##VIDEO ID:XYa8r_bKrqQ## okay um everyone we do have a quorum so I will call the meeting to order of the planning board uh meeting of November 25th 2024 at 4:10 pm. I'd like a roll call vote please as we're virtual only Carol hofus present Lance MCN present and Laura schiffern present we have um guests with us this evening Joseph Bole and Adam Costa along with our administrator Beth and I would like to say the Pledge of Allegiance before we start if you'll join me I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for it stands one nation under God indivisible jice I still want to thank our veterans and our military who are currently serving as well as all of our emergency response people uh 1 point3 the meeting is being recorded and will be uh appearing on the towns and YouTube YouTube channel um right now let me just see what you put on here the correspon is there so I don't have any additions or deletions uh Beth right okay basically we're just in work session this evening 2.1 planning board discussion 2025 fall meeting warrant okay so the purpose of this work session was to see if we could get some uh changes edits to our bylaws that make sense and that would allow us to have a public hearing am I giving feedback okay okay Robert Robert is Robert can you announce yourself Robert Robert can you unmute to announce yourself I don't know if he's having difficulty he looks like he may not be hearing us yet I'm here okay thank you Robert okay um as I was saying with the fall town meeting and at our last meeting we discussed uh making some bylaw changes and perhaps having a public hearing um I think Beth December 13th think we were looking at okay and so our suggestions would be um made before then uh have the public hearing and then uh December 8th I believe is the board of selectman's meeting uh excuse me it's the 17th and they're closing the warrant on the 18th okay so we have a schedule that we um could possibly adhere to oh I Pro well I'm sorry I will put myself on camera but I really didn't want to today see everybody else is so I will join you this way okay so um where shall We Begin I guess would be sensory use accessory use well um why don't we um Beth you had uh Mr Bo come and yes why don't we have him speak first so get that one out of the way he doesn't have to be with us the whole time um I'm afraid I might have to be with you for a while because there's a couple of questions here so um all right the accessories accessory dwelling units um I what what I have now and what we have sent into to the uh um MBTA Office for their review and are waiting for their reply is our our um zoning amendments and proposed map among those zoning amendments was is the creation of a site plan approval um chapter section which is actually true site plan approval um not your site plan review um special permit and the it and there's uh references in it and in the multif family overlay District uh zoning saying that site plan uh projects requiring site plan approval go through this new site plan approval and not through the old um site plan review special permit now in terms of adus it would be first of all that uh that the language creating this new uh site plan approval section uh I could pull that out of the MBTA bylaw and it make it a standalone site plan approval section um and put references in it uh that site plan review under uh for uh byright accessory dwelling units uses this section rather than site plan review special permit so espe as by right adus in compliance with the new law would be the hook for passing this uh um ordinary site plan approval section okay and and uh where we'd be adding that to the uh uh to the zoning uh just with the and I would likewise I could likewise go back to the uh to the to the accessory dwelling unit section and uh make reference to the uh approval process going through go your existing Adu section and change the references so that the approval goes through the uh this new site plan approval and then what we'd have is Adu language which takes your site plan which takes your review of ad use out of special permit and makes them uh subject to just site plan approval which isn't a special permit which is lawful under the new law and basically you would have in place this site plan review system when February 1st uh comes around and um accessory dwelling units become legal in your town right so I all we need is a general bylaw in the zoning uh for accessory use MH um and subject it's going to be by right anyway so um it's just going to be subject to a site plan review period not a special permit yes uh yes that that's the plan that would be subject to site plan approval you'd have a new site plan approval all right and if you're remember I've tried to be careful about this and somebody caught me last time we're using site plan approval to refer to the new byright legal um variety of site plan review that's not a special permit and site plan review to refer to what you already have in your zoning where you define site plan as a special permit so yes that's right um it we'd have a new site plan approval um section to uh proposed to put in the law and we'd have as well as language in the in your ad section which points to that instead of pointing to the site plan review special permit that way you we get the uh we you'd come into compliance with the law in terms of uh well still preserving the board's ability to review what it wants to review and that site plan approval would then be sitting there in the zoning ready for the MBTA communities act to refer to it right so generally what we have to do is as a town say assessor jelling units are allowed by right period yep no special permits required yep only subject to site plan review approval yes yes and then uh site plan approval in this section and then you go to this section and there'll be a whole a whole little section there and it will also make reference to the adus then when we come back and do the MBTA law We'll add a little more language in there about uh that the mult uh resident byright residential development in the MF in the multif family overlay District refers to this section two and then site plan approval would be referring would apply to your which is basically how it is written now I've written it now as to be something that the multif family overlay District can refer to with the understanding that we'd go back and amend it so that the adus refer to it now because this meeting is popping up um I'm just going to switch that it'll start off as something that the Adu section refers to and then the MBTA communities act will come in and that will also refer to it right so right now the new bylaw will be by W yes and then when we do the MDA um MTA District yep um it'll be subject to the Same by law yep anyway so yes I don't know if we have to even make a special focus on it well District well I'm sorry what's the question I don't know if we have to if it's in the general bylaw anyway as a zoning by right yep and no special permits required yep then I don't know when we do the MBTA District that we even have to refer to at all because it's subject to the same general zoning requirement um well the only thing is if we haven't cleaned up your bylaw uh the site plan review special permit sections of your bylaw and pass the MBTA then uh if the MB if the new MBTA stuff doesn't refer to it then your old site plan review special permit language will capture MBTA projects in the MBTA overlay district and suddenly thereby special permit and you're no longer lawful well that's what we want to do now prior to the MBTA oh okay yes yes exactly right we have that already in the ordinance um then we don't even have to even address it in the MBTA districts it's already meaning because it's already in the MBTA ordinance have to fix it now yes yes we're gonna be doing that now yes prior to the NBTA uh District yeah um although I wanted to bring that up and ask you if you think we should try to push to get uh mvta onto this January town meeting let's say the mvta communities office got back to me tomorrow and said you good to go I don't think we should I I don't think we should we need some public hearings on this we have to educate the public public um and we have to show the zoning board has to show what how we arrive what we did and why we're making the recommendation or not and that's okay okay Robert thank you um does any other board member have any comments before I ask Adam okay and so just to reiterate we have until our the next meeting which is the 13th to have public hearings and at that point in time we can make a recommendation to the board of Selectmen who will meet on the 17th to close the warrant by the 18th so we are having public hearings on the 13th of December yeah yeah go ahead isn't that what we said Beth well so the board is meeting next on the 9th so um and let me get the dates up again oh okay we're meeting on the 9th but we could have a public hearing on the 13th yes so the 13th would be January 13th if you decide to bring forward any warrant articles you know they can go onto the warrant but then you can have your public hearing a little later to give you time to okay all right I I do think I remembered that and yes that would give us time to have the public hearing after and before we had the fall town meeting which is January 25th right and could I ask a a procedural question um if we were to go forward with MBTA communities would the abutters or land owners in the selected MBTA overlay District need to be notified that's just a procedural question yes they would um I'll need time Adam can answer that better than me yeah I'll need time for that they're not they're not requ notified pardon me they are not required to be notified they're not okay that's that's good that means