e it being 6:30 we're going to call to order this special meeting of the planning board there's nothing on here anyway there is there nothing on there's no yeah there's no reason to look at that no that's fine I don't know it's just habit yeah um all right so first up we have a reorganization to accomplish um so is there anyone who would like to make a nomination madam chair I make a motion we nominate Crystal Valley as chair okay you a second I'll second it okay any other nominations I'd like to nominate diadra Connelly as chair I'll second okay so then we'll take a vote first on Chris what all in favor all right and and I'll opposed and then we'll take a vote on myself all in favor I think it's obvious opposed he doesn't want to hurt anybody's feelings so D you are the chair for another year okay and then what about Vice chair I make a motion for Chris to be Vice chair I'll second you willing to V be Vice chair yes are you sure I any opposed okay and at The Quirk clerk I make a motion that uh John be clerk second all in favor I any opposed okay thank you excellent great switch seats not tonight not tonight okay oh we can see too much work it's too much plugged in yeah it's all pluged okay all right so we're going to try and keep this quick um the idea is that we wanted to have a conversation about the MBTA zoning compliance prior to the last meeting we had some new um concerns raised in a letter to us from the e eohc um executive office of Housing and live livable communities they had consum some con they had basically greenlighted our plan as prior previously presented to them and then after the 90day response period was over they came back with an additional addendum of some concerns um that they had um become aw I guess they somehow became aware of our development agreement which they seem to have not been aware of previously but um it was my understanding they were but in any case they had some concerns about the development agreement that we had as part of our um UMass Lo development which was is part of our one of our subdistricts um so they had concerns about the density in our development agreement was less than the density that is required by the MBT zoning so they felt that if we had a development agreement that um specified a lower density that that would be in conflict with NBTA zoning so they asked for us to remove the lower density wording from the development agreement which is by the way not our development agreement it's a development agreement between the select board and the developer um so we don't have ownership of that but since the MBTA zoning plan is our plan in order to see it through we're trying to gather the Loose Ends so by way of background information I guess the other issue that the E ohlc had was the um they wanted to um have us remove the the verbiage from the again from the development agreement as it pertained to the age restriction and the affordable units because um there is not supposed to be any um re any um requisite um restriction for affordable or age restriction in the MBT zone so therefore the the development agreement um they didn't think should be referencing those um aspects of the development not to say that a development in an MBTA Zone couldn't have those aspects but a development in an NBTA Zone couldn't have those as part of its overlay structure does that yeah B basically basically they're treating the development agreement as if it were effectively a piece of zoning well because it is sponsored by the town it is sponsored by the town I think there are arguments that go both ways on this one but it doesn't really matter because the changes they asking for are so relative minor relative uh to what else is going on and isn't going to change one iota what gets built there and it's tied to the land so unlike other Parcels where it may not be as dense currently the zoning still allows for those that density up to 15 units right whether or not it's financially feasible feasible it's a whole another story yeah this because this development agreement is tied to the actual land itself is the problem and that's where the state's getting hung up because they say well you did this overlay that allows for this density but the land itself could never be that dense ever so that's where which is interesting because you can have private agreements that essentially go with the land also right which would do exactly the same thing those aren't but they're not sponsored by the town right I mean I get it like I I I think this is kind of I can see I can see the Nuance I mean I do think the state is yeah the get is a little off but but I don't think it hurts us one way or the other I don't think we have a problem well I think if it push came to shove the Optics of them kind of throwing a monkey wrench into the matter as it pertains to um as it pertains to affordable housing and senior housing both of which we desperately need in the state it's not very good Optics and I don't think I I don't really at the end of the day think that they expect this to not be built they're just asking us to okay cross some te's and Dot some eyes um but anyway um I know there's some other viewpoints at the table um before we do that since the the finance committee meeting um I worked with Evan to look at what the impacts are and the risk and so I added those to the slide um if if you want I can talk through those perfect okay thank you um so on slide 20 uh are I highlighted the three significant concerns um that the state had with the developer agreement as you mentioned the capacity m um 13 units per acre versus the 15 uh which brings us 77 units below compliance um the affordability while we're still looking to have the 15% affordability uh the current level is at 10 and the um developer agreement U brings that up to 15 and then the age restriction on um the part of the uh the development is also in non-compliance um So based on discussions with Evan and Town Council um the age restriction and the affordability um are not as impactful because if we remove those the um the state there are State um agreements that are in process and those should be completed within one to two months once those are completed um it doesn't matter what's in the zoning overlay that's what's that's what's going to be built on the ground on the ground um the other area of concern was a 77 units um and so slide 21 starts to address why removing the capacity limit um is uh in our opinion very low risk um the site as it's currently constructed is or designed uh there is no more space to um