##VIDEO ID:7gOQqYragHw## call the meeting of the planning board January 13th order um let's see we'll call Mary fley here Morton here here pres Chris here Breer here and lorda Kenny here here as well great um thank you um unfortunately I have to keep admitting people from the waiting room so hopefully I can if anybody sees people waiting in the waiting room or get a text or anything let me know I'll try to keep an eye on that um next if you can just remind Shannon when he sets that up to not have a waiting room great um the first uh item on theenda find have a copy is to approve the minutes um from the October 28th 12th and December 9th were people able to find them in the meeting folder but some of but others were able to find them um I saw them in the meeting yeah I think my meeting that's so weird um it was the all three that I okay well I have a copy here so no I have a copy let's take them in um order do we have the 28 October 28th has anybody want to make motion for October 28 minutes yeah I'll move Peter moves um do have a second second okay any discussion um all in favor oain Laura didn't have that one okay um I'll take the motion for November 12th um 2024 move to approve second um any discussion all in favor okay um any opposed uh abstain okay um and uh December no um uh a motion appr a moves Peter seconds um uh any discussion all in favor any opposed anybody abstaining actually are you there for the nights yeah yep I was gonna ask I'm sorry yep Peter was here or Le according to the minutes Jord was online yes I was just going to ask where the 11:25 would we we're still waiting for 11:25 okay a sell signaling approval so yes I okay commit that concurrently with the um great thank you um uh we usually also um acknowledge uh correspondence we had um some emails um one from Lorraine I ofon umou from Christine deliso 26 School Street you didn't oh you okay um Bo it I saw Liz Liz Thomas and one okay I'll Ed the ones from Christine Delia um any other uh correspondence yes go yeah so I I thought the planning board had agreed that we were going to put correspondence and the um resident and the topic on the agenda the correspondents and what the who vented and the topic we did agree we're going to acknowledge correspondence and and it didn't make on to the agenda you correct so so I don't know if Shannon's on but can we going forward have that on the agenda um and and there's a few that I think we should discuss so I don't know if you want to discuss them now or later well we'll discuss them at the right time in the meeting or if we don't get to it we'll discuss it uh later in the agenda okay because there's other correspondents you didn't list so okay and what are those so the we received um on 1221 received a correspondence from Elizabeth Thomas regarding the CST blasting occurring before 10: a.m. um you January 6th January 8th January 9th from Christina deliso concerning um a two entrance curb cut illegal on School Street um then we received another email on one n from Elizabeth Thomas um and these have been going to the planning board and the select board um that I had responded to assuming she had had many responses um and hopefully some um remedy to the issues but that hasn't been going on so I think it is important that we discuss it as a planning board tonight um that we need to be clear where the special permits and the timing and when the conditions are set um and that they're fed correctly and then I sent an email on January 10th open meeting law complaint and then Lorraine iani sent an email today January 13th regarding the SJC rulings and guidelines and um you know where do we go from here since we based our zoning and vote on mathematical calculations that may or may not stand so we can definitely talk about that during that topic okay thank you for that summary um that brings us to Ms MBTA Zone update um uh Mark or Sue or Chris want to summarize um that for people who haven't se seen the update I'm happy to talk about it um the SJC did Rule and uh they ruled that the law was constitutional um no violations so the law stands and the Attorney General um has the power to enforce it just like every other uh law in the Commonwealth um and they specifically said that all towns and cities that the law applies to um are required to comply with the law uh they also said that the EO e o LC had not followed um the state required procedure when they issued their guidelines um they did not comment on the substance of the guidelines only the procedure in which they were promate and so they said they're not enforceable and so there was a statement um from the governor that new guidelines would be issued last Friday and they would be immediately enforceable but nothing was issued um I reached out to EO hlc today and um just received an automated response um so I don't know when the guidelines will be issued okay so what's the import to that what was the import to that I've read that too it's a yes yes and a noting so what does that mean well we received I don't know if you read the memo from KP law I would leave it to them to figure out what it means um but the law stands and we have to comply with it okay and we believe we are in compliance based on our zoning personally this is just my opinion um I would be shocked if when the guidelines are issued they are more lenient than they were before I would expect they will be exactly the same they will just go through the proper procedures that they didn't follow before but if when they are filed it does give us and every other Town an opportunity to comment just like we were able to file comments last week on the Adu regulations which I hope everybody did um I know Sarah did and I did um gives us a opportunity to comment and um recommend suggestions that will benefit us um so I think it's worth everybody thinking about that and being ready when the guidelines are issued or the the new guidelines are posted yeah so once they're posted we might want to put that on our agenda and collectively as a planning board make uh comments if we have comments about how they they could be better for you know clearer because there are some things that are not they were a little bit wonky about them but um but they I don't know that it seems like there's no action that we would take until they post them until post okay so was is a procedural thing more than it was yeah content or the no there was no comment on the substance wow okay um and I mean again this is just me but one idea I would comment on is you know the confusion regarding um the uh restriction on age you know that we want that to be in our benefit it was recommended that we were fine and got opinions that we were fine but let's have them make that clear you know things like that um I think we have an opportunity to think about those things so just a broad qu little context here what does that mean to Milton you got to ask I I can't comment on mil be interested to they do have to comply that's for sure yeah were they silent about whether they're in the which Community they're in the the train or the fast Transit that wasn't even argued in before the SJC Milton sort of gave up on that I mean doesn't mean people in Milton have given up on that but they did not pursue that okay so um are if someone were to come with a application for a multif family home in a chod they would follow our zoning correct yes still would follow the new zoning that's been adopted by town meeting therefore it's in effect right and um the other just one other thing just clarifying question here um because I'm thinking about the Adu bylaw one of the things is if they promate these regulations and have um a compliance deadline of May 1 we would be in a lot of hot water if we hadn't already passed things because we wouldn't be able to possibly have start from scratch with a compliance plan for an April town meeting to comply with May 1 so we don't know those deadlines presuma you know and that was one of my comments on the Adu regulations for example is like haven't even figured them out and we got to get this if we're going to comply in April we need to know so that's so we're in good shape I I think I suppose there is in the world of possibilities that the government can come out more restrictive and we would be out of compliance but I find that would I would find that very hard to believe it seems that a comment that would is don't punish the C the people who work who met the December deadline so question um aoup comments um first people are waiting to get in oh sorry thank you um and I mean I would assume they'd come out pretty quickly with the guidelines but hold because if it has to go through the process it's not going to be quick but what we submitted and I guess this is a question to Mark what we submitted to um the AG at the beginning of the proposed bylaw says in you know we're doing this by in ordance with 483a and 3A is the three paragraph law that says you know has to be within a half mile of the train station Etc our LCD zoning does not comply with that as as do some of the other areas um how can the AG approve something when there's no guidelines and the only thing we're going off of is 483a if if what we proposed is not in compliance with that how could they approve what we presented to them well our zoning stands on its own so I don't know so I guess so if this your interpretation Mary I mean have we received that interpretation from Town Council what interpretation regarding the LCD well all I'm saying is you just said we weren't in compliance if you were if our proposed bylaw is saying we're going by the law 483a and currently there's no guidelines attached to that law and we've put things outside of the half mile is that in compliance that's my question and so I'm asking how the AG would I mean I guess they would approve it because we don't know we can't we can't I don't think we can um and so I'm just questioning as a town maybe we say to the attorney general why don't we just put a stay on this or whatever the legal term is to say you know let's wait until the final guidelines come out before we submit our zoning bylaw but we have a town meeting vote of 72% that passed a zoning change so how can the planning board overrule that I'm not saying as a planning board I just said as a town we kind of say listen we voted on guidelines that are no longer guidelines so you didn't vote on guidelines you voted on zoning bylaw that stands on its own we vot zoning bylaw was required to be submitted to the AG's office within a certain number of days after town meeting and that was done as was the uh compliance right and SOC now eohc may not be able to say we're in compliance until such time as they reopt the guidelin as new guidelines or regulations however they're supposed to do so so the AG can rule on bylaw right and I would you know just like every other member of the board I'm raising a question a concern that I came across because again our bylaw is pretty clear just we go with 3A 40a and there are no guidelines so I you know having attack attack attack I'm asking questions that we should all kind of be asking this isn't a asking let's pile on let's give the look this is kind of saying hey wait a minute now we we voted on something that had guidelines attached to it and we have no guidelines okay so um can I suggest that we legitimate question I think we don't know the answer to that and that Town Council has sort of said hold so and we're we're not make that if we're going to take action it would be at April town meeting and you know so let's let's wait and see what the next steps are from eohc um Sarah has something she's been W to say so the zba has always been told that when we have a zoning change we cannot rule on anything that's impacted by that zoning change until the Attorney General approves it so I don't believe that if you received a building permit today that it could be acted on that you'd have to wait and if the attorney general approves it it's valid zoning it makes no difference um what they're doing at eohc it's it's it's purely zoning so for the it would be an effect once the Attorney General okay signs it all right we have a lot to do tonight um I think there's uh is there any action we need to take tonight on this matter uh any not on this matter but um I think what we've done with I know what we've done with other um subcommittee's task force when we and this would be with the planning board as or the select board as well is we created a task force is we created a task force for a task that is now completed and then we have to vote for the dissemination of the task force so it's not just hanging open um okay we can put that on a future agenda we may want to we might want to keep the task force in place to make comments on the regulations and take any actions so we can I think when um I raised that with Greg he said that the select board had to be the one to be the dissolution not Us Sarah I don't know if you're taking questions but there is one yeah I know look we're not going to we we we um I don't think we have any action to take tonight so we'll take comment at the end um on of the meeting um the okay let's look at the next um the next item on the agenda is to discuss possible zoning changes for Springtown meeting um at the last meeting we came up with a list that is um shown on the agenda it's accessory dwelling units commercial on the first floor an overlay District to do that associate planning members flood planes the introduction of zoning um the the D2 Zone um and site plan review applicability so um Mark and I chatted and we wanted to try as we talked a little bit about um well first of all in order to get something on the warrant we actually have to finish it pretty much by the end of February or hold meetings off cycle in order to post um the three weeks and then have a public hearing the last meeting in March so that then we have time to get to the warrant so you can do the math there four meetings to get all these things uh done or or those that we can can get done so um our thought is if we have a discussion about what we want to achieve then we can ask Mark with assistance of Town Council to draft the bylaws to achieve those objectives rather than us trying to and then we get a draft and look at so that's um how going to try to uh proceed um so I thought we'd start with the accessory uh dwelling unit um discussion questions um so I put in the packet uh um some just discussion things to think about then I'm hoping we can um kind of uh say where we want to to head um by way of background um the state um housing law added a provision for um protected use adus um those that are 900 square feet or half the primary dwellings uh square feet whichever is smaller and the eoh hlc has pregated some draft regulations the comment period for those ended on Friday and there was a public hearing on Friday and it's my opinion I think so you probably share this opinion that they have some work to do to gosh to finalize their regulations which are supposed to be finalized by February 2nd um but nonetheless they are moving ahead with a protected use uh by right Adu um and in single residential districts those are districts that have single residences allowed as well as other uses allowed and one of the regulations uh confusing points is is whether or not adus are by regul the regulation allowed in a duplex or a multif family uh house and that came up so we can just acknowledge that that's currently a open question in how eohc is um moving ahead um so uh does anybody else want to speak to the what we currently understand about the protected background of the protected use adus can I ask one question but this is this is an amazing document all the stuff went through the NBTA right and this goes BR brush everywhere but this is not just a residential Zone they're talking about there but it could be in any Zone that's one of the common yeah one of the question every everywhere anywhere if there's a residence in the commercial Z if single use is allowed yeah wow which is not in the LCD