##VIDEO ID:OOTnsL9zfMg## good evening everyone my name is Laura shiffrin and I'm calling the meeting to order of the planning board of December 23rd 2024 could I have a roll call vote uh excuse me a roll call of those present Carol H present Andrew Shepard present and Laura schiffern present would you join me in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which is done one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you thank you to all of our veterans and all of our emergency response people as well as everybody who's serving us today the meeting is being recorded and will be up uploaded to the town YouTube channel is there anyone else here that or online that's recording the meeting seeing none okay uh Chairman's additions deletions I'd like to uh read a statement for you uh due to a staffing shortage in the land use office and the holidays fast approaching we requested an extension from the applicant of one Depot Street Extension until January 6th to file the decision the extension allows for Town staff to write and review the decision received by the Town Council and have planning board members sign the decision during this busy holiday season the appeal period will begin at the filing of the decision honor before January 6th okay was there so that's a point ofation and under um basically what's my additions and Del deletions this evening um I do not believe we're going to do minutes this evening correct Beth that's going to be moved yeah that's correct okay thank you and so we are now going into the work session and Beth could you share um I guess we'll start at which should we start with Adam you or Mr Doyle since he's made the changes after your discussion with us and how would you like to handle this I don't know that it I don't know that it matters I I we we had three bylaws that we've been discussing uh one I don't think requires any real further discussion tonight and that's the uh age restricted development bylaw um nothing has really changed since the version that the board last reviewed but the other two bylaws the accessory apartments in the residential district and the site plan review for accessory Apartments um both were circulated a couple of weeks ago I reviewed and had some comments on those I appeared at a um and I know you you you're aware of this Madam chair but the other members may not be I appeared at a a select board meeting about a week ago and I suggested that it would be beneficial to have another meeting of the planning board to review my comments which Mr Bole has since reviewed and made some adjustments to reflect um the uh suggestions I made but there are still some items that require feedback from the planning board matters of discretion that really are not legal issues they're issues I flagged but based upon my review and then based upon Mr Bo's review we kind of want to throw those issues back to the planning board to get your feedback on what you intend the kind of language you're comfortable with um so we can get these into closer to final form before you have your official public hearing on January 9th so I don't know that it matters which order we review those two other bylaws that's that's a that's up to you Lori uh I think it would make this is Joseph Bo mrpc I think it would make the sense to start with the Adu uh bylaw and um if we can look at uh Adams the version with Adams comments and then um I have have and then the updated version I sent to you I will uh discuss what I did in there comment by comment okay so Beth can you screen share um those documents so that anybody who's watching this can see it um or who doesn't have copies of it uh also sorry could you review which ones uh Adams or Mr Bo Mr Bo okay got it thank you um lri just so you know Patrick joined us oh good welcome Patrick for the record is there anybody else um I should look at that participant wise there there's nobody else in attendance Lori okay all right thank you appreciate it okay um circul you once you talk it'll it'll recognize you so this is this is the one that was done after Adams and after Mr Bole reviewed what your comments were he made changes so we're looking at the final changes of the document right right thank you but but this is not the right one this is the S review we're looking for the one that's called accessory dwelling units in res ad okay all right so while that's coming up uh Adam's first comment was and I don't know Joe if it would if it would short circuit I don't know that we need to walk through all of my comments if you you address thank you just uh well if I may this is this file is named Adu site plan appr approval Amendment and that's not what we're looking for no it's the file that is going to be named um ATM warrant accessory dwelling units all right ATM warrant so so Adam's first comment uh was about uh consistently using accessory dwelling units in place of accessory apartments and I have gone through and uh used that done that consistently uh so I hope hopefully I caught it everywhere but um I I want to do that because that will also help clarify uh in everybody's mind uh what's new language versus what's old language because the old one uses accessory Apartments now everything new will use accessory drawing units um all right moving down uh the first substantive comment all right we move to section B so so so I I just I just want to make sure we're all looking at the same document because this the document that's being screen shared is not the correct version this is still a Redline version we're looking for a clean version that has some red text so this is the document Beth that was sent to you on Thursday afternoon at I think 4:18 PM by Joe by Mr Bole it's not what you're it's not what you've got up on the screen okay we're good all right so let's see um all right let me double go back right to my email are you sure that wasn't the right document but in review mode and she just needed to turn off the um I know I have these two that I took from Joe's email and basically put them right into the folders these were right from his email so um yeah this is what Joe sent the last one I got so do you want me to turn off some track changes or something because um um Let me let me find it this is what Joe sent me last maybe he sent it to can you forward the email I just sent you cuz that has I think everything we both what we need this doesn't look familiar Joe I'm sorry that is yes that is a version is a version version that's the version that I reviewed and get you comments on would you then further revise so that's old that's about two weeks old okay be I just sent you I just forwarded you uh the email that Joe resent to me um earlier today so if you if you click on the attachments that's the correct version okay thanks sure okay it's still called ATM warrant it is okay Beth is looking for that um Joe this might be helpful just to discuss with the board president so you mentioned a moment ago that you changed my suggestion you changed the term accessory apartment to accessory dwelling units because that's the terminology that's used in the state statute um what I did find when I looked at your version is that there's actually a ton of it it still says apartment places it is it says it in B uh let's see B3 accessory it says it in the in C in C C1 it says it in C says in C the title the C it says it in C1 it says in C3 it says right so accessory du and I I also didn't review the entirety of the the remaining zoning bylaw to see if there's other references anywhere else within the zoning bylaw to the whole bylaw right so one way to avoid this um if you're concerned about inconsistencies is rather than try and change every reference to it when we first talk about what it is so in the I guess in the purpose section where we say recognizing the need to provide alternative housing options for family members and residents of the town the following regulations are established for accessory dwelling units in a residential district you could say the following regulations are established for accessory dwelling units comma also known as accessory Apartments comma in a residential district and then you can use the either either term interchangeably throughout the bylaw and you define them as both okay so we do that sometimes when it's going to be you know let's say we look through the whole bylaw we found 70 other references to accessory apartment we don't want to put a warrant article together that says here are the 70 references throughout the zoning by you just you save that until you're doing a recodification right so that might be the way to go about it okay that's but all right uh all right trying this again sorry don't know why it's having a hard time tonight all right I'll see what I can do with that how's that that me a lot of say all right all right so uh there now we move on to section B okay uh there were and I uh changed some language here there's a comment about in versus on so the language now reads so the language now reach the owners or owners of a single family dwelling or a single family dwelling unit in an RA or RB RB District May by right construct an accessory dwelling unit within the primary single family dwelling within an existing out building within an addition to the single family dwelling or out building or in a new out building okay so those are those are the four different options that we laid out I uh to take care of the language I just uh explained them entirely there but you had said you had said excuse me you had said B and we're in C and I don't see that language that you I'm not in C I'm in B so we don't have that version oh I see Beth could you scroll up to B to B oh sorry I'm sorry B is in B yeah you're you're there but there's no red lining there but it's in okay okay so just just for board members benefits when you when you talk about red lining so oh I meant red verbiage there I think for convenience Joe didn't Redline his changes he just he just colored in red the text that meant to refer to things we need to discuss but there are none in B right um I'm tell right there are there are no there's no red language in B There is some language that's changed okay I haven't had put I did not put everything I changed into the red the red represents things that we still need to talk about uh items that I changed that were in uh in conformance with uh items that Adam caught I have not included in red and that's why I'm going uh through them with you verbally now okay so uh the first one was the use of accessory dwelling units in place of accessory Apartments the second was uh the rewriting of that language uh to get rid of uh so that it didn't just say the word in uh make it clear that uh accessory Apartments could are also allowed outside of and attached to single family homes so uh I in order to do that I just listed all of the different options on the lot um the next item um yeah we eliminated one of the requirements earlier was it stated uh in B1 in no case shall there be more than one accessory apartment established on a lot uh yeah y that is still there as B3 um uh is it's included as a new one shall does not require constru okay so B1 lays out when are a site plan a site plan uh approval is required okay and that is the construction of a new or primary accessory structure or incre in the heist in footprint of an exist of an existing structure shall require site plan approval under the new site plan approval bylaw number two does not require uh the creation of an Adu that does not include the construction of a new building or addition of an