The last time we we shared it and it worked out over here. OK. Uh, good evening, everyone. Um, it’s um 7:02 p.m. and I’m calling the December 17th, 2024. Hamilton Planning Board meeting to order. It’s our last meeting of the year, so the next time I see any of you, it will be a new year, so I wish you all a happy holidays and uh a great new year, uh, so, uh. This meeting is being recorded. It will be available on YouTube, uh, and at this point I’m going to call roll. Uh, so when I call your name, would you please indicate that you’re present. Uh, I know for the record that Pat Norton, uh, informed me that he wasn’t going to be here and Jeff Austin informed me that he wasn’t going to be here and I don’t know if Bill Wheaton is going to appear. Via Zoom he uh uh isn’t well, so he may or may not be joining us, so, um, Jonathan Poor Jonathan Poor present. Uh, Amil Dahlquist Amil Dahlquist present. Uh, better her here. Uh, Darcy Dale. Darcy Dale present. Matt Hammill present and Marie Crouch present. Uh, so the first item on our agenda is review of the minutes, uh, that should take just a few minutes, uh, no pun intended, and then unless any of the planning board members object. I am going to take the site plan review, uh, application, uh, of the Hamilton Fire Department, uh, out of order and take that after the review of minutes and then we’ll proceed to the remaining items on our agenda. So we have 4 sets of minutes to approve uh minutes from September 20th, 2022, March 21st, 2023, April 20th, 2023 in October 17th, 2023, and I will note that I reviewed these minutes, uh, I did, I’m making a number of corrections to several of them, uh, uh, different people’s names were misspelled, and I know that Darcy also looked at the. and she sent me an email which uh uh highlighted a couple of typos for the April 20th set of minutes in the March 21st sets of minutes. So, um do any uh board members have any, um, corrections to be made to those minutes. And just, just one. On the March 21, there were two misspelled names on that on the March 21. Um Under the members present, my name is misspelled D A H L Q U I S T. and uh Tim Olson’s name as others present, it should be O L S O N. OK That’s it. That’s it. May I make a motion that we approve the minutes that were named by the chair to the subject to the edits. I have a second? Uh, so when I call your name, please indicate that you um can I just make a comment? I just want to congratulate the chair for the September 20 minutes, um. That’s what was an incredible piece of work, so thank you so much for that uh that effort. Just, just, uh, for the record that that uh set of minutes which was how many pages. That was the decision that we um uh that was minutes from the meeting where the planning board, um, considered um the uh special permit for, um, uh, 133 Essex Tobacco Hill Capital Partners, um. So it was important to have a good set of minutes because uh for appeal purposes. Um So, uh, Did we, uh we have so we need to vote, um. Jonathan, we’ll start with you, Jonathan Poor Imquist, that her I Darcy Dale. Darcy Dale, I and Marty Crouch, I. So, uh, Mark, I will send you a Darcy’s corrections and uh as well as uh. The ones noted by Amal and if you, uh, the, the minutes are all word documents and maybe if you make those very minor corrections, then they can get to uh the appropriate person so they can be uploaded on the planning board’s, uh, web page as soon as possible. Sure thing. OK, so now we’ll turn to the site plan, uh, review application, so, uh, Mark, uh. was really did an outstanding job by uh preparing um a memorandum for the board with respect to the site plan review application, and I know um it was transmitted at least to you, Brian, and I want to give you an opportunity to respond to anything that’s set forth in that memorandum, you did make the presentation you and uh and the fire chief major presentation at the last minute, but if you want. to add anything to that, uh, I think the planning board would be happy to hear from you. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, for the record again, Brian Stein from Van Stein Architects, um, here on behalf of the Hamilton Fire Department, um, I think all of you were here last time, 2 weeks ago when we made our presentation. Uh, of the, um, you know, structure that we’re proposing to house the Model T fire engine, um, and you know, I, I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have, you know, kind of based on uh Mark’s memorandum, which was great. Thank you. Um, you know, we did briefly discuss, um, you know, some of the access to the building, you know, the sidewalk that we have off of the existing parking lot at the Council on Aging Building in front of the fire station. Um, we, I think, you know, Jonathan had a comment about maybe accessing it from Bay Road through a sidewalk or a walkway of some type of some type, um, and then also, uh, lighting is also part of uh site plan review, um, and you know, any other access, but, um, so that I mean. I’m certainly happy to answer any questions about that because we didn’t really talk about lighting too much last time. Um, and I know, uh, Mark raised the point of signage as well and we can, we can talk about that, um. And, uh, I mean, I certainly have an opinion on that, but we’re happy to answer any questions that you have, right? Did any board members have any comments. I, I didn’t think that the signage was an issue. I thought it was more artistic than. What would be a typical sign. Yeah. Detached from a building, so uh that aspect, um, I, I didn’t find in any way, shape or form objectionable. I thought it added to the building of, uh, so did, did anyone have any comments about lighting or one other issue is utilities. Are they going to run underground power. There’s actually a line that runs underground just on this picture left of the building that goes out to the sign, it’s out there now. So there is power, semi plan for this, yeah, at some point. OK. I just No, Brian’s correct there uh the sign board that’s already installed and up and working, has enough power. I confirmed that with Dennis Curran, uh, the electrics electrician, um, inspector and uh we’re going to be pulling off of that. Uh, for the building doesn’t really need that much. It’s not really going to be that much light, um, in the building and peripheral lighting. Yeah, I would agree to the signage is not an issue that really is a form of art, I think, and it’s not really advertising, it’s not like it’s advertising business, right, right, it’s, it’s, it’s the old, the old sign from the old firehouse. Yeah, sure. Willow actually the original sign from Willow Street, um, that was repaired and put on the old building that we had. Yeah Did anyone else have any comments? I don’t have any questions. Well, I just also note just for those present that there was a question at the last meeting whether the abutters had received the requisite notice that was absent from the planning board members packet and, and just so you know, when these site plan review applications are filed, they’re not filed with planning board members. The planning director compiles all the information, so I think that was an oversight during the transmission. transition to the new planning director that we didn’t receive that, but certainly it was something we didn’t have and so we had to be assured that that we did in fact have that and now we know that we do and then the select board did provide, uh, as the property owner, um, a letter giving you the authority to actually file this document. So the two primary issues that were raised at the last minute meeting have been um cured in every respect, so, uh. Uh, absent any further discussion, I think, uh. We can entertain emotion. I entertain, I mean, I move that we vote for the chemical one building as drawn. Uh, do I have a second? Uh, so when I call your name, would you please, uh, indicate, uh, your vote um. Jonathan Poor Jonathan Poor I. Uh, Beth Hur. Darcy Dale. Darcy Dale, I am Dahlquist. Amil Dahlquist and Marie Crouch eye. So thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you for having us. And as you know, um, we have to prepare a document that has to be endorsed by the planning board. So I think Mark’s memorandum is a good first step in in doing that and so um as soon as we have a completed document, we’ll get it signed and and transmitted to you. OK Thank you very much. Thank you very much. OK. Mike