so let's call the meeting to order and let me do the usual opening uh this is Larry Murphy chair of the newbur planning board permit me to confirm that all members and persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me planning board members when I call your name please respond in the affirmative Peter posos yes Woody Knight yes Mary Stone yes Scott ker Scott still trying to connect yeah on Steve man Jon yes and town staff when I call your name please respond in the affirmative uh Martha Taylor planning director yes and Christen grubs assistant Town planner yes and anticipated speakers and presented presenters on the agenda please respond uh attorney William Henny yes I'm here thank you sir and uh we're expecting Ian burns from mvpc I don't see him on yet Martha do you no he's not here yet no and also Steve Sawyer from uh uh gm2 y not yet okay so this March 20th 2024 open meeting of the Newbury planning board is being conducted remotely consistent with chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 which extends the governor's March 12 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general laws chapter 30A section 20 until March 31 2025 this order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location and allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely so long as reasonable access Public Access is afforded so that the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting for this meeting the Newberg planning board is convening uh by video conference via Zoom as posted on the planning board agenda which can be found on the town's website in which identifies how the public may join you may join us by going to http colback zoom. us and entering meeting ID number 832 7141 3056 pass code 10879 or by calling 1 92925 6099 in entering the meeting ID number and passcode when prompted please note that this meeting has being recorded and that attendees are particularly U are participating excuse me by video andoor telephone conference the meeting is also being broadcast live through local access cable channel 9 on zoom and at www.tn cv. org and the recording will be available on the newbur access YouTube channel meeting materials were provided to the board members prior to the meeting for review applicants or their representatives may be called upon to speak and if needed share information to the screen please State your intention after you've been called before we turn to the first item on the agenda permit me to cover some ground rules for Effective and clear conduct of our business and to ensure accurate meeting minutes as chair I will introduce each speaker on the agenda after speakers conclude their remarks I will go down the list of board members inviting each by name to provide any comment questions or motions please hold until your name is called further for all attendees except board members and staff please remember to mute your computer using your mute button or on your phone uh uh star 6 to toggle mute or unmute uh when you not speaking please use earbuds or earphones with tablets and cell phones please remember to speak clearly and in a way that helps generate accurate minutes please be aware that video participants can see you and that you should take care not to screen share your computer anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording for any response please uh please wait until I yield the floor to you and state your name before speaking if board members wish to engage in discussion with other members please do so through me taking care to identify yourself when you wish to speak there will be an opportunity for public comment and questions during public hearings after board members have spoken I will afford the public an opportunity to comment Andor ask questions as follows I will see questions and comments through through a zoom raised hand function for video conference participants to raise your hand hover over the the bottom of the zoom window below the photo gallery and click on the gray hand that appears please ensure your name is fully and correctly displayed on the participant list you may rename yourself by using the more function next to your name for telephone participants to raise your hand in a zoom meeting hit star9 on your phone keypad I will then allow questions and comments from members of the public who have raised their hands in the order in which they are listed which is DET determined by the order in which people click on the raand function each participant will be called on to provide his or her name and address and then ask a question to make a comment I will afford the applicant the participant or his or her representative the opportunity to reply your hand will be lowered when you've been given the floor for your questions I will then continue down the list of those in the raised hand column and again afford the participant applicant or representative an opportunity to speak should there be a physical or electronic submittal of questions or concerns they'll be noted for the record and again and the participant applicant or representative will be afforded the opportunity to speak if the issues raised have not yet been addressed finally please note that each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted by roll call vote so turning to the agenda now the first item on the agenda is an anr submission uh from attorney Henny uh this is a resubmission of an anr plan for proposed a lot line change between 44 Farland Drive map r18 5 4 and 42 Fatherland Drive map r18 lot 53 the owner applicants of 44 Fatherland Drive of Patrick T and Mercedes R sh living trust Mercedes and Patrick TR Shay trustees and the owner of 42 Fatherland Drive uh Francis M and Carol J orandi and I understand this is on to um we've seen this once before I understand it's on to correct uh an error in the original filing attorney Henny uh yes thank you Mr chairman just to give you a little quick background here my name is Bill Heeney my office is on 86 DOD Street in Beverly and I represent Patrick and Mercedes Shay individually as well as Patrick and Mercedes Shay as Trustees of the Patrick T and the Mercedes R living trust uh we were before you twice last fall a very thorough review of the anr plan I might add in in December the anr plan was approved and what we weren aware of at the time was that in November the Shays were also working with a law firm to do some Estate Planning and on November 17th they transferred their property to a to a living trust so when my office got around to recording the plan that was approved we did a little due diligence we discovered that we had the wrong owners of record on your plan we contacted Martha after a brief conversation we decided Ed that the best course of action would be to bring the plan back before you tonight which is what we've done it is the exact same plan that uh was presented to you that was dated 1218 2023 we now have a revised plan and the only change changes on that plan are in the top left corner with the uh owners of record of 44 Fatherland Drive being Patrick and Mercedes Shay as Trustees of the trust and their new deed reference from November when the property is transferred into their trust is it is our hopes that we can make it light work light work of this and just approve essentially the exact same plan that was approved last December thank you Martha before I turn to the board members anything you'd like to add uh no I think Bill's recapped it very well I don't know if Bill do you have the plan to pull up on your screen or I I don't know if I can share let me let me look and see why we're um we're looking and the board members have it um I'm happy to share it or if you think it's not necessary we can just let it go if you can share it that might be if I open my screen it's going to show everything else from the file I think okay just bear with me for a second it'll take me Martha while you do that I I just like to note for the record and for the minutes that uh uh Scott kter has been able to join us Scott welcome sorry it's taking me a second here I I now have it but I have a multiple screen so I can try to share my screen if you like Martha I've I've got it I