okay good evening everyone my name is Laura schiffren and I call the meeting to order of the planning board on this June 24th at 6:37 p.m. I'll have a roll call vote please present Rob Daran present Andrew and Sheffer pres Laura Sheffer present is um on okay he was just he was I think sworn in this afternoon but he had another commitment for this evening yeah we know um I okay I thought he was GNA try to get in on Zoom but maybe he's having trouble with that as well um but I okay we did the roll call vote uh would you join me in the Pledge of Allegiance please I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all I'd like to thank all of our veterans and also those that are serving now and all of our um EMT emergency respond responders um we certainly couldn't do anything without you we appreciate that um meeting is being recorded and it will be uploaded to the town of towns and YouTube channel 1.4 I do not have any Chairman's auditions or deletions except that I wanted to welcome Lance MCN he was uh appointed and sworn in this afternoon and we look forward to seeing him soon he will be filling the one the one-year seat through April of 2025 uh do I have any other additions or deletions Beth I did not your correspondence from representative marale you want under 4.3 okay um I thought I thought we could talk about that or I can announce that um before um Joe does Mr Doyle comes on will that be okay I'll take that as a yes yes yes um all right we have a few minutes so Beth do you want to do your admin administrative report 1.5 I'm try to the meeting uh so what we have for applications or anticipated applications 27 scills Lane still ongoing for the request for certificate of completion of a storm water management system 22 still ongoing site plan modification we're still waiting on a site plan modification special permit application a revised site plan last correspondence was on May 30th from the owner uh representative the owner who updated that the uh site plan would be submitted soon um there's been no other correspondence um the 108 110 112 West meow Road storm water management permit was issued the decision was drafted endorsed and correspondence of the board's decision has been sent to the owner and the abuts um interde departmental approvals three Campell Farm Lane and nine Turnpike Road through peral link for swimming pools site visits and compliance um an older project 98 to 100 West meow Road uh the land use department has no update again 22 Main Street the update is um the last correspondence 22 West met road lock Soler array the consultant will attend the planning board July 8th meeting with the um the vegetative report the annual vegetation report um as far as storm water management permits the only major stormw Water Management permit that's currently up to date on their monthly inspection reports is the past treatment plan um everybody else is at least a month late okay good that they're all following suit um I have a question because um the pool thing caught my attention I don't we've never the whole time I've been on planning anyway we've not heard anything about a pool permit this was just a premal link it's it's a land use approval um the land use just has an opportunity to review building department permits that might have like an environmental impact for conservation so I just mentioned it here um and the there all right so the massachusett regional Planning Commission and monachus Regional Transit Transit Authority are working on the Safety Action Plan um I don't know if you guys remember that but that they did recently have a recording of the public meeting available they had a meeting at pitchburg state in online uh to talk about the progress of the plan um I'll send that out to everybody if they're interested but they were very grateful um to tcam for publicizing that on um the cable n channel uh they were really grateful that we got the word out about the survey because that survey is I guess they got a really good response and um they're going to be updating us you know on that as we go along so that was the first public meeting there'll be more one more in the fall at least okay um would that complete your report Beth yes thank you uh 2.1 is the introduction of Patrick and Patrick I don't want to ruin your last name I really don't want to embarrass myself by doing that would you mind introducing yourself to the board and and tell us about a little bit about your interest yeah no problem so Patrick kwachic uh I've been resident of Townson since 2022 so relatively new uh I grew up in New Hampshire uh went to stud New Hampshire University UNH and graduated 2008 um active to the Air Force I've been in for 16 years I work at H Air Force Base um I've been there since 20122 so I'm interested in serving on the planning board because really don't know how it operates I've never served on any Town board uh so I'm just curious to see what's going on in towns and I see a lot of uh unta potential in the town so um happy to help happy oh well thank you very much for your interest and most of all thank you for your service and your continued service I appreciate we all do and uh you're my neighbor okay so um any questions from the board question welcome you ITI from oh um I work on a a very large it system did if you talk could you talk towards the owl because I'm I'm missing you're saying oh the ow yes okay um I don't have any questions but Patrick welcome looking forward to to getting to know you y thanks I would if nobody else has any of comments Chaz did you have any comments or question thank you for stepping up I appreciate it I am forever in your debt so I would entertain a motion to um move forward Patrick's name can you say that again I thought I could say it but quic W um to the um they to the affiliate position our associate member beginning July 1 of 24 and going through June 30th of 25 it's a yearly appointment Patrick so that you [Music] know okay so Andrew made the motion who seconded was that you Robert yes Carol I did hear you though Robert okay uh any further discussion hearing none I'll take a roll call vote please Carol H say she yes Rob Daran here yes Robert yes or no Robert Daran yes Andrew Shephard yes L yes you Patrick we look forward to having you on board your name will go before the next um I believe it'll be the next one or not Chaz when that that's what I was going to ask you we have to have 14 days on notice on because we have to have a joint meeting ah so we have to have uh 14 days and our next meeting is on the 2nd July y okay which okay that's July 2nd correct but Madam terif I may if he's going to be an associate member then we can put him on the next meeting uh however we may have a meeting before that because in Li of um our interviews if it's going to be a within a 14-day period I'll notify on your admin and uh Beth and I can figure out the 14 days and and if that's the case then I can always put this on that okay if we can get a quorum of the planning board to get a joint okay and it's a quick call usually you know guys when we do that so um okay BEC and do you think it will be possible maybe for the once the boards approve that the letter goes out quicker so that um he can be sworn in before the July 8th meeting we have a meeting on July 8th right but I'm not sure You' got to have 14-day post and it's got to be a joint meeting a purpose say that again Lor I'm my audio is on we can hear you when somebody's talking on we're having problems with the owl somebody's talking there and it doesn't allow your voice to come through okay is we have to post for a joint meeting and we have to have a 14-day posting that's the problem okay I'm trying to get the I'm trying to get the answer like why that's State that's open meeting LW if it's a joint meeting you have to close 14 days in advance oh we've had so many joint meetings I never knew them posted them 14 days in advance okay that's why it seems like where those those joint meetings seem to take so long it's that we have to wait that 14 day period that's why we've we've had problems so anyway okay so that has to be after the next time you meet and after you say okay no we have to meet together right all right just let us know um I'll work it out with Beth tomorrow okay right okay so moving on uh 6:45 appointment is now a little late so I apologize Joe do you want to come to the table so that you're near the owl sure and can face this way so that I appear on the zoom okay and at this time since I I think and correct me if I'm wrong that this