WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=TalsafxnJuI

Part: 1

1
00:00:31.679 --> 00:01:39.040
Do >> we need four for a corn or five? >> Four. So, for the people who recently joined, we're just waiting for one more planning board member so the board has a quorum. Here's Sarah. Yay. Yay. >> Right there to the rescue.

2
00:01:39.040 --> 00:01:55.920
>> All right, Julie, did you get my message? I would be late. >> Yes, we >> we just we just didn't have anybody else Sarah unfortunately. >> Um, and somewhere I have my agenda, which I can't find.

3
00:01:55.920 --> 00:02:25.360
Sorry. Okay. Um, so I'm going to open the uh meeting of the Town of Carile Planning Board on Monday, August 10th, 2026 at 7:11 p.m.

4
00:02:25.360 --> 00:02:43.760
Um, our first item of business is um a continuing app continued public hearing for site plan review for the new house wildlife rescue. Um, do we need to say anything other than the application has been withdrawn? >> So, we have a withdrawal request which

5
00:02:43.760 --> 00:03:02.480
I'll screen share for you. Um, hold on one second. Let me just get it. Um, >> I'm sorry. Did you do a a roll call vote for this meeting? This is Cynthia. Sorry. Sorry. I just didn't >> uh We don't do a roll call until we

6
00:03:02.480 --> 00:03:19.360
>> Do we start with a roll call? We don't start with a roll call, do we? We're all You are all remote. >> Are we supposed to start with a roll call if we're all remote? >> That That is correct, Madam Chair. >> Okay. All right. Well, um I guess we'd

7
00:03:19.360 --> 00:03:37.120
vote present, right? So, uh roll call vote. Um starting with I guess it's Chris. >> Uh G gazere. So, do do we make a motion or I don't

8
00:03:37.120 --> 00:03:54.560
know. >> No, I think we just say that you're present right? >> Yep. Okay. Chris Gus here. >> 380 present. >> Lennon present. >> Smith present. >> We haven't done an all remote meeting in

9
00:03:54.560 --> 00:04:09.920
quite some time. >> Um, okay. You want to screen share the >> Yes, that gave me a minute to find the documents. So, I appreciate pause. Um, so here is the official withdrawal request from Frell and Robbins on behalf

10
00:04:09.920 --> 00:04:30.199
of New House Wildlife Rescue. Um, so you will need to take a vote uh to close the public hearing and then also a vote to accept the withdrawal without prejudice. Is >> there any discussion from the board?

11
00:04:33.919 --> 00:04:50.080
Uh, okay. I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call vote starting with Chris >> Gus. I >> Lenn and I.

12
00:04:50.080 --> 00:05:09.120
>> I. And I will take a motion to accept the withdrawal of the new house wildlife rescue uh application without prejudice. >> So moved. >> I'll second.

13
00:05:09.120 --> 00:05:32.960
>> Roll call vote. Starting with Chris >> Gus. Ry I L and I. Okay. Um I believe Julie, you suggested we move right to the zoning discussion. Oh, no, no, sorry. To the West Street

14
00:05:32.960 --> 00:05:50.639
Conservation Cluster um extension of time to record, right? >> And so you have the um buyers and their um and you have the sellers attorney and the buyers here on the call. Um, and so I don't know if they want to chime in and kind of explain what this is for.

15
00:05:50.639 --> 00:06:05.360
Um, but I also can screen share the extension of time request um, that was submitted. So it was in your packet. Um, but my understanding is really it's an extension of time for them to record the

16
00:06:05.360 --> 00:06:27.919
special permit decision which you had granted them an extension of time a couple years ago to do that. They had recorded the plans but not the decision at that time. Okay. So, it's seems like it was a um >> uh an oversight that they recorded the

17
00:06:27.919 --> 00:06:44.240
plans but not the decision and this is just cleaning that up. Is that the way you see it? >> Am I able to chime in here? >> Sure. >> I'm the attorney for the current owners. Um it's even a little more simpler than

18
00:06:44.240 --> 00:07:00.880
that. Um the plans got recorded but the special permit didn't get recorded because the owners had requested that that we you know they wanted to hold off on that um while they waited to see if the town was going to adopt the MBTA Communities Act

19
00:07:00.880 --> 00:07:15.840
and so they might have gone in a different direction. Um but then then there was kind of an oversight and the special permit didn't get recorded. However, the the planning board had granted an extension to um record the

20
00:07:15.840 --> 00:07:34.319
special permit by October 31st, 2024. What we know by uh the statute um that the the state enacted which was uh chapter 238 of the acts of 2024 is that the special permit was

21
00:07:34.319 --> 00:07:50.960
automatically extended for two years. And what we had asserted and uh town council had reviewed and agreed is that likewise the um recording period for the special permit was extended to two years

22
00:07:50.960 --> 00:08:08.240
as well to October 31st, 2026. What we're looking for here is just the planning board's confirmation by way of this endorsement uh to avoid any title problems. We've already had a buyer's attorney raise the issue through and that was after consulting

23
00:08:08.240 --> 00:08:23.759
with a title insurance company and we don't want to have a problem when we go to actually record it with the registry of deed officials because when you look at the special permit on its face it just says uh you know with the ex with the initial extension to record by

24
00:08:23.759 --> 00:08:40.159
October 31st 2024. We want to remove any ambiguity with by including this confirmation called the planning board endorsement that says this is what the law really is. This thing is already extended

25
00:08:40.159 --> 00:08:56.160
and maybe Ethan can confirm that. I don't know. I'm I'm able to confirm that the what you see on your screen um referring to a statutory extension extended by chapter 238 of the ch of the acts of 2024 is

26
00:08:56.160 --> 00:09:11.200
exactly that one of a series of permit extension acts that have passed through the legislature over the last couple years um following co there's there's been a lot of moving deadlines as a result of of this sort of thing um and so all you're being asked to do is to

27
00:09:11.200 --> 00:09:27.519
confirm that you know the permit holder in in this case has the ability to record their decision until the end of October of this year. Um which which is the effect of the law in any event. And so as um attorney has has suggested it's really just to make sure that there's no

28
00:09:27.519 --> 00:09:44.959
complications either with the staff at the registry of deeds or you know with the buyers that they're working with um so there's no cloud on title. So what you're effectively saying, Ethan, is that the permit extension act act extends our extension

29
00:09:44.959 --> 00:10:02.480
to the recording of the permit >> while also simultaneously extending the permit. >> Right? So, so you know it has the effect of extending any permits like valid and in existence at the time of the act by two years and because this permit has a deadline in it for recording the

30
00:10:02.480 --> 00:10:18.399
decision itself you know that that thing have to do >> thing that gets extended too got it >> though it's the outcome is more straightforward but the explanation is more complicated than what I originally

31
00:10:18.399 --> 00:10:42.800
uh does any questions from the board on No, I trust that um Julie Ethan sort of helped draft this language and or you knew what you were doing and >> no concerns. I did have one procedural

32
00:10:42.800 --> 00:10:59.680
question. Since there are only four members and special permits are usually usually require more than a simple majority. Is four of is four members of my board satisfactory for this vote and and signing this document?

33
00:10:59.680 --> 00:11:16.160
>> You know, Julie, it would be my position that, you know, that is sufficient. This is not a vote to grant a special permit. This isn't even in fact a vote to extend a special permit. This is a vote acknowledging the effect of, you know, a an act of the legislature. That's my

34
00:11:16.160 --> 00:11:30.320
perspective on this. But, um, you know, if if the attorney has a different concern or would prefer to wait for, you know, a vote with a supermajority of the board, you know, I wouldn't be opposed to that. >> Um,

35
00:11:30.320 --> 00:11:53.120
no, I'm I'm >> muted. I'm muted. Paul, you mute you were muted there for the last few bits of what you said somehow. >> Um, I'm disagreeing with Ethan. I don't I don't think that we have to hold out for another vote.

36
00:11:53.120 --> 00:12:12.399
>> Okay. Okay. Um, Julie, do I should I ask if there's any comments from the members members of the public or is this more >> You can, but you don't have to.

37
00:12:12.399 --> 00:12:36.399
>> Are there any members of the public who want to speak on this endorsement? Right. Seeing none, I will um ask for a motion to endorse

38
00:12:36.399 --> 00:12:51.120
or to >> approve the endorsement. >> Approve the endorsement. Endorse. Endorse the endorsement. >> Extension of time >> for the extension of time for the recording of the special permit for

39
00:12:51.120 --> 00:13:12.560
uh 75 West Street. Um, map 18, lots five and 6X. >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call vote starting with Chris. >> Jesus. I

40
00:13:12.560 --> 00:13:30.480
>> Brady I >> Lennon I. >> Okay. So, you will all need to come to town hall at some point as soon as you can to sign the document. >> Um, I will email you tomorrow to remind you. >> Okay.

41
00:13:30.480 --> 00:13:53.600
>> Thank you. >> All right. Shall we move on to the zoning discussion? >> Yeah. >> Yes. specifically the changes to 4DA that um Ethan's here to present to us. >> Sure. I'm happy to happy to take that

42
00:13:53.600 --> 00:14:10.560
up. Um I had the pleasure of meeting with the ZBA just last week to talk this through for the first time. What I did then was to just share on the screen a copy of a client advisory that my office had produced. And you know, I'm happy to just talk through what the changes are

43
00:14:10.560 --> 00:14:26.399
point by point. I think most of you are aware at this point the governor's fiscal year 2027 budget legislation had you know a sort of wide assortment of amendments to chapter 48 zoning act included therein. Um that bill was

44
00:14:26.399 --> 00:14:42.160
signed on July 9th and has an effective date of July 1st 2026. you know, the effect being that everything that I'm going to share with you, um, you know, became effective at the beginning of July. And, you know, that was even the case for things that were, you know,

45
00:14:42.160 --> 00:14:58.240
pending or otherwise, you know, already being considered. So, it's, um, caught a lot of us, I don't want to say offguard because we sort of knew it was happening, but I don't think anybody expected it to take effect quite as, um, quite as quickly as it did. Um,

46
00:14:58.240 --> 00:15:15.040
just looking for permission to share a document. There we go. And so I think this might be the easiest way. I'll just put this on the screen. Everybody can see this. >> Yeah. >> As I scroll through it too quickly to read. I'll make sure it's at a

47
00:15:15.040 --> 00:15:32.480
reasonable size. Um so the variety of amendments. I'm just going to talk through them in order and feel free to stop me if you have any questions. Um there were amendments done to sections 5 and 11 specifically relating to notice. Um, there's a number. You know what? I I

48
00:15:32.480 --> 00:15:49.440
did this last time and it's just going to be better if I show you the the red line text um to avoid confusion. So, in Apologies here, um, section five and section 11 require notices to be sent by mail, um, postage

49
00:15:49.440 --> 00:16:05.120
prepaid for a variety of things, including notices of zoning amendments, and in reciprocally in section 11, notices of public hearings. Um, as you can see in the section I'm showing here, the state has inserted in between sent

50
00:16:05.120 --> 00:16:20.399
electronically or and then continues by mail, postage, prepaid. Um, it appears that the intent is to simplify a variety of the notice provisions. I'm sure you're all familiar that you know when you review special permits or other things that require a butters notices,

51
00:16:20.399 --> 00:16:36.000
all the abuters get mail. Um, it's a lot of postage. You know, I think there's a chance that these amendments were geared towards streamlining that process. Um, of course, it I don't think it's quite as simple as as that. And I, you know, I'd like to think that someday we'll be

52
00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:52.000
able to take advantage of electronic notice, but I don't think we're quite there yet. If I'll I'll show you in section 11 um sort of why that's the case. So again, we decided that, you know, in cases where notice to individuals or specific boards or other

53
00:16:52.000 --> 00:17:08.319
agencies required, notice shall be sent electronically or by mail, postage, prepaid. Um, but it has to go to parties and interest. And we define parties in interest as being, you know, a butters owners of land. Unfortunately, as they appear on the most recent applicable tax