so would be every District in our town except the LC but what's the open question is whether they're allowing an Adu in all buildings one of the questions is a commercial build you know a Crosby could that have a Adu on it so that was you know could H Zach what we call Zach you know have a Adu on it how could it it's it's not a primary residen well I think they'll sort that out yeah it was they heard that over and over so I think the the presumption is that the intent was to be in single family dwellings but that is not how the regulations but nonetheless we can't solve that here um so the question um that I put forward to to try to scope what we want to get done by an Adu uh bylaw is do we want whatever the protected use Adu law uh languages in the regulations whatever that's going to be do we want to adopt the state's language or do we want to be larger uh less restrictive because those are our choices right we can't be more restrictive than the than the than the state's rules so specifically what are you referring to well I'm thinking 900 square feet or half 900 n like there it could be 12200 if want 12200 in u 3,000 whatever you know and we do have the opportunity to make it more restrictive by by eliminating its use as for short ter AB yeah there couple of that's in the law in the law in the law and that's something that we could do that's my second question and it's the state definition which is 31 days or less it's a shortterm rental yeah not our six days right so before we get to the short-term rentals I want to talk about protected use Adu do we want to make them less restrictive than whatever the state comes up with Mary thank you um so my some of my comments would be that we would require the same um setbacks as we do for current residential structures that we don't have the accessory structure setbacks which can be five F feet which would be pretty close um so if the if you know if a garage becomes an accessory dwelling unit or some such thing that um protecting them and their neighbors that we require further setbacks um I agree with the short-term rental um p and um I gu I kind of had a question that we allow any sort of Earth removal and digging for um foundations if somebody well never mind I'll ask that question time um but so um and with the size I think that probably Merit some discussion um you know I think it would still be a good idea since this will be part of the requirement going forward is to get a handle on our current adus and sizes and kind of extrapolate up from there what is reasonable for size um but um and that I mean I think it's inherent but not super clear in the law that these can't be sold separately and you know that's obvious zoning but some people aren't aware of that type of thing um and I thought I did read in there that we can request a moratorium by claiming we need more time to develop this Adu bylaw I mean this is in effect February 2nd so um you know if we want to put a f on development happening come February 2nd we should ask for a moratorium a couple of comments just um from things from the hearing uh there was definitely uh comments on both sides of the of the ownership question again the regulations were unclear um there was a comment about what defines the gross square feet and whether or not um basements were part of that um so again I they actually included that so our basement is part of part of this but there was arguments that that shouldn't be so that argument that it shouldn't be yeah so we'll think well um so I'm just telling you what what came up in the hearing I'm not saying what's going to happen and I don't did not hear any about a moratorium in the regulations more uh in contrast most of the uh comments that were that came at the hearing that I heard and I stayed for most of it was you know this is great you know do it faster was sort of the so I don't know what the process would be for a moratorium but we could if we felt that was important we could ask councel seems to me um so I guess I'm to my first question how do we Define protective use adus and one of my other questions that I asked was bold concise um setbacks should they be less stringent than the primary dwelling um less string so uh so he'll share it [Music] um uh so I think I've heard Mary say um um she wants them to she recommends being the same as primary dring for setbacks I think more people are trying to get in I just uh join I just let them join um there were people in the hearing that made Mary's comment about the same yes um there was a wide range there was a wide range what what was the General comment you say make them less restrictive than it was everything it was everything everything make them more make them less make them the same and then you had well so it seems to me at a minimum we have to adopt get rid of our current uh bylaw because that's not enforcable and replace it with something at least that reflects what the state's going to say and and I think adding the prohibition against short-term rentals is probably fine but I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a some sort of a a mechanism with a special permit to allow uh for example people to have a a short-term rental or to have things with above their garages even if the setback is less than for primary residence but do it with a special permit so there's some flexibility and I also think bigger ons is probably by special perit ALS that was a another question I had is that you know one is by right two or more is a special permit I wasn't super clear can you restrict how many on a unclear on a lot because you know obviously you have to meet the impervious and the setbacks and everything else but could somebody with a big sidey yard just have unclear unclear in the regulations so one of the comments I mean I guess I mean we'd have to ask residents and you know take a poll or whatever but you know do people want to see more than 1 Adu per lot so it seems to me that what we're trying to do here is to do something where we're going to put forward a bylaw um that complies with the protected use uh Adu and and perhaps a second law that limits the use of protect of protected use adus perhaps all adus to that in a second for short-term rentals that those are sort of the big big picture and what I'm trying to do is say um and then we have what Chris said which is do we need to fix our existing uh Adu bylaw at the April 10 meeting um because I you know we we want to be successful here and then the other question that I H I have for Council is we have a lot of properties or a number of properties I don't know sure how many that have uh apartments that were approved that were grandfathered that exists prior to um the Adu bylaw right what are you saying now that that no that that the majority were built in accord ordance with the bylaw for employees employees right because that has been on the books for a long long time but but nobody's monitored it that's right so they're being rented like they shouldn't be right so that's the second thing and then uh things that um that uh maybe pre-exist that bylaw or that came into effect under the 9.1.2 which is very few of those because of the the requirements in the existing ad B so my question for Council is if a second Adu is requires a special permit does employee housing do those existing things are they adus or is that property a duplex we don't know I think you're complicating it maybe well it might not be if it's only allowed in a single family home this is addressing the Adu by right yes it's not addressing any of our existing adus because they don't comply with the by right but my suggestion is you have one bylaw for adus you have the minimum requirements of the state and if you have anything that's larger than that it's a zba special permit like it is today but I also will put a cap on the maximum on the size on the size because what we're seeing is we're seeing residential use not an Adu but residential use in garages within the setbacks um and we're seeing large adus um and it seems realistic that one would have you know maybe a cap of 2,000 square feet um say if it's over 900 up to 2,000 special permit um and I think the other thing that needs to be addressed is the height so accessory structures are one and a half stories residences are two and a half and I think you've got to have something in your Adu bylaw regarding the height and I definitely agree with Mary on using the setbacks for primary residents because we're seeing before the zva so much abuse of people trying to expand into the setbacks and the whole purpose the reason behind having accessory dwellings with a smaller setback is they never envisioned that people would live in the accessory structures and now they're being used for family space so I would even go as far is saying any accessory structure with any habitable space in it would be a primary dwelling setback over and above the Adu you wouldn't need a kitchen just if you're going to use it because it's that whole circular thing perhaps of what then people might just erect a garage because they get the 5 foot set back and then come back and say oh on the second floor I want it to be an Adu structure is already built and it's no but if you if you had something in your bylaw that had the restriction on habitable space that gives us something the zba to look at that you couldn't convert then a garage yeah I mean it's certainly saying well the intent of the town is we don't want to convert these structures to habitable space we don't have anything today they could if it's a by 900 square fet if they just mark off 900t not if we say it has to comply with the primary structures well it won't go in front of the ZB it's by right it has to still have a building permit which has to follow zoning so let's just um get a sense of the board on a couple of things here first of all um to your comment about height the draft regulations I believe say you can't restrict height the the height can't be more restrictive than primary residence but the statute doesn't say right okay so we have to wait and see on that one it's saying yeah it so this we have to wait on WE some of these things we'll we can say we want to have it be accessory structure but if the regulations final regulations say primary structure we're going to have to for the protected use months so um so let's just can I go back to my original question which is the protected use adus do we want to be more lenient or take this whatever the state comes up with as their definition do we make it more or do we want to make get uh bigger uh lesser setbacks or uh greater height those would be kind of the the kinds of things Laura um the one place where I might make an exception in terms of going harder is still capping at at 900 ft but if um the if the Baseline is the basement counts as part of that 900 ft I would want to consider as a board having the above grade structure be the 900 ft because basements aren't always good places to live on the flip side sometimes the basement is like the yeah it may have been on a great if can't let her to walk out so it that's not going to affect the neighborh somebody's living in the Bas okay well let's just get a sense of how we're might be hard to have a separate entrance to a basement sometimes so um so you're arguing you're saying at least basement is side the the states I think the state is going to uh Define that that just my sense is that they'll tell us I think 900 feet is re reasonable size for an Adu or half the the the state regulation currently is 900 square feet or half the gross square feet of the primary dwelling whichever is less which includes basement space in calculation of the gross low so whatever the state I'm just saying do we want to be more lenient than the state uh so you said accept the states whatever that's going to be or anybody want to argue for I would to agree with with law 900 square F feet it's meant to be an accessory living in and smaller than the primary and or rental or in laws for and I'm talking about producted use for right now the only thing I would say is if you're including the basement you're really saying 450 sare ft that's why I took exception to part of that calculation I think it should be 900 space I agree fin space okay so basically the state definition is anybody gonna argue for anything bigger than St I don't think so just something that Sarah said about Sarah you said that there have been um people in front of the zba looking for um what I guess would be an Abu that's as big as 2,000 square feet is that a is that a um common request yeah we're not seeing little things right um we're seeing big things yeah um you got the one on Central Street 38 Central that's large um right that's two stories above the garage and it's it's that's got to be 2000 I think that might have been 2400 Square fet um it's a three or four bedroom okay um so that's not going to be a protected use so let's come back to to whether your point which I share that your um your suggestion that we cap ad use at a at a at something um so let's just stick with the protected use um the parking is in the statute so we can't we're not going to change that the parking is one space if you're more than a half a mile from the train and none if less than a half a mile from but Sarah if you go above the 900 square ft under a special permit absolutely you can change the parking absolutely I'm talking about the protected use just just the protected use ones and then I'm going to come to the the others in a minute um so the parking is going to be by it's in the Statue we can't change that um the bul and setbacks I've heard Mary and Sarah melish are that we should have them the same as the primary dwelling whatever the regulations say and the same as the same as the primary dwelling and and the regulations do say that he has to be the same as a primary Dell so you can't do the one and have stories right for the protected use ones correct um and then the regulations are quite clear that the expansion of the protected use Adu they're un they're silent right now I think on expansion of a protected use Adu so you want to make your 900 squ foot Adu into a 2,000 foot Adu it seems to me that becomes a special permit um you know that's that seems to be pretty clear say something a good point if I have a garage which is built way back when and it's 5 ft from the property line well within the setback like that and now we're saying you cannot build that Adu on on as a second floor on top of that garage by by right by right all right they're they're they're they're pretty emphatic in here like don't do anything that counteracts what we're hoping to do here so so be it I guess if that's the case if the garage is closed so one of the things that I keep thinking about is we want this we our life will be much easier and the building inspector's life if we are very clear about what's a protected use Adu and if we stick to the regulations and we will pass this at it will pass a town meeting if we make things um not everybody is for adus some people are for them some people are not for them um so um if we make them significantly more uh less restrictive than the law allows us to then we will I think have a hard time passing it it that's probably sort of a prag pragmatic approach I disagree with that I I think that if you get rid of all the existing Adu stuff which you can't you can't have that plus a new regulation is going to be a mess but if you include in the one bylaw the terms for the special permit I think it will pass okay I I I as long as particularly if you limit it to like 2,000 square feet um I would go smaller than that accessory well whatever I I'm I don't care but I I just think that if you if you have that special permit language in there you're going to cover the people who want something larger than 900 square feet it it's not going by right is 900 square feet or less um and get rid of all the other garbage we have that is is problematic yes it is could you do it in the same bylaw if same perhaps the special would you