think I can do it hold on just a sec yes that's correct that's the revised plan okay I I I believe this is just a lot line adjustment Bill if you could just uh run us through that quickly oh so in in December what we reviewed was uh 42 Fatherland Drive which is the Orland property is transferring a little over 2900 Square ft to 44 Fatherland Drive the back it's it's known as lot three or shown as lot three on this plan um it does not create both Lots remain conforming lots and it was reviewed in detail with you in December the only changes on this plan today are up in the top left corner where the uh record owner of 44 is the trust and the new deed reference from November other than that this is the identical plan from last December okay thank you uh let me turn to the board members Pete do you have any questions I do not thanks no uh Woody any questions no seems straightforward thank you Bill thank you Larry okay Mary any questions oh so thanks Larry Scott any questions I have no question and Steve any questions thank you no okay I don't have any questions either it looks pretty straightforward um that being the case um would anyone care to make a motion uh to endorse the anr plan entitled division plan of land of 42 and 44 F and Drive Newbury Massachusetts prepared for Patrick and Mercedes Shay by EPS Associates LLC Revis date March 4 2024 motion thank you Woody uh do I have a second second thank you Mary any discussion then uh Pete how do you vote Yes Woody how do you vote Yes Mary how do you vote Yes Scott how do you vote Yes and I vote Yes as well um okay anything further on this I I have none Mr chairman I thank you for your time and sorry we had to come back before you tonight okay thank you Bill all right um moving on well let's see it's 711 um we can go to Liaison reports before we get to our public hearings uh anything from the select board Martha uh major item is they met on March 12th and voted that night to um well they voted the warrant and it has since been posted so rest of the business that night really had to do primarily with the business licenses and liquor licenses okay thanks Martha uh for zba uh they met on the 14th uh had a very busy night um they voted favorably on special permits and findings for 36 Northern Boulevard 40 Northern Boulevard and 10 forom way also continued three public hearings for 230 High Road 76 Northern Boulevard and three River Street also uh of Interest they uh voted to extend the U uh deadline to begin construction for that 55r Pearson drive that's the 40b uh project off Pearson Drive uh the reason uh because of the uh protracted litigation uh which has been uh which has been resolved and they're they're moving forward with construction that's all I have for zba uh Woody anything from conservation excuse me um conservation met last night there were three uh certificates of compliance um some requests uh for septics and nothing that really pertained to us but um it was a busy evening but it was a lot of uh old things and new things so that's all thank you Woody um Martha mvpc uh the mvpc commissioner's meeting is tomorrow so I'll be able to report on that at the next meeting okay thanks Martha we still got a couple minutes to go before we can get into the public hearings I don't think there's anything else we can do in the meantime you'll probably need more than a minute for your director's report Martha um maybe not a lot but probably more more than a minute we can hold up 7:14 now so just give it a minute and I would like to note that Ian has Ian has joined us from good for okay 7:15 uh so the first public hearing on the agenda is this is actually a ren noticed public hearing for the proposed uh new MBTA communities multif family overlay District it's an amendment to Article 4 regulations of overlay districts to add a new bylaw section 974 G MBTA community's multif family overlay District or mcod to allow multif family housing as of right in this overlay District in accordance with section 3A of the zoning act Massachusetts General Law chapter 40a and related amendments to attachment one zoning overlay and resources District map to show the proposed M proposed MBTA communities multif family overlay District um this is a ren noticed hearing because we've been uh advised by Town Council that because there have been substantive uh amendments to the proposed uh uh bylaw Amendment um uh since it was first uh published uh that a republication and reopening um or I should say a new uh public hearing needs to be convened um so with that I'd ask uh our clerk uh Woody Knight if you would read the public hearing notice Woody yes town of nuur planning board public hearing notice residents of the town of Newbury and other interested persons please note that on Wednesday March 20th 2024 at 7:15 p.m. the new planning board will hold a public hearing remotely via Zoom pursuant to mgl C 4A to consider proposed amendments as further revised in additions to the code of the town of Newbury chapter 97 zoning as follows amendment to article for regulations of overlay districts to add a new bylaw m BTA communities multif family overlay District to allow multif family housing as a right in this overlay District in accordance with Section 3A of the zoning act Massachusetts General Law chapter 48 in related related amendment to attachment one zoning overlay in resource districts map to show the proposed mpta community's multifam overlay District the text and maps of these proposed amendments are on file with the town clerk in in the planning office 12 kentway site 101 Byfield Mass it may be viewed on the planning board section of the town's website at https semicolon www.town ofy.org planning board SL Pages SL propos zoning and regulations amendments for more information or to obtain a digital or hard copy of the proposed amendments contact the planning office by phone at 978 46586 2 extension 312 or by email at planning boardtown ofy.org in accordance with chapter two of the acts of 2023 which extends the governance March 12th 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until March 31st of 2025 the hearing is being conducted remotely all persons interested or wishing to be heard relative to the pro proposed zoning amendments are invited to participate in the hearing remotely at the designated time from their computer tablet or smartphone at https semicolon us go2 web. zoom. us j83 2714 13056 passcode 10879 or by telephone by calling 92925 6099 us and using meeting ID number 832 7141 3056 6 or may watch the meeting live on local access cable channel 9 or at www. tnct dog and it was published in the newb report daily news on March 6 and on March 13th of 2024 all right thank you Woody um we've had um you know prior um uh sessions of the hearings on the on the previous L uh uh noticed um public hearing we've also had number of Outreach um public Outreach sessions um and I suspect uh most everyone who's tuned in tonight uh is familiar with this but in case it's new to anyone I just give a very brief recap um in 2020 the legislature uh passed the so-called MBTA communities act uh and it um it relates to communities with a Transit stop are communities adjacent to a community with a Transit stop which of course includes Newbery and we're required uh these communities are required to adopt an ordinance of bylaw permitting multif family housing with certain minimum uh gross density um the planning department U Martha and Kristen have been working very closely with Ian Burns and Kayla uh renie from uh marac Valley Planning Commission um uh who are on board as our Consultants so we have the i Burns with us tonight and I'm going to ask Ian to uh give us a brief uh synopsis of of the proposed bylaw and the legislation and the proposed bylaw you would Ian thank you very much happy to glad to be with you all again tonight um for everyone that that I have not met yet that's on the call my name is Ian burns with the Mary ma Valley Planning Commission as the chairman mentioned uh for those that are unaware the Mary Mac Valley Planning Commission we're a public agency that serves the 15 cities and towns the marac valley region so Newberry being one of those and we are