build the 77 units and the required parking uh they would need to re completely redesign uh the property um if we were going through this when they were first designing it that'd be a different story because they could reconfigure it but because they've already gone through the design process and started um building uh it's pered and so yeah but I'll get to those um in a minute but the fact that it's already laid out and and the building has started in that layout um it's very low risk uh slide 22 talks about the fact that the project is fully financed fully permitted actively under construction um so the fact that it's that far along um it's unlikely to change slide 23 uh talks about the um if they were going to ignore all of those other things and actually go ahead with it I'm sorry can I just for a sec your office slide you're currently on 22 by the numbering online no it say 23 that's 23 oh well I just went on to the link but it's fine oh it might be anyway um so the next one um next one outlines the modifications that the the plan any significant modifications to the plan would require these things um the first is that if the plans are modified after July 1st that triggers uh the new special um the stretch energy code the enhanced stretch energy code um right now the developer has pulled all of their permits um based on the old uh code so if they if we were to um amend this developer agreement and have it effective after July 1st they would have to repoll all of the permits um for any design changes and that would require significant um design changes for the energy code and cost and cost yeah they would also have to refile with the uh mass mass environmental Pro uh Policy Act because the current um the current wastewater treatment uh system is um designed for the capacity that it currently has there is no additional capacity Beyond in um periodic spikes uh so any new units would require redesign to that and a refiling and re-review uh with uh meepa which takes time time significant cost significant cost um Conservation Commission and our board would have to re uh visit re um approve and re-review all of the plans uh for the site um North Water North chumford Water would have to have another additional review for the additional capacity of 77 units and that would potentially require uh increased fees and off-site capacity mitigation as well for the increase in units um so there are a lot of hurdles that would have to happen after that development agreement is changed for the developer to actually um make uh significant changes um and so the proposed timeline line um based on all of that for the adjusting the developer agreement would be after July 1st um because then if any new permits were pulled um based on that change it would trigger the uh the stretch energy code and by then it's likely that the regulatory agreements for the age restriction and the affordability would be uh approved as well um and those would be binding as well so our timeline is assuming that all of that is in place um assuming we're able to pass the uh town meeting and then have the developer agreement changed after yeah yeah and and did not Paul at the fincom also kind of say we did not have to even though there's a 90day requirement for us to file um the zoning the town meeting language with the state that's one parallel path y but really our timeline to change the development agreement is really 31 end of the year end of the year so we can wait until the foundation pour I mean like again there's a lot does may not seem like there's a lot there but that the the whole septic is a significant amount of time and cost for them they're not going that may almost be the biggest right and the they don't want to waste any more time they've been sitting on this property a long time and again they're not going to want to add more more cost to their project if they don't have to they don't have the the space for it to begin they they can't go up any floors because they're at the the limit and there's no more footprint to put the parking in the building um and the other thing is is that they have to date indicated apparently um Evan had a conversation with Mark yesterday or the day before or maybe today even um where Mark indicated that he's spoken to all the stakeholders and he can't put anything he's not unable to put something in writing at this time but that they don't plan on making any changes that they like this is what they y were trying to build and they have all the permitting and all the licensing and the approvals in place and like for what and the rest of the developer agreement would still remain in place it would just be these three components that would be amended yeah and they did come to town meeting and sell this as units that would count for our MBTA so I you know that was the intent of this whole parcel to begin with that's why that's what they abandon it now yeah um okay so um so I got a quick question yeah for for Chris um so we're 77 units below compliance but if we change the developer deal you're still in compliance yep yep y y because the the the developer agreement caps it at 12 or 13 units per acre so what happens with the age restriction on the the two other areas down the bottom of the hill those those can stand in place those have nothing to do with the any agreement with the town that's effectively a development yeah all right I mean I'll give you my opinion I don't like the idea of changing the developer deal I think you're opening Pandora's Box I don't think it's going to and when there you're saying very low risk but there's a risk I've seen developer deals change these guys are out for their money and I know Mark's a great guy and he's a word a man of his word but he's not the owner of the company and that developer that developer agreement could change regardless of what we do with this overlay yeah the developer deal could change you'd have to go through the select board to get them to change it and go to town meeting yes to change it but that's my point is we wouldn't have to go town me right now we got to we got to change the developer deal no no no just if the select board owns it I would I'm not recommending changing it Mike that's my point is that if we remove these things from the developer agreement the rest of the developer agreement's in place and there are other there are other controls in place to keep these three aspects in check so I thought the town meeting voted on the developer deal after the select board recomended it overlay overlay voted the overlay devel