Toomey. job. Thanks, Ned. Thank you a lot of happy faces tonight. I didn’t know the A used to be on fire. Oh, yes, for years. OK. All right. And a fun um, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, we have board business if you don’t mind to take it outside. Great, thanks. Good. I know. Oh, great. Thank you so much. Thanks, Mark. Hi, fine, thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, thank you. This is the site plan review. OK. Thank you. Oh, actually I think I have this. It’s already. OK. And then there was one. OK. All right, um, So now we’re turning to uh discussion regarding potential amendments to the zoning bylaw and the zoning map. So I want to start with the inclusionary housing bylaw. Now at the last meeting, I believe we settled on the requisite language, but in consultation with town council Robin Stein, um. She took a look at what we had prepared and um provided um. Me with the language, I think maybe we had this language at the last uh meeting, but, um, this is now the inclusionary housing bylaw memorandum is in a form that can be transmitted to the select board unless any member here this evening has any type of issue with any of its contents. And so the Is this with the memorandum, um, the summary of amendments to Section 83 starting there, because I found a typo. OK, fine. Um, I Page 4. Under numbers 12. I don’t have the taste, well, let me see, maybe it’s a different. Oh wait, I’m sorry, it’s double sided one. OK, page 1, yeah, um, it’s under 8.3.56, the third line down submission should be one word. Not two words. 8.3.6, the new 0.6, yes. 0.3.6 general provisions. The planning board shall be charged with administering the section and may promulgate inclusionary housing rules and regulations, including but not limited to sub I have Is that the only, um, that’s the only one I found. OK. So, uh, I’d like to think that that was a typo in the original document. Yes, and it may well be because I, you know, there weren’t any. Changes to this except um. The substitution of May for shell. Because we don’t have any regulations and we don’t have the wherewithal at the present time to. This draft them have public hearings. We have a lot on our plate and, and, and this isn’t likely to happen, so, um, if that’s the only thing I think the the the The part of this document that I think we really need to focus on is the um. Uh, section new section 8.3.5. 0.3. Which is, is that the underlying section of. Yes Looks like 8. Great. Right here. 8.5, 0.3.5. 3. Learning, yes, under um. Where that same section where um 8.3.6, the new one, why are we changing the marketing plan to instead of being approved by the planning board to the marketing plans have to be approved by the executive Office of Housing and livable Communities. So if the town were to approve it, it, it might not satisfy the requirements of the Commonwealth. So is that a law that we have to, OK, is that new or it’s just something that we er in the bylaws. Got it. You would agree with that, Matt. Yeah, I think that’s accurate. That’s accurate. Are we all set here? Any comments, any discussion? Mhm Um, what’s, what is the history of the equivalent fee and lieu. Oh Section, I mean. Has that ever been debated oh yes, don’t you remember in 133 Essex. Yeah, well, I remember when that went through, I mean the concept of ee and Lou uh as a concept, as a way to bail out of bail out of doing it’s been around for a while. Uh, I mean, you know, arguable, well, I know, uh, and I looked at this several years ago, so I’m going to apologize for From my poor memory, but different towns. Provide for their affordable housing, uh, incentives if you will, differently. Yeah. So, it isn’t as if a fee in Liu is standard. I, I, I remember, I think it was Georgetown, but And I don’t want to malign Georgetown, but, uh, I mean, they had so much discretion in terms of how a fee could be calculated. I thought that that would probably be almost subject to challenge because It just was so arbitrary. So, um, this is how Hamilton had set up the inclusion inclusionary housing by law, and I do know, uh, that it was, uh, initially was going to expire and then um. And the uh bylaw section was voted. To be continued, um, and so I think the language has been in in uh the bylaw in one form or another, uh, for quite a number of years, but in the 133 Essex, if you recall tobacco Hill tried to uh reduce the amount of the payment because they argued it’s just two bedrooms and that they, you know, we wanted to make sure that the payment could be calculated regardless of the number of units or the number of people residing there because it’s not the people, the, the Affordable housing isn’t for people who are going to be living in the senior housing. It’s for new development elsewhere or uh rehabilitation of other buildings elsewhere, so it shouldn’t be tied to just two bedrooms in a senior housing because it could arguably be 3 bedrooms or 4 bedrooms with a large family, so this, the way this is. drafted is that it will be AMI, end of story. Yeah, uh, I, I raise the question beyond 133 Essex, um, you know, when I read the inclusionary housing purpose 8.3.1. And you read 0.3. Promote geographic distribution of affordable housing units throughout the town and avoid over concentration. I think that’s a very important thing to be promoted in the town. And when I see developers sort of bailing out and with a with a fee rather than as part of making whatever it’s 10% or whatever the number is of their housing being incorporated as part of the general scheme that it seems to me has more. Um, likelihood that that’s going to promote distribution our master plan also goes into that doesn’t that, that’s what people wanted to see. Yeah. Instead of getting a, you know, a unit for 45 units or a couple of affordable housings within the same school district, well we, we don’t have a large school district, but uh. But I, you know, I, I, I’m curious whether anybody sees a benefit to what’s interesting is if you Google that question, um nobody discusses it. It’s just like this is how we do it. There’s no doesn’t seem to be any research on the effectiveness of it. It’s just a given. And I think it’s a great question because it almost goes, it seems to be counter actually to the purpose I agree. I agree. When you follow it through, it’s, I agree it’d be interesting to take a deeper dive into it. we do it now, but yeah, I can tell you though that the payments in lieu, uh, that were made by Cannerbrook, um, they were used, I mean, for the, uh, habitat for Humanity project. So I think under the circumstances that that we might want to revisit this in several years. It, it might be worthwhile doing that, but right now we’re housing, well, we’re property values are exorbitant buying just raw land it’s almost out of. reach, um, this might be at least Better than nothing because I don’t know, given the land costs, um, the dynamic of actually providing units I think clearly this is better, a better written. Yes, yes, at least it’s, it at least, um, whatever the uh payment is it can’t be, uh, little down in any way, right? So again, I think this was to this these amendments were to address the two opinion letters that Robin Stein was uh compelled to provide the planning board in, in, uh, the 133 Essex, uh. Special, uh, permit hearing, if you recall. I mean, there were questions of how, how the number of units was calculated and also how the payment was calculated. So I think this addresses those problems in the short term and bearing in mind that the inclusionary housing bylaw actually has only been, I think, used twice, and that was for Patton Ridge and Canterbrook. So to zoom back out again, I, I think it would be useful and it’s, it’s hard to say that we should do it because it’s such a short time frame, but it’d be useful. maybe in the master plan to mention that it’s good to evaluate bylaws once in a while and see how often they’re used and how, where they’re effective and where they’re not effective, yes, that’s part of the master plan and then Mark is going to provide a little bit of a litany about what What the idea of going through the bylaw looking for scrivener’s errors. What the consequence of that is. We’ll talk about that in a few minutes. OK. Because deep dive is. It’s a really deep dive it’s a heavy lift. It’s a heavy lift. OK, so, uh, if, if you are all satisfied with this memorandum, this tracks exactly what Robin Stein said to do. I will