want special permit adus even in like the two family districts and stuff I mean or the no MBTA overlay District No I would limit the a I believe the law says that it's a single a lot with a single residence on yeah one lot one residence yeah and if you limit it to those lots then you're you're not dealing with any of the m tell me where you see that because I see the definition of single family that says okay it could be everywhere is that in the reg they're allowed in any District that allows a single family right that doesn't because then I had a question and maybe somebody knows the answer no it said defines a single family residential dwelling as a structure on a lot containing not more than one dwelling unit but it doesn't what it doesn't say is that the protected use I believe are in the but nonetheless that's draft regulations and that was a comment throughout so it will get clarified so M but if you do that when you're protecting yourself of not having to do it in multif family yeah if if they want to add an Adu in the MBTA zoning District they could add the Adu to an existing single family but they couldn't do the multif family plus an Adu if the regulation this lead so maybe you know why they say this when they say um unicaps and density and it says protected youth Adu shall not be counted in any density calculations that leads me to believe that since we just passed the 15 units per acre they're saying you can't count that as a as a 15 yeah no it's saying in the calculation we didn't include adus in our calculation what calculation for the MBTA zoning okay so um I want to keep moving on so what I'm fearing is we want to adopt the whatever the state's protected use Adu definition is not go larger um any disagreement with that um I'll come back to the um shortterm rentals in a minute um bulk and size setbacks um we would keep them the same as the primary dwelling unless the regulations say something else um if a a protected use Adu is expanded it would be a special permit um an additional uh Adu where one special uh protected use exists would be special permit because that's in the law well that's in the draft regulations if in draft regulations um and um Sarah has argued and I would say that we should add some criteria for uh special permit adus we don't have to necessarily know what those are right the second but maybe Mark can suggest some um and then um that that we are assuming this is in single Wellings one lot with a single dwelling right one lot with okay with a single family residential dwelling yeah okay so then I'll come to the do are we in agreement that we should protect we should prohibit the use of protected use adus for short-term rentals how about for all adus so that's two questions protected use ad use for short-term rentals anybody disagree with that this is this is a for an article going to town meeting um anybody disagree with that okay how about nonprotected new uh adus assuming that we have a as Sarah suggests a total Adu bylaw um would we also restrict those on shortterm Chris's argued for no I think they should be under a special permit I think you should be able to there would be a special permit I wouldn't I wouldn't allow short-term rentals special per so where else are you going to put one except in an Adu you're how you're basically saying a whole a whole residence yeah we don't I don't see that this town wants people building adus in order to rent them out over the summer they're looking for permanent housing but the intent of this is right so why would you why would you even want to allow that by special permit I don't want to go there okay let's hear from other people um an you had so I would suggest that we make this as simple as possible and not there and my specific goal is to prohibit their use for rentals for Less 31 days or less rented for the whole summer fine but um I think if you get into a lot of we got a special permit this and we got a special permit that um you're going to have a harder time pass it getting a clear clear language um the town meeting can get yeah I agree if it's going to be controversial if that go there okay um all right so that to go back to that at some point in the future but right now unless we want to risk having ad's built used for short-term rentals and therefore grandfather between now and when we get comprehens at ad byw simple sir do we have a definition of a short-term rental right now is it that what you just said and the 30 we have we have a shortterm rental bylaw um which is as Sarah says six days and um the state has a definition which is 31 days or or less and I suggest that we in our copious free time take a look at our current um short-term rental bylaw and see how it can be brought which is in the general bylaw but if if you include the state definition of the short-term rental in the Adu bylaw then you don't have to worry about the general bylaw at this point in time okay um good so the other thing is um should we continue to allow adus in a garage or accessory structure for employees I don't see there's any reason to now does anybody argue for trying to again I hear all the words I'm just um we currently have a special permit by the zba for the use of living quarters for in a garage or accessory structure for employees oh and this has been uh there are lots of mother-in-laws who are suddenly employees it's kind of Antiquated uh artifact of our zoning that is unfortunately being um and yeah I mean if so um does anybody gonna argue for trying to keep that I don't think so oh actually this gets into the question of things that are bigger than 900 square feet and I suspect that many of these are but they would be grandfather okay fine everything that's existing is grandfathered yeah you're not going to ask people to take out things that already exist you can't or or fine okay well you could enforce that it's not a you can enfor you can enforce that it's not an employee but this town is decided they don't want to do that right but I'm saying going for you could if they start renting it you could enforce it it's a hard thing to we haven't no me down oh for God the two um um okay and um Sarah has argued for um having one comprehensive Adu bylaw as opposed to leaving our existing Adu law which allows and if you have a um is it by special permit or is it just by right special permit if you have a double lot you have a double lot and the house exist only in the principal structure it's not an accessory structure and it is limited at believe to onethird of the square footage of the existing residence and the house had to exist before 1984 yeah right and is there an owner and there's a parking require isn't there an occupation yes owner occupancy require right so if we take a comprehensive simplified draft at this then we would eliminate that as well thanks um I want to come back to parking okay go ahead an can I ask that you do those as two separate motions add the simplified and remove the other one two different votes I think saying oh rather than amending what's there take out what's there yeah that's one motion absolutely okay got it put in something new that's that's for protected adus separate motion no the so we don't need to disde that right now what we want to do is get a draft bylaw that we and then we'll figure out how to strategically I I hear what you're saying how to strategically frame them as articles I I think there's a strategy I don't I think they you're running a risk but what we want to do first is draft it and then we can figure out I I hear you um parking um for larger adus I think we would refer to our parking table right we would sure yeah um okay larg larger ad there yes so the record I'll object to that okay no uh Laura okay uh and we're saying special permit um okay and bulk and setback we talked about those being the primary residents with a thought about height we can on the larger ones we can we can hold a placeholder for that for this moment it needs to be addressed and we can think about that this says that the height has to be the same as for the protected use but the but the larger ones so we want to kind of um how about in larger not protected use would we want owner occupancy or age restricted or any um other kinds of restrictions no no I don't think so either get comp but I'm just throwing it out there anybody uh so what would that look like Sarah that I mean you could say you can have a 1500 foot um Adu if it's for somebody over 55 but it would also mean you could come in with a 900 foot one and have it for over 55 I don't think you can in the protected used ones so some towns have Adu bylaws that are 62 Plus or family member um really hard to enforce and get born right right that yeah I think that's part of the problem yeah um okay um I think we have um enough to have Mark start drafting something any other thoughts that people want to add for um now some of these are going to evolve as the regulations uh on the state evolves yeah um I guess we're not going to talk about what that cap is tonight but we should talk about it because just on the surface of a 2,000 square feet sounds like another house to me right sounds like a house in the village so I would suggest we go up smaller well year something that the board discusses yep so can recommend um y are we suggesting that that would become protected at this newer no maximum size of size of an Adu but not a protect so an Adu in a single lot single family you know so do we know when the guidelines are coming out um the date on the PowerPoint is February 2nd but we don't know where came from we don't know where that came from and um coming out the date that it's effective I know here we go I know um and want I did make a comment that um they need to do that because when we have t Springtown meetings we had to post for public hearing on the end of February so that was one of my comments so well and and the way the law is written yeah on febru in I know February 2nd somebody can apply for a building permit and there's not a darn thing we can do about it oh exactly we're totally so anyway um okay so I think we have um enough there to move ahead um unless uh we will have another you know this is hopefully that's helpful um I want to do the same thing um for the idea of the uh commercial in um downtown um so uh Mark you want to just refresh us uh why we thinking about this just to remind people um well for one okaye someone wanted to uh tear down an existing commercial building and wanted to just put up two residential units on the property which you can do by right the idea would be to at least uh have this discussion about requiring first floor commercial to maintain and like the quter area downtown maintain your commercial kind of area core area so that you don't begin to have more kind of pockets of um nonresident non-commercial needs kind of your continuity of the commercial District could you give a kind of a where that begins and where ends geographically yeah so geographically you have a commercial CT right outside of town hall right a small little area commercial from basically uh where River is or Pine Street um going up to well the commercial Zone stand for all the way up but um the idea would to to bring it at least up to where the gas station is uh at least initially uh around to Beach Street so that that area you would want to so you have you have kind of a commercial core here and you have a commercial core uh at the beginning of Beach Street right that kind of wraps around and so you you don't you already have a bit of a gap between the two so you don't want to lose additional commercial properties and widen that Gap what you want to do is narrow and um so for example Seven Central Street um is even though they're proposing to add residential units three residential units they're going to keep the uh commercial space along the streets SC uh for commercial users um there's some discussion about the building on the corner of the green dogen on the corner of school Central to reopen or try and Lease out the first floor for commercial space the rest of the building's been renovated or in the process for residential continue that residential newp so that's the type of thing you'd like to see um continuing along so for example there's The Sovereign Bank I don't ever appear busy to me but at some point that might close as lots of banks have and I believe that could be reused for commercial property or knocked down uh you know still maintain some commercial but but entertain some residential there as well because that's kind that's what's being proposed for the cargo building and so if you lose that Frontage you're widening the gap between the two commercial areas rather than narrowing gaps so and would commercial be a um um non- toown um entity is it a business are we clarifying that or is it just commercial in because we have things like the library and Museum Well Museum it's not town I mean again that's all part of the discussion I think today is just kind of to understand that and then discuss what some of the parameters could be so that if we do want to move forward with it if we have time um at least I have some kind of guidance to work from here so that's a suggestion to not have additional Municipal uses in this core area that's certainly something that we can add to so I have a a little bit of a problem with this because it's sort of Market driven isn't it you can't you requireed everybody to keep a commercial space on the first floor we just have a bunch of bacon commercial spaces and so that scares me but I think there's a remedy for it which is to at the same time encourage residential uses above them so they go together and I think the only way we protect the downtown is by having more people living here not fewer so um I think if something some kind of requiring a special perent be going to take away commercial space but at the same time encouraging residential development above commercial space something like that might work it's already a change of use which I believe has to come before the zba we get change of uses um for instance 48 Central went from mixed use to residential and that had come before us um so if you get rid of commercial cargo unlimited if they're going to switch to housing then have to come before zbaa and they get a special permit or variance we can't issue variances for use so the only change of use we can do is a use that's allowed in the district well residential use is allowed the district correct so it would be a special permit to change for change of use okay but um I personally don't feel that that type of change can occur without an enormous amount of communication like they did for the MBT zoning I mean it's it's it's a can of worms look at all the empty places that are there today the empty commercial spaces where is that Sarah where is the empty we had a very vigorous conversation about this in the downtown Improvement uh meeting too it went on for like an hour and a half going on and talked about exactly cargo where cargo was part of it but they also talked about the empty empty commercial spaces currently well you got Helen's Bottle Shop that's gone you got the old crafts place that's gone you got Jam's roast beef that's gone and cargo cargo and cargo that's gone so that's a lot of Enz enacs um that's a lot of commercial spaces that have not been used for commercial uses you know for a while the crafts has been for rent for I'd say close to six months what's crafts what oh oh I'm sorry I'm sorry the next to the well and then also you have um the old North Coast on both sides of the street is now not retail it's commercial uh Realtors on one and I don't know what it is on the other um well and you used to have the dentist's office in the zigger's house and there's nothing commercial left there anymore yeah so the so the question sort of you're asking is if you Zone it will they come but it if you don't if they if they don't come does it is it worse and less vital than um than uh residential yeah that's the question um laa there are lots of examples out