on an existing building does not require site plan approval that's as was decided at the last meeting yes the new and exist the new number four the new and existing unit shall conform to the requirements of the state sanitary code AS confirmed by the Board of Health the applicant shall obtain and submit to the building commission a written report explaining that the changes uh if any to the existing septic system uh have been agreed to by the applicant now Adam had brought up a comment about this um about why we're bringing in a note here rather than just uh making it a requirement and um I think I understand why that that's desirable out here in Townsend um where everything is really being driven by the uh uh availability of septic it is really good for the applicant to confront that right up front before they get any further into the process so um I left that in there despite Adam's suggestion for that purpose to leave that in there right up front and have you know it's making the applicant go through the zoning look into this question before they in the zoning process before they get too far into it I I I think it's fine to leave it to leave it in there to uh require that note so that they're getting in there to the Board of Health early on in the process Adam do you think it needs to be required or just could be required so so I have no objection to the substance of what four says my only comment was you you'll see in this bylaw that and it's hard to see because you're looking at only a snippet of it on the screen but each of these sections a has a title it's called a is purpose C the title is requirements for an accessory parment B doesn't really have a title but if I were to give it one I would call it applicability because this is how bylaws are structure and so B is saying okay when does this bylaw apply well it applies if you're creating an Adu involving the construction of a new building or you're increasing the height or footprint of an existing building it applies if you're creating an accessory apartment that does not involve those things it doesn't apply and you can only have one per lot that's what that that's B1 two and three B4 seemed out of place because B4 is talking about a substantive requirement which is compliance with the code I'm not I'm not objecting to having to comply with the code I think that should be a requirement but usually would put that under subsection C which is called requirements for the accessory apartment and in fact if you scroll down to C7 it's in there C7 says um or C6 adequate provision must be provided for the disposal of sewage waste and drainage of such accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the Board of Health requirements and then seven says you need to know from the building department so it's sort of already in there so I saw it up in B4 and said well why is it in here twice that was my comment there's no harm I suppose in it being in there twice but I just flagged it because I said it doesn't really need need to be in the applicability section consolidate that language to C6 uh we yeah we could consolidate four and six together yes that makes sense we're not looking to make the document longer than it needs to be yeah yep but that that makes this actually makes it shorter good excellent all right find um thank you Andrew all right now that brings us to C requirements for an accessory apartment uh the new Lage an accessory apartment whether attached to the primary residence or located in a secondary structure that's supposed to be secondary structure is accessory to the principal residence no new building shall be constructed and no increase made to the height footprint of the existing structure for the purpose of creating an accessory apartment unless authorized by site plan review by the planning board under under our new section uh number three uh the the the size requirements from the uh from the state law uh make some with with some minor language modification suggested by Adam um should uh C4 say accessory apartment instead of accessory drawing unit uh we we are redefining them to be interchangeable but uh we are talking about accessory drawing units uh I've mostly replaced accessory departments with drawing units throughout the document okay and the final change we're going to make is to go back and just Define them as the same thing uh so it's okay to use either okay the requirement the original requirement was that it needs to retain the appearance of a single family home period based on a comment by Adam and based on um further guidance that we've gotten from the state uh that may be a little I I we it may be problematic if we impose to impose that as an across theboard requirement there may be some situation where and an existing home it only works to have the entrance to the other uh uh apartment on the front facade for some reason uh somebody could raise that that makes it look like a two family that doesn't make it look like a single family home uh I I can certainly understand why it's still preferable aesthetically from the town and it wishes to promote that I think you move that to site plan review and that gives you uh the it gives you enough hand to to uh encourage that where it can be done while still having the discretion to authorize one with that type of plan if there's really no other way to get around it sound good to the board okay so that's that's why that's why I did that um okay Adam had a comment ac9 okay yes about signif did O significantly altering the appearance you you want C9 yes I'm on the on the previous one it said the addition of an accessory apartment shall not cause the appearance to be uh significantly altered from the appearance of the existing structure and shall not increase the footprint andless authorized by site plan review and at and Adam um pointed out that this wasn't consistent language that language has now been made consistent uh this is the language that we've gotten four here have we addressed number two on the screen because I what's number two on the screen it's no new building shall be constructed and no increase made to the height or footprint of an existing structure for the purpose of creating an accessory apartment unless authorized by site plan reval how does that change from B how is that different from B1 because again this these are requirements for accessory Apartments B1 is telling you about the triggers so B1 tells you you need s plan review and B1 says you need s plan review if you're constructing a new primary or accessory structure or you're increasing the height or increasing the footprint of the existing structure that seems to be the same thing that yes they are yeah that is that is more or less the same thing uh are you suggesting that could be Consolidated or you need I yeah I don't think a requ right I mean it's it's it is a requirement by virtue of being a trigger the trigger is telling you when it apply and that's when it applies okay so you can get rid of that see2 that makes sense Jo I'm always thinking actually we should get rid of it here in C yes uh and and uh keep it in B yes yeah let's move this so we're taking two take take two out and uh yeah but four makes more sense to keep in C right whether this is a requirement this isn't uh you know an authorization of what they're allowed to do I think this makes more sense than this this which one are you looking at C4 well C4 is talking about the appearance of a single family home we talked about striking that because we said that that's inconsistent with the new RS that's what C4 says just get rid of it all together yeah um unless authorized by site plan approval now since we can since the town is allowed to make the would be allowed to make all adus by site plan [Music] approval yes which means that they could make a subset of them authorized by site plan approval and another subset not authorized by site plan approval and you've done that because you've said you've said that if you're constructing a new building or if you're increasing the height or the footprint of an existing building it requires site plan approval and if you're doing neither of those things in other words you found existing space within your building you're not increasing the height maybe it was a maybe it was an attic space maybe it was an unfinished portion of the home if you're converting something within the existing building envelope you can do that without oh I see so okay we're kind okay so the language that I've got here is contradictory this is if we said I I say in two the creation of accessory apartment that does not include the construction of a new building or the ex addition of exess building shall not require site plan approval now further down here I say that one type of those projects would require site plan approval what if you're uh adding a an Adu in an existing single family home in a way that causes it to alter its appearance from the single family home now that does require site plan approval so it seems to me that to keep that that rule in there we have to add that up in one as one of the thing in B1 as one of the types of projects that requires um site plan approval i' agree I guess this is a question for the board as to how hard do you want to make the building commissioner's job right so Building Commissioner has two two options now he looks at looks at a set of plans if an applicant comes to him and says here's what I want to do and says okay are you increasing the height or altering and enlarging the footprint or you proposing a whole new structure if the answer is yes to any of those questions go to the planning board first and come back to me if you're not doing any of those things the answer is simple it's you're good to go where do I sign your permit application now writing another layer or saying if it falls into that second category then the building inspector has to look even closer and say well what let me see your architectural drawings are you altering in in what constitutes an alteration of the single family character of a building the appearance of a sing family home who makes that judgment call The Building Commissioner you can do it it's it's just it's adding an additional layer of complication onto the billing commissioner's job having to now look at the plans more closely and determine whether the appearance of a single family home is being altered if I add and to your point earlier if I add a second a second door and it's front-facing does that change the appearance I don't know I live in a single family home it looks like a single family home and I have a farmer's porch and I have two front doors one in my garage in my house it looks like a single family nobody would think otherwise it is a single family but in some houses it may not not look that way it's it's very subjective so do you have any other communities doing language like this um I have some communities that are subjecting all adus to cite approval and that way they all come before the planning board and you would be able to make that determination as a board those subjective decisions are better made as a board when you have an application before you the counterargument to that is it adds a layer of complication and we're going to get to this in the moment we start talking about requirements for site plan approval like stamped engineered plans it adds a layer of complication if we're talking about somebody proposing a shopping plaza you expect them to come before you with their lawyer their engineer their storm water expert and a package that thick