not by Statute some some communities choose to notify them which you have the ability to do but statute doesn't require it okay okay and and towns and Zoning doesn't doesn't require it I don't think towns and zoning says anything about a rezoning no oh okay okay uh we uh we just did this in lemonster and they do have to notify every every owner and every butter within 300 feet of anywhere where zoning changes are being made the mailing was 6600 bucks yes gosh W I don't I don't know that we're we would have that many people right right notify in that area but but um wellow okay all right it's I'm so it's sounding to me like the time constraints are really kind of limiting the ambition of this um what I can definitely have ready and get in is the new is a new site plan approval section with language that uh um Adu by adus uh apply to this and a um and some um amendments in the Adu section saying use the site plan approval not site not uh site plan review special permit section um I'm think we need a substantive conversation here though about the level of review that the board wants um Do You Really Want want to do a site plan review for every single Adu would you want to do a site plan review for an Adu that is entirely contained within an existing single family home um some some communities um site plan have site plan review for some Adu projects and not others some of them have site plan review projects for new construction um but not for or if it's entirely within an existing building some of them have uh a site plan review for a detached Adu but not an attached Adu so if it's a separate building versus whether it's in the house versus whether it's an addition so uh I'm going to um talk about I think there are four different scenarios here to think about first of all an Adu in an existing single family home entirely within the existing s single family home the case of somebody turns their basement into an apartment if there aren't any um if if there isn't anything being actually new construction new footprint do you still want an a uh site plan uh to come before you I think you have to and the reason I think you have to is we have to verify the maximum square footage allowed so they're still going to be applying for a building permit and your Building Commissioner is your zoning enforcement officer who every other project looks at an application and checks to make sure whether it meets all of the black and white numerical requirements and stuff zoning yeah we I don't think we need it then yeah I I agree I don't think we need it I agree are you three saying that entire just about the adus entirely within a single family home yes within within okay so within uh sfh no SP I'd like to have the record show that Andrew has joined us okay thank you I have one question yes Robert how does do that apply to a duplex okay a condo okay uh so uh first of all um uh dup duplex whether it the units are rented or whether they are owned as condos are the same thing under the zoning the zoning does not distinguish between ownership versus rental in uh defining a land use it's actually illegal to do that um the difference between a single family home and a duplex is that a single family is that a two family home contains two family units two units designed for occupation by a family you're never going to find a building that was built to contain two efficiency units and that's it nobody would ever build that they build two family units with uh um two units designed for family occupation a single family home with an a with an accessory dwelling unit contains one family unit that's designed for family occupation and then one accessory unit that's not really a family unit this is where the cap on square footage and the cap on bedrooms come in you can have a smaller unit which isn't you know it's more for an individual or a young couple um and that's the difference and they're defined separately in your in your bylaw so my question is if you have a two family like an existing two family home right okay okay and will they have the right to add an accessory unit to one or both of them no not not unless you uh but Townson could could adopt a bylaw that allows a owner of a two family to uh add an accessory unit if you wanted that would be a little weird but you could um probably be a lot easier just to adopt a multif family housing bylaw but um what's required of the towns under this law is to allow single family homes to allow to add an accessory unit the law specifies that in its definition of what an Adu is that it's um a single that it's goes with a single family home so you have to have a single family as your primary use in order to have an Adu you can't have a two family remotti I just want to cover that subject yeah now let's say somebody in town did have a uh a uh two family which is existing as a pre-existing non-conforming use uh does that become legal if it uh with this new Adu bylaw being counted as a single family with an accessory unit probably not because once again your uh your pre-existing non-conforming 2 family probably has more than two bedrooms and or more than 900 ft and remember the definition of what has to be allowed and what what an Adu is under uh this new Adu law limits them to uh two bedrooms and 900 griffy it it really is it really was written at the state level not to be a law that authorizes two families it's a law that authorizes adus which is a different thing um if I uh could go on the scenarios I wanted to ask your opinion on and Adu built entirely within a single family home second one is an Adu which involves building an addition onto an existing single family home is that a situation that would require site plan review yes addition to SF is that yes that's the consensus of the board okay yes okay um number three is a freestanding detached accessory dwelling unit in an existing building so let's say somebody has a barn and they uh or a detached garage and uh they use turn the attic space above it into a unit they're not adding any more footprint onto the ground is that a situation where you want uh plan review I don't I would say no okay we've got Carol can't hear you that's fine with me okay so that one's a no within existing accessory building and uh is a no and I I'm I'm going to guess here that if somebody builds one in a new detached building you are going to want site plan review for that yes yeah I thought so all right um anything within the existing footprint is allowed without a review exactly and that will refer to the existing footprint of both the primary structure and accessory buildings if they want to convert the shed or the garage or something excellent okay that was efficient all right um so all right so this is really about creating a site plan approval section which is about adus and all right and in order to do this I'm going to have to make some changes to the existing site plan review special permit section um saying basically adus this doesn't apply to adus look in section such and such um I will as I get into that um do what I can uh get I'm going to try to do as much of the easy work of the site plan review um project you know the one we're waiting for on the pad Grant I'll see if I can how much of that I can get done as part of this but what's my deadline to get you a document uh what do we have let's see do s I think I gave you you a December 13th your is going to be your public hearing yeah so that's the 13th will be this the warrant closes you said January 13th yeah January 13th sorry um the warrant closes on December 18th well yeah but it'll be the the night of the 17th is when officially yeah have to be into the board of Selectmen yeah so the board um could you you let's see what is the 18th Wednesday I thought you said you were holding a public hearing on December 13th no January uh and that's and that's just an arbitrary date I put out there because um that is a planning board meeting and it's the last planning board meeting before the fall town meeting okay yeah so I mean it's it's flexible the board can move that around and uh okay do it earlier but the schedule has been as tight as I thought then okay good yeah January 13th I think yeah so we just need to have some sort of uh verbiage or intent to hold up like a placard on the warrant for the fall town meeting okay you need that before the 17th we should vote on it at the 9th actually that that's yeah do and unfortun folks I have some bad news December 9th is the big lemonster joint um public hearing between of their planning board and their City Council on their MBTA communities ordinance so I'm booked well I don't know if we need you to be with us we're discussing tonight what it is what we need and if you could just get that to us and we'll review that yeah I can I can get that to you uh you review that and send me your comments from that meeting and then I will work them into the bylaw and get it back to Beth in time to send to the planning board for their uh for their December when 18th when the warrant closes yeah so it would have to be back by you know the 16th preferably okay you know if anytime before that you know like by 16 get the first draft to you draft uh let's see you're meeting on the 9th so get that to you um I'll I'll get that to you Friday this Friday great that's great thank you yeah uh saving up my I'm the Newbie so I'm saving up my vacation hours so I'm not taking that Friday okay so can I ask a question uh Madam chair regarding yes so are you going to also have to make amendments to the accessory apartment by law because that is currently it it's currently been an amendment that was passed at the last town meeting that's still with the AG in review um so we're kind of that's that's going on and in process and uh so they had a 90day extension on their