assisting Newberry as well as nine other communities in this region with in-depth support for MBTA communities compliance with that I will share a couple of slides so that folks can follow along kind of with where we are today with newberry's proposed bylaw all righty so I'm going to hop right into it and if it works for you Mr chairman at the end I'll stop for questions unless any members of the board want to ask anything throughout all right Ian thank you so just hopping right into it we're going to zoom in on the map in just a minute here but wanted to give you a big overview of where we're considering these uh birght multif family districts in Newbury so you'll see this is the entire town and we've zoomed in on a couple of insets but we'll take a farther zoom in on future slides we have two main areas of town that are being considered one is the North District up here and so you have Route One Newbury port rotary and Community rail station right here um and then we have the South District down here near Byfield an important thing to note and something we'll be kind of uh mentioning throughout the presentation is that you'll see there is a North a district in blue here and a South a district in blue down here and then a North B District in yellow and a South B District in yellow um those are the same letters and colors because they have the same dimensional requirements and so although we have a North section and a South section of town um you'll notice that the dimensional requirements so the zoning parameters in the B's the yellows and the A's the blues are are are different and so they have the same if they're the same color and we'll talk about that in just a second here so this is zooming in on that North District so this symbol is symbolizing the the Newberry Port commu rail station up here you have route one right here and you have Newberry Elementary right here to the right of the b um so we have a and b districts as we'll talk about uh in a couple of slides the B districts um have lower densities and have more strict parameters for zoning compared to the a districts which allow for a bit more density and have uh a little bit looser regulations in terms of those dimensional requirements um a couple reasons I think some of you may have heard we we floated around some of these districts primarily the access to theity rail station and some good benefits being right near Route One for efficient Transportation options and the B being near New Newberry Elementary we thought was a great idea um for any potential families with children to be able to be in walking distance to the elementary school so zooming back out we just looked at the North districts here now we're going to go down to the South districts in bfield um and looking at those too so here's that Newberry South uh those districts so we have a which is right over kentway the the plaza where town hall is and then we have B over here which is off of Central Street and that's behind uh the the fire station is right here for folks who are familiar and Central Street goes over 95 which is located right here again we have an A and A B District because the a allows for a little bit more density as compared to the B which is uh lower density and greater setbacks required in the actual uh zoning So to that point you can take a look at the dimensional requirements here again these A's are referring to North a is the one right on route one that we just saw and South a is over kentway the strip mall North B being next to Newberry Elementary and South B being on Central Street uh the subdistricts north a and South a those have a three-story maximum Building height and the setbacks are 50 foot for the front yard and 25 feet for the side and rear yards you'll also notice that the max building coverage is 50% on the parcels on the Lots themselves and we are requiring a minimum open space of 40% uh with any future development if a development were to happen um the max density that is allowed there that is in units per acre is 17 units per acre then taking a look at the bees those those lower densities that I was referring to um same minimum lot size required if anyone was to to subdivide any of the Lots the max Building height is 2.5 stories so a little bit less than what is in the a districts the step facts this is what where one of the major differences is we still have the 50ft front yard but 60 feet for the side and rear yards that's really in an effort to make sure that we have some distance between any AB budding neighbors and potential future development um the max building coverage is at 40% so 10% less than the a districts and the minimum open space required is 50% so that's 10% more than in the a districts then the maximum density really an effort to make sure that there isn't anything too intrusive in these neighborhoods is that at 8 units per acre cannot be any higher than that for a future development all of this Zoning for folks who may be unaware is proposed as an overlay District which essentially just means that all of these uses are allowed on top of what is currently allowed in these areas so all the underlying zoning Still Remains a developer could choose if they wanted to to do single family homes or whatever it is zoned for um or they could choose to use the overlay district and put in multif family housing that aligns with these parameters I did want to mention uh well first I just wanted to show this example we showed this last time but this is a Oak Ridge some of you may be familiar this is Main Street in Newberry this is a density of actually 11 and a half units an acre so when we talk about the B districts being set at eight units an acre that's less density than what we see here so we wanted to give you a quick visual of what you might experience in town and that densities can actually be a bit higher than what you might expect just by looking at the structure uh two things important to mention first affordability requirements we are putting in a requirement that 10% of any future development that has 10 units or more be designated as affordable for those who are unaware um an affordable unit in this case refers to housing um that has incomes making 80% or less of What's called the area median income so if you're making underneath whatever the area median income is Newberry if you're making 80% of that total then you qualify for affordable housing um under these guidelines what does that mean example exactly in Newberry um means for a family of four a household income can be up to about $118,000 and for a one person household the maximum income is $882,000 so it is still relatively uh good siiz income but when you're in a community like Newberry and in what's considered the Greater Boston metro area median income is pretty high and so 80% of that um um is sits around 118 for a family of four the last thing I'll mention and we try to mention this as much as possible for folks just because this is by right zoning does not mean that a developer can flout any uh state or federal regulations around Environmental Protections so everything still applies here they have to adhere to Title 5 septic regulations Wetlands protection act um they have to make sure that they can make it work within the utility and infrastructure capacity on site if not they have to build it on site and they also have to adhere to any uh State policies around storm water management preventing uh more runoff than there may be there currently that is all I have for slides if anybody wants I can go back to any of the maps as we talk but I will hand it back over uh to you Mr chairman for what where you want to go next thank you Ian um I think next what I'd like to do well first let me um ask the board members if um they have any questions for Ian uh Peter I know this first time we've seen this yeah no questions I think this has been a good wrap up a good summation of what the efforts have been thanks very much I think it's very concise uh Woody any questions for Ian or comments no no questions thank you Ian again thank you uh Mary I'll turn to you all good Larry thank you Ian and Scott I any question thank you and appreciate all okay and Steve no