try to reach out to the landlord I'll probably give them a call if I don't hear back from them email phone yeah I'll uh issue a letter I have to send it to the applicant though because that's the person who yeah um is using the special program for their business so I have Chris's phone number if you want to take it after the I'll definitely take it after the meeting thank you sure you do or I can call them okay next item informal discussion Ralph page 137 P Road Mr Paige please step forward and sign in I will sign in thank you 137 P Road from the guy that bought my parents house so um I asked Rob to put me on tonight for an informal discussion um I have three items it's not really um a matter of a discussion it's basically a public comment uh portion um the first thing is public comment I would like the board to consider um on your agenda putting in a public comment session so that if anyone from the public has anything give them three minutes to come in and talk to you because occasionally there's just small things that pop up and instead of being on the agenda it's easier to come for public comment so that would be my first request um my second request is through the board I have just a handout two three there's four of you and this is just a notification um back in April 2nd 2009 Dan helier was the Building Commissioner and this is just his determination stating that I am a pre-existing non-conforming business that is allowed to operate at 137 P Road it's come to my attention that uh not everyone is aware of this so I wanted to make aware of this um the second page is just uh a little photo reminiscence back prior to 1960 what the actual house looked like that large building there was actually the original Barn because the smoking materials are burnt to the ground someone from Lee Street flipped a cigarette in years ago just looking up at the coming up peill road on the right basically uh Le Street like you're standing at the brook and looking okay stand at the brook okay because you can barely see the house behind the barn so you can see my well what I call the Carriage House or the garage there and the barn burn I want to say it was late 1950 or so I don't remember the barn yeah yeah again this is just more um a little reminiscent for you um things have changed a lot over the years um but the other item is I just wanted to notify you at some point I will be looking to come in I'm not sure when me and Rob will set it up um for a chapter 4A section 6 um finding um which is basically would a new structure be more detrimental to the neighborhood um the reason for being here is just basically to let you know that that is my plans down the road and I will be coming in and whenever you get a chance if you want to bring up Mass general law it's great reading it'll put you to sleep almost any night um it's also a section in our bylaw chapter 450 section 3.4 is pre-existing and section 35 uh outlines it very much like the Mass General law 40a BR who so there's immun there's no record found found no evidence that a landscaping company or any business existed on that property prior to to adoption so I think what it was is Dan basically crafted it after doing his full research and all but there's no at least at the time there was no no location to put it I'm a witness gave me the the determination I believe it went into an envelope or it went somewhere doesn't matter where um like I said I kept ran a business out of there my whole life yeah and then you were there dad moved in in 1950 and started a business shortly after Laurel cleaning service and we've been there ever since um but again I think it's very similar to um like High-Tech Transmission um you know they were a small two-car garage they got torn down a larger building put up Countryside store uh same basic thing grandfathering but this is all contained under chapter 40a and like I said without reading it it's hard to understand and even when you read it even as an attorney there's always questions so um the third thing that's why there's so many lawyers and so many different opinions happy to be one of them um I mean like um uh Gloucester uh Gail versus Gloucester you know it comes out and you think that's the the end all and then all of a sudden another court case comes out and they find something different and all but um but the last thing I wanted to discuss and I know it's coming up but it's not a public meeting or discussion um flag Lots so one was can we just you should just stick to the just if we can just go back for a second okay okay so the third thing is a that's my computer rendering of it okay what you anticipate if you're successful the property to look like exactly this exists this exists all of this exist and these exist it's got a full building yeah sitting there right now is it going to be even further away from the water too from the wet Wetlands so the tent currently the hoop house is currently closer than what that building would be okay I think it's three feet um but again when we come in Rob leac would be here would set out the plan you would set out all the topography and all of that stuff for you I just wanted you to know going forwards um I don't mind waiting to talk about flag Lots um my only concern was just the one that was just done behind me but again if you don't mind just I would be happy to talk to you at that wait till get that but but the ultimate as I've been hearing so you currently do not have a building that could expore all your existing vehicles for the business that operates on that or operates out of that site no and so it is your desire to put up a larger building that would store all of the um Vehicles you need for your business so yes but going forwards like I said this was just to let you know about it this wasn't to to bring it up this wasn't to go any further this was basically to say hey take a look at 40a okay um all right I said I didn't want to get into anything in depth or anything like that it was just more to say I'm anticipating I don't know if it'll be