make the correction, the typo, and then it’s my signature on the memorandum if you will, um. I think she put a signature line in there. No, but I am, I am sending um this memorandum to the select board on behalf of the planning board. So I will do that and if, if you, you know, vote to give me the authority to go ahead and forward this memorandum to this and then from there it would go on the warrant or or this is section 48 section 5. This is really counterintuitive. It goes to the select board their review. Well, they, you know, I’m not, I don’t know whether they can change it or just say no, I, I’m not sure. But then they review it and they send it back to us and then we do a report and recommendation, uh, for the, uh, citizens at town meeting and we have to also do a public um public hearing, yeah. It’s just good for us to review it just because I know it’s confusing for the public and me as well. I thought we just sent it to select board and it went on. The warrant. No. OK. It’s a Section 408, I mean, chapter 48, section 5 is, is. Trust me, it’s, it’s not an easy read. Would you say, would you agree with that? Yeah, I think I find 48 to be confusing altogether. Section 3 is a nightmare. It just gets worse and worse, OK? So, uh, if there’s no further discussion would you like a motion so I can I make a motion that we send this memorandum to the select board you’re authorizing me to send it. I’m Marnie, our chairman, to send it to the select board for their review. second. Do you want to list what’s being sent? Oh, that’s a good idea like this is too so Hamilton select board from Marty Crouch, Chair Hamilton, planning board. Uh, Ray proposed amendments to inclusionary housing bylaws Section 8.3 of the Hamilton zoning bylaw dated December 2024. That was a team effort there I have to put the date in there so that’s a another thing I have to do that will be. The 18th. Tomorrow, yes. So does that need to be second again or was that I’ll second it again anyway. OK, yes, to be on the safe side, to be on the safe side. OK, so, uh, when I call your name, please indicate your ascent. Jonathan Poor Jonathan, I Amquist Emil Dahlquist, Beth, Darcy Dale. Darcy Dale, I and Marie Crouch, I. So off it goes. Uh, and the next item I want to take up is the change to the uh GPOD. Now this, um, we should discuss and, and if. The board approves this. I’m going to forward it to Robin Stein for a quick review and if she finds no substantive problems with this. I would like your authority to go ahead and forward this memorandum to the select board as well because as you recall the only change we made uh to the GPOD was um substituting for A build up building lot per dwelling per dwelling unit, um. For For a building lot. So I, I’m not sure what. She would find objectionable in this, uh. But I did try and lay out, uh, some of the background for the select board and uh. If she has any. Any problems of, of import, it will come back to you but um you know I’d like to get your uh reaction to this, whether you have any issues with it, uh, whether, uh, So was there any discussion in instead of saying build dwelling unit, number of bedrooms, because It said originally for a building. I guess, I, I guess it could just be a building. I just was curious because you could have like A studio apartment. That would count as a dwelling unit or an 8 bedroom house. So I didn’t know if that doesn’t matter. This was a broader brushstroke, I think originally, and the problem with the bylaw was that it was originally written as um per dwelling unit and then somewhere along the line it changed, I think very early on, um, and it was out of sync with the 80,000 square feet per dwelling unit. So it’s not that we want to rewrite the intent of this. But get it into alignment with itself and the original intent of the bylaw, which is control the sepage volume of sage and the issue is actually the building official will look at the number of bedrooms and determine, that’s the thing. That’s the Board of Health. And then the size of the fuel and the perk rate determine whether they comply or not, so it’s not the planning board, but I, I do have another question on the, now that we’re looking at ADU at the same time, and the question is, uh, There’s, there’s an Eddie you really have the same force of a primary dwelling on a GPOD lot, uh, requiring 80,000 square feet, for example, there are a number of lots that are Uh, part of the GPOD either because they are completely within it or there’s more than 33% or 1/3 of it as GPOD. Does that and maybe Mark can answer this, uh, does that Somehow negate the as of right for an ADU to be built in a GPOD site. If in fact they have an acre and they need 80,000 square feet for, well, they have 2 acres. Um, you’re kind of asking which takes precedent, the ADU law or the question here would be do as part of this amendment, do we acknowledge the, the new ADU requirement and just say accepting for, you know, compliant ADU I think we can address the ADU issue and the GPD in the ADU section, but I attend, well, I, it was a Zoom webinar and I participated in it, but there wasn’t. enough time for any real questions, but Mark, there is the mechanism for asking that question. There’s a public hearing on January 10th, uh, so the, the webinar was on the proposed regulations, uh, not, they’re not final yet, so there, there’s this public hearing. So the, the question really is, uh, an ADU in uh a GPOD, is that still as of right, or do you need a special permit. The bottom if you don’t have the equivalent. 80,000 times the number of dwelling units, right, if it wouldn’t comply, so I think for me the way I would say it is like, Which one has precedent, the GPOD or the ADU that’s which one I would think the state would say ADU and what I would say just editorially here is that the hole in the, in the *** that we just filled by changing these words is much bigger than all the ADUs you could build. Yeah, I know, yeah. So it’s it’s an order of magnitude issue. It’s a great question, but I don’t think it but I don’t think it any issue with respect to the GPOD and ADUs can be addressed in any change to the AD. It’s a great question. Yes, it really is, um, but I don’t think it changes the the power of or impact of what we have in front of us. So with respect to ADUs, you know, that the, the executive office of housing and livable Communities, and you, you can uh tell me if you got the same impression or not. They just sort of assumed that every community is. a septic has septic and plenty of water they have no clue. And so, so it seems to me that any ADU that’s constructed in Hamilton, wherever it is, has to, you know, be assessed in terms of the septic capacity of the principal dwelling. So if the you know, or and and and if it, if it can’t be accommodated, then there has to be some type of provision and I don’t know if this is site plan review or not to have another septic system put in. So, but that would be 80,000 square foot requirement that bothers me, you know, but I’m talking about any AD could be a bigger, a bigger issue where you literally have a lot where there’s not enough room to expand the septic system to accommodate the, the, the number of bedrooms. Um, and that could You know, be a physical limitation, and then the question is, is that a Um, I think you’ve really got an issue there because the the Board of Health. You can’t have a septic system that’s going to fail. Well, at the Board of Health decision, yeah they have to agree to it, but My experience is that if you were to put an addition on your house that added 3 bedrooms or so, chances are your original septic system is now noncompliant. Uh, well, generally what the building official does is say if you can demonstrate that should there be a failure, there is sufficient room next to your septic field so that you, if you had to add to your uh to your field, you, you can do it successfully. In other words, they won’t mandate a lot of cases. They won’t mandate that you upgrade your field at that point, but if it fails, and you’ll know it, you have to then make the change, but there are sites where you don’t even have that to begin with. Yeah. And that’s the, that’s the puzzle. Before we talk about AD, OK, so with this motion to authorize Marnie to send this memorandum, um, addressed to the select board. This is Robin Stein. Oh, to Robin Stein first consideration for consideration and then assuming that there’s no substantive changes