they shouldn’t have Hey folks. I don’t know if Bill’s going to come or not. Yeah, he’ll be OK. Happy Tuesday. Happy Tuesday. So good to see so many people in the cold. Caroline, do you want to go first and call you Joe. Yeah. 10 degrees, is that right? I’ve been out there a couple of times. I’m not

looking forward to going back out I have to with us? But we wouldn’t have to. If, uh If we had a nice zoom link to tonight’s meeting. Can you hear us on the mic? The only way you could have done that is if we’ve done the free budget presentation all on Zoom with no live components. Don’t have

a way to do Zoom outside of the library. So, so there’s not going to be a recording of our. OK So will it be live then or will it be? It will only be live in person. That’s what I I can’t figure out how to get my

uh name to show up, but. I was trying to change it for you and I’m not allowed to because I’m not the host, so I can’t can’t figure out why. Yeah. Yeah, I’m trying to change my name so it doesn’t have my work stuff on here. Yeah If you use the link

and didn’t sign in, you sometimes can’t manipulate it, but if you sign in, it will allow you to update it under your profile. Typically, I don’t know. I don’t think they can hear us yet. on it so here Mark I was going too smoothly. The first meeting Tom and I were at was done in less time

than it was supposed it was scheduled for, so I knew something was going to get in our way tonight. I’m glad it’s not at the house. Testing I can hear you. Can you hear us? Can you hear us? Yeah. Yeah. OK. OK. Yeah. Caroline, do you want to call your board to order.

Thank you. Yes, ma’am, I do. Um, all right, we have um here so uh it is 6:20. Uh, PM and I called to order the joint, the select board for the joint planning board meeting of January 21st, 2025. I’m having trouble hearing. Uh, Caroline, we need a roll call, uh, attendance.

Yeah, they just said they couldn’t hear, so. It’s a volume issue in the room. It’s not your OK, so, um, I’m gonna go ahead with the rule called vault starting with you, Tom Myers. Oh Tom Meyers here. Uh, Bill Wilson. Bill Wilson here. Uh, Rosie Rosie Kennedy here. And William Olson. William Molson here and Carolyn Boe

also present. Uh, I will go ahead and call the uh January 21st planning board meeting to order, um, the meeting is being recorded, um, I’ll begin with roll calls, so, uh, planning board members when I call your name, please indicate that you’re present, Pat Norton. Jonathan Poor Jonathan Po present Amil Dahlquist Emil

Dahlquist present. Um Beth Present Darcy Dale. Darcy Dale here, Matt Hammill Jeff Austin. Jeff Austin and Marie Crouch present and I know for the record that Bill Wheaton is not present, but my recollection is that he may just be a little late. So it’s my understanding that we will uh receive a presentation from KP Law, so I

suppose we should just get started just quickly as a reminder, the select board has to uh end around 6:45 because we have to go start our meeting at 7, exactly what you said, Barney, KP law is here to sort of give us an overview and understanding of uh the the decision that was brought down

and then sort of what the high level sort of interpretation and implications are. That, uh, there’s been a lot of emails going around. Marty, your email, I think was great in terms of sort of outlining some of the next steps. I think that those are going to be important for us to discuss, uh, but that

probably will not happen today. I think today is really just to start with a base level understanding across the two boards of sort of how our legal folks are interpreting this and what they think that it means and what the implications and impacts might be, um, and then

we can make a list of follow-on items for discussion, um, I think also there will not be public. Comment as a part of this discussion, uh just because of the time limitations that we have to, we have 20 minutes to sort of cover this and, and ask questions across the two boards. Uh, I agree

with you, uh, Caroline, and I, I do think that uh another meeting, another joint meeting between the uh select board and the planning board could be very useful. All right, Amy, I will turn it over to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. um Amy Brussel, um, town council from KP Law, um, as most of you know

on um January 8th, the Supreme Judicial Court issued their decision in the Nelson case, the Attorney General versus the town of Milton. And in that case, um, the SJC, the Supreme Judicial Court, they held that first of all, first and foremost, that Section 3A is constitutional, um, and then

they that it is um it’s mandatory and can be enforced by the Attorney General. Um, the, as, as most of you know, the statute, um, part, subpart B of the statute provides that um one of the enforcement mechanisms is the with withholding of grant money. Um, the SJC held that not only in

addition to the withholding of grant money, the Attorney General also has the authority To enforce under um chapter 12, section 10, which is their general enforcement powers, the Attorney general’s general enforcement powers. And the third, um, the 3rd issue that they, that they determined was that the guidelines that were implemented by EOHLC are um not

enforceable, they are invalid because they should have been regulations promulgated under the administrative Procedures Act, which is the APA. Mhm. So, um, As a result of that decision on um January, uh. On the next, the next week on that Tuesday, um, the EOHLC issued emergency regulations. The emergency regulations are essentially um, they, they

mimic the guidelines except for a couple, um, A couple of due dates, deadlines that have to be fulfilled. Um, the emergency regulations were issued, um, they were issued under the emergency being a housing crisis, which is a public health crisis. And so, uh, the emergency regulations were issued and in those emergency regulations, a noncompliant

municipality. Ha, they have to issue, they have to submit an action plan by February 13th, and then they have to enact 3A compliant zoning by July 14th. So, um, What this means for most, um, most non-compliant cities and towns is that, um, you know, 3A compliance zoning has to be um determined and considered during the

Springtown meeting cycle. Um, you know, Towns can, there’s nothing, there’s nothing prohibiting a town from doing the um 3A zoning with, you know, at a special town meeting at a different time. But with the, with the due date being July 14th. Most cities and towns are oppressed or most towns because

cities. Don’t have town meetings, but most towns are, are, um, They’re kind of limited to their spring town meeting. And then um The HLCEO HLC has also, uh, determined that they are also indicated that they will be issuing final regulations, and they will be issuing final regulations. Those regulations will have a public comment period, they

will have to, um, they will have to address the comments that come in, etc. um, I, I don’t see a lot. I don’t anticipate a lot of difference between the draft regulations and the final regulations. But in any event, those will have to be promulgated pursuant to the APA, which does require

public comment, um, and I anticipate that those um that the final regulations will take effect within 90 days because the emergency regulations are only in effect for 90 days. So that’s The overview of the Milton case and the, and the resulting actions that need to be taken. And do we have, I

mean, I know they’re within the emergency regulations, but is it worth running through what those Regulations and grants. Or do we even know that in full yet. So, um, so the grant, um, the grants are the um the grants that are subject to with, to being withheld are, uh, they come from 4 different funds.

The funds are listed in the statute. And then there are 13 specific grants that are listed in the regulations. I will tell you that, um, grants outside of those 13 listed are also somewhat subject to compliance with 3A. Because grants are discretionary, uh, in their nature, they are discretionary

and so um we have seen additional grants, um, being withheld, for example, um, Milton got $144,000 seawall grant taken away from them, um, there have been threats of other seawall grants being taken away, um. As you probably know, um, Last week on Thursday, fire department grants were taken away, however, those were reinstated back on Friday, um,

and, you know, right now, um, You know, that’s as far as we’ve seen, um, the expand, you know, the expansion go, um, Other grants seem to be Still in play, um, it’s mostly any grant that comes from EOHLC, so they are generally um economic development grants, um, housing grants, um, Safe streets,

sidewalk, you know, grants for sidewalks, things like that. That’s generally what are, what Should what are going to be withheld pursuant to the statute. However, again, that has been expanded by this, by the Commonwealth. Thank you for that. Um. Does anybody have any specific clarifying questions. For Amy I would have one question, and that is whether

there’s an opportunity to challenge the emergency nature of these regulations because it seems to me to be a self-created emergency, the failure to comply with the administrative procedures Act was in some sense foreseeable in so now in substance the same guidelines slash regulations are being issued, but is, is the emergency. see the fear

that some communities will backtrack and and and rescind their compliance because they complied with metrics and guidelines that are invalid, um, that would be question number one and question number 2 would be uh the assessment of the viability of participating in the public hearing process because I know that uh the supreme judicial court

referenced uh in in its. Decision, uh, that experts were uh uh uh. At least in theory, I supposed to tailor the guidelines to fit real world conditions of each MBTA community affected by the act and in addition, the supreme Judicial Court in its last footnote, uh, indicated that there was the possibility that

the guidelines last slash regulations would be different than the ones that are now on the table. So, um, I’m not actually, I, I’m not privy to why exactly HLC, um, you know, implemented emergency regulations. Clearly they anticipated the result from the SJC since they had the emergency regulations, um, ready to go. I, I have been

told that it was thoroughly vetted the Commonwealth did thoroughly vet the fact that they had the ability to issue emergency regulations pursuant to the public health crisis, which is the housing crisis. Um, so that is the purpose. For apparently, according to them, that’s the purpose for these emergency regulations, um, you know, you bring up a good, a

good point about whether it was to, you know, to stop cities and towns that are already compliant from From reversing that decision that really only could happen in um you know, in cities with a city, a city council could vote because There’s really no way that a town could could get a special

town meeting on the books, and that, you know, a planning board could hold a 48 section 5 hearing, etc. before these final regulations will be implemented. I, I anticipate final regulations to come out very soon because if they already had the emergency regulations ready, I’m sure they’re, they’ve made very um significant strides in, in and

act and, you know, in issuing final regulations. Um And the SGC did specifically state in their last footnote that um that the regulations could be different than the guidelines. They didn’t order, you know, there was nothing stating that they had to be different from the guidelines. Obviously, the

biggest difference is going to be the deadline, because in the guidelines, the deadline was December 31st, 2024. So we already know there’s going to be one, you know, there is one difference, um. You know, the guidelines, um, The guidelines while they’re, while they’re unenforceable. I think the SJC made it clear that they were unenforceable because of the

way that they were enacted, not by what they say. In fact, that’s what the the last footnote says they’re not the SGC specifically is not deciding that the guidelines were, you know, inadequate for other reasons. It was mainly because they were essentially regulations that were not

enacted pursuant to the APA and So to fix that, I think HLC is going to simply just try and enact regulations. However, that doesn’t mean that they’re going to enact regulations that are exactly the same. I, I, you know, they, they have to, they have to take public comment.