September October I'm not sure we're still going through conservation stuff like that Mr chair can I add something to this sure uh so Mr Paige actually um filed administrative appeal of the zoning board of appeals there's three issues here so the first issue is the use which from that letter you're looking at kind of proves that the use was pre-existing not conforming anyways uh that was a determination made by a Building Commissioner in 2009 so the use of the property you know the business um the homebased trade um is still allowed to continue uh no issues there the second issue deals with the size of the building that's being proposed um it's larger than the primary structure which is the house the Assessor's Records kind of show that's always been like the primary use of the property so it's a second issue the zoning board is going to consider when they're doing their hearing and the third issue is the law coverage for outdoor storage of equipment which in the bylaw for homebased trade is 6% but um that's some debate that the zoning board's going to do when they have their public hearing on um September 9th so if the zoning board were to approve the appeal that Mr paig is putting for then he can come get the special permit for the building but the zoning board denies the appeal Mr P had to get a variance with the zoning board so those are kind of the two avenues that he would have to take depending on how the zoning board decides at this appeal hearing okay so isn't it your plan to put your trucks inside the building yeah yes so the issue here is just the size of the building so typically an accessory structure is one that's smaller than the main structure so that's kind of where we have to decide how The Zing board would interpret that language in regards to this project how many accessory structure have been built in this town I'm sure a twice that and this is this is again getting beyond what we need I'm just saying there's a lot it's fine and I think that's for a public hearing for the board that's responsible for it thank you yeah I look forward to talking to you about flag Lots if we allow it thank you oh we'll allow it so okay um zoning discussion go ahead Mr uh zoning discussion some of these items may not be discussed due to time constraint flag Lots site plan review waiver property upkeep and appearance drone bylaw okay all righty uh so let's start with flag Lots sure so Mr chair I have a map that it generously made for me that shows all the flag Lots great okay I will go ahead and find that real quick did we come up with a numerical number uh yes and I believe it's pretty low um from what I've seen so let me just screen share real quick all right so here is the flag lot map once I can get it open if it will open there we go so everything that's in red is a flag lot um from what you can see on this map oh sorry there's not very many there um and when I count to the number of flag Lots in town uh this is leaving out plus or minus two or three flag Lots but there's about 20 of them Al together so I think the number of flag Lots in town isn't as high as we originally thought so I guess the question for the board is because the number of flag Lots in town isn't as frequent as you would think it is um and mind you they did the search by checking uh Frontage uh size of the Lots compared to the minimum lot size in that District so there's a lot of cross referencing that went into play here I guess I would ask the board do you think it's worth pursuing creating a flag lot bylaw at this point Point knowing that there's not more than 20 in the entire town so Mr punderson I know you were focal on that I'm dead set against it period That's I'm sorry that's the way I look at it so what would be I I guess what are the pros and cons of of this um of proceeding or not proceeding I guess a big Pro deals with the Nationwide issue of housing shortage it allows for lots that are regularly shaped already to have buildings put on them usually for flag Lots you would see it only for a single family or two family in most municipalities throughout the state so it would be generally limited to those uh you could also make more use of land of a certain size by allowing for lots that maybe don't have more than 100 feet to have two or three Parcels carved out of them that the biggest Pro that I can think of at the moment in terms of cons there really isn't a con in this spup I could see where Pete's concern is in regards to those uh backyard flag Lots so the ones that we can see that you know is behind everybody else's in a little block that's Bound by four roads all around I could see you know if you limit it to just a district where you have large Lots only so res doublea or res a that would be the best place for a flag lot um anything smaller than that resb or res C wouldn't be the best choice and mind you most of these flag Lots only exist in res a or res doublea anyways which are typically our larger lot residential areas so really it's indifferent at this point the board could pursue it if you want to you could push it for another time you could just not pursue it I don't think it's really a detrimental issue um but that's just the result of the analysis and I guess I'll leave up to the board to make a decision how you want to proceed well more of these could be created though like if somebody chopped up lots right so they wouldn't be able to they only be created if they have the appropriate amount of Frontage in the district where they're going to be located so say if you were to create one through an anr they would have to have the frontage no matter what otherwise it's not avilable a lot and technically not even an anr so we'll never get more than these probably none because I think that we have seen a rash of anrs come through in the you know past seven months that I've been here I I've seen quite a few anrs before this board and I think that the flag lot gives you the ability to create another type of buildable lot that you wouldn't otherwise be able to create because