for an application when somebody wants to put an Adu together you're you're you wna you want to be sure that you've got some review but you also don't want to over complicated for them this is somebody that wants to put a a small addition for usually for a family doesn't have to be and so you want to kind of balance that so I do have communities that are doing it both ways it's just really a judgment for you as to how you want to present it and what you think will pass muster a town meeting now um from from the from the planning point of view what would the town be getting for this additional complication um uh for the you know making the building commission to make these judgment calls it would be a little bit of extra protect of athe protection in terms of what the exterior of a home looks like um but thinking about this this rule would only apply to a single family home in which somebody is adding an accessory dwelling unit um this is some this is something that somebody would be doing to their own home okay and I mean really let's face it an alteration even if there's an alteration that's changing the exterior of a home so that it there's a second front door visible and it's it's very clear that there's an accessory apartment here that's not really a major ath objectionable aesthetic intrusion into a neighborhood it's not the construction of a 50-ft tall multif family uh multif family apartment building this is is someone's own home that they're making what ultimately there's only going to be so much um so so much alteration going on that that that to to add an accessory dwelling unit here I'm not sure that this rule is really worth gets the town much in terms of protection for the complications that it adds into the process and for the for the Building Commissioner and for the and for the single family homeowners let's keep in mind we're not talking developers here ideally if this actually works it'll be ordinary regular homeowners and we should really try to write the law for that I I think it's meaningful that neither the legislature nor EC in adopting the draft regulations has addressed issues of appearance of the single family character of of of a district or the individual homes and I think the reason for that is because by right now under the new law you can construct a an independent separate structure on your property so if your objection here is well we want to have some say and some control over somebody who even though they're not increasing the height or the footprint of their home is going to do something such that when you drive by you say wow that lot has two dwelling units on it well they can by right put a whole separate building with another dwelling unit on it at which point you're going to drive by and say wow there's a separate building with a separate dwelling unit on it so I think there's a recognition and this is partly why I flagged this I didn't flag it so much as me objecting to providing some oversight of the appearance I wasn't sure that attempting to regulate the appearance is something that would be consistent with the current law um I think it's too subjective yeah I'm good with getting rid of it just I lose this entirely okay um yeah so now we're back to the only two types of uh site plan approvals are um an addition to a single family home or uh out building or an addition to a or a new uping okay are are the members that are I guess it's just Lori are you comfortable with that Lori I'm comfortable with what you guys all just agree to is that what you're yes okay so that's a consensus of everyone who's there and myself yes all right um C3 here I just fixed the language uh gross language and things Adam does that read right now it it does you have to add the word gross in a second time because there's two references to floor area oh of the oh I need to gross in second time thank you yeah no problem got it all right we just dropped number four uh number five okay adequate one or more parking spaces must be provided for the use of the accessory apartment so my only question here and maybe maybe board members know this maybe Lori knows it I don't know do you have any any public bus routes that run through towns in from neighboring from from pitchburg or lemonster or we have the Mart bus that I think was just recently suspended because of lack of ridership yeah but you can um it's still available by appointment so it's not susp fully but that's that's all we have we don't have any and usually the mar bus picks people up at their homes or the building they live in or something like that that it's not a bus route actually is yes um it does you you have to call for service but it it's not door too service no it's not door to door Oh you mean you still have to go to the parking lot in town and it takes you to yeah yeah it goes from towns and town hall to uh Fitchburg in modal so the reason that this come came up Adam was clearly on the same uh webinar I was the State put out some draft um uh um guidance on this and they want feedback one of the statements in the Adu is that you can only require in the Adu law in the state law you can only require one parking space uh per Adu and you cannot require a parking space for an Adu if it is uh within a certain distance of a train or bus or or um commuter rail or uh Ferry Station so that's the law so now they come up with guidance and in their guidance they say that they're going to interpret the phrase bus station to mean that if you have a bus route that has flag down service the entire bus route is a bus station and you can't require an a parking space for an accessory drilling unit now that's their draft regulations they're seeking feedback I suspect they're going to get an awful lot of feedback about that one we're going to send our own feedback about that being a bad idea um we don't we don't have a flag bus you don't have a flag bus so this is not so this is somebody else's problem so uh the language I have here is one or more parking spaces must be provided for the use of the accessory apartment uh that is you can only require one one or more must be provided if they provide one then they met the requirement sounds legal and appropriate and I would suggest taking out the words or more because my concern is that the AG is gonna flag that and say you're giving the discretion to the board to require more okay oh I see one parking space must be provided or more parking space must be provided so I would just say one parking space must be provided for the accessory apartment in reality we're not in soml we're in Townson yes theot the Lots were these propos they likely going to have plenty of parking and what if they're just having an elderly person live there that doesn't have a car okay right so I mean you have the ability to eliminate it all together you're permitted to require one parking space if you don't if you're not if if you're not if if you're not on board with that you think that to your point you may have individuals who don't have any Vehicles so why would you require that at all you could eliminate that last sentence Al together if it's in a situation where someone has an elderly member they're building an apartment for can they Count Their existing spaces could they conceivably depending on the makeup of their property it depends upon the makeup of the property right so if you have a parking requirement let's say that is two spaces per single family home and I don't recall what's in your owning P but let's say it's two spaces per single family home and you had a a a residence on a small lot and all they have is two parking spaces no garage and two tand the park parking spaces in a short drive PL they would need a third space under this requirement and if they couldn't Prov probably wouldn't be able to do it anyway if they're on a small lot and can only have two parking spaces if they're going to have an accessory it's going to be inside right I mean right I don't and you know them I mean I know the makeup of your community fairly well but let's say you had a you know a very small law let's say call it a a a 4,000 sare foot law but you had a large home on it that took up most of the lot it was a two or a three family an older home and maybe the home is 3,000 square feet and the footprint of that home is you know a th000 square feet and you get a little driveway there may be interior space to convert to an accessory apartment if the structur is 3,000 square feet I don't know how how many many we have that we have that actually in town yeah with so given I'm just trying to think through it now given how they would be doing it within their apartment it wouldn't need a or within their building it wouldn't need a special permit but here in the requirements would they they don't come before us would they still need the parking space or they wouldn't they would because the requirements apply whether it's enforce it or the building the building inspector would enforce it so he would have to deny the building permit if they presented plans and they didn't have a third parking spot he'd have to deny the building permit on the basis that they didn't have a spot you can do that you'd be permitted to do that even under the current legislation because it does say you're you're allowed to require a parking spot um unless they change that in the next version of the regulations um is that something that can be waved by the planning board or or subject to Building Commissioner descrition yes so so not under the current language where it just says it must be provided I mean the first sentence say adequate provision shall be made for off street parking so the first sentence gives some discretion um but the second sentence is clear that one space must be must be provided it sets it sets forth a minimum so I guess you delete the last sentence you could you could but then again but then again say you do an accessory dwelling unit for an elderly person without a car that person dies somebody else moves in with a car sure sure so where are they going to park if you don't require that one space Point yeah we really need to Envision these accessory dwelling units as potentially being on the market rental properties sure on the on the open market the state very clearly wants us to get these laws away from the in-law apartment model where your banket rules about who can live there assuming it's safer because of that yeah and you know with off street parking during the winter months and you know I I I'd like to just leave it there yeah okay so parking space accessory apartment all right um and uh number four okay and yeah number six here I'm taking number four and uh from up above and consolidating it there yes as number six yes and that'll be fine uh page yep everything's fine with the with this the sewage uh okay number seven okay this note this will be supported by a note from the building department that the appropriate codes have been observed uh this is yeah let's talk about this one yeah the um I had mentioned earlier the benefit of making the applicant go in to the uh Board of Health and check on the septic situation early in the process this one here um I mean any any kind of construction of the unit they're going to have to the Building Commissioner will look and confirm that it meets the State Building Code uh I this this last line on number seven it's this last line on number seven about uh uh the requirement requirements of safe building code Force safe Eris this will be supported by a note from the building department that the appropriate codes have been