They have to address the public comment, um, they have to explain why they’re not changing things pursuant to public comment, things like that, so I don’t know, I, I do expect them to be very, very, very simple. Um, but I, I, we just don’t know at this, at this time. Amy, a question for

you. Since the SJC didn’t necessarily rule on the merits of the guidelines, more on the fact that they didn’t meet the procedural requirements of 30A. It’s it possible that we see additional litigation, um, that maybe the regulations exceed the authority of the statute at some point after the regulations become effective.

There is, there is a chance that that could happen, um, you know, under 38 section 7, there’s, you know, that’s, that allows for a challenge to the Regulations, um, I, I guess, you know, the, the question would be standing, um, who has the stand to challenge those regulations? Is it somebody

that is it, is it a town that has already enacted the zoning, um, and is seeing, you know, the claims claim some kind of harm or is it a town that, you know, hasn’t that’s noncompliant and see some kind of harm there’s, it’s, it’s challenging with regard to the standing, in my opinion on that.

I have a, um, a clarification. The, the Constitutionality was never in question. And that is because the state sued Milton. Milton didn’t sue the state. So the, the question of constitutionality is still wending its way through the courts. There are a couple of federal lawsuits, um, that are coming along, so it really had nothing to do with

constitutionality. And in fact, this really doesn’t have anything to do with affordable housing. There’s no, the crisis is in the affordability because there are, there are plenty of units out there that are open looking for people who can afford to rent them, but, um, because there’s no affordable housing component, they’re not making any sense to me.

It doesn’t make any sense. And for me, I think just to bounce off of that, I just didn’t know if there is a definition of the housing crisis, I mean, I think we would say affordability, most people would agree, but I still would like to see some kind of documentation from the state, because I don’t see how

they just, I’ve heard housing crisis, housing crisis, but then. No one’s defined it and whether it is affordability, then that doesn’t really the statute really doesn’t apply, um, affordability. So I’m just trying to wrap my head around all that. So I, I will tell you on on page 9 of the decision,

uh, the first point under discussion, under discussion is constitutionality of Section 3A, and the court goes on for um The court goes on for about 5 or 6 pages. Uh, regarding the constitutionality of 3A and concludes that the um that 3A is gratuitous. That was gratuitous. Interesting.

Yeah. There are also HD bills coming up 1419,,, 1421 in the house and 1420. These are bills that will be coming into the house and, um, it’s for complete repeal of 3A. 1 of them wants to mitigate the law’s impact on municipalities and, uh, the, the three of them are all, uh, working together and that’s

going to wend its way through the house as well. So I think we have a lot going on and nothing should be done until the court cases. Have seemed clear to the resolution. On constitutionality. So, so if I may, um, this is the Supreme Judicial Court. This is the this is this is it. This is the

decision. There is no federal question here. This will not go to the US Supreme Court. That’s the only place this can go. This is final. The court states in paragraph in in footnote 15, they state that this is mandatory, regulations are in place that state that a certain action has to be done by

February 13th, and another action has to be done by July 14th. There is no time, in my opinion. into, you know, wait and see, particularly because Hamilton does not hasn’t brought forth a plan yet. Um, I am very concerned about timing here, so, um, you know, we are, you are pressed for time for

coming up with an overlay um that will comply in order to, you know, to be compliant. We, we have been told that planning, um, it takes time to do and the state is not allowing little towns like ours to do the planning. It’s, they are pressing us beyond any reasonable measure. I, I just

don’t understand, if possible, also I’d like to get some clarification on the earlier question on what the emergencies in the housing because again 3A is market rate. They’re not, they’re not affordable houses, and it’s zoning, it is an actual building of housing. It actually works against our, our, our, uh, you know, our low

income housing numbers so it doesn’t clarity on that and only goes to that only goes to whether the emergency regulations, the emergency regulations were enacted because the emergency being the housing crisis. Honestly, if you take that out the regulations will become final. They they are going, there’s no no EOHLC is not going to enact

regulations. They are. So I think at this point we need to be a realist instead of focusing on why the emergency regulations were enacted or why they weren’t. We need to focus on the fact that regulations will be enacted and this zoning has been determined that it’s mandatory, and it has been, you

know, it’s been determined it’s constitutional, it’s mandatory, and the Attorney general can enforce it and so if you if you remain noncompliant, you are subject to enforcement by the Attorney General and Amy, can you confirm because I believe the 30 days is for an action plan, not necessarily for the

full zoning to be done in 30 days and then we have until July to actually have the zoning and and and I understand zoning takes a long time, but we’ve known about this for quite some time already. We’ve already hired a consultant to look into form-based coding and who’s on the books ready to go,

so I, we do have time to do this. It’s not like we have to have it in 30 days. We have until July. We’ve had a considerable amount of time to get this done already. Um, so I’m not sure why we’re talking about time. Correct. You’ve had

as much time as, as, as every other um of the the other 130 adjacent communities um. You are correct. It’s uh February 13th is to submit an action plan. It, it is a, it’s an online form, um, and then July 14th is when you have to have

your zoning enacted by Amy, let me just jump in here. Uh, so, so we’re talking about procedural, we, we here at this meeting have not addressed the implications of this and the substantive issues that are related to this. We We do not have the infrastructure in many different ways to support this

kind of a plan that’s being proposed, so I’m just wondering. Why we’re sitting here saying we have to do this when we know it will break the back of our community to do this. So, so what is our, uh, what are our options legally to prevent this,

um, Overwhelming us. Occurrence in, in our town. I, I hear you saying that procedurally we have to do it, but what does it mean on the other hand, and, and Uh, I wonder if you could help us think about other ways to address this instead of this draconian you have to do it.

These, these, these guidelines slash regulations are unrealistic. They are untenable and they are undoable, so. As, as well as considering gee, we have these deadlines. How are we going to do that? We can’t just do it and pretend it’s not going to grossly negatively impact our community. I think a

3 minute time check so that folks know that we have we have 3 minutes I maybe that’s just a rhetorical question, I have a recommendation that I would like to select board to consider, which is go to the office of the state auditor and ask for a determination on whether this is considered an

unfunded mandate. And in that case, then that would, um, It would require the state to step up if it is considered an unfunded mandate, um, and help provide some of the costs that would be covered. So that would be a step that I would like to see that the select board would take to get a determination.

I know there were some towns that are already done it, but um, every town would be different on what they would get back. And I think they didn’t come out with the determination yet because they’re waiting on the SJC. So to me, that seems like the next practical step. Can I ask just a clarifying question.

So an unfunded mandate would be something that requires us to put out capital that will not be right, but there’s no capital associated with zoning and the negotiations between the developers can include infrastructure improvements and towards it. So how are we telling them that this is requiring funding was stripped that component that the

infrastructure would be handled by the developers with stripped just like the Affordable housing component was stripped from the bill. So no, that, that doesn’t fly. Well, sorry, I’m just asking like a developer couldn’t build without solving septic, for example. And they, so things like that, like it’s not enough, but they also can’t build it,

so I’m just trying to clarify that when we say it’s for I think Pat has a question. I just for us to follow up on that later. Well, I think just doubling down on the skipping to how before determining the why, but also Amy that, do we have any sense when the regulations are going to get,

it sounded like the process you described to finalize and confirm the regulations was not necessarily a quick one. So I’m curious at what timing the state is looking at to determine and finalize those regulations. In, you know, in, in comparison to when they’re they’re giving deadlines for things that are not yet known.

It seems so, I’m curious if they have an estimate on that or if you have an estimate on that. Um, I don’t. They have not come out with a date that they are going to, you know, put out the regulations for public comment and when the public comments gonna end, they haven’t given us anything.

I suspect that they will be um put the the um draft final regulations will be submitted, um, and finalized within 90 days. So by that point in time that we would have had to meet the. Yeah, would be over in 90 days, so we’d have to do a special town meeting that was what we’re waiting for. So I

guess that that answers the question whether or not this is gonna be at the April town meeting. It cannot be. The regulations will not be, why, why wouldn’t it be there there’s draft regulations that you could, you could go under the, I mean that’s up to, that’s up to the town.