questions and thanks for the presentation yeah it was very very concise um informative for anyone who may be new to this um I when we last saw this on March 6th we uh reviewed a Le a redlined version um of the proposed bylaw um and I think Martha if you can put that up on the screen and just uh uh I think it might be helpful um if we could just take another look at that again to remind everyone of the substantive changes right so the last time that we reviewed this um it's it's been we've been reviewing incremental changes going along and so this time I'm going to go through it um highlighting each change that's been made since the um since the first notice of the the first public hearing um just to really highlight what's been what's different from this version U between this version and the last some of these changes that came out of um discussions with mvpc as our consultant and some of them are the result of red lines um and edits suggested edits from Town Council so in the be uh at the beginning of the bylaw um the first change we made was to add some language about uh what the bylaw will do in addition to being compliant with the the um uh 3A of the zoning act so this was to increase the production of a range of housing units to meet existing and anticipating housing needs and to increase the diversity of Housing and provide excuse me sorry provide more housing choice to meet the needs of residents of different age groups household compositions and income levels scrolling down the next change was Town Council advis putting in some language um referring this to site plan review I think one thing that does need to be noted is that even though this is allowed by Wright it is something that will be going again sorry um through site plan review with the planning board so there will be a review process for any application that comes before the board uh Town Council had removed the word waiver from this definition of as of right and later has added a provision regarding waiver which we'll get to in a second um in terms of the d uh the dimensional standards as Ian just mentioned we added the density um caps for the A and B subdistricts so 17 for 17 units per acre for the A subdistricts and eight units per acre for the B subdistricts Town Council made some amendments to the language regarding the affordability um just noting that uh the house affordable housing restriction needs to be recorded at the Essex County registry of deeds prior to issuance of a building permit and that copy has to be provided to the planning board and the Building Commissioner going down further there's a section on site plan review and Town Council added this um phrase in accordance with Section 97 point-9 which is our site plan review and uh noted that again here also in accord with guidance from Town Council we added a paragraph here application process uh which is carried over directly from our site plan review uh rules and regulations going down going down further um there's been some uh quite a bit of change to the Section 8 design standards and guidelines originally these were uh put forward more as guidelines and this has been tightened up to to make it clear that these are designed standards that an applicant will need to be uh will need to adhere to but there is language in here um a little further about waiver so where it says guidelines in most cases it's been changed to standards and then further down is the provision that Town Council added um saying the planning board May wave the design standards provided that the that the board determines that such waivers will substantially further the purposes and intent of this section then as far as the standards are concerned themselves um the first one we added site design because some of these standards are related to overall s site design not just open space and Landscaping uh chains should to shall in many instances um for the landscaped areas we noted that not only should they be planted with d drought tolerant species but they should be species that don't require any Automatic Irrigation Systems um added the planting shall be native species not included on the Massachusetts prohibited plant list uh added requirements regarding light levels and uh color temperature of the lighting and clarified that parking and circulation on the site should be organized so as to reduce the amount of impervious surface uh we made some minor changes in in discussion about the placement of of the buildings and added some language regarding minimizing the visual impact of the development from the street by locating lower buildings closer to the street taller buildings farther back on the site and we made some changes to the section on building massing articulation and architecture um in particular um again changing should to Shell uh added some language regarding roof pitches to make it clear that it should be typical of roof pit pitches found in this area uh changed entrances to facades clarified building materials um uh changing it from our preferred to should be used uh removed a reference to uh vinyl and plastic synthetic sighting since that's really been addressed above in terms of the preferred or the the materials that should be used uh we had a section on resource efficiency which is still in here but has been Rewritten to clarify those requirements um regarding building orientation um electric vehicle charging stations use of LED and dark sky compliant light fixtures and Technologies to minimize water demand throughout the site design finally sections have been added regarding the decision process um that decisions shall be made Within 80 180 days of filing of a complete application final final action of the planning board shall be approval based on determination that it complies with the criteria uh or that it complies subject to um site plan and design conditions modification and restrictions or disapproval because the application is incomplete and then sections have been added recording recording and lab of the approval once it's been granted which would be um two years after the date of issuance if the work is not complete but it can be extended and that again is directly from our site plan review bylaw so that is the the bylaw as amended through the process over the last several weeks thank you Martha um I don't have any questions uh before we open it to the public let me uh pull the board members again uh Pete do you have any questions for Martha comments uh my only comment is I think it's been a good work in progress very impressed with NPC's participation and our staff working together to to bring this to a that's thank you Pete uh Woody do you have anything I don't have any questions I I reiterate what Peter just said then some there's been a lot of hard work put into this and I think we have a final draft here so thanks wood you anything you'd like to add did we lose no I'm sorry I I was muted um no Larry sorry uh Scott anything no I I don't have anything other than um you know great work you in her um there's been a lot of changes um you know onto the Scott I I'm having a little trouble understanding you I don't know if anyone else is I am I am as well I have no questions Larry okay thank you and uh Steve all set thank you okay uh Martha do we have any uh written comments from the public uh no we don't okay um and uh I think you can probably U put that down and do we have any raised hands from the public uh Jack Riki has raised his hand and Jack go ahead hey uh good evening Larry good evening Martha good evening everybody uh thanks for your time always on the sepher it's uh been a long one um I submit I I like Peter's use of the word this is an aggressive plan uh the nature of the maximum buildout proposed would impact this town tremendously under whatever time frame a developer would so choose to uh undertake the provisions offered in particular the by right component is very um intimidating because under the same Circumstance the developer could propose the same type development and do it under our special permit Provisions which allows us more oversight more um say in in the matter that we will seed under the terms of by right so it's not as if a