has um something to do with what we're doing as far as our zoning goes and uh right now the infamous Milton case and how they refuse to do the zoning and the state has sued them is there any update to that to uh the milk and taste yes in particular no there is not it's scheduled for October oh okay well anyway in did everybody get or get to see um representative Sky Dale's letter to me she basically um praising us you know for uh working hard on trying to get a bylaw established to be in compliance so um rather than being one of the communities fighting it we are going to try to do something about it whether it comes to fruition or not and as our minut I don't know if anybody got to read our minutes yet uh thank you Beth for getting them to us today they'll be on the next agenda but Joe was most of our last meeting um over an an hour I think we spent with them a lot of um back and forth and uh ideas that came up from that and then kind of compromises so Joe you're going to be reporting on that tonight right uh yes the um reanalysis of the potential districts and um our recommendations on those but also I have brought you an amended bylaw in response to uh some of the feedback I received last night so um if you want if you want to start with the districts we can um though I noticed that we have two new uh members joining I'm wondering if uh a little bit of background uh would be desirable I'm not familiar with this at all so oh okay um that's okay um let me just say is did Lance get on no no he's not on so I think that everybody has these documents in their portal so most of the everybody who's on now except our new guy Patrick um hasn't seen them but Beth have you given him copies yes yeah Patrick or Lance Patrick or Lance Lance Patrick yes has a print copy here okay because um Patrick's going to get the minutes of the last meeting too right Beth yeah we've got them right there they're not approved but right right but they're pretty it's pretty much what we did yeah oh yeah so now you can go ahead Joe okay um Madame chairman I have brought one more item tonight that I hadn't emailed previously it was uh just ready today it's uh the output of uh the compliance models on the new districts all of the members here have it Beth has a paper copy uh Beth is there any way that you could like take take a photograph of that and email it to them I could yeah I'm having a hard time logging in right that and we I don't have as an electronic document for you to send anyway but I think that might be the best way um so no scanning or then share screen possibility uh right at this time no I'm for some reason I'm unable to log into my uh my uh SharePoint I have no idea why I'm working on it but it's not letting me sorry um all right so um I so I've sent the memo um the uh looking at uh the three locations that had uh previously been examined and considering alternate um versions of those uh the mrpc has resed reviewed the zoning districts uh previously under consideration for inclusion in the MBTA overlay district and is pleased to present the following analysis and recommendations because the boundaries of the districts previously studied were based on existing lot lines most of them were considerably larger than is required for towns under by the NBTA communities act we have drawn and analyzed new districts that more closely fit towns requirements resulting in significant reductions in the acreage of the number of units in each so to start with District Two District Two was the uh the furthest uh yeah the furthest west one which had Frontage only on Old Country Road uh Old City Road and the mrpc does not recommend the inclusion of any version of District 2 in the multif family overlay District uh because this site only has Frontage on Old City Road which is a narrow Winding Road Route uh we don't think provides uh suitable uh access suitable safe access for a development of up to 178 residential units and it doesn't really have an opportunity for a second access um if should is should a development that size go in or should it be reson for that it would probably require uh upgrades and widening uh and straightening projects on Old City Road and so we're recommending against that one um the former District three now this is the one closest to the town center on Old fitzburg Road uh we looked at a new version of this a modified version of this to reduce it which reduced its size by about half um and pulled it further away from the aquafer overly District but even doing this the remaining District was considerably larger than is required um now there there are certain advantages to this District namely its proximity to the um the central of town and the commercial area there as well as to some other um multif family that has been multif family developments along that or nearby on that stretch of Fitchburg road so if this location was chosen it raises the possibility of possibly having enough um intensity of residential use that it could support some commercial development along there and justify uh bus service so those are reasons why you uh might consider this location however this property only has Frontage on fitzburg road and once again given the number of units we don't think it would be wise to do this in a location where there's only one access we think it needs a c two accesses uh if the board if you're really committed to uh this location um we can take another look at it but there will have to be some um more decisions made about its final shape so question one um how much just remind me how much Frontage does that property I don't have any maps in front of me um particular near lunenberg no the the a district one that I'm about to get to is the one that's near lunenberg this is the one that is about halfway up Route 13 near the water tower the uh the the that road um now but I thought that it was I was in my mind thinking Fitchburg Road and if there was enough Frontage you could do to know egresses or entrances if you will it would be something like that it would be something like fitting in two separate entrances um not too far away from each other in order to meet the requirement of having um two separate accesses but they'd both be on the same road they'd both be near each other on the same road um if something happened on that road that was blocking uh that was preventing access to it it would most likely be or quite possibly be blocking access to both so even with that amount of Frontage doing uh uh two accesses there it's not quite the same as having accesses from two separate roads which which is really the the ideal for something like this um okay so to move on with the me with the memo district one District one was the district that was drawn over your outlying commercial District down by the Town Line by lunenberg on Route 13 uh this district is located on rout 13 on the town southern boundary and it has the best Highway access of uh any location in towns um there's really nowhere in town that has great Highway access but that is probably the best in town um we think that that location represents an important Economic Development opportunity for the for the town and that that needs to play into your decision about this District um mrpc was able to reduce the size of the district by about half to approximately 13 acres giving tson the opportunity to preserve about half the parcel for business development so the first thing we thought of was to draw a north south boundary line down the center of the parsel uh putting the housing on the west side and leaving the part with the frontage on fitzburg road as the commercial um that would maximize the commercial area's Frontage and and its development potential uh however drawing the multif family overlay District this way would leave it with Frontage only on Old City Road which gives us our uh which is the same problem we had before um so we think that it's important to have uh to draw The District in such a way that it will have an access out to Route 13 so we've come up with three versions of district one for your consideration the first district 1.1 uh basically draws an East West line across the property the northern part of the district is the uh would be the multif family overlay and uh the southern part would uh be the underlying outlying commercial zoning um there's a couple advantages to doing this way first of all um the wetlands on the site that are along Route 13 are located in the northern P portion and including the wetlands in the residential is likely to protect them better