observed um I'm not I don't I'm not sure that last one is that last line is necessary I mean plucking one particular line requirement ild code and saying putting it in here but then not even any enforcement or anything just saying that the confirm that the building code has been observed um your Building Commissioner already does confirm that the state building codes are being observed right I think we can lose that line okay all right oh yeah I yep I okay I eliminated the unnecessary parenthetical from D it's sort of interesting as I'm reading D here you can see it on the screen yeah we had talked a moment ago and I don't want to confuse everybody but uh and Beth you don't need to scroll up but when we go back to B4 remember that language that said that the applicant shall obtain and submit to the Building Commissioner report of the Board of Health that the septic system would be okay and you talked about moving that from B4 oh down into B into C7 or or C6 I don't even know if it needs to be moved in C6 because you've got it here a third time inde right because D1 says the yeah making reference to that report if you're gonna lose anything then uh let's lose that this reference here in D that's fine yeah I don't sure why why that coming back to that just eliminate the uh uh up to the word Board of Health so it says with provision of article 11 of this bylaw the planning board shall Grant sight approval as follows okay we're just eliminating reference to a due consideration because we're sure the planning board already gives due consideration to that report no I'm talking about D1 I'm not talking about the introductory section I mean you can oh I see yeah so I'm fine with it being due consideration of the report but then D1 says the applicant shall obtain and submit to the planning board a written report of the Board of Health explaining the changes to the existing it's verbatim the same language that was just up in B4 so now we got it said a third time so I think we can delete D1 yeah which just turns D into a statement about the a public hearing you're right I mean d d should just say in accordance with the bylaw the planning board shall conduct a public hearing and Grant side plan approval after due consideration of the of the application and the recommendation of the Board of Health board members good with that yes removal of D1 thank you let's see here what is article nine of this bylaw all right if this is only going to be uh yeah we're getting rid of um uh D1 I think that means we can also get rid of the introductory uh like language in D and the language of two the planning board shall have a public hearing on the application in accordance with the procedures specified in 145 421 of this bylaw is all of D now do we see I don't think there's anything in the top there I need so all of that goes y okay excellent we are making this concise all right now Adam you were good with that I am I heard everybody thank you I put E and F entirely in red I am prepared to discuss with how to change this of the uh affordable accessory apartment program uh if you'd like to but I concur with Adam's recommendation that it would be best to remove e and also F entirely and so here here's the comment that I made just to provide some additional context um and I know there's a lot here and I I I I like the theory of the this concept of an affordable accessory Department program and I think that it it existed for good reason or it exists for good reason in the existing Town zoning bylaw but we're we're really restructuring in its entirety the existing Town zoning bylaw as it relates to accessory Apartments because the state has told us we have to do so the state has said that these are now Allowed by right so before As I understood it and I don't know I I wasn't involved in the drafting of this provision these Provisions concerning affordable accessory Apartments but as I understood it as I read it today the idea is listen we're going to allow some accessory apartments in a very limited fashion but we're g to we're going to provide you with greater flexibility to build out an accessory apartment if you agree to deem the accessory apartment affordable we'll let you build accessory Apartments you wouldn't otherwise be able to build be able to use because as it exists today you've got all these Provisions in your existing bylaw that regulate when it's allowed when it's not allowed moving forward by right because the state has said it's by right so who is going to say okay I can build any type of an accessory apartment by right whether it's simply with a building permit or by way of a non-discretionary cplan approval that the planning board effectively can't deny but instead I'm going to opt to proceed under this affordable accessory apartment program that's going to restrict me to only renting to individuals that qualify for affordable housing require me to place uh a a permanent restriction on the prop property require all this red tape where I have to submit an application to the state and I have to get out who's going to opt for that option when they can do this by right now under state law no one so I just no one so so it seems like a lot of language creating this affordable apartment program that nobody's gonna use not even the Unicorn who wants to build an Adu and make it a dedicated affordable unit would follow would would use this no one they just put in one by right and then put affordability protection on themselves right yeah get rid of it okay and that's E and F is uh also if I if I just may say unless the state reduce their requirements of what an individual versus a development but an individual wanting to make it affordable um unless that changes nobody's going to go for it it's way too expensive to help the town with their percentage It's gotta worked out okay thank you go ahead okay that's the end of the of the Adu byw um and we can move any other comment to that um no other comment on that I will just say for Joe I've been trying to make these as we've discussed them and I'm redlining them so I'm going to send you what I'm done with hopefully I've captured what you're making your notes and so feel free to adjust it further but I'm trying to make the changes we're talking about as we're talking about this while we're talking while we're talking about Administration um what's the um schedule like here um I'm off today and on again Friday so we we've got some if you don't mind Lori I discuss this with staff today so we've got some flexibility in terms of timing so we have the planning board has moved public hearing forward they moved it from what was supposed to be the 13th to the 9th of January so they moved it ahead four days the purpose some of them did some of them did is that is that what's already posted for this yes it is yes yeah I worked with Beth um yesterday uh on the or Friday I guess it was on the the public hearing notice so that public hearing notice has it gone to the newspaper yet Beth yes that's uh that's been uh posted by the clerk and it's um publishing on the 26th um and the second you're gonna be cheering the public hearing am I gonna be cheering oh okay yes because mrpc holds their meeting that night and I I'll be there and oh and and I would be I would be surprised if much of anything happens at the public hearing I mean you could have people attend but we've this has been discussed at a lot of open public meetings already right so sure any anything that's at seven o'clock right 6:30 6:30 okay if it's only gonna be a half hour we're good and and if I may say I probably posted uh probably had the clerk post a little prematurely um because I already was asked for the text to the bylaw changes so tonight it's really important that and I'm glad that Adam you're documenting everything because those will need to go and be available for the public tomorrow uh no pressure but I can I can take the the notice down but I did end up posting it and in the notice it says you know obviously uh contact Beth for the text to the bylaw which I don't you know we need to have tomorrow morning to give to the public yeah I mean I'm I'm not directly concerned about that it's if it's not ready it's not ready I mean it's it's okay okay but but but yes the sooner we can have it the better but the the objective here was to give us more time we have a we have a a drop dead date of January 14th to post the town meeting warrant 14 days prior to the January 28th town meeting oh and so in case there's any changes that come out of that public meeting right we want because literally the the 9th is a Thursday the 10th is a Friday and it's the following Tuesday there's a deadline for posting the warrant so it's all fair tight but moving it back to the nth did did give us some additional flexibility n public hearing I better go to that to hear the public hear what needs to change if anything all right okay that's cool get this document ready um okay let's move on to uh site plan review okay all right so uh the first one non-controversial no comments from Adam no uh amend article 9 section 145 42b by adding following language it's uh this is the exemptions to your site plan review special permit no site plan review special permit shall be required for adus constructed in accordance with our Adu section uhr subject to site plan approval shall instead wait what period section no site plan review permit shall be required for adus constructed in accordance with 14536 accessory dwelling unit subject to site plan approval shall instead be subject to 145 42.1 share a Cofe with Beth oh uh Beth can you share this second document it's the second attachment on the email that I sent to you a few minutes ago well that's coming up uh there were far fewer changes made to this um uh Adam's first comment was consist consistency with the new um uh bylaw the new Adu uh and so I did go back and uh the applicability in order to make it consistent okay instead of uh describing all of these instances of when describing here all the instances of when an Adu needs to um come for site plan approval I just make a reference to the Adu section the Adu section tells you when the Adu needs a site fan approval the construction of an accessory drilling unit shall be subject to review under the section as described in 14536 accessory delling units and residential districts you go to 14536 and it tells you which kinds do and which kinds don't need site plan approval okay all right is that good Adam yep so and remember um we are trying to draw up this uh bylaw so that we can just drop the multif family overlay District references into it and vice versa so I leave this kind of generic and I'll do I'll do the same thing here uh uh you know in a I'm going to add uh another sentence uh the construction of uh residential units under the multif family overlay District uh shall be subject to review under the section as described in the mfld section and you can just keep adding more as you want to uh B submission requirements application fee for site plan approval uh site plans that show the position of the buildings um positions of buildings parking storm utilities planed existing landscape treatments including any screening of adjacent properties period now uh the next line is and other information commonly required by municipality for site plan approval this is like your first site plan approval there there there is nothing else so that that line didn't didn't mean very much um what do you think of the requirements here points of vehicular access to and from the site and vehicular circulation