That’s, that’s not a legal question, but just to clarify, you could, you can go to town meeting under these draft regulations. Yes, it does. We’re not doing it. People won’t vote for that. Amy, we’re, uh, this is Mark Connors. I’m the town planner. We’re uh just past 6:45 uh since this is a kind of a tight

time frame, I was wondering, perhaps you could ask the members if they have legal questions. They, we didn’t have a chance to get to, they could email them to us and we can email those to you, um, for a follow-up meeting, uh, I think. We’re planning a joint follow-up meeting the first

week of February. Is that something that, that might work? Can I, can I just address one more question with, with Amy, uh, before we jump off because I think it’s important because I know that obviously under the regulations we have in 30 days for an action plan we have until, you know, July 14th to

get a vote in place. Now, I think we all are aware of the potential penalties or potential grant loss, and I think that, you know, may or may not scare some folks in town or not, depending on how many grants we get, but isn’t it true that we could have some enforcement from the attorney

general that imposes zoning on the town. Um, without our input and that uh is that a potential repercussion from the attorney General’s office, should they pursue it? So, so there, there’s um the, the court made it clear in the decision that the Attorney General does have broad powers under, under 12

section uh chapter 12 section 10. Um, 1 of the things that the Attorney General could do is on July 14th, she could file a suit against a town that’s noncompliant, um, a court could then order the town to enact zoning if the zoning is not enacted, uh The town would be held in contempt, contempt

comes with significant fines, um, if that doesn’t work, another option, um, would be with the Attorney General asked for uh originally in the Milton case was to appoint a special master to determine the zoning and have the court order that the zoning be held in that area, um, and then again, what you

had just said that the Attorney General could come in and ask the court to rezone certain areas. To comply with 3A. Um, and there’s even some, some people have even claimed that they would come in and and do away with zoning, you know, in the town, but that to me seems a little far-fetched, but, um,

the 1st 3 options were options that were in the, you know, in the original complaint against Milton. The the second two were dropped. By the by the Attorney General, but um but the, the most likely case scenario is bring it to court. The court will order that the zoning has to be implemented if it’s not,

there will be injunctive relief fine, you know, they’ll be fine. So either we sort of work together and, and get this, get this put through or we can sort of go down kicking and screaming and Casa town significant dollars sounds like. OK, so I just want to be mindful that we, we are out of

time and we do need to close these meetings. Um, I did hear a request to um direct questions towards Amy. I would actually request that you, you direct those questions through either Marie, um, or for the select word to myself or through Joe so that Amy’s not sort of, you know, managing,

you know, multiple folks with multiple questions from multiple places, um, and then we can coordinate uh a follow up for, you know, logistical next steps, um, it does sound like. You know, we’re not In any way sort of aligned on the path forward, so I think it’ll be important for us to talk

about what that looks like, um, but Amy, thank you for your time and coming to share this with us. I do appreciate it and uh we will get, I’m sure some questions back to you after this meeting tonight. Sounds good. Thank you. Nice to see you all. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. With that, I will

entertain emotion to Adorn the joint meeting for the select board. Pardon? So moved. OK, um, with that, I will take a roll call starting with you, Rosie Kennedy. Rosie Kennedy, I Tom, Tom Meyer Wilson Wilson and I, uh, Olsen, are you still here? And Caroline I, uh, Marty, I’ll hand it over to you. Thank you

Caroline. Yeah. Appreciate it. Uh, we’ll follow up. Good. OK. So, uh, I don’t believe we have to um. We start a meeting, uh, so I think we can. Proceed with the planning board meeting, uh, so we have a number of items on our agenda, but the first item

on our agenda is a review and vote on the draft minutes from the previous, uh, meeting, and uh I uh want to compliment the person who prepared these minutes, um, they, they were really quite excellent. I found, um, Just two typos. So, um, I had a couple of things. Oh, OK. I’ll, I’ll do mine first.

Perfect. Uh, on the 4th line from the bottom on page one. Um-hum. Uh, there’s, uh, uh, a typo, it says, uh, he disagreed with attempting to apply a should be not yet designated. It’s uh, it was spelled N O Y. It should be not and then on the last page adjournment is.

misspelled uh there is an E that should be eliminated. OK. that Is anyone else I do, um, on, um, under that second paragraph it says the planning board has 7 members elected to 3-year terms with 1 or 2 seats up for election each year.

I believe it’s 2 or 3 seats up for election each year 2 or 3, I think. Yeah It’s 12 or 3 I didn’t know if yeah, if we needed to add or to rewrite that, but definitely 3 because this year we have 3 seats up for election. And then, um, the

other thing I didn’t know if we wanted to Add under the section, um, With the site plan review with the Hamilton Fire Department, I believe at that meeting, we were very clear, um, and we want it, and we acknowledged, um, How did I put it? Um, our gratitude towards the firemen. Um, I don’t think

that was mentioned in the mids, but I do think it was important to. potentially add if other people agree. Does anyone else have any um comments or clarifications? Uh, page two at the very top line comprehensive is misspelled. There’s an R. Oh, there you go. You just fill in the. Hm. Any further discussion?

Uh, if, if not, I will entertain a motion to approve the December. 3rd minutes uh subject to the edits that have been, uh, Uh, articulated, uh. By the members do I have a second? Uh, great, so I’ll take a roll call the, um. Pat Norton, Pat Norton, Jonathan Poor Jonathan Po, I Amquist Amil Dahlquist Darcy Dale.

Darcy Dale, I and Marie Crouch I. OK. Uh, the next item on our agenda is a site plan review application, but I, it’s my understanding that um. Uh, that there’s been a continuance that’s, uh. Um Been requested, is that correct? Yes, to the February 4th, 2025 meeting.

Uh, is it necessary for us to read the uh notice probably it is so that we can continue it. Sure, I can read that. The uh Property is owned by the town of Hamilton, uh, the applicant is the Hamilton Recreation Department. This is a site plan application. For proposed open air wood frame pavilion at the

patent homestead property at 650 Asbury Street. Assessor’s tax map 19 parcel 1 and Hamilton. The applicant and property owners of the town of Hamilton represented by the recreation director, the proposed uses, uh, the structures for cultural, social, and civic programming. Uh, thank you. So I believe it’s probably appropriate for us to

um. Have a motion to continue this hearing so that it does not have to be renoticed so do we have a date certain when we will hear this? February. February 4th. So, I will entertain a motion to continue the site plan review application of the town of

Hamilton to February 4th. 25 at 7 p.m. And do I have a second? So uh please when I call your name, uh, Pat Norton. Pat Norton, I, Jonathan Poor Jonathan Poor I No, wait, oh, the waiting’s not here, uh, Amil Daquists. Beth Hur, I, Darcy Dale. Darcy Dale, I and Marty Crouch eye, so that

matter is continued, um, so, uh, sorry, Martin, I paused, I gave pause because. Looking at our meeting dates. Um. And the agendas posted on the town website. We have a lot In the next, you’re like doubling up on meetings and likes and the meeting on February 4th says zoning a member.

Zoning amendment discussion, no new applications accepted. Oh. So this is in my consideration, a new application. Since we haven’t seen it yet it was filed under this. But Mark, we have meetings on today. We have a meeting next week we’re meeting the following week, you know what I mean? And I don’t

remember this being on an original schedule at Patrick had. Right. And I don’t know how these meetings got in here because I know we’re under a deadline for the um ADD and everything else, but it seems like this is a little aggressive, to say the least.

Mhm. What we wanted to do was sort of make sure we had the room available, uh, but I mean, like we got to plan our family. I got things going on at home like we have to plan stuff, right? So it’s good to reserve the room, but I don’t know if

it’s good to like. And I missed a couple of meetings, by the way, so I apologize if you guys had discussed the and voted to include these meetings. Um, but they’re specifically. stating the next 2 that know new applications will be. Considered. The intent was to um We were a little behind the

ball with zoning amendments so the idea was to catch up with So, not have, have the meeting be new applications, but I wouldn’t consider this a new application since it was filed under this. deadline. We haven’t seen it, so I, I get, but I’m, I’m, I don’t think we need to argue the new. I’m just.

Raising a concern about the next few weeks and I think usually if I plan our schedules, no, that’s a good point, but, um, I believe the routine is, um, you can change a regular meeting, but a special meeting, you have to dictate or you have limited options and what you can do. So I don’t know why

that was stated that particular way because this is a regular meeting that was scheduled, but the next one is not. The next one is not. But that that has a specific agenda to include that meeting. For next week. It was not voted on as far as I know.