than in the commercial uh over the long term um secondly this locates uh the maximizes the commercial in the South and the South once again is closer to closer to the highway and closer to the business and residential centers in the region so it would be uh be largely more attractive for development Hey Joe really quick question yes the I'm looking at the map on my computer and there's purple dots on the map you supplied right those the wet oh purple dot is wetland got it all yeah it's actually um that is land that's excluded um under the mvta law um we don't get to count that um because it can't be built on and in this there's a couple of categories of land that gets excluded and one of them is weapons in this particular case there's the weapons it's I believe it's labeled excluded land on that map okay so that's one one uh Drawing the Line basically straight across the property um one two uh uh district one two um oh oh the downside of that is it leaves you with the least Frontage in the commercial zone of the three options um it's also the option would the greatest amount of land adjacent to Route 13 in residential zoning uh which based on the discussion last time that might be considered undesirable so districts 1.2a and 1.3 refine this concept by leaving even more of the land on fitzburg road out of the overlay and in commercial Z now we did this by creating district with a large area of multi family overlay District on the west side of the property and then drawing a strip along of the overlay Zone uh along the northern boundary out to Route 13 so so that it does touch Route 13 and the different versions of that are different widths this shape allows more of the land close to fittsburgh road to be preserved for commercial development uh it has uh the benefit of allowing two access points to the residential neighborhood a back door on Old City Road which uh could which would be conveniently cited to create a four-way intersection with Lal Woods Drive and a front door on 13 um 1.2a shows a strip that's 100 foot wide so um we're thinking 100 foot wide strip uh picture a right of way and then one row of um most likely the small one row of housing along it um in this case most likely um the smaller two family uh single and two family housing we were talking about last time just because of the dimensions and and the lot sizes um and whereas uh the other one has a uh a strip 100 meters wide um little uh you know 330 feet wide which uh would allow more residential development within that projection picture for example the road and both and residential developments along both sides of that access road as it heads West into the site um sorry yes why did we switch to meters instead of just making it feet um Okay the reason uh actually the reason for that is it was uh the first time uh our GIS Department ran it they left it switched to meters instead of feet and we're trying to run it at 100 feet and we figured uh we wanted to show a larger uh one than the 100 foot one so hey let's just use the 100 meter one because we've already had it um now the that that which brings up the option or something in between you know something in between 100 feet and uh maybe a 200 foot wide strip maybe a 400 wide strip but uh there's examples of you know this is the direction we think we should go in with 100 foot wide strip it's conceivable there could be a road in the center and housing on each side uh no with a 100 meter wide strip you could get it on both side I'm thinking yeah right I'm thinking with 100 foot wide strip it would just be along one side I I get that part but we just in the writing it says 100 feet wide and then it goes to meters too yes this is metric versus standard yes we could have done whatever 100 meters is a feet that's that's signic it would have been easier it was on fo feet public I saw 100 and 100 and then I looked at the pictures oh wait it says meters not that's all so um each of these options assumes a maximum residentially of 15 units per acre um that's the minimum that uh the minimum maximum so to so to the maximum minimum you have to allow up to uh 15 units per acre according to the MTA zoning um oh it's a minimum right we uh we discussed it's that's we I know we went into details L time it's it's a minimum for the for the zoning and it's a maximum for the uh for the Builder it's you have to allow them to go up to 15 units per acre you don't have to allow them to go any denser than 15 units per acre okay um no but the point that I make in this last paragraph is um towns are allowed to set that uh density higher than 20 units per acre higher than 15 units per acre to go up to 20 to go up to 20 something um the one on the map the uh shape on the map that's labeled 1.2 you'll notice is smaller than 1.2a um what we what I wanted to show you with that is you could preserve some more land in the commercial zoning and uh excluded from the overlay um if you went higher than 15 in your maximum density um we think that at about at TW at about 20 something uh 22 23 24 you uh per acre you could save three more Acres um excluding from the multif family overlay District doing so would require some um compromises in terms of the density and um height restrictions but it is an option that should the board decide we it's really important to preserve as much of this outside the as much of our commercial outside the MF as possible that's an option that you could purs so that's our analysis of three of three districts we are strongly Rec ending a version of district one okay so if I may I I'm looking at the maps now too and why it looks to me like and I could be wrong unless there's a whole row of houses there um that there's access on Fitchburg Road and Old City Road on the same parcel so that's two roads yes yeah yes and that was purposely designed that way the this the uh the the big district one parsible has access on Old City and fitzburg Road and uh we think that it's important to take advantage of both of those accesses and require two accesses to the um to the residential development okay and not just have it come off Old City room okay then and what is the frontage on that narrow piece is supposed to be the driveway like yep the uh well there there's the two versions of that uh that are district 1.3 and District 1.2a uh in districts 1.2a is 100 feet of Frontage on fitzburg road and on uh District 13 it is 100 meters approximately 334 feet of Frontage and you can see and you can see what the difference made if you go with a uh with a narrower projection out to fitzburg road that means that the um residential zoning comes a little bit the the main body of the residential zoning is a little bit further east a little bit more into your commercial area if you go uh with a wider projection out to fitzburg road then that north south boundary line is a little bit further west so yeah if you look at the shape of what's left over the parcel outside of the multif family overlay District in blue you can see in the 1.2a it's sort of an L-shaped and uh but it goes up higher and in the 1.3 it's a rectangle and uh but it begins a little further south okay what what does everybody think about that like um if I don't if you guys don't mind I have to jump on a flight soon um Joe I know I didn't get a chance to to meet you at the last meeting I I am I personally do really like District 3 I like the proximity to the center of town I think this is going to be I mean this is a a seismic decision that we're going to make that's going to last generations and I I like the idea of having some attempting to get some of the higher density closer to the center so that you know residents there when they make a decision you know am I going to Hanford am I going to drive to lunenberg because I'm on the lunenberg line or I'm closer to the center of town I'm going to go to towns and or I'm going to support my more towns and businesses so I am partial to that I don't know if that ends up being a split um you know you have two zones you know closer to you know the district ones and a district three but I do want to you know stress that I'd like to put a little more effort into looking at that see how we can make that work okay thank you Andrew and and I would is there is there objection or um do you think that there would be backlash if we wanted to do two districts we can do two districts we can do more overlay districts okay one's enough I think we better off one right I I don't want to do more than the 179 that we're being told to do but if we did 50 one place and