that we would then um authorize you to send it on to the select board and it dated. I haven’t dated it yet, but so if for example she has any issues with this, it will come back. Otherwise it will go to the select board and it’s the proposed amendment for the groundwater protection overlay district that Marie wrote 2nd, 2nd, great. OK, point of discussion, do we want to also make a motion that if there, if Robin has no changes that it just go right OK, sorry, I didn’t OK, so we’re voting Jonathan. Uh, Beth, Darcy, Darcy Dale, I Amil, Amil Data and Marie Crouch. OK. So now, let’s see. All right, this gets bloated. OK. Uh, Be. I think before we discuss ADUs we should discuss, I think ADUs are going to be a, a larger, well, we’ll see, uh, let’s talk about the uh scrivener’s errors. Because, um, Regardless of what Mark is going to tell us. I actually would like to make some substantive changes to the site plan review, uh, section, uh, because of the number of errors that I found in that, um, and I know Darcy, you probably found some, but I think that you know with respect to the site plan review for the um for the um uh fire truck had we had the requirement of a pre-application. conference, we could have smoothed the way in this site plan review here, here and, and if you recall also, you know, our master plan has the recommendation that there be an implementation commission uh committee so that um the Boyd and commissions can communicate more effectively, uh, um, among themselves so that we don’t get into these situations where, you know, there’s this. You know, just absolutely we have to have it. This is our dream when had it come before us, that there could have been some constructive input that would have made it um maybe just, you know, a whole better uh plan because, you know what I just was talking to Amal briefly, you know, at one point, you know, if we do a top form-based code, it may be that you would want an actual museum. Where people could go in. Actually touched the old fire engine, and there could be other artifacts associated not just with the uh Fire department, but maybe with the police department and it would be old uniforms and, and there could be a bona fide museum with heating and lighting and You know, description. So you, you, you know, we could have raised those issues and maybe it would have been more beneficial and in the process the sooner, got it. Marnie, did we send that implementation committee letter to the because we do not know whether or not the master plan is on the website, that’s right. I was thinking about that last night. OK. So, anyhow, Mark, could you fill in the board on what. You discovered in conjunction with Corinne Cale. She’s been great. Yes uh. So the um back in 2016, the planning board, um, went through the entire zoning bylaw and made a series of changes they sort of reorganized the document, and they made not just one or two changes here and there, but really changes throughout the document. Um, Was anyone on the plane of word at that time that is here to. No. But like in 2012, the, the whole zoning bylaw was organized alphabetically, all the sections were use the alphabet, and then there was the switch to numeric. So it was, um, totally reformatted the document, so it was a fairly substantial effort. The town hired a consultant to help the planning board through that process. Um, and I’m sort of inferring because I wasn’t obviously here then, but my, my hunch is that it’s one of those things that went through probably like 20 different draft versions as they were making changes. And um, I, at some point the uh The process is the the final version of the bylaw once the planning board is happy with it, um, is voted on a town meeting and it’s transmitted to the town clerk, the town clerk stamps it and signs it, and it tests that it’s a true copy of the ordinance as it’s amended. And um It gets past a town meeting and then it goes to the Attorney General, the Attorney general reviews it. Usually they don’t come back with anything, but occasionally they’ll have some changes that we have to make. So unfortunately, and then the last part of that process is once we hear back from the Attorney General, um, If there’s any reformatting changes we make those changes and we post that version, so that’s the version everyone works from. What I think happened unfortunately is the, it went through the whole process. The town clerk has a copy of the bylaw from 2016 that is The correct version, it’s much cleaner looking than the version we have that we’re working from. Um, so I think that the process worked fine up until town meeting. I think unfortunately, When the document when the Entire bylaw was finalized somewhere along the way sent the wrong version to someone to post the website. So, uh, the sort of caught it. The uh the short story is, I think that unfortunately, we’ve been working from the wrong version of the bila. But that was the version that the town people passed. No, they voted on the one that we’re working from, that’s not the right version. the right version is on file with the town clerk, and it did pass a town meeting, right? Yes. Yes. Yes. Oh, I, oh, I thought you said that was the wrong one was on the warrant. Sorry. No, that was correct. OK, got it. Got it, got it. That’s where I was missing the story isn’t, if that was the only issue, that would be reasonably easy to fix. The problem is that That was almost what, 8 years ago, so in those 8 years we’ve made changes to the bylaw and we’re working from this wrong version of the biola. Fortunately, there, there haven’t been many changes, but, um, It’s going to be a little bit of a project for us to find that old Word document to then incorporate the changes from, um, Between 2016 and 2024 that were made and to get the correct version upload on the website. Um I’ve been through it but I really think Corinne, the town clerk, she spent many hours on this, um, and she’s very organized and I think we’re on a good path, but, um, If you could just bear with us a few weeks to sort of get this figured out and we might have to work with the town council to, to do that, but, um, I’m sure this has happened in other communities. It is obviously unfortunate that this happened, but we’re committed to sort of rectifying the right one went to the Attorney General and got approved. So it’s just the fact that the one that we’ve been using is not the one that was approved at got it. So we, we unleashed a can of worms. Welcome to the planning board. Well, no, I mean, it’s we should pat ourselves on the back for, for doing that because when I started looking at ADUs in the table of use regulation, I was like, why is the numbering all screwed up. Yes. And so there were, there were all the references that I found that were going to places that weren’t even in the bylaw anymore or definitions that were so yeah, it’s. Kind of so, so will we look at the whole bylaw once we get the, the new one? Yes, I mean, we’re, we’re obligated to enforce obviously it was past the town meeting, so we have to sort of fix that. I think under these circumstances are endeavor to. Just correct scrivener’s errors might be a little premature, so I, I think until we actually have, but there’s a physical copy some we have a physical copy. Just trying to find the original document and it may be that that original document still has issues, but we don’t want to go ahead and forge ahead, uh, you know, if it has to be changed again. I mean, it’s too much effort to we will have to have a list of the things that we changed in between they’re, they’re not that many. Yeah. So I know with respect to site plan review. The big change was that with respect to that section. was that uh initially, I think it was the zoning board of appeals, and there was a citizen’s petition to make it the planning board back in the day when the planning board was popular. So, so, uh, nonetheless, uh, you know, we’ve, we’re, we’re amending the GPOD. We’re amending the inclusionary housing bylaw, and I thought that it might be if we can get the, the correct version of uh site plan review that we tackle that one. Mm, that we just limit ourselves to that and, and that would be an accomplishment to, to, to clean that up, to make sure it says that uh the property owner should be the applicant. That’d be uh one, issue, um. And there might not be all those other errors if it’s the right document, actually. Were you able to clean out that um. The um section 10.6 mark. I did, yes, I, um, I apologize, Marnie. I think I only printed the 1st 3 pages, but that might get us at least started. Yeah, um, well, you know, maybe Darcy, when you read it, um, You know, I think what we should do is everyone should look at um the site plan review and, and, and make their suggested edits to it, um. Thank you. So that’s what this is. OK. First So here’s a, here’s a primary example. 