of the frontage limitations yeah no that's correct and I said that earlier too I just think that it's up to you as the board to make that call if you want to pursue with this now later or not at all so so two people have a flag lot m one of them's going to interfere in the living the quality of living for the people around them the other one's not going to so you don't approve one but you approve the other you get sued because it's still a flag lot lot of ambiguity here you could make a requirement where you would have to have it be a certain distance away from Ab buding residential units I mean typically the biggest thing with flag Lots is that people have um screening requirements so say if you're in a flag lot the part of the houses has to be screened from the road um the driveway has to be wide enough to where you can fit emergency vehicles um stuff like that typically flag Lots you try to prevent um the backyard flag lot and they would typically go in Lots where you would have expansive open space already where there wouldn't be other houses nearby I I understand but I can just see a problem I'm just it's just not I just don't have the taste for it I'm sorry this I wouldn't want to have it I wouldn't want to have it happen to me Mr Paige you wanted to comment on this I would love to comment should I well you can sit there it's not a public it's not a public hearing it's not a public hearing but I do know okay I know Don Macky would yell at me if I did speaking of Mr Mack I'm kind of disappoint he wasn't here for our last planning board meeting before his retirement I want to wish him well again Ralph page 137 P Road um I'm in agreement with Pete uh a reason our subdivision control law and bylaw was written with a uh Frontage requirement for each Zone um it was so that we wouldn't have houses behind houses um I'm really concerned about is the fact that the zba just created a flag lot by allowing a variance Frontage um the variance was allowed on Lee Street it was from 140t Frontage to 60t and thus allows basically a new house to go directly behind this behind three beautiful new houses so I guess my question comes in is if the zba is going to allow variances like that why do we even need the bylaw um like I said I I think it's on at that point it's on a case-by Case basis um I will tell you I in all my years of being involved I have never seen um a variance like this from 140 foot to a 60 foot Frontage um especially when there was I believe it's 37 acres of land um never should happen he had access to neg on peas Road are any of those three houses where this is going to be they're brand new houses are they appealing are they do you know what the history is they um to my knowledge none of them one of one of the owners was there um um like he said well it's a variance so in this particular situation I believe the house would have gone in there no matter what because even if he took the frontage on P Road he could have put a driveway in on Lee Street and put the house directly behind um but the zba did allow it to be created so but again I'm against it I think there's a reason we did frontages um just like on peas Road uh we made the gentleman put a small Street in so that he could do houses right instead of um putting a house behind the house and all he he had to have the frontage so thank you thank you Mr chair there's also a letter that the board has in their package I was gonna I was gonna reference this so I want to thank Rick marble from 243 P Road uh forwarded material to the planning board really well thought out uh thank you for your comments greatly appreciate him anyone else want to just be heard on this not um I don't think there's an appetite to move forward on this as it sounds so I do you agree Rob yeah yeah yeah right Rob site plan review waiver Rob righty I do have language draft on that one um let me just write down a click note right here sorry Mr chair I'll pull up in just one second okay all right so site planeview waiver uh the board should have that language in their packet um I think it's staple to the flag lot yeah um so I'll just look at that really quick so I'm proposing changes to article n specifically 9.3 uh projects requiring site plan review um so the language that I was going to consider the board um I guess pursuing in terms of moving forward would be the administrative uh granting of waivers for site plan review so in this case the planning board is the authority that grants site plan viiew waivers um in the town of East Lawn Meadow any construction that is not a single family residence require site planner review you are exempt from it if you meet one of two criteria the first criteria is for new construction under 1,000 square feet the other is exterior expansions that don't go above 25% of the existing floor area of the structure typically the applicant would have to file a request for site plan interview waver and then get approval from the planning board but I thought just to eliminate one sort of bureaucratic hurdle that could be done administratively with the director of planning um to grant that waiver after reviewing such plans that are submitted to the department um to save them the hassle of having to come to a planning board meeting uh that you have to catch twice a month so I believe in 2023 there were about 25 of these waivers that were granted um and the language was always kind of vague on how a certain type of project might fit in there until recent bylaw Amendment that allowed for um certain uses Allowed by right that were occupying a commercial space to not need site plan review and for some reason there are cases where those individuals would have to get waivers in the past so the whole point of the amendment is should just it makes some minor changes to wording um and there's also a criteria where the director of planning if they did Grant this waiver they would have to State the criteria with clear explanations for each criteria that has to be included in the notice of decision document for that site plan