you know whatever the balance is um somewhere else you know I I'm just concerned if we do more than one District knowing the government the way I do they would come down and look at us and say well you got two districts so let's let's fill them all up um at some point you the future I would rather right now just identify one overlay District I uh I think it important in the future to preserve as much commercial uh areas possible um so in that light from the map here I would favor District 1.2 for that location of all the options for the lunenberg end of it I would favor 1.2 only because it preserves most of the commercial District that we have with a minimum of impact on it and um and then even though that would be a higher density allowed uh I think it'd be more challenging for developer to EXE Ute anyway um and then on District three I agree with Andrew I think that location more towards the center of sound would actually be more desirable particularly where it's pretty much residential area already um uh those are my comments okay so I know here in your letter you said that District three is still consider considerably larger than is required yes it would take a little bit more work to um f to figure out the parcels and it would be a more complicated conversation what to exclude and what to include than we really felt uh we could do back at the office okay because I wouldn't want to put forward a pel that's more than what we no absolutely whatever what we we're recommending coming up with uh a district that is appropriately sized for the town's requirements um the ones we've got on here um 179 182 and 180 and the requirement is 179 so um the those were the three options for district for district one uh what we've got left here for district three is 340 so we need to cut that um roughly in half and we need to figure out how to go about cutting those Parcels in half based on really spec uh based on feedback and knowledge from the town and um a more detailed study of those [Music] Parcels but you also said that we don't have that the overlay District does not have to be a full parcel no it does not we can we can select among the parcels that are there and among part there's one big parcel in the back that we'd probably end up um split zoning the way we're proposing to split Zone The parcel uh we propos to split Zone The parcel in district one yes and how much front Frontage is on District three I do not have the number in my head I want to estimate it in the 3 to 400 foot range looking at see all right looking at the map the all right this is 100 me and it is in the hundreds of feet um the uh uh the frontage along the street in terms of the buildable Frontage uh if you're question is about those I I I gather you're going in the direction or would it be able to get uh two meaningful accesses in in terms of what's buildable I know it gets it goes uphill at that location I can't say now how far apart to buildable Frontage locations are but that is something more to look at if the board wants more study of District 3 is the number of units is that including an area that's reserved for commercial or is that if no each of these U this line final unit capacity per District assumes just a multif family overlay District this is based on um it's called the compliance model it comes to us from the state it's a complicated spreadsheet and uh uh entering um the parcel information and also um zoning information and whatnot and it calculates how many units could be built and so this number in the gray these final unit capacities per District that is what each of our proposals uh recommend um you can see for um including the reservation for some commercial there's no reservation for some commercial in any of these districts so um if you're asking about District three it's only proposing th this is the maximum number of housing units that could get built in the blue parcel okay within that and then outside of that would not be in the multif family overlay District would just still be the commercial zone so real realistically a developer do last than 182 to get to one yes to uh we yes and this was quite a bit of the conversation last time to get to these numbers it's assuming a maximum buildout of um multif Family apartment buildings um there's no sewer uh we think that there's that the lack of sewer is is would be a major impediment to building out at this number of units um multif Family buildings um and when we turn to the uh that would result in either building it out at multif family but they don't get to those numbers or and when we turn to the bylaw here um the bylaw was uh was written to uh give developers a second option a second ramp they can build a multif family housing a multif family campus like we like we've all seen uh with the units lined up a certain amount or and there's a a set of dimensional requirements that that has to be that's built on that's based on making sure that type of housing is been built but then we're off also offering a second set of dimensional requirements for single and two family homes small lot single and two family homes we think that yeah that developers instead of building 179 um multif family units and can might be only get able to get say a 100 out of it they might choose to build those 100 as single and two family homes each with their own um on you know on-site setic um a lot smaller a lot easier um and permitting and and engineering and everything to build the real small scale uh septic systems and one for a big family so yes is this something I took these pictures in West fridge it's a private drive so I couldn't go way into it okay but they Cottages in Westford oh are those single families yes as far as I know they are put that on screen um as far as I know that they're single F they they're small they're small units yes because you could SP in close together but could do something like this yes yeah that might be a good example to get used to what that that type of housing would look like what small lot single family housing looks like um these are typically being done this looks like a Cottage Court a lot of uh towns are adopting The Cottage Court style developments um as part of like open space residential developments where they're preserving a section of a lot and they're that's why they're building the uh residential uh as such a small um uh you know that densely um but um other options uh but in this but rather than that being an alternative to acre lot sub um subdivision development that could also be an alternative to multif family development instead of a three family on 18,000 square feet they build three single families on six each on 6,000 square feet let me ask from this table here um do all of these districts have Town water no uh all the ones in 13 do all the ones in 13 do okay I believe presently the water is closest to District 3 right now and there's not Town water over by district one I know it tends to go that way though it goes up to all city road and it does it um but I'm G to take this moment my vote I'd love to look more in the district three but I got a bounce so thank you guys I'll see you later have a good night okay [Music] um Carol when you show those pictures in Westford do they have City Water City sore um half Westford just like here some of it's wellwater and some of it's Town water I'm not sure about those houses maybe I could stop by the town hall one day and go ask the building inspector about them um but because when I lived in westfit I was all on I both my houses had well water there were some areas that had Town water but most everybody was a lot of houses were on well water I mean I've been this is the first time in like 30 years I've had Town water I've always had my own well so the um the the reason I'm asking is the picture or Joe when you said somebody and I choose to put three singles on did you say 6,000 square feet uh three uh singles each on 6,000 square F feet Yes on 6000 three units on 6,000 no no three single family homes each one on a 6,000 foot lot because I will say my cousin that lives in Westford they're in like a I think they're Halfacre lot development but what they have is instead of a single well for each house that development has a well for that development a fing well and then they all pay a fee for that common well um is that the same for sewer or there is no sewer in Westford it's all septic system so does each house have their own septic and then just one well or it's a community well well my cousin lives in Westford it's a community