review but those edits and those amendments were H shall we say they were I guess they were fairly subsi so but that's sitting out there I don't know if you can still amend a bylaw that is under an AG review I guess I would ask Town Council if I may is that allowable Adam if I formed that question well Adam no that that's fine through you madam chair so the Attorney General approved the bylaw last twek oh oh goodness okay okay great thank you thank you but to that question do you know if like can we amend something that's already that hasn't been approved by the Attorney General so you have the ability to do that but you do it at risk that the Attorney General is not going to approve the base document and therefore whatever you've approve by way of amendment doesn't doesn't really jive with what town meeting adopted previously so I I typically ad against it but there are some circumstances where for one reason or another towns have chosen to to proceed with an amendment even while awaiting attorney general approval of something recently adopted okay all right well thank you for that so Adam do we do we need to set up a collection to get you some books for your bookcases stop it it's a it's a fake background Lance oh I'm sorry I was gonna say that's a really super office you got there that was nice clean um okay so anything else that you uh need from us Joe um well this question that you raised about amending the Adu bylaw you remember I'm going to be doing that for you um I all right I need the new Adu bylaw uh that just got approved because I'm going to be making changes to that to make references to this uh site plan approval section okay I'll take care of that so that it go I'm gonna make it all so I'm gonna make it all go through that make the adus that require this go through uh okay that's what I'll do and I'll make sure I send that to you thank you um and we are not doing the MBTA communities act um we are yeah and we are still waiting on site plan review special permit for that pag uh all right sounds like I have till Friday to do it um this is actually the time frame that I had recommended before we give that we wait this long to see the if the Commonwealth comes out with any guidance and uh regulations about adus the way that they gave themselves the power to um I haven't seen any Adam have you seen any uh with the um eohc in the in the housing Bond bill in the Adu language said they reserved for themselves the rights to issue guidance and regulation have you seen any guidance and regulation no they're working on draft regulations but they've said they won't be issued until sometime in the late fall or early winter yeah of next year no this year oh of oh all right some sometime sometime in the next three months I I think would be late fall early winter fall ends on December 20th winter starts so yeah um I'd be surprised if we get something before the holidays but that's the the the eohc issued a or or or gave a webinar presentation U I think it was about 3 weeks ago now and as part of their presentation which is now posted on their website uh they indicated that they they were working on draft regulations which would be issued in the coming months okay okay so um based on that it looks like we're still in a holding mode on um me um draw drawing you up a new Adu bylaw um so I will just do what has to be done to the Adu bylaw to create this site plan approval section and you know keep in mind we're goingon to be going back to it thank you okay so I think that's all stuff thank you so much does the board have any questions for Joe before he leaves any board member no thanks Joe thank you Joe thank you Joe thanks everybody um I wanted to let I uh wanted to let you know that the uh the um mbda communities office actually really thinks that uh they really like the way we're doing the um site plan the the the oversized district with the cap in order to allow for a little more flexibility and they like the second ramp in order to Pro also provide a little more flexibility so I'm uh I hope that you're all okay that I'm going to be using that basic model in my work with Ashby and Westminster to create their bylaws too oh I'm I'm I'm sharing the language and everything with them because they really like what we've done well that's uh part of the goal of mrpc anyway yeah is to be sharing with each community so that everyone one benefits from the work that gets done so thank you very much yep um one and one last piece of information we got feedback on a couple of proposed MBTA bylaws and the um that mrpc produced and um they uh they approved all of our language in and all and our maps and everything um for lemonster and also I think it was I think it was Harvard no Sterling but they said that the existing um uh zoning bylaws had problems which would keep you keep the town of being in compliance one of them was a definition of family definition of family where you put a cap on the number of unrelated people that can live together uh they're not they don't like that we're going to uh I think we're going to if if you have your definition of family includes uh cap like that I think we're gonna have to take the number off and just have it read or a number of unrelated people living together in a housing unit they don't seem to like there being a number at all yeah I was gonna say I I didn't think we could do that I it's legally dodgy anyway it would be best to do that anyway you're right um Adam uh your thoughts on that that's correct we we've been advising against that for many years many yeah yeah yeah I mean how's wise I know that from just doing business but okay well thank you and in terms of um uh protecting uh the public welfare if you lose uh that regulation the uh rules about overcrowding units and number of people and everything they exist in the building code they exist in the fire code and they exist in the septic code so your your Building Commissioner is still going to be able to take enforcement action in those situations just just not under this the other and now the other piece of advice that we've gotten is to uh make sure that your site plan approval is um that's not discretionary and that it it it it has clear standards for approval and it isn't being too discretionary so we're already taking care of that one with what I'm doing right now so just want so that is the last bit of information I have for you thank you for having me tonight okay thank you um well Andrew did you have a question no I did not I thought Joe was transitioning off so I was waving goodbye bye everyone all right thank you so much appreciate your attendance okay um next um did you share with now I know that you gave us the 145-40 session inclusionary housing requirements and it was like I did get to print that off and the changes but this document was actually approved in 1989 oh um so that what I put in there was uh receive from the housing uh Authority or I'm sorry the towns in it was it was oh it was transferred from the um affordable housing trust the um they have approved this um I can screen share it they've approved a um amendment to yeah section 14548 which was the affordable housing conditional density bonus and let me put that up so everybody can know what we're talking about and they wanted to bring it to the planning board so I put it in your folders We haven't had a chance to discuss it or review it but uh given given that it came into the board I wanted to share it with everybody and see if you want to discuss it all right so this part came you put in because of um the explanation also that was sent to the board from the Housing Trust yeah that's the document that you had in there um no this is um this is unrelated this was uh something that they have been it's kind of been one of those documents or one of those bylaws that really hasn't been very effective I don't think it's ever really been used right so it came up in one of the I can't it came up in one of the uh age restricted development uh reviews uh that was under review at the planning board and the um the Housing Trust I believe it was or the Housing Authority correct me if I'm wrong I'm not sure which one it was went through it and made some amendments so they're suggesting these but they have been approved by uh affordable housing trust I believe okay yeah so that's what they are they look pretty extensive I haven't actually reviewed them myself but it's called they're they're calling it inclusionary housing yeah so it's a it's a lot I guess but I wanted to put it out there in case it was something that you wanted to try to consider well if this ends up being if if they want to present it to the planning board because the planning board has to review bylaws anyway it's I don't think these are bylaws specifically just to the trust these are the town bylaws yeah so um so this could be another meeting yeah I just I put it in folders yeah I put it in because I didn't know I think that I think this is good um who who was speaking uh I'm sorry um M um yeah this is gonna require some careful review I think um and the other thing that we have discussed in the past is uh the eliminating the term affordable is a legal term um that ties with Mass fair housing so that's what our board had focused on previously so I don't know how that integrates with what's being presented here either so um no but I'd like to ask Adam that question do we have to worry about a the term affordable in our bylaws so I don't know that you need to worry about it but you do have to understand the meaning that it has and you have to understand that meaning in the context of what it is that you're seeking to achieve through your bylaws so I got this today as well and so I took a a very quick look at it I I didn't know the source of the redlined edits but I