10.6.4.9. Yeah. It refers to entries B1, B3 and B7 in the table of uses. A shell require site plan review under 10.7, 10.7 embodies the Dover Amendment. That’s, that’s the educational and religious. Yeah. Cyly review. Section B1 and B3 refer to agricultural uses. And B7 doesn’t exist. Yeah And then there were some other changes, uh, to that, uh, but I think that if we were to take a look at this site plan review. Um Provision we could incorporate um a requirement for a pre-application con uh conference and we might want to put some parameters on that. I mean, we don’t necessarily need a site plan review, um, for example, um, if someone is uh just carving off a lot or something quite simple but maybe we would want it if there’s any uh type of construction. Yeah, I think the first step would be for the applicant to talk to. Uh, Mark Connors about the general nature of it and then Mark can give him direction in terms of that’s sufficiently complicated. You know, go to the, uh Or just an executive decision. No, you don’t have to. Have a site plan review or pre-application review. um. So I think typically that’s how it happens in a lot of communities anyway that um. But I, I would say certainly any town project should go before the site, uh, before the planning board. What scale, I just think that’s just a wise thing to do. That’s consistent, I think, with the master plan requirement to get different boards and commissions to communicate with each other. And uh you know, if in the event is typically a site plan review would require Or pre-application committee would have DPW there would have the police chief there, the fire chief, and so forth, a combination of people who get to hear the same presentation and then can Of of their comments and then uh um. But they could join the planning board, you know, in that kind of uh uh situation unless they want it separate, you know, but um I always think it’s great for it to be. In one round table discussion, there’s a lot of a lot of those when I worked in Gloucester and be in a room this big and they would fill it with every board, every representative from every board, and they were great discussions. And, and Mark, I think you had some comments about this too, but for example, in 10.6.5, it says the applicant shall file 24 copies of all family a waste of paper. This is the digital age. I mean. Who gets all those copies? Who, what are they for? It’s one of those things where you can read the, you kind of want to stop reading because you have so many things you want to change that, um, so I like your idea of sort of tackling it one section at a time, so let’s take a crack at this and maybe you can look at it from, do you really want 24 copies? No, no. Absolutely not. You know, really. I tell that that’s when it used to cost money to get reproductions, you know, for, uh, in towns we sort of pushed that off on. On a developer to uh Get all the printing done in advance and then to copy all of the board members and so, yeah, yeah, yeah, but I mean even if you took that’s what I think that’s what it was for digital now, you know, the, the boys can review a lot of this stuff. Pretty easily. I mean, I, I know, I really like to see the plans if they’re really You know, significant, uh, big because the little ones are so hard to read, but, um, a lot of the site plan review isn’t that complicated because if it were, um, well, I mean, they, they, they might not be site plan review. It could be a special permit. So. Um-hum. Um, Uh, I think that’s my suggestion is that we focus on this particular provision, um, and then if, if you can make sure that we are dealing with. Right, language, then we can tackle that uh if you could actually mark, here’s an idea, and please if anybody disagrees or has a better one, just let me know if you provide us with The 10.6 as it was adopted and potentially amended the exact right one we can tackle it and if everybody reads through it and has ideas, um, then we can um Uh, submit those ideas to Mark, he can compile them and then we can discuss them, uh, but again, I think we want to make sure that the applicant is the property owner that there’s a pre-application. Well, there’s a requirement that prior to filing the site plan review application that they contact you to make sure that that that they either file a full site plan review or whether they’re eligible for an abbreviated site point of view and then, uh, under what circumstance? chances would it be appropriate for the for the applicant to come in for a pre-application conference. So those are all additions to what’s here now, and then go through and then amend whatever else um. It is, it is warranted, not least of which is the 24 copies. How many copies do we want? I think it’s, it actually tells you, um, you’re gonna need a minimum of 19 because they, the town clerk shall forward 10 copies to the planning board and one copy each to the building commissioner, DPW select board, Board of Health Conservation police department, fire department office of disability and one for the town clerk to put in the vault. Well, the one for the town clerk to put in the vault, but they can be digital copies. And so, yeah, it’s, it’s it this now says copies. I mean, they, you know, and you could say digital copies to everyone and, uh, you know, a real copy upon request, a hard copy to be provided upon request. I mean, they need to file one or some number of hard copies, but hard copy upon request, um, so that would be my recommendation. So then one digital copy to Mark and then he disperses it or they would have to file a certain number of hard copies full stop whatever that might be, would it be 7 for the planning board members or 8, but not necessarily 24, but then they file the digital copies with the other boards and whatever and they would file that or would Mark file that? No, they would file the digital copies wherever the digital copies it’s, you know, wherever the bb ies go, they can file the hard copies and the digital copies, and then people can request a hard copy if the digital copy isn’t, doesn’t serve their purpose, something along those lines. Got it. So I think that takes care of that, you know, we may. Do you think our time frame is good for getting this on a town meeting. I’d like to get this cleaned up because this is one bylaw section that’s used a lot more than any other, I mean. When would we have to have the hearing by February February. Cause it goes to the printer in March, the warrant. Oh, it does. OK. Sneaking up on us, but I think we have enough time. All right. We can try Uh, they’ll probably be a special town meeting, uh, for the form-based code and uh my understanding is that the town can call a special town meeting at any time. It doesn’t have to be in the fall. Right. So if we, if we don’t make the cut. You know, it’s something I’m sure that the more things that can go on a special town meeting, there’s a certain cost I’m sure to the town meeting, so we don’t want to have that. Yeah. Yeah. Right. So, um, I think that takes care of our scrivener’s errors. Would you agree? Any more comments? Well, the other thing is, uh, uh, I, I haven’t uh looked at um. The building inspectors, uh, Uh, scrivener’s errors and Mark, I don’t know if you’ve looked at them, but. Ah He’s found problems with the table of. dimensional regulations and That’s That’s an issue because You know, with the ADUs so the one takeaway that I got, we can start talking about ADUs now. The one takeaway I got with the ADUs. You can have site plan review for an ADU. The bottom line was you can’t. Do anything special for an ADU that’s different than what you do for, uh, the principal dwelling. So if you don’t require site plan review for the principal dwelling, you can’t have site plan review, uh, for the ADU, um, unless it’s over 900 square feet or blah, blah, blah. Uh. Thank you. But One of the things with the uh. ADUs is that that well in in any the principal dwelling is they have to uh adhere to the. table of Dimensional regulations. And so You