It was recommended. OK. I just raised the question because I was when we were trying to like, you know, family traveling and whatnot and I was trying to like work out like, OK, which ones I just wanted to like I, I promised that I would follow up with an answer to the question whether or not these meetings

were happening because it did look like uh if we need it, we’ll have it kind of, well, I, I, I, I believe that we probably will need to have these meetings because we have um. For Significant, um, warren articles that we have to get, uh, memorandum to the select board so the select board can

return those uh proposed warrant articles to the planning board, the planning board has to schedule a public hearing. They have to be final finalized and then um actually placed on the warrant, uh, not to mention in the interim we have to get um some feedback from town council as to any um

issues that we might have missed. So, We, we do have a very busy next couple of meetings, one thing that can happen is um if everyone can try and get as up to speed as possible on the contents of the proposed, uh, amendments and the memorandum that that really will expedite things, uh, if

everyone is really conversant with what we’re attempting to do here so I’m not that I’m not willing to like roll up my sleeves and and do some. word, but uh if Anyone been to Mary Ellen’s cubicle prior to the renovations at town hall. Uh, but she had a nice sign on her cubicle that said your poor

planning does not result in an emergency, I might be, there’s, there’s external, not, I’m not saying you’re poor. There’s external like the state didn’t come up like now we’re struggling because these externally imposed deadlines and then we didn’t get the requirements. It’s kind of like the conversations with the ADU it should really be bending

over backwards because the state dragged their he, no, I think we should take our time. We should do the right thing. and we should be late. I’d rather be good and late than rushed bad and on time. The comments appropriate for earlier as well. Mark, is there a timeline on the? The

application that for the pavilion. You’re talking about the site plan application from applied. We’re still within the window, so I think it’s 65 days. It’s 65 days, yes, so, so we could put it off another. Being. To another 2 weeks. Yeah, I would recommend at least

opening it on the 4th, just, um, cause I had a number of abutters call to verify that it wasn’t gonna be heard tonight, so it’s hard to get the word out sometimes. I would. I would keep that 4th, but I dropped the 29th. And just spend our

time and get stuff correct. We have to make some decisions by the twenty-ninth, right? we have decisions that um well actually we’re gonna be late, late. By February 18th. We could be late. What’s the penalty for the ADU zoning not being on time. There’s no penalty. It’s our town meeting.

This is for the, well, we want, we want to get the zoning amendments on the warrant so they come into effect, so without the uh ADU. New bylaw there’s no applicable uh bylaw it’s just the building inspector, uh, the building commissioner trying to adhere to the regulations, but

actually the ADU bylaw is in really good shape we can probably finalize it tonight. That’d be good. So if everyone’s, you know, kind of on top of it, um, what about the site plan review. Uh, is that That’s not in bad shape, but let’s take one thing at a

time, so, uh, that’s due on the warrant. Oh yes, yes that has to be approved by the 29th. Yes yes yes uh actually by, by our ne yes by the twenty-ninth, but that’s also in pretty good shape too. Just to clarify, we just have to, to tell the

select board that it’s going to be on the warrant by the end of the month. We have another 2 weeks to find. Right, so, um I think we can say with confidence it’ll be on the warrant. We just don’t. have it finalized by the time we tell him it’s gonna happen. Yeah Like But, you know, let’s let’s

aim high. That’s looking to have some family life, I think is what he’s saying. The unfortunate thing she wants to see and she has to work a lot more than she has to before. I just. What did you say? I, I was just joking to say that, uh,

my, my dad responsibilities is a home of ratcheted up over traveling for work, but no, I totally, I just didn’t, I just was surprised when I was right. I was surprised to see those jump in there. And then I was also surprised to see that the um The the clarification in the

act limiting the agenda. Let’s do this. I think that we should open the uh Hearing, if you will, on the site plan review but I have looked at uh the pavilion and I think others may be on the planning board have 2, and so we might want to just continue, uh, the just make some preliminary observations

about that pavilion and then uh see what transpires after the comments from, uh, planning board members because uh. Uh, I, I frankly did note some things of concern to me about the location of the pill pavilion, whether it was uh accessible for people who are handicapped, uh, I, I won’t go on, so we

could start it but limit the amount of time we spend on it to maybe 20 minutes. How’s that? Split Split OK, so the next item on our agenda is a discussion of the comprehensive plan for the downtown and the implementation of the uh MBTA community regulations, and I suggest that we defer that discussion until we meet with

the uh select board and, and my, uh, attitude with respect to the regulations is, is really an attempt to make a flow chart because I, I see things, um. Practically, uh, I think that we have to recognize that there’s significant opposition to section 3A, uh, we don’t

want to go through the whole uh business of adopting a 3A districts without um having any kind of finality if the risk is that that the the zoning will be uh rejected by the voters, in which case that’s the worst of all possible worlds. Uh, we, we get all the penalties, none of the benefits and we’re,

we’re in a real hole, um, I think that the question in my mind is whether we should participate in the public hearing process. I know there’s other litigation about the constitutionality of 3A and that type of thing, but I think that’s, um, much more speculative and uh, you know, if there’s litigation in the federal district court don’t

hold your breath that we’re going. get a decision on any aspect of section 3A or the validity of the guidelines within any kind of uh timeline um that would coalesce with um the finality of the regulations, and I think that the, the, in my world, let’s see if we can get those regulations modified

for the benefits of small towns like uh Wenham Hamilton, Ipswich, and Raleigh rather than hope for the best. On some kind of a a a ruling from a federal district court, uh, and then we suffer all the penalties of the lack of funding which are not insignificant. And they’re not

insignificant. They could hurt our town and the very fact that the the uh executive office is willing to take out a sledgehammer and threaten the fire department funding is, is indicative that, that it would not, might not be to our benefit, uh, to ignore 3 A’s, um. Uh, mandate and it is a

mandate the the supreme Judicial Court’s decision was pretty clear. They left, uh, uh, the door ajar to getting the regulations modified and to me, um, that is worth exploring, particularly if we could be joined, um. Uh With other communities similar Marnie, real quick, what, what I don’t understand though is some of the penalties may be part of

the guidelines that are not yet finished or that’s right? So if we don’t understand the penalties fully, how can we weigh out what we already know we’re up against with lack of resources and with the tax implications of all those, uh, all that building you have to, you have to, you have to weigh

that, that’s what I’m saying though. We, we don’t know what we’re weighing yet, so how can we weigh weigh it Fincom has a fiduciary duty and I’ve been waiting for them to do an analysis of what they would propose in the future for you know 3A came, came to be in Hamilton. So they need to talk,

they need to look at schools, they need to look at water, infrastructure traffic, all those things, these are all the types of uh uh that would be the subject of the town’s presentation at the public hearing. Uh, but I think we have to be pretty, pretty clear headed about the nature of the

um executive office and what, what kind of uh Uh, uh, sledgehammers they’re weighing, so yes, uh, you know, it’s not just what 3A would cost the town, but what the town would lose, I mean cost and benefits so you know if, if it’s not just the four sources of funding in the statute anymore.

It’s a lot more than that and this town is, you know, it’s pretty much headed off a financial cliff, and so we might need some of that money and, and. You know, it’s not up to us it’s not up to the planning board to dictate what happens yeah it’s absolutely up to the voters to decide which

way they want to go with the best information, but it’s up to the boards to educate the community, is it not? Yes, but we, there’s as much data as we have, we can’t it by waiting to get all the data 3 or 4 years from now, that’s a decision.

You know, waiting can be a decision because then the Commonwealth could withhold funds, so waiting in and of itself is a decision. At this point we really don’t use, well, it’s only applying for funds that we would lose out on, and then we don’t really at this point we don’t get those, but

we unders I understand there could be other things that they get added onto it. Um, Caroline had mentioned maybe an email that you sent her. I didn’t know if there was any important information. It was, uh, it was just a discussion of the issues, but what I would like to to do is is I can reformulate that

and share that with the board and you know to me it’s, it’s a flow. chart because everything flows together. It’s, we can’t consider 3A in a vacuum, we have to consider it, um, in, in conjunction with the form-based code and then we have the ADUs. I had a question, multi-family housing, you know, multi-family

housing under the guidelines is to dwelling units on a single lot does an ATU count then as multi-family housing. My understanding is that the two buildings have to be duplex, so that’s 4 on one lot, or, or a single unit with 3 units that’s really not what it said. I think it’s a poor family that

came from, so so anyhow, it, it’s, it’s a discussion, I think that we should have with the select board and, and I, and I, I know I’m, I, I don’t mean to be Pollyannaish, but it’s not up to us to make the decision for the town. I mean, everybody has their own viewpoints on, uh, section 3A.

I think there’s a lot of opposition to it, a lot of skepticism about it, but we’ve, we don’t. from people who might support it, although I suspect of the select board member Tom Myers might be someone who does support it, but I think that, that, that cost benefit analysis has to be, um,

something that that’s put before the I’m I’m totally in alignment with you, Marty, that we need to help articulate what the risks are, understand the full picture. Up until about 6 months ago though, the people were completely ignorant because all they heard was comply, comply, comply from town manager and others. So I think that now that we’re

starting to Well, actually that, that really wasn’t quite the message. I mean, because we did elect to file the amicus brief, and that, that was a worthwhile endeavor. That was good. And so, and although you say comply comply comply. We didn’t comply. I think it took a lot of time and pressure to do that, right?

I I but you know it’s, it’s, you really have to, to weigh what happens if the town were to thumb their nose at the executive office one way or the other, and I think um we had this conversation way back when we first started was, do we comply with the regulations or do we comply with the actual

statute. Because in the statute it says a district of reasonable size, so then if they come out with the same guidelines, we might say my understanding is Mitchell was on, he said there’s already a zone uh 12 acre zone downtown that would comply potentially with, um, the statute. So I

think, you know, we have different levels it’s the metrics and the guidelines. That’s the issue, um, that’s really the fundamental issue. I don’t think we’re ever going to get away from 3A. I think if we were to. Participate in the public hearing process, the goal would be to uh adjust the metrics for towns like for

small towns. OK, let’s move on and, and I with uh. Uh, you, a little public comment, but could you save it for the select the joint meeting with the select board, uh, but if you have anything to add, we haven’t decided anything. Yeah. you go work Yeah Uh, Tosh Blake, Sagamore Street. Yeah, I’m like

what I’m hearing, you know, so far about the caution about, uh, going forward, you can’t really, there are no numbers, there are no final guidelines. So if you’re saying we’re going to comply by a certain date, it makes absolute no absolutely no sense. Um, as some of you may know, I’m kind of, I’m

definitely an anti-3A voice in town and uh. Yeah, my view is to kind of, and I’ve said this before, but almost kind of have an attitude like we’re gonna call the bluff of the AG or whoever, and see what they do. There’s kind of there’s sort of these kind of vague threats.