there of mixed use districts where the ground floor use is required to be commercial and uh I agree that that is also encouraging second floor residential uses it's going to add uh it's going to add the customers to the to the retail base right so cargo apparently still have a second floor and some of those other real estate offices had a second floor they've been in one story for many decades but if they go back to being twostory plus a a commercial um requirement on the first floor I think that helps to revitalize the town and and towns do go through cycles and so we are in kind of a you know a bust at the moment but if we make it so it's not possible to have retail back there then we're not allowing for that flexibility of future uses to come in you think as the town continues to yeah the other thing is if you have a mixed use then you have some different revenue streams yeah you know the other things you don't have to require 100% of the first floor so for example the 7 Central Street only the the front portion and we can draft it a certain way of the first floor is commercial and then the uh rear portion Accord plans would be for two town houses uh in the back but on the first floor of that building so I mean again we can craft it that way for example the cargo building is a fairly deep building and so it doesn't need to be that deep to maintain the court marcial space so the rear portion um could be utilized for the first floor of residential units so for parking for residential units above so there are there is a know ways of crafting it to allow mixed use maintain commercial but um so that you maintain the street SK but not um overly burdened with commercial numbers and that can change I mean two years from now there may be a shortage of commercial prods it's kind of hard to predict the future so particularly in in towns small towns that have downtown areas that can have little shops that cater to specific things as opposed to trying to compete with you know the big retail chains gu go ahead could we go back to talking about the geographical parameters for example where on Beach Street would the want start you know where between singing Beach and downtown where would we want our commercial District to start Ka Street for example Katies yeah I mean what would the thought be well I think something that we would kind of look over print out some maps of the downtown and kind of look over it I mean you could you could argue that maybe you should start on uh this side of beach street at the railroad tracks and at the other side of beach street at the gas station then bring it up centr you know Beach Street to Central up to isn't the um he said one the Loper on the other side of right I'm more worried about the Harbor Point Property I mean I I don't think you would include Harbor Point in this why not why not because I mean people are concerned about preserving drugstore and Dunkin dong nuts and the physical therapy place and do you think by commercial a retail above would allow them to maintain the commercial blow residential above I mean residential above would allow them to maintain the commercial yeah I would absolutely include that then i' go up um Summer Street up to maybe up to se Street the coffee shop anyways right yeah that's a um so that's creating a mixed use District that we don't currently have correct right so it is a big deal um I obviously see the merits of it I'm just questioning you know I heard over and over again for past eight plus years is that we don't want to dictate what people can do with their property and so this would be clear indication of doing that um I guess I would I would like to do a lot of it resident feedback on this one um I mean I had originally envisioned that we would try and get a grant to do much bigger planning project and then as part of that would be to look at a downtown core zoning project as well as a streetcape renewals for uh have a team come in with uh landscape architect and an engineer and planners really put together a master plan for the downtown core and Zoning to match um the cargo building and to a little bit of a wrench into that timing because that's kind of a key piece you don't want to lose um so that's why we're having this discussion the other question would be you know could they do some sort of limited mixed use with a special permit um over there uh to have residential but the thing is they' still be restricted to two residential units um under the current zone three three General District three but if it's new building new construction special per it's depends on the if they increase gross square footage or not yeah there's new building I mean it would have to be a new building the the current condition I I I just personally feel you're shortsighted trying to do planning around one specific sale of a building in Manchester that's why I'm asking that question is that if it could be done under a special permit it'd be better to do the the full planning exercise before you come to the zoning but yeah if this is part of a way bigger project we can't break off just the chunk of of this zoning piece and get that pasted and then filled around that like we need the whole picture well except that I'll say that one of this is an outgrowth of the task force work it was identified very early on as a um I mean I think we sort of said oh this is an opportunity to uh use before we realize that those unit that residential above commercial wouldn't count in our numbers at least that's my recollection is that we said oh this is an opport we have a vulnerability that um was identified in that conversation and that until we realized it didn't count was like oh this is a great chance to sort of enshrine a commercial uh along the sidewalk escape and residential above so I don't think it's completely out of the blue um I agree that um uh that it's a you know a fast fast track we at 18 months of communication on the NBTA zoning and you would have like one month on this if you do it for April I don't see it would pass I'm I'm just saying if if it's part of a bigger project we need the big project before we vote in one piece of it um somebody has their hand up on yeah we're going to take comment in later um uh Laura what does the master plan say about the commercial district and the go for it mixed use mixed use important to save the retail commercial uses yeah I don't think it clarifies defining as you know as quote the definition mixed use but it's to keep the residential and commercial but not a clear mixed use District Sarah can I address a comment to to Mark I know this has been paned around a lot of times does does it need a zoning change for them to put retail some level of commercial and residential above it would be a special permit but it would be limited to three residential but they could still have the commercial because that's a permitted use as well right mixed juice is a permitted but they they do that right now without going to a zoning the issue is they don't want that's not what they want just yeah it's allowed today yeah didn't uh the unit a couple doors down become a house that was a the gry house yeah right but it's got a business in the first floor antiques Gladstone a lawyer for a while before that it was a gift shop is it ever yeah who open during the Holiday Stroll that's when I went in sing um personally I think it's worth us at least taking a a another a look at it we sort of talked about I think the I'm hearing that the goal is a good goal the goal to maintain the street skate um for commercial uses along that along the that street with mixed use residential above so I would say personally I'd like to see us look at a you know put something together that has various par maybe not a a draft per se but the here are the parameters here's here's what it would look like here's where it would you know and maybe we don't extended as far as uh you know we we limit the the scope for to start look it may not be ready for Springtime meeting but if we don't start now we don't start now right and then um right otherwise we're going to be sitting here in September saying the exact same conversation exactly so um if people are amendable I'd like to ask St Mark to start thinking about drafting a you know here are the elements of it and then at least what are what would it look like and then we can begin to understand whether it makes sense an I have concerned that we're doing zoning to deal with one specific development I think that's not a good approach well I don't I don't think we're gonna we can't do anything about what's happening with cargo but I think that Mark was talking about a bigger plan Mark was talking about a bigger plan so that doesn't mean we can't start now is it possible to ask a question while we're on the topic because what typically ends up happening is at the end I'm told that we've already discussed that we're gonna we are going to take yeah we're trying to have a working session here nonmembers in and yeah well but I'm just saying there you're a resident just like every other resident and so I think that's unfortunate look I'm happy to have um the um I think I think we should start to think about this even if it's mean I I kind of feel like if we the flip side of what you're saying Ann and Sarah is Cargo changes to residential the bank changes to residential Harbor Point changes to residential in the next year I mean they think things change hands there's you know pressure there's incentives residential and people are saying where the heck was the planning board on this issue um you know I think that there's the you you can argue it both ways and I don't think it was um my only argument is you have quite a lot on your plate I know and and I think there [Music] are since it's too late to stop the one that's going on now um you fine set up whatever you want but but don't try and push something through for it's not going to pass it would fail without the communication I mean people in town do not want to be told what to do with their buildings so that's fine let's plan for next fall or next spring we got to start but he's talking big he keep saying it's gonna take 18 months if we start now he talking about a bigger plan well that's fine so it Tak Consultants to work on it well let's um continue to think about I think there's agreement that this is an important issue so we'll we'll um think about you know I think it's hard to prejudge what will pass and what won't pass I think we've learned that um and let's continue to think about uh getting a um continue to talk about whether this is something that we can do uh perhaps peac mail or whether we and and then a larger plan or a larger plan first and then Pieces come together we definitely did hear during our communication process on NBTA zoning that people are worried about all the businesses turning over into residences they don't want that um we did hear that um I heard that anyway um you know particularly like Harbor Point and Crosby's and hardware store and restaurants those were all singled out um so I I think there is some sentiment out there to to do something okay um the next topic that I wanted to comment I'd like to try to take the comments at the end so we can get through these three issues and then we can pause and take some comments on we just sorry but there's one one hand up and Sarah's tried a couple times I think it'd be a perfect time to hear from another Resident sorry just give her a chance to say she's had her hand up for two topics so far is that let me let's just get through the next topic and then I'll pause and we can take coms we'd like to um I want to get through this next topic because we have a lot we're trying to do um the next topic that I want to talk about is the um associate members um we talked about this two years ago or a year ago um the state law allows this to have um to to have a process to assign uh associate members to the planning board Who Um can fill in for special permit and site plan re and potentially for site plan review the I guess the statute is silent correct me if I'm wrong Mark the statute is silent on site plan review but uh Mark's experience is that um associate members if it's in the bylaw can weigh in on site plan review and given our experience with self- signaling and and they were quite uh accommodating to our uh election cycle and um Ron's passing and we're kind of willing to uh um uh start over um which they did not need to do that was not that was they were willing to work with us on that but um and given that there's you know potentially members that turn off turn over every year and um you when you have a big SP site a special permit um you can really uh be at risk for the applicants fairness and also for the town's ability to create regulations so I'd like to see us draft a very simple um amendment to I think it would be section 12 that allows us to have uh I think the statute says how many members I think it's two for a seven member board um for a term of you know three years or two years or whatever we want appointed by the planning board and they come in as needed and then you call them in as needed for only for special permits and site plan review so they sort of sit like alternates on a jury and then if somebody is I think that's how it works yeah in general my experience every town that I've had it with alternates is they attend all the board meetings they participate as if they were a regular board member but if um let's say all of a sudden Laura needs to missed two meetings and can't vote because that person has been at all the hearings whether it's site plan review or special permit that person now can fill in and that's why it's important that they be are considered essentially part of the board with the exception of voting right so they're part of the special permit and site plan review yes and generally you know even if you're discussion zoning or you know planning board regulations because they're you know been part of it that you generally you know they're they're part of the discussion as well so there's if I can just give don't vote just the reason this is important is because when someone fil for a special permit clock starts ticking and if for some reason the planning board doesn't have enough vote voting members to Grant the special permit or deny the special permit it's constructively granted if no vote is taken and that's why these associate members are important so that the planning board always has a voting majority too and you need a super majority a seven member Board needs five affirmative votes or NE or negative votes whatever it is um or no that's not true it needs five affirmative votes to Grant the permit so it is a special so it's also sort of protection for applicants that um that somebody can't but more importantly if if say three members had a conflict of interest and couldn't vote on a right special permit it would be constructively so so um this came up before and it's can be controversial and we decided not to do it um I've been on the planning board again eight plus years and it has never been an issue um the cell signaling one um was probably the first and I believe C signaling had to reboot their special permit anyway so it kind of worked out um my opinion is now getting nine people in this room all discussing asking questions um is perhaps something that would not be enjoyable um and I I i' I'd like to understand the need more um we can throw out all sorts of oh what if this happens and what if that happens but they don't these things don't happen um I also get a little concerned when we say we're going to point people um um and that process becomes um again who we would appoint would be a majority of who you know vote to who we appoint and so we always go down the same channel of of a certain type of person to be on these boards so um I have to voice a fear that I think this is trying to to um ensure certain votes happen in a in a way that the board wants them to happen um so I personally as a planning board member do not currently think