know, this is a problem. If, if Section 4, that’s table of dimensional. Did anyone else have a chance to participate in the webinar or read the regulations or. I just Uh, the, I think it was last Monday they came up and they said, oh, we have the regulations and tomorrow morning we’re going to do webinar. I had a budget meeting so I couldn’t, so I didn’t actually watch it till yesterday, so. Um, still sort of digesting it, um. But, you know, similar takeaways from Marie. There was a part of the webinar where the woman hosting it says, you know, we fashion these regulations to have as many 80Us as possible, and I rewound it to make sure I heard her right because I think that’s important. So you, you were asking I’ll just interrupt you for a second. She said the goal is 8000 to 10,000 new ADBs in the state of Massachusetts of Massachusetts. Is that something that’s recorded that you could forward to us? It is, yeah. That would be amazing, you can go on the website. It’s uh. Did I write it down? I I Mm. www.mass.gov/ADU. Well, that’s easy. Um, they did say you could have design standards for 80 years, so that’s something we could think about, um. They said the standard design guidelines were standards. Well, they were really pushing to the the extent you have standards, they have to be clear and objective, so you can’t say like it has to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood or something, that’s a little bit fluffy, um, yeah, they really didn’t like neighborhood character, no, that’s, that’s a bad word, but you could require that I have a pitched roof and that meet a certain um Grade or you can require that they’re not be an exterior staircase or that there not be uh doors facing the front of the building, um. So they’re, you can certainly have reasonable requirements. It’s just, um, They’re, they’re pushing us away from sort of having discretionary requirements for sure. And any kind of requirements that like add. Cost unreasonable cost to the ADU. They’re evaluating it that way, but um. There, the, the uh folks from the executive office did indicate that they were going to have a sample by law. But um We’ll see, you know, when that comes out. So what I might suggest, um, You know, ideally I’d like to have something on April. our meeting just because uh. are by law obviously conflicts with the new state requirements, um. So if we could minimize that amount of time that that conflict exists, I think that would be ideal, um. So perhaps I could work with you, Marnie, um. Making some edits and presenting something for the January 7th meeting. Yeah, I did have, I, I, I’m did a second draft from my 1st draft, and maybe we can work through that, um, I think that it really is important to distinguish between detached ADUs and then ADUs that might be above a garage or actually in the, in the house or uh An addition Um, to the height of the house or whatever, um, but it’s the detached ADUs that probably, um, You need to think about a little bit, but again, um, I think it’s the table of dimensional regulations that it’s going to be key here. Because all single family houses have to adhere to that. So whatever applies to the as of right single family house. Applies to the ADU. So you’re saying that we need to have that work on that to get that changed for the next town meeting, because there were some concerns if we can, I mean, it’s there, they’re to me, the issues come down to uh. Septic and whether you need a, uh like some type of storm water management. So permit Um She did say at one point, you know, that septic requirements are still in effect, so this doesn’t. They still have to meet the septic prove that that’s a separate thing and that the if, if, for example, if you wanted to put your ADU on a steep slope, I would think that that you would need a stormwater management permit too, but I think that has to be because it’s now as of right. I think those requirements really have to be clearly stated. Did they mention anything about um detached ADUs in front yards as an accessory building. I think you could require that it be in the backyard or side yard. So that again gets gray because, you know, what, what does side yard mean? You know, what if it’s, what if it’s in the side yard, but proud of the main house, you know, this is where design. Standards they, they mentioned could help, you know, I think the front yard setback is the front yard setback setback is you can have that. That’s just play devil’s advocate for just a moment and imagine that um, there’s a series of houses where they’re the principal house as it exists is way further back from the the the um front yard setback. Now what you can do is you can bring your accessory drilling unit still be in the side yard. not break the front yard setback, but now you’ve got these little snouts all the time, you know, you got this little building in front of the big building. Um, you know, which sort of flies in the face of like the principles of code or or good street planning scale, your scale, I’m gonna hold my tongue here for a second. Um, uh, the scale can be too small, not just too big to hold a straight line. Right. OK. So you’re talking about a circumstance where the Principal dwelling is much farther back much farther back and your ADU shifts forward and if you just say side yard, you haven’t really covered it. So you really have to talk about kind of design standards and talk about position and and sort of it gets into street frontage types, you know, sort of the discussions we’ve been having around form-based code. So it’s, it’s pretty intricate if you want to, if you want to have some guidelines around this, a lot of work to do is what I’m saying. Yeah. Yeah, I’ve seen before where people doing sheds, for example, tool sheds, uh, they, they cannot be put closer than a house is actually, even though that is, is well beyond the front yard setback. I have to say that if that’s the intent to be in relationship to the principal house. Well, yeah, you could say that no ADU can be in front of a principal dwelling that’s clear and then you have to define it. Yeah. So what does in front of mean? One other thing I think we got to clean up is these different definitions on gross square footage. Uh, I have a definition and the regulations. Yeah, but one of them I just read and I I didn’t see it in the ADU here, but it was pertaining, I think, to ADUs. It was It includes sellers, basements, uh. Attic spaces, that’s never included in gross square footage and housing. um, and yet all of that was in and I couldn’t believe that uh they would actually do that because that’s not standard and normal, uh, single family housing. And anyway, If in looking at our definitions in a bylaws if we can just square away because I, I disagreed with the one comment I had for the billing officials. definition was, um, Uh, gross, I think it was gross square feet, and what it what it contained, you know, typically because he um It’s, it’s actually the sum of all of the floors, and he didn’t put that in there so that you could misinterpret that saying it’s just the projected area on the ground. It’s just the footprint, but it should be the sum of all the floor areas, you know, in the building, including, but not including basements and typically garages are not included in the and then you have to start, you know, is, is deck deck and porches and uncovered porches and so, you know, there’s a lot of definitions around um. Lot coverage, square footage. So I’ve read a couple of definitions of gross square footage, and they all they that they need to be coordinated, I think in the in the codes. OK There’s a lot to do here is the, is the summary here. A lot of work. The other weird thing that comes up, um. For example, Beverly has um uh bylaw that says a shed can never be in the front yard. You know, no. Well, there are properties where the rear yard is just two front yards. Now what? So, you know, there’s, there’s so many weird permutations you have to be thinking about. And if, these things are really being promoted, all those weird situations are going to come up. You almost need to drive around and, and imagine, you know, we’re looking at, uh, uh, you know, Cessor’s map and look and sort of imagine. Look at anomalous, look for anomalous lots and figure out what would happen here, worst case condition, and then you got to kind of code for it. So Mark, is this a to you uh from the state? Yes, these are the drafts this is their