There’s more specific threats of certain grants that they can withhold, and there’s more vague threats if they can hit our town in other ways financially. Um, I say it’s kind of a perverse thing where they’re trying to get you consent to something you don’t want to happen to the town, and

there’s no limiting factor what they can do in the future after you’ve done consenting to this one thing. It’s like, like you’re if you’re in a relationship with someone and they’re, they’re threatening you, hey, you do this for me, but I want you to agree to it.

And he’s like, OK, I’ll agree to it and nothing bad will happen after that. Well, no, that’s not true. I think it kind of disgraces us if we, no public official has said that 43A and almost nobody from just the town in general, like a person like me that’s not. in office is saying they’re

against it. So it seems like the whole town, at least of vocal people, Coming to meetings on the record are against or at least not for it. There may be some people, you know, who are, you know, on some of these boards, a couple who are kind of maybe for and

don’t want to come out and say that. But no one’s come on and set the for it and we don’t want to disgrace ourselves by consenting to something we really don’t want. I say call the call the state’s bluff and if they want to say, well,

we’re going to rezone your town and see what I mean, maybe it sounds reckless, but I should be like, see what happens, you know, I let, and make it maybe, you know, this could be. We don’t want to be made a national example like, oh well,

look at what the state can do with a town, but they’re acting as bullies and jerks, and if we’re consenting to it, you know, and then we end up with, uh, get on a path where more and more guidelines and and uh regulations come down oh well,

they doubled the amount after the 5 years from now of the housing they, they, we agreed to, we’re kind of complicit in our own degradation. I said don’t do it, at least our attitude for now, I know there are risks, but should be called their bluff, and certainly don’t vote on anything without,

you know, going through, I think some of what you’re saying is good. Try to negotiate down at least in the meantime, some of the, some of the terms they they want to do, but otherwise, you know, our teacher should be like, no, we’re just not. Complying with anything that’s it thanks.

way. Uh, Brian Stein, uh, Willow Street, um. One of you just brought up a point that, uh, what Rick Mitchell said about, we already have multi-family zoning in places downtown and by right. Mhm. And I forget how many acres that our business district is currently, but it’s I think I think it’s more than 12, pretty short, about 27.

That’s right, yeah, OK, I was gonna say roughly 30 so you’ve already got the requirement met. For Zoning In units within a half mile of the train. Right Um, it does say it has to be above commercial, but I believe 3A allows multi-family above commercial, um, so we’ve

already got that. We need another 10 acres. And I know initially you guys were thinking of the Winthrop site and public safety building and all that, including that, but That’s obviously a bone of contention with a lot of people in town, going to the schools and all of that. Why don’t we

have And again, I, I, I do agree with what you’re saying about maybe, maybe you don’t comply. I don’t agree with the law in any way, shape or form, but We’ve already got it and downtown, why not find another zone maybe out of the dump or something like that. No, I’m serious, like, we talked about

that land out there. We talked about housing out there, a 10 acre zone out there, zone it however we want to comply with the law and you’re done. Yeah, I, I think that I’ll make just two points. I know. I believe the town was an interim compliance because uh the, the, um. There was money to hire

consultants, and I know Patrick Redford worked with. Uh, a consultant, the, the name of that consulting firm eludes me, uh, and, and. Uh, there was consideration of the uh going Conwell site, uh, and then it was centered on downtown so I don’t know whether our. Interim compliance could be, you know,

revived just. For us, so to speak, just to get them off our backs while we figure out what to do. I, I don’t know if that would be viable, um, I don’t. You know, I just looked at the regulations and there was a carve out for private land used as colleges and whatnot, so I’m

thinking to myself how did Gordon Conwell get in the mix here, so, uh, yeah, you know, it’s right now the metrics are 49 acres, 731 units. 20% of the 731. Units have to be uh within the half mile radius and, and you’ve already got well over that, but that’s not in the statute. There’s no in the

statute, it only says within a half a mile. So again, the guidelines and the statute don’t actually line up. No, I, I watched what Manchester did because I do a fair amount of work there and uh. They’re, they’re doing, they’re doing it the right way. They’ve they’ve, they’ve picked out some various

zones and their downtown that are mostly developed already. And they’ve got a couple of properties I knew about that aren’t, you know, have some single family homes on them, but the vast majority of it’s out on Beaver Dam Road, you know, well out of town and a more of an industrial zone.

So that’s why I was kind of half suggesting, you know, the dump or something like that, or even Gordon Conwell, like you said. Yeah, whether that works or not, I don’t know. I know I know you is. By 6, you know, 60%, 65% margin, their, their town vote

and it’s in Manchester and it’s, um, it passed the state, so they’re, they’re all set. Do you know how much land, I, you know, I was trying to think that we have at the town dump out on Chewbacca Road. I I I don’t think it. I don’t know.

Um, I’m not sure what’s still open and I don’t think it’s I don’t think it’s a lot and an acre plus an acres. There’s a fair amount of land more than that. Yeah, it’s got to be 20 anyway. Yeah, and You know, the thing about that site is uh

well I don’t want to be too facetious, but out of sight, out of mind, um, there, there, you wouldn’t have the issue with the butters. I’m not sure they’re they’re, there might be one or two, and everybody’s assuming, right? So we’ve had this zoning in place downtown for, this is the 7th year, I

think we did it in 18. There’s been one building built. Yeah. And we did it, right? The town did it. We wanted it. No one else has come in here and said we’re building, we’re taking out, we’re taking down half of Railroad Ave flat. No one, Lexington has had a boom of interest since they passed

compliance with 3A, so I think there may be some attraction to developers. They also have sewer. They They They also have sew They also have sew and the school system I’m just saying like I do think we have to, we have to like even with thin comment it’s like we might have a scenario like this is the

likely scenario, but we also need to have like worst case, what if all 731 are billed and there’s no limit to the number of people in a unit. And how many kids is that going to be and how is that going to hit the infrastructure of yearly costs for schools, and then what if we need new buildings

because we can’t handle the school so all those things I totally get what you’re saying. I think that’s what a lot of people think that, you know, that’s what the state wants that and the, you know, the state was actually going to build this housing, which we

know they’re not but the thing, I mean, we’ve, you know, we’re, we’ve been, we have a train station here, we’ve had it for a long time, and we’ve had very little development, right, of any, and we’ve had this zoning in for a while, right? So I,

I’ve been saying this to. a lot of people, if, if 730 units get built in my lifetime, or anyone’s lifetime here. You’re gonna be really old. It’s not it’s not, I mean the the land here, I know we shouldn’t in my personal estimation, I will, I’m not gonna. Vote for something that I’m not ready to

have happen. OK, we already did. We already did. There’s multi-family zoning downtown. It’s here now, 30 acres of it is here now. We voted for it. It was passed pretty handily. I have to curtail this discussion. We have a lot of other, uh, matters to discuss and unfortunately we’re not going to solve this right now, but

everybody makes great points. That’s that that’s, that’s true. I mean, you’re. Right. You have a point. Yours is riskier. So, you know, this is a to be continued, so I don’t mean to cut you off, but uh we have uh a lot of other items on our

agenda and I have a um. Kind of a Little injury here that’s starting to to to get my attention much more so than before I came in and I can’t blame it on 3A. So, uh, with that said, let’s let’s move on, so, um, let’s consider um. Our proposed um. Changes to section.

3.0 of our zoning bylaw. So I have a. And Mark transmitted it to you a draft of a memorandum to the select board. It follows the same format that we use for the inclusionary housing by law and the amendment to the GPOD, uh, and this was, uh, a format

that, uh, Robin Stein, our town council recommended. So, um, The memorandum contains a background and a summary of the changes and then you will see um. The proposed warrant article which includes the uh necessary amendments to the. Table of use regulations, uh, section E. Uh, just for your edification, there were um We discovered When we started

looking at amendments to the bylaw, and I really started looking at it with site plan review that the zoning bylaw that appears on the town web page was in error. And it did not reflect. Um, the Zoning bylaw that was approved. And I believe 2016. So some of the references were totally wrong

and now we have the appropriate, um, Warrant article and the appropriate amendments to it, um, so that uh our new warrant article is, is, um, It is, is, is going to be fine, so, uh, there were changes to the table of use regulations which are um pretty self-explanatory. The, the one, thing that, that is

worthy of note we have um a section for accessory dwelling units that would be section 3.6, which we’re dealing with and then we have large accessory dwelling unit which would be by special permit and that would be. Uh, uh, an accessory dwelling unit that would exceed the 900 square feet or whatever

the parameters are that are set forth in the guidelines that were issued by the executive office, so, uh, I don’t know that it’s, it’s happened. I haven’t seen it during my tenure that someone came in and wanted to uh put in a dwelling unit, but I could see where it could happen if you were