review waiver so they have to provide proof and evidence that that type of business qualifies for the waiver but also describe how granting the waiver would have a DI Minimus impact on the uh abing properties and the district where it's located so I guess you know that's that's pretty much what I'm proposing here um if you guys had comments I'm definitely open to them thank you I think site plan review should go to the planning board oh thought we had I think you just mentioned we had we had made amendments to the site plan waiver requirement right a little while ago didn't we a little while ago so for parking yeah so only for parking so the language states that the director of planning can review parking plans if they were to create no more than 10 additional parking spaces but there's nothing in there in terms of the building construction itself so that's another area where I felt it would make sense to also incorporate that into site planeview waiver not having to go to the planning board so the language was it was very explicit on parking specifically but not so much on buildings under a th000 square feet in terms of new construction or the other criteria the 25% increase so my recollection M and I hope it's still good uh the other changes we made were so we used to require let let's say I'll just use the reminder building as an example there was an accountant that was renting space there they moved out and a law firm moved in that used to require a site plan waiver yeah and we said no wa that's that's crazy we're not going to do that anymore so I know we made the changes I know we made the changes on the parking yep but I don't remember anything other than that do you remember R because that would have gone through the Town Council for approval because it was a change to the zoning ordinance so I know um the previous director has brought some forwards um and they were basically turned down okay um basically sent back for readjustments and I'm not sure if that was in it okay don't remember the timing of it all remember exactly what you were saying um the previous director was looking for the ability to do the wavers to expedite the process and we were all in favor of that Expediting the process yeah but I don't know whether the Town Council was okay I'm just not sure if that was the one that was voted down for some other reasons or whether it passed and maybe it just hasn't reached ecode and stuff yet to get into there yeah so let's look at that language I was going to pull it up actually I'm looking at now so parking plan review was the uh language that actually passed um and Bailey um drafted that one so it's actually it's not in the language of the text per se but it's like a pending Amendment they still have to put instant language but it's effective law is the point I'm trying to make so basically what this says is that under um the same article um actually no it's not it is under Article Five special use regulations for off street parking so it's not even in the site plan review category at all in this case for off street parking requirements there's a parking plan requirement for projects and in this case he added a section where it says the plane board man May Grant waivers to the parking requirements outline in the section with a uh request for waiver and then also said the director of planning can review parking plans to determine whether or not they go to the planning board for site plan review yeah I think we're missing a whole chunk and it might just be from transition from one director to the next or somewhere within the Town Council if I remember correctly Bailey brought a whole bunch of changes all it to us and we went hold on this is way too much divide them up because we can only make one change at a time and that may be the first group of changes that he brought to us yeah um and we may just be remembering that site plan allw was one that he wanted he just might not have brought it back I it it didn't go back because I didn't see it on the documents that were pending or sorry already approved amendments that weren't incorporated into the bylaw so I guess the point trying to make is we did approve it for parking plans okay but just not for site plan review waiver altogether so right now parking plan if it's over 10 spaces site plan review goes to the plan board okay um and I guess you know Russell and the rest of the board if you would feel comfortable with me pulling that language and then we can continue this to a future meeting discuss it further kind of compare it I'd be fine with that too this is how I look at it five heads are probably better than not saying against you because you're doing a great job but five ways to look at it is probably a better thing to do for a lot of a lot of proposals that come come over you know come by us sure that's just the way I look at it that you know less than 10 or whatever was parking spaces that's fine there's a lot of things that you know Rob is different way of looking at it I do Rush yeah I just don't want to give that up totally but also you know when you consider a project that the board decides is minuscule enough to where you feel like is it even warranted the time well that would that language where it could come to the chair who would determine well we don't really need to look at this I have no problem with that but I I think there has to be other than the planning director there has to be some other eyes looking at it saying yeah no could be the Building Commissioner too I mean typically towns have the Building Commissioner review it too yeah but our building Commissioners are kind of like in and out in and out in and out we're residents plan directors are like that too I mean that's just Municipal staff in general well we're trying to avoid that so we want you to stay for a while like it or not yeah we're keeping you but I know that members of the board are volunteers and you guys are dedicating your time to do this you know I'm in the office seven days a week sorry five days a week bad