54
00:17:08.319 --> 00:17:23.919
list, um, your tax list doesn't have electronic communication information for, you know, individuals. And so, you know, if we were in the process of maintaining, you know, reliable databases that could provide for electronic service, you know, maybe there's a way we could get there so

55
00:17:23.919 --> 00:17:39.200
that, you know, we're not sending out hundreds of postcards um to alert folks that hearings are happening. Um but I think we're I think we're some ways away. Where this may help is that there are, you know, a number of agencies, so you know, planning boards

56
00:17:39.200 --> 00:17:55.840
for adjacent towns, um you know, state agencies that are required to get noticed. I think if you have a good email address for them, you know, eohlc mass.gov, you know, you know that you can send them information and they're going to get it. And so I think there are a couple of things where notice could happen electronically, but

57
00:17:55.840 --> 00:18:11.280
otherwise, you know, I think we're going to have to wait and see how the usage of this develops and, you know, if there's more guidance in the future in terms of what what that could mean. Um, so that's in sections 5 and 11. It applies to any notice that would be given. Um and we'll

58
00:18:11.280 --> 00:18:28.559
just sort of have to wait and see, you know, what the state does in terms of implementing guidance and, you know, how they'll help us to understand, you know, what might what might need to happen next. Um the bulk of the amendments that I'm going to discuss are to uh section six

59
00:18:28.559 --> 00:18:46.640
and section 10. So variances in section 10. Section six generally relates to non-conforming structures and uses in a lot of ways that you're familiar with and in some that you're not. Um so as the planning board, you'll you'll be aware that the beginning of section six

60
00:18:46.640 --> 00:19:02.160
has always provided that you know a zoning bylaw amendment that you may propose is effective as of the date of the publication of the first notice of your public hearing on an amendment. And that would apply to any per any projects that did not already have permits issued

61
00:19:02.160 --> 00:19:16.640
by that date. And so if you had a special permit application that was pending while you know while you published a notice for public hearing, you know, that application wouldn't be able to, you know, go through to the end and be issued. Now, this has been

62
00:19:16.640 --> 00:19:33.760
amended to read that um it shall apply to structures or uses lawfully in existence or to building or special permit or other entitlement applied for under this chapter. And so then they delete it issued. And so what that does is it means you know if you've applied

63
00:19:33.760 --> 00:19:49.360
for something and the publication notice comes after um you can complete your hearing that may be pending or the application that's under review may be able to be reviewed. Um and that wouldn't have been true before. So that that's a big change to the way

64
00:19:49.360 --> 00:20:06.080
we you know catch some of these projects that are coming on the edges of zoning changes and it does make it you know quite a bit clearer you know what is the cut off date for you know the building office to consider an application. I think it's I think it is a helpful clarification. Uh

65
00:20:06.080 --> 00:20:22.160
now you'll remember in the Springtown meeting we considered an amendment to your bylaw section 6.3 as it relates to um existing non-conforming uses and structures. So the the bylaw at the time um required

66
00:20:22.160 --> 00:20:39.440
um a finding by the ZBA that a change or extension of a use is not substantially more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Um but also that it, you know, was not a greater than 50% increase in things like floor area and a variety of other things. Um we

67
00:20:39.440 --> 00:20:55.440
discussed, you know, last spring that, you know, that requirement exceeded what this portion of the statute allowed for and so it was simplified to provide for that. Um the language in red here is a new proviso that further alters the

68
00:20:55.440 --> 00:21:11.120
applicability of this section and will cause you know some additional projects to be developable without the section six finding. But there's a lot of detail in this couple lines of text. And so, you know, to walk through it, um,

69
00:21:11.120 --> 00:21:27.600
notwithstanding the foregoing pre-existing non-conforming structures or residential uses that do not conform to zoning because of lot size or shape, frontage, lot coverage, or floor area ratio requirements. So, those five things are very important. Only if your

70
00:21:27.600 --> 00:21:44.159
nonconformity relates to one of those, you know, may your use be extended or altered as of right without the need for the finding and only if the extensions comply with the current dimensional regulations regarding height stories and setbacks.

71
00:21:44.159 --> 00:22:00.640
So, you know, to put this together, if you have a non-conforming structure, and only if it's non-conforming with respect to lot size, shape, frontage, lot coverage, or floor area. Um, you know, can you alter it as long as you

72
00:22:00.640 --> 00:22:16.159
are not changing or, you know, creating violations of the height, you know, stories or setback requirements. Um, you know, I think this will help some properties on the margins find an easier path towards, you know, conforming development. So, if you had a property

73
00:22:16.159 --> 00:22:32.720
that, you know, might need a section six finding because because of floor area ratio or, you know, in a community that that enforces it or, you know, where you have an oddly shaped lot or you just have a compliant structure on a lot that's too small. um you know, as long as you have room to do what you'd like

74
00:22:32.720 --> 00:22:48.960
to do without creating new setback violations or height violations, you can get the permit from the building inspector now, um without needing to go to the ZBA for the finding. And so, you know, there are some situations where it will streamline permitting. Um but the devil is is really in the details and

75
00:22:48.960 --> 00:23:04.240
you're going to have to not you specifically, but practitioners will have to read this very carefully to make sure that someone who is claiming, you know, the benefit of this exemption, you know, does actually have it. And so, you know, I think the setbacks piece of this is what what a lot of people miss is

76
00:23:04.240 --> 00:23:20.080
that you have to comply with setbacks. And if you have an existing setback nonconformity, you're you're not eligible because, you know, the the list here, these five things is is very specific. And so, if you have any other dimensional non-conformities, you're

77
00:23:20.080 --> 00:23:36.720
you're not going to get the benefit of this this portion of the language. Um, >> so to to to turn around the other way, Ethan, what do you need to get a finding for and what what does the finding enable? >> Right. So, so you know, as has always

78
00:23:36.720 --> 00:23:53.919
been the case, if you are a pre-existing non-conforming structure that, you know, was built 10t from your property line, you know, 50 years ago, and setbacks are now 20 ft, you know, you have a have a non-conformity with respect to setback and you may not be able to make much of

79
00:23:53.919 --> 00:24:10.159
anything in the way of changes to your to your house, you know, at least in the area where this nonconformity is without coming back to the special permit granting authority for the finding that your proposed change is not substantially more detrimental. So those are the cases. You know, setbacks is a good example because it's it's not one

80
00:24:10.159 --> 00:24:25.200
of the things protected by this new language. And so, you know, if you do have a setback nonconformity, you're still going to have to have to come in for the finding >> and the finding effectively is that it's not substantially more detrimental.

81
00:24:25.200 --> 00:24:41.440
>> Correct. So that is >> so that's where the uh the um subjectivity comes in potentially. >> Yes. Yes. And the special grinding permit grinding authority in this case is the ZVA. >> Yes. Okay.

82
00:24:41.440 --> 00:24:58.880
>> So, I'm cur practically speaking um is it fair to assume that like the building inspector who whoever issues um building permits might be the one to flag to a potential applicant who may not be aware that like, hey, you

83
00:24:58.880 --> 00:25:14.799
actually have to get a special permit for this. Like, how will homeowners What's the process for them to know or to determine um if they need to they call up Julie?

84
00:25:14.799 --> 00:25:29.679
>> You know, I think that's I think that's that's where a lot of folks start. Um in in many respects, you know, that has always been the case and the changes we're talking about here have simply, you know, created a narrow set of facts

85
00:25:29.679 --> 00:25:46.080
on which the process is even easier. And so, you know, They'll call Julie, they'll come in and, you know, they'll talk to the building inspector and, you know, instead of being told, you need to pull together an application to the ZBA, the answer will be, you know, bring in your building plans and we'll see if we can issue you a building permit. Um, but

86
00:25:46.080 --> 00:26:05.279
again, it's it's only in those sort of narrow cases where, you know, they fit fit into these particular conditions. >> Okay. >> So, I'll continue unless there's any other questions on this. Um, you know, there are a couple of things throughout this that, you know, I'm going to work

87
00:26:05.279 --> 00:26:21.760
with Julie sort of afterwards. Um, we're going to need some amendments to your zoning bylaws for a variety of things, and I'll try to call those out as we go through them. Um, you know, this is one of them where because this language is already addressed in your bylaw, it probably makes sense to have a sort of

88
00:26:21.760 --> 00:26:36.640
housekeeping amendment to include this language. um you know to avoid confusion where someone is reading the statute, reading your bylaw and trying to reconcile the two. So this is one of those things where you know your bylaw we're going to have to enforce state law

89
00:26:36.640 --> 00:26:52.559
either way and so it makes sense to you know create conformity between the two. Um the next paragraph I'll be honest I I've been doing this for a long time and I've never had this particular paragraph be an issue for anyone that I've ever

90
00:26:52.559 --> 00:27:07.919
worked with. Um, you know, it has always said that your zoning ordinance shall require that, you know, someone begins to exercise a building permit basically within 12 months. Um, or the project that was approved will be subject to any, you know, after adopted zoning

91
00:27:07.919 --> 00:27:24.480
amendments. Um, most people once you get a building permit, you're you're acting on it fairly quickly and so it's not an issue. Um, for anybody who has had this issue, 12 months is now 24 months. And so it's an extra 12-month sort of zoning freeze following the issue of a building

92
00:27:24.480 --> 00:27:41.039
permit. Um, not something that that you folks are likely to interact with very often. It's going to be really an enforcement question. Um, you know, on the on the building off officials end. Um, >> this was probably

93
00:27:41.039 --> 00:27:58.240
coming from the sort of push for pulling building permits in advance of the changes to energy code, right? And then sort of sitting on those permits because the projects weren't feasible. >> It could it could be that um, you know, and there's some other sort of difficult

94
00:27:58.240 --> 00:28:14.480
language here. So, you know, the the 24-month period shall be told during any time the applicant is actively seeking or obtaining other necessary permits. Um, you know, I don't know what an other necessary permit. Once >> you have the building permit, >> right? Right. So, what do you once you've once you have a building permit,

95
00:28:14.480 --> 00:28:31.039
I don't know what what you could be seeking afterwards. Typically, you know, that is that is the last stop before you can begin construction. So, you know, again, this will be something that we don't probably have to think about until we we run into someone who, you know, has a very unique set of facts, I'll

96
00:28:31.039 --> 00:28:47.200
say. >> Yeah. >> Um, but interesting interesting nonetheless. Um, here's one that, you know, will require an update to your bylaw. Um, you know, conventionally, we're used to regarding abandonment of structures as happening after two years.

97
00:28:47.200 --> 00:29:03.200
So, if you, you know, have a non-conforming use and you abandon it, um, you know, the town has the right to enforce zoning if you've discontinued it for more than two years. And I believe your bylaw, you know, includes the 2-year time frame. Um, that is now four years. And so, you know, if you have a

98
00:29:03.200 --> 00:29:18.399
non-conforming use that is, you know, lost for four years, um, you know, for less than four years, you know, you can still bring it back. And same is true for, you know, certain structures. Um, I don't know how common this is in Carlile, but there's other places where,

99
00:29:18.399 --> 00:29:34.320
you know, homes that are non-conforming. They're damaged either by fire or by storms. I I see this with some coastal communities where a property gets gets damaged in a winter storm, you know, on the ocean and, you know, maybe they don't rebuild it quickly enough. Um, and sometimes the bylaws don't allow for,

100
00:29:34.320 --> 00:29:50.640
you know, reconstruction if they if they wait more than two years. So if you're in one of those situations, um you know that that limitation period has been increased to four years to, you know, create some additional flexibility. >> I've seen it happen in Carlile.