it's a good idea um like I've said I've seen the process for for a long time and it it doesn't seem as a need it seems a more complicating factor and perhaps putting a bit of a thumb on the voting process I'll add that the zba has two associate members I know and and we use them all the time and if you're going to be doing site plan reviews on the NBTA zoning you're going to be having a lot more come before you and the zba has strict regulations as the law tells us when we have to hold our public hearing and we have people who are out of town on business so and for the 40b we had all members attend every single session in case we ran into a problem at the end with the vote I would really like to keep these as planning board discussions um the zba only does special permits we do a lot more than special permits we don't all that many special permit um so again I I stand by what I said well associate members by the statute is R are for special permit um and it marks experience is that you can also extend that to Cy review so I'm not sure that they are expected to weigh in on zoning changes they will you know that's your experience but their their primary purpose is to weigh in on special permits and if we were to draft a such forite plan review and and uh self signaling absolutely was we needed uh them to either we take a you know work with us or we were in trouble um so so so I have not been on the playing board for eight years um not just barely two years but um during cell signaling and the special permits we were dealing with last summer regarding the harbor me many of us if we had had alternates I mean you were on trying to do a zoom from an airport I was doing a zoom the night after my daughter got married you know when the rest of my family was out I would have loved to have skipped that I mean and there were other examples of that um and I just and with Ron's passing I mean as Sarah said we were lucky I I feel like it's a little bit irresponsible that we don't have a back stop um and that's fair um but we are the elected people these people are not elected and we don't use them as oh I you know I'd like to go on a trip so I want to you know not do my responsibilities that people elected me for so well that wasn't the point I was trying to make well but but so we don't elect I mean the residents don't elect these associates and I and I can see the Merit of them for sure I just don't think um my personal opinion is it doesn't seem like a good fit for the plan um do we have a consensus about whether we want to have I mean it's a fairly simple change to section 12 do Mary has voiced her objection I'm might say Mary I I'm a perfect example of that I wasn't elected and I came at a time when Sarah called me and asked me would I be went through the whole process and I actually think it probably facilitated the cstd permitting and and the NBTA stuff because of because of my uh experience background so I think it does have value I am I am one of those those people that would be here just listening and understanding and eventually being able to fill in so I do have a question about and and just to pick up on something Mary was saying about the appointment of it how do do Mark do you have a sense of how that's done in other communities is it call for uh interest how how is it do we work so typically for example with our design review for that we have they are advertising it like they do for any select board uh appointed um uh board Town boards uh they're publicizing it on the website the newsletter I saw on social media yeah social media just to and then people submit their applications a whatever interest um and then uh board sits down and interviews them U you know so this draft says the three-year terms pointed by the planning board I mean I believe it we could make it different uh joint appointments annual appointments because they are alternates as opposed to elected so those are things that we can discuss as options but I think um uh having the ability to have alternates because you just don't know what's going to happen with people with events and you know other you know trips and Vacations so it's you know it also may be a good way to get people acquainted with what the board is doing someone who's not very interested but wants to sit in and see what's going on it' be a great experience right right so was oh I was just going to suggest instead of a three-year term perhaps we consider a one-year term with a possibility for Renewal up to three I think if someone wants to serve an associate member they might also have more luck getting people to come in for one year at a time that's a long time if you can't vote just I threw in I just put that in there that's what we had uh put put in there we had discussed previously and then it gives gives them an experience of attending all these meetings yeah and deciding when someone chooses not to run again or um that they can then know run for that opening okay um I know Mary has uh spoken um eloquently against this but anybody else want to uh speak you know can we ask Mark to put together a draft that we can then review sure any other objections no I'd be I'd love to see a draft but I also heard two different things Mark I think you were saying that these associate members would participate in all conversations and Sarah you were saying that they'd be restricted to they'd vote only on special permits but they would be involved in conversations for everything yeah I think that's up to the chairperson obviously during public hearings you would want them involved because in case they do have to vote that they can participate and ask questions most towns still allow them to participate in any discussion that you might have like the downtown or zoning changes just because again you know you want their input it's another person who's kind of getting trained up on what boards do so um you know so okay great well we'll we'll look for a draft on that before we jump to the rest of the potential things on um uh um potential things for for spring or future Town meetings um Sarah go ahead Sarah Pierce oh hi thank you do you need my address or sure uh nine friend Street okay thank you so I'm going to have to jump around on a few topics here but um for the commercial space I've heard from a lot of people that the commercial rental space in Manchester the uh rents are way too expensive and that's why we're losing businesses left and right um I'm also wondering how adding residential above that would help those businesses stay there as someone had mentioned on the board um you're not really adding that many people above that unless did you mention two stories above or I I know you don't have that solidified yet but just a comment on the commercial space and its renting um in addition we just passed Zoning for 559 units whether all of those get built or not we have not even gone into those permits or buildings being constructed in this meeting and now we've also talked about adus being added ranging from 900 to 2,000 square ft and there just seems to be a general obsession with making Manchester bigger more buildings more traffic more parking where are all these cars going to park for these units above the existing commercial there's no parking now with on street parking cars cannot pass each other on the roads I've almost been hit twice headon on School Street when when there's par cars parked and two cars are trying to pass each other um I just think we have an awful lot on our plate for such a small town between the MTA zoning which keep in mind was initially a mandate to solve a housing crisis not just to increase the scale and size of small towns which most units will not be affordable so that was what that was about but we're we're we're getting way off track um on a side note I would just like to say that I don't feel the way that these meetings are run are very resident friendly and it's really uncomfortable for the public when other board members mistreat other board members and I'm noticing that people who watch the reruns of these meetings notice that and I just wanted to bring it to your attention not in any disrespectful way but just as a matter of information that's my comments and somewhat questions thank you um any other uh comments from the public yes yes uh line iani uh 28 Pine Street go ahead okay thank you Miss uh gron um a couple of uh comments um let me address first the commercial aspect I think the intent is uh very good that we look uh to preserve commercial and the reason is that um in the Village area most of us um who live here um find the walkability factor you know very important uh particularly uh with regard to the number of seniors that um live in the actual Village area so it's nice to have um the luxury of uh being able to walk in a community and have the services here but um basically when you talk about um the fact that we are losing we're becoming a dead uh downtown in many respects if you look at um a number of other towns like for example uh if you look at uh bevly on ranol if you look at Gloucester Main Street or even Hamilton um they're pretty vibrant so you have to ask what's the root cause and I think someone alluded to the fact that perhaps rents are too high the economy maybe it's the niche of uh what the business is all about you know what the downtown Improvement committee should be doing is doing surveys of what the town folk really want to see downtown and then they should be working with an Adar group that will go out and try to secure businesses with incentives we've talked about this I don't know how many times for the last several years so really you you really need to look at the the root cause here on why we're losing businesses because right now it's really Bleak downtown so that's one comment that I have another is with regard to the Abus there's no question that we need them and that we should uh you know comply with um at least the minimum for the state as far as anything else I think we're on the right track in terms of um a 2,000 square foot Adu is is a house so um whatever it takes with special permitting to ensure that our neighbors all of the neighbors um you know are not encroached upon so whatever it takes with special permitting so I think uh you're on the right track with um adus with regard to the MBTA I don't know if K actually did an advisory for our select board uh however um it's clear to me that um we need to um secure a little bit more data uh before we determine regardless of whether or not the a G approves these particular regulations uh that we should um secure some kind of um stay or moratorium I really believe that we should ask KP law to clarify with the eoh uh LC whether or not um they would indeed agree to staying um any type of implementation because if the AG were next week to approve uh what I heard was these stand alone and so what we'll just go ahead and apply them to the current situation I really feel we need to uh secure uh throughout uh through a an adequate process which includes the posting a possible hearing commentary by all those people interested and then consideration you yourselves just mention that you have some concern concerns that you would like clarified I don't understand why we cannot make a request uh whether it's approved or not at least make the request from our KP law to the state and ask them for a stay or moratorium or whatever you want to call it uh with regard to um letting the eohc comply with their portion of the law it is an act it is an act of administrative procedure and they have violated that so quite frankly I don't see what the big deal is with that I really truly don't so those are the three comments that I have for this evening I do appreciate everything that all of you do you are volunteers elected officials and and whatnot and it's hard work but by the same token um you have a lot on your plate and I I really think the due diligence portion needs to be there I don't know how many times I I sound like a broken record but I'm going to say it we need to do our due diligence so uh thank you very much and actually that's all I have to contribute for this evening thank you okay thank you Loren um Sarah do you have another comment or is your hand just up from before oh sorry now I'll take that down thank you thank you um can I make a comment on some of their comments just that I had raised it years ago to the Town Administrator I think through the planning board but um for the town really to look to having an economic development plan um right on our planning board website one of our roles is to strengthen the local economy um and perhaps this uh you know looking at mixed use is is a step towards that but I would you know with all these grants and everything else um why have we not engaged in an economic development plan that would um benefit the town so I'd like to throw that out there um that that is discussed I mean again that's a um a part of what the planning board is supposed to do okay thank you um close short the other issues that we had talked about bringing to town meeting or in the near whether it's spring or fall are the flood plane bylaw I think uh correct if I'm wrong Mark that the state still hasn't issued the uh no since me yes so in the last few weeks they did Issue one portion of what they were supposed to do which is the uh draft regulations so that we can work on however they still haven't released the maps so the updated map supposed to be released by I remember correctly the end of this month or early uh February they're supposed to be released so hopefully by um so I should be able to send around the draft of the the is it a model bylaw or is a draft regulations yeah I'd have I think it's a model bylaw so um that we kind of have to adopt so um but uh I will get that if you can give us a summary at the next meeting that yeah the next meeting hopefully I'll even have a draft to for you okay so Mark is that different than the 2020 model bylaw yes okay so it's going be like 2025 yeah it's it's it's 2020 the date on it is 2024 but we need to adopt it and so they just completed the last round of changes to make it compliance some of these things it's like realistically you're GNA do all these things yes just sort of you know you have to fun the town too I mean it's just sort of a I mean the other thing guess sort of as you as you talk is maybe uh if you think about commercial on first floor in Flint Lane just maybe uh there's a me there would be a June toown meeting instead of waiting all the way to November that we could think about that as a I don't know I'm just thinking out loud okay um the zoning introduction needs a that's just a procedural thing I think we have that graph so zoning introduction is already you have a two-page introduction to the zoning which is um little bit includes a lot and the problem is it also includes um things that are no longer the case such as requiring 2/3 vot by town meeting for zoning change well there's been a law adopted since that says you only need 50% so that ction is in contrary to zoning and a lot of the introduction just reiterates various state laws so rather than reiterate those I mean they really should be removed because as you saw state laws change so you really don't need all that langage it's just uh redundant and can cause the problems that's fairly procedural right we could just ask KY L right we didn't we have a new one or was it just no no no we just for the um was in the packet for the um for the uh MBTA task force but we are worried that by including it in the uh zoning amendments would would trigger so we had we had just an amendment just to change that one section but not to really kind of go through that and go and is that really important right now no it's not necessarily important maybe maybe what would be important is to remove the section right now that is contrary to the current state law um I have a comment on the zoning bylaws and the recodification um there were pieces taken out asking us to rely on the state laws which means every time a variance