developer can't do exactly these same densities uh but the byright component is bothersome in particular the language that you mentioned Martha that ultimately you can wave some or all Provisions after planning Board review is slightly disturbing because the nature of the by right would allow him to propose and then you know not necessarily be held to the standard that's being set and and and I don't that's Troublesome language um I hadn't seen that language before I also say that under the law to stay compliant for the grants that may be called into question we really only need to be compliant for 154 units that would mean one parcel under the 17 Unit density in the north a parcel for instance the old auto salvage yard would make us entirely compliant for all the MBTA laws going forward to try that we're now couching multiple Properties by right and giving seeding a lot of oversight it possibly I think needs to be needs to be visited a little more and I think for the moment staying compliant with the law by passing a parcel that gives us that compliance while we in turn um watch the impacts of this law in other towns and other Fabrics of community that this would do our school system a lot of things would change in the town under the maximum buildup possibilities and even half those possibilities would change us and I talked to Ian at length and thank you Ian for the conversation particularly about the population Trends the numbers not necessarily the startup person you know the firsttime home buyers or the elderly population that's growing but the trend that the mvpc demonstrates throughout charts that it that it's 2050 uh that it's proposed we could have a population as low as 4,500 and those are the documents from the mvpc so there's a lot of conflict here and I I I appreciate the time but I think we don't want to and I'll use Pete's word again this is aggressive aggressive for our small town aggressive for a town of 6500 I think compliance is an order but the byright component of the balance of of what you're asking I think is piggybacking something that doesn't need to be done at this time and I appreciate your time thank you all right thanks CH if I understand uh your points your main points uh is you're concerned obviously about the um um the by right component which in order to comply with the MBTA statute uh it has to be by right at least that's my understanding and Ian or Martha I'll invite you to correct me no I no I entirely understand that that the byright but the byright component only needs to take needs to Encompass 154 units by the algorithm offered by the mvpc and that would make again the singular lot I believe of our the old auto salvage yard under the 17 density proposed that would make us MBTA 3A compliant and then the rest of it is is the add-on yeah I think if you take the 10,000 foot view you're absolutely right but I think that there are conditions on the ground that are going to greatly limit the number of units that actually can can go into these um um uh uh you know into any of these locations but but your point is understood and well taken uh any other um no no I would like to I would like to say something and I don't know perhaps Ian might in response to to what Jack said if I may um Jack if I understood you correct correctly I think you were suggesting that we allow multif family housing by special permit now is that I believe I believe under the def you read under the law provision I I I wrote it down here the definitions at the beginning of the law that you're proposing I wrote letter e and you make the point of the difference between what's available now versus what we'll seed if we give by by right so I'm actually looking back at the definitions right now but currently under our our zoning in Newbery but the E is important the E is very important because we're going to change exactly what we're discussing here I think the people should read that and or revisit it you had it up before please yeah yeah noce I see that um but the difference is here we don't actually allow M multihousing by special permit except in two districts and that's for up to four up to four units or as an osrd development so this is not this is not permitting as of right um it's it's not it's not allowing as of right something that we currently allow by special permit right so so again the the nature of the oversight of you know a developer asking for increased density on say they're you know either one you know pick a property uh the P the Byfield property en hawk or RJ Kelly's property or the auto salvage yard if a developer came to you and proposed under the provisions you have now to the planning board I submit that under the special permit Provisions the the zoning board of appeals and the other processes we have that in fact the developer could pursue similar you similar densities under the special permit provisions and what I'm really visiting Marthur is that's that's part of the aggressive nature I I submit we're mostly trying to stay compliant with the MBTA 3A provisions and that means 154 units if we built out all of the units that you're proposing we're talking hundreds much more than 154 I think the calculation closer to 700 and although it can be said nobody will ever build that big the technology going forward may allow for that there could be an amoeba that allows a septic system to have a hundred bedrooms in a day you know and that that what we look at today as restrictive in 25 years by right could absolutely fit under the density Clauses we're building so again it's the aggressive nature of of the zoning across town for the moment I'm not saying we can't visit it and add that later and we can I'm just saying to do it all at once isn't necessary because of the of the tremendous impact possible under every circumstance that that that's all I'm con that's what I'm mostly concerned about we want to stay compliant but that's a lot if you could if you could articulate in the the theory I think Ian did it with us I mean we're talking 700 units or so or more in a town that only has how many now we're talking about 25 or 30% more than we have now that's schools that's service that's infrastructure that's a lot more than the ideal opportunity of creating more housing where affordable is $700,000 plus dollar that's a hard thing me and in and we've all talked about it so again I go back to it's very aggressive to ask for all this all at once by right when we can do it under 154 units out of respect for everybody going forward while we keep those Provisions alive and extend them at Future annual Town meetings if it if it seems to work out in the Public's favor that that's all thank you all right thank you Jack one before I let you go I was negligent I should have asked you for your name and address for the record so if you could just give us that no I apologize that was my fault Jack Ricki 37 Lin Road thank you Jack I see Leslie Matthews has her hand up Martha yeah Leslie if you would state your name and address please Leslie Matthews 111 Main Street um from my understanding what we are doing at this point in time is a step establishing the zoning new zoning bylaws so that we can go forward in the near future to to establish these um different locations to build up our affordable housing am I incorrect on this or is that what we're that's what our game plan is at the moment and then we can go forward um I'm not sure I quite understand your question well the qu the it it's all of this has to go before town meeting correct absolutely yeah okay so some of the discussion that we're having is this all has to be in place before we can start making decisions on um some of the different districts that we have to change the zoning bylaws in order to move forward to go into the different districts to put the affordable housing um in on the map to to go forward with it well if if it passes and I should point out the the warrant has already been posted I understand that yeah yeah it has the article as we've seen tonight on there and we'll we'll get to our options in a few minutes um but yeah if this passes then the uh the multif family housing would be um pered committed um in the in the