101
00:29:50.640 --> 00:30:09.279
>> Yeah. >> So the next paragraph, this would be paragraph four of section six, um has conventionally been applied to vacant lots. And so basically if you had a lot that had um you know was never owned in common ownership with any adjacent land

102
00:30:09.279 --> 00:30:27.440
met a minimum of 5,000 square ft and 50 ft of frontage. Um you know conventionally this provided that um you know there would be no increases in area frontage width. Basically any dimensional requirements would not be applicable to that lot for single or two

103
00:30:27.440 --> 00:30:43.919
family residential uses. And so typically this comes up where, you know, someone finds an, you know, abandoned piece of land, you know, in and around other other properties that for one reason or another hasn't been um held in common ownership since a zoning change that rendered it non-conforming and

104
00:30:43.919 --> 00:30:58.720
you're able to get a building permit for, you know, usually a single family house. Um, excuse me. This amendment, you know, removes that limitation and, you know, also removes residential use. And so it's not just that it's, you know, no longer applicable only to

105
00:30:58.720 --> 00:31:15.039
single or two family residential uses. It's applicable to all lots. And so, um, you know, if you had a lot in a commercial district or something like that, um, you know, there are cases now where undersized lots are going to be going to be usable again, um, where they

106
00:31:15.039 --> 00:31:30.880
otherwise wouldn't be. Again, this really only applies to property that, um, was not held in common ownership with any adjacent land. And so, you know, to do this, we have to have an applicant who presents us with, you know, the necessary title information to

107
00:31:30.880 --> 00:31:48.240
determine that they are eligible under this paragraph. And so, it hasn't really changed the standards. It's just expanded the class of properties that could benefit from it. >> Is that not held in common ownership, meaning never held in common ownership?

108
00:31:48.240 --> 00:32:06.320
So the way we the way we look at this um so any increase these dimensional requirements shall not apply to a lot which at the time of recording or endorsement was not held in common ownership with any adjoining land. The

109
00:32:06.320 --> 00:32:23.440
state supreme court has determined that at the time of recording or endorsement refers to the, you know, last u deed of record or plan of record basically on record with the registry of deeds that was was recorded prior to a zoning

110
00:32:23.440 --> 00:32:40.720
change. And so, you know, if you, for example, you know, lived in a place in 1955 where you had 1acre zoning and you had two 1acre lots, you know, in your possession right next to each other and

111
00:32:40.720 --> 00:32:57.039
um then, you know, the zoning changed and became twoacre zoning, you know, your your lots would merge. And so, if you held them together in common ownership, your lots would merge. But if you only owned one of those lots, um the effect of this statute has been that you

112
00:32:57.039 --> 00:33:12.159
know you your single lot which is not touching any other land could not merge to reduce the zoning nonconformity um remains remains usable. That's sort of how this has been applied over the years. And so it's it's usually

113
00:33:12.159 --> 00:33:28.559
undersized lots in you know pre prezzoning subdivisions honestly. So, you know, when I when I get these cases, they come up and it's, you know, a 1915 subdivision plan where somebody owns, you know, a bunch of 5,000 square foot

114
00:33:28.559 --> 00:33:45.840
lots. Um, you know, and they've been able to identify one or two of them that, you know, weren't owned by anybody else who owned adjacent land touching it. And as a result, they're able to, you know, take take out um get a building permit under this paragraph. um

115
00:33:45.840 --> 00:34:01.679
>> meaning get a building permit as though there was no zoning for it because it was prezoning. >> So, you know, in in that case, um you know, we if it was a true pre-zoning lot, we typically work with the applicant to comply with the current zoning to the greatest extent possible.

116
00:34:01.679 --> 00:34:18.399
And so, you know, if if the question is, you know, can you build something at all? The answer is yes. Um and generally we then try to work with them to impose you know reasonable setbacks as close as feasible to you know what is currently applicable. Um

117
00:34:18.399 --> 00:34:34.560
a lot of the time you know this this arose not when a town first adopted zoning but you know years after maybe in the like I'll say 1940 to 1965 or 1970 range um where lot area requirements were increasing as were frontage

118
00:34:34.560 --> 00:34:54.079
requirements. And so people were very rapidly, you know, becoming owners of property that was was non-conforming. Um, we don't have any questions there. That may be the end of the section six amendments.

119
00:34:54.079 --> 00:35:11.680
And then um man the variance variance standard um not something that your board works with you know very often but um we will be working with the ZBA to um you know propose some amendments to the zoning bylaw to incorporate this change.

120
00:35:11.680 --> 00:35:30.160
Um you may be familiar that you know a zoning variance um for dimensional um relief has always been a very difficult bar to meet. meets a very high standard. Um has been you know the case that you have to be able to articulate

121
00:35:30.160 --> 00:35:46.000
um you know a particular hardship relating to soil conditions, shape or topography that you know affect your land specifically but not the zoning district generally. Um so it's a really high bar to meet very particular circumstances to

122
00:35:46.000 --> 00:36:02.240
be entitled to it. Um the legislature has not entirely removed that from consideration, but what it what it simply is now is that permit granting authority shall, you know, we we no longer say that they have the power because, you know, this is being

123
00:36:02.240 --> 00:36:18.320
rephrased in a more mandatory, you know, they shall do this. Um they shall grant a variance. um you know if they specifically find that a strict enforcement of the ordinance or bylaw would result in practical difficulty.

124
00:36:18.320 --> 00:36:34.960
Now that's really short, really simple, incredibly imprecise and I think you know you can appreciate that like many other things this will be open to a wide variety of interpretations. Um so you know first question in terms of how do we work with this is what is a practical

125
00:36:34.960 --> 00:36:50.000
difficulty? Um you know we're expecting guidance from the state on this at some point. There will certainly be, you know, guidance from the courts in the form of, you know, appeals and and, you know, appellet case law, but it's going to take some time for, you know, everybody to catch up to what this new

126
00:36:50.000 --> 00:37:07.040
language means. Um ZBA when thinking about this will be directed to you know in making its determination shall weigh the benefits to the appellent or petitioner and to the public interest including the interest in supporting the production of housing against the detriment to the public

127
00:37:07.040 --> 00:37:22.480
health safety and welfare of the neighborhood. So this is sort of a balancing test where the permit granting authority that looks at this is going to be asked to say okay so on one hand you know what is what what good is this doing for the applicant and you know does it do anything you know beneficial

128
00:37:22.480 --> 00:37:39.200
to the public interest such as create housing. So, you know, where we talk about um including the interest in supporting the production of housing, this is simply, you know, one example of a benefit to the public interest. It's non-exclusive. There could be others. Uh

129
00:37:39.200 --> 00:37:55.440
but, you know, obviously the the whole tenor of this set of amendments was to facilitate, you know, streamline permitting and, you know, make it easier to build housing. That's that's really been the, you know, governor's agenda, the legislaturator's agenda. And so, I think, you know, you can see see it for what it is. um you're

130
00:37:55.440 --> 00:38:12.800
balancing those things against, you know, the detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. Um again, so you know, what is what is the harm that would be done to neighbors if any and again it's it's very very open-ended. um Court of

131
00:38:12.800 --> 00:38:29.520
Appeals may also consider but you know is not in any way required to you know a familiar criteria whether it relates to soil conditions shape or topography and then whether there strict enforcement would impose a financial hardship on the

132
00:38:29.520 --> 00:38:46.640
appellant or petitioner whether the benefit sought could be achieved by some other means um and whether the practical difficulty was self-created. So, there's a couple things in here that are familiar to our discussions that we've had about variances. Um, you know, as practitioners in the past. You know,

133
00:38:46.640 --> 00:39:02.079
typically you're you're not able to get a variance if your harm is is self-created. If you did something with your property intentionally that created a problem, you know, you not aren't necessarily entitled to come back and get a variance for it. Um and this this portion about you know whether it can be

134
00:39:02.079 --> 00:39:18.160
achieved by some other method feasible I think is interesting because it you know may in some situations give the ZBA a little bit of leverage to say we're not we're not going to you know approve a really ridiculous request if there's another way to achieve the same ends.

135
00:39:18.160 --> 00:39:34.800
Um, you know, so basically giving the ZBA, you know, maybe a little bit of leverage to say, "Hey, applicant, you're you're asking for a two-foot setback, but you could really do a 10-ft setback. Let's let's figure out, you know, what is another means feasible of doing this without, you know, so severely impacting

136
00:39:34.800 --> 00:39:54.240
the neighbors. Um you know this is a really it is a significant reduction in the you know strenuous nature of the variance standard. Um it's going to mean that there's going to be a lot of new applications for variances. It's going to mean that there are far more boards

137
00:39:54.240 --> 00:40:10.880
across the state that you know find applications for variances you know fit for approval. Um, variances get approved all the time, but you know, very rarely does a strict interpretation of the standard, you know, justify issuing the variance. And I think we're sort of

138
00:40:10.880 --> 00:40:28.000
changing changing the burden now. Um, basically creating a situation where the presumption is that a variance is probably appropriate unless there is some, you know, obvious detriment to to the neighbors. Um, you know, a lot a lot to think about. um probably again an

139
00:40:28.000 --> 00:40:43.760
update to the zoning bylaw because I believe your bylaw refers to 4A section 10 but also um you know specifically identifies the you know conditions relating to um soil shape topography etc. And so we'll want to discuss a

140
00:40:43.760 --> 00:40:58.640
clarifying amendment to restate, you know, what the current standard is or simply to, you know, state that the standard shall be, you know, as provided in 48 section 10 as amended, which is language that you see some of the times.

141
00:40:58.640 --> 00:41:14.640
So the way this might come into play for us since we're not the variance granting authority is in the context of uh an ADU application for instance where um that applicant may

142
00:41:14.640 --> 00:41:30.400
need to seek a variance in order to build that ADU and we would be considering it in the context of the addition of housing etc. Would the would the ZBA look to the planning board for input on

143
00:41:30.400 --> 00:41:46.640
um on the weight the the the standard where they have to weigh the benefits against the detriments or was would the ZBA consider that themselves? >> So, you know, this is this is a section

144
00:41:46.640 --> 00:42:02.560
of the bylaw and a section of the statute that is administered by the ZBA. um there's no requirement that they you know consult with you know any other boards in town sort of it is their standard to apply and you know they can make those decisions as they see fit. I I certainly, you know, work with

145
00:42:02.560 --> 00:42:18.960
communities where planning boards, you know, routinely comment on matters before the ZBA. And so I think, you know, to the extent that's something, you know, your board is interested in doing or, you know, conversely, if the ZBA, you know, wants to, you know, open those lines of communication and, you know, seek opinions from the planning

146
00:42:18.960 --> 00:42:36.560
board on a variety of things that that could be, you know, certainly done on a voluntary basis. Um, but, you know, strictly speaking, the application of this standard is is within the ZBA's authority to do. and the modifications to our bylaw

147
00:42:36.560 --> 00:42:53.839
to conform with these terms. That is our job though, right? >> Yes. So, you know, I think there there are other bodies that could initiate a a zoning amendment. Um but you know I think this is sort of the proper body to be to be discussing you know what sort

148
00:42:53.839 --> 00:43:08.640
of housekeeping I'll call them amendments might be required by this um this set of zoning act amendments. Um I won't won't belabor the rest of this. There's a couple other changes um you know they the legis

149
00:43:08.640 --> 00:43:25.520
>> actually there's I don't think that last section of that is belaboring anything because it's >> Yeah. Uh, no, I'm not even talking about that. I'm saying except for local ordinances or bylaws expressly permit varants for use. >> You're right. You're right.