comes before the zba I have to go to the state code to find out what the rules are and for a volunteer board that's not acceptable and that we need to have the state stuff in these bylaws um instead of having the zba having to go multiple different places does it reference in the bylaws the new bylaw or just no does it reference the the law it has absolutely nothing regard it just says we have the right to Grant variances but and so then we have to go to the state to find out what the rules are for granting a variance but interestingly the introduction it says um rights acquired under a variance shall lap lapse if they are not exercised within one year right so we don't have that anywhere else in the bylaw except for in the introduction right soate the variance yeah the variance piece was taken out the section on variance under Administration was taken out and I don't know what else was taken out but it's it's all I'm saying is I know Mark doesn't like to have the state stuff in our bylaws but you go a resident comes and asks you a question you have to send them to the state I know bylaw it's it's it's not customer friendly and it's not board friendly I wonder if there could be an appendix that that lists the current state laws that are referred to in the in the bylaws you just go to that because the state laws do change and it's that's okay well it's okay except they're wrong but then you're then quoting a wrong piece of bylaw when you stud your rules they should be amended so I I think there's been and as we're going through this list now there's a fair amount that is um still needs redoing changing whatever for recodification I think as a board we do need to kind of step back and go through this with SRA things that were taken out shouldn't have been taken out things are in the wrong place or Etc um it's not user friendly we theend the um I always get the terms Mi up but the um like table of contents and the appendix the index yeah index thank you don't um exactly um so it's there's a lot to change in this and that the typos and everything else so as we keep piling on onto something that is the Willer Beast not great um we're making things worse and so I don't know why we wouldn't just step back for 10 minutes 10 minutes um take a step back and write some of the wrongs that we know are there it's messy go ahead Laur if those things can be documented cataloged is it possible that we could ask Mark to have staff you know kind of um take a pass that I just worry about this at the being a good use of the board's time to get into if it's mostly non-substantive it has consequences certainly and it needs to be organized and you know whatever grammatical things that have Subs consequences addressed but I doesn't seem like maybe number one it's not a good use of our time number two we're not going to make it more efficient by seven of us talking about it at that level detail maybe right so there there are technical things that you do know of well but if the there are technical things that would be non overly controversial that would take a lot of time and you can send me the old version and why this is confusing or wrong and it wasn't meant to be for example like D2 will'll discuss next and whether we should fix it or just take it out completely is could be a short discussion and and probably would be a very short forign article so so yeah if you do know of stuff send it to me at least we can put it on a list and and if it's something short um we can put it on for the and if it's something that all of a sudden becomes a big long discussion it'll be you know fix it in the fall perhaps so because we do have a a limited time now have specific things that we need to bring them forward a couple things but uh unfortunately you know the board did try to hire a consultant and we all know how that you know process uh went and one of the challenges we I think learned is that the consultant felt that we could I think delete the zoning bylaw and insert the new one but so in its comprehens and then there were errors in what was presented to us I think we can all agree that there was some shortcomings in that material some of which we adopted with you know we hired a consultant to do it so you know we we not for lack of trying um because I think a lot of time has been spent to try to remedy things so if there are important things that are still uh you know and then at some point I think when the sting is still off we're going to have to do the the rewrite that should be done um to to fix you know but until then I think it's kind of certainly for spring we're not going to handle it right um so if you have we should keep our list and um but send them to right so the next one that is on the list is the zoning D2 uh class clarification so I went Mark was like where did this come from so I sent him the old I found the old zoning in the mark barowski folder and D2 was 100 feet back from the road um on the the heater heater um on the inside or the outside the in no on the outside on the street on yeah stre yeah so pool street it's only on one side right yeah yeah so um then we uh just put it on a map and deleted the language um so now and and I don't think that has uh moved fully to the assessor there's a lot of confusion D2 was created in the 80s 91 I think or 9 okay but nonetheless um I think we need to find what was voted on at town meeting I think I have that I have a um like the copies from the papers downlo um well I assume it's the language that was in the zoning the old zoning should yes had the old zoning got there somehow talking about the whole purpose behind it purpose behind it okay so um so I think Sarah you have made the case that we should just merge D1 and D2 and call it the recommendation is to eliminate D2 based on the theory that we've just passed the mdta zoning which is creating multifam districts and the D2 is very poorly crafted it has not been enforced properly over the years and that if you want to rezone rezone the areas don't just try to take 100 feet from the street and have a different zoning that's and so my recommendation is to eliminate everything to do with D2 at this point in time so you does eliminate me would yeah so you would move D1 and D2 become a d District no they become eliminate D2 they become a b or an A or whatever it was they already are they already have an underlying zoning District yes they do so that's that's theage all district a and D2 is only the first 100 feet between the street but that's why we did the amendment for the MBTA because they don't have that underlying so yes they do M so um so whatever say is that what we would have to do in order to eliminate D2 because the current zoning map shows D2 as as a district there's no language that says it's an overlay District in the bylaw right it do so overlay no language that says it's so if it was originally was an overlay District or 100 ft only and it was a base Zone only 100 ft back doesn't really matter currently there's a map that shows 100 district and so the way to correct that if you wanted to remove the G2 District would be to adopt a new map without that showing and pushing the whatever zone is behind the 100 feet up to the up to the road up to the road and that would be the way of correcting it is to remove the language and and adop a new EV um you know if you wanted to keep it as an overlay Zone then you would adopt a new map that would show the same thing but you would adopt overlay District map or you fix the language in here to say it's an overlay district and it's 100 ft but the the problem with the whole zone is again it was based on the structures that existed in 1991 when it was passed um and that's just a really poor way to do zoning as time goes on um so the only way you could do the two family you know so so people would buy two lots together and be able to make four units because two per existing structure you didn't have to keep the structure but it it's just it it's very complicated I believe the condos that were built up on the Pleasant Street section towards School Street are not legal because they went more than 100 feet back well they're not legal because they're not attached right yeah but you know so that I think it's just a very complicated it's a very complicated zoning thing and I just since we have the multi if we want to add multi more multif family housing to different sections do it as multif family housing not as this convoluted is this something we can do in the spring it sounds more complicated even than the downtown yeah no it's not that complicated well so then are you saying that so take Pine Street um that because the district behind those lots is a that if anybody wanted to um so say there's a vacant laot where are you where on Pine let's just pick Pine not in the MBTA Overland let's pick it by there are no let's just say um or somebody takes a house down and wants to let me think about this but but whatever so now you've got a is a much bigger lot requirement and different setbacks and and a was there I'm just wait I'm just asking no but let me explain all of the districts that are there were created before the D2 was put on top so every lot in Pine Street was in District a and theoretically needed 22,500 square feet for a lot and this is merely just a segment to say we're going to allow two family houses within 100 feet of the street right and but the way the bylaw reads is it's not an overlay it's now a new District so I'm just trying to say that so if somebody either took down a house you know say we passed something like this somebody took down a house now they have different setback requirements if it's a and if it was D2 they had to have a house that was built before D2 went in in order to do anything no I'm saying what if we pass something like this what you're describing right yeah we get D2 right now it's a so it's the way it was before D2 was question it was exactly the way it was before D2 was add okay and all the houses had to be built before D2 was added so the simple thing to do if it is if is simple is simply to change the map and to If you eliminate the two on the map yeah then you don't even have to change the language because there would be no no no you have to eliminate you have to eliminate all the references to D2 and the bylaw as well you because then that would be confusing even more so so we'd have to change the use table yep we'd have to touch it everywhere that it touches in the bylaw okay is that um a fall town meeting or is it I'm thinking fall I've got to talk to the Assessor about yeah getting map change records are all wrong I know that yeah and then going this trying to figure out how much is okay it may not be a lot but it would be a lot to take up at a time meeting where we're also passenger buts yeah that's I agree with that I think we push this one because it's confusing it's also a even though it's actually quite simple it's potentially but on the other hand I think your point is that we've got multif family we don't need to have it well and we've never had a D2 project come before the zba without an enormous number of complaints yeah from the abutters yeah so and it's always been by Developers so it's not popular with the residents maybe if we don't do commercial we'll do that one trade one off okay um and site plan review applicability what was that one um so right now your site plan review um what kick it off is adding more than a certain number of parking spaces almost every other city in Down py plan view is kicked off by the size of the development so if you're building multifam three or more units usually that kicks off site plane review that does with the CHS yeah if you're exactly that's that's why we did that um also if you are um building commercial for um and I've seen bylaws everywhere from like 500 square F feet of additional commercial space up to you know 1,500 is usually some sort of small amount they're allowed to do without having a go to site plan review um like if a store needs to build a little addition in the back for another walk in cooler something like that that doesn't usually kick off site plan but um so there's usually some sort of number that kicks off site plan review for commercial development as well as alteration for commercial purposes like if someone has a big wood lot and they clear in several Acres that usually doesn't kick it off but if it's commercial property that they're going to um permit for do some some work on then going to alter more than an acre or half an acre depending on the community they have different sizes so that that often takes off site plan reviews so that if they're let's say building than a parking lot or a park temporary Park like beach parking someone elens a lot they want to do Beach parking with a shuttle then that would they're not building a building but they're doing land alteration then that would kick off site plan so the site current site plan applicability any new development expansion or change of use other than single family or two family residents which would under the parking schedule require five or more parking spaces regardless of the number of parking spaces pre-existing that's the only trigger plus the the new multif family so that seems to me to be a fairly simple um you know that's a number one add two and three for applicability so can you draft something yep I mean and that is consistent with the um lot increasing oversight over of that seems to be fairly simple to so do we want want site plan review on the byright adus they mention that if you do site plan review on the adus you have to do every resident yeah so what you have to do with a single family yeah I don't think that would be too popular no no I might not be a bad idea you want to be net any other uh comments from the public on um uh potential zoning changes for Springtown meeting not seeing any okay um discussion of General bylaws uh on driveway entrance fire department thing well um so if you recall we put the review of bylaws into the general bylaws from Z and um we had some criteria um and then we did regulations we did um I believe passed the regulations in December of 2023 I don't know if they ever got properly so posted um I sent anything so they were yes so what you sent me was actually dated January 8th and they were passed on January 22nd um but yes they were discussed on the yeah okay the date you said but uh uh so they were ad passed at that time um and so thises this has come up for a couple of reasons one is that um it seems that there are on occasions um curb cuts which is not driveway entrances curb cuts that have seem to be falling slipping through the cracks where um and the um by the general bylaw doesn't not have a provision under any circumstance for two curb cuts to a property I think well it's vague it's vague it's vague because it says one curb cut but then it talks about a special permit it doesn't say it's for second entrances so certainly if a if a property is going to have two entrances or it's not perpendicular to the or the criteria then it is supposed to come to us for uh special permit and that in some cases has not happened and so I think what Greg has advised is that um when we are aware of a circumstance where that's the case the planner needs to notify the land the owner and tell them they need to come for a special permit um and even if the the driveway is already built and we need to remind uh the DPW and the building inspector that that's the case that's the first thing and then if there are modifications or clarifications then we should make those as well but that so those are kind of two separate things one is enforcement um and Greg has advised because we are the special permit granting Authority when we see one that should have a special permit there was a correspondence about 126 School Street um [Music] uh that went that came to us or at least came to me and to Mark did it came to everybody okay um so um I think that um on the very um at least on that issue um we should issue a uh so if you haven't looked at 126 School Street