they not they did not vote on the develop it's the select board no so this there's a risk but after July 1st is really not out of risk there's a risk here well theoretically I so just think about it I mean what could come back and then David Henderson piece they should have been building by now I think there's more risk of picking another site because we any other site is going to get built yep and that is going to have significant impacts to this town mhm we also have a significant risk in Waiting because the the state could keep coming up with new things to change that we have to respond to within this year if we're able to to pass this at town meeting and it becomes our bylaw then the state cannot change it on their whim they have to go through the full process of changing our bylaws again but without this protection in place we would have to Pivot very quickly like we're having to do now and get something amendable to the town in very short time I think and the other issue is that I don't correct me if I'm wrong I went was going back this this afternoon at 5:00 trying to find the old um districts that we looked at so if we were to take the UMass West out of the district then this District wouldn't be 25 acres and we need a 25 acre for the district anchor the whole thing and I think the only one might be ups and I think that's a very highrisk proposition that's a 5050 yep and we lose commercial property if switches we this is going to built anyway and this is going to get built is the other thing this is this is already in our school like the schools like we've already you know gone through everything right I mean we have you know they've figured out the capacity they I mean estimated the capacity for schools you know they've kind of already have that in the plan right anything else that gets built we don't have the capacity in our schools and and Mike I wrote low risk because I'm never going to say zero risk but after July 1st once those regulatory Agreements are in place for affordability and age restriction and the energy stretch code is in place How likely do you think it is that that the developer would come back and try and permit for 77 plan change the plan would be a change complete change of plan he's got three separate buildings here he can change one building how he can because he's only started on the big building yeah but there's no you can't expand those buildings Perman process you can make an amendment to building permits and drawings based when you have a phase property get not the sewer treatment plan that's the kick that's fine so I'm just saying there's there's kicker is the SE a treatment plan back for what I understand it took them a year and a half to get that approval 18 months to get approved just for what they have now so they'd have to go back another year probably another year to get approval on a I'm sure they but I I don't know about the sewage treatment P piece of it but I'm sure they have additional capacity to support that no no they don't they don't only spikes only temporary not to add additional 77 units you're going to have know for fact we we were told that at the fincom by who by TR Crow Paul McDougall I mean sorry not Paul mcdg Paul Cohen yeah okay I just practically looking at it I don't think the town manager said that the sewer capacity is exactly for the UMass exact amount right now that's being pro for what it was built for no additional capacity okay which makes sense why would they make it bigger than what they need you know because you always build for more capacity well there's there's a fudge Factor especially when a fud no but especially when you have a specialized unit like that you always build in uh for capacity yeah yeah for spikes oh yeah right they built in for spikes but so if they went for the more they'd have to build more capacity you know what I'm saying that would still be there they're going to BU the buffer would still be there it would be a much larger plant yeah much larger but we can always pull that can't we can get that information we can get that information we can get that information verify it I don't see a problem with changing the the agreement yeah I don't either I wouldn't want to do it now no but I think with this timeline summer time summer time in the the fall so you're going to get approval from town meeting for this based off of change in the developer agreement yep and then but select vote has to be in favor they have to yeah we have to we go to them on Monday we're going to ask them that to a agree with the process as it's laid out and then the policy that's going in place it's going to be signed with the age restriction on it but the town the state doesn't like the age restri restriction St just have to take out there two different groups in the state there's the um MBTA um restrictions okay and then there are the regulatory agreements that are completely separate between the developer and the state has nothing to do with the town and that's the that's the key is that this is a town sponsored developer agreement if this was only between the developer and the the area residents or something like that or the state it wouldn't be an issue but because this is a town sponsor developer agreement and it runs with the land that's the issue yeah there was a hearing the other day that the state you know they were mean um one of the select board members spent four or five hours on it and it's all about affordability elderly housing like you know they have to you know on top of the Adu which is just a small little section of that law right I mean they're not going to come back and they just don't want the age restriction in the zone but they're not going to tell you you can't put age restricted housing there and we control that that's our told us we could right well they we can't they told us we could have it in the project apparently they didn't realize it was in the zoning development SC agre that's all yeah till they were enlightened about it from somebody um anyone else want to chime in I think we're just working on mic you don't need me I'm just Kidd you get the majority so no but I I I understand that I don't I don't like the idea of opening up that developer deal I don't like it either but I also think that the alternative to open up the whole thing again to to districts that we've already dist that are going to be much more risky and be built whereas this is already going to be built in a format that's been agreed upon by everybody and they just not going to have in the development agreement these