150
00:43:25.520 --> 00:43:42.960
>> You you buried the lead here, Ethan. >> Yes. I I apologize. I've I've maybe given this this talk a few too many times in the last couple weeks. Forgive me. Um so so yes the conventionally variances are available um you know no

151
00:43:42.960 --> 00:43:59.680
matter what for dimensional relief and again conventionally except where local ordinances expressly permit variances for use they weren't allowed um and so I think you know carile as in many cases generally does not allow use variances in your bylaw and so it's not something

152
00:43:59.680 --> 00:44:16.800
that's been considered before the the statute now includes cludes this carve out um you know no variance may authorize a use or activity other than residential not otherwise permitted in the district. So this is is a significant change which will allow um

153
00:44:16.800 --> 00:44:32.160
you know a zoning board of appeals to issue a use variance for any residential use. I think um you know unfortunately they say other than residential residential is not a term that's yet defined in the zoning act. Um

154
00:44:32.160 --> 00:44:49.200
residential certainly you know implies housing but you know I don't know where we draw the line. you know, is it certainly got to be more than one unit and probably more than two. And so, you know, I think what unfortunately may be the case is that the ZBA has to look at an application for, you know, whatever

155
00:44:49.200 --> 00:45:04.079
the residential use is proposed and determine, you know, subject to this standard whether, you know, a five or six or seven unit um residential use has, you know, detrimental effects on public health, safety, and welfare of

156
00:45:04.079 --> 00:45:20.319
the neighborhood. So why are you why is it the case that residential means more than one or two family >> you know to I you know I think because it is non-specific you know the statute throughout knows

157
00:45:20.319 --> 00:45:35.920
how to qualify you know single or two family residential uses I mean that that is exactly the language that was removed from from 4DA section 6. So the legislature knows how to call out, you know, particular kinds of residential uses when they choose to. Um, and again,

158
00:45:35.920 --> 00:45:52.720
you know, given the sort of understood objective of this this amendment, I I'm reluctantly reading residential in this case, you know, to be open-ended. Of course, that doesn't mean that you know in

159
00:45:52.720 --> 00:46:07.920
>> but it would just >> Sorry, I didn't mean to address. >> I was just thinking so does it it just means when you're you're getting a use variance from commercial to something residential or from industrial to but

160
00:46:07.920 --> 00:46:24.640
not from single family residential to residential. >> Oh, I think it I think it does include that. And so, you know, if you if you own land in and I'm sorry, I should have made that more clear. If you own land in a single family zoning district, I think this means that you can apply for a use

161
00:46:24.640 --> 00:46:41.280
variance to build multif family housing. >> Got it. Okay. >> And you know that that I think is the thrust of this. Um, you know, there are other current amendments proposed in the legislature at the moment. There's an economic development bill. you know, I

162
00:46:41.280 --> 00:46:57.040
am expecting it will pass and I'm expecting there will be additional amendments to the zoning act for, you know, for us to talk about maybe even this year. Um, you know, that legislation, I believe in its current draft includes a do amendment carve out for duplex housing. Um, anywhere that

163
00:46:57.040 --> 00:47:12.319
you can build a single family, you can build a duplex is sort of what's being what's being discussed as a, you know, yet another paragraph in 48 section 3. We're not we're not there yet. that's not what's you know in the document I'm discussing you know at the moment but

164
00:47:12.319 --> 00:47:28.640
certainly the legislature is chipping away at the you know concept of a single family you know residential zoning district and you know I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing but that that is certainly you know what the what the effect is is going to be at least in many cases um

165
00:47:28.640 --> 00:47:45.920
>> and so to just to follow a thread here then so you you can get a use variance to residential, >> there's still underlying dimensional regulations, right? But you can get variances to the dimensional regulations

166
00:47:45.920 --> 00:48:06.960
by showing some kind of practical hardship. >> Yeah. >> But but there's still the the stand well there it's it's >> they have to weigh the benefit against the detriment. >> Right? So

167
00:48:06.960 --> 00:48:22.079
>> weigh the benefits to the appellent and to the public interest such as housing against the detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. >> But there's no, you know, does one weigh 5 lbs and one

168
00:48:22.079 --> 00:48:38.400
weigh one pound and you're like, how many pounds are you putting on either side of the scales, right? Like there's nothing. That's that's where the subjectivity comes in. that that is unfortunately the decision that's being you know put upon every you know zoning board of appeals in the state right now.

169
00:48:38.400 --> 00:48:53.280
>> Yeah. How do we how do we look at something and say, you know, is there a practical difficulty and what does that mean? And then, you know, how do we balance the other things? All, you know, I've the week that this statute was amended, I had to give some very quick

170
00:48:53.280 --> 00:49:11.040
advice in one case where a property was seeking a variance uh solely because it failed to satisfy a required lot width. It had the required frontage. It had the required area. The building on the property satisfied all the dimensional criteria except that lot width had to be

171
00:49:11.040 --> 00:49:26.960
measured through like the center of the building. And it it failed to have the same lot width in the middle of the building as it did at its frontage. And you know, as a result, it was short by like 7 ft. And so, you know, that is, I think, a good example of a property that

172
00:49:26.960 --> 00:49:42.240
would not have qualified for variance necessarily under, you know, the original standard. You know, maybe you can call it a lot shape issue, but it it really wasn't. It's just that the, you know, lot was not as big as it needed to be or, you know, maybe that the house was built in slightly the wrong location

173
00:49:42.240 --> 00:49:58.640
on the house for a, you know, beneficial measurement of this, you know, criteria under the particular bylaw. But you know now with this more liberal standard identifying a practical difficulty you know where everything is otherwise conforming I I couldn't think of you

174
00:49:58.640 --> 00:50:15.440
know any issue with public health safety or welfare to the neighborhood of granting a 7ft lot width variance where you know there was already a building on on the property in fact so you know I think there are a lot of cases like that where very minimal relief may be sought.

175
00:50:15.440 --> 00:50:30.880
Um, you know, it might allow people to, you know, take one lot that could be ANRD to create two lots. Um, you know, there's a lot of things that I think are fair game that wouldn't have been before. Um, you know, conventionally, you know, we couldn't issue variances

176
00:50:30.880 --> 00:50:48.160
for frontage to create multiple lots. You know, you could you could maybe get a variance to make one lot usable, but you couldn't get a frontage variance to, you know, create two lots. That that wasn't really something that the cloud. And so, >> you know, I think I think that's sort of

177
00:50:48.160 --> 00:51:05.520
>> goes out the window here where, you know, practical difficulty and, you know, benefit to the, you know, applicant and, you know, public interest is is the standard. But, you know, I'll couch all of this to say that there's a there's a lot of guidance that will certainly be coming

178
00:51:05.520 --> 00:51:22.319
from the state and, you know, people are going to be applying for and, you know, getting variances that um, you know, are going to create litigation whether they're towns that are denying them or, you know, neighbors that are unwilling to, you know,

179
00:51:22.319 --> 00:51:37.359
you know, deal with the realities of this amended statute. You know, at least not at first. Um, but I think, you know, we're probably, you know, still a couple weeks or months away from getting guidance from the state and, you know, I'll guess we are, you know, I don't know, two to three years at least away

180
00:51:37.359 --> 00:52:03.119
from seeing any appellet decisions on, you know, what this language means. >> Okay. Any uh any other questions from the board on this stuff at this point before we move on? Oh thanks Ethan.

181
00:52:03.119 --> 00:52:22.640
>> Yeah. >> Did you cover everything we needed to cover in your memo here? Looks like we did. >> Yes, I think I think I did. there was um you know section 10 relating to variances used to include a paragraph that expressly authorized conditions,

182
00:52:22.640 --> 00:52:40.319
safeguards and limitations. Um the legislature has deleted that paragraph. So we are now left to infer that you know the authorization to impose conditions is either you know implicit in the ability

183
00:52:40.319 --> 00:52:55.520
to grant the variance or we should be reading the deletion of that paragraph as a signal that we shouldn't be putting conditions on variances at all. Um you know until I hear otherwise the advice I'm giving to clients is that reasonable and appropriate conditions you know can

184
00:52:55.520 --> 00:53:12.319
and can and should still be imposed. Um but you know particularly where there is now an argument that the legislature may have attempted to remove that authority we had better be you know very careful that conditions that are being considered are you know in fact reasonable are you know demonstrabably

185
00:53:12.319 --> 00:53:28.160
related to you know identifiable problems caused by um you know the relief that's being granted not you know so many other you know wishes or asks that that many boards not specifically anybody here or anywhere else but you know there's there's a lot of room to

186
00:53:28.160 --> 00:53:45.040
ask for things that, you know, might benefit the neighborhood and um I think the deletion of this paragraph makes it harder to justify some of those. >> Makes sense. >> Yeah. So, I think, you know, stay tuned. I'll be in touch with Julie and, you

187
00:53:45.040 --> 00:54:02.079
know, planning board and ZBA anytime there's more guidance from the state. I'll certainly be in touch again, you know, if and when the economic development bill passes. That includes, you know, a number of things. I mentioned the possibility of do protection for duplexes. It might include cotification of site plan

188
00:54:02.079 --> 00:54:16.640
review. Um that's that's included in one of the drafts. And so we could be looking at another set of pretty significant amendments and you know a bit of work to make sure the zoning bylaw is up to date and you know everything is you know works together in

189
00:54:16.640 --> 00:54:39.920
a reasonable way. Okay. any further anything else you wanted us to cover Julie with Ethan here. >> I don't think so. I think that's everything. Thank you, Ethan. >> Thank you.

190
00:54:39.920 --> 00:54:55.760
>> Absolutely. >> All right. If you don't have anything else for me, I'll I'll let you go and and wish you all a good night. >> Can I ask a quick question? >> Yeah. just so hypothetically if if one of these situations arises and it goes before the ZBA I assume this overrides

191
00:54:55.760 --> 00:55:11.280
everything. So we it's going to take a bit to update our bylaws just there's only too many town meetings. So essentially we >> with potentially more changes coming down from the legislature we should >> kind of bold a little bit and make all

192
00:55:11.280 --> 00:55:27.920
the updates at once or like how pressed are we for timing I guess is my question. >> That that's a good question. Um, you know, certainly I I'll I can talk to Julie about it, but my my thoughts at the moment are that none of these are so pressing that you need to scramble to pull it together for the fall town meeting. Um, you know, some of them

193
00:55:27.920 --> 00:55:44.079
might be simple enough that if you if you want to, it's not a huge lift, but state law will supersede any, you know, conflicting provisions of your zoning bylaw. And so, you know, we're not not we're not applying the old variant standard. We're going to apply the new variant standard. And you know there is

194
00:55:44.079 --> 00:56:01.839
some confusion that could result if someone you know reads your bylaw and doesn't understand you know what they have to then present to the ZBA. But you know we're we're applying state law and that's that's going to be the case um you know whether we amend the bylaw or not. And so you know I think

195
00:56:01.839 --> 00:56:17.520
you don't need to feel pressed for time to do this for the fall town meeting. You could if you want to. Um but you know it's also something that could be done I think for the annual next year and that would be you know sufficient time as long as all of your you know staff offices who deal with these

196
00:56:17.520 --> 00:56:41.760
applications on a daily basis are able to you know communicate with each other communicate with my office and you know help applicants to understand what what they're going to be needing to do because it's a big change for everybody. Okay,

197
00:56:41.760 --> 00:56:59.839
thanks a lot, Ethan. >> All right, thank you all. Have a nice evening. >> Thanks. Good night. >> Thank you. >> Bye now. >> Okay. Um, we obviously have um

198
00:56:59.839 --> 00:57:17.040
the other two topics in the zoning discussion that one of which I think is really just punting until we have Dwight back right Julie? >> Yeah, that's how you >> Yeah. >> Um, did you want to speak uh to anything

199
00:57:17.040 --> 00:57:32.880
on the distinctive structures bylaw? >> Do you want me to? I can screen share it. Um, it's come up at a couple meetings recently. Um, it was some ideas. I don't even remember when we originally

200
00:57:32.880 --> 00:57:50.960
kind of started thinking about this. Um, but some of these ideas have been in the back of my mind um, in terms of maybe like a more surgical approach to allowing certain structures to be able to re be adaptively reused um, or repurposed.