they had a um long driveway that went alongside their house and you had to back out onto School Street they went somehow uh created a uh loop so that they could pull out onto School Street that loop around by the front door but it created a second curb cut I'm not sure how they did that without you know like did they just I don't know what happened to the sidewalk I haven't looked in detail about the sidewalk or the actual curb or the slopes or anything I just have driven by it um so it seems to me that that case is uh should have come to the planning board as a special permit and that we should send them a letter at the very least um so um is anybody have an objection to that so could you go through what the process is again who so if a resident neighbor whomever says hey my neighbor's putting in a driveway and I don't think it's legal they go to the town planner and then the town planner contacts the resident and then they come here and is is it the DPW that then inspects the curb cut after it's done I know they do it when they are the approving Authority but do they do it when the planning board is the special permit I just don't know what the process yeah so they're it it basically says all new and relocated driveway entrances for all land uses shall require a permit issued by the Department of Public Works so the Department of Public Works issues driveways uh um but then later it says there shall be not more than one APR in curb cut per residential lot so to do a second one um is it's it's basically silent I think further down I don't have it in front of me it says yeah if the if it's something that the DPW can't perm it they send it to the planning that's cor yeah so but that's a case if they went to the DPW if somebody doesn't go to the DPW and so it's just an illegal driveway and a neighbor says Hey where's your permit and there's no permit I'm just trying to figure out where is it laid out out for residents to know what the process is and for planning board members to know what the process it's not well President should go to DPW if it's a driveway and DPW should say not our problem send it planning B well but I thought Sarah just said go to the town planner that's why I'm trying to question the process I think that in the case of one this particular one it's obvious that it didn't come to us and it's obvious you can drive by it however we find out about it can look at it that it has under your regulations they have to go to DPW first and DPW denied permit in writing so if they didn't go to DPW then DPW needs to you know maybe it's Chuck and and Mark need to reach out to this land this homeowner and say you didn't get a permit yeah and the permit and they go andw and DP denies it and it comes here so I so who's the enforcement in town though so like the billing inspector the is the enforcer for Zoning for zoning and so if he drives by a house and was like whoa I didn't approve that but does DPW because they drive around town do they see driveways that they didn't permit and say hey you got to you know what's the communication iaw is silent on yeah that is silent so in talking with Greg today about it he his opinion was this should be moved to the zoning bylaw still no well that because because uh the you already have an enforcement officer and that uh and that some of the language should be clarified as well if that were the case every town would do it that way and they don't well we just move this to the I know you do I I I fully understand we're not perfect yes we'll be the only town that does it that way but no because I I researched that so did I but well most towns don't have PL [Music] boards permits for driveways it's all it's all handled administratively by public works well that and that's I have a sheet I consented you it's I'm sure I'm sure there are other communities but the number of communities is probably rather small I know Laura has a point but my my question on this particular case is they cut the sidewalk there a side I believe no there's there is no sidewalk right onto school okay so they they had so they didn't Cur no curve yeah okay all right ahead I was only going to say that um in this I mean this regulation says uh town clerk fors the application of DBW copy sent to the building inspector the building inspector is generally our enforcement agent then why not have all that kind of Correspondence come from the building inspector DPW seems like the wrong ad yeah to be because Paul Orlando sent an email saying he is does not enforce C Cuts maybe he doesn't now maybe maybe he should be the enforcement agent for well and then Greg said he doesn't so that's why I didn't see any of those correspondence I was just trying to finish my train of thought that said maybe the building inspector is the right place for enforcement letters citations and things to come from rather than do I get it from the DPW do I get it from the planning board do I get it from the CVA maybe it's just the building inspector might be a practice that we could consider in in conversation with the building inspector obviously we did get one appeals to the zba we did get the DPW had issued yeah can I suggest at least that you mark sit down with Chuck and the building inspector to start and say at least like until we change this how do we enforce this and how do we become notified and at least figure out how to use what we have to achieve the outcomes that we are intending which is DPW oversight unless it doesn't meet the criteria and then it comes to the planning board that was the intent um for safety and you know would in order but um clearly and and it does seem to me personally that DPW probably could notice that there's on a Main Street like it's pretty obvious that that one I don't know maybe it went in overnight I don't know no they certainly found ice on the street that a contractor had pumped onto the street and they took action on it I mean so they drive around all the time and they know what's going on right but but um but but maybe the person who found the ice on the street is not this CH grenade I don't know was DPW people I know but somebody called in the blank so um so maybe we can start with Mark and CH and Paul having a conversation and try to figure out what the right course of action is and on this particular case do you guys talk figure out I'm just going to send them a letter and then let's have them follow the process and not just ignore it what we don't want to do is have people just ignoring the process whether it's a good process or not if it's a bad process we should change it but we do have we've we labored over this many too many hours if you ask me but um yeah so okay so that is that a good Next Step okay um next topic is open meeting so the the fire chief sent um documents of how this was just in the meeting packet so I don't know what the context or what the email was but what the fire chief is saying on here looking for does not match what's in our bylaw so I think it merits a discussion at some point I think should happen if his requirements are less strict than what's in the bylaw we don't have to do anything no more strict they're more strict then I think we have to probably change our regulations so we have a minimum by minimum width of 8 feet and he and this says 10 feet and then um and if it's 100 feet or more it's 12 you know so so our numbers are off and so I would like to engage with him and um you know he's the expert so I think that is a bylaw that's going to I think March is will be with the fire chief and I'll add him to the list okay good night and good luck thank you you don't want to form a task force on come back for breakfast okay um the next um item on the um agenda is an open meeting law complaint from Mary Foley dated January 8th um we acknowledge the re receipt of that complaint um we need to review it and uh possible response so in your packet is the complaint uh town council's uh advice um and a draft uh response um the open meeting law does require that we uh discuss it in public within 14 days of receipts that it qualifies and um you've read you have access to material um Mary do you want to uh say anything sure um so I did not submit it earlier because I didn't want the planning board to have to make an emergency meeting over the holidays um but when these two c uh site visits were um discussed um I think that was the meeting I I missed and I got an email saying that they these were going to happen and so I looked for the um public meeting posting and there was none so I emailed the town planner and the chair of the planning board and said these meetings need to be posted the planning board has always posted site marks and I was told that they do not um so I did not attend those site walks because in my opinion it's an open meeting law violation I um first and foremost submitted the open meeting law request because I did try to get the meeting posted and I was told we they just simply weren't going to post it my concern is the lack of transparency and open government for residents to attend these this is why we've always posted them um to attend these site walks and observe and ask questions if they want to um Seven Central I'm sure will be um greatly discussed with residents as I get many many many many questions um so residents have no idea these things are happening um so that's first and foremost why I did this is because I don't think we are serving the way we should be um I reached out to the Attorney General's office via email and um this is with the resp respon I won't read all of it but I'm happy to SP it um a public body must post notice of all meetings GLC 3A section 20b um the open meeting law defines meeting as a deliberation by a public body with respect to any matter within the body's jurisdiction um the um uh let's see I'm just trying to skip um they Define um um deliberating which is defined broadly in the law including by asking questions during the site visit then the site visit must be open and accessible to the public and notice must be posted I noticed in the response that Sarah had drafted that perhaps a quum of planning board members did not show up um but when the meeting was scheduled and planned of course we assume just like with a planning board meeting that a quorum will show up so if a quorum is there and planning board me Members ask questions um and as they say in the email to me all site walks should be posted public meetings so um yeah those are my concerns that we're not doing what we've always done again for the past eight plus years and now all of a sudden we're not letting residents know what the planning board is doing okay thank you um as you can see from the advice from Council the um she said sidewalks uh it's in her opinion that sidewalks actually do not need to be posted I think Mary is correct that we have historically posted them um and um so um so like a any other uh I think we can intend to post them there may be circumstances that um make it more difficult to post them I'm not sure this is one of this I can't remember the circumstances of this particular one but you know uh something comes up at the last minute or somebody uh wants their Pro property to be private in terms of a s sidewalk is another example that the council gave us um and I just also want to point out that that we didn't make any decisions at a nor do we ever make decisions at a sidewalk we um make the decisions in um the hearing which is posted so it's posted on you know as a public meeting and also hearing uh special permits or um permits are noticed so they do have a higher level of notice than our than tonight's meeting for example so I think it's unfair to say that the public doesn't have an opportunity to comment on the matter at hand in the case of nine Proctor Street for example we opened a public hearing we closed a public hearing we made a decision um and we heard from a neighbor um at that at that hearing so an example of that that a um uh a neighbor was did participate in the process so um I'll say about that I guess I would like uh authority to send the response to Mary Foley um as drafted I'd like a motion for that Mo second any other discussion all in favor okay um Mary standing standing than yeah because it I mean I I me to be transparent I will get that and then I um my complaint again because of the not wanting to call an emergency meeting was at 31 or 32 meetings and said at the 30 so now people listening will know since they didn't know that the site plans weren't posted so um I'm sure there'll be open meeting law violations submitted and I will submit mine to the attorney general um I didn't hear that the planning board felt bad about not being open and transparent and would of course post public meetings and so disappointing for me um uh you know we're here for the residents not for our own conveniences so I'll pursue it so I would just like to say I was really sad to see this open meeting law filed um it it just seems like part of the tension that we have on the planning board and that perhaps is perceived by people watching our meetings is we don't attempt to um bring this up in a cordial way and have a discussion about it um and to me that would have been the right way to handle this particularly in light of the response we received from Council that um site plan site walks do not have legally they do not have to be posted regardless of what past practice has been um so I I I'm sad that you took that route I will say that Mary did email Mark and me her concern in advance of the uh of them sidewalk yeah so I did try to take the cord way and say you know we need to pose for this um I'm taking guidance from the attorney general I know I can appreciate that Town Council um looks out for the town and doesn't want to expose the town I if taking the Attorney General's advice on this one um and and the timing of meetings wouldn't allow me to discuss it at a meeting and then have time to submit an open meeting law violation so if we had met two weeks after that I would have brought it up there but the timing wasn't there um and so yeah I I think I did my due diligence and trying to get it posted but it didn't happen well I think so let me just check a little bit so in many cities and towns they don't different boards some do some don't even here some do some don't post we had one posted site visit which was the CST uh since I've been here um uh didn't seem I wasn't aware there being a policy that the planning board uh does post all s visits some boards do like CBA and others don't so um I think it'd be better if we just discussed right now I still don't have a direction you haven't discussed whether you want to follow town councils uh I haven't seen that email so I you're taking perhaps I I don't know what context it's all written in and what was sent to the AG and how he responded so I don't want to say he is Bri council is right but there's you know um Bo should discuss whether moving forward you want to post sign business I did ask the council if we should commit in the letter back to Mary um to post s sidewalks in the future um I don't have a problem with posting them um and she advised that we should not in writing commit to something that on some occasions is difficult or people are sick or I mean the dates of posting are can be challenged you know post postings get messed up and that given that it is in her opinion one of the exemptions for posting she said but I think from my perspective we should try to post sidewalks as in other communities I've been in and it's smaller communities knows where where these applications are and often times the applicants already been in once and people stop by on their own to take a look at it and so um you almost never get a quorums even if you do arrange then don't that you're GNA go out there so laa yeah just the way it seemed from the perspective of one planning board member in terms of the practice of how we set up the meeting my recollection is that we discussed it at at the end of one of these um public meetings not a public hearing but a