on the site parking storm water management utilities planed and existing landscape treatments including and screening ajacent properties now that may sound a little bit like overkill for an Adu um it's written as generic language to apply to any kind of uh projects um I think it's comprehensive enough to Encompass multi found the uh properties as well is there anything else you think needs to be in that list or anything that should come out certainly got enough got a lot in there yeah now for an ad how do they approach so my other communities have that much and some have much much more okay um I think in my mind and this is just based on my experience and some of you have it too with towns and with towns and town meeting and the questions that can tend that tend to Arise at towns and town meeting and you're not alone in this regard as I understand this from my conversations with Joe he structured a site plan approval site plan review bylaw he actually did it he told me earlier tonight he actually did it in the context of your discussions about MBTA Z right and the idea was to replace what you currently call a site plan special permit which some communities have lingering and I hate it and I always advise that they eliminate because it confuses site plan review with special permits which are different so the idea was let's replace your site plan special permit combination and create site plan approval that is a non-discretionary process for shaping projects I think that's great and so he structured this very generic site plan review bylaw and then when you decided you weren't going to move forward next month January with the MBTA communities U zoning and instead you were going to first move forward with Adu he's made some changes to make this apply to adus but he's kept the overall structure that's fine but you just Joe just said what we're going to need to do is we're gonna need to go into a applicability and we're gonna have to add to that one sentence there that says the construction of adus are subject to site plan review and you're gonna have to add all and also MBTA communities and also whatever else you're going to subject and you're you're going to make those changes in the future um same thing when you go up to the very introductory section where says the provisions of this section 14542 shall not apply to accessory dwelling units accessory Apartments subject to site plan approval should be blah blah blah you're GNA have to add to that well if you're going to go in and add to all these sections later then why are we including now at this early stage some of the other components that aren't going to ever apply to adus because you're going to get somebody that gets up at town meeting and says and we haven't gotten this far yet I don't want to get ahead of ourselves but they're going to say vehicular access to and from the site vehicular C ation parking storm water management utilities Landscaping treatments and screening that's what you're going to subject adus to when you think that's in compliance with the new law and you're gonna say no no no we promis we're not going to it's just in here because this is a boilerplate for future site plan review future s planeview well we haven't gotten there yet you'll we'll tell you about that at the next town meeting well yeah but we're voting on this now yeah okay we've heard that before town meeting and then and we hav the next one I'm sure Joe's going to touch upon is you get a requirement you site plans that's fine but the site plan has to be prepared by a certified architect landscape architect civil engineer um All Landscape plans shall be prepared by a certified landscape architect registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts it defines the scale do you want to require that fre a to use it's okay if you do some communities might I I don't think that's contrary to the law but it might be a lot if you're expecting to make this process fairly simple for somebody just wanting to add an Adu into their existing residence or a small addition would this apply if it was like an addition or an out building yeah it might but you might word the language differently and Reserve that discretion um you know the board in its discretion may require plans to be approved by a certified architect you might adjust the language somewhat right but but I guess that's my point as we go through all of this and it's only a couple pages but you got a section in here on Project phasing you got a section in here on compliance with development standards what development standards they don't even exist yet and yet you're referring to them here that's fine I understand that you're trying to create a structure but you will get these questions at town meeting because we've gotten them before what's all this language mean and then they hear well we're not going to tell you yet because we we're not there yet and what are you up to selectman planning board you're trying to sneak something through and before you know it we could go down in flames yeah it's happened many times before I don't think that the substantive requirements of uh B2 are actually uh that owners for an Adu what a vehicular access uh vehicular circulation on sight parking what is do that mean for an Adu they show the driveway they show the driveway and the new little prong off the drive addition to the driveway that they're planning on putting on that's not so bad storm water management there isn't virtually all of these are there's no storm water management it's just an Adu utilities um if there are new utilities coming in and you don't have a requirement for separate utilities on this which is good um if there are new util coming in um then I they're going to they'd have to draw have documents uh drawn up for their building applications and stuff anyway showing those if there aren't um then they don't have to there are any utilities coming in then they wouldn't be showing any I don't think that really uh imposes too much of a requirements planned and existing Landscaping treatments including any screening of adjacent properties I don't okay now let's think about that is we're trying to write this for it won't be too burdensome for the regular homeowner okay I don't think that's so I don't think that that's too burdensome for the regular homeowner on the other hand I do think that that's comprehensive enough to Encompass the uh uh to Encompass the multif family overlay District projects um what do you think what would you think about in B where the follow the applicant must submit the following documents to the planning board um the planning board May to change it to the planning board may require the following documents I think what you could do is you could give the planning board the authority to to to wave I I I always hesitate um using terms like the board may require because remember if you're an applicant you're reading this bylaw to tell you what's required you don't know what the planning board may require because you're not in front of the planning board yet how do you know what it may require you need to know what to put together to submit so you can say unless waved and usually what that means is an applicant will go through 1 two 3 4 and say okay I'm not going to provide the following items in two and they'll submit a waiver request letter with their application we've submitted all the following but we request a waiver from the requirement of showing existing land or proposed landscaping and screening because our addition is in the back of the house and it can't be seen from neighboring properties so you could say unless waved by the board yeah now let's also keep in mind that you uh chose not to have site plan approval uh if you're not changing in the footprint of the building or anything anything so the only ones who are going to be coming in for this are people who are putting an addition on a house building a new building or putting an addition on another building so uh okay so see so looking at three elevation of the buildings showing the architectural designs of the buildings being added uh being added or altered okay this is now when they this is only in a cases where they are altering buildings so they need to have these drawn up anyway I don't think that's um an owner's requirement uh all site plans shall be prepared by a certified architect landscape architect Andor a civil engineer registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts this you know this is a tricky one um I take out yeah could an architect from New Hampshire I mean is it like a proboard thing they're all registered everywhere or I what what if I as a homeowner brought in a 8 and a half by 11 sheet of piece of paper and this is my house this my ad this is my trees that I'm here to screen with my neighbors and if you're adding bu if you're adding an addition on you would want all of this if you were adding an actual addition if you're just doing it within the confines of your house you wouldn't even be right or the conf do this but if you're physically putting an addition on the house you're going to want architectural drawings that addition building guy is request all of that stand yeah you're gonna require it for a public permit so so wouldn't we just get copies of them then yeah but this is just for you this is for for S plan prior to just to be clear I had no objection to the first sentence because I think if you're a homeowner that wants to put an addition on your home for an Adu the next stop after the planning board is the building department so why not just have your engineer or my my concern was with the second sentence requiring landscape plans be prepared by a certified landscape architect I mean a lot of these homeowners they may they may they're required as a matter of code to get an engineer to design the addition to their home they're not required to hire a landscape architect to deter where they're going to put their art providing yeah I I can because I just had my I just hi the local landscape plug in my I said where's a good spot for my ab he says over there I say good put it there I'm good with I'm I'm good with getting rid of the registered landscape aret Tech I don't mind get rid of it did you have a reason Joe that you yeah why was it put in uh because it was originally written for the uh multif family overlay district and envisioning some fairly large projects for which these requirements would be entirely appropriate okay so we could add it in later right if for the if we do this for the multif family overlay District or whatever then you wanted to add it back in but take it out for now because he write I'm not I'm not going to hire a landscape I'm just going to hire my local landscaper down the I'll plant my own Street I have so many trees I need to take down never mind plant want to turn into a giant HOA any other comments from the board so what's next um I'm not settle I'm not sure that I'm settled I understand what the directions are for number four I mean you want to get U I think we're just striking the second sentence okay we're striking the second sentence yes now when we come around to do the multi family overlay District bylaw that will we we can have specific requirements for the site plan approvals in those sections so for example um this problem of how to write the law so it's strict enough for multif family overlay districts and loose enough for regular homeowners doing an Adu I think it's a good idea to take advantage of that um by we could put waivers we could put waiver language in the Adu