gross square area, gross floor area. Some of all some of the areas of all floors of the building, including basements, cellars, mezzanine, and intermediate uh floored tiers and penthouses of headroom height. Yeah, measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls, yeah. Or from the center line of walls separating buildings, yeah, but excluding covered walkways, open roofed over areas. I’ve never seen. Sellers and mezzanines, yes, uh, if they meet a certain criteria, uh, and then. A penthouse of headroom height, yes, that’s part of the square footage they’re they’re they’re I don’t know. I know I was wondering they’re I don’t know. I know I was wondering Are they including all those unusual items to make sure that the ADUs can be at least, well, can they reach 900 square feet exhaust all their area in their basements. I don’t get it. And that is a disconnect to me anyway to get more clarity on that. I agree with you. I don’t typically think of sellers. Although I have seen situations where like a seller was converted to an ADU. Well, if it’s finished, yes, yeah. Yeah. OK, is there any more, uh, discussion about um. AD uses So it’s to be continued and we’ll work on this and um Uh, the, you know, you can go on that website and there’s an ability to ask questions. Oh. So, uh, I don’t know if they pay more attention to planning board members or the planning director, but uh certainly if you have any questions you could forward them to Mark and he could, uh, you know, then, uh. put them in the uh Appropriate place, uh, for the, uh, uh, regulation, so I, I didn’t they indicate that there were two avenues you could sort of ask the question, but if you wanted to make a comment relative to the public hearing on the regulations. That was a separate Uh way to proceed, so, uh, I think if, if, if, if you, if we have any Questions like that and I I really urge everybody to review these regulations and look at our accessory dwelling unit by law, and if you have have any questions, forward them to Mark and he can compile them and then like here I am, Hamilton, uh, planning director and I have the following questions, blah, blah, blah, blah blah. Are there any towns that you know of that are well ahead of the curve on this process that would be good to look at as models. Well, what I, what some Hartons have done is they get impatient with the state releasing the regulations, so they went ahead and proposed their own pilot before this, so like Middleton I know had a special town meeting a few weeks ago and I think they passed. um updated ADU requirements. Um. So certainly could look at those examples, although. It certainly copy them, but just to learn from them, not necessarily to copy them, but to learn from them. Sure, sure. Yeah, see what they did may be different. I mean, I, I think that really, except for the um. Detached ADU, which is going to be tricky. The real focus needs to be on the, um, table of dimensional. Uh, regulations in a sense because they apply to the principal dwelling and, and that, and that will apply to the ADU especially the detached ADU. Uh, but other than parking and um a prohibition of a requirement for, um, The property owner to be an occupant of the principal dwelling um the changes are not that draconian. Um. The difference is there’s going to be more development pressures, so again the anomalous situations are going to come to come at us faster. Yeah. That’s all. Yeah, well, you know, it’s still, uh, these ADUs are going to be as of right, but the question is how many people will take advantage of that. I mean, you do have to build them and what, what’s the minimum dollar per square foot for construction these days like. $275 a square foot but what is it triple triple triple.. 00 my God. Yeah, so I mean, people aren’t gonna just go build an ADU because they want to, you know, they’re, they’re gonna have to get the money together to do it. You know, the smaller the building, the higher the unit costs. Yes. So what would it be like? 900,,,, 66 to 900. I recently you can buy these on the market now, you know, these tiny modular kits that uh. Well, you can probably 70,000, I think we can we need to prohibit. Like, um, You know, mobile home type siding yeah like that. The other thing that’s really intriguing is multiple ADUs. Oh yeah, but if you have more than one, that’s a special permit. One thing that for people to think about is you, although you can rent it out on the private market if you want to. Most of the landlord Laws still apply to you, so Massachusetts has fairly strict tenant protection requirements, so. You know that’s obviously something to consider um before you jump into this. $900 square foot for building encountered two ADUs recently that came in at $1000 a square foot and they were boxes square foot times $900 a square foot, that’s an $810,000 ADU. Yeah. I don’t think we’re going to see that many square feet. Yeah, I don’t think we’re going to see that many ADUs. Frankly, I mean, I could be wrong, but No, but you can’t get them for, you know, 80 $80,000 you know, as a kid. Yes, yeah, trucked in and set in place and some of them can be really nice. They’re very nice, yeah. And I don’t think we can outlaw kits, um, and, and kids can be quite well crafted. In fact, many of the, the buildings probably over in the, you know, in the, well, in this neighborhood, probably were kit houses that arrived on the railroad. Sears houses. There were high Victorians that arrived as kids. Oh yeah, on a national register now, but they were houses, but more and more of these houses being built in a factory, so they’re completely controlled construction. They’re all well insulated, they’re all, you know, basically have all the utilities concealed and. So It’s pretty sophisticated. Hm But the reason the cost goes up is as I alluded to the as you compress the square footage, you’ve still got a kitchen and maybe two bathrooms and all the mechanicals, but they’re all squashed into a smaller square footage, so that pushes the cost per square foot up. Whereas if you build a massive inefficient. You know, McMansion, the cost per square foot comes down. Right, interesting. Sort of stupid backwards, but that’s how it works. Hm OK, so, uh. Waiting for. What? A motion for. Oh no, we have to talk about the master plan.. 000. Make a motion do it. I don’t want to talk about the master plan. How, what’s the status of the master plan? Oh, don’t hate me, but I, I’ve been a little preoccupied with other things so I really haven’t gotten to it, I promise over the holidays I will make it a priority, but um. The Conservation commission doesn’t have an agent, so it’s, um. at the moment, oh, you’ve been the conservation agent too. Do they have members? I’m sorry? Do they have members? They do have one new member, so it’s a little bit easier to have quorums these days. Didn’t they just recently have a new person take that and then. Or is that? They had two stepped down, so. OK. And then we got another member. Yeah. And one new. But there was a. The first month I was here, we, it was really difficult to get a meeting because if one member was absent, we didn’t have a car. Got it. Oh, boy. The new member has quite the resume though, so she’s a real asset, um, so yes, uh, please, um, can we shoot for, um. January Yes, yes, we have, uh, 3 weeks until the next meeting. So we do have a little break, um, after this meeting. What’s next. And then. You, did you want to talk further about potential update of land use applications or is that subsumed within site plan review. I think it’s a great thing to go along the site plan reviews, so the, um, If we can get those site plan review regulations updated are, are application forms, so the application form the person with the application fills out is extremely dated and doesn’t have a lot of um information about who the owner is, who’s, you know, representing the application, typically the owner signs the application. Um, things like that, uh, so I think it’s just veryated and could use a refresh and um also be more convenient for people, so right now you can’t, you can’t, uh, fill that in. the PDF it’s, it’s two data of a document, so just to make it a little bit more, um. Well, you know, have at it. I mean, that’s kind of those forms aren’t really accessible to the members, I suppose we could, but I mean, if you want to add that to your to do list. I mean, I’m now getting nervous about your to do list on your behalf, uh. It’s