regular meeting in which we were all on the record and we discussed the desire for a site walk at these two properties and we talked about let's try to set them up for the same day it was on a Friday morning people generally seemed an agreement and then um so those members who were at the meeting talked about it agreed on a date that worked for most people and then I think an email followed and some of us showed up at the at the at the meeting um a small number of us which seemed to me at the time like how every other site meeting goes I think the CST one was different because that felt more formal and we had a formal presentation from the consultants and all that we all walk together but um at the time sometimes I can't go to a site meeting because it conflicts with my other um you know take time responsibilities but this one I could and were just a few people so it just didn't it didn't feel any different to me at that time and I don't even remember thinking about um is this sort of you know are we taking some different route because it felt very much like the regular way of doing things now if you don't mind i' like to modify our letter to make that point that we did set the date in a public meeting yeah that's my that's my recollection it is I'll look at remember that good good think you okay um but I think it it's my opinion that when we count that we should try to post sidewalks um but that we understand from our Council that it's not a requirement but we can't deliberate I don't think we you know I think a clarifying question about what tree is where is quite different than you know I think the thing that makes me sad about this is that uh there's an implication that we're somehow trying to conduct business behind the scenes which is just not the case and I guess I feel hurt and a little bit resentful that people think that um and I guess we just have to do better to appear to be as as transparent as we can be certainly doesn't help I think it doesn't help when accusations like this are made which is unation it's it's a it's a planning board member or a resident whichever one you want to take saying hey you know we've had standard practice of always posting to let residents know and and be there and and now all of a sudden we're not and it's for a a property that we have not even opened a hearing for yet so people don't even know it's on the radar um I think especially that address would get some interest for people to show up and we're not giving them an opportunity and so again when the AG's office said yes we consider asking questions as deliberation then um you know no I understand through all of my time here said open and transparent and we're here for the residents and etc etc and you know I don't go around getting my feelings hurt so easily but I would look get it more that that um Can Do Better we should do better and why wouldn't we okay thank you um are there any uh I'm going to move on to the next topic um any liaison reports I can say the downtown improving March March participate they are all over the idea of retail downtown Boston with gar on as you might imagine it's was it was a good hour and a half discussion back and for Mark was dying on the end of the phone but he was he stuck his way through we talk about Resident residential commercial on the first floor if you build it they don't necessarily come gar stated multiple exam examples of how that is not the case or that is the case that you may building he's had many buildings he's done that said you have to build residential above and you have to put retail on the first floor nobody occupied he actually what they move in they moved in some they moved a the town Department into some of the residential into the retail units just so they could have some activity at the storefront so it's it's very much we got a little bit the conversation actually was was quite Vivid it was great discussion Marlene was on the phone talking about signage and her difficulty with that and residential and Commercial and it was and they all came marleene actually at the end of the meeting just said we got to do something about this we just can't keep talking about it week after week month after month how do we do that let's get bathrooms downtown let's make it a priority along D like get it done so it was it was quite good okay good the CPC is meeting this Thursday we have list of applications for CPC funding the list is on the website would encourage you to look at it and um we make our preliminary recommendations I think after the meeting one of which is that done one of the downtown improvements well so the lighting do you know about you're talking about the lighting I know I know about the LI I definitely do great P we were sorry about that but um the harbor management committee is sort of finished its uh work doing a gathering input through surveys got actually like 400 survey responses um and then public forums um and now will be sort of between now and sort of June July um kind of coming up with uh recommendations so this is sort of now the real work um our next meeting is Wednesday the 20 what 20 1 when next Wednesday 21st 22nd second uh 22nd um um uh virtual and um in person so anybody's interested any other zba has not met for a while we meet also on the 22nd okay anything else okay great um cor respondents I think we already went over uh any other public comment none um i' so as part of the correspondence um we did get the email from Elizabeth Thomas that I think the board should discuss um about the blasting and the special permit conditions so okay nobody's so we all got the same email um a couple emails and I only I'm sorry but I only saw one I'm I early blast before they right before Christmas four days if I correct it was 4 days before Christmas and it was 20 minutes of 10 yes I'm I do I remember that correctly yeah so it was one blast so yes that's my understanding too and um the so we had done the um special permit with conditions of blasting between hours of 10 and two and I guess the residents over there got a text saying a blast would happened at 9:20 and it ended up happening at 9:30 um so again I'm you know going from her email um and then she sent the second one with some of the documentation of of when the blast occurred um that's what they see that second did you get the second one did you get I don't remember I don't get second one remember that first but I'll look again um but anyway as a board I um I don't know if the town is doing anything um and so since this is our special permit and we put the conditions in um what do we do what does the town do when a special permit condition is violated I don't know what this town has done in the past but usually other communities the building inspector in charge of enforcement would approach the uh a party and um and asked them to correct it in this particular case the fire chief talked to U CST who um indicated that they would not do any blasting until after 10 so so moving forward that's been corrected someone didn't relay the planning board condition to main Drilling and Blasting so that's was my understanding so I think the question so I think if we take it as factual that there was a blast before 10 based on the email we received um and that we previously had had CST say we wouldn't be last before 10 and it was a condition in the permit that they are were still getting the final attachments to but nonetheless I think we can agree that CST knew that blasting should not occur before 10 the question I think before us is if we if we assuming that that's the case is it a uh a violation that warrants um some sort of an action and what would that be there's a you're saying that there's an action that reminding them usually the action is don't do it again or correct whatever it is whether it's a drainage problem or because often times towns with lots of site plans it's things like drainage or other types of things that are in violation and you know you approach them and ask them to correct it and hopefully they do and that's the end of it and so in this case the fire department has reached out to CST and formed the blasting company that it's 10:00 is is people and out to blast before 10 so um so correction corrective action has happened so from the correspondence the the residents have not been um so it sounds like maybe the town talk to CST would that be Paul Orlando no it's the fire chief the fire chief is the one who so then when does it get conveyed to the concerned residents that send emails that this is what transpired and this um this is the fix so to speak um I there just doesn't seem to be communication then back to the residents that have had a complaint I talk to the I mean like poor Elizabeth said in her email she's like she feels like she's talking to herself and I would have to agree to her I guess from these responses it do sound like she's talking to herself um I just think we can do so much better with communication um you know residents are sending emails and I had not checked my emails all during the holidays and so it was two weeks or so after she had sent it I was under the broad assumption that she had heard many responses because it was to the select board and the planning board and that the town had resolved the issue and she said she had heard from nobody so I mean we keep saying oh we want people to send us emails and tell us you know what they're thinking or ideas or complaints or whatever else and then we just ignore them um uh Chief MCN uh go ahead MCN hi good evening um just to weigh in on this um the initial email I got uh from Miss Thomas was to state that it was a violation of the Route 128 blasting within the footage of the highway that required a special DOT permit the blasting that occurred on the 20th was not part of that special permit it was outside of that area um and the fire department was not aware of the special permit um from the planning board uh we do have a detail on site every day um and going forward I can tell you that we will be sure that um the planning board special project or special permit requirements are met and can you communicate that back to miss Thomas yes I believe that's already been done I can confirm that's been the case okay great thank you and then what's what is the planning board's communication process when we do a special permit or conditions to get to the right Town departments to the fire to the police once it's reported with the um the clerk then copies are distributed to the appropriate um department so um so if it's like something approving a new driveway or roadway that would be distributed Public Works um something uh a site plan that involves large site plan like this you would pretty much copy all departments so that they're aware of it um so again it would happen at that point we're still waiting on one of the attachments that goes along with the approval so it hasn't been filed and distributed and that's where the chief didn't know about holiday yeah the 10 the 10 CL right so can I ask one and thank you for that bioch Chief um can I ask one followup question so we're regulated on number of days where this has to be filed with the Town Clerk and then with the um Register of Deeds so if that's the process the firein chief would have had this mid December so I think the um and I'm just looking at the the mask of chart for this so if if the special permit was approved on November 25th two weeks from that would get you to you know the first second week first week in December and then the 20 days to the clerk so it would be like December 13th or whatever so why didn't that process happen um we're waiting on U some of the attachments in order to file it with the clerk so so we haven't even filed yet no so holidays we had sickness we had we're waiting for attachments from no I understand all that but I mean the law is the law it says 14 days right so what does the town do when they're just out out of compliance with that um unless the applicant is my understanding is that unless the applicant wants to challenge that the fact that we haven't filed the approval within a certain day um if they don't then um the town once we file the approval um then that's effective so this case the applicant has being cooperative and always has been ever since they f the original application so they're doing their best to get us the information so they can't do anything until it gets to the registry of deeds is that correct so are they just on hold except for the blasting yeah well they're not doing much they're not doing anything mle REM I mean I think realistically you have the holidays you have I mean the law is the law but you have the holidays we had e the um uh eohc filing was December thir December 18th I think something like that so in reality this um it's a it's an understandable um and Mark has been working on it we've been so are you done can I ask one other question um so what is the expectation of us when we receive an email from a resident as far as responsing in the capacity of a member of the planning board is there an expectation a requirement is there anything not a requirement there's a I mean what what should we do what should be the well there's a we can't all respond right and we should not we should not respond individually and if we do we can only do it personally and say not on behalf of the planning board right yeah the planning board can only act if at a meeting we all say we'll we'll like Mark to draft the response and authorize her assignment otherwise we're just acting on our own behalfs yeah I think that it is it is my opinion that it is kind of unreasonable for people to expect a response to everything I we get you know on some topics we get a lot of emails you know um so I think it's uh actually um you know a little bit unfortunate because I understand that you know people want but you know think about how many emails we receive about you know we received on the MBTA zoning and I read them all I mean we um I don't know that's it's a hard it's a it's a hard issue in so I think that's why it's I've been pushing it's important to talk about them at the meeting so that we are addressing we're getting acknowledging acknowledge them I mean yeah I think yes go ahead Laura it seems to me that the planning board makes a special condition and that gets you know drafted in a final decision but then this is an issue of enforcement right and so it whether that be the fire chief or the building inspector and the building inspector you know points it to the fire chief that seems like having a clear um route for residents to go to take a complaint now something is you know it's gone through the planning board the planning more B decision put these conditions in but the conditions aren't being met there should be a clear route to say to the building inspector I see a violation here and then the building inspector you know perhaps we need to have BS when the rather than just say like oh I'm sorry I didn't you know didn't mistakes happen I understand that but there can also be consequences in terms of fines and um things that put a little bit more um uh you know a little bit more of a stick about let's be careful because CST did know the uh rules they could have immediately put those into their standard operating procedure the contractor should have communicated that with their subs can you add that to the list of the DPW Paul Orlando meeting and the fire chief and report back to us on on that I think that's a good point Laur okay any other um items like a motion to to uh motion to adour um all in favor okay so going forward we are going to have some homework a some of these things Mar we have the same list thank you so our next meeting is our next meeting in two weeks 27 and then will it be every two weeks or depends on the month it's it's the second and fourth okay all right and that's the whole year looks like it's and I think um we don't Monday holidays are not the second and fourth for either President Day or Lu really for walking at night let me tell you be you y that's the point