okay we're back um and we were just talking about the um I think we left off with planting PL the the point that we don't have a planting plan have planting plan yet
yeah do you me to put my back up I think we have the have the plan that's okay I think we have the plan right yeah we would definitely be open um we definitely want to get a landscape architect involved um we see it that that's very important we need to be
aesthetically pleasing regarding the grading though the grading design was dictated by the fire department uh maximum slope so we can tweak it but we've already done building relocations in those numerous areas I showed you so um but we definitely want a landscape
architect involved like seeing what type of plantings how we can fill in the naturalized area that's very important to us we we definitely think that we can do that um but we're just trying to get approval to start doing our site work so you're already doing some site work out there now there huge Boulders that have
been excavated or blasted um was there exposed ledge um I'm not aware of I know there were some areas along the driveway where our survey picked up ledge um so I don't I don't recollect if it's been moved or not but once we realized that we were
triggering the special permit we stopped work and we got got into the planning board um I guess I'm also concerned about where these giant holders I mean some of them are really quite large are going to end up like how is that actually
gonna where they going to go if I could make a suggestion for consideration if you're bringing a landscape architect on board to look at planting um I think the landscape architect could also look with with you at grading I know that you're you're saying the fire department set
the grading plan but the fire department didn't do the grading they just gave you the requirement your meeting and I do think that it's not as though you're trying to limit the grading to an area that's already Disturbed it's a very heavily Disturbed site now and so that I think that if you brought the landscape
on landcape architect on early enough they could help you massage the grading a little bit and do a planting plan and think about where the boulders might be reused so that the whole thing hangs together a little more looks a little less engineered and and stores some
natural um appearing topography to the site so that would be my suggestion to consider is don't wait and consider it like we'll figure it out at the end I think it would really help your case if you would bring that party on the team now can I make a amend that to say I
don't think it should be a consideration I think it should be a condition of the approval that a landscape architect be brought in within what a month agreed six weeks something we would love to do that and then a plan be presented for approval by the planning board I don't
know a month after that so we we're starting to see uh how the landscape architect is shaping the grading and the planting plan um well I think one of the criteria for the application requirements is
actually how the design features intend to integrate The Proposal into the existing landscape and to preserve the same to enhance the aesthetic and to objectional features so um why don't we take any public comment we do have some other things to get done
tonight um okay go ahead tell us your name and address please yes I am Thomas Frank I live at 195 Summer Street which is proxim across the street property uh given that the the property was clear cut stripped the W
vegetation and half of the chill was uh ripped off of the top uh I said about trying to find out a little bit about the requirements were prior to the meeting today and we learned two things first of all that the applicant was dissolved by the Secretary of State in
2023 so I don't know who we're talking to this evening uh and there's no Mass DP permanent in view from the street so I was unable to find out what that permit was about given that there seems to be a
he a lot of things going on with the environment one would have thought there would be a plan on file you know my purpose here tonight is I think shared by many of the members of the board uh what's it going to look like when it's all done and you know it's really
disturbing to me at this point um you know I'm not an architect I'm not a civil engineer but there were a lot of mature trees taken out uh at the curb on uh Summer Street I think for no reason whatsoever uh I don't I didn't hear you
discussing replacing those that planing diagram all related to the view of the homeowner not to the rest of us uh you know I share the concerns about what this 10 foot wall might look like from the street and so on or from surrounding high points in the
area um and again I'm not a civil engineer uh but using the maximum grade Allowed by the fire department Ono one seems like uh it's predestined to never support any vegetation on that slope um
and I have I share your concern can I comment so the vegetation let's just let let's hear from um the comments and then we can address them their entirely y okay H Christine go ahead hi thanks um Christine delissio six Lincoln
Avenue so um I just tuned in for something else but I did have a question about the storm water I understand that it has gone over to uh DPW and that there's an application and it appears that this would trigger it but when it was with the planning board one of the first
questions we would ask is the storm water so um if this does need to be re-evaluated if you approve this it's going to be almost a day late and a dollar short so what is the procedure for getting that in prior to you approving your
permit do that make sense they need a it appears that they need a DPW permit for storm water and so when are you going to check that box with yours and your landscape sloping and Retention Ponds
and whatnot because there isn't a Butters notification involved with that application thank you I'll answer that I don't know that we have determined that a storm water permit is triggered or not but that would be a question that we you want to
ask um you yeah so the common drive has been approved by DP it's under file number 039 d088 so under the uh previous lot it had been approved that's for the common
Drive yes have you done storm water yeah anything for storm water related to the lot itself um we just did the design for the maxim extent practicable on the uh infiltration trench um where whereas
we're outside the buffer zones and we're I don't believe we need any dap filing but you don't need but you need a DPW per storm water permit you have to I mean I think the isn't the standard that you have to your post construction has
to be not exceed your preconstruction rates and for a single family dwelling you don't have technically no it doesn't well the the the only thing is that what you need to do is check with the public works department the town did adopt
recently adopt a new storm waterer bylaw and so it's administrative review by public work you need to make sure that what you're proposing is consistent with what they can approve and that you trip not certain
whether you actually trip something needing their approval but you should check before um you know this this approval would be final yeah single family dwellings by the M storm water handbook
are exempt but I'm not sure about the local VI that's discussed the last town meeting so that's that's what you need to check was you trip our local but was this added in the last town meeting yes yes so this is and I'm not familiar or
two yeah it was yeah because it was um and it was just approved by the AG this week so it was um yes so it was done by public work so you need to check with them check you know whether you need to
maybe you don't yeah we can check might be somewhat consistent with the state Norm so okay so I'm going to suggest that we continue this I think we have some outstanding questions we don't know we we need to have you talk to DBW as
well Y and see if we have a need a storm water permit and um uh and then um I think Laura is suggesting that we have a landscape architect um try to to soften this up a little bit
and to come up with a planting plan that's appropriate for um for these steep SL and grating so planting plan seems like we could condition a a special permit on that but if it's going to change the grading plan then that then that
um uh the other possibility on this I know it's uh um probably know what you want but we do have the provision to given the the complexity here um we can h a uh a third party at your expense to
review and um this um I assume that you don't want to do that but that is certainly an option I mean this is a tough site so heads there might be better better than than one and I think um speaking for myself um at the
very least I want to see the cement the the wall with the um stones on top of it but I'd also like to think about whether there some of those walls could also be a more natural stone wall kind
of I'd like to add to the wall material choice of refined grading plan and a professional planting plan can we continue thank you are there more comments online keep saying you can't un
anybody else anybody else in the room okay um I'm going to ask the applicant for uh to uh continue this to our next meeting which it's March 4th our client would like to speak is
that yes go ahead should be online trying to he said it couldn't unmute oh uh which one I see maybe quick participants the bottom um should be able to unmute yourself
sorry his name is Can you view more participants hi sorry I can you all hear me now hi my name's Tim Huf I'm the property owner um I was just I just wanted to say a few words um so there I
do I I'd like to talk about like a conditional approval or have that considered if possible um because I have a little bit of a time crunch given the fact that I have four school age children and I'm trying to get you know moved into the home uh in time for them
to attend school at the very beginning of the 2026 2027 school year so in order to do that I was really hoping to you know get a conditional approval so that we could get going on the site work um and kind of continue that and then revisit you
know of the landscape architect and I'm more than happy to you know return to the board in a month or or two months or whatever is deemed a reasonable amount of time with a you know a wellth thought out plan because it is my intention to live there with my family so I don't
want to have something that that is an eyesore or is bothersome to the neighbors or anything like that my my intention is to be you know a part of the community for for the foreseeable future once once I move in so I just wanted to kind of toss that