section to requirements that are in this so for example if we we leave the requirement that the Landscaping plan be done leave the requirement here in the site plan review section that the landscape plan be written by a landscape architect but add a in the Adu section saying um that it doesn't well why couldn't you just parenham D with NBTA zoning projects I mean I've worked on 40b development with no landscape architect involved you get Engineers you've got you get you have landscape Consultants they're not callif by Landscape Architects sometimes you have the developer saying I'm we're py homes we've done 4,000 developments we know what it's like to put a landscaping plan together so I guess that's just the question for you as to whether you're gonna you're you're already required ing that a certified architect or landscape architect or civil engineer prepare the plans so it's going to be engineer an architect that prepares the plans just the question of whether you want to certify landscape architect mandating that for every Landscaping plan every land for every site plan approval it's we we did not do that for the age restricted that have been approved it was a small new development it wasn't a big one so if something has to be changed because we're doing the MBT um or you know development comes in that we have to address we certainly could put that on then I would think if that's what the board wanted to do at that time for a larger development but this is all yeah had say he's worked with other Developers for large developments and never had a problem with the Landscaping so so let me just give you another alternative here because I'm looking ahead with the benefit of knowing what other things we're going to be discussing so one of the things that appears at the end of this SP while we haven't gotten to it yet is this concept of a waiver it appears in the context of development standard that's how you development standards that don't even really exist yet but my suggestion was and it hasn't been Incorporated yet but I've just been sitting here trying to draft some proposed language is to just include a a whole subsection I'm going to call it subsection E I think between B and E that just is entitled waivers that gives your planning board the authority to Grant waivers from site plan approval requirements understanding that not every project that requires cyclan approval is going to be of the same ilk you're going to have some that are simple ad to use you're going to have others that are much more complicated MBTA zoning projects and you may have one MBTA zoning project that's a three-unit project and another one that's a 103 unit project or a 50 unit project and there's going to be a big difference between the extent of your review of those two projects right so yeah I think giving yourself the authority to wait and this is not new in towns and we actually have it one of the other three bylaws you're advancing the age restricted development bylaw one of the things that's in there is a is language that I crafted two years ago that gr grants you broader authority to Grant waivers waivers are I think a trend these days in Massachusetts as an alternative to statutory variances because nobody qualifies for a statutory variance so if you can work waiver language in these byw I think it makes sense and I'm fairly conf will be comfortable with it especially in the context of site plan approval because it's meant to be a byright process anyway so anything you do to gives give yourselves the discretion to be flexible to to get to yes the more supportive that the AG would be so the other option here is whether you want it or not leave in the language concerning a certified landscape architect and then give yourself the authority to wave it Case by case sounds good if you don't feel that a certified landscape architect is necessary we could um remove the remove the line entirely right and if you don't feel it's ever necessary you can just be removed hearing that you didn't require one for your over 55 for SI sizable projects makes me think you might not need it for your multif family overlay District well also just at planning the discussion took place as what bushes were going to be there were what trees were going to be taken down what I mean there was discussion at both both that we just did as to what they were going to do for landscaping we didn't require the um a drawing or an architect to do that or certified landscaper but they told us what they were going to do and they marked them they they marked them themselves on the plan so not part of the survey plan or or the architecture but they were marked so I don't see why we have to have it there but it's up to the board yeah I'm good for removing that okay but I still like Adam's waiver thing I think it has to go in because at the end wherever you were gonna put the waivers I don't we're there yet okay fine okay all right C timeline there was was uh comments on this uh okay got back to oh uh Finance oh I eliminated five narrative uh one one of the submission requirements narrative compliance with the opal design standards of this article doesn't apply so I eliminated that uh item five uh it used to be yeah narrative compliance with the applicable we're not seeing five right that's because it's not on this document it was on a previous one and Adam recommended okay fine uh timeline uh sh file a decision with the town clerk I added that notice that the expense uh yeah uh so I had a question here about the board's intent regarding notice so you'll see the way that this currently reads starting at the bottom of page two or it's page two and yeah bottom of page one top of page two it says notice of the time placed in subject matter of the public hearing shall be given by the planning board the expense of the applicant to the applicant and to all owners of land buting the land being the subject of such application as appearing on the most recent tax list on file at the assessor's office so what this says is you've got to give notice to the applicant and to owners of a budding properties that's different than the standard that exists under state law for special permits for variances for administrative appeals anything that's governed by chapter 4A that standard is parties and interest parties and interest is defined by state law much more broadly it's a Butters and a Butters to a Butters and a Butter's opposite public ways within 300 feet of the property boundary you draw a 300 foot radius from all all boundaries of the subject property and every abutter and every abutter to an abutter within the 300 feet are entitled to notice so that's not that's broader than just immediate abutters that's it also covers abutters who are separated by a public way which is broader than just the butters um because site plan review is a local process and is not governed by state law you don't have to mirror the state state law standard a lot of communities choose to because it's simpler to just remember that we we apply the same standard across the board when you go get an A Butters list from the assessor's office the Assessor know what kind of a list it is to prepare because it's the same list they prepare for special permits and variances but you have flexibility under there are other laws that apply different standards for example uh Wetlands protection act has a 100 foot standard not a 300 foot standard and it's only immediate AB Butters so it it it just depends you're not bound by this but I flagged it because I see this in a lot of communities and if you're tenter is to treat this like it's a special permit you should eliminate the language that's says and to all owners of land a buing land being the subject of such application and replace that to and to all parties and interest as defined by chapter 48 section 11 which is the state law yeah is that that's the state law is that section 11 that defines parties in interest yeah okay so I guess the substantive question is do should notification for uh these uh site planie use be the same as that for a special permit or less is there a reason to have it less I should be consistent I mean hearing it now I think we should be consistent too okay yeah and from the board yeah and because I I don't I don't know Beth we look at the state standard every time we send something out yes well that that is when when permit is issued but this is not a special permit so that's the you know that's the Crux of it you know this is a site plan approval and as such you have more flexibility in your administrative process but I think it's more confusing to the public if you're not consistent they don't know the difference between a a regular public hearing or site plan review than than one that isn't so why would we make that distinction I mean I'm asking the question if there's really purpose for that yeah I mean I guess Adam would you say other towns uh do use that process as similar to site plan or is this a little more relaxed administratively in terms of your uh reporting your decision the reporting and filing of the planning board approval if I may so it's really a mix Beth um it really is I've got communities that have administrative site plan review where it's done by staff and it never goes before a board I've got communities that have major and minor site plan review where major goes before the board and minor is done administratively I have a lot of communities that don't require public hearings at all so their planning board will perform all site plan reviews but it won't be a public hearing process it'll just be done at a public meeting so it's put onto the agenda the public show up but it's not a quote unquote hearing and so notice doesn't go out to a Butters or a Butters to a Butters it just gets placed on an agenda that gets posted 48 hours in advance and it's conducted like a regular meeting like we're having now the applicant the applicant has to submit the same information it's still just as rigorous of a review but it doesn't entitle abutters and abutters to a Butters to notice and then I have other communities that do it that that that will mirror the state law and will hold a public hearing and will provide the same degree of notice it's it's really a mix it's cross across the across the Spectrum okay so it's really up to the board yeah it's really up to the board what you guys would like to do what's the pleasure board I couldn't hear you I don't see the reason in having a public hearing for an edu do you see a reason for having a public hearing for a multif family into the nvta communities act that's a totally different yeah yeah that's yeah that's different it's different but the way that this is structured now we're creating a process that we're going to keep referring to and so the only way that you can sort of differentiate within the process because this really gets really messy if you start creating a site plan process and then saying sometimes we're going to have a public hearing and sometimes we're gonna have a public meeting unless you define two separate processes and that's why I give you the example of major and minor a lot of communities will Define major and minor they will have an applicability section that determines what what you qualify for so usually it's it's criteria like if your project involves the alteration of less than a th square feet it's minor if alterations more than a thousand square feet of floor area it's it's if you're adding if you're altering in a way that creates or reduces more than five parking spots it's it's