well but I believe they all have their own septic system because they're like half half AC lots lots yeah they're a little bit smaller than like you know they have like acre or two acres only in certain sections well then the other issue is if you do 6,000 sare foot Lots they're going to be CED the bedroom capacity will be covered by the subject to be available too so you pretty much commit those to one or two bedroom units I would Envision if they were two families huh you mean if they were two families they'd be living to one or two bedroom units I'm saying in terms of the current health requirements in town yeah for the septics for the septic it's based on the number of bedrooms right and a um so if you look at it 6,000 square foot lot the septic requirement for a three-bedroom prob will not be achievable in terms of septic design with the current standards right oh I see right so right so we actually did a little experim uh little design in the office and um we think that it like the the 6,000 foot minimum here is uh is right on the edge of being buildable as a single family home right on the edge with with a septic of a right like it might limit the number of bedrooms issues like that um it should a developer decide to go that route go the um single and two Family Home Route um they'd most likely be choosing you know the singles would be on six maybe slightly over six and two bedrooms they would they' probably have to go up higher than 6,000 square F feet in order to get it to better um they so you know imagine a mixed neighborhood of um singles are between 6 and 8,000 square feet and two families between 7500 and N so a 6,000 square foot footprint lot footprint would be suitable for tiny home kind of construction yeah a six yes or even I it would uh the tiny home type of construction or I'd even go above the term tiny home a small home type of construction you could probably put a two-bedroom house on a um 6,000 SQ foot lot with its own um with its own septic and it would really you you you'd be pushing it to try to get uh try to get beyond that um just as a bit of explanation where the number 6,000 comes from uh the minimum uh the minimum Max we were talking about earlier the law the NBTA communities act requires that communities allow multif family zoning at a density of 15 units per acre you can cap it at 15 units per acre but you have to allow it up to that 15 units per acre works out almost exactly to a two family home on a 6,000 foot L it's like a two family home on a 5900 foot wi so as where I'm I designed this zoning H this alternate rout zoning as something that the town would would be happy if uh the developer chose that I didn't want to disincentivize that that route I wanted to uh uh have the zoning show you know that you're you can still build at uh at about that at you just about exactly that 15 units per acre you can still build just as densely if you're doing ones and twos as if you choose to go with multi family uh otherwise we're you'd be steering the developer towards the multia so that's where the the number 6,000 if we wna if if we want to turn to the language to the law if we want to turn to the language of the bylaw um I feel like I have my marching orders on um on the map you want more you want more of an analysis of District three um I need to come up with a more appropriately sized District three and come up with some options for uh how to design it um uh you know to to maximize uh how to design it so that it would be well so that the development would be well personally we've had conversations about looking at our zoning districts to allow for tiny home construction um and we don't have any provisions in town for that so this 6,000 foot lot scenario would accomplish two things would provide another housing type for the town um and then I like the idea of individual ownership of the units rather than all in high density housing apartment style multif family building um so I favor that approach and so that would have impact on in other words with that kind of scenario it seems like District 1.2 would not work would not work because of the narrow all this stuff back here um they 100t width on District 1.2 was chosen specifically because we think you they'd be able to put in a right of way and some of these small lots and one row of these small Lots I wanted to verify that yeah okay that gives us that gives us 60 feet in uh in that north south Dimension this works a lot better for what we just talked about um so it would actually be this one 1.2 a to get to this size instead of this size you have to go to the higher density right so this is the one we be talking about okay I remember that now okay we consider busing and schools and kids from all the way out here versus over here that does to is that a consideration kids kids all over so yeah element schools we had studied other areas of town previously trying to find different locations and you know the school is down here um and we had spent quite a bit of time looking at that area because we already have commercial there and with that kind of density housing people could walk to stores instead of being in vehicles but other things surfaced with the ACA fire and conservation land and everything else that these were not going to be acceptable um so that's why uh we're pretty much looking at this scenario in this scenario after we've eliminated a lot options we tried different ways to find different places to do this the the only one that we're not considering here is the emry road one that's that no that is District three that isry road is yeah Henry Road yeah they're across from Emory Road oh across from Emory Road right where is that that's that's is this em that's em 13 right yeah oh so cross from where right that's that right that right that that's the one that's still too big that's District uh three that we that we need to go back and we don't want right right and we don't want too big right and uh and I'm sorry that I didn't come back to you with an appropriately sized three but we I it's going to take some more we're going to have to work more with Jessica and uh and and whoever from the board um to there decisions there that aren't just you know you know the planners taking into the planner stuff they need to take local expertise into account too I I think in order to help you um of district one alternatives I personally think District 1.2a would be more favorable than the others um because we could implement this tiny home zoning concept it preserves all large percentage of the original commercial area um and and to Envision lowrise housing or you know one or two story structures here would be far more punishable than going to higher rise densities and there would be better opportunities for to water the developer out to obviously range to get it there or from in well area you say that maybe could hook into Lumber water supply yeah I I don't know if it goes that far maybe it goes to the CH line I don't think so oh does lunenberg have well water too no parts of lunenberg has t water um this is not something we need to decide today right no but what we're doing here is we as a board have to make a recommendation at the town meeting because the town has to proove it so um there were so many if we don't narrow things down we could be there for years trying to select a site [Music] um well the thing is once we have public hearings once we come to what the overlay um bylaw would be um voted on uh the public hearings take place and all the how you came to the decision comes before the public and then you're looking for their input like you say that about the water but in District 3 that's where the water tower is as he said you can it's on a hill it's from Emory Road so or F Fitchburg and Emory when you're there so I mean there's pluses and minuses to to all of them and I'm not sure because we originally had three and now we're just talking about too right because we had a yeah mrpc is strongly recommending against uh the former District 2 uh because it only has its Frontage on Old City Road and we are not recommending uh resoning uh putting your multif family overlay District somewhere where it only has access on a small country road right but Old City Road that's pitchburg Road on those like 1.2 and one 1.2a right having it having two means of access and having as um a back door that go that out onto Old City Road as well as a front door to the development off of Route 13 that would provide perfectly good access that wouldn't overburden old city road