out there I think we can appreciate uh your um time strength but I think um my sense is that the Board needs to see some more details here know whether you're going to need a storm water permit and rest assured that it's being
addressed and that um that we need to be able to understand the planting on the site a little bit more so I think if you come back with a more specific plan in two weeks with um planting plan and um Clarity on the
storm water we able to do a conditional I don't think grading thinking that gr I EO exactly what Laura said thats to be less engineered but yeah can I may I ask a question what what is your
schedule as far as what are you doing right now and what do you need to proceed on well honestly we so about I think it was maybe three months ago we ceased site work when um you know it kind of it came to to my attention that we were going to need the special permit
at at which time we you know started to engage with the planning board in order to you know be in front of you guys um so that we could hopefully get the approval so we haven't done anything for oh gosh probably about three months um you know call it I call it middle of
December um so in order to you know in order to hopefully have an occupancy permit um in say you know early August of 2026 we probably need to start you know building in May of this year which would mean a
foundation in like late April um and there's probably about my you know site contractor estimated about four weeks worth of site work to be done in order to sort of stay um kind of be able to keep that schedule um so that's why I was hoping
to get kind of a conditional approval this evening and then you know happy to revisit you revisit in in two weeks or four weeks um with you know a much more wellth thought out and thoughtful plan from a landscape architect because like I said it's it's
I have every intention of of living there and I want it to look good um both for for myself and also to to be a good neighbor well I think um we appreciate that and I think um look forward to having you in the community but um I
don't think we're prepared to to do this tonight does anybody disagree with me I think I'm getting a consensus that we want to uh see you back here in two weeks with somebody's questions answering um thank you all right um I'm
G to make a mo a motion to continue the public hearing to uh March 24th at a time we to 7 seven then we can take this in advance have a motion don't move
second um all in favor okay continuing public hearing till the 24th okay thank you I'm sorry to disappoint you um great um okay at this point I'm gonna thank you um the open the public hearing
um for uh zoning changes for um three matters accessory dwelling units standard accessing units large and Associate planning board members um we're going to a public hearing um and we will have a second public hearing on
any of these um for couple reasons one is we have to uh um some of the matters we want to talk about and hear from the public and then post a hearing um sorry mute um
and okay um so all of the U matters that we talk about tonight will actually have another have a a public hearing as well when we have the final versions but we wanted to give the public an opportunity to weigh in on um these proposed zoning changes
that we're um proposing for town meeting um there is a time crunch of we're getting um the final versions to the select board for the warrant and um we are going to post we've posted a meeting
for Wednesday at 7 pm to finalize the version so that my Envision what I Envision tonight is that we will um talk about these Mark will revise them and then we'll vote on them um to take them to the warrant um on the
17th and then we'll hold a public hearing and if the public hearing we can always make changes amend them on the floor other kinds of things um for uh that um Sandy um yes thank you um I have
to say my name yes Sandy Rogers let me open the public hearing sorry so I'm gonna open the public hearing I'll have a motion first to open the public hearing don't move okay fber Gordon daras chras Rogers 82 Old ess6 Road I just
have um a question seeing we had the technical GI difficulties and people were off and it was advertised that the meeting was at 6:30 for the public meeting today um I'm concerned that not everyone
is going to have a chance to attend today's meeting to weigh in in what you are evaluating so I'm very concerned about that as an issue um I know you say
you're having a public meeting but that's going to be after you're determining okay so noted um we did have technical difficulties that is why we will have an another public hearing that hopefully won't have technical difficulties this is one of the
challenges um so um there will be a a public hearing um and there'll be opportunities tonight and Wednesday night for people to give input so um with that I'm going to um start off by just uh oops sharing
um scen here just summarize where we so um we're going to have a hearing on on three uh issues associate members standard accessory dwelling units large
accessory dwelling units then we're going to introduce uh three or four other um issues that we hope to bring to town meeting so um the vers is um the issue of uh associate members so
um J some point tonight we have a special permit we have two members out for what uh reasons and it's a busy time of year so um in order to act on a special permit and sometimes these like
self- signaling could take took a long time and actually uh went uh over between an election cycle um where we had one member who did not run for reelection so in order to P to vote on a spe in order to affirm a special permit
um you need a super majority which is five people and um or it is constructively approved and there are rules about who can um act how you can act if you have missed the meeting so the proposal is to have assoc
an associate member or two who can act when regular members are unable or unavailable on special permits or on other matters um and the question we're interested in hearing from the public is one or two associate members um whether
they would be appointed by the planning board or the planning or the select board or a joint planning board select board and whether they should serve her one or twoe terms um and this is allowed under state
law um any comments from the board um I I guess I one comment that the board of appeals already has associate an associate member that are appointed as is the zoning board yes okay so in this case um I think we would
like to hear um oops from the public on the oops sorry um any comments from the public on uh associate members as to whether or not we would like to have one or two
appointed by the planning board of Select board and one or two years any of those topics okay I'm seeing no um no my hands raised oh sorry go ahead Christine sorry I Christine delissio so um as the member that did not run and was the cause for a
little bit of angst with the cell signaling um I do see the value in this um as I did before and I do want to reiterate that I do believe that this is an elected position and I do feel like the um Power of the planning board as an
independent board um should be retained and that the appointment process should be solely through the planning board so I am supportive of it I think two years is a reasonable time I think it takes quite a bit of time to get your feet wet and um I think start with one member and
see how it goes and if you need a second you can always add it I just a lot of time and a commitment so for me um one person two years and it should be appointed by the planning board only thank you thank you an Harris when there's a vacancy on the planning board
it is filled by planning board and the select board acting together okay is that a suggestion or just a statement of fact it's a statement of fact it is a recommendation that you continue to follow that
practice okay thank you any other comments okay um if if I if you're online and you have any other comments please uh thing out um okay the board we need to uh make a recommendation so Mark
can finalize this so when we go to uh get it to the warrant and um uh I'd like I'll speak to the fact I think two make sense for two uh twoyear terms that are staggered and I agree with Ann um the
planning board and select board as other vacancies anybody have want to argue otherwise um go ahead Laura I agree with an about a joint I think that that a good way to to continue that model well I definitely agree on two
members staggered for two years I go either way on the appointment explain to me staggered so the in the first year one person would be had a one-ear appointment and the other would get a two-year appointment and then um okay so they so that they're
not always you don't how we have two green people okay expiring at the same time rolling rolling rolling I would I would agree with all that and as I stated that almost as written right here two collect board and planning board
makes a choice and for a two-year period right um one other idea is you could bring them on in a staggered way while than giving your appointment you could bring someone on to your appointment wait a year bring someone on to your appointment yeah probably a better way to do it okay Mark I think Christine you
have your hand up again I do I guess this isn't a vacancy so I do see a difference in the appointing of the joint boards or the planning board so this isn't a vacancy this is an open position that the planning board is creating so I do see a difference and um
I don't see the need for the pl the select board to be involved quite honestly thank you okay thank you all right Mark I think we've given you direction for the to finalize that okay the next um topic is um uh accessory dwelling units um so I'm
going to turn that over to sue to just sort of summarize um the first part and Chris will summarize the second we'll take comments on both of them together um so just everyone's probably in a different place on uh being up to
to speed on why we're doing this uh why we're doing this is because the state passed another law um this when they passed last year and it went into effect uh in February of this year which um
requires that every city and town across the state allow accessory dwelling units townwide Citywide Statewide um in every zoning District uh that allows single
family zoning um now we currently have some bylaws dealing with adus we've been trying to change them anyway but they're completely ineffectual right now and so we're left with the state uh permissible
adus um without any guard rails around them um the uh regulations that accompany the law do allow for some guard rails uh we would like to pass a zoning bylaw that