201
00:57:50.960 --> 00:58:07.440
Um, and so I had a couple I had sent this around in June and then you didn't talk about it at your last meeting. Um, but I haven't changed it since then. So, um, I had a couple different ideas of maybe how to allow a little bit more in um, town owned structures or on town

202
00:58:07.440 --> 00:58:24.640
owned properties. Um, and that related directly to some thinking that was happening during the MBTA communities discussion. Um, but of course this isn't that to that extreme, right? Um, >> right. And then one, so one was just kind of looking at what we allow in general residence districts and just

203
00:58:24.640 --> 00:58:41.440
adding some language in for um multif family and mixed use on town owned uh properties and in town owned buildings. And then another way to kind of get maybe get at a similar um a similar approach but related to

204
00:58:41.440 --> 00:58:56.319
historic structures is to actually look at the distinctive structures bylaw um and to be a little bit more expansive with what's allowed there. So right now it's currently section 3.2.4 four of the bylaw and it refers specifically to

205
00:58:56.319 --> 00:59:12.000
non-residential buildings that have been in existence since 1932. Um, and allows them to be repurposed uh into different types of uses, but it doesn't specifically talk about town-owned buildings and it doesn't specifically relate to residential

206
00:59:12.000 --> 00:59:27.200
buildings. Um, and so I was thinking in terms of like the bog house and the Highland building and how there's been ongoing discussions about what to do with those properties and at least in the case of the bog house, um, we're working on, you know, potentially converting it to affordable housing, but there's no zoning mechanism to allow

207
00:59:27.200 --> 00:59:43.760
that to happen. Um, so the the option right now would be the friendly 40b. Um, but there may be a way to actually do something in zoning that's more uh surgical and strategic that relates to the bug house. um specifically.

208
00:59:43.760 --> 00:59:59.599
So that was kind of what I was contemplating with the few kind of changes to the distinctive structures bylaw. Um and I think um the other thinking with it was was um

209
00:59:59.599 --> 01:00:18.480
you know farm houses with um uh accessory use, you know, extensive um attachments involving, you know, barns and and the like and being able to potentially repurpose those

210
01:00:18.480 --> 01:00:35.040
buildings into multif family. Um this is a special permit process right for the distinctive structures and >> it is yes it is currently >> um rather than buy right or site plan review

211
01:00:35.040 --> 01:00:51.119
um and so the the thinking was and and I think it's useful to to in this meeting sort of just socialize it more broadly. I'm not sure um Chris, Stacy, and Sarah if

212
01:00:51.119 --> 01:01:06.319
um if it's been a you know I know that some of us have talked about this separately and we talked about it a little bit in the context of MBTA, but we should we should be thinking about whether or not we think it's a

213
01:01:06.319 --> 01:01:23.760
uh a worthwhile pursuit to try to amend the bylaw in this way to allow for um the reuse of town structures. as well as non-towned structures that um that uh

214
01:01:23.760 --> 01:01:40.480
you know may have have existing square footage that um could potentially become repurposed as multif family units. So barns and the like. >> Um has anybody had a chance to really

215
01:01:40.480 --> 01:01:57.040
dig into this language and have any specific questions? Any broad questions, thoughts concerns? >> Uh, well, I looked at it a bit and it felt like there were there two options. There's like the um multif family

216
01:01:57.040 --> 01:02:12.880
housing on specific town owned properties and or a distinctive structures approach, right? >> Yeah, that was how I had kind of laid it out. And I don't know that you would necessarily need to do both. the distinctive structures section wouldn't

217
01:02:12.880 --> 01:02:29.760
include properties like Bant Davis. So there has been talk about you know some sort of mixed use community use housing use on Bant Davis for many decades now um and again like there's no zoning mechanism to allow that. So, in just in looking at some of the things that are

218
01:02:29.760 --> 01:02:45.119
outlined in the master plan and trying to get ahead of like, okay, if we do end up really pursuing some of these bigger picture planning initiatives, like we could start to kind of lay the groundwork for how that might work in terms of zoning. Um, but the distinctive structures section of the bylaw wouldn't

219
01:02:45.119 --> 01:03:02.319
necessarily cover the properties that the town owns that don't have distinctive structures on them. So, >> okay. Yeah, that make that that makes sense. So you you've really got two approaches for two separate problems, issues or you know things that we'd like to have

220
01:03:02.319 --> 01:03:17.920
mechanisms for, >> right? But but if we don't if we don't want necessarily want a mechanism for the non town owned properties, then we don't necessarily need the distinctive structures aspect of it. We can just go with the the first option which would

221
01:03:17.920 --> 01:03:34.799
cover >> structures and town owned properties without structures. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> But I did like the distinctive structures also because it you know that would give residents more flexibility too. >> Right. Yeah. Sorry I keep scrolling back

222
01:03:34.799 --> 01:03:52.079
and forth. I'll stop doing that. You just tell me what section you want to look at. But yeah, if you that is a good uh clarification, Addie. So, the distinctive structures bylaw would would pertain to more than just town owned. In fact, I added town owned in because I it wasn't clear um that it meant to include

223
01:03:52.079 --> 01:04:13.400
town owned structures. So, yeah. Although I'm just sort of wondering if this new zoning the this new uh state um stuff that we've just been talking about with Ethan

224
01:04:14.000 --> 01:04:31.920
creates a pathway for a lot of what we're trying to achieve here that isn't that doesn't need to be enabled by anything because it's already enabled by those changes. Um,

225
01:04:31.920 --> 01:04:49.119
>> I would caution a little bit that like the state law is feels like a little bit of a blunt instrument, right? So, that would be an that would be an approach someone would take if there weren't a good alternative already in >> Right. Right. You're still at risk to the >> the the weighing of the benefits versus

226
01:04:49.119 --> 01:05:05.039
the >> Yeah. I think you could they're a good example to use like something like Highland Building and um not Highland Building um uh South Street like assurance technology for example, right? That's if

227
01:05:05.039 --> 01:05:19.520
if somebody wanted to convert that to multif family housing, there's currently no zoning mechanism to do it other than a single family >> residence with an ADU. Right. So >> or or 40B >> or a 40B.

228
01:05:19.520 --> 01:05:35.280
>> Right. So this would be one way that we could I'm just sometimes it's just helpful to think through concrete examples of things. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Make sense. So um I think in that context something like this would make sense. >> Yeah. And I think that this is also a

229
01:05:35.280 --> 01:05:51.839
really I think it's helpful to think about the demo delay um or sorry I know it's not called that anymore but the >> review >> review >> demo review in the context of enabling um

230
01:05:51.839 --> 01:06:10.079
enabling structures that that um might be impractical to keep right without the right zoning to allow you to use those structures or those components of historic structures as um

231
01:06:10.079 --> 01:06:26.799
in a in a in a way that is productive I guess or or enables you to afford the upkeep of that historic structure. Um it it to me there's a there's a there's a handinhand thing here that I think can

232
01:06:26.799 --> 01:06:42.160
be useful to think about. Not that we'd be able to get this in front of town meeting at the same time as the demo um review pro uh proposal, but um I I like the idea of

233
01:06:42.160 --> 01:06:58.760
creating opportunity out of restriction, right? So, if if you find yourself the owner of a property that um would be subject to demo review and

234
01:06:58.880 --> 01:07:15.440
and you're, you know, you're thinking, well, I would have I have this component of this property that needs a lot of money in order to maintain it, and I just want to demo it to get rid of it. Um, but if you have an option to repurpose it into something that that

235
01:07:15.440 --> 01:07:31.119
zoning allows you to do through a special permit, that can help >> with the impact of demo review, right? Um, and help historic commission get to an outcome that they hope for, which is that the

236
01:07:31.119 --> 01:07:47.920
demo review enables another solution to be found aside from demo. Yeah, >> I'm trying to I'm kind of speaking to Sarah directly on this and I'm not sure if she's agreeing with me or not.

237
01:07:47.920 --> 01:08:11.280
>> Can't read your absolutely. No, I think that that's exactly that makes perfect sense. Um, one of the things that um, I think, and I haven't looked super carefully at

238
01:08:11.280 --> 01:08:32.759
this language, but I I think it's worth spending some time thinking about is um, what the bylaw would will say as it relates to um not just the structure but the site plan

239
01:08:33.359 --> 01:08:51.120
and I don't know that it does that. it pro it may um but I would want to make sure that um we don't you know pre-existing structure and reusing that pre-existing structure

240
01:08:51.120 --> 01:09:06.480
doesn't necessarily imply that you are also reusing that pre-existing site plan right there may be changes um so let's use the boghouse as the example right like if this were a mechanism by which the boghouse

241
01:09:06.480 --> 01:09:23.839
um the entitled, we'd want to make sure that um the whatever the whatever way that this bylaw gets written creates language around site planning that achieves what we would want to achieve.

242
01:09:23.839 --> 01:09:38.480
So in the in the in a case where for example um we would have to go to an RFP without having a very specific design um in order to

243
01:09:38.480 --> 01:09:54.560
preserve the option for a developer to not um have to go through a public procurement process, right? Because it's this is the two options that we were talking about with select board last week or two weeks ago, whatever it was. You'd want to make sure that the bylaw

244
01:09:54.560 --> 01:10:12.000
as written for distinctive structures creates enough restriction and not restriction but regulation around what that site plan outcome ought to be so that you can um have a um

245
01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:27.120
I I guess my point is I just don't we don't want to lose the the site plan discussion in the context of the structure discussion in the in the bylaw. >> Yeah. makes sense. I'm sorry. >> No, it does make sense and I I was thinking about that in terms of like the

246
01:10:27.120 --> 01:10:44.080
current distinctive structures um as by special permit from the zoning board and doesn't doesn't include the planning board or mentioned site plan review and so I kind of did think that adding like having the jurisdictional board be the planning board and then also having it be a special permit and site plan approval as a combined so that it's

247
01:10:44.080 --> 01:10:59.760
clear that the site plan does also matter. Um, and then you have you you you have your your site plan regulations and your submittal requirements and we can look at that and make sure that they're actually fine-tuned to what it is you want for something like this. Um,

248
01:10:59.760 --> 01:11:15.360
but that's >> I think it's >> Yeah, I think I think that and I think that's great and thank you for pointing me to the fact that you've already considered this and and astutely considered the fact that

249
01:11:15.360 --> 01:11:30.800
there's no mechanism to get it to planning board in the first place. So that we'd have to change that too. I think what I'm trying to get at is do we would we want to put in not just um and maybe it's not possible to do it this way, but I'm I'm trying to get at

250
01:11:30.800 --> 01:11:46.480
like do we want to be specific about what the site plan needs to do within the distinctive structures um bylaw as opposed to just that it's subject to site plan review and we've got regulations around site plan review, right?

251
01:11:46.480 --> 01:12:02.719
Do you think that through your site plan process, you wouldn't be able to get something to do a site? Like I was worrying about being too prescriptive upfront because every site's going to be a little different. You have you have your process and then through that process you >> like unless you have something really

252
01:12:02.719 --> 01:12:18.480
specific in mind that you're thinking about >> that would apply kind of across the board. Um, that's that would be something that you could like >> I guess I'm just getting hung up on on uh the very specific concerns that folks

253
01:12:18.480 --> 01:12:38.960
have about Bog House site plan and >> the uh the planning around access to the open space, parking for the you know it's um it is very specific to Bog house, I

254
01:12:38.960 --> 01:12:59.920
suppose. But, um, maybe there's something some language relating to open space adjacencies and, um, >> facilitating access or something like that.