major if it's less than five parking spots it's minor sometimes there'll be certain projects like adus will always fall into minor MBTA will always fall into major but that's a very different that's that's a less that's a more complicated BW than what we're okay let's just keep it simple we do have the option of uh defining different [Music] regulation a different process in the different sections we could put language about U um the we could put more site plan review language in the Adu bylaw and have more site plan review language in the m fod bylaw and leave this more generic you could it just gets confusing for applicants because now they've got to look at two different places for procedural requirements for site planine review what I would say is look at this and this goes back to sort of where I started with the idea of not referring to things that are not part of the adus because you're gonna have people saying why are you talking about development standards don't exist I would say look at this Adu bylaw um or the site plan review by law in the context of adus and Define a process now for adus when we revisit this in six months for MBTA if you then say you know what we need to be more rigorous with MBTA well at that point we can rework this and create and refer to what we've already created as ma as minor site plan review and we can add a separate section called major and make so we can make those changes at a future time meetings you're you're not locked in all you're doing now is creating a process for you to use okay and so the question is do you want to simplify it even further and I'm not I'm not putting my thumb in the scale here I don't care one way or the other but I think what I heard is well do we even need a public hearing for adus well the way this is structured it's requiring a public hearing and all we started discussing was who gets notice if we're now saying we don't even need a public hearing well that changes us we can now say that the planning board shall conduct a public meeting within 65 days of the filing and we're not we're not referring to a public hearing anymore we're eliminating all notice because nobody gets notice except through the agenda but that's up to you as to whether you want to simplify it that much I'm good with simplifying it that much sure yeah I think so too only because we're not we're not it's by right yeah it's really by right so it doesn't really much matter what the abutters say and we know that it's going to be a minor um change no matter what it is so that's what we're working with adus and it's by right so let's just a public meeting it'll be posted if everybody's okay with that public change this word hearing to meeting with f a decision within clerk within 90 days of the notice notice of the time shall be given to yeah so so so applicant it's complicated right so you so you you don't want to you can't you can't create a 90-day time limit now from the Clos of the hearing because there's no hearing to close right so in communities that require this occur at a public meeting what they typically do is they set an outside deadline for the process to be completed they recognize because these are meant to be simple that they should occur that the the you should get your site plan approval within X number of days of the submittal of your application usually that's how it's timed it's usually 120 days although I've seen 180 days and I've seen I've seen 60 days um but 60 days is a tight time frame to you schedule a meeting conduct a meeting potentially continue it so six I don't know that I would recommend 60 I have a few towns to do and it's stressful for everybody involved I think 90 within the 90day thing there that they have decision with the town clerk within 90 days of the application yeah re the application okay Beth does that yeah I I I do little you know a little concerned again from the homeowner who is constructing an Adu to have to potentially wait 90 days before they go yeah within true you know I'll get it done in two weeks but um yeah I guess that makes sense it would be honor before 90 days I mean I think for the planning board perspective we want it done as soon as possible for the person yeah exactly so not going to dilly dally on it unless they don't have something that they need so rather than asking for something that's rather than going 120 or 60 which may be just a little tight um it doesn't I think that within 90 days you don't know if you're in a holiday season you don't know if people are out of work you don't know yeah yeah you know if we if we get it within 60 days to them that we haven't 90 days but if we get it to them in 60 you look like a hero yeah exactly can I just ask a question um just a procedural question if an application comes in I guess if you drop the public hearing part an application comes in and it's complete by our standards but the board wants additional information if you're not in a public hearing you can you you know longer are able to do that so I don't know if that's a concern at all you know do that Beth well you're not you're not able to continue the public well I guess you can continue the meeting yeah exactly that's the that's the thing you know in a public hearing there's a lot of continuation for more information let's say you didn't get what you needed in the application to make your decision if it's just a public meeting you just basically make the request and and they can either I guess similar to a public hearing but if the board really wants to have something then they just give them the next meeting date this is what we need and we'll you know we won't hold it up okay okay it's actually it's actually less onerous so the idea of continuing the hearing you're obligated to announce the continuance because you have members of the public who might attend and you got to tell them when you're reconvening so that's why in the context of a public hearing you have this requirement of a announcing the continuance and voting the continuance with a public meeting you don't have that but the process is the same in terms of what you can request you just say come to our next meeting bring the fall so that's great thank you awesome somebody doesn't if we request it and they said nah I'm not gonna do that and then it just runs up to 90 days we just make a decision or because it's by right it's just kind of a no you you certainly make a decision but this is this is sort of the risk whenever you give yourself a time frame and frankly this is a risk even with a public hearing because you could have a public hearing process and someone says we're not going to give you the information you ask for and so whenever a board is asked for info and has refused that information and then looks to me for guidance okay Council what do we do the answer is well you can deny it for lack of information now if it's a special permit you have a strong argument when you get to court because special permits are discretionary the board always enters the courtroom with an upper hand because the courts tend to defer to the special permit granting Authority and if you say we asked for info we didn't get it we couldn't make an informed decision you probably win cyan approval is a little different because cyan approval is a non-discretionary process and the case law says unless there is the language of the cases unless there is a a a complication with the project that is so intractable that there can be no reasonable conditioning of the project to allow it to proceed then you lose yeah issue your site plan appr uh approval with conditions and you can put all kinds of conditions on there and uh say you're questioning something about some guys's retaining ball uh uh and uh he said give me some more information about how that's being built so we can make sure it's it's stable after there he says no so you issue you approve the condition and one of the conditions would be um that the uh retaining wall shall be built to this standard this this standard and this standard so you know very very rigurous stuff you know that the guy can't get that and now he sure he can buy right build his Adu but only if he builds a retaining wall to this and this and this and this standard as as put in your conditions there are some extreme instances where you know you have a sizable MBTA project and you determine we need to know the traffic conditions in the area so you ask for a traffic assessment then they say no you say okay we're just we're ask for full study at 15 grand we asking for an assessment it's going to cost you a couple thousand dollars for your multi-million dollar project and they say no and you say well how do we condition this on there being you know the traffic not being a problem it's either going to be a problem or it's not going to be a problem you can't really condition it the way you can condition retaining well that may may be a circumstance where you take the unusual step of denying site plan approval um what likely happens in that case is that gets appealed we end up in court the judge certainly is going to look me in the face and say you know you really can't deny s plan approval and I'm going to say well you know that they've got to work with us and give us the basic information we need to make an informed decision and the likelihood is that that case gets remanded with some instruction to the applicant to provide the information that's needed minimally the applicant has to spend a lot of time and a lot of money waste a lot of time in court and most applicants are not going to roll the dice they're going to say okay we'll work with you we'll give you the $2,000 study instead of spending you know $52,000 in our attorney to litigate this case for the next six months and in terms of a U what are we really talking about yeah for an Adu so in terms of the language on here uh within 90 days of the receipt of the application period and now is that the end of my paragraph I think the the sentence is as the planning board May when appropriate seek the input of other Municipal boards and officials I think that sentence can stay in okay and but then the red goes out goes away too it does and then the red goes away too because you already we have already set a 90day limit so we're keeping this one and then we're crossing out all that this board is an excellent editor all right um D okay I have this written up here in generic language site plan approval for uses requiring review under this section shall be granted upon determination by the planning board that the following conditions have been satisfied okay that's that that's how I I handled that problems um you know this is really going to become easier with this becoming the minor site plan review section remember folks where we talking about uh I'm also going to be working for this board getting rid of their site plan review special permit and converting it into a normal site plan review section and going through the entire bylaw and finding all the references to that we can make you know how this is for our site planine review here is now 42.1 we're going to ultimately we're going to turn your um chapter 42 your site plan review special perment into your major site plan approval section and that's what the multif family overlay District's going to refer to and then and now this will be your minor site plan review section so when I come back with the um mvta bylaw and your site plan review amendments for that site plan review stuff it'll go in that we'll do those together okay um also going back I've gone back to the