incorporates as much um of the guard rails as we can um so that we're catching up with the state law again so what we're proposing are actually two separate Adu bws the first will deal
directly with the state law that I just described um and we're calling it Adu standard uh that deals with right now if someone owns a piece of property in Manchester in a single family zoning
District um they if they get a building permit and you know satisfied building codes and other applicable uh laws and regulations they can go ahead and uh build an Adu that is
900 square fet or less depending on the uh dimension of the um the single family home that's already on the property um so this the first accessory dwelling
unit standard deals with that um so we are permitted uh to add a requirement that we can require one parking space um but not within the half mile radius of
the MBTA zoning uh the MBTA Commuter stationing again um but beyond that for every single family uh District which is every District in town except for the LCD um we can require one parking space
per AVU we'd like to do that we'd like to includ that in the bylaw right now there are no requirement uh no parking restrict um the second thing we'd like to do is we are allowed to either
restrict or prohibit shortterm rental in the adus we would like to do that um we would like the Public's input we think uh a Prohibition on short-term rentals is the right way
to go with for Manchester for adus but we're willing we'd like to hear what uh our residents think and again we're just dealing at this point with the adus that are required the standard adus um we are
allowed to include site plan reviews we'd like to do that uh the ad we can have dimensional standards that are consistent with uh what would be applicable to the residence that is already on the lot we'd like to do that
um and we'd like to include a requirement that only one Adu be permitted per lot um so have I missed anything um that's a summary of what is in the uh bylaw that
we're uh proposing that is called Adu standard um and when we take it to town meeting it um is simp a simple majority vote since it uh deals with multifam housing and a you plus another structure
on L okay so now I'm going to turn it to Chris just to explain the large accessory dellion accessory dwellings large okay so a standard accessory dwelling un is allowed by right in the State anywhere in the state
that's a single family residential district um that includes the General District as well so everywhere in town except us Su said the LCD but there are they are limited to 900 square feet and
900 square feet is sort of a typical two-bedroom apartment on one floor there may be situations where 900 square feet just doesn't isn't appropriate I'll give you a couple of examples uh let's say I own a garage in
my backyard and the on the second floor I'd like to put an accessory dwelling unit but it's 950 square feet well I couldn't do it unless it were designated a large a large accessory dwelling unit now to
get approval for a large accessory dwelling unit you need a special permit from the zoning board of appeals so they're not they're not by right but they are allowed with a special permit another example might be I have a house that I'd like to divide into
two have an accessory dwelling unit within the house but a natural dividing line within the house might result in the second unit of being a th000 square feet I have a 3,000 squ foot house th000 ft of it would be a perfect place for my
mother-in-law to live but I couldn't do it without a special permit you can't do it under the standard Adu law a third possibility is um the the proposed occupant of the accessory dwelling unit may have some special needs they may
have handicap problems they need a handicap bath they have to be on a single floor uh who knows maybe they need a little bit more than 900 ft also so we've been talking about um what the
size restrictions would be a standard Adu cannot be more than half the size of a unit of an existing primary residence we think probably a large Adu shouldn't be more than half
the size of the primary resident as well and then the question is is there some threshold what's the maximum they could be well we thrown out 1500 square F feet uh but maybe that maybe people would prefer somewhat smaller 1200 square fet
what we're really looking for is a safety valve to allow people to do adus that are slightly larger than what's Allowed by right under the state law uh now with a special permit we can attach all kinds of conditions to it as
we are doing with the um this project on Summer Street that we talked about earlier um of course any Adu whether or not it's with a special permit has to meet all the requirements of the rest of the
zoning by law so the you know the um dimensional requirements of the district if it's in a historic district they have to comply with that if it's in a water resource protection area they'll have to comply with that so this is not trying
to get around any other provisions of our bylaw it's just uh allowing people to create small residential units on their property and the large accessory dwelling unit is just a way to allow a
slightly bigger than 900 square feet um and then all of the adus as we've uh currently both the small and the standard have a set of conditions and I've added here in uh well one on a
lot um that are we've been advised the reason I haven't read second standard Au requires a special permit is because that's on advice of council that just we just got advice on from Council um today
so I tried to so the large adus shall not be permitted on two um family or multif Family Properties um what we are what we believe is that the standard adus are actually permitted on a do
family property um by by the state regulation um that we would prohibit short-term rentals and leases of less than six months in borders and Council had a little bit of question about whether we
could limit leases less than six month and borders in the um standard adus um that they should comply with the flood planes Water Resource protection historic districts that Water and Sewer utility should not be separated from the
primary unit and that was advised from the DPW um we can't limit the standard adus um in terms of uh their ability to be um titled differently than the primary unit
but we certainly can with large um and all additions for adus need to comply with lot coverage primary building setbacks we have um they're constructed on a permanent foundation so they're not mobile homes type things she'll use
existing driveway um and that the application process includes floor plans elevations and Engineering plans um and as I sort of put this together and thought about it one of the advantages of having a large Adu um distinct from
the standard is the second it's 901 square feet it gives the um zba that's the good granting Authority a significant uh increased oversight um so that I think is a reason
if if we think the market wants 95 square feet rather than 900 or something slightly larger then um by allowing them in a parallel um regulation it gives us a significant uh
significantly more oversight and we proposed two parking spaces for the large adus at least in the current um and I think this last thing is is a table that's that tries to summarize the highlights of the two
um uh the two uh types um the standard Abus are allowed by right 900 sare F feet or half dwelling um in any residential districts that excludes the LCD um can regulate it in the way it's
shown here no short-term rentals separate entrance separate entrance is the same entrance should be oh separate uh entrance meaning front door and then the same driveway um and parking as one space for the standard except near the
transit station and large two spaces all these things can be we're here to hear input on these issues um why don't we take comments from the public Christine go ahead hi again
Christine delissio six Lin andv so half a dwelling unit could be actually huge I mean there's a lot of quite large homes in Manchester so and you can get up to an Adu of close to 2,000 square feet that's another home
right so be whichever is smaller well it doesn't actually say that well in the proposed regulations it does say that okay and so according to these is the you know the recent bylaws that were changed everything can be
waved I mean is there exceptions for things like like this that it can't be waved or can you wave 901 I think um the special permits have a um provision that certain um Provisions can be waved in a special permit if the
permitting Authority thinks that there's a good reason so I think that the special permit as we have currently drafted them the special permit uh rules apply the 0901 could be waved so your description of it being you know more
oversight may not necessarily be true is that true I don't think that's fair I don't think that's I disagree with that but um we probably will disagree agree to disagree on that but it's not a trigger not 901 could be waved is the point right it's not no 90 91 square
feet would call would require a special permit and it could not be waved right could not be no correct okay great thanks um other comments Sandy um Sandy
Rogers 82 old6 Road um is this intending to eliminate the existing bylaw um you're nodding your head um many Adu bylaws across the state have a lot more details regarding what the Adu
structure would be like uh regarding design standards um whether there needs to be occupancy of owner um in main residents um other than a separate
entrance I know that even this board has spoken about locations of the entrance and if you start looking at a lot of the other um you know intentions of the Adu from the state um they do want the
ability to or mandating separate utilities for the Adu I don't know about the water and sewer that might be separate than electrical ET G gas ccet so I think that that needs to be considered and written
in um so I I think it would be helpful uh for the public to see these written out all the details I don't know where that is um of how everything is actually added you might be presenting a summary
and you have all these details I don't want to assume anything um so it would be good to see that um secondly I know that we have to pass something for the state and this is just you know put weighing in my opinion we just passed
the um MBTA zoning um we are mandated to ensure that that we're allowing for this 900 square foot Adu I think we should put a pause on the larger one and make
sure that all the details are written in to what we're allowing through special permit and it might you know there might be more debate about the size of it my house is smaller than this a lot of houses are smaller than this um and so