I do know now because Beth has said that it was the affordable housing trust that made these recommendations I didn't know that at the time that I had reviewed it um but I gave it I gave it a review and obviously I'm aware of the existing bylaw language under Section 14548 that is currently entitled affordable housing conditional density bonus and it it operates much like the title would suggest it offers a density bonus the ability to build more than you would be permitted to build as of right if you dedicate a portion of your residential housing units um to uh to affordability that you designate them affordable um typically that would mean that you're designating them affordable for a minimum term of 30 years and typically it would mean that when you say affordable you mean affordable at at most to households that are earning 70 to 80% of area median income adjusted for household size that's the state standard that's the standard that would be used if you intend for these additional units that are created through a density bonus to count on this on the town subsidized housing inventory so that you can count them toward meeting your 10% standard the goal that exists for all Massachusetts communities so that's how it's structured today when I look at the the redline changes that are being proposed um it it's really adding some specificity it's it's altering the language a bit um but but I had real concerns about whether it's still going to achieve what it is that the old bylaw was meant to achieve and what I think you probably still intend to achieve but I don't know that for sure because I this is the first discussion I've had on this topic I've not discussed it with the trust and I've not discussed it with the planning board um but I have some questions about whether let me just give you an example if we go to the very first page there's quite a bit of uh red in subparagraph a which is entitled purpose and authority and currently what what it says if you go down five or six lines it's stricken through and it's in red currently it says that the planning board can issue a special permit to allow a density increase by relaxing requirements of the bylaw and uh that a minimum of uh 30% of the units that would be developed on the site would be sold and maintained at affordable prices um if we look at what it's changed to say we look at the new Redline text what it would say is that the objective is to um make um housing available to those earning a low to moderate income and then it goes on to say that it will require a minimum of 10% of the units developed on the site be sold and maintained at affordable prices but only if eight or more units are developed and then it goes on to say that affordable pricing would be determined by the board in consultation with both the housing authority and the trust and that the rates would be Revisited every 5 years well that's going to run counter to the the state standards right the the state is not going to allow you to count a unit on the subsidized housing inventory if you're the ones deciding your planning board your housing authority your trust what it means for a unit to be affordable you have to comply with the state standards for affordability if you intend to have these units count on the subsidized housing inventory additionally as a practical matter I think the language is too wishy-washy because it says the planning board determines the price in consultation with the housing authority and the affordable housing trust well how does that work in practice those are three separate bodies that need to convene a quorum and conduct open public meetings which which decision controls is the housing authority and the affordable housing trust providing a an advisory recommendation to the planning board does does their say have real meaning do they get to veto um a price or or or a rent if they disagree with it so I think that there's some issues there um even staying within the same subsection a we read the next sentence says Lots which are non-conforming or do not meet traditional Frontage or size requirements may be granted a special permit to build and it goes on say so long as a minimum of one unit is made affordable well to build what right so you're not going to give them a special permit to build whatever they want as long as they're as long as they're non-conforming to start with and they're they're they're providing one affordable unit you could have non-conforming structures on large properties that are proposing to add 99 new units and you're going to get one affordable and they're going to do so by way of a of a planning board special permit I I don't think that that's the intention so these are just a couple of examples of where I think the language needs to be tightened up a bit but in order to do that I need to better understand what the affordable housing trust was was attempting to achieve with these changes and then what the planning board might be willing to recommend to town meeting because as you had said Lori the planning board is the body that conducts the public hearing and ultimately makes the recommendation um at town meeting on town meeting floor for adoption of of a zoning bylaw Amendment so I think those discussions need to be had can they be had between now and and and mid January maybe um you know on on the whole there's a lot of red on this first page but the entire bylaw is only like five or five and a half pages and as we get Beyond page one um you know page two has hardly any red at all so there's really no changes there page three has a few adjustments but again they're they're somewhat repetitive of the two points that I just highlighted on page one um and then there's very little on the next page and very little on the next page and um just a minor adjustment at the end so the the revisions are not um comprehensive by any means but I'm not sure that they really achieve what it is that the trust wants to achieve and I'm also uncertain as to what it is that the trust wants to achieve okay well I'm I'm uh happy to have or invite the trust to come to our next meeting and we can specifically discuss this what I think um some of this may be when the it was inserted about the boards working together to set the values it's um when you use affordable housing and have to be counted towards affordable housing you actually have to go through the process that the state wants you to go through not what you locally want to go through so that's never going to fly that's not something we're going to be able to do and I think that the biggest um hurdle that any owner has had H about even a developer or when we went through the accessory apartment thing was going through the process of selecting the person who was going to get the affordable property and that in itself is15 to $30,000 and you have to use a state agency and this is just for one you have to use a state agency that you hire to do this process and NOP or your unit's not going to count by to the state standards so I think that's that's the bigger issue isue and how do we fight that issue and make the state understand that by you doing this doesn't make the properties any more affordable because you can't get people who want to do it so um I think because the trust and Adam you're going to know this because you were part of the um formation of the trust was so that the house the trust could get funds and operate in a manner of developing some affordable housing so maybe we've done that and maybe that will work as far as identifying properties but that's not going to work as far as the town owning these properties and managing them because they're still going to have to follow the formula of the state so maybe they realize this and maybe they're not think along those lines but I think that's our biggest hurdle not so much the bylaws there was one sentence there that I really liked that I wish we would put in every one of our Sor too bylaws and that is you know being able to wave the lot size the frontage I mean if and this was one of the things that I really was hoping to accomplish tonight is to work with language that allows an owner of a property that is non-conforming to build something that would be acceptable on a lot that does not meet all those requirements whether it be side setback front setback rear uh lot size but as long as they have um a lot that will accommodate the septic that's approved by the Board of Health is not um harmful to to our water supply thereby conservation would approve this lot and it has or doesn't have Town water depends if it does you know even better but if it doesn't and it still all conforms that we the planning board be able to issue issue a special permit well I think recently and I came across this um the state has already got some legislation in the works for nonconforming lot buildable lots and uh I can pull up what I discovered but I don't have it accessible right now so that is also something that is going on currently on the state level to uh more you know to allow towns or to encourage towns to uh allow more housing on lots that are not conven ially conforming okay I don't know the specifics of it yet all right um but so I think that I don't have a problem with um the other part that I do like and what we saw when Beth presented this on the screen is the first sentence in this affordable statement about people vital to our community um right now I think we're experiencing affordable housing that's based on uh housing values that are not representative of what towns and's values are but are so it says here people making a low to moderate income who are vital part of the towns and community so yes we want affordable housing for our people not just to have it affordable comparable to somebody in quinsey who finds