that wouldn't create a public um safety issue because most people in the development would be using new Joe for just for clarification there is no requirement that the site have to access points um there is no requirement you mean in the MBTA law there's there's no I mean the MBTA law doesn't give us directions about how things are you're you're recommending this because it would be better right but in terms of the town we don't have to make that provision in the OA District in other words for example the developer if we didn't have that Panhandle that tied under I'm just exploring this I'm not making an opinion but um if you did not have that Panhandle link to uh old Pittsburgh Road uh then the burden would be on the developer if he wanted another access point also if that wasn't there then the planning board would review that and say to the developer well you have to get another access point how you do is up to you that would violate that would put you that would put the town in a rough position in terms of being in compliance with the MBTA law no because have to allow the multif family has to be allowed to be built by right and if they have to acquire some other permit from somewhere else um even if it's not a permit for the multif family housing if it's a permit that they need in order to secure their second means of access that or their means of access then that wouldn't count we just had a problem um Sterling wanted to rezone this piece of land um by the Town Line and the access to it was lemonster and they drew up their bylaw making everything by right which is perfectly good but the state didn't like it because the town of Sterling can't guarantee that the city of lemonster is going to allow access to that site by right so um what I'm saying is this this topic that you're bring that you're bringing up put it in such the concept of no hate the um multif Family overlay District in such a way that it's uh only has access on um old it only has bad access on a country road and then use the fact that it only has bad access on the country road as a barrier to development if there's a perit saying they want the best property for this project that's what they're saying to me you know so but you're saying that why couldn't you just have one access I'm saying I don't know where where op in other words what we recommend the state's going to review okay so Joe was trying to tell us now that if we don't consider this the state could have a problem with it okay yeah right but there's but there's nothing specifically saying that you have to have access to two separate roads that that's right that's right and what you could end up with is a site that doesn't have a good way to provide uh access from two separate locations and so you have a 178 unit development built with only one access okay and that I would add we're we that we think that would be very desirable outcome for the town it would uh raise a public safety issue and a um transportation and circulation issue in terms of overburdening particular intersections and Roads okay I mean yes you yes you could make developers build this not I'm not suggesting that I what I just mentioned is better I'm just suggesting people to understand why it is what it is and why you're proposing right right uh right where we're recommending to the extent possible allowing for two meaningful uh for choosing a site that would allow for two meaningful means of access on the merits a development this size really needs two meaningful accesses we can look more atct three to see if we can make that happen well if that's it the board right so in an overview Joe's going to take another look at District 3 and see what that could generate I don't know if we want to give him guidance of direction of these four scenarios now so that he can narrow things down more um I don't know what do you think Laura I personally like the 1.2 for for the future of commercial development that's lunenberg line um 1.2 1.2a [Music] um uh remember 1.2 it's a higher density yeah run point2 is a little bit too small as we run that through the compliance model it uh gets it to 135 only 135 units uh I included that one to show the possibility of you could have a slightly smaller District than we've been talking about but you'd have to give a little on the density and height have to increase the density yeah yeah so we were I think I was looking at 1.2a 1.2a is the one that uh is the version of that with the 100 foot strip that would be compliant and that's that's a product of what we asked Joe to do last time when he came up with the concept of dividing that whole area and preserving the commercial District as much as possible so the difference between 1.2 and 1.2a is the density uh where we would have to increase the number of units per acre versus District 1.2a which is the current 15 uh units per AC so in looking at that and looking at in light of trying to do some kind of tiny home kind of opportunity in town and preserve as much commercial space as possible um I find I like 1.28 best of all the choices here yeah I I agree I like 1.2a the best I was also leing 1.2a but I I understand Andrew's comment on District three being closer to the town center I yeah in the memo there are advantages um to District 3's location Town closer to the town center and there is at least one other multif family development that's stretch right those close if I recall correctly those are about walking distance that's right that in terms of bus access along Route three along Route 13 there is there any sort of community that we can do a field trip to just to get some context what a 125 250 unit similar sized just go down 13 in lenberg and see that huge hman complex oh yeah but I think he's asking about the the small Lots ones and twos oh ones and twos 6,000 no con what 150 unit develop like that's when I was an H presid we were had 90 single two to 300 and and noting this stroke um this one is being viewed based on the 6,000 square foot blads here um that not actually that is been being analyzed uh under the dimensional requirements for the multif family housing remember the Mandate under the law is to allow multif family housing at a density of at least 15 units per acre by right so uh I so I think it's likely that uh if it was built out as ones and twos that it wouldn't be H that it wouldn't come out to the same number of units but I also think if it was built out as multif family it also wouldn't come out to the same number of I think that's it's the language it's a problem because multif family means exactly that attached units right so this whole concept of trying to make this work for a tiny home opportunity yeah so so let let's let's start let's start Bas sticky and complicated so in in concept talking about this um uh for the people who weren't here last time in concept the MBTA communities act requires that the town allow multif family housing at a density of up to 15 units per acre right in it had we to create a district that allows that now that is not the only thing your that the town can allow in that District the town can allow other things as well um these are all overlay districts that are creating an overlay District means there's also the underlying zoning and whatever is allowed in that underlying zoning everybody retains their rights so the idea here is never been that these would be districts where the only thing anybody is allowed to build is multif family housing you're allowed to have other things that are allowed in them so I have written the law in in such a way that multif family housing is allowed two family housing is allowed and single family housing is allowed and what's more I've written the law with two different sets of dimensional requirements one of which is appropriate for a big multif family campus and one of which is appropriate for a neighborhood of little streets with small Lots SLE and two family houses good so that would be up to the whoever's developing it really is yes so the opportunity is there for 15 units very here we got this yes but they don't have to build yes that's correct so turning to the law the first um language you see here um Townsen has this issue your site plan review um section of your zoning is a special permit you are not allowed to make the housing in this uh um overlay District contingent on a special permit and yet it's really important that your town retains site plan approval over over these projects um the difference between them once again under a special permit the town can deny a project