if it is a separate unit and it it's actually existing already for this date it could be right bumping up against other people's properties and so there might be a lot of concerns about neighbors regarding having that as a
separate Adu so I just there are a lot of things to consider there so thank you for um considering that can I just um a couple of your comments um thank you for bringing up with the proposal is actually to delete the existing Adu
provisions and those are that um with special permit an you can have an employee housing in an accessory um structure and so our feeling on that one is that this 900 foot uh by right kind
of satisfies the intent of that so I think seems that's pretty easy the second um uh existing Adu bylaw requires a double lot and uh that the house exists prior to
1984 um and doesn't have any of the those um conditions that you described um but does require a special permit um for the standard adus um design standards unless we currently require them for the principal dwelling are not
uh allowed um but we could use the design standards from the multif family perhaps if we wanted um for large adus perhaps um the separate entrance uh I believe we're we're not 100% sure that we can require that and separate
Utilities in the standard adus are um not allowed to have that be even though some some towns have done that the eohc has said that that is not legal um and the other thing you brought sorry done
the other thing you brought up was the owner occupied we're not permitted to have that as a requirement for the standard adus but um have are we for the large is that we are
be which is maybe well that means you can have ter with condominium right yeah so again that's a great reason why we might want to make sure a lot of the details are worked out for anything larger than the
smaller and I believe that we have them on the website right the and they were in the meeting package and we have we have some hard copies here so um there are a lot of details in The Proposal we tried to summarize it for the public um
night but those are good points that we um uh uh other comments yes this is actually looking for some clarity um so we currently have a multif family house two family yeah owner occupied and we have
an on-site shop that we're looking to convert into you we're kind of looking to see if that falls into this category I think a lot of my questions were answered tonight most of them it's 800 square feet 900 we have off street parking was built
40 years ago you know it meets all the setbacks and so the only issue I guess was I thought it was just a single family if it was a single family but you just said that it was two family right
yeah it's in single family districts and the building inspector and Council have said that um and the hearing that we went to is that um so I believe that you can use the existing state law now the
enforcement officer is the building inspector so this is simply my opinion but that you uh my understanding of currently the state law is that you can have an Adu in a two family um
provided that you correct me if I'm wrong yeah no that's that's the clarification yeah we spoke about this and at the time we were trying to say you can only have we wanted to prohibit that but we're not permitted to we're
not permitted to so so you would be able to do one still one accessory on the lot beyond your current two so and the state law which we should add into our standard is that if you want a second
standard Adu it's a special permit a second protect 900 square foot we need to add that in although the state law would also uh dictate that but we should be clear about that we should say it's the zba
yeah right so the intent um is that we the way we've drafted this bylaw is that it would be zba that would be the special permitting Authority does that make sense yes sure we have enough things to
do um does the zba have an opinion on them we should ask no let's not ask yeah we should um yes Sandy uh just a question on what you said just so I
understand it if you are a single residence you can have only one Adu but if you have a multif family you can have one Adu you can have one Adu but then you were saying a
second one have a special per and I would say that and that is why would you not do that for a single family you could yeah you could have two every the second un the second unit would require a special permit but you could it's
doesn't mean the special forment has to be granted I think that sounds true you know but um and that's the state law that is that's the state the regulations of the state the regulations specifically say that a second
Adu has to can can be required to have a special permit that's why I think we need to put that in and and one final thing I want to say about this is that the existing Adu law in Manchester has been superseded it's gone
practical purposes so what we're trying to do is put one in that that allows us at least some regulation best we can do I get a question though in our which would the section that applies
to all adus and this has not been comment removed we say only one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted on a on a lot so the law says you can allow a second
one one but you don't have to right right and so the way we currently have it drafted is not can only do one all right we should check that so well yeah she didn't she didn't flag it an issue
so neither did pa okay so I think we should I I would not add right the language for Second Use gets can have a special permit so I don't think it's a right that you have
the right to do that only if AES okay we do have copies of people want to get into the weeds a little bit on on that um the it seems like um Council raised some things that we can't
do which we just therefore have to strike and ask some questions that had some fairly obvious answers like historic district that is required so I didn't see any um other things that were significant that we really needed to to
discuss but um do people want to just take quick you want me to just R through it yeah when don't we quickly which one are we this is stand standard ad use um really it's down or comments that
with just the general requirements so she says to take out number two which is the one pertaining to the two family or multif Family Properties
um can I just back up for a second Mark in the past when we've deleted sections we have not enumerated the we have not uh listed the whole section to be deleted oh um
she says that I should uh strike you know do do the strike out do the strikeout which I started doing okay I think that's clear I think when you you actually have thank you thank you thank
you okay um her second comment had to do exteror elevation plan and um they'll be submitted for any application with find in addition for a space she says is this only for attached a to
use um it's kind of clear or any me attached or detached but what number you want I'm sorry uh number four of
91 three 9 well you can have a attach that is an addition to the house that's what I mean yeah can I make a clarification on terminology rn.org what RSN can we for number four can we thre
plans you can't have an elevation and a plan in one drawing so it's an elev I just I wanted to be not confusing Mark what are you reading from right now reading from looking at the lawyer's
comments oh you're looking at the same one I one say since redwell unit shall not be so the U the leasing question he says I don't believe you can require this but she doesn't
site um why right so why not just leave it in and then if the a if the AG wants to strike it they can strike it I I agree um the next comment had to do with the historic district Mission only if
otherwise required by the HTC it is required in and this only says in the historic district so um her next comment was um may want to confer with about
separation of utilities um Chuck was adamant that that the water and SE utilities not be separate from so we leave that he said well he
said that the reason the reason is that it's another disruptive it's another service it's another um uh an you had a comment my usual comment when we're talking about water meters is that we have very
Progressive water rates and what would be low rates for two dwellings would be much significantly higher if they had to be
joint now that's money for Chuck that was what that's the price of an Adu but you're penalizing the person in the Adu potentially I think that's you're penalizing somebody on the lot for having their grandmother live with them
I mean I don't know that's an interesting point I I wouldn't call it a penalty the person who's getting the benefit by being able to rent it or use it for family member so if it turns out you have to pay a little more for that
um that's not necessarily a bad thing or maybe the maybe the DPW can make an exception for people who have approved accessory drilling units it's a watery problem not a boning
problem yeah yeah yeah this is an Harrison 13 tuex Point Road um having the DPW compute separate rates yeah for individual buildings yeah yeah
is just putting a burden on on the town hall but I let's why don't we just circle back with Chuck and see what his rationale was and there's also possibility of having well one of the things I we did
discuss was still having a single service off the main line you get past the curb stop let's say to water you can split it and then they can run two two meters or yeah that's for the two things just like for electricity you still have
one service of the house when it hits the house that's where it splits into two meters they don't run two lines okay I could adjust the
language as such and then leave it open on the one service that we serve each property open whether they split it and put in separate
meters for a single family home May they're doing single may not make sense to try and replum part of the house but if you're converting that garage in the back you already got to run trench new water line back maybe easier to tie it
somewhere in the front um mark one of the things that we should think think a little bit about is um the standard this this 9.1.2 use regulations apply to both types of adus but if the Attorney
General strikes it because it's part of the standard then it puts the uh and it's not listed under large then now that whatever that criteria is does not apply to large so I think we should have General regulations for standard and
then heat them for large so that you see what I'm saying if it gets struck from this section then it won't be in the other one right so formatting think you're gonna have to just repeat them really why can't you
just say all of the regulations for and large sorry for a small also apply to a large plus additional ones but the issue is if the Attorney General strikes the uh first one only one