that our prices are really desirable and actually end up coming into our community when the real need is for our own Community um Robert thank you I don't know how um how we as the planning board can actually make any changes regarding what people can afford and what they can't afford that is the development that is the inflation rate that is many other things that are beyond our control but I appreciate your comments in reference La Lura we're at the planning board here we're trying to plan what's best for our community and um so I do think we have some input into the well we may have input but how are we going to change that Robert we are not control of those things Adam you have any suggestions uh you know um yes and no so um I don't disagree with the issues you're raising because I've heard them raised by other planning board members other select board members other town meeting attendees um in discussing inclusionary zoning and discussing uh adus And discussing density bonuses uh in forming affordable housing trusts and attempting to create affordable housing for those often in their communities that want to downsize want to age in place um but want to remain in the community where they where they grew up where they rais their families and maybe they can't afford any longer um the challenge is that that is directly at odds with the policies that have been promulgated at the state level and at the federal level that are meant to prevent discrimination and so one way the communities used to do this and they didn't do it by way of bylaw but they did it in permits and approvals they issued like for example chapter 40b comprehensive permits we all know what 40b is I know it doesn't come before the planning board but zoning boards review chapter 40b applications for comprehensive permit permits and those are um comprehensive permits are probably the number one tool in Massachusetts used for the creation of affordable housing well it used to be even in my years of practice 20 years ago that you could incorporate as a condition of approval as a zoning board in the town of Townsen you can incorporate a provision that allowed for and required a local preference for up to 70% of the units that would be designated affordable would be entitled to a local preference that they would be reserved effectively for those in your community that want to remain in your community well guess what the state has worked over the past 15 to 20 years years to work that out of comprehensive permits and in fact they have adopted stringent standards that say the exactly the opposite of what you just described Rob which is if you now have a 40b development that requires a local preference you have to prove to the state before the state will permit you to exercise that local preference that exercising it will not have a disparate impact on protected classes and you say okay well what does that mean that's bunch of fancy terminology what does it mean to have a desparate impact on protected classes well you have to show that the demographics of the town of townzen are the equivalent of the demographics of the Metropolitan statistical area in which you're located which means you include Fitchburg and you include lemonster and so when you match their demographics they don't match your demographics and so the the consequence is going to be that you're going to have to price these units you're going to have to Market these units to anybody who can qualify and if those individuals happen to be residents of fitb that want to relocate to the town of Townsen or lemonster or any of your surrounding communities you have you have no ability to keep them out without engaging in discrimination and violating not only state law but federal law so that's been a real Challenge and that's just addressing the that's just addressing the lottery component the the actual marketing Lottery of these units that's not even speaking to this concept of affordability and how this the purchase price gets gets calculated which is again based upon the Metropolitan statistical area of which you're a part and based upon what individuals and households in the town of townzen are earning and it is it unfair to those in Townsen that want to remain in towns and they're looking for housing they can't find it that are being pushed out by individuals from other communities that want to relocate into towns in absolutely it's unfair but it's Al it also happens to be what the law requires so the only thing I can offer by way of a solution and it's not really a solution but it's it's what I've seen done in other communities and you know we we're talking about this this this bylaw this affordable housing conditional density bonus is what it was called before now you're proposing to to to to call it the inclusionary housing requirements for development in its Essence this bylaw is an inclusion AR zoning bylaw um not rocket science they've been adopted in dozens and dozens of communities across Massachusetts the concept of inclusionary zoning is that you require for developments of a certain size there's typically a threshold usually it's four units sometimes it's eight units but you require for any development that exceeds a certain size it can be multif family it can be single family subdivisions you require the provision of an affordability component usually it's 10% although I've seen it as high as 25% an affordability component or what is done in some communities is to offer the opportunity to a developer to make a payment in lie of providing an affordable unit and you might say well what is that that's just a that's just an exaction that's just requiring a developer to write a check to the town and instead of having to provide affordable housing well that's true but this goes to the point that Lori made before the problem with inclusionary zoning bylaws is that it is cost prohibitive in many instances for developers of smaller projects and so to Lor's point the cost of a marketing and Lottery plan and then implementing that plan can be anywhere from $5 to $40,000 and unfortunately there's an economy of scale so whether you have one affordable unit or you have 21 affordable units or you have 101 affordable units the cost doesn't rise it's not it's not 20 times the cost of one unit it's maybe maybe for the 20 affordable units maybe the cost of that marketing and Lottery is $30,000 as opposed to 25,000 if it were just one unit it is exponentially and and the reason the reason for that is there's an economy of scale you've got to prepare the marketing and Lottery plan you've got to conduct a lottery whether it's one unit or 20 units and so it it favors the developer of larger developers of larger projects so if you've got 100 unit projects that are propping up in your community Here There and Everywhere like Brookline or Worcester maybe it's a non-issue because you've got you've got those larger projects and those developers are creating affordable housing units they're building 100 units and they're designating 20 25% of those units as affordable units but when you've got smaller projects like you might have in Townsen and you've got these developers of 4unit projects or eight unit projects or 12 unit projects and they've got to provide 10% or 20% of those units as affordable it's a real hit to them to have to incur the cost the marketing the lottery the soft cost associated with those affordable units and so by offering a payment in Li they can choose instead to write a check to the town and after that happens once or twice or three times or 10 times those monies go into the affordable housing trust and can be utilized by the trust to develop affordable housing projects or to preserve the affordability of affordable units that were going to drop off the inventory which we've seen done in many communities so that's another way to create or preserve affordable housing um but also to recognize kind of the the the the the EB and flow of how it works with these developments as regards an inclusionary zoning bylaw so there are some ways to structure these bylaws that could work better for your town thank you unfortunately that's the reality um questions from anybody else regarding that Beth what what is it uh remind me please what it else we are addressing oh um I did gather a few things and put them in your meeting packet but they're not you know they were just random things that that kind of came to mind one of them is um the previous land use coordinator did start going through the zoning bylaw and she had made some comments um noticed some omissions and some additions so I put that in the packet that you could go through at your leisure they're more again um clerical editorial uh edits some of them are you know larger you know regarding like the flood plane bylaw that will have to be amended which which would be a Springtown meeting thing however I put it in the packet so you could go through that and if something speaks to you that you know we could do at you know the the fall town meeting then you know that can be discussed on the 9th um has seen those yet no nobody has they I just pulled them out of a file that she had left when she left her office uh here in Townsend so I had that and I figured I'd throw it in for you know for you to review and then I did pop in the 2022 warrant article on um the age restricted development uh that was never brought to town meeting so I thought if you wanted to review that I know that um you know currently you have a project under review but there was a lot of discussion um about amendment to that so I put what was proposed back in 2022 went to public Ing and eventually was um not brought forward to town meeting and I think most of it I think it was you had suggested the acreage uh be reduced from two to one acres