no we don't think that developing a multif family residential Community here in this location is good we're going to vote no on your starts the per application a site plan review is gives the is for a project that is a type of use that is allowed and will be and is allowed to go there the town can't turn it down but can condition it the driveway has to do this the hland have to do this and the design has to do this we think it's important it's particularly important for the to retain it for this project so how do we solve that so that it's not subject to a special permit but it is subject to site plan review so first of all this language here oh by the way the red lettering uh represents new language that you hadn't seen on the pre that's new from the previous gra prev this language here amends your site plan review um um ordinance in your zoning your site plan review special permit section uh it's got a list of exceptions this adds exception number three no site plan review special permit shall be required for byte residential uses constructed in accordance with the multif family overlay District's zoning by right residential uses in the mfld D shall instead be subject to site plan review under Section 154 uh 14554 2i of this ordinance we have there is uh uh its own little site plan review language in here so that which we'll get to in a moment so that's how I dealt with that so there's no special permit but there recite plan review yes um you have seen this before the purposes of the multif family um establishment and applicability um it's superimposed over and now I can't have final language here because I don't know what which type of districts we're superimposing it over but it'll be some combination of RB and OCD as shown on the town's official zoning map um same same issue here the definitions haven't [Music] changed um permitted uses now this is uh this hasn't changed from last time but this is the basic plot in addition to all other uses Allowed by right the underlying zoning districts Apartments multif family buildings two family dwellings and single family dwellings are allowed as of right in the MF okay um this says allowed as a of right does not say Allowed by site plan review what causes site plan review is you have triggers in your triggers if this many parking spaces or this many square feet or whatever building this will trigger your site plan um there are development standards is the same development standards as last time except I moved them out of the uh the um uh definitions uh because that it wasn't really a definition um dimensional standards these are the two sets of dimensional standards uh section F here following dimensional standard shall apply to Apartments multif family dwellings in the MF uh Apartments multif family dwellings as you know is a defined use already in newer so 80 feet Frontage 8,000 squ foot lot size you can change these from the last right right um I got that maximum density um still on there um front yard rear yard setback setback from Street 50 fet front yard setb back 50 feet um and then below it the following dimensional standard shall apply to single family dwellings and two family dwellings in the MF now I didn't put the word feet there so taking a look at these options um Frontage four uh 40 feet minimum lck size 60 ft maximum lck coverage 35% setback and our setback reduced to 10 ft um minimum lot width 40 ft rear yard set back 20 we're still um at the three stories 35 feet um in both as as as your height limit uh open space requirement 65 ft and maximum residential density 15 units per acre um no building shall be located closer than 50 ft to Fitchburg Road the minimum setback distance for free sanding session building shall be 5T from all lot lines uh this has changed from 10 I've looked in your um in your zoning and five is what's generally already there this was going to be an increase and I started thinking about this and especially for the um the small lot single and two F family homes 5 feet is more appropriate it's uh it makes it possible to have a shed it's to have a shed to have a shed right that's an accessory building this is once again the minimum setback distance for freestanding accessory buildings so we're not talking about the residential buildings okay sheds um detached garages and something else that occurred to me is they don't really have freestanding accessory buildings uh along the perimeter of M Family Campus developments this is this is a topic for the for the singles and two family mons um and then these this is your standard all right those all make sense okay okay parking going to G the following parking standard shall apply to apartment multif family dwellings within the MFD I did not change that to residential uses this maintains your two per I believe it's uh cross the board two per unit right um standard for your one single family homes and your two family homes it reduces it to 1.5 for multif family because once you got a multif family you can start taking advantage of economies of scale you've got the big shared parking area and so you know there's 12 units in the building they're not all going to have a guest at the same time the three units that have a guest at that time will be able to use use the park but um I wanted to I thought it was important to leave that to uh H to uh leave that only apartment multif family dwellings uh the previous version of this had this at one it should be at least 1.5 I agree no no I'm sorry I think the previous version said each uh 1.5 parking spaces shall be par for each unit um and I changed that to at least so that it was a minimum not um not a minimum and a maximum if you see okay we don't want to prevent a multif family uh developer from putting in more than 1.5 if that's what they choose well yeah because typically need all the all the they have two cars I've got Jaz I'm sorry madam chairman can you start that again Chaz can do you have a comment chz he must have me before and I had my phone off okay um well I what what are you saying is is the next step can you just quickly go through your changes and um the next okay go ahead I have to wrap this up can you pre please go through your changes okay um the next change is in section I um we had been naming the uh yeah this is we are no longer going to I highlighted this and didn't replace it we're no longer going to use the Boston Quincy Mass um we're going to use the fittsburgh lemonster um fair market value area for your affordable units because it's if we used the um uh Boston Cambridge Quincy fair market they wouldn't be affordable um so I thought I thought I had change that well I guess so all right and uh the oh Jay um this is the internal um site plan review section it had uh it was uh it was already here I just added this language which Echoes what I said at the beginning right and it says all byright residential developments in the mfld shall be subject to site plan review um all by residential pells okay um I wanted to limit that because uh remember your MF if you choose um one of the district one options it's going to be overlaid on top of your commercial District um I did not want to oppose new regulatory burdens if somebody wanted to uh build commercial uh remember this is an overlay District the owner retains their rights under the underlying zoning so anything they can do in the commercial they can still do even if it's overlaid in the Z so that's why it's only limited to our byright residential uh and can I just make comment yes use the Cambridge something plan yeah the Boston Cambridge Quincy Mass New Hampshire Metro fair market rent area we're supposed to be using fix lemonster fair market red area who told you that who told me that we should use that yeah I'm gonna tell well nobody had to tell me that I just recogniz mistaken fitzburg and lemonster are in Worcester County yes county has a different rental Section 8 numbers everything as soon as you cross over into middle sex which is Ashby towns in peil it is middlex so that's why our rents when they Section 8 here in this area it's higher than Fitchburg and lemonster so I think that may be where that comes from because we're in Middle sex not Worcester Townsen is middle but this is yes I think that very well could be where it comes from it could be the reason it was there and uh we think it's I don't think it's appropriate for the are right uh if either but I'm telling you what it is that's probably why it was probably why it was put in initially state agencies like Chapa and um what's the