we're also residents yeah we live here 73 years from me I don't know about the rest of them but I'm a resident and I I know what I want it to look like what I don't want it to look like yeah okay own personal preference so let's obviously we're going to put this off for now sure thank you so the next was uh property upkeep and appearance so uh this was a suggestion of mine uh thank you for drafting language um obviously this is not a hearing um so the first one one was on recreational vehicles and the proposed changes you put in were recreational vehicles and trailers shall be screened from view from the public right of way Andor garage at all times no recreational vehicles and trailers shall be stored in the front yard setback unless screened from view from the public right of way and another one was temporary dumpsters temporary dumpsters for the purpose of collecting and storing trash refu that is generated on on site shall be allowed for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days in a given year the placement of such dumpsters shall be no less than 10 feet from the front side and rear property lines and must be located as to not present any hazards or safety concerns to AB buding properties um private garage and sheds you add under the definition um under private garages no storage SL shipping container shall be used as a private garage to store private motor vehicles and under sheds a shed is considered an accessory structure used to store equipment tools and other related items sheds must conform to dimensional requirements for accessory structures no storage shipping container shall be used as a shed and then parking on improved surfaces um all vehicles parked within town of vong meal shall be parked on a surface that is in accordance with the town of vong meal Department of Public Works standards and specifications such surfaces shall include but are not limited to bituminous asphalt concrete masonary pavers oil and stone gravel trap rock or other similar materials no vehicle shall be parked on grass and dirt unless connected to an on-site agricultural operation and lawnmowers are exempt from this requirement so you know we're not voting on anything you know tonight oh also to recreational vehicles add uh boats and other personal watercraft so I want to tell you this is whether this goes anywhere or not you did a great job really really well done with with this stuff um there's still some more other things that I still want to address uh but I think this is great um you know we're obviously not going to do anything this evening because were down to members but um whether this passes the board or not I'm just happy raising the issue because these are things that if you look around town it's everywhere it's everywhere it's not a course I'm saying this and I'm only one person I don't find it particularly attractive when there's three RVs on a lot or people parking RVs in the front of the house or you have cars parking on front Lawns I I think it diminishes the property value of that property but also the property values of residents around the neighborhood um it also goes back to just the general discussion the town needs to have on whether they want to separate the position of building uh commissioner and having a separate zoning enforcement officer so I'm glad that we're going to raise some of this and obviously we're going to have to have public hearings on this in the future I have to imagine it there will be people who will not take it well and it'll be an interesting public hearings but that's why you have public hearings so the zoning enforcement officer piece have to be a well the tone culation yeah well General bylaw Amendment yeah yeah yeah yeah I guess in terms of this language Russell was there anything you thought should be included or changed or modified so under recreational vehicles I would limit um the number of recreational vehicles to be allowed on any one line so that's tricky because zoning bylaws can't restrict people's rights in regards taking rights away well I'm I guess number of vehicles on a lot you know it's somebody's vehicles I know there's a state law that allows for us to regulate how many unregistered Vehicles there are on lot but I do do see it as a taking if you propose a limit on the number of registered recreational vehicles somebody F like what if they have a 20 acre lot and they could have a motor home yeah 18 foot boat two seos that are all registered to them yeah just yeah keep them out of sight that's all I want to do yeah if they're kept out of sight I mean yeah that's why I caution otherwise if they're not kept out of sight it's a storage it's a storage facility not a residential lot setting like a specific number okay of those vehicles I would say if you could just put conditions in there that regulate uh placement or screening of these vehicles or put them in the garage that's probably a lot more effective recent yeah it is it will it be an interesting evening be a lot of push on that one yeah you know and and well part of being on a board sometimes you raise issues sometimes they pass sometimes they don't but I think it's worth um the effort to see as we all know we're going to hold a public hearing it'll be a recommendation to the Town Council so we might recommend it and it goes to Town Council and they go no way we're not doing this and at least we're raising issues which I think are important to be addressed I think it goes right along with the flag lots and everything else some sort of Conformity people drive through the town they go that was a nice clean Town rather than there was just stuck half hazly and people people's yards and so forth so through I think this before you guys Vote or anything has to go to the council and then the council then in return if they think it's worthy sends it back to you to craft it to do what you need to to hold the public hearing so actually correction that so you would um throw it back to the planning board to hold a public hearing and then once plan boards