for um the criteria applicability and um that was a point of worry if I recall I mean Lance I think you were at the public hearing correct do you recall the uh concerns yes remember what they were because no okay okay because we're we we do keep thinking about maybe it's me that just keeps thinking about but um having smaller Lots again that will be overseen by the Board of Health conservation and the water department and the highway and all those other things and if the lot may not be conforming to the zoning that it's in if it meets all that criteria we should be able to Grant a a permit on that and Adam is there any way you can help us accomplish that with respect specifically to the age restricted development bylaw no well I would like to see it in general my my thinking is in general can it only be the age restrict and by the way just let me give let me add a point in here before I forget again two of the three units are sold and occupied on Fitchburg Road 194 Fitchburg Road the three unit um age restricted that we did approve and was built and two are now occupied just this month they they closed the beginning of this month both of those units at $ 4799 and the center unit is on at 469 so that's a report on that but um Adam what do you think yeah so so so let me let me offer a couple of things so first of all I was also in attendance at the public hearing relating to the age restricted development bylaw these potential changes which I had a hand in reviewing and and assisting with at the time um in fact I think that I was told what what it was that needed to change and I might have even drafted the language um and I think it says that in green up top and by and by town Council so my recollection of what occurred and I'd have to go back and watch it um to know for certain but I think that there was just a a lack of consensus um between board members and a a couple members of the public who attended I think that um now selectwoman Kell was also in attendance at that meeting as well um so she may have a better recollection than I do um but there was just a lack of consensus concerning whether it was appropriate to reduce the acreage from two acres to one acre I remember some concerns being raised about do we know how many properties in the town of Townsen would now be subject potentially to use of this bylaw and what that could mean for the town and potential use of the bylaw and development or overdevelopment um and then I think there was also a concern as we go to um page two um that there was this um sort of generic statement um the planning board May in its reasonable discretion I'm looking at number eight it's in bold and it has some green text at the end of it the money board May in its reasonable discretion reduce alter or wave any or all of the foregoing basic requirements upon demonstration uh by an applicant of just cause for the reduction alteration or waiver that was the original language that I had proposed it's a it's pretty similar to what you see at the top of that same page that's stricken through a few items above number five um nothing in the section sh preclude the planning board from reducing or waving minimum setback requirements um or space uh between internal Lots the idea was take it out of five and put it at the end and make it applicable to any of the basic requirements up above um and if I recall the language in green um just further clarifies that there needs to be a finding that a reduction alteration or waiver would Advance the purpose of the bylaw and further the public interest and I again I think there was a concern that that and this is going to dub tail nicely into me answering your your your other question Lori um oh there's look at this there's even a comment here for me from a few years ago now I'm reading it so okay just this just reminded the board that it needed to apply the special permit standard so um so I think that there was a concern that invested the board with too much Authority and so this goes to your question Lori about is there a way generically in the bylaw to allow for the waiver of Provisions Frontage requirements setback requirements minimum lot acreage requirements um the answer is yes you have you have the legal authority to adopt waiver Provisions as part of your zoning bylaws and in fact I do it often when I'm crafting self-contained bylaws um to be added to the zoning bylaw for example um I just got passed in one of my other communities a chapter 40R smart growth overlay District bylaw and I always incorporate waiver provision that allows for the waiver of the the the dimensional or density standards within the bylaw if it's determined to be consistent with the objectives of the bylaw um I don't see it done very often on a on a zoning bylaw wide scale because effectively then what you're doing is you're creating a waiver process that takes the place of the statutory variance process typically if you want to alter the dimensional requirements and dent standards you need to go to the zoning board of appeals and get a variant and you meet have to meet a very strict statutory standard some communities do allow it on a broader basis again I'll give you an example I represent the town of Marblehead Marblehead for as long as I can remember for as long as I've been doing work there and I've been doing work there since the late 2000s they've always had what they call a special permit for use and dimension and it essentially allows an applicant to come forward and seek a special permit to vary the dimensions or the D or even the use of a property in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by the bylaw it it effectively eliminates the need for a variance in the town of maret now that's very rare and the challenge will be getting that through town meeting because you're going to have some naysayers that say we're putting all of our trust in our planning board and the few planning board members to exercise their broad discretion to decide when to say that all of these standards we've gone you know through through through significant effort to adopt and that we call our zoning bylaw can simply be ignored that's what that's what the naysayers are going to say and you're going to have to you're going to have to convince them that this is number one that it's safe to put that trust in the hands of the planning board and number two that it it actually is going to help the planning board achieve a a broader a grander vision for the town um to allow for underutilized sites to be redeveloped in a way that the bylaw wouldn't allow them to be redeveloped now to allow for the creation of housing opportunities in locations where they couldn't be created now certainly the environment is is sort of ripe for that kind of a thing I mean as as Rob had alluded to before there's a there's a push at the state level to uh through the affordable homes act otherwise to create opportunities at least in the residential context for further development to occur infill development to occur part of the affordable homes act aside from the adus was actually to create a new grandfathering Clause that allows for Lots in common ownership that would have merged by operation of law if they have 7500 Square F feet and 75 ft of Frontage they can actually effectively be demerged and can be used for starter homes for homes of not more than 1750 Square ft so there is a push at the state level for this sort of stuff to happen um and giving yourselves the ability through a special permit process to Grant these kinds of waivers is not necessarily a bad idea but my experience is that does take some convin convincing at the constituent level um because of that discretion okay so I can say the my thoughts are not to give grandiose power to the planning board my thoughts are to make opportunities that have checks and balances so in other words planning board is not making the final determination without hearing from the building inspector without hearing from the Board of Health without hearing from conservation I mean we do that anyway in in everything that we hear for a public hearing but this would be written into the bylaw so that they understand it is not just the planning board that makes this decision it has to follow uh safety measures for the town what's good for our environment what's good for the town should be the ultimate reason for any decision how do we relay that message to them it's not about power right and and and and I I know I know it's not because I know your board and I know you and I know that it's not about that I'm just telling you what the naysayers are going to say because I've heard it over and over again in all sorts of communities across the state um how do you address it well you know it's it's it's difficult to do for a couple of reasons number one is you you just talked about um not making the decision in a vacuum you're you're you're soliciting input from your building inspector and from your board of health and from your zoning board and from staff um the the problem is even if you write that into your bylaw generally speaking those are advisory opinions that don't bind the planning board so maybe the may even be that your constituents that the the the town meeting goers have full trust and in and complete belief in you as members of the planning board it it's it's bigger than that it's about okay are they going to have trust for the planning board members that might be sitting in your seats in 5 years or 10 years or 20 years right so it's not even personal necessarily to all of you it's just okay we're we're we're we're relinquishing this authority to the planning board and yes they have to they have to vet their decisions with zoning and building inspector and but they're not bound everybody could say no and they could