accessory dwelling unit on a lot well then we can just repeat that just repeat that but it could happen any of these in any of these well not any but several if a historic district one was struck I don't know it you see what I'm saying I
just don't want to um risk yeah so that's just a formatting thing we can you need to think about that okay um lck coverage requirements and setbacks I don't understand why she's so
focused on that I don't know so okay and borders will leave that we decide we're going to leave that in but that's an example so if that gets struck from this one now it's not in the large
so and also this the six month least one right but even the any of them mobile homes or whatever okay so I think we have we given you enough guidance on this one all right
let's uh and look at the um next one which is the large adus here's the um lock comments that's one Sandy there um jeck did you want a copy of these
sure [Laughter] I'll noing in exciting um let me Christine has her raised Christine do you have a comment on the standard ad
use as well Christine do you have a comment oh sorry I was speaking and un muted so yes um Christine delissio 6 Lin andv um so in the past the town has not really kept track of adus all that well
um I just want to make sure that there's a mechanism because each Adu that we approve is going to increase our housing stock increase our vulnerability to a 40b you know every 10 Adu gives us another unit that we have to put on the Shi so um I do think it's important for
us to get a handle on how many we have and also I do think it's discriminatory to say that you can't have your own meter on this I mean if someone is using this for another unit I mean they should be entitled to a new water
meter and a new line if that's important on that property so I think it's discriminatory to say that you can't have another service um and one final comment is have the corrections been addressed before we I know this one this
particular new zoning change has to be added but particularly um driveway entrances who is enforcing that is that being addressed hopefully in this round of bylaw changes thank you getting to that later in the meeting great thank
you I didn't see that um so it seems to me that that is an interesting point about the you know additional housing units um but it's not going to be part of zoning so it's got to be at the assessor and the building
inspector's department or planning yeah some yeah as far as tracking the number of new units I mean um yeah probably through the building department it's not a requirement I
think had been it's still in there uh that we should keep a record of each Adu permit applied for pro denied and issued certificate of op that's in the state regulations yeah yeah so the state does
want us to keep track so here's another thought and I don't know how we get at this um but I think I think all of us know of um spaces that have been renovated with a a
sink refrigerator and uh you know St a you know countertop induction unit and that um those are not considered to be
um accessory dwelling units under state law should we try to capture those as adus or can we well going forward I think the problem is if it doesn't meet the definition of
a Welling unit because it doesn't have a full kitchen which is I believe what the standard is so like if you just provide a microwave on top of the countertop as opposed to putting the full stone then it's
not extra unit so again this is something we'd have to check with Paul but I believe that is I wonder if we could expand cooking or or or uh say cooking you know if we could Define cooking facilities to be that kind of
[Music] thing so I think the problem is the word self-contained it's not selfcontain housing unit the regulations do Define dwelling unit
I don't know how we could expand that for the standard that was going to be one of my questions is what defines an Adu versus an apartment versus anything else it needs to have a bathroom it needs it a
separate like all of those finds it is a self-contained housing unit inclusive of sleeping cooking and sanitary facilities on the same lot as the principal L it's just on the same the let's
see yeah a self-contained housing unit inclusive of sleeping cooking and sanitary facilities on the same lot as a principal dwelling um maintains a separate entrance either directly from the outside or through an entry hall then
size limitation um and then dwelling unit isin as a single housing and unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent Provisions for
living sleeping eating cooking and sanitation say that a dwelling is a single does it say single the primary dwelling is what the principal dwelling is a structure regardless of
whether it or the lot it is situated on conforms dis owning including use requirements and dimensional requirements such as sepex bulk and height that contains at least one dwelling unit and is or will be located on the same lot as a protected use Adu
and then you go back to dwelling unit which is a single housing unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent Provisions for living sleep sleeping eating cooking and sanitation we're all the
same so the point is one or more dwelling unit unfortunately yeah so wouldn't that contradict a Adu inside of an existing structure saying a separate separate
entrance so you could take your back family Ro and um and make a separate entrance come in the back and but it's not a at that point it's not a separate structure it doesn't have to be a separate structure DNA it doesn't have to be a separate
structure a self-contained housing unit right so that could be your attic or your basement separate entrance either directly from the outside or through an entry hall or Corridor here with the principal well so it doesn't not have to be an
accessory building and in fact if you think about the character of the town and if you think about um keeping it small um and affordable arguably taking a large house and carving
off you know the family room or the living room that you never use and making that an accessory dwelling unit within without expanding the footprint is more consistent than you know add right I I was just thinking to sy's
point about where what's an apartment what's they're the same thing so the in talking with the um fire uh Chief and the building inspector they did say that they would require a firewall between the two they would see them as true firewall that's what he
said wow it's a separate living um you know he would treat it as an apartment so the state law requires that with Apartments so yeah
reasonable yeah I was going to ask about buer code um it's you have to have one entrance but I don't know over a certain size do you need to have a second entrance because of fire regulations so
if you do have over is it three units three or more units you have to sprinkle right so to their question so let's say you have a two family and you want to in that same building add an Adu somehow that triggers
sprink building code so they make it clear that the building code applies and the fire department did say that they would require a spring so that is a hurdley big hurdle if you have a multif
family or two family so um that's separate from USS yeah I mean I think I'll speak for myself I think this should be in single family homes only that was we I made that comment to the state in the regulations but that did
not that is not did not flow through and several other people think you made the comment like we made written comment so um stop sharing um so I can see
people um okay let's go keep going through the large um Mark um okay comments her comments are if the standard um U fails what would you do with the large and I'm assuming you make
a motion or pass over it yes so um wants me to spray through any old text um
use I do think we have to repeat that set of um conditions for this they stand along yeah it also will make it easier to modify than I on um what do we feel about the the
short-term rentals um prohibition anybody want to cond that okay um Mark and I also talked about a standalone article that just um probably just add to the table uh short-term rentals in adus no no no no
no in the table and that way if one of if e one or both of these doesn't pass we can um have just that prohibition as a clear uh prohibition going
forward um okay any other comments on those the one question as Sandy asked before about electric utilities services will there be a separate meter for this Adu we've been silent on that at this
point and the standard that said you can't make it really because to your point there was a somebody who spoke at the hearing uh who who said this is what they've done in wuber I think one of the
W's they said they are proh they're requiring separate meters they're requiring separate water um they're requiring uh firewall I don't know what what all they were requiring um o occupied uh and they said and those they
said these don't fly with the standard the protected you so was a specific set mostly the that list that you just gave us so the um other towns have sort of tried to preempt this by putting in those so
for the large we could require it or allow it right now it's on that question yeah in the regulations for the standard that says any requirement concerning utilities safety and emergency access
that is more restrictive than permitted by state requirements including the fire code is no good a municipality may not require a separate utility such as water sewer electric provided that a separate connection may
be required by a municipal or Regional utility investor own utility by state law by a local Ral state of or by court order or by anything else may except the
town um few comments on the large yeah uh I would um in there my usual comments one is um I would suggest going down in size from 1500 to 1200 and then my my regular comment which I always make for the record is
the parking requirement should be the same for the large as it is for the small I don't believe I think we should be minimizing the footprint of these things both in the size of the unit in the parking if you go to 91 Square ft we should someone wants two spaces
and they can justify it fine but I think it has a result in the amount of Paving the reduction of vegetation tree removal and so forth and so I would uh I recommend one same same parking requirement for both okay but the
standard doesn't require any you can't require any within the half mile I would say the same okay same exact requirement for both okay one parking space none within the half mile okay the other thing is that our the two for the large