public hearing it goes back to the council for reviewing yeah so public hearing public hearing is but you could um seems like the charter makes us go back and forth the state law says the same process too so I would say you know if you're content with this language or if you want to make changes to it you could make changes to it in the public hearing format that's totally fine I mean we're doing that with the dog handling right now um but if you feel comfortable moving it Forward obviously you could take a vote to recommend the Town Council to have it sent to the Town Council for their initial review then have them kind of give it back to you for the public here am well I don't want to do that unless the other two members of the board here as well I think it's right now I mean people have that they have a motor home parked beyond the front of their building or their house whatever it is and it's like they're usually on the grass and there's going to be a lot of people buying gravel yeah which is better for them anyway the grass isn't good but there's a lot of amount on the grass a lot of parking on grass there parking on grass is also terrible for the environment but it's also bad for the abing property owners I could understand the agricultural exemption piece of it because a farmer has a tractor that's going to be on a field right they have to have large Vehicles close to their crops or animals which is fine that's a farm yeah that's a farm exactly totally different setup yeah exactly but but if you have an RV or a car parked on your lawn you know you're going to kill the grass if it rains a lot you're going to cause more flooding of nearby properties and not to mention the catch Basin on the street so I think the improved surfaces one is definitely one that's long overdue be included um just for safety concerns and when you think about it but I guess the other issues pertaining to the screening the garaging of vehicles even temporary dumpsters does the board seem content with how the the language is written there yeah I'm comfortable with the dumpster language for sure um because that run into an issue with any new hous the shipping container thing I'm fine with on necessarily because if you're demoing a house it doesn't take more than 30 days to do it usually pretty quick I mean I've seen buildings come down in like three days some areas new build new build I mean you'd only use the dumpster if you're just trying to get rid of old materials that already there um if you're moving around dirt I mean you kind of would use it again on site or Chuck it out if you're removing gravel um but if you're building something they could just store the materials on side they wouldn't really if they had a dumpster I mean they probably would use it for less than 30 days there was a u a house on Westwood no on Maple Shade last week pretty close to the bank you know uh People's Bank they actually had not a tractor trailer not the cab but the long storage parked there for about a week while they were maybe moving or whatever I mean it was like a tract chch trailer uh container and it was like really so out of place you know but and I'm not you know and I don't want anyone to think who might be watching this that I'm trying to um make us Long Meadow I don't want to be long meow but I I'm concerned that as Pete said you start to go through town a little bit and it looks more like um disorder um and I can't imagine like it is like with you know we're not supposed to have commercial vehicles parked overnight on residential lots and unless it seems like unless one of us calls the building inspector and reports it you know it doesn't get it doesn't get taken care of and now there are streets where you could have 12 houses on the street and there's six commercial vehicles to me that ends up being a business Zone and not a residential Zone Zone because we should not be the parking lot for the business that these people work for now I know there will be some people because when we had this was heard by this board eight six or seven years ago you did have people come in and they go I work for a utility and we have to go out during an emergency and you know they they raise that issue but we're also now to the point now where you see people who work for other towns bring their Town vehicles and park them on the street or on their Residential Properties overnight and I I just think that gets away from the whole residential feel of what a residential Zone should be so well that's why he went through all the pain and Agony of the the homebased trade bylaw there has to be screening for for commercial commercial vehicles a vehicle with a sign it's supposed to be screened it's not supposed to be in the front yard supposed to be screened period or or garage right so I can I could tell you five right now I constantly it's there every single day that's why we need a zoning of Force officer so the other so a couple we didn't get to you haven't gotten to yet so one of them was the storage of boats remember we were not going to have boats parked in front of the house they're not supposed to be excuse me they're not supposed to be well no there's nothing in the bi that prohibits that right now well if you were to a recreational vehicle so we kind of kill two birds at once with that definition of recreational okay because we included boats definition okay a little problem when it says uh uh Tel be metal shall be parked on service that is accordance with the tel Bea metal Department of Public Works well if you want to dig up your lawn and put some gravel and in the back of your house and put a vehicle on it does that have to be in accordance with the standards of the the DPW that's kind of what it's saying there it's the bottom of the page standards I mean parking vehicles on it yeah but the standards aren't too strict it talks about the type material you have to use what's that it talks about the type material talking about what if it's in the rear of the yeah and you want to you want to put your motor