building a fairly substantial barn and wanted to put an apartment. Above it, it could be larger than 100 square feet and and that would be the subject of a special permit, um. But then, um, uh, consistent with what Rich Maloney said, uh, section 3.4, the conversion for temporary additional living

area we’re deleting that entire section and we were reserving the um uh the number 3.4, um, as Rich said, nobody’s ever come in and um. sought any kind of approval for their temporary additional living area and I suppose that people just do it and. That What’s that? do Yeah, exactly, and, uh, so. Uh, there

were no changes to 3. s ur vi ve d the conversion to two family, uh, dwellings and then we’re deleting existing 3.6 accessory apartments and adding. Uh, a new section 3.6 and uh some definitions to go along with that. So if you have, um, with your materials, uh, the

accessory dwelling unit, the new version, uh, uh, Mark, can you confirm that you worked with Rich Maloney on these, and I know I had given you a draft as well. So this reflects, um, all our thinking. So the one thing, uh, so, uh, Mark, uh, transmitted to me his uh version of the statute, and I

went through it uh as carefully as I could to make sure that um all references were consistent, so sometimes we talked about in Mark’s version, single family housing, primary, uh, dwelling unit, um. So it’s now consistently referred to as the principal dwelling unit. Throughout, uh, there were references to parcels it’s now

a lot throughout trying to get it so there’s no ambiguity anywhere, uh, always a challenge, so. I’ll point out just two things. One, it, it occurred to me, what about accessory dwelling units in the historic district, so I did look at the statute, um, I don’t believe I brought it with

me, um, was it? Oh, I don’t have that, uh, I don’t recall the uh. The actual uh. A number of Massachusetts law, but at any rate, I looked at it, it was uh section 6 and 7 it might have been 40 chapter 40, but don’t hold me to that. Uh, but

it, it would appear to me that if you were to, to build a detached accessory dwelling unit in the historic district that you would have to um. have That structure reviewed by the historic District commission. So the only change here, uh, is to, to say a building permit application showing clear compliance with the

requirements of this this section of the bylaw, the building code and all other applicable requirements, including but not limited to those governing the Hamilton district. The Hamilton Historic District. Uh, did you have problems with that language, Mark, was that OK? No, that’s perfect. The, the only thing I added, I also added, cause I

could see, I would say the meat of the requirements is 3 section 3.64, that’s 18 requirements that everyone has to meet. So I could see people kind of going through and checking, OK, I’m doing this, I’m doing this, and just to be clear, I added number 18, which says if it’s a historic

district, uh, you know, it has to undergo review by the Historic District commission. You chapter 4. Do you have a different version than what we have in our packet. Uh, no, I don’t, what, what number 18 are you referring to? It’s under section 3.64 on page 10. On page 10. Yeah. So the reference there says historic district

bylaw chapter. 30 chapter. 31. Do you mean the state by law? Or the, is that Hamilton’s bylaw Hamilton Hamilton’s. So could you read that number 18 to me again? Sure, uh, it says an accessory dwelling unit proposed in the Hamilton Historic District. Which requires exterior alterations shall meet all the applicable requirements of the historic

district bylaw. Chapter 31, including review and approval by the historic District Commission if necessary. Right. Right, they don’t, it’s not in, it’s not in our, our so our historic district uh bylaw. I read that maybe I should reread it, but it seemed more focused on demolition then actual new

construction, so, so clearly an attached ADU would be subject to the. Historic District commission and I think that a detached one would as well based on the state law, but we should double check the bylaw because I think that’s more a demolition delay, um, by law doesn’t Hamilton’s bylaw

reference chapter 40C of the state, and 40C gives you Um, performance standards to look at. So if, if that’s the umbrella, you’re covered. OK, so you were on the historic, uh, commission in Gloucester, so does that make sense to you what we’ve been I haven’t looked at Hamilton’s bylaw to

to see that, but if Hamilton references chapter 40C, then you should be in good shape. But if Hamilton’s bylaw is silent on 40C, which wouldn’t make sense. You couldn’t really establish a, a town bylaw that didn’t reference the the state by law, the umbrella bylaw. But I haven’t looked at it for that.

Yeah, that’s so this will, we’ll double check that. Mark, can you double check that and then, and then, um, The only other, uh, question I have a question on, on the utilities. So an accessory dwelling here can be carved out within the existing structure. It can be a newly attached wing or addition

to the structure, existing dwelling unit or it can be a completely separate. Structure. Yep. All right. So like a On the lot, but the utilities require that everything be shared. And, um, if it’s a separate dwelling unit, that’s probably not going to work very well. Uh, I don’t know how he, uh, It’s also true that Most

people who would put in an accessory dwelling unit would regard it as an apartment and probably would want. Separately metered electricity or water. And so I’m not sure that 14. Is going to work. But if I say this because my first two years in Massachusetts were spent living in an accessory dwelling unit. And we had separate

monitored utilities, worked out very well. It was a big historic house that had two wings on it, and, um, Serve the function is established here perfectly. And, um, But the separate utilities. Isn’t that the state, the state requirement though, isn’t that taken right from the state that’s, that’s why I wondered.

There’s a little, a little contradiction between that part of what you have in here, and I wonder what that was the state part of this? It’s not a state, but it’s an existing requirement to get a special permit now for an EDU. You can’t have a separate, uh, meter for utilities. So this

was kind of carried over from the earlier draft. It’s optional, you could, um, you can remove it if you like. I mean, I think if you hope this will be successful. You’d want to allow separate utilities. I just understood that as an aesthetic, uh, condition that was set in people not wanting

to see a bunch of meters outside. We’re only going to see. That was the only thing. You only have one now, now you’re going to have two, it’s not really, I’m just telling you that’s where my understanding of it isn’t it specific for ADUs, so anybody that has a an income property, they’re gonna have separate.

Separate units, but these are. This is different than that, and I think Does that No, I rental property and the other, the, the other thing it probably has to be, it’s not addressed is septic, whether or not the the ADU shares, the the septic of the principal dwelling. that could be separate. I, I mean, they just

just questions that we need to resolve. Um-hum. So maybe if it’s an indoor, you know, an addition like an E or or wing, they could use the same septic, but if it’s. Separate, they would take their own is that? Uh, the current law is, I think we had. On our former house on

Bridge Street, we had an ADU which shared the septic, and that was clearly contrary to the law we were told so by numerous people, but You know, we, we had lived there for 10 years and and it worked out fine, but, but I, I think.

But was it the fact that it was a shared septic or was it number of bedrooms? Uh, we didn’t have too many bedrooms we had. Had one. It was a one bedroom. Hm Uh, but I just, I, I sense a little more work needs to be done on this in terms of How,

how’s the utilities are actually You know, to be provided to this ADU. Mhm. Can I make a quick comment because I was on the board when we did the ADU bylaw, however many years ago now. We, I mean, I think the, does the state say anything about Not requiring separate. Meters or separate

utilities. Not that I’m aware of. I know sometimes do require them. They require separate utilities. Yeah, when we did it, we specifically wanted a single point of utilities, so people couldn’t condo then their units. That’s why we did it, um, so you were allowed a shared. Right, because otherwise, downtown, if you’re gonna split

a single family and a two family. I did it right. I, I that would be my garage and it runs through the house and you know, we, you know, we just pay for the utilities, right? So. It’s uh the same with the septic, right? You, you can do

whatever you want, you can either, you know, we had an extra bedroom on ours, so we built the apartment, but if you have enough land, you can have a separate system for the EU. Yeah, and I think it says here verification of the board of health. Yeah. On sewage. Yeah, I think, I think our illegal

septic use on Bridge Street was In violation of violation of the town wasn’t, wasn’t a state. It was a town, uh, I think there’s a little bit of a shift of the intent of the state to actually encourage The condominiums basically. Um, and so, so Hamilton’s interest was

very different than now what the state’s mandate is. So I think it’s, it’s worth revisiting that. Yeah, that’s why I was asking if they required it or not, that’s what I couldn’t remember as well. The, on the septic, it’s not in the regulation, so it could be

a separate septic. You have to have the capacity though, so I think that the way I, the way it’s written now it says written verification from the board of health that the sewage disposal system shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate. We could put after systems because it’s really not.

I don’t think there’s any problem with having another one. It’s just whether the capacity uh will be sufficient. And I don’t know. I, you know, on a smaller lot, I guess, you know, you can’t have a lot that’s basically, uh, A waste disposal system, I mean, it’s not gonna work, uh. No, that’s Am I

missing something a lot of, a lot of lots downtown are too small because yeah, they’re too small, and a lot of them are already maxed out on their bedrooms, right? So you can’t, you can’t, you can’t expand the system because then you have to have a reserve area. It’s, you know, but if you had a a larger

lot and you wanted, you know, say you had 4 or 5 acres and you wanted to put up an ADU quite a distance from your, the principal dwelling unit, you could put in a septic system, it would be expensive, but there wouldn’t be anything that any problem with the. board of health. What folks sometimes

also do if they have an existing septic system and they, they, um, are maxed out on the bedrooms, they’ll decommission a bedroom and then add the ADU. So that’s, I’ve done that many, many times. It’s it’s harder to do anymore though, um, is because, well, if the burden is

on you to prove that you’ve decommit, yeah, but you have to, you have to really decommission it, not just take the closet out and the door off, right, so right. Mhm I mean, I think landlords to the extent that the primary dwelling unit owner is a land landlord always prefer a separate metering.