still choose to do what they choose to do you could work in binding Authority there are there are systems of checks and balances that I've seen it work it it typically is not three or four or five different boards but you I've seen often for example with a a zoning board that might have the authority to issue a density bonus that it might say in the bylaw that the zoning board can approve a density bonus through a a special permit process only upon the recommendation of the planning board so essentially it requires the planning board first to support it and then to recommend it to the zoning board that would be the permit granting Authority and you could reverse that or you could name different entities so it it takes that advisory role and converts it into a um a mandatory referral role so that's one way to address the circumstance but I will still tell you that the risk is and this is what you will hear from residents and I'm not saying that that this risk ought to Rule the Day or that I believe that there's there's there's Merit to it but I'm just telling you what you're going to hear you're going to hear residents say that the the risk in creating a special permit process is that developers will seek to Avail themselves of that process even if you exercise your discretion and you say with respect to a project that you feel is absolutely wrong for the community you say no and you deny the special permit there are still appellant rights that acre to that applicant so that applicant can then appeal that determination that denial of the special permit to court and although your decision is entitled to deference it's still a denovo review and now a judge gets a bite at the app and if it's determined that you didn't follow the strict standards that are contained within your bylaw for the issuance or denial of a special permit if it's simply that you had this subjective feeling that it wasn't right for the town but you couldn't put your finger on what it was that made it not right you couldn't say it's going to create traffic congestion and therefore it's going to bring the nearby intersections to a level of service D or it's going to create problems with respect to uh inconsistency with neighborhood character it's a commercial use in the of only only residential uses you can't point to any of those things it's just that you don't like it it doesn't fit that can be problematic and that can result in your decision being overturned and now you get the development you didn't want because you created a process whereby that could become possible do I think that there's a real risk of that how often does it happen it doesn't happen often and it doesn't happen often in communities like towns in because the value of these projects have to justify what could be eight years of litigation you see that in some other communities right I mean you see it in communities like Brookline you know a vacant lot in Brookline is worth a whole lot more than a vacant lot in towns and it just is what it is and so the the potential to build a 100 units in Brookline there's a lot of money in a 100 unit project in Brooklyn you can litigate for eight years even if you're spending a hundred grand a year on your Council and you're still going to make a massive profit off of that development that's not going to work the same way outside the 495 belt or even outside the 128 belt in most instances so um so I don't think it's a significant risk in a community like Town's in but you just have to be prepared to um to to create to try and craft a bylaw that provides those checks and balances and then explain how that works both at your public hearing and then eventually a town meeting okay so to the board do we want to do something like that looking yes I like your train of thought um I I think it's worth maybe having a specific meeting where we maybe explore it in more detail maybe we can limit that process to single family or you know limit it so it's not big developments or something to that effect I'm not sure what that would look like am I losing you guys understood those are my thoughts I'm going to have a hard stop uh here and probably okay thank you Andrew Carol I agree with you Lori but I I think I like Andrew's idea of limiting it to single family homes okay well that I mean it deserves discussion I think if we can work around it um or well as maybe not even single family but if you have like we are just looking at on um if am I um I don't know if if I'm allowed to well we're in a meeting but where the other was a public hearing I shouldn't mention any properties right not not if it's subject of an existing application or something yeah okay so let's just say um there's uh a a property that is undersized slightly for U multiple units and it makes sense on all for all the reasons that I've stated before and to get advice from all those boards that that take place it's not an impact on our schools it's not you know for for several reasons it does make sense for our town I would hate to just restrict it to the single family I'm not looking for 400 or 180 units type of when I say I I mean like we um you know looking for a big development that may end up overtaxing our schools which are already over tax to the hilt um so again it's it's about thinking that it makes sense yeah I agree with that Lance um um yes I agree with uh Andrew's approach just a single family to start with okay um Adam is this Beth might this be something that we can bring back to that night of um well first of all our next meeting and it's not a totally new bylaw that needs to be written can we kind of rehash this one that never got to the annual meeting that we have discussed before and get that kind of uh modernized let's say or brought up y to what we're doing now and uh try to put that forward again it seems an appropriate time where uh the state wants us to you know have more housing um so again it wouldn't be an I can't even imagine thinking about the properties in town at this current time um unless Farms were going to convert into housing and I don't see I don't really see that happening here that we would have that much space where this would happen it's going to be a like maybe one here maybe one there you know throughout the town it's not going to be anything and that's just from my own knowledge there could be more but I think we're stagnant we've been stagnant for a long time and that's why we don't have an increase in our tax base so so I could I ask a question um I think during the original um codification at town meeting for the Spy law we're going back a few years I was I was told by a zba member that they actually proposed an amendment to drop the acreage from 2 to one and that um Town Council told them for some reason that wasn't doable with the AG do you have any recollection of that Adam I mean that we're going back quite a few years I realized but is there any reason why that would not be approved by the AG if it were to be reduced from two acres down to one for applicability for the for the lot size I'm I I don't think so um okay great great no I mean it could have been an issue if it was raised at town meeting was was it raised at a town meeting that I attended yeah I believe it was you yeah it was it was originally now this is just something that someone brought up recently so I don't know the facts on it um no I mean so and I honestly I don't it would have it would have been years ago and I unfortunately attend far too many Town meetings that they tend to blend together after three or four five years but having said that I mean what I can guess I might have said would be if if the if the proposal was to reduce the acreage from two to one and therefore that opened the door to this this bylaw potentially applying to many many more properties in the community it might have been a scope issue right because whenever there's a floor Amendment proposed the question becomes is it within the scope of what the public has received notice of and would would have attended town meeting to either support or object to and so that that could have been a potential issue of scope it's a close call there but yeah that that's it does cause me to raise an eyebrow from a scope perspective but you know presuming it's it's it's advertised correctly moving forward I don't see any issue why the any reason or any issue with why the acreage couldn't be reduced from two down to one excellent thank you that's great that makes total sense now that you met yeah okay and so I I want to be clear because we're talking about a couple different things our conversation morphed a bit right so we're talking about this this age restricted development bylaw and the work is pretty much done for us to bring this back to a public hearing if you want on January 13th because I reviewed this a couple years ago three years ago and two and a half years ago and made adjustments to it and it's ready to go it went to a public hearing previously it just didn't proceed beyond the public hearing so we could another public hearing and and it it could go to town meeting uh if the board so chooses that's a separate conversation from do you want to do other things to the bylaw that could incentivize the development of these underutilized properties for single families or two families or however far you want to go and that could be something comprehensive that could be a self-contained bylaw that you know is entitled um you know waivers or special permits for undersized residential LW so you you could create a self or you could do it potentially even more simply by looking at something for example like your existing grandfathering provisions and really what you need to know is what is the starting point right so what I don't do in my capacity as your Town Council is I'm