specific things that we've already been told we allowed to have we're just not going to have them in the word in the verbage Mike what would you what would you rather have for an alternative path for this one instead of doing the amendments to the developer agreement what would you you rather see us do I think you can get the 77 units at the Radison it's a vacant building out there remember remember what ncog said at the last meeting even if we pick another Zone we have to remove UMass from the MBTA zoning because of the developer agreement if we leave the development agreement as it wind you still keep the other it's not big enough not that whole area has to gone we have to completely pick another only other spot would be UPS I think yeah that's I mean I so if we could do it what you're just saying that way and keep it as is yeah I would agree with you I would go that way but we can't so now that whole area gets removed we have just one0 now where do we add that's where like again no one I I don't think any of us are in favor of having to go back and open up the development agreement I don't think any of us want to do that I would prefer not to I wish we had done the develop I wish we knew what the what our requirements were because if in hindsight we could have done that differently or we could have yeah and we brought that question up to them in the last meeting and they did they did point out that if we did do that there the state would still see it as overcompensating for the developer agreement and because the developer agreements attach that land they wouldn't want to see that land as part of the um as part of the uh MBTA over because the zoning the law requires the density to be minimum 15 and that that land right now as it stand the density is only 13 and that's the problem and if we remove that UMass property bcon was on board with doing it this way too right I well we have to be presentive in commonly have the vote but I pretty much from the the sorry yeah if we remove that overlay or if we remove that UMass property the rest of the properties are not big enough to be considered a sub area for The mbta's Zing okay it's why we had to add windamir and and if select board doesn't agree to open up the developer agreement we're back to Ground Zero yep yep we have to go back to look at our previous District go through public engagement do the public intake and then do the 90 minute 90 day submission and then still try and get it past for the fall town meeting which I think will be a harder cell because it will be it'll be a special town meeting invariably something else that people want less I would think okay you guys feel that strongly I'll go with you I don't want to drag you kicking and screaming I just don't like making the best of a bad lot we've been this together so trying to make some lemonade y I agree I still wish we could have added a second floor to the or third floor to the so I I kind of wrote up and it may have much too much background information I kind of started writing from the end and then I was like well this is just kind of out in out in left field like it needs some got to be tightened up right so I wanted us to have something to start with um but I'm totally open to um revisions yeah word smithing it cutting out whole paragraphs or sections but I mean I think we have to start with that we feel like we have to comply with the law and that we see this as the best way to comply with the law and do districts that are not going to have an an adverse impact and the reason why we think it's not as risky to reopen and revisit the remove this language from the development agreement is because of the mitigating factors that um you just expounded upon that I use your expounding to re to write up out do we need a letter if we take a vote tonight and we have the slides with all of that information in it and we're presenting to the select board on Monday yeah we don't necessarily need a letter I I actually was me came up with the idea to write it when I thought we weren't going to have an opportunity to really meet with them um so I I had wanted to have us um have a collaborative conversation but it seemed like that was not going to happen so I I thought it was made sense for us to at least arrive at our conclusion and our request to them so I mean we can make it verbally or in yeah in the form of a motion I guess yeah I think we're all I think most people will be in agreement and if you wanted me to add more detail into the slides I can do that as part of the presentation on Monday I think the slides were excellent and very um and highlighted what needs to be highlighted I would you know it would be helpful maybe if we just put in if we can get estimates of how much it would cost you talk into your microphone sorry know would be interest um if we could add in or at least know the amount it would cost to you know like how much does it really cost to go and redo a whole septic the energy code the energy stretch code would be a huge cost to them I I believe because I think when people see like the numbers then like that kind of then you kind of go oh yeah like no one's going to lose $10 million for 77 units or 20 million or 30 million right like those numbers start to you begin to realize the magnitude and I think that might help we can probably well I don't want to say probably I'll talk to Evan to see if we can work with folks to get that I don't think we'll be we'd be able to get it for Monday no but may be good for Town meting at least town meeting we'll see what we can do [Music] yeah okay so then um should we do our request in the form of a motion or we should should we just leave it as you will be making their request in the form of the presentation I think we should do a motion and I would move that we recommend to the select board on Monday um the recommendation of modifying the developer agreement to remove those three um conditions the uh affordability the age restriction and the capacity limit um based on the proposed timeline that we have in the slides um for clarity after July first after after at some point after July 1st in approv by the in town in the fall um and that we work with the select board and the developer to have some type of verbal commitment to that fact um before town meeting yep I'll second that all in favor I I I I okay um so I also started writing up a letter kind of on the heels of the select board I don't know that you guys saw um or had a chance to read their letter that they sent out to everyone Under the Sun um which is an