the Adu bylaw and section D which used to say they going to hold the public hearing is now just saying you're going to hold a public meeting in accordance with these procedures chance he meeting there all right so D site plan approval [Music] um okay and you had a comment on two here the project it used to read the project of describe meets the development standards set for on such projects unless any requirements have been weighed by the planning board yeah I wasn't sure what we wanted to do with that um would that be replaced by Adam's potentially draft waiver language so I think that my issue with D2 was simply that it says the project do described in the application meets the development standards set forth for such project in this bylaw what are the development standards set forth in this bylaw we you just saw the bylaw it's two pages there's no development standards there there's there's applicability there's submission requirements so this bylaw refers to the zoning as a the zoning bylaw as a whole it would mean the development standards in the ad for adus it would mean like section c of uh the Adu bylaw and then in the multif family overlay District there'll be um develop standards there okay so for the development standards for the use development standards set Force by such projects yeah for the yeah okay projects so you you think we we need to make that more clear yeah obviously I was confused by it so um May maybe nobody else was but I was just saying what development standards are we talking about but um okay so well it does say set forth projects in this bylaw is that and and as you mentioned there are no there's there are no standards set in the bylaw yeah it's yeah it's confusing because of the way that the term bylaw is often used in bylaws so very often the phrase this bylaw within a new self-contained section of a bylaw refers to that that section of the bylaw other times it's used and it refers to the whole the zoning bylaw as a whole and so I read it as saying this bylaw that I'm looking at here the site plan review bylaw as opposed to the zoning bylaw as a whole um so set Force for such projects in uh towns and's zoning bylaw yeah or just the zoning bylaw just more generically I guess is fine um and I I guess I would just be cautious maybe we say meets applicable standards for such projects because the term development standards I mean very often in a bylaw you have um environmental standards you have site standards you have development standards and so I was just conf to requirements because section c here is requirements for uh for an accessory development unit requirements for adus So make this uh the as described in the application meets the applicable development the applicable the applicable requirements applicable requirements set forth for such projects in this zoning bylaw this zoning bylaw but if it meets the if it meets the standards why do you need a waiver yeah and let's get rid of the waiver l now that we are but but but but Adam we were looking for language in reference to a waiver right so other words yeah depending on like the size of the the scope of whatever it is we're doing there should be some leeway because they weren't not they wouldn't all be the same right so what I've done um and you you have no way of seeing this I've just typed it up as we've been talking here is I've added a new section we're going to get to e in a minute but I I I have a sense that e may go away but we're g to I just added a new section here after d I've called it e and I've called it waivers and the language I chose actually I just cut and paste it more or less from what was in the age restricted development bylaw which I drafted two years ago for that bylaw and what it says is the planning board May in its reasonable discretion reduce alter or wave any or all of the foregoing site plan requirements upon demonstration by an applicant of just cause for such a reduction alteration or waiver provided that the planning board also finds that the reduction alteration or waiver would Advance the purpose of this section and further the public interest so it's just a generic on the one hand it's a generic waiver Clause but it also provides some guidance I mean you can't I always advise towns communities to not have this generic language that says and the board reserves the right to wave these requirements well the courts hate that because the courts say based upon what you're giving the board the authority to Zone on a whim based upon whether they like the applicant or they right so you need some defining standers that they're applying so by saying consistency with the purpose of the section and furthering the public interest then when you grant waivers you can explain that we deem this to be consistent with the language of the section and we think it's in the public interest because it facilitates getting this project built and I believe we just did something like that too at planning you did you know so and it's all about going through the process and talking about what is the best for the community in the end so um so are we leaving that last phrase unless any requirements have been waved I think we can fight that we're gonna have a whole self-contained wave I think what Adam just said is will'll cover us with what our intent is so is that the removal of um e now uh yes e is one of those uh the project phasing section doesn't make much sense for uh adus we're going to want it for mfo when that comes back in um we might as well take it out uh uh not not included in this and then we'll add it when we need to add it is the board good with that yes so so e becomes Adam's new waiver language yes I believe we're we're in agreement on that okay I think that finishes me off okay that's wonderful thank you very much Mr Doyle um I'm going on to our next out of the work session thank you Adam as well you can stay of course as long as you want but you can also be I don't think there's anything else is there anything else on the uh agenda Beth that we may need Adam for I don't see any SSS thees okay okay um so see buing towns Andrew do do you have any announcements from Ab buding towns uh let me check the portals I think there were two things I did not have them printed off see and I also think I think we lost Beth I'm still here I just screen shared the uh agenda yeah oh I have that in front of me but uh yes so uh Andrew yep uh I'm going through the portal there was an anr submission to the planning board for Greenville Road that's plants though let's see what else is there so with that anr um that if I may is um just officially going to be received by the board tonight um and it will be discussed at the January 13th meeting after staff review okay good all right so I'm at 3.1 so this is a notice from the zoning board of appeals from the town of Townsen it's a notice of decision that a special permit under the town of zoning bylaws has been granted to 324 Main Street Partners LLC for revitalization of the existing infrastructure and continue the operation of a full sered gas station with convenience store in a residential district in the aquafer Protection District property is located at 324 Main Street okay and there is the special permit I won't read all that I think we heard them I think they came before us they did okay uh let's see there is the notice that the town Charter has been amended that is 15 pages I will not be planed to read that you sure unless requested and it it is um it I don't know if it's up on the website yet but um um it is slated to be put on the website it has been received by the town clerk there is out there there's the legal notice from the planning board about our hearing on January 9th okay otherwise I think that's it oh there's a memo for um the annual Town report 2024 I see the memo all right let's see what does it do see annual Town report should be submitted by Friday January 31st okay thank you is that something loria's chair that you do or does the clerk no Beth usually does it I but um and hopefully we'll have everybody on the board will get to review it before sounds good somebody has some input you know it hopefully we'll get it before it's been already sent um and um I don't know Andrew if you saw there's the um bulletin from the attorney general regarding um the amendment was approved D for the accessory dwelling I mean the accessory apartment Amendment at uh annual town meeting 2024 I would recommend that the board read through the bulletin um the attorney y in the correspondence folder or it it is it's under correspondence in the 3.2 mrpc and other agencies oh I see I got you yeah totally recommend everyone read that because it's very specific to what's going on with the state law and adus and why the amendments were allowed but there are also um pointing the board towards things that they strongly encourage the town to do regarding their amendments you know to their new to our new Adu by law if you will so there's a and there there's information about the ation that they're prom prom promulgating um and clarifying terms and things of that nature so it's a very good um write up by the attorney general for the planning board okay does Joe need to see this or has he already seen this I don't know if Joe has seen that I will assume he has but I will send it mrpc yeah this came no this did not well no I'm not this wouldn't necessarily go to mrpc this comes to the town and to Town Council so I'll make a point of sending that to Joe right now just so he knows I'm pretty sure he would be interested in this too all right so what what are you referring to as far as receed from massachusett Regional Planning Commission and oh so so there wasn't anything other than nothing received from mrpc that I put in here okay so just the bulletin from the AG and that was not received from mrpc that was received from the attorney general to the town okay all right and then the rest is just announcements with the citizen planner yep all winter workshops and Library um so you'll have the uh public hearing then regarding these bylaws on January 9th starting at 6:30 yep okay and then our next regular meeting will be January 13th yes so the 9th will be the public hearing yep and that uh the 13th will be your next regular meeting then that will be the meeting you can discuss the a anr okay and also the final ization of the results of the public hearing on the warrant yes absolutely perfect okay so will we intend to have Adam at that meeting at the public hearing or at the meeting on the 13th the meeting on the 13th I'd probably be wise yeah I would invite him to that for sure okay well we'll see how it goes on the 9th right see how true yeah if nothing changed is then yeah okay so I guess the biggest priority is to get the um the final draft you know from my perspective so that when the public is asking for that um I have something to give them okay um so January 13th what is the other meeting date that we have in January is it the 27th the 27th I would imagine let me double check yeah I'm pretty sure we have the 99th 13th and 27th yes I I'm going to double check that yeah but the one on the n9th um if if nobody shows up it's going to be a quick meeting right on who's gonna tune in for because it's a public hearing for that specific purpose yeah any other comments from the board 2025 just Merry Christmas and happy New Year yeah Monica thank you hope everybody has a great week and was nice to see you all um I'll entertain a motion to adjourn at 8:23 p.m. and I'll second it okay consent anybody object no objections