is um a half a space whatever that is um larger than we would than you would have if you had a two family so a two family would be one and a half per unit so it seems to me we should at the very least make it the same as the um as the
parking table which would be one and a half per unit um me the in Manchester the no parking spaces within a half mile the train I understand the intent which but in
Manchester it's pretty hard to not have a car whether you're within a half mile of train or not um if you're going to see a doctor what buy shoes buy shoes
right right um You can go to Boston buy shoes I guess or Beverly on the train um but it is uh the frequency of the train and the I would argue the reliability right now sometimes um so personally I think we should
require the large to have something one would that be one additional space well we can we can just say uh large adus shall comply with the parking requirements of section put in
the Section Five Section Five that's the one and a half M that's different when that yeah I mean I could compromise on the train but I think one is adequate is if you got a 900 or 901 or 950 square foot
unit so there your two two required for a single family house right right so you've already got two so you got two so you're adding a accessory dwelling unit' be three so that would be complying I long so um the other piece
of this that that concerns me is we want this to pass parking is always an issue that people care about the other thing is that the regulations allow for a parking space that is either on the lot or on the
street um I believe is so isn't that correct that parking space can actually be on the street for the protected use the prot and therefore given that you could have one of that let's assume that you know we're
going to get 10 of these that's 10 either potentially 10 more potentially six more cars I don't know what it is know some portion it says um more than one additional on street or
off street parking space for protected East AVU if it's within a mile you can't do that any additional on street or off street parking for protected use ad if it's outside the half mile they don't
really say it's not clear it was clearer before they changed it um so it's not clear but yeah I think we would want to specify off Street okay so we have three options we have the two we have go to
table five which is one and a half or we have Laura's suggestion of one actually going to table five makes sense because it's uh let's just get the the board on this other two or I would do either one or the T I would do one as well
one Okay sandy do you have a comment on the parking um so I would do the minimum amount that you have to do it by the regulations for parking especially if we're dealing with off street parking
and then if you if they need another one it would trigger a special permit and you can evaluate whether that street can accommodate the off additional off street parking or you know they can do a
little addition and you know maybe extend their driveway a little bit as long as they're using the same entrance and suggestion that we say one uh this might be increased by the special permit to well you people can put as
much right but the special permit could require uh that they have two it could it could to her point if it's you know it's a crowded Street or the it's a 1,00 or 1500 right square
foot um or the the primary dwelling has very limited parking there might be special permit conditions we're talking about the large adus now that that could be do we usually spell those out in advance this the the potential for
adding an another anything you know no but I suppose it could be part of the special traffic is a special permit sure it could be I think it would be incorporate could be incorporated into the existing special permit
Edition without specifying it without specifying I'm hearing that one space for the large throughout regardless of whether it's within the train yeah okay how about the size of the Adu um 1 12200 Square F feet versus uh so it would be
901 to uh 1200 you're asking the wrong guy I was I was for the 00 not for larger ones okay so I think we're hearing 12200 anybody object to the 12200 that's
fine okay great thank you for raising that any other things on the large Adu one question um so at the end of five of our special condition accessory dwelling unit barge shall only be
allowed in accessory structures existing prior to April 28th and then comments that earlier we say three structures constructed after must comply with the primary bu set backs for and accessory
well and units to be Lo located in one section says you can't have it one section says you can as long as you meet setb what does that mean that last one about April 28th 2025 that's the date of the town
meeting so the idea is that some people are Building a garage and then coming back and getting an and putting in an accessory dwelling but they can build a structure you don't need to build a garage you the structure I think we can take out five yeah that's but I didn't want to take it
out to yeah good okay um so I'm gonna take a motion to close the public oh sorry an go ahead um number six which requires you have a conforming lot is there any way that you could get a special permit if your lot was not
transforming oh that's a good idea your lot could be non-conforming by just a tiny amount yes so the answer is no okay unless unless we change the
wording or eliminate that entirely me you have to meet all the setback requirements and lot coverage anyway the Lots in area e are large but there are a few there are a lot that that AR lot yeah there are a lot that are not
the two acre was added fairly recently we could say you got to have at least a half an acre or meet them or be conforming maybe maybe we just take it out because they have to go to the zba if they're non right anyway so what if the yeah I mean you could have a really
big lot but have not quite enough Frontage an old lot skinny and I agree and then they can't do it at all and if they're already going to the zba right makes sense to try and see if they could
variance yeah I agree I mean the intent was is just to not have it on all Lots I mean you could say you know they have to be at least I wouldn't I I hear what an saying and I wouldn't start adding lot sizes
because I feel like that could be discriminatory the other uh question is should it be in all districts so right now we've all residential districts the large we have so Mary had so the current
bylaw uh the um the 9.1 um is does not include District D1 or D2 our current ad our current Adu bylaw and that's because they allow two family
that's because they allow two family anyway two family could have an accessory dwelling it could have a 900 so um but if there's a single family home in d d i me I think we should not have them in D but are there some single
family homes inde D that will be then prohibited they can have the 900 square foot that's right they can't of course so Mary had suggested that was one of her comments was that not included in a large in D1 or
D2 what about g g yeah what about you General District yeah you're not allowing him to be and2 should BG also um go ahead could we allow
them J out there if everybody wants to be able to take advantage of it and if the large is intended for an existing structure we want to say existing structure I'm just thinking about like if you live in D and you have a garage
and you want to put it over the garage in your garage has a footprint that you know you're going to have to put a smaller up on an existing garage that's a little that's 91 square fet is there should we should we I think the last time we talked we talked about for
existing structures only but then I guess we're getting back that's where that April existing structure thing came in that's why I think that what Sarah was concerned about the S
melish was concerned about the if setbacks have a rationale right for yeah primary dwelling for a house your setbacks have a rationale 10t and you put your garage um is either existing or you build because accessory structures
can have a short a smaller setback and now you put a Le a living structure in that accessory structure yeah if there's a basis for side setbacks or rear setbacks right to protect your neighbors from right whatever smell of hamburgers
um then now you've sort of subverted that set back rationale we could argue whether that is a good rationale or not but it it has rationale so um back to D2 D1 and
general for the large I can go either way the density I mean the whole purpose of the law is more small housing those areas already have a lot of dense multifam right or
not quote unquote official definition of they're already gets you know so I feel like I I would support um excluding yeah I would too
yeah my feeling is that it would be less controversial at have meeting I age if the large were permitted only in purely res single family residential it would be less controversial yes right yeah so
all the districts except B and B then yeah and that's consistent with the current exactly right right yeah sense we're good so are are you are you striking striking D2
and G and I'm thinking what was the outcome on six the um sub forming lot we struck that right I I wanted to go back to that um that would be
on all adus including the bite or the larger one uh it would actually it's is not allowed in the small in the standard so we can't specify that for the standard and then um it would be we
would strike it for the large the idea being if you have a 1.5 a two acre lot in e but you don't have uh that's existed since 1900 and you don't have the right amount of
Frontage then You' be a non-conforming lot and you couldn't do this which seems a little arbitrary but for the large they still are going through special per special per so you would catch if there were any
major issues because it was non-conforming because it was too close to the right line or anything like that and you cannot do that for the smaller one that's in the right okay just wanted to get that important distinction thank you okay um at this point I'm going to
close the public hearing we're going to talk about a couple other things but they were not posted so take a motion to close the public hearing second second um favor okay thank you now we're going to talk about the other
issues uh let's see here they're a little bit easier to understand um okay so um flood plane bylaws um so we will be having a public hearing on all of these again but um Mark you want to just give us an overview of the flood
plane well the flood plane bylaw were required to update the flood plane bylaw it is something the planning board worked on and she had reviewed by Council and the state back in August 23 but I think that's when you started