255
01:12:59.920 --> 01:13:30.560
>> Yeah, that makes sense. And probably should be in all your site plan sections for any development that has open space adjacencies. Um >> yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Sorry, I'm just writing some notes. Um is it useful to have any further

256
01:13:30.560 --> 01:13:52.239
discussion around this right now? I see we have um at least one member of the public who would like to chime in. >> Julie, should I just go to Christina? >> Yeah, I just asked her to unmute. >> Okay. >> Hi, thank you. Um I am so excited about

257
01:13:52.239 --> 01:14:07.920
this concept. I think it's such a great approach. Uh I think it's an an environmentally sensitive approach. obviously devil's in the details, but as a concept, it is such an environmentally friendly approach. Um, and I also think

258
01:14:07.920 --> 01:14:25.199
that it is a gentle approach that is less threatening for people who might be a little more resistant. Um it's a gentle way of easing into the concept of um increasing density um without having

259
01:14:25.199 --> 01:14:41.280
huge um negative impacts. Um so I just wanted to say yay >> I'm sorry if you if you don't mind stating your name in >> Yes. I am so sorry know by now. Christina Croatopolis, Hemllock Hill

260
01:14:41.280 --> 01:14:56.320
Road, uh co-chair of the environmental sustainability committee, but I'm just speaking for myself. Thanks. >> Thank you for that that comment, Christina. And uh I would I would ask you to consider um maybe maybe with the with the

261
01:14:56.320 --> 01:15:11.920
environmental sustainab sustainability committee any um anything you would advise us on to consider in the in this um whether it's um uh percentage reuse of the structure or

262
01:15:11.920 --> 01:15:29.440
um other environmental considerations, any downsides you might see. uh any um you know often with these types of things you're you get into um unintended consequences or unintended outcomes. So um would welcome your

263
01:15:29.440 --> 01:15:44.640
perspective on those things for sure. >> Thank you so much. And if Julie is willing to share um the the language, that's a great jumping off point to spark people's uh thoughts if that's okay. >> Yeah, that's great. And I'll put it on

264
01:15:44.640 --> 01:16:00.400
the website, too. I meant to before tonight and I didn't get to it, but I'll create a page for it on the planning board uh web page. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Julie, can I ask a quick question? How did we get to the

265
01:16:00.400 --> 01:16:18.159
1932? Is that just a where was that the the date? Um that's defining a just a just a question. >> Yeah, that's I that that's already in the bylaw. It's not okay. >> Yeah, I think it might be around the

266
01:16:18.159 --> 01:16:34.400
time the town first adopted zoning actually. >> Um, >> but I I I can uh do a little AI history on that date and probably get a better answer for you. >> That's okay. If it's already in the bylaw, that that was sort of the answer. >> Yeah, it's already So, it doesn't

267
01:16:34.400 --> 01:16:49.840
necessarily align with like demolition review bylaw or >> Right. Right. any list we have necessarily. But >> um >> I guess the question is would we want to rethink that date, right? Because

268
01:16:49.840 --> 01:17:06.159
I assume that that like Historic Commission might have a a perspective on, you know, particular structures that it would view as distinctive in town that are younger than that. That was kind of my point is do we just make sure that

269
01:17:06.159 --> 01:17:20.800
we've sort of >> you might want to share it with historic. It might be a a good >> collaboration just to make sure that there's it it catches all the distinctive structures that we think might um might make sense for um

270
01:17:20.800 --> 01:17:41.120
>> Right. Yeah. That's >> is there a does historic commission have like a an inventory of particularly um distinctive structure of of structures

271
01:17:41.120 --> 01:17:56.239
and properties in town that it views as being particularly of value. >> There's the ones on the historic inventory, but I I don't know that I can really fully speak to that. But I think we'd want to think about um you know, I'm thinking of like barns and

272
01:17:56.239 --> 01:18:10.800
agricultural buildings and things like that that might um I don't know. I think we just want to think through what that list is and and make sure this kind of covers what we're intending to do with this bylaw.

273
01:18:10.800 --> 01:18:28.800
>> Right. >> But I don't think there's a list other than the historic inventory. >> Yeah. And the historical commission members like routinely say that the historic inventory is incomplete. Um >> it is

274
01:18:28.800 --> 01:18:45.280
>> and it does it does appear that the study that was done that created it like wasn't actually finished. >> Um >> and so it's missing a lot of it's missing the two structures that are on the national register for example. >> Oops. >> Yeah. So there and it has some other

275
01:18:45.280 --> 01:19:01.960
deficiencies as well. >> Yeah. It Yeah. Yeah, I think it also at least the the data layer that I remember seeing at one point during the MBTA communities process had included some structures that no longer existed. Um. >> Right.

276
01:19:03.840 --> 01:19:19.199
>> Yeah. So, I guess it's you don't want to put the owners entirely on the store commission to identify explicitly the properties that this would apply to. Um, but you also don't want to preclude things that are important to the historic commission by setting an

277
01:19:19.199 --> 01:19:44.360
arbitrary or not arbitrary, but a a specific date that may not be um may not allow you to capture those, >> right? Do you want to potentially consider this for spring town meeting?

278
01:19:46.159 --> 01:20:02.080
>> I think so. I think it's a whole lot more straightforward than the clustered ROSC stuff. >> Um I don't know. Do do we think it's too much to try to do two bylaws in springtime meeting?

279
01:20:02.080 --> 01:20:18.400
Were you still thinking of clustered ROC for springtown meeting as well? >> I think I think we were. Were we not? Were we were going to try at least try? I mean, I think that's why we asked and Dwight offered to put

280
01:20:18.400 --> 01:20:36.480
something together, right, for us to frame the conversation and start to explore it. I think what I'm wondering is um given that we might also have a number

281
01:20:36.480 --> 01:20:55.280
of zoning changes because of state law >> and there's a there could be a lot that's landing in the spring meeting that >> like I yeah the 48 changes so far are are like

282
01:20:55.280 --> 01:21:10.960
I don't know we got to get our heads around that a little But um in in some ways in some ways maybe it's >> in some way there's ways there's nothing we can do about it. We just got to comply and conform. But in other ways,

283
01:21:10.960 --> 01:21:28.159
it's also a a >> I think it is a communications challenge to >> um help people understand what it means so that um

284
01:21:28.159 --> 01:21:47.360
>> Mhm. >> we don't find ourselves in the position of not amending our bylaw and being out of conformance with state law. because town meeting votes not to amend because they don't understand it, right?

285
01:21:47.360 --> 01:22:06.400
>> Yeah. >> Um so it may be a very heavy lift to do the communications effort for the stuff we have to do plus the stuff we want to do. And the stuff you

286
01:22:06.400 --> 01:22:23.679
have to do might also increase with the economic development bond bill. >> True. Um, and so >> yeah, >> I actually was thinking this might this this came up um regarding the zoning change that was made at the Springtown

287
01:22:23.679 --> 01:22:39.679
meeting that it might be worthwhile to have town council kind of just audit the entire bylaw because there are some other things that are in the bylaw that I don't think fully align with state law. Um, so while we're talking about aligning the bylaw with new changes to

288
01:22:39.679 --> 01:22:59.440
state law, it might be good for them to kind of take a look at the whole the whole bylaw. Um, >> do it all in one kind of like like one town meeting where you're focusing on alignment with state law. Um,

289
01:22:59.440 --> 01:23:14.719
>> yeah. >> Yeah. >> Kind of feels that's a fall town meeting kind of topic though. >> It does. It kind of feels like like next maybe like >> because I don't know that you're going to know >> just given the amount of things that the

290
01:23:14.719 --> 01:23:31.360
town usually does in the leadup to a town meeting. I don't know that you're going to know about the economic development bond bill >> meetings to kind of handle handle that especially if the DPW project, >> you know, comes before you in the fall

291
01:23:31.360 --> 01:23:49.239
winter, right? Like >> Yeah. Unless you add another meeting every month, you know, I mean, it's just it's aligning the things that we know are coming with the bandwidth of the board.

292
01:23:54.800 --> 01:24:13.920
>> So, I think what I'm hearing then is the possibility of um next year's annual meeting being for the things we distinctive structures potentially ROC

293
01:24:13.920 --> 01:24:31.840
and next fall for alignment of zoning language with state law because we'll know more and there will probably be some case law maybe by then that will clarify some parameters that are not clear right

294
01:24:31.840 --> 01:25:03.600
now. Yeah, >> I think that I think that makes sense. Sounds right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Sorry, I'm just making a note. Right.

295
01:25:03.600 --> 01:25:23.639
So, I can rework this a little bit with some of the feedback from tonight and um put it on the website and then put it on your agenda for September for another discussion if you think that's good. >> Yes, I think that makes sense.

296
01:25:26.880 --> 01:25:53.199
>> So, the September meeting is September 14th. Okay. Yeah. We want to dive into the minute from last time. >> Sure. Let me just pull them. >> So Stacy had sent me some amendments.

297
01:25:53.199 --> 01:26:20.880
Um >> Okay. >> So I'll pull up that. Um, that's good. >> You had your work cut out for you with this one, Noel. >> Yeah, it was a little a little long, but it's all right. I have the help of the

298
01:26:20.880 --> 01:26:37.760
computer now. So, the um formatting looks a little off on this because it's converted to a Google doc. Um, so I'll just start with the amendments. Um, right. So Stacy said this. Stacey asked

299
01:26:37.760 --> 01:27:03.120
that question. So just change that. Um, >> I got the same one. The Bearfield. >> Yes. Correcting the last name. So, do a do a search because I think in the additional attendees on page one, if you

300
01:27:03.120 --> 01:27:21.920
didn't catch it, Barefield, >> okay, >> there will also need the change. >> Okay. And then, um, >> I had something. >> Okay. Uh, yeah, keep going. So, he and she needed to be fixed there, huh?

301
01:27:21.920 --> 01:27:42.239
>> Yeah. Um, >> there's something on >> that page seven, I think. >> Seven. >> Uh, it's the comment from Abigail Zimmerman. >> Was it enthusiastically?

302
01:27:42.239 --> 01:27:57.360
>> No. >> I was like, >> well, >> uh, yeah, it's interesting what the, um, AI does, right? It was renovation. I think it means it's supposed to be rehabilitation.

303
01:27:57.360 --> 01:28:27.520
>> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Renovation. We're not renovating. >> We're not renovating the wildlife. >> And it's probably not projects either, just wildlife care and rehabilitation, I think. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um

304
01:28:27.520 --> 01:28:43.600
All right. So for this question or this comment >> Mhm. had said it had been approved under amendment um and it was building commissioner's

305
01:28:43.600 --> 01:29:02.320
opinion. So, I can rewrite this to say um gotten the opinion from two other building commissioners. >> I don't even know if I actually said that. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't want to suggest I

306
01:29:02.320 --> 01:29:18.320
know exactly what it is, but >> Okay. We I can um just kind of scratch it if you want. >> Yeah. just just take everything out after the runon and there comes after a period anyway. >> Okay. >> Yeah.

307
01:29:18.320 --> 01:29:33.920
>> Um >> yeah, >> because it was really the applicant who chimed in and said that at that point as I recall. >> Right. >> Yes. Correct. >> It was the lawyer, the attorney, I

308
01:29:33.920 --> 01:30:00.159
think. >> Okay, >> great. Um, I think that might have been it from Stacy. Let's see. Yeah, I think that was it. So, did anybody else have anything that they um noticed?

309
01:30:00.159 --> 01:30:18.520
>> Um, I had one minor thing. Um, I'm trying I'm looking for it now. Okay. So, but but it's kind of spans two different pages. What page am I on? Five. So, um

310
01:30:18.560 --> 01:30:38.000
So, okay. Yeah, right there. Uh Xe Jane. So, that one's probably all correct, but you'll just note that X say Jane is all a masculine pronoun there. And then

311
01:30:38.000 --> 01:30:54.960
there's another X say Jane further down uh and I think it was a different person uh on page seven. Um

312
01:30:54.960 --> 01:31:10.719
>> Oh, and that's a her. Yep. >> Yeah. woman or a man. >> Oh, okay. So, I will >> So, and I think I might know the name of the person who it is. I think it's Shaye,

313
01:31:10.719 --> 01:31:29.239
but I can't be sure, of course. Uh, you know, I'm just not sure. But I think it's uh Shaye, S A I L L Y. Um >> well this that person wrote um

314
01:31:30.159 --> 01:31:47.440
didn't that person write um a submission to the planning board in a letter? >> I think so. >> So we know the spelling of that person's name from that but we don't know if it's a male man or a woman. Is that the issue? >> Yeah.

315
01:31:47.440 --> 01:32:02.880
And that will >> Yeah. I'm just pretty sure. Yeah. I mean, yeah, I suppose you could. >> Okay. So, >> but I do think they were two different people though. >> Oh, you're saying that it was >> Okay.