four designated districts with uh uh you know the uh the limitations that that uh uh density limitations between the A and B districts it does that answer your question it does and let me go want to just further say if you could just make a a few clarifications um because there are questions uh different people are asking why the select board went forward with putting this on the warrant when the planning board really hadn't um made a um hadn't closed out the public meeting on this and made an absolute decision uh I don't have an answer to on that okay yeah uh Pete I see your hand is up I actually did put my hand up which is rather unusual isn't yes it is so we should put it down as quickly as possible I'm G lower my there we go so I want to a couple things um uh uh Jack used the word aggressive but I'm not sure that we were using the word in the same manner and I think he used four times um I think this is a very significant plan and what it does in effect and you have to look at this from a different perspective it actually protects these par because it puts limitations on what can be developed in these partes when it comes to affordable housing so talking about what design is going to be good talking about what the U amount of open space is going to be how many can be in a particular District if a developer could come to us right now to this town and we want it to be a 40b let's say they wanted to put one there wanted to put one there in all these districts we would have M ability to limit or put any type of parameters around what would be developed I mean it would just happen and whatever they wanted to do if they wanted to put four stories in there they could put four stories in there we would be a to limit or or to or to quantify what the setbacks would be what the open space would be so in effect we're protecting these Parcels which might at some point in time be a target for development and that's one way that I'm looking at the second way is it helps to start the process of addressing some component of affordable this is not a complete affordable project it's not meant to be project and Ian will will qualify this what we're what we're doing is we're we're meeting the requirements of um what the law requires and at the same time we're protecting from my perspective these four Parcels as to what can be developed in the future without doing something like this these four Parcels would be they'd be on the pick ifel developer wanted to come in they could do whatever they wanted and they could follow an application for the application and we would have little to no limitations because we haven't our thresold and I think that's that's where we're protecting ourselves and doing this type of approach so that's what I wanted to say to to Jack's thanks so much thank you Pete um we have any other lesle um Pete kind of summed it up really well for me because you know at this point in time any developer could come in and put in a plan that they would like to do because all of our Ducks aren't in a row at the at right now but I see where we're you know we're leaning towards Port protecting these good assets that we have and thanks Pete you really summed it up for me yeah and and to both of your points I think uh just take for example a 40b application we would have much less control over a 40b on one of these Parcels than we would uh with the multif family zoning I believe um uh I hand is up did you want to say something yes yeah that'd be great thank you so much um just wanted to address one point that was made earlier there was concern about uh the waiver provision of the bylaw and I did want to point out that the way that waiver provision is written and Martha correct me if I'm wrong but it essentially allows a waiver only if the applicant is still adhering to the the spirit or the goal of that section of the bylaw so it doesn't Grant a a waiver for anything for any reason the applicant still has to show that they are complying with the intent of that section um if they are to be granted a waiver so I wanted to offer that clarification thank you I and I see another hand Mara uh Jack has raised his hand again okay Jack go ahead hey Jack RI 37 Lin Road um I just want to speak to the aidea that this law is going to protect 40b Parcels is is tough because there are multiple tens of acreages of farmlands around here that could conceivably be bought up under those circumstances the idea that these would be targeted and you're saving us from them I don't think it's fair I think that the idea of using 40b to pry us into this on a greater scale isn't necessarily fair I think 40b would come to pass for a developer regardless of the circumstance and this law would have no bearing on a high road Farm being sold and being you know carved up so I I just want to make that point that you know targeted um zoning to save our lands I don't think is a good message I I think that we own it as the zoning that it is or isn't and and that's compliance at 154 units is the baby steps I think we're all looking for and uh thank you very much all right thank you Jack any other public comment Martha I'm not I'm not seeing I'm not seeing any all right if that's the case then i' ask the board members it would seem to me to be appropriate at this point to close the public hearing at least the public comment section of the hearing then deliberate on what sort of a recommendation we want to make on this to uh town uh at town meeting uh does anyone have any other thoughts on that hearing none uh would would anyone care to make a motion uh to close the public hearing so moved thank you Mary is there a second second thank you I I think that was Woody I heard first thank you Woody um any discussion on that then Pete how do you vote on the motion to close the public hearing yes now Woody how do you vote on the motion yes uh Mary how do you vote on the motion yes and Scott how do you vote on the motion I vote Yes and I I vote Yes as well so I I think now it's time for the board to deliberate on what our recommendation is going to be I I think we have three options um one is to uh uh recommend approval as printed in the in the warrant uh the other would be to uh recommend approval with um uh one or more uh amendments such as uh for example to jack riki's points I think to cut back and on one or more of these uh these U uh subdistricts or the third of course would be to Simply uh U uh move to recommend disapproval so uh Pete how do how do you feel about it where are we at you know Larry I I I I appreciate um what has been has been proposed of the two types of districts um and I think having a north and a South makes makes all the sense in the world and tries to address what we're trying to do with the G to transportation and access I'm comfortable with how the thought process has been I'm comfortable how it's been laid out I'm comfortable with the limitations that have been put into place uh so I would suggest that we go forward with what has been proposed has been worked at this point in time thank you Pete uh Woody you have anything to add I agree uh I I'm comfortable with option one and I would go forward with option one I think that the four North A and B North and South is acceptable and reasonable thank you Woody uh Mary your thoughts yes agreed with Woody and Pete okay and Scott I'm supportive of that all right and Steve yeah I'm supportive but I think we ought to be prepared at town meeting to be able to discuss the buildout that Jack rebecky has described as one possible outcome and again it maybe the purview of the select board to talk about how this proposal was already on the town warrant before we got to before you got to vote so I'm just urging us all to be prepared during town meeting I expect I'm sorry Steve I didn't mean to cut you up but I expect there'll be some Lively discussion at town meeting on the subject definitely definitely all right well I think what I'm hearing for everyone is there is that we're in favor of moving forward uh to recommend approval uh of the bylaw as uh as it appears in the uh uh the town warrant uh the town meeting uh would anyone care to make a motion to that effect I'd be happy to