For oil and gas and water and sewage. Well, the other key piece of the state is that they now no longer. Require what we did here was owner occupied one of the units, right. So there’s nothing in the requirements. Consistent with the state requirements about owner occupancy because we can’t enforce that. That’s all right.

Well, with with respect to utilities, I’m looking at the proposed regulations and I don’t know if they’ve become final. The public hearing was January 10th. It says utility safety and emergency access any requirement concerning utility safety and emergency access that is more restrictive than state requirements, that would be prohibited. So I don’t know

that what we have in here now. I, um, Contrary to that, I guess the question is, um. Whether Bill’s Point is well taken, and we should, uh, I mean, you could just eliminate section 14 and be agnostic. I, I would promote that, you know, and, and They, they can do

whatever they do subject to, you know, the the water and the sewage and again the, the interest is different. The, the goal is a different goal right now. Um-hum. Um-hum. So I would promote what Bill said. Read it. My recollection was that rich Maloney said something like, I

like the fact that there’s not separate metering, but I, but I don’t know that he provided a rationale for that. He, we talked about it. He aesthetics was essentially the aesthetics overhead wires. Maybe they could bury the utilities, but it really does work against the underlying interest here, which

is to create more independent dwelling units, not just an in-law apartment or something like that. You know, where you share resources. I think that it’s it’s antithetical to the goal. Well, does it make sense, maybe, uh, to say. Utilities such as water, electric, oil and gas necessary for the

accessory dwelling unit. You could conceal them in a side yard or something like that extension of the existing utilities serving the principal dwelling unit for attached. Accessory dwelling units. Uh, only or something like that that still doesn’t doesn’t doesn’t, I would, I would erase it. And if you wanted to include something in it, if, if

the goal was aesthetics, which we’re speculating here. It doesn’t have to be underground, but you could say that, um, uh, as much as practicable, uh, utilities shall be, uh, in insider rear yards, not exposed in the front yard. I mean, there’s heat pumps being installed everywhere. No one’s

saying. And a lot of times zoning is very, very specific about those things being exempt. From, you know, like antennas and. Other appurtenances are exempt from zoning. Even solar collectors and things like that. So it’s a, it’s a, I would keep it simple and go with Bill’s suggestion, which just delete it. Well, maybe we could say

she, she, uh, not be visible in the front yard as much as practical, as much as it’s it’s a, it’s a wish and that comes back around to then guidelines, you know, it’s soft. What about a house I mean I could take a meter and put a little box

around it and make it look very colonial, you know, just. I, I think the landscaping to, to loop back around to my discussion, my. Editorial comment last time we talked about this is that really all of this has to be simple and by right. And if you want to educate folks on doing the

right thing, then create some non um jurisdictional guidelines that just help people get to a good place so that they enhance the value of their property and their neighbor’s properties. OK. So consensus that we take out number 14, you know, I, I do have some concern because if

you have um. Say for example, a 400 ft driveway. And then you’re going to bring in, you know, say you’ve got underground utilities, but the ADU wants to bring in utilities from the street with poles cause it’s cheaper. So every, I don’t know, 90 ft or so, you’re going to have poles. Is there

any way to address that because that utility poles are not in zoning jurisdiction. OK. Just. That would be on your property. It would be, you know, the property owners building the utility pole national grid is sworn never to have any more above ground utilities. Is that true? They have made, yes, they

have made that, you know, I mean, they try very hard to get anything that’s longer than, you know, 100 ft 50 ft underground, um, Can, can we move to number 6, or are we still on 14? What do you want to take a vote on 14. Let me

ask you another thing. Is, is there any reason we want to But this, um, put site plan review on this. Um, you, you missed that all of the aesthetic issues that have been raised. Bill, you weren’t at the meeting when we were roundly. Criticized for even thinking even suggesting because it’s

not applicable to the principal dwelling units so if you are to build were to build a single family house in Hamilton. On a lot that didn’t have any septic issues or wetlands issues or anything else, you don’t have to have a site plan review you can just build it. Another way of saying it is the ADU bylaw

cannot be any more stringent than the underlying single family residence bylaw period end of discussion. And that would segues to number 6 if we can go there’s, let’s just finish with 14 unless you want unless it ties in with that. Well, we need to take a vote on 14? Well, I think we don’t need

to vote, but there’s a consensus on 14. We’re going to vote on the ADU that the finished product and the memorandum so uh we will amend this to reflect the consensus, but I don’t think we have to actually vote. So, um, so can we just, uh, not to interrupt you, but number 3, where I have

it highlighted in yellow. Mark, I changed your language. But then I’m not sure that the language that I used in lieu of what you used works and so do we even need that if we say that the accessory dwelling unit shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements set forth in section. 4.1.12.

What, what more do we need to say? So, let’s just Let’s dissect that a little bit, so, uh, we’re’s a typo in there too. We’re focusing on number 3. It says an accessory dwelling unit. There’s the tape over there. In accessory dwelling unit, singular, shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements set forth in section 4.1 table of

dimensional regulations, including for maximum building height. Maximum number of stories, maximum building coverage and minimum front side and rear yards, except as stipulated in this section, so there’s some caveats to that. When attached to a principal dwelling unit, the attached. Accessor dwelling unit shall meet the required setback

requirements for the principal dwelling unit. If it’s in a, uh, it’s if it’s in detached buildings, so it’s a separate building. The detached accessory dwelling unit shall meet the minimum setback requirements for accessory building so. Hamilton’s a little unique. We have, uh, higher. We have stricter setbacks for accessory building.

So I think it’s 20 ft on the sides as opposed to 15 ft for primary. Um And when proposed in a detached structure for building a new building, the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 2 or 25 ft in height the The dimensional requirements allow 35 ft in height, so this is a little bit

less than that. I think the other thing in there is that an accessory building, you have an option on the setback and a side, 20 ft is a minimum, but, uh, you may have to go as high as the 80 the accessory uh building is high. In other words, requirement might be whichever is greater, 20 or the

height of the building. For a side yard setback. So if you had a 25 ft high building, that’s the setback for an accessory building. So that I don’t the two don’t really relate the two, the accessory building section and the Accessory dwelling units. Don’t fit. They have very different

setbacks then. Uh Just, could you repeat that Emil, sorry. Yeah, the, the last part of that, that starts with the uh detached accessory dwelling unit shall meet the minimum setback requirements for accessory buildings. See section 415 accessory buildings of the zoning bylaw when proposed in a detached structure, the accessory

dwelling unit shall not exceed 2 stories or 25 ft in height. That’s not the same as the accessory buildings section 415 though. That’s not what that says. That says 20 ft or the height of the building as the side yard set back or rear yard setback. So That sets up a conflict. How do, how do you

read that then? Or does, or does the principal building at 15 ft be the applicable setback, which I think is the right way to do it, but sounds like the easier correct way. Yeah, I mean it’s what’s good for the principal building is good for the the ADU so delete all the uh highlighted language.

I don’t know why you want to relate it to the accessory building because the height is established somewhere accessory units so I didn’t highlight the full sentence because I had a, a typo in there, but Um You know, the, the, uh So we would be allowing the detached. Up to 15 ft from the side.

Uh, property line. Yeah. What about it would match the principal building. The principal residences, it’s different for an accessible or unaccessible, but an accessory building is different from an accessory dwelling unit. There, so the code is written with the zone, the zoning rig is uh bylaws written for detached accessory building. For the setback in

height, that’s would remain in effect, but that’s not the same. I wouldn’t equate it with the dwelling unit because then you set up a conflict with the setback, uh, based on 20 ft or building height. Whereas in the main 4.1.2 table, it’s 15 ft. Period. OK, so just not to change the accessory building

stays at 20 ft or the greater and the accessory dwelling in it matches the primary so we just delete all that highlighted language, which I highlighted because I knew there was, there might be an issue there so and now you want, uh, Jonathan to talk about number 6. Yeah. So number 6 is

the first question is, It references the definition in section 11 and Section 11 defines the front yard. This is all about, um, would just read it and people aren’t there attached accessory dwelling in it shall not be permitted in the front yard as defined under Section 11 definitions of the

law. So that definition says the front yard is defined as, um, I don’t have it right in front of me, but it’s basically the, between the building and the street line, that’s the front yard. OK, so it’s not the, it’s not the setback line, it’s the building line. So if the building is, I don’t know, a

quarter of a mile away from the street line. Ah, got it. You got, you got, you got a little bit of a situation where it seems like it goes against what the states, um, intent is, is which is to not make the, the whole process more onerous than a single family residence. So, and then there’s other, there’s

other permutations here that you kind of need to look at and make sure you try to take some worst case scenarios here and figure out whether, number one, you’re going against the, the, the intent of the state mandate. And then number 2, Um Making sure, maybe this is the opportunity of legitimate opportunity that if, if it, if

it does, it, it is anomalous that this might be a site plan review where For example, if you have a lot with 3 front yards and an alley for any other yard will now you’ve ruled out the accessory dwelling unit, and yet The front yard might be way over the setback. You know, so now

you’re making, you’re preventing somebody from building a, an accessory dwelling unit because they have 3 front yards and all the front yards are big and the only rear yard or side yard is tiny. Now that again is sort of in violation of what the state’s trying to do. So there’s, I

think this, this is for me, one of the thornier parts of this, the whole ADU issue is these anomalous lots. Mhm and they do occur. Um, I don’t know what the answer is, but I think it’s first worth clarifying some of those conditions, would you be going against the state’s intent of making something.