home back there so you you have somebody come in and take off the top soil and and put gravel down but that doesn't have to be with a DP standards I don't think does it I mean who are they going to say oh you need six Ines or you need 4 Ines it's got to be 12 feet wide or 20 feet long or so usually the standards apply to binous concrete and surfaces um but regulations may not even have rock those just examples of improved Services I mean the DPW regulations may not even have all those in them already they might just focus on the concrete and the pumis asphal I could double check on on that to make sure that that's not going to create any issues with you know somebody's trying to extend their driveway to make it as or sorry um travel that's not what I'm talking about no I'm talking about you have lawn which you don't want to park a vehicle on because it creates oxygen and makes rust so you say well I'm GNA I'm GNA put gravel back there I I just want to go do it myself I want to have a guy come in take the dirt out put gravel down what standard is there for the DPW to go by it how can they tell you what to do on your own land like that I just think that's a little bit extraneous well in that example you're not parking a vehicle on it you're just putting gravel on you're you're going to put your motor home on it or you going to put your boat on it behind your yard you would have to park it on there but it wouldn't be attached to the driveway at all I'm just saying I'm saying the Department of Public Works standards and specifications should not be in there okay in my mind great discussion did you've been sitting here patiently did did you want to add to any of this or necessarily this okay my is was canceled but I want to hear something oh okay oh I wonder why you're still here oh okay great good for you are you thinking who are these people all right so um I actually make a comment real quick so Pete yeah what if we change that to make those standards apply to only the specific type of uh pavement so asphalt and concrete perfect and then everything else should be yeah and I can look at those standards and see what those standards already cover and leave out those things that aren't C I think it's important that people design driveways to be thick 100% there when it went down to myy papers oil Stone gravel Trap Rock that's kind of yeah that's not really the standard anymore anyways people just do asphalt concrete driveways so okay I'm not just talking about driveway I'm just talking about Services you want to park your your recreational vehicle or something in accordance with the bylaws you don't want to put it on grass so you just decide to put gra gravel in yeah and it's just a few inches to gravel rather than than than the grass okay could definitely do that all right so um let's put this off until our next meeting which is September 17th right drone by law oh actually Russ um well never mind not sorry so for the drum bylaw um that was brought up to us by Cassie who's not here so I just kind of it it off for now yeah okay yeah so just to ask the board terms of clarifications for the next meeting so topics we're going to be discussing I'm just going to look at your agenda are going to be property upkeep maintenance in the drum bylaw and that's it yep and you're going to make a presentation on Accessory dwelling units I am and I'll actually briefly talk about the state law when I do my report at the end of this meeting all right it's your report my did the state just say that you can put an accessory dwelling unit anywhere you want right that's what going to talk about okay yeah but the state said it so what are we going to me say about it heard about that it is crazy all right so it's just like flag lot that's a lot it's a regular lot all right let me just pull my put quick and I'll go into that all right so I'll start with that because that topic came up so it's called the affordable homes act it was passed earlier this month by a legislator Governor signed it into law so the one provision of this law allows for accessor dwelling units to be created by right Statewide um in all residential districts I'm might have to clarify that because the language was sort of vague on which districts you could allow it in but I know for a fact residential districts would have to have it by R you can still do site plan review as a requirement for adus if a town so chooses to do that um owner occupy requirements though on the other hand for both the main house and the Adu itself are no longer acceptable under state law and that's for that's going to be inserted into section 6 of 4A so in this case you can no longer require a covenant submitted by an applicant where they have to live on the property at all times the state's saying that you can't allow for that Jesus um the law itself will not go into effect until February 3rd 2025 because there 180 day uh period until it goes into effect from the day it's signed uh the good news about this 108 day Windows it gives us the ability to draft a bylaw hold the public hearings before February 3rd so when I give this presentation next meeting on the 17th it's going to talk about the facts it's going to look at our own bylaw I'm going to give suggestions on what you could incorporate I think site planer should definitely be considered by the board in this situation for a lot of these and we can be more restrictive correct you can be restrictive but you can't deny it ever you have to allow it you have you can put conditions on there that are reasonable so section six allows for reasonable conditions but they can't be unreasonable so for example solar you can't make it so it's almost impossible for them to build something there um you would have to be reasonable in how you would go about putting those conditions in you would have to have site plans you can require site plans for these if you do site plan review um you could have them do extra criteria on top of the bare minimum for it if you wanted to so I would go through all that with the