316
01:32:02.880 --> 01:32:19.120
>> The first one was one of the James. >> Yeah. A Jane, I think, is correct. And I think that was, you know, the um the husband and >> Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

317
01:32:19.120 --> 01:32:35.760
>> So, it's just Okay, I understand. And so this was I do now that I'm like reading it, I remember visually who said it, >> so I I understand what you're saying. It was like a husband and wife, so I can I'll figure out the names. Um

318
01:32:35.760 --> 01:32:51.440
>> uh I know that's kind of a complicated thing to have to explain. Anyway, >> yeah. And some sometimes people don't have their names like at their address, so it'll be like in a trust or whatever, and I'm like, >> "Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, I know.

319
01:32:51.440 --> 01:33:07.760
So, I will um I'll do some digging tomorrow and see if I can find their names, the first name. >> It shows both their names on >> Oh, it does. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> you can get the spellings.

320
01:33:07.760 --> 01:33:27.960
>> Great. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Yeah. I think it's S I L L Y >> for her. >> Okay. Um, so is there anything else?

321
01:33:29.600 --> 01:33:53.280
All right. All right. Uh, motion to I'll take a motion to approve the minutes of July 13th as amended. >> So moved. Second. >> Roll call vote.

322
01:33:53.280 --> 01:34:17.440
>> I grad. >> Lennon. I >> Okay. Any other staff updates? Leaison reports? I have a bunch of things I can tell you about, but I don't want to presume you

323
01:34:17.440 --> 01:34:37.440
want to know all of them. Um, and I don't want to get ahead of the Aison reports if people have other interesting things to share. >> I think Magic has been on a summer hiatus, right, with their next meeting in September. So, >> yes, >> nothing from there.

324
01:34:37.440 --> 01:34:59.199
>> Okay. Um and I will so uh as the select board leaison um I did attend a recent select board meeting to um uh listen in on and contribute to the

325
01:34:59.199 --> 01:35:15.360
discussion related to um the boghouse and the process there that was being debated and considered um among on the select board to determine um you know basically whether

326
01:35:15.360 --> 01:35:32.000
uh we were throwing good money after bad in continuing to pursue that um process given that there was some concern that the ultimate uh buildout would have to be subject to prevailing

327
01:35:32.000 --> 01:35:49.199
wage and that might make it uneconomic. Um I think I was deliberate in not speaking on behalf of the planning board. Um but weighed in on uh just sort of my experience with development more

328
01:35:49.199 --> 01:36:04.639
generally and you know the fact that these things evolve. Um, and I think uh town council uh Tom was there as well as >> Jenny >> Jenny and they did a really great job of

329
01:36:04.639 --> 01:36:22.480
um kind of explaining how the process could advance um as if uh we have we the town have a lot of control over the outcomes there and um there's there's no ways in which the

330
01:36:22.480 --> 01:36:38.400
things could pivot or be be adjusted as we go along, but that ultimately um in order for something anything to happen with the boghouse, the article 97 um land disposition, land swap process

331
01:36:38.400 --> 01:36:52.320
has to go forward. So, um I think that was a good outcome. And then the other thing is that there the select board has uh published their goals. They were publishing the mosquito on Friday. um I haven't dug into them closely, but I do

332
01:36:52.320 --> 01:37:09.119
know that the select board has a um goal that involves uh something that that is they're referring to as connected carile and it's sort of a a a initiative to try to

333
01:37:09.119 --> 01:37:26.880
um bring together or bring um bring together sort of uh plans and strategies and various work that has and done over the years around um pathways and um sidewalks and interconnection from

334
01:37:26.880 --> 01:37:41.760
the standpoint of pedestrian infrastructure as well as um looking at um infrastructure in the center that may be you know

335
01:37:41.760 --> 01:37:56.639
uh public water supply that can connect that can be that can serve multiple um town buildings as well as uh a denser uh downtown area, town center area, sorry.

336
01:37:56.639 --> 01:38:12.719
Uh and potentially um interconnection of um a publicly owned waste treatment facility. So um sorry, I've dropped my fidget toys. Um,

337
01:38:12.719 --> 01:38:32.239
I think the next step really is for I'm going to ask Christina Christine to come and speak to us about how we can support the select board in this process and um just to add more to our plate I suppose

338
01:38:32.239 --> 01:38:47.360
but I think there is a role for the planning board in in this in trying to consider um broadly you know what are the ways in which we can plan for um a more robust interconnection of

339
01:38:47.360 --> 01:39:08.480
infrastructure. Do you think I got that reasonably accurate Julie? >> Yeah, the only thing I would add is like coordinated facilities planning. Most of the town facilities are proximate to the town center, so just better coordination and connections between the sites,

340
01:39:08.480 --> 01:39:23.920
>> right? Yeah. >> Right. >> And these things tie to the master plan, many of them, if not all of them, um, in some way or another. So, >> yes, that is a that's a great point.

341
01:39:23.920 --> 01:39:42.560
>> Yeah. Any other liaison reports? >> I guess, um, this isn't a liaison report, but it's kind of related. Okay. Uh, so I I I was planning on going to the select board since you brought up the select board. I was planning on going tomorrow night for the for the

342
01:39:42.560 --> 01:40:00.400
hydrogeeology um survey. Um, so I was wondering if anybody else was going to be attending. >> I think >> you all I'm hoping know what he's talking about. >> I'm sorry. Say that again.

343
01:40:00.400 --> 01:40:16.400
>> The subsurface hydrogeeology mapping project. There will be a presentation from the consultants to the select board tomorrow night. Um it's scheduled for 8:15. Um and they meet in the Clark room and on

344
01:40:16.400 --> 01:40:31.199
Zoom. So that was a three-yearong effort that would not have happened if we had not hired Noel. Um >> so she deserves a lot of credit for that

345
01:40:31.199 --> 01:40:48.400
effort. um just her diligence in using every spare second she had while we were while I was really focused on MBTA communities last year to look at work with Linda and get plans out of files and read the plans and create a massive

346
01:40:48.400 --> 01:41:04.320
spreadsheet of data um related to depth to bedrock depth of I mean all the different um data that's gathered uh for wells and septics and test pits and well drillers reports for over 250 properties

347
01:41:04.320 --> 01:41:21.600
in town. Um >> it was enabled the project that was the foundation foundational work that enabled that project that grant money to be spent. So >> um Noel deserves a lot of credit for

348
01:41:21.600 --> 01:41:36.639
keeping that effort moving while I had no bandwidth for it. >> So >> thank you for the praise, Julie. I appreciate it. I hope to be able to say it again tomorrow night. But >> yeah, no, I've been looking forward to it for a long time.

349
01:41:36.639 --> 01:41:51.840
>> It was nice to see the maps that they produced. It's like finally the the effort paid off like behind the scenes. >> That's awesome. >> Yeah, I'll definitely try to be there. >> Julie, can I correct me if I'm wrong? I think we can all go like we don't there

350
01:41:51.840 --> 01:42:07.600
won't be any discussion. So, we can there's not a problem with a couple of us going, right? We're not going to create >> Yeah. No, you can definitely all attend and if some of you are on Zoom and some of you are in the room, that should be fine. Um, you know, because you won't like be having your own separate, >> right? We're not presenting it. This is Yeah. Okay.

351
01:42:07.600 --> 01:42:22.080
>> Yeah. Should be okay. >> So, we don't have to worry about creating a quorum. >> I mean, I haven't posted an agenda for you. So, if there is a quorum of you there like in person, like if someone goes home and gets on the Zoom, that would probably be ideal. Um, yeah but

352
01:42:22.080 --> 01:42:37.840
>> I believe as long as there's no deliberation, you're allowed to like be in the same room. >> Yeah, I think I think that's correct. As long as we're not deliberating. That's my >> as members of the public, too. So, >> okay. >> Yeah.

353
01:42:37.840 --> 01:42:53.360
>> Well, then I will tune in. >> All right. >> Thank you both for all your work on that. >> Thank you. >> Of course. So I have a few other like things I can kind of mention to you guys. Um if you

354
01:42:53.360 --> 01:43:09.520
if now's a good time. Okay. Um so just say so the fire station project um we had a pre-construction meeting with them last week. They have begun site work. The first thing they need to do is drill the well before and and that's one of the many things they

355
01:43:09.520 --> 01:43:24.880
need to do before they can get a building permit. So they're working towards that with the hope that they can pull a building permit at sometime I think uh early to midepptember. Uh so that project has started. We are in town hall. We're next door so we hear everything that's going on. We can see

356
01:43:24.880 --> 01:43:41.679
out the windows what they're doing. Um so there's a lot of oversight. Um and then John Mativier and I are working together um with other staff to make sure that the conditions of the planning board permit are met uh throughout the course of the construction. So, there

357
01:43:41.679 --> 01:43:58.800
will be more on that, so stay tuned. Um, the DPW building committee had a meeting last week. I believe that the select board is going to be reviewing a contract with HKA. They're the selected designer. Um, in the meeting last week,

358
01:43:58.800 --> 01:44:15.199
I was given the opportunity to ask for a few adjustments to the language to accommodate land use board um, involvement during the schematic design phase of the project, which I think will be critical to enabling you to have input at a high level before the design

359
01:44:15.199 --> 01:44:30.960
is a beta complete. Um, so that when it does come through permitting, uh, you you've seen it, you understand it. Hopefully your high level feedback has been incorporated and the process through permitting could be maybe a

360
01:44:30.960 --> 01:44:47.679
little more uh little smoother maybe than the the fire station project. Um a little more kumbaya let's say. So those uh changes were accepted by HKA by Ryan and I believe the select board will

361
01:44:47.679 --> 01:45:04.400
review the contract tomorrow night. Um the next the DPW building committee is having another meeting on August 27th. I will be away. So if somebody from planning board can volunteer to be there, I can loop you in. I don't know the time yet. There was no time set for

362
01:45:04.400 --> 01:45:18.400
that meeting. They have been meeting during the day. Um and I can reach out to you offline. But I do think it's important for someone from planning staff or the planning board to be involved in these discussions or at least hearing hearing what's being

363
01:45:18.400 --> 01:45:36.520
discussed at these meetings. Um, >> but do they always go do they always meet during the day? >> So they have the recent meetings have been during the day. Yes. Yeah. Um

364
01:45:38.960 --> 01:45:53.760
so let me >> the the the challenge of having a planning board member there is the um potential interpretation that whoever is attending is speaking on behalf of the board. Right. I I would prefer there to

365
01:45:53.760 --> 01:46:10.840
be a staff member involved. Um >> I can go and report back if you'd like. >> I think >> I can attend the meetings if you'd like. Yeah. Okay, that's great. Thank you, Noel. Appreciate that. >> Thank you, Noel. >> You're welcome.

366
01:46:13.199 --> 01:46:28.080
>> Great. >> So, the Addie kind of gave a little overview of the bug house um procurement discussion. So, the um sentiment from the select board was to stay the course. So, we are work still working with GIAP architects on schematic designs and

367
01:46:28.080 --> 01:46:43.760
we're working with Lantech on on a site plan. They have revisited the the notion of putting the septics the new septic system behind the house. Um which would which um even even designed per the local board of health greater design

368
01:46:43.760 --> 01:47:00.960
flow requirements will fit in the area that's outside of the wetlands. It's it's a tight fit but it will fit there. And then they're exploring an alternative system. So it's a presby system which requires a smaller leechfield area. Um, and so it will fit

369
01:47:00.960 --> 01:47:17.119
even easier in that space. It's a system that's been used in town that was actually recommended to me by Linda and other members of the board of health in prior discussions with them offline about the boghouse. Um, so in their site planning process, what that means for

370
01:47:17.119 --> 01:47:33.119
the town is that our carveout area could potentially be smaller. Um, and then we could explore the option of using the neighboring bog land for nitrogen credit. Um, so you probably all remember some of the discussions last year about the land area matters in terms of how many bedrooms you can get from a septic

371
01:47:33.119 --> 01:47:50.080
standpoint, but there is uh in title five um provisions that allow for nitrogen aggregation and using land that's adjacent and in the same aquifer and I think downgradient. Um, so Land Tech is exploring that. Um, and I hope

372
01:47:50.080 --> 01:48:04.960
to have a site plan kind of more pinned down from them later this month or early September. And then we do have an appraiser um, lined up. So, I'm coordinating a site visit between the appraiser and the

373
01:48:04.960 --> 01:48:20.800
engineer and also a staff person at the executive office of energy and environmental affairs. um hopefully for not next week but the week after so they can all come to uh the boghouse and kind of look at that land together and get a

374
01:48:20.800 --> 01:48:37.199
sense of it. And then um let me just screen share really quick. The um site that's being talked about as potential replacement land is Can you all see my screen? Let me just make it I

375
01:48:37.199 --> 01:48:53.920
can make it bigger. Yeah. is this. This is the Conan land here outlined in yellow. It's the land where town hall is um and the fire station. And then this is the well to support the fire station. And then this some land in this area, right? office, not necessarily the

376
01:48:53.920 --> 01:49:11.040
entirety of the land that's encapsulated in this white circle, but this is just to give a sense with uh frontage on Rockland Road, the castle rock, um like outcropping, uh some trails and some wetlands. Um

377
01:49:11.040 --> 01:49:26.639
and this was discussed with the select board last month and they generally it seemed generally favorable as the land that we should be looking at in terms of replacement land. So this land when I say replacement land it would be the swap for carving um land out of article

378
01:49:26.639 --> 01:49:47.560
97 for the boghouse project and this land would go back into conservation. So it would still be town owned. It would just be uh conservation land subject to article 97. So the this is the area opponent that we'll be looking at. Um have any

379
01:49:47.920 --> 01:50:07.880
thoughts on that? And it may I should say it may also extend up to here so that there's an adjacency with the the CR that's being worked out on this property here and then also just continuation of the trail.