other one the one that runs I don't know why I'm and yeah I know who you mean it I'm blanking on the name too but yes on um at Wood Acres and towns and woods the agency that does that um everything there is under middle sex rates right but this is this is for a Workforce standard now which is appropriate for say you know provide housing for the workforce in the town yeah but you're going to have to go the workforce housing would be most like rates not Worster rates they're not right the housing in Townsen you will get a cheaper house the same size in lemonster in Fitchburg than you will in town so even forget the rentals I'm telling you it's across the board Market values because we have a m sex address right right these um are what these um fmr areas they are Regional when it says the fittsburgh lemster that's referring to the region just like the uh Boston Cambridge Quincy fmr area that isn't just Boston Cambridge and Quincy that's Greater Boston that they just chose the three biggest center located communities for the name the fitzburg lemonster fair market rent area includes um fittsburgh lemonster and the surrounding communities okay so let me just give you for instance to maybe U piggyback on and you can go back and check on this because if when we do this as a bylaw it's going to go to Town Council who's familiar with middle sex County and our bylaws can say and not say and then it's going to go to the state for approval and again we're middle sex County so that's the only thing that I'm bringing to your attention I would it to be differently but it's not okay okay um I will look more into this um okay just we can just leave it okay those requirements to meet the middle sex County um standards are what say a 40b developer or a uh um or a a a housing agency or somebody um would need to require under certain programs that are defining you as being in uh middle sex County where this is a local zoning ordinance I believe that you would be able to use this different standard and you yes you this these no see the reason why I say this is when we did the 40b that had affordable housing in it on um Copperfield whatever it's called maybe that's not it but it's off of Highland it was under middle sex guidelines by the state yeah yeah and I I will have to look into this more I do not think you are required to um I will have to this this is a question I I need to get a real answer to uh if the state is requiring I mean you said that and it caught my attention because I know it to be different so yes just want you to look it that's all and get and because I know our do it the way it was written with uh quiny specifically that was Regional in the original version of this so this is not related to counties but related to Regions otherwise it wouldn't have referenced I'm I'm just saying that it raised it it rang about with me so I just I just need to have that verified I agree is also a fairly poorly written law that is obviously very much written by people thinking about the Eastern Massachusetts suburbs so now that I'm thinking about it maybe it is hardwired in that it's the that the rate has to be based on the Boston Quincy area because it never occurred to them to say to use the local that's I'm G have to look into it yeah that's not fair I'll get you I'll get you a real answer to this B and before the next meeting you can tap it on the map and it'll tell you that you have to that area applies to the Boston teage Quincy Mass fmr area specific no right on the line yeah right okay I gotta WRA this up we're losing people you got to go so if you could just get through this one and I've got just a couple more things and we can adjourn to the next meeting uh yeah they that is unless you so this was me presenting uh the proposed bylaw to the board does the board have any further feedback on it I have my feedback is you did a diligent job there that's good thank you you know envisioning all the different scenarios that could potentially surface and uh I'm very pleased that you came in with thank you thank you um Joe I do appreciate that very much and uh you you look at that one portion anyway and get back to Beth with uh yeah that's okay yeah that's what it should be yeah that's what Town Council would approve whatever I mean if you if really we don't even want to be doing this period MBTA really has nothing to do with us so even though it has nothing to to do with this the state is still going to impose it right that's where we are we're making we're doing a zoning bylaw for something we would never have done if we weren't an MBTA affiliate and the state doesn't care that we have septic and Welles they don't care you have land be no I mean Mora Hy was very Chaz Chaz would have been on telling you this cuz he's talked to her many times about this and nope she won't even listen about to anything this is what she's doing and that's it yeah comply or not well I think from what I've been following and I've been following it in detail and I've documented every uh news publication that I could find um there's a lot of issues with several communities here however in terms of not taking on a lot I think if we just come back with what we find would would be acceptable I think there's a strong possibility that this whole legislation may be either drastically modified or eliminated but in the interim it's still a mandate and we still have to proceed as if we have to do it um correct all right so thank much Joe thank you all right thank you thank you we'll be back in touch shortly right thank you and I will so I'll see what we can do about that um about the district three coming up with a new one uh I got Kayla our GIS genius is going on her vacation uh in the next couple of weeks so the and a lot of this is mapping so that part of it is probably going to have to wait a little while but um in terms of the bylaw language I'll get right back to right well the bylaw is pretty well comprehensive no thank you 3.1 review approved minutes of June 10 24 we did get them today I'll ask you if you were able to review them I was able to but I don't know if anyone else was I read part of it all right uh if you don't mind we'll just move this to the July 8th meeting I did read them it was it was mostly Joe's report in there was over an hour so yeah there was a lot of that in there so um I'll give you guys until the next meeting okay on that one and master plan implementation and and maintenance um Beth do you have anything from Jessica was going to be looking into something I think oh yeah the incorporation of the um energy committee goals yeah so she's still looking into that in terms of the best procedure to have that done so we're still still in progress okay so just make that note um I didn't hear on your report uh 22 Main Street yeah that um there has been the only correspondence received from the owner was on May 30th and that that was an email stating that it was actually from the owner's representative stating that they were going to send in a site plan a revised site plan and there has been nothing received good and they know 30th not surprising so I so before July 8th well June 30th will have passed you'll send a reminder out like the 28th anyway Beth sure yeah okay but hasn't done anything either been so um you want to do anything under 4.1 and 4.2 because Andrew had to leave um so for the announcements received from towns in and other towns there is the um appointment letter for for Lance MCN that's in your folders um there is the letter from representative Margaret Scarsdale um there are no uh notices or announcements from other towns this time so um the other thing is the memo from Jessica regarding the the um Hazard mitigation plan and the municipal vulnerability preparedness plan would you like me to read that or do you want to read that on your own I think as long the portals make sure that Patrick please yeah IED them out if you want to read that okay so at the next meeting I would um you know just leave some time to go over what you know the uh table the and and um I can report what what the has already implemented in that plan okay great thank you okay thank you very much and I will be in person next time I will probably have had some sleep hopefully just to just oh I mean I was on a red eyee last night came in at 5:30 this morning and I've been going all day so right so we have the next meetings and I'll entertain a motion to adjourn [Music] ATM I'll make a motion to adur at 800m 8 it's 8:14 8:14 PM second I second um car H yes Robert Daren yes shiff yes