working on the mvpa and so it kind of got pushed aside now we're under timeline for adopting that new version which has been amended a little bit since um since that time so we have a
new version of the bylaw that has been reviewed by Council they deferred any sort of comments to the state um for what we have to approve um so that was
um submitted to them they'd like to add a few definitions uh to the bylaw which I uh did and I resent it to Eric Carlson at theate I haven't heard back from him but
the the his comments were were really minor to which I did send out ear pretty much like add a bunch of those definitions and one of the little things and can you just summarize for um people like the
general what does the bylaw require so the bylaw what does it say uh basically it requires that if you're in one of the flood zones you um have to comply with the standards for building
in flood zone and uh if you do any um additions or new construction in those areas and that way you can obtain flood insurance so so the bylaw chance ask you to speak up a
little bit louder so the bylaw is essentially zoning where it creates the zones and it refers to the maps so we have to reopt we we have these flood plane maps that were created um by FEMA
and so we have these are uh what we uh have to adopt as well and U this is like creates the zoning and there's different types of flood plane zones um and there are I believe five
zones in the community and um and so that's that's what it does right and if people are looking for the flood plane Maps here's the URL and um you click on that little blue piece um that shows and then the maps
are all there um electronically you can look up an address and see if it's so basically we are required to and we've adopted the the um bylaw that is proposed by the required by the state
so okay and I I had said that there were two options one is to have the flood RS in the zoning and the other is to modify zoning to allow the flood plane RS to be adopted by the planning board and you propos to have them in zoning you think that's a better option okay when we when
I made we well I mean it could be adopted as entirely a general bylaw or it could be adopted in the zoning bylaw traditionally been at least in this town in zoning and many other places okay so we're going to put it in zoning I have a question about that except the only
thing isn't it requires 2third if it's in general byot it's only 50% okay go ahead and like storm water we wanted it to apply everything thing right this seems like a public safety issue
so shouldn't it be in the general bylaws and in fact isn't part of it storage of gasoline and things and open containers isn't allow and that sounds more like a bylaw than is General bylaw than a bylaw well but it only applies to the areas
that are in the zones here so it's so it's kind of like a zoning creating these various we just get a town did Town Council weigh in on whether it should be zoning or general bylaw did we ask for that
okay um Sarah is that going to an upcoming town meeting it's important because people can't get flood insurance if we don't pass it yeah so it's time sensitive
okay um any comments on flood bylaw okay uh um the next one is pretty simple we have a lengthy introduction to our bylaw and
it's out of date and to modify it because it is part of the zoning requires a town meeting vote so the proposal was simply to delete it and move it to a web page um that we could uh um keep up to date and current
um so that's the proposal my personal feeling is it's not I'm sensitive if the town meeting is long and the warrant is long we could push that off but we have it drafted
so so that's the proposal there any comments there is a lot already that the planning board is putting forth that's right um so it can wait probably wait for the fall
the select board decide yes and so okay um and the last one is to expand the applicability of site plan review this um I tried to paraphrase this uh
the current site plan site plan review is triggered by a couple places in the bylaw which is number nine where otherwise like required by the zoning um and by the addition of five parking spaces so Mark's recommendation is that we
should add some additional uh triggers for site plan review um that might not have a special permit and those are construction for commercial use uh changing um a
structure it's currently commercial um or uh I can't read that over 400 square fet and or the aggregate disturbance of a lot coverage of 15 00 s ft um development expansion or change of
use requiring five or more parking spaces which is the current occupancy of existing structure by commercial which increases perious occupant load previously um approved document load by 10% um change of uh use in existing
residential structure to a commercial use a dry through facility multi family construction or renovation of three or more units um and alteration of more than an acre of land
for except for one or two family residential um and Town Council had a couple of comments on this yes pass that to she wants to see
out I think that's a good idea show the strikeouts um do that in work yeah yeah um aggregate disturbance seems to me that's total change
yeah so the next one um so my only thought about the second one a change of occupancy of existing structure by commercial use which increases the previous occupant Lo by 10% well a lot of that goes to the zoning board for a change of
use um so might not be a change in use though you're just saying a change in occupancy yeah right so a restaurant has a 200 person occupancy and it's going to go up to 220 MH yeah I know
that's seems 10% seems like a little a marginal yeah is that what that's intended to me literally the number of people will occupy reading it literally yeah if you read it literally that would be one interpretation or somebody um I
mean if they're adding an addition let's cover it through something else so I mean maybe we don't need number four yeah I think that's what I'm thinking it may be a little too plus if it is a change of use a lot of those go and they're not building I mean the whole
inant primarily I mean this is in something similar is in other towns but rarely does it come forward I mean it does can't say do we want number five we have a change of use of existing residential
structure to a commercial use do we want to flip it why wouldn't we also want a change of use of existing commercial to residential why would you put a change of use period are there more uses than commercial and Resident sure
institutional professional professional yeah yeah so the church the the um so a change of use from the church on um pool Street to a residential would be a change in use but that would go through
other so that mean we shouldn't do site plan review right yeah well it would actually go through site plan yeah that's right okay so I think a change of use
period change of use period so cargo unlimited for example would get a site RW about how about with a site I mean if there's a change of use 500 square feet do we care right change of use well it's not a change of use of 500 square feet
it's a change of use yeah I mean there isn't a size associated with it but wonder if there should be well I think it's just a change of use period which is what triggers it it triggers so much it could trigger a lot just leaving it by change of use you
yeah yeah I mean I think the the original intent is someone takes a house wants to add commercial space right so now you have to think about parking access you know you they want to beef up
the land they have them do more Landscaping CU it was a house no one could make them do anything but so I mean I think that's really the intent of this way this is so why don't we say commercial or institutional use okay CH
a from RE from residential use to commercial or institutional but I also like to see us industrial other could be manufacturing could be shops yeah why why put such a fine point on it
why just ch I like change of views because I'm thinking I'm thinking about the we've been talking about the downtown it would at least trigger if me like cargo for example cargo came in with a change of use
that's a not commercial at least it gives us a little bit of a um oversight or I'm the church becoming residential um or the another what's another good example there's
there's the the gas station well the multi family um on the corner of of school and um Union y used to be Linda Crosby but right I know what I mean um where
they it has been suggested that they would change what had been residential do commercial do we want to drag them through that yeah that seems like a beneficial change but maybe you do an easy s
right I'm not sure I don't know what answer to but um I think we're presupposing that it's not a beneficial change it's just a change deserves looking at okay I think a change of use put it
that's broader what do you mark squirming yeah yeah I mean not necess like reviewing everything and driving and so usually and and Commercial uses in our zoning
chart are really just pretty much all the commercial right are under that one section we have accessory um we have community and uh and residential and that's about it so commercial covers everything all the
commercial stuff so so I think that's that was really the intent is because um you know someone's changing a house into something commercial butter ISS issues potentially lighting access I
mean the number of things is and so for that particular reason even if they're not adding on to the build is this controlled by General zoning anyway not that many places they're allow commercial use to begin with there
enough just just so that's why I thought it it should just be focused to that one issue and not overly brought it wouldn't go both ways commercial to residential or residential to Comm why would you review a residen because it but multi family already has
a different review process anywh no I'm picking up the someone's take yeah I get it if our downtown if the bank wants to convert to four condos review it's not a special per so
you can't say unless there's some sort of does give a little bit of gives you a lot of control over what they put up giv you a lot of control over I'd like to see us do Residential to
Commercial and Commercial to residential okay all right come back to number three it says five or more new parking spaces I thought that we used to get site plan review exist or you know if there's a change proposed whe they are existing
five spaces or new five spaces for review think that's existing us yeah he just that's what I thought yeah but it says new parking spaces so I think there's a change there from what it used to say was