board at the next meeting give recommendations to say here are things to keep in mind when we're doing this bylaw unfortunately because the state law happened we kind of should go ahead and start doing this ASAP uh just so we're not call a position where somebody comes in and tries to do it by right and state law would supersede us and we couldn't do anything to kind of regulate can these structures be multi-dwelling so they can only be one dwelling okay essentially what they're trying to do here is make uh Lots higher density I know but these adus can either be detached as a single dwelling unit on the same lot as an existing house they can be attached so say as like an addition to the house with a separate entrance and a separate meter box or they could be contain entirely within the main building itself as sort of like an interior apartment like an in-law apartment that's not separate can we can we require one versus the other you could you could require only a detach only an attach but you have to allow for it state law allows for them to be up to 900 square feet so I I'm saying could eong met pass a zoning you know requirement that we will only allow attach accessory dwelling units and not detached I would have to look at the language of the state law a little bit further to give you a better answer that actually makes it a little more palatable because it really comes down almost like a flag L thing yeah and it's gonna change the total character of the town oh yeah people are gonna put these up if you're gonna have a rent them yeah do you want yeah and so you're gonna go from four people in a 1500 foot house you're going to have four more people people because or three more people on a 900 squ foot mini house and so the density is going to increase dramatically it'll be impact on the schools on the town services on everything I'd like to know how our local legislative delegation voted on that has be aill a lot so just to go back on the issue of allowing just attached adus so the state law when I read it didn't really specify that it said these things could be attached or detached but didn't say that towns couldn't prohibit one or the other you just have to allow for it to happen I you check that I'll look into that when I important that's really important I agree because if we allow attached there's a higher likelihood that only family members are going to go in there and if you did a detached you're also going to you're the likelihood is you will have non family members on that lot as well and I'm not just you know I'm not disparaging not family members but I but I think the relationship is is different you can extend your driveway you park back in the backyard in a house or whatever you can drop things in I think I'll go build a couple of my my land I got a yard built off of your house that's a lot yeah and then we can go from having you know four recreational vehicles to eight recreational vehicles you know because beautiful being sarcastic not that I ever am so well thank you I look forward to the discussion sure and I'll go over the other updates very quickly we have eight minutes till uh so I guess upcoming meetings September 3rd is cancel because of the state primaries uh September 17th on schedule October 1st I'll be on vacation October 15th the ver fits canceled because of the general election federal and state and then November 19th is a meeting after that um terms of upcoming public hearings we don't have any file at the moment except for the ones that we just continue at this meeting and I mentioned I'll give a presentation on adus um in terms of events we still have upcoming informal Center Town District discussion August 29th through petitioners with Lobster food truck is that still happening Rebecca right and she is working on are you working on getting a panelist for that or is that still kind of Laro who is the former executive director of Smart Road Massachusetts is coming to speak to us so if You' like to talk about zoning while e Lobster you can definitely show up to that um that you have to pay for that you have to pay for but still gooder not for free yeah events free but you have to pay for the Lobster in the there you go and then last two updates so we're using open go now for all of our planning board and zba permits so you might notice that the next uh scheduled hearing for something you might see an application form looks different this helps us as staff to stream line these permits across town so we can have other departments kind of weigh in a lot more efficiently and this helps us keep track of them a lot better so we're doing that moving forward for everything with the exception of the subdivision plan review an anrs can be filed through this but not the subdivision stuff at the moment and then uh I'm gonna be working with DPW on considering projects for complete streets grant program funded by mass do a complete what complete streets so basically it's funny that you can use to do Road reconstruction sidewalks Etc um a lot of towns benefit from doing sidewalk reconstruction with these funds so I was going to start working at DPW on getting that process started if they're interested in pursuing that the state give us some more money so the roads can be improved yeah that's what this grant program would do it will yeah if we get funding for it we could definitely do road construction projects so I mean would it be considerable yeah uh projects can go up to half a million that's about a quarter mile road depends I think seen them go as high as a million for over five years I have to look at the specifications and see but usually yeah you can't do a whole lot with them but it's money we can use it for Stuff might as well take it while we can so well they've done a lot of sidewalk work L work lately looks good too real good this would help lot further find more sidewalks down the road which would be very helpful but that's all I had okay um any other by the board member hearing none do I have a motion to adjourn so move all in favor