excellent letter and built on some of our discussion from last meeting um but when I started to write a letter I was like this is kind of ridiculous like they already said it really well um so I thought I might put it out there to our board to see if we think that the that letter would carry more weight if it came from the two boards and if so we could perhaps if we agreed with their letter we could perhaps ask if um we could be signatories on their letter and then I personally would like to have if we do if we are signatures on theirs or not even though the public input session that was held on Tuesday is closed if we talk to our representatives and or promate a letter to maybe the little son or maybe the Boston Globe or maybe WB and try and get some more attraction from other um stakeholders I think that would be a benefit and I think certainly any of us speaking individually carry less weight than us speaking as a board and it's possible that even both boards speaking together carries more weight so I would like to say I would like to support the select board's letter and and then see what others think about asking if we could become co- signatories and then we can ask the board at their next meeting if that's something they would be interested or willing to do anyone have thoughts on that I agree I think she nailed it see the they nailed it I didn't get a chance to read it that's fine you can it's kind of a lot of what we talked about last time so you can read it between now and then or you want to read it right now no it's fine okay I um yeah I totally agree 100% um my only other recommendations is I'd like us to reach out to other planning boards and let make sure that they're aware we do our own like Outreach MH we can do that and also one other thing I would add if we were going to add anything would be a bit more emphasis on the fact that it's just so constrict the timeline is so constricted it seems to be rushed and almost in the interest of not getting feedback which is really annoying to me um and that I don't think was emphasiz much in in their letter as I would have personally have emphasized it like I feel like it's being poured down my throat a bit yeah oh yeah no I definitely feel that they're trying to get this pass quickly and it's hidden under the you know we've got a crisis with housing and we've got to make it affordable I mean after I'm sorry but after I four hours of listening to them on Tuesday I'm like okay no one's reading between the line this is just we shov down our throats and it's a shame cuz I think it's going to impact the to you know cities and towns like Chumps probably the most than say the more wealthier towns like they have a lot of Big Lots that have large Lots um you know even you know Westford right you know our state rap is from Westford who's sponsoring this agreement well they have their town has a lot of space and their lots are bigger they're not smaller like you know chumford and they're other communities like chord that will probably be impacted the most and we be more you know we're going to be more like a city and even the cities like L are against this too right testified that's what's the most distressing to me they debated this last summer and they're one of the largest cities in the Commonwealth so if it's not right for them how can it be right for chumford yeah no i' I'd support if the if the select board were entertain having the planning board sign I would support that rather than us trying to redraft another letter I also went back and I think it needs you know all the points were emphasized I went back and looked at the the public hearing and the input session that we had bet last fall when the school superintendent and a school committee uh member testified and raised their concerns and brought up the fact that we currently have 36 modular classrooms that of the schools right now um 22 at the elementary I believe the number they gave and 14 at the middle schools so realistically if our population goes up how many more I'd like to ask our state reps how many more modular classrooms can we physically add to the chumpon public schools before we have a crisis or how many school buildings are they willing to F right right because we're just due to the efforts of the school committee our superintendent we're just beginning the Parker Middle School process and as everybody knows that was a heavy lift to get to that point and it's going to be years before that comes to fruition so realist if it gets approved right voters have to approve it in in the state and um realistically that's it's going to be years to to to bring that about and then what you know what do we then do for an encore after the Parker Middle School yeah and the other thing is is that the numbers that they are throwing around are I don't I mean I don't know the basis of them but they didn't seem to give any basis but they said that this might generate 10,000 Statewide and we think we're going to generate over 4,000 in chumford like it doesn't make any sense no it's 4,000 elig eligible L here do it they not not everybody but how do they come up with 10,000 in the whole state or 9,000 in the whole state if should be more than that yeah they're they're they're within the next years def they said the honey because let me tell you you know and they keep kept you know I think one of the things I heard at during that was you know they wanted more owner occupied you wanted you know the younger generation being able to have their dream house buy their houses well all this is doing is incentivizing developers to come in and buy it and make this investment property investors they took the owner occupancy out well thank yes but like you know that's the biggest thing to me they got to get that back in yeah no I mean like you hear them say oh you know there's a crisis here people you know are not being able to afford houses to buy houses well great but hello what you're going to pass is incentivizing the exact opposite Behavior you just got up going to make it worse and in and spoke to what you wanted out of this and that was probably the most frustrating thing yeah all right so I'll take a motion um make a motion to ask this first one to ask the select board to um add our names in our signatures and cosign their letter yep i' second and also for permission to further promulgate it in addition to the extensive list to whom they've already sent it he's second and yeah I second all in favor I okay any opposed and then I'll take a motion motion to return second all in favor hi e e e