certainly something that we consider, and I don’t think we need public hearings on anything like that, you know, we can just adopt them and, uh, you know, so if you have some ideas and, and, uh, you know, in your spare time, um, you know, put something out, you know, I’m sure the board would be happy to, you know, look at it and, and make some suggestions. I know you were uh really interested in making sure that whenever, you know, with these applications that the abutting houses are shown. Drawn, not just, not just mentioned but drawn relative to the, uh, principal uh we didn’t have that with the school. TUFA application and we didn’t have it with this and that, that kind of, uh, Leads to that um uh memorandum from KP law. Did anyone read that? Which what am I talking about? When we get it? Time ago, I see. Uh, yes, this is very significant. This was part of this mass leads Act. Um, that was signed on November 20th. Basically, Uh, says it, it. It extends permits. So, for example, the litigation involving um the softball field that was commenced by Anne Gro. Um, that will probably be dismissed. Because the permit from January will be extended. Hm So take a look at this, uh, uh, it’s, it’s, it’s really quite um I’ve never seen that. Yeah, it looks it looks different. I think I only forwarded that to you, Marty, but I will Forward it to. Oh, good. Good, good. Yeah. Because I went and actually looked at the law to make sure that it applied. To um The, uh, oh, was it chapter 131. I, I, I. I, I apologize, but it does refer to environmental permits and it, it would apply to a wetlands permit or anything like that. There you have it. Interesting. This is significant. Hm I mean, I actually looked at the. In this summary that KP Law sent around, they didn’t actually highlight all the statutes that were implicated and I looked at them. So Uh, so now the potential revision of our planning board schedule. Sure. I sort of made some marked up changes, uh, we can talk about. Thank you. Thanks. Also, uh, an email from the library director. There was some conflicts with. Thank you. I think Patrick had told me that. Well. Oh gosh. Well, so, so, most of the changes I made, I would say are the don’t really affect the planning board. They’re too, they’re to the deadline, so it affects me more, I think, than anyone, um, and the issue I had was the, the deadline days change, so some days they’re, they’re on like a Thursday or a Monday or a Tuesday and Friday. And, um I think it’s easier for me just to have it on the same day of the week, so what I did is change all of those that they fall on a Monday, 4 weeks before the meeting day. Right. OK, so that, this is great, but so I had from Patrick, so the 25th, the library is not available. I have, I had two other dates from him. March 18th and April 1st. These are application deadlines, we don’t, you know, that’s for Mark. It’s the left side that we’re concerned about. So the February 18th, just so we know, that’s school vacation week, so I know that like Some people like Pat and maybe Matt. Oh, right, yeah. That’ll be a conflict. Yeah And Jeff probably as well. So if the library isn’t opened, is there another venue library would be open. I’m just saying that school vacation week, so people might not be here, might not get a quorum, but we probably would have a quorum. I’m just saying that. Yeah, I just bringing that up for those who Probably might be on vacation that week. Well, you know, we’re, it’s, it’s, it’s a problem because the library is not available and we don’t have any other options for places to meet that I’m aware of. Um. Yeah, I just wanted to say it and then, I mean, and when we set the original schedule. I, I told Patrick school vacation week all federal holidays, state holidays and religious holidays. I looked it through and I didn’t find any of those, so that was good. He did a good job. But these are the dates that they’re not available, the 25th June 10th is probably OK, that’s fine. Uh, but, uh, Mark check March 18th and April 1st because I, I have, um, a list that Patrick gave me and I have notes on March 18th and April 1st that they weren’t it wasn’t the library was not available. And could we do a Zoom if we need to? Yeah, I mean, just not that we want to do that regularly, but just if Yeah, so, so, um. You know, maybe February 25th, we could do a zoom. Because we’re on a pause with respect to the uh The form-based code so if we’re just reviewing um materials, uh, we could probably do that via Zoom if there’s no other date that works the other thing I want to bring up there is for us to have a solid timeline on anything. That we need on the warrant if there’s things we want on the warrant, do we need it before the 25th or is it better to have it the 25th. Do you know what I’m saying I just, I, I don’t know if we can back into when we do need to know that and I had it, um, at one point, I knew that information, but now I don’t, so I think we would have to get. Materials. Toward the beginning of March at the latest. What did you say, OK, so if town meeting is in April so it’s gonna go to the printer probably around March 18th or 20th in there I said beginning of March so then we have to have the hearing how far in advance of that. Is it like a 4 week or 2 week? Is it 2 weeks? Mm In advance of the town meeting getting it on the warrant. We have to have the public hearing on the inclusionary housing bylaw. The GPOD and if we can get the uh site plan review we’d have to have public hearings on those amendments they require 14 day notice, I believe that’s what I was thinking it was 14 days. So could you check that, Mark, because we’d have to back that out and that would mean that we could have a, if we can all have a timeline on when we have to have, yeah, the. Yeah, well, just we need to know what the last day we could have the hearing is, or whatever, so then we can figure out when we have to. Do the other work, yeah. Let’s look at February. That’s 2024. Let’s look at February 2025. So otherwise, I mean, I’m, I’m doing a Zoom on the 25th is great. I just want to make sure it doesn’t. It’s not beyond our date, but it might be better if it’s later in the month if we have a lot of work to do and we need those hearings. Cause that’ll give us a little more time, so. And do we care if it’s in person when we do a hearing? Oh, it has to be has to be OK, so then that could. That could inform that choice as well. Um. Can you do multiple hearings in a meeting. For yeah yeah, you can do it. I was wondering that. Yeah, I didn’t know. Save some time. Well, yeah. efficiency, especially if you only have like small things that you’re changing although we could look at February 11th, but I, I, I’m sorry, you know, if we might have to use February 18th. No, that’s fine. I just wanted us to be aware when we chose that, not to not choose it if that’s all we really have. I just want to make sure we looked at other options. We could look at February 18 that’s gonna be a hard time. OK, so February 18th February 11 we could look at. Yeah, the issue I would have more than planning board members not being here is if we’re going to have a public hearing that that would exclude a lot of people who are on people with kids who are on vacation. Right, uh, you know, I, So I’d rather do the 11th, is what I’m saying, because that would be right. But we also need to check March 18th and April 1st because of the library is not available those days. That’s a problem because if we It Um Well, we could, uh, April 1st would be a problem just because can we do a Zoom on April 1st? Probably, probably you know what I’m saying? I mean, we definitely can’t do the public hearing on a Zoom. So if we did a Zoom for that. We have to really pay attention to our schedule. Um, there’s no doubt about it, and I’m thinking that maybe we need to work harder. And maybe throw in an extra meeting in January. Let’s not wreck the holidays. Making that, uh, announcement now, but on January 7th, I think we might have to bite the bullet. I mean, we have work to do. Is there a conservation agent now to have we hired one? No, but, um, we have applications for. Um, my understanding is scheduling interviews, so hopefully. OK, um, so now, Now, uh, We’ve completed all items on our agenda. Is now the time for me to make a motion to adjourn. Well, I, I think you could unless anyone has a motion Not bad, 8:30, 8:34. Do I have a second? OK. Jonathan? Yeah. A Hi Darcy, and Marie. I We’re