380
01:50:08.000 --> 01:50:23.840
>> I'm sure the trails committee would approve. >> I'm not. What's the timing of the of the uh appraisals that are underway to try to solve this question? >> So, the site visit would be maybe the

381
01:50:23.840 --> 01:50:39.280
week after next and then the we will need to get the appraisal at some point in September or October. It needs to be with a sufficient time in the leadup to town meeting to kind of understand what we're talking about in terms of value. Um >> but if we're if we're move I mean I guess a decision has to be made about

382
01:50:39.280 --> 01:50:55.520
the where the septic location is, right? in order to for the appraiser to know what they're appraising. >> Yeah. So, we are I trying to get on a board of health agenda for September. Um board of health, trails committee, conservation.

383
01:50:55.520 --> 01:51:12.159
>> Yeah. >> I've got a whole bunch of scheduling that I'm working on. Um >> I do remember now that you said that the trails committee has some objections, but hopefully they can >> Well, yeah. I mean, one of the like

384
01:51:12.159 --> 01:51:28.639
possibilities that hasn't really fully been flushed out yet, so this is just very conceptual at this point, is potentially um recommending that the nitrogen credit easement be over the dragonfly habitat area, which would give it additional protection. Um, and so

385
01:51:28.639 --> 01:51:43.440
that might be something that >> Oh, yeah. >> straight. >> Yeah. Yep. So, we're trying to be smart about this and and it is an aggressive time frame and I will be attending a lot of meetings in

386
01:51:43.440 --> 01:51:59.760
September. So, >> yeah. >> Okay, >> that's the bug house update. Um, let me just see what else. >> Amazing how much work goes into these things, isn't it? >> It is.

387
01:51:59.760 --> 01:52:16.080
So, developers do big projects. It's generally the same amount of work. >> Well, I Yes, I I would agree. It's like when you move your house, right? You could either move to a whole different town or you could move next door, but you're moving. >> Still packing all your stuff.

388
01:52:16.080 --> 01:52:30.880
>> Right. Right. >> Right. Um the FINCOM has begun the FY28 budgeting process. I received a memo uh LA late last week from them. So, they're looking at they're looking for a five-year

389
01:52:30.880 --> 01:52:47.440
projection. Um, I'm going to dig into it a little bit more and then put it on your agenda for next month because we should probably talk about whether we want to make any requests for consultant funding to support any of the bigger picture master plan related uh planning

390
01:52:47.440 --> 01:53:03.760
initiatives. Um, some of which have come up uh tonight already. Um, and then we should talk about the future of the GIS program as well. So that'll be on your agenda for September. Um,

391
01:53:03.760 --> 01:53:19.520
if you're all amendable to a little bit of a overview of our Prophecy Gov AI tool that I have at my disposal in town hall, I can show you really quick some of its capabilities and then you can dream up research projects for me to feed it. Um, >> let's do it. I'm sure Chris especially

392
01:53:19.520 --> 01:53:41.280
would love it. >> I just want to share. Let me just make sure this works. Okay. Um, so the can you guys all see U Prophecy Gov on the screen? >> Yep. >> Okay. So earlier this year, uh, the town

393
01:53:41.280 --> 01:53:57.280
entered into a contract with this company. It's a it's a large language model built specifically for municipal governments. um it enables us to research uh it it will research things, it will draft things and it can also do benchmarking. But basically, I've been

394
01:53:57.280 --> 01:54:14.800
using it to research. So, what it pulls from is all of our public documents that we have on our website and other documents that we've scanned and that we've fed into it. Um so, it's minutes, agendas, annual reports going back to 1850. um internal documents, uh anything

395
01:54:14.800 --> 01:54:30.000
that was in a board packet that was dis anything that was discussed publicly that's been put on the internet somewhere. Um our internet I should say. Um and so I've been able to feed it a whole

396
01:54:30.000 --> 01:54:45.360
bunch of different questions. Um, and then so let me just so if I go to research and I give it like a question like um does anybody have a question that you're burn that you're itching to know that I can ask it.

397
01:54:45.360 --> 01:55:10.480
I've asked it like all the things I've been thinking about. So um all right history you know what I'll just do this history of wastewater treatment plant. Um, >> okay. All right. Then we can say summarize the

398
01:55:10.480 --> 01:55:34.480
summarize the topic, right? And then you um Oh, I have to add it in again. Hold on. You can select all the entities that may have had a public discussion or some sort of public document about the wastewater treatment plant for however

399
01:55:34.480 --> 01:55:54.159
long, right? Like all all the entities. You can set a date range. Sorry, there's a lot of background noise I'm hearing. >> I think it might be Stacy. Yeah, there we go. Okay. And then you can h you can select all

400
01:55:54.159 --> 01:56:11.119
the different inputs that you want, right? Code, web pages, all these different things. Um and and what it will it will then give you a thinking summary as it processes this request and all the things that it's looking at and tell you like what it's doing and then

401
01:56:11.119 --> 01:56:27.760
within a matter of minutes give you a whole do you know a lot lot lot of information in a really well formatted um format including citations from which you can print a report. Um so I've been using it a lot. You can see

402
01:56:27.760 --> 01:56:44.800
over here on the lefth hand side of the screen the various things I've been researching. Um and then one of the tools that I know other people in town hall have used is the benchmarking tool. And so this what this does is this can pull from publicly available information on other municipal uh websites, right?

403
01:56:44.800 --> 01:57:00.719
So you can find out about staffing uh like you know staffing for different departments in different across towns and salaries and um you could just kind of understand like a lot of qu I wish we had had this tool last year when we were trying to figure out well what are other

404
01:57:00.719 --> 01:57:19.199
towns doing right um now we have a tool that really can do it for us and takes away um just really quickly, right? So, like something that we would have had to go on many different municipal websites and

405
01:57:19.199 --> 01:57:34.639
try to find and figure out ourselves, it can now do for us. Um, so that's like the very quick and dirty >> very cool >> of this tool. And so what I want what what I want to show you that show that to you for is um if you think of

406
01:57:34.639 --> 01:57:51.280
anything that you're wanting to know about the history of Carile like that you think would be helpful to any of our conversations or just for fun. Um let me know. I'm happy to ask the tool. Um it's been great to understand the history of town owned properties. Like I

407
01:57:51.280 --> 01:58:06.639
I did a search of like all the affordable housing projects that have been proposed on town land since 1990. Came back with like things I'd never even heard of. I thought I knew all of them. Um so I'm using it towards my, you

408
01:58:06.639 --> 01:58:22.960
know, boouse research that I have to submit to the state. So um >> can it access GIS data? >> Um it it probably could pull from access GIS. I'm not sure if it does. That's a great

409
01:58:22.960 --> 01:58:38.000
question. Um, >> so I I've actually tried to use I I'm going to guess no because I've tried to use it for that. So I'm just going to guess no. But maybe >> you've tried to use prophecy gov for that or or just

410
01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:53.599
>> I don't know. Chat chat GBT GBT. Yep. >> Yeah. Like I wonder if we had a I'm just if we had the GIS data in the like in the spreadsheet format. I wonder if it could then source

411
01:58:53.599 --> 01:59:11.760
those or I don't know just bizarre. >> Yeah. So we can feed it things too. So like as we scan documents and we have all the planning board files scanned like we can feed it in. So it would can pull from those and not just like what's on the internet. Um, and so Ashley, our

412
01:59:11.760 --> 01:59:28.159
town clerk, um, she scanned all of the annual reports back to 1850 and uploaded all that. So it's like also able to pull from that, too. Um, so it's just another tool we have at our

413
01:59:28.159 --> 01:59:44.880
disposal that can save a lot of time um, on our end. And and then it it also cites its sources so you can verify the information. Um and it will tell you too if it finds conflicting information or

414
01:59:44.880 --> 02:00:01.520
if it doesn't feel super confident about any of the the information that it's pulled from. It'll you know can give you like a confidence um rating. So >> So I just checked now and it can do it. That's what it's telling me anyway. So,

415
02:00:01.520 --> 02:00:18.719
the new one can, the old one couldn't. >> Well, >> maybe. I'm pretty sure I asked it before but it's good. >> Scary. >> Yeah. I don't know how I how I live, how I

416
02:00:18.719 --> 02:00:34.320
worked before. I was just thinking of all the questions you guys had during the MBTA communities discussions that I could have just had working in the background while I was like doing something else, you know? But event have been great. >> Let's not try to relive all of that.

417
02:00:34.320 --> 02:00:50.960
>> No, I don't want to. But just in terms of bandwidth, it's it's pretty >> pretty soon you're not going to need staff, you know. >> Oh, hardly. >> Yeah. Yeah. Somebody's got to interpret all of this stuff. >> Critical thinking, critical reasoning.

418
02:00:50.960 --> 02:01:05.440
You >> still have to ask the right questions. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Um, are we ready to call it a night, do you think?

419
02:01:05.440 --> 02:01:25.199
>> I just realized I have a couple invoices. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, hold on one second. So, there was there were a couple uh little seminars I signed up for. Let me find them in the uh let me open them real quick and then

420
02:01:25.199 --> 02:01:51.840
I'll screen share them. Okay. So, one of them is the MARPA DLS. So, that is the Massachusetts Regional Planning Agency and Division of Local Services uh statewide municipal partnerships conference. Um it's every

421
02:01:51.840 --> 02:02:10.599
year. It's in October. I think it was $20. Yes. Um it's like half a day. Um it's basically for regional planning agencies to understand and hear from um

422
02:02:10.960 --> 02:02:27.520
uh secretaries of different executive offices and funding and programs and things that we should know about to take advantage of to advance planning efforts. Um, and then the other one that I signed up for is $80 and it's the Chapa Housing

423
02:02:27.520 --> 02:02:48.639
Summit. And so it's a it's tools for increasing housing production in your community. And they have a few different um sessions that are like an hour and a half each. Um, and they're in the September and October. So, the funding for this would come out

424
02:02:48.639 --> 02:03:10.159
of the um education and training line of your budget. All right. I'll take a motion to approve uh the invoices and authorize the um town planner to sign.

425
02:03:10.159 --> 02:03:37.280
>> So, moved. I'll second. >> Second. Okay. Roll call starting with Chris >> J. I lenon I >> very much. That's all for me.

426
02:03:37.280 --> 02:03:54.719
>> Hey. Well, sometimes we get to have an early night. Motion to adjurnn. So move. >> Second. >> Second. Right everybody, have a great night. >> Good night.

427
02:03:54.719 --> 02:03:59.080
>> Good night. Good night.