thank you Pete do we have a second second thank you uh any discussion on the motion and hearing none Pete how do you vote Yes um Woody how do you vote Yes Mary how do you vote Yes Scott how do you vote Yes and I vote Yes as well so thank you and we appreciate all the uh the input we've got uh from everyone and all the interest that folks are taking in this because it is an important measure and uh we'll uh make the appropriate recommendation at town meeting and see where the debate goes all right moving on uh the next item on the agenda is the proposed amendment to the Wireless Communications facilities Wireless Communications Tower District amendment to article four regulations of overlay District section 97 forc Wireless Communications facilities section 94 974 c2a Tower use uh restrictions to add Parcels to the Wireless Communications Tower District which enables Wireless communication services to operate on Town Mount Tower mounted facilities in Rel related amendment to attachment one the zoning overlay and resource districts map to show the expanded Wireless Communications Tower District so we last U met on this on um March 6th and uh I'm sure you I'll recall that there were three Parcels under discussion here two of which belong to the uh School District on Elm Street the main campus and I believe it's 145 Elm and also the um DPW facility at 197 High Road um since we last met on this we've had two significant developments that I need to share with you uh first of all it's come to our attention that the uh hearing notice um for the public hearing or the notice for the public hearing was defective um the um statute requires that the notice be published in a newspaper uh at least twice turns out that we only uh this second publication never occurred the paper has taken responsibility for that oversight but nevertheless uh we have a defect in the process so if we're going to go forward uh to move this article forward uh and it does appear on the town meeting warrant also as it appears here um we're going to have to read advertise the second significant item is that the school district has communicated uh their wish that we withdraw the two School Parcels from consideration under this article it's too late to withdraw it uh because as I said the warrant article is are the warrant has already been posted with the article uh including all three Parcels um so we need to discuss our next steps um as I said Town Council has advised um that if we want to go forward with the article either to move it as written or move it to amend it in some amended form we would have to read vertise um and begin the public hearing um over again um the other option uh if we do nothing uh then town meeting would not uh uh be able to uh take up this article and would simply be passed over uh and the third option we can take a vote without read vertising the public hearing uh if we want to um uh uh recommend to town meeting that the article uh that no action be taken on the ticle at town meeting uh I personally I favor the last option for a variety of reasons I'm happy to talk about but let me um turn to the board members and get your feeling on this speaked yeah Larry uh considering where we're at right now I think the recommendation of no action would be the most appropriate and I think after we have a poll we can maybe discuss a little bit further yeah um uh Woody your thoughts I I agree no action be taken um option three um and we we'll work on in the future and so be it Mary law process I think we are to uh aboard okay all right uh Scott uh I'm in agreement with that um thank you and Steve your thoughts I agree option three sounds like the best path forward yeah I think so I think this needs more study and and more work and uh uh we've had a lot of discussion with the public we've heard from the neighbors uh we've had input from the school committee and I don't think that that the uh the school district was necessarily ruling out any further action on this but uh they uh my understanding is they want some more time to look at this and I think we could use more time too so Martha um is there any reason that I uh uh well there no we don't need to close the public hearing because we don't have a public hearing um so Marthur is there any reason that I couldn't call for a vote uh to recommend to town meeting uh to take no action on this article I don't know of any reason you couldn't okay uh do we have that motion you have uh thank you Woody is there a second second thank you Scott uh any further deliberation by the board no hearing none Pete how do you vote on the motion of to recommend no action yes Woody how do you vote on the motion yes Mary how do you vote on the motion yes Scott how do you vote on the motion yes yes and I vote Yes as well thank you and thanks everyone all those members of the public who took the time to come out and share their thoughts with us uh the next item on the agenda is a continued public hearing this is continued from February 21st for seven britter s lane map 9 lot 21b common driveway special permit uh app application the owner David W Foley senior Nancy J Foley and the applicant Gage Foley um so I think that when we last took this up um we did review the draft common driveway special permit decision um and I understand that Martha some issues have Arisen regarding um uh the change in ownership at number seven and uh uh who needs to be added or as or considered an applicant maybe you could you can probably sum it up better than I can don't know about that but I'll try so as we were as we were taking another look at the decision and um incorporating comments that had been made it it a few things kind of came up first with Gage being the applicant but the work actually being done on nine and 11 bitter suite for improvement of the common driveway itself um we realized that there was actually nothing basically even though it's all a family there's there's nothing authorizing him to submit the application on on behalf of all of them and particularly the other two Property Owners um the other thing that we in in in trying to kind of sort out and also um Nancy and Dave Foley were listed as the owners but um we understand that in fact at um at one point the Holy Family irrevocable trust was the owner of seven bittersweet and 11 Bittersweet and the Bittersweet Lane realy trust was the owner of nine Bittersweet um but Dave and Nancy Foley were noted as the owners so there was some confusion about that as well and as we were um communicating with Steve and with Gage trying to sort that out we learned that um seven Bittersweet has since been conveyed to Gage and his wife outright so in order to um actually be able to correctly write the decision and make sure that all the parties and everything are accounted for we need to kind get some of that straightened out and that also then pertains to the um the easement document which right now has the Bittersweet Lane realy trust and the fly family irrevocable trust as being the two parties to the easement so it's actually three parties so I don't know if that helps explain the situation but there were enough questions that that we felt we really couldn't find ize the um the decision appropriately yeah I mean I I think we've we've been through the the meat of the decision it's just getting all of our ducks in a row Steve Sawyer welcome can you help us out with this yeah so I I think there there has been some changes out there I know um the I know engage I think when he started to build the home there was some issues with you the basically he had to have ownership in order to build a home so that was taken care of so he is the owner of number seven I believe nine might have changed all nine it's a it's a trust or it's a G A gage actually had emailed out the latest ownership um so I think right now they're just working through the ownership of each of the parcels of each sibling or each grandchild who's going to be um taking over the lot so uh I think that makes sense you know I know I was confused of who owned what and it seemed to be a fluid situation um over the past year but I think we're just about there uh or I think we're there now so I think