not a town planner so I don't perform the functions that mrpc does or that your town planner might perform and going through your assessors maps and identifying every vacant property in townzen that has adequate Frontage that could potentially be developed with a with a project of a certain size and then and then looking at the the attributes of those sites and saying okay what do we have are these sites that used to be conforming but they're not anymore because we have upzoned the town are these sites that were never conforming that would have needed relief 50 years ago the same way they need relief today because once you have those questions answered there may be simpler things you can do if you determine that a lot of these sites that are no longer available for single family homes let's say would have been available 50 years ago but they're just not anymore because you adopted zoning in the 70s and you've revised that zoning a half dozen times and it's now far more stringent than it used to be well then the solution could be something as simple as going into your your non-conformity provisions and your bylaw your grandfathering provisions and adopting a more favorable grandfathering Provisions than provision than this than the Baseline that the state creates and many communities have done that um I did work for years in the town of harwitch on Cape Cod and they had a more favorable zoning uh grandfathering provision than their zoning bylaw that allowed for for lots that were undersized um even that were held in common ownership to be developed you know years and years later if they met the requirements that existed at the time that the Lots were created so there may be things that you can do to sort of resurrect develop an opportunity on Lots um but you you need to sort of go through lot by lot and see what's available in the town cuz you're even if you weren't to do that in advance you're going to get that question to town meeting somebody's going to stand up and say how many Lots could this possibly apply to what are we doing to our town you need to have the question so why the answer to the question why not have it before you you get started on the zoning adjustment so that we know how to craft a bylaw that is protective of enough conservative enough that we can answer that question on town meeting floor and still get a passing vote okay that's that kind of rings a bell with me so if you could check with Vicki in the assessor's office and also mrpc maybe Karen or Glenn to see if something has been done like that for townzen okay because that's a good point Adam very good point so you specifically you want to know whether pre-existing non-conforming lots have been tabulated yeah vacant vacant you said vacant oh unbuilt yeah I would imagine that would be yeah okay Ava that's easier than everything okay okay just the vacant land okay thank you for that Adam sure um okay well so yes we'll look at that for the generalized one and move forward with the age restricted okay for for this for our next meeting and hopefully we have whatever um we need was there anything else you wanted us to do Beth and then I was going to bring up just the information on the Housing Trust and what's going on with all the Facebook stuff oh um no but the only other thing is I wondered if you wanted to give that uh vision of you called it a generalized bylaw did you want to give that a name that I can grab like I I don't know where you're going with that so call it call it something well Adam I think you had I I think I liked what you said um about the a separate bylaw covering undeveloped our land if you will or um unbuildable was the term what was the term that you us I think I said something like special permits for um single family residences on undiz lot something like that okay something that was not in today's zoning and I forgot the term that you used um non conforming oring well they're not not conforming to today um pre-existing non-conforming that's what we use I think we want to I think we want to avoid that I mean that that terminology pre-existing non-conforming has a legal meaning and we're not talking about that we're talking about lots that are that are undersized that simply don't comply they may have never complied but they're undersized um we can call them non-compliant as non as opposed to non-conforming um non-compliant Lots but um we we have to have a sense as to how many of those lots exist in the community what's the compliance criteria the zoning map I mean the zoning well current ient okay so I'm gonna have a hard stop here coming up uhuh okay non-compliant to the zoning bylaw table of you uh yeah okay table Lance did you have um comments that you would like to make um I don't right now okay um Carol do you have any other comments no I don't have any more comments right now and Andrew had to leave um Robert do you have any other comments other than that I think it's worth pursuing some of these substandard Lots could be used um it also goes in harmony with some of the other subjects we talked about as is is the town going to address um you know this uh mini home kind of scenario uh are we going to make any provisions for that in their Community or not you know the tiny homes situation so it to me they're kind of interrelated even though they may want to allow them in specific areas and not throughout the town um so I think the two subjects should be discussed at the same time um so that ween one I mean I think this board is pretty aggressive trying to find um additional units for the town um different ways that we can accommodate that um discussing reducing the size of a lot is very important um and then the U trying to think a little more progressively with this mini home thing that's going going on because the mini home thing is directly related to re affordable housing that not Divine legally um you know in other words housing reducing housing costs because of the size of the house or whatever um so all of those things I we've discussed in the past yes we have and um I don't know if we have adequate time to to address it before we have a fall town meeting um I don't think it's so much a product of how many Lots may be available I think it's more of a product of where these things could occur okay well once we identify those vacant Lots we'll be able to kind of know what might be good and what might not those are my thoughts on it okay thank you uh Adam very much appreciate your time really sure do you have any last words for us this evening I don't so will you um uh want to I don't know would you want to be with us on the 9th um so let me see if I can be my recollection is well I think I had told you that I couldn't because that's also that isn't that the same night that your public hearing continued from the last meeting I think I told I think I told you that night I was unavailable and my calendar still shows that I am but I think what I've got on my calendar might be continuing now so I I I'll put you on and presuming that I can make it I will be in attendance okay um because I would need to be in for that continued special permit anyway okay so you and Beth will be in touch about that okay right I think I think what what is really sort of most important is if you're working with existing bylaw or bylaw changes like the age restricted development bylaw we already have the modifications or the forthcoming Adu adjustments that that mrpc is proposing just to get those to me as early as possible um while the while the warrant is still open but ideally before um before it closes and has been finalized and obviously Lori you will know when it's been finalized cuz the select board will be finalizing it but um but I I'd like to know that so that if I have adjustments that I need to propose legal adjustments they can be made because you're you're holding because the time frame is so condensed here you're holding your planning board public hearing less than two weeks prior to town meeting so any adjustments that occur at that at that um at that planning board public hearing are going to be are going to have to then be floor amendments because the bylaw is going to already have been published as part of the warrant so that just makes it a little bit tricky if the changes are substantial you may not even be able to vote on it at Town meetings so you just It's Tricky when the planning board public hearing is being held so close to town meeting there's no ability for planning board feedback to modify what gets placed into the warrant and posted cuz the warrant's posted prior to the public hearing okay well if I if I may we did have a meeting scheduled for the 23rd so if you want to reconsider I know that you had talked about possibly moving that uh ch shifrin um to another date so it's possible that we could move that to the 30th of December the following Monday and move the public hearing up to the 30th or even you know know move move it to January 6th there you know there's there's flexibility in your schedule for that okay we'll talk about that um with before the next meeting we'll talk about the schedule okay B okay okay um thank you all very much I appreciate your time tonight and uh Adam you too and so have a great week and we'll see you you is it not two weeks right two weeks to our meeting yeah okay all right so we'll be getting some stuff to review and we can get comments back to Beth great okay thank you thank you all very much I'll entertain a motion to adjourn this uh work session meeting at 5 49 p.m. I'll make a motion to adjourn the um planning board meeting at 5:49 p.m. is there second okay no discussions necessary so uh we are virtual I'll take a roll call vote Carol Rob there and yes Laura shiff and yes thank you all very much and thank you Jim we are adjourned