just new the current says all existing and proposed driveway spaces driveway open server um requirements sorry any new development expansion or change of use other than single or two
family in which under the parking schedule require five or more parking spes this is the number of parking spaces pre-existing on the premises so this is requiring five or more new yeah so I think we should just keep what we have today Mark so it's
on page 111 y okay any other comments any comments on from the folks online see if anybody has any please speak up one more in number eight why do
we get into those types of uses that are agricultural except we're accepting those yeah so we allowing those by right is that a change I'm only the only
reason I'm asking is because sometimes there are chemical heavy practices yeah but think they're protected use under statute right so you I didn't want to get into I see and so
the idea is if someone has a large piece of land and they start altering it um they create drainage problems other things and so if it's not necessarily in a wetland it's not going to go to conservation
so ums L to planning Board review prior to someone clearing a lot and impacting a neighbor with run off or you know even if it's so for example the Summer Street
property that was more than than they would have to come yeah they can do these permits concurrently right so they don't have to come back and come back come back but it could have been umed
or that's I don't remember if that's and that's something that's fairly standard you've taken that from another from other yeah it was it's been a issue in other communities where there's more commercial someone clears a lot and next
thing you know there cars barking there yeah it wasn't all about the alteration of land the extion there justification for those okay any other comments on
that all right the the only thing is um is two more comments like what does this mean when an addition is proposed to an existing build in the planning board reserves the right to review the existing structurer site so
it we already have requirements above like what kicks in so I think what she's saying is well why do you adding this as well and what's this really mean if you're saying um you know if you're adding more
400 square feet or offering so much more then why why do we have this as well so so you she's saying well it does seem like it's sort of hanging out there yeah kind of hanging out there and so delete it yeah I would say just delete
it let's you know we don't want we don't have yeah we're beefing it up and we don't need to make it more confusing than the public um would say take it out
okay o' any other issues on zoning that people want to raise the other one we talked about was just a a article that just uh has the short-term rental aood and adus we're going to just make a
separate article around that okay all right um for discussion of General bylaws section 46 driveway entrances and planning board regulations so this is a fast moving new info as of 4M
right yeah um so I had a discussion with the council this afternoon about the driveway entrance um if you would like to have a follow-up discussion with greig about it
but basically the summary is um she feels that the entire regulations kind of really need be revised um that um it's it's placed in the general
bylaw and although um it it should be clarified some of the items and issues um so um so she wants to have a follow-up discussion with Greg because he was
present when this was revised and about the um the applicability of planning board special permit so the bylaw set some standards but then says standards Beyond other than this
gets referred for a special permit but there's no standards in this or you can't apply your zoning special permit standards this because this is in the general
bylaw so um the only standard you could apply is is it a public safety hazard by allowing a second driveway or allowing a narrower driveway or or whatever or a wider driveway or a steeper driveway
does a Crea a public that would be the only justification for not issuing a special permit because you have zero other criteria to use So she recommends like a full rewrite of this and she says there's nothing that's absolutely
pressing that needs to get done work on it and then it to next town meting yeah so this is what I just kind of pasted it up there I didn't take time to summarize it I think the issue is one
of the issues that we have currently is that um if somebody creates a violation and puts in a two entrances we' mentioned this on School Street so it's her correct me if I'm wrong it's her opinion that they can apply for a
special permit we can address it on a safety basis um and even though it's uh says it's there's only one allowed that's her and that going forward we need to fix it so that their special
permit criteria whether it's in general or goes back to zoning um and um the other thing is that this is Drive ENT there we've had this challenge of driveway entrances versus
driveways and they're mixed up in this General bylaw and so it needs a little more thought is her recommendation yeah and then her other question had to do which also needs clarification is it a public roadway or
private roadway so if it's a private roadway and what would standards be obviously there should be some standards for Public Safety like the fire truck um but there are perhaps other standards
that may not apply so um are that you shouldn't be trying to regulate on a private roadway let's say such as the number of driveways uh onto a property if it's a private
road maybe for Public Safety you could regulate grades and uh wids I I don't understand what criteria we would ever use besides Public Safety you don't like the color of the
cement on the wall or something I don't well it's just uh Ada um well that's Public Safety safy it's all public safety number of driveways number of driveways is not necessarily a public safety issue at all you could make the
case that it is I mean there's literature out there the number of times you have a curb cut I'm across the sidewalk that's pedestrian safet right most our roadways here lot of them don't have C don't have sidewalks on maybe
doesn't mean people aren't walking or riding a bicycle on them but a lot of yeah so we have a we have this problem of um the other you know another example of the two driveway issue is is there's
a um house that had an old uh easement across uh had two historically had two entrances one of them has not been used and so the sidewalk it needs a
needs a curb cut actually and that the Topography of the house is such that it you can't access half part the house unless you have the second RightWay so there are there are circumstances at least that one in my
opinion is like kind of a no-brainer that's coming soon so um there so there are other there are sort of unique circumstances and then we have the problem right now of somebody who's put
in this two entrances thinking that it was making things safer um whether they are or not so that we need to contact them um and they come see us so they have
been contacted by public works yeah uh they were uh told to come see me no one's come yet um in discussing this with Council she wants to clarify a few
issues with um Greg or she makes a final determination that they can come for the planning board for a special permit even if there aren't criteria um to do so
right so I think the recommendation for Mark is that we limp along until we can even though we spent way too much time on this issue I I think yeah I think um given the limited amount of
time that we had since the last town meeting to now yeah um I think we've done pretty good getting and you had to address flood plane you had to address adus um so you you've done the things
that you really have to and so I I would say um let's put this off and not create another halfhazard rush to fix something and let's yeah you know coordinate it with public works and
fire department and counseling so that we can get it cleaned up and all right sounds great thank you um on reports no meeting since last time we met couple weeks ago any additional public comments oh actually I do have oh
have the CPC did agree to increase the funding for the Rotunda by $400,000 because one of the grants is not going to come through whether it's a Federal grant that's been frozen I don't know
I'm not sure the particulars of it but so so now we're putting our taxpayer money into the rot okay uh oh it was the
um coastal zone management and the funding that they had available we had we had them down for I think a million and they have $5 million in funding in total give out grants and they are
looking particularly at Grants that will improve Public Safety and the Rota is unlikely to make that cut okay thank you any other any public
com um okay uh minutes of uh January 13th move to approve second second any discussion all in
favor okay thank you um lastly other maners matters not reasonably anticipated by the chair yes I have one um our special permit at Reed Park um which is really for the future
extension but appes to the whole thing um said that there should be no rafting of boats tying two boats side by side there's a group um that's coming into Manchester Harbor the cruising club of
America um and they have asked to have an exemption for that um through and I think the select board can is the one that can grant that exception but an she's just left wanted to know if we had any strong feelings one way or the other
it's a non- weekend Thursday June 26th from 400 p.m. to Friday uh the 27th at 10 a.m. um so it's not a weekend which would matter to me um and um any
thoughts so like how many boats um big small yeah um probably big but they're faithful and spend a lot of money and go to the restaurants so uh I would say if they rafted two breast
that would be fine for a limited time but um this is water use not L juice yeah do we have any um yeah go ahead only I don't know anything about boats I'll just say that I'm a small craft
person but um I makes me a little bit um question it because we did just say no rafting and now we now we're saying rafting saying rafting we're making exception but I would defer to the Harbor Master on this and uh to see
whether he thinks it's safe and advisable good plan okay will get back to on that um any other business all right we've got a lot done tonight thank you everybody thank Mark for your preparation I would suggest if
anybody needs um print outs of any of these things they take them thank you Shannon for making all these sorry make you spend all that paper but it was helpful to have them it's pleasure pleas motion to adjourn uh all in
favor thank you so we meet again on Wednesday at 7 right we are going to meet Wednesday at 7 so I will be dropping into your folders as the day progresses tomorrow