Matt Gaines needs to update the easement docu the easement document to reflect the current ownership so that should be taken care of in sent in for review um and then uh I I'm not sure I think Everett's easement figure probably needs to be checked to make sure the ownership is all correct on that um and then finally Marthur are you will it sounds like you'll be looking for some sort of document or some sort of um letter from all of the from number nine and number 11 or the appropriate ownership of nine and 11 authorizing for this you know agreeing and authorizing this application and improvements to the driveway is that correct yes yeah yeah okay so is that it that seems to I think that's the laundry list now the final list and we just need to straighten that out and take care of it and is there anything right now that exists that grants gauge the right to use the the common driveway as it as it is right now is there anything that grants him the rights to use the common driveway um well there's no no agreement out there basically those that that driveway you know there's no easement agreement there's no cross easements there's no there's no document on record that allows anybody to be you know that you know 11 to be using a portion of nine nine to be using a portion of 11 and now seven to be using a portion you know to be using nine and 11 to access so um but that's you know it's an old it was a three lot subdivision I don't think it was I don't know if it redated the the common driveway special permit or or what but it just wasn't where I think where it was a family and always intended to be a family it wasn't it was never there was never really thought or documentation of it and but it you know absolutely you know like now it needs to be documented done documented and done in the proper manner right and so that's what Matt will work on terms OFA the easement agreement yeah yeah Matt had I think he he had sent out I'll resend it it was a long time ago it was but just before we got kicked to CBA he had sent out an easement document and it was basically a blanket easement that covered everything it covered the common driveway and gauge also needs an easement to access from 9 onto s where it launch where his driveway launches off the common driveway to access the his lot so there's a there's a exclusive use easement for him and then there's a septic there's an easement for the septic uh leechfield on um on lot um on number nine so H portion of his Lee field is on number nine so that document that document was all included you know it was one one stop shopping it it covered all of the easements cross easements and everything um and then um Everett's easement figure also covered that the the exclusive use for driveway and also the septic so I think those need to be updated and get back get they need to be updated and sent back to you I can't remember Matha if Council Town Council had reviewed that document prior I thought they I thought she had we we reviewed it we'd actually been holding off because there were some questions and some actually some corrections that needed to be made in any case so I think what what would be best would be to get the revised one and then we can send that to to council and send potentially send the decision to council for review as well since this rather complicated yeah it is yeah I I think that would uh be a good idea Martha to send all those documents to council given the unusual nature right right of this one um so how okay so I I think we're uh at a point to uh oh it is it is a u we are in a public hearing so um let me ask the board members Pete do you have any questions I do not and I think sorting this out makes all a sense Ste thanks yeah Woody do you have any questions no I don't have any questions it needs to be sorted out they they need to figure that out so all right uh Mary anything no Scott uh no questions Larry uh and uh Steve no questions Larry okay uh Martha any any members of the public with raised hands I don't see any okay so uh I'll ask either Martha or Steve or both of you how much time do you think we need to get this squared away don't know if you muted Steve I couldn't hear you oh uh two weeks might be a little aggressive I think all right so when's the uh what do we get April 17th yeah third and 17th or the two April meeting let's go with yeah it's only two week this is a short one let's um so yeah let's just go with the 17th that work for you Martha uh yes okay would anyone care to make a motion to continue the public hearing until our April 17th uh meeting at 7:15 PM via Zoom you got it thank you Pete is there a second second thank you Woody any discussion from the members hearing none Pete how do you vote Yes Woody how do you vote Yes Mary how do you vote Yes Scott how do you vote I vote Yes and I look forward to getting this resolved Steve yeah thank you Scott and I vote Yes as well so Steve thank you and uh we'll see you on the 17 yeah thank you hopefully we can get this thing wrapped up yeah thank you okay and Steve thanks um next item well under old business we have nothing under new business we have nothing and that brings brings us to the planners uh planning director's report Martha uh a few things so just wanted to Ian had mentioned that there's been you know or I think you did a fair amount of Outreach on the MBTA we are planning a few more things which have not been set yet but we are planning to have one more public information session on the mpta community zoning as well as um maybe some some kind of coffee hours coffee with the planners or whatever to for one-on ones if anybody wants to come in and have discussions with us so as soon as we have some of these things um nailed down in terms of dates and location we will be getting that information out we'll be putting it on the website and broadcast that so there'll be more opportunities before meeting for people to ask questions we also have an updated fact sheet that Ian prepared um which we will be disseminating be putting fact sheets probably in the library and cancel on aging and some other locations as well just so you know people can familiarize themselves with what the zoning is and and uh you know some some of that there's some FAQs um or answers to frequently asked questions that um you know may also be helpful so that will continue up until town meeting um one other thing I wanted to bring up is we have a consultant who works with us um for compliance with the ms4 uh General permit which is related to storm water requirements in our quote unquote urbanized areas Although our our storm water bylaw um is in effect throughout the town and she has done some review of our subdivision rules and rigs site plan review um uh conservation and a couple of our zoning bylaws and so we are going to be looking at some amendments to those documents and um the ones to zoning obviously can't um have to be approved by Town meetings so those it's too late to get those on the warrant for this year we'll be looking at another date for that but the ones um pertaining to our site plan review regulation and our subdivision rules and regulations the planning board can hold a public hearing to make those changes so we've just re received um some updated copies um we met with um James and and the consultant Renee budro um buo uh last week and she has submitted some revised versions uh I'm going to ask Joe zatka to review those and then we'll bring them before you to talk about scheduling a public hearing on on those and we could do both both hearings at the same time so that's that's more a heads up than anything else okay is that it Martha and that's it yeah okay uh the last item on the agenda is the March 6 um meeting minutes but we're going to hold those till the next meeting they're not ready so that said would anyone care to move to adjourn so moved thank you Woody is there a second second thank you Mary any discussion all right then on the motion to adjourn Pete how do you vote Yes Woody how do you vote Yes and good night everyone Mary how do you vote yes and thank you everybody Scott how do you vote Yes all right and I vote Yes as well yes thank you everyone it's a good meeting