Usually there’s there’s only one front yard, so even if you have 3 frontages. One has to be designated the front and I mean, there are other things like the 25 ft length there could be 3 front yards. And one side yard it’s an important part, I think because we just, it’s also, it’s extending the full width

of the lot. Yeah, it’s the whole thing. It’s the whole deal. So I don’t have the answer to this, but I think it warrants a little more. You know, analysis and discussion before we just bless number 6. I think it warrant site plan review. That’s what I think and

I think that the 25 ft height limit, you could have some beautiful Victorian house. I had a 35 ft height, you know, copula or roof and that they were planning on building a beautiful addition onto it that, you know, matched the existing roof line and you’d say no no you gotta shrink this thing by

10 ft, so the site plan review could be there to help you to success, not to not to block you from building it. That’s right. You know, and so the, the question would be sort of how you, how you phrase that or word it so that it helps you to

success and doesn’t go against the state, the state law. Can I make a quick comment? Mhm. So, I agree with you. I think, I think, yeah, uh, for the record. Oh yeah, Brian Stein won 75 Willow. Um, I agree with you on, on the height that if it’s an accessory building detached, it

should meet the 25 ft restriction versus the 35 ft restriction. But if it’s attached to the house, it should have the same restrictions as the house does, right? So I think it, I think that’s that was always our intent. I think that was the consensus. OK, but I think what

I thought what you were saying to me was that. You got 35 ft height restriction for an accessory building distinction was, uh, A dwelling unit accessory isn’t equivalent with. Uh, an accessory building. Accessory ADU is not the equivalent to an accessory building, uh, which could be a shed, it could be, you know,

any number of things, a garage, uh, but I think the, you know, and this, this sort of came from the requirements. This came from the requirement of a 15 ft, uh, which the reference was made to the principal building that you should obey the rules for the principal building. Right, I agree with

the setback, um, I just don’t agree with the height necessarily because if you think about say somebody was to do it downtown, right? And you’ve got a, you know, a house that’s, you know, 30 ft tall, you can have an accessory dwelling unit that’s 35 ft tall or, right? You could, you could

have the accessory dwelling unit on the top floor and something else below it, right? A garage, yeah. Well, that’s the, that’s the, that’s what I did, right? So I have a garage with an accessory dwelling unit above and I had to meet the 20 what is the 20 ft height

restriction. Um, which to me makes sense. To not have that accessory, whether it’s a building or dwelling unit be higher than 25 ft. Mhm. Cause it’s not another principal dwelling unit. It’s another dwelling unit, but it’s not the principal unit, it’s an accessory. So if we’re not going to have Site plan review because it’s we’re on a

different subject now, we’re on the previous subject. because it’s politically unacceptable. OK. Then we’re going to have to deal with a lot of little situations, uh, special cases to handle this or that, whereas if you just had an architect look at it for 5 minutes, he’d

say, why don’t you do it this way or that way, uh, you know, that would be how we would like site plan review to work, but if we can’t do that, then we’re gonna have to come up with. You know, special cases to handle all the things that we would

just in an advisory role, you know, changed through site plan review. I do agree with Jonathan though, like there’s going to be certain circumstances where You know, how sits way back and why not have the um. dwelling unit out front, you know, but there’s a lot of cases where that

wouldn’t work either. So I, I think you could make that as a special case or a special permit in that case. The question is how to word it, right. So, but I think that What you don’t want to do is get overly specific about all the special cases, because there’s too many of them review.

But this, this wording is just too broad brushstroke and could be interpreted as both too restrictive and mainly too restrictive by the state, it seems like. And, um, it doesn’t accommodate. Um, hardship with small lots and lots of frontage, and it doesn’t accommodate a large lot where the building is

way out of sight. So. But if for me it gets that in that case, the expectation of the applicant would be to do what everybody else does, go to the zoning Board of Appeals and get the and then it becomes a special permit that becomes in front of us like that’s a trigger that it does, if it

doesn’t meet the underlying zoning, right? For a principal dwelling. At a minimum, and then a lot of towns do have the case where they say you can’t have the accessory building in front of the main building, right? So if it doesn’t. meet that, then you can always get a special permit for it, right? I

don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I agree. You could probably do that or you could Probably say something like unless it’s approved as a site review, you just say, show, show some sort of a some sort of a way out for somebody so they don’t just feel like oops.

It’s all over for me. Um, yeah, no, agreed. I mean, special permit though, I mean it was, it was always my special permit, right? I don’t, I don’t know how many have been done since the law or since the bylaw was enacted, but I know we limited

it to 12 per year and I don’t think we ever hit that, but. Um But I, yeah, I guess I don’t think it’s a huge burden on in those specific. Cass to have a special permit. So you would recommend just. Uh, amending it so it’s as a detached accessory

dwelling unit shall not be permitted in the front yard as defined under Section 11.0 definitions of the lot absent a special permit. Yes, no. Yeah, and then the question is, could the state challenge that? Because, you know, let’s take the either example, you’ve got a medium-sized lot, the building set way back. Um, and

you, you’ve got 3 frontages and the only place to put it is in the front yard, and you’re still within the zoning, the pri the principal residence zoning. Um Yet you’re forced to go through a special permit process. I mean, does the state say anything about front yard? The state says you can have clear and objective standards

for ADUs, um. You can’t Uh, have so many requirements that you foreclose all possibilities for anything you want to like. So maybe that would be the loophole there. It’s not, it, it doesn’t prevent it. It’s just one more jump for an anomaly. And it’s not the majority, right, they’re,

they’re the, the. So if the maybe should um town council just sort of quickly weigh in on that and make sure that we’re not shooting ourselves in the foot on that what we’ll do is we want to get this finalized as much as possible, then we’ll send it to Robin Stein so we, point that out

special attention to this. Is this OK? Yep, we could certainly do that. That satisfies my questions on 6. And, and did we finalize uh section 3? What are we doing with that? Were we concerned that if we struck. The language we were talking about. We would miss The requirement to not

exceed 25 ft, is that what the, the question is, do, do we want to Give the option then 15 ft or. But the way it’s stipulated, 15 ft. Or the height of the building. Um, 15 as a setback. I mean Setback line on the side yard. 30 Aaron, what’s, what

are the what Brian was saying was that, uh, if the building is 25 ft, it would look better actually. 25 ft away from the line. Although Lyon’s imaginary, but that two neighbors who built it could be physical if the neighbors are really close, right. So Mark, you got that change. Yes, I think so.

OK, any more comments with respect to this? We did change the definition of ownership uh uh. we had a definition of owner, but owner was never used in our new. Oh, you had some other comments I’m sorry, yeah, just I know we gotta move here, but, uh, in that table, uh, 4.1.2 of

dimensional regulations talks about maximum building coverage. A lot, uh, or actual. Um I have. Oh, this is on 4. We’re not there yet. Oh, we’re not OK. But those of which Maloney’s. Yeah. Sorry. OK. We want to finish it. Can I just make one comment? I looked up the zoning bylaw for the historic, and it

does mention chapter 40C. Oh, so good doesn’t need to get it over here too, yeah. OK, perfect. I just want to make sure. Thank you. Uh, so anything else on the ADUs? No. So Uh, we have Addressed The historic Uh, district we have addressed, um, section 3. Satisfactorily, uh. Uh, the other thing, a written

variation verification from the board of health that the sewage disposal systems. And then we address section 3. There was a typo, an accessory dwelling unit, we have to eliminate the S and then Mark, you have the language that’s agreed to on section 6 we have absent a special permit at the very end. Um-hum. And then we’re deleting.

Uh, section 14 and we will be adding, which you said 18 mark, but it will now be 17, another reference to the historic District commission and then um. Uh, we have a definition of ownership and. I don’t know if We in the existing bylaw there was a definition of owner, but

in that went with the old 3.6 there must have referred to an owner, but in the new one there’s no reference to an owner, so I put, but there is a reference to ownership, so, um, the lawyers among us met definition of ownership, any, any comment on that? Mm No, no sorry, um. No, I think it’s

fine, um. In whom record title is held an authorized to execute. Yeah, I think it looks OK. Um, I don’t know how Esoteric would wanna get with it. I think if we keep it simple and straightforward. I think the um Um Actually, condominium association. We don’t want condominium associations here. I’m just seeing a problem. The object

here is to avoid condominium association, so there’s never going to be a condominium association that would ever um um but does, does that go against the state’s think so because of what business does a condominium associate association have in developing ADUs, I mean, generally they’re, they’re, you know, they’re governing um bylaws and whatnot

are all. Well when you think of condominiums, often you think of big blocks of buildings with, you know, 10 units in them, but condominiums can be 2 units. Mhm. Those who can be an owner and and you sell a unit. My first house in New York was a two family and I turned it into

a condominium and it was still just a two family. It was just a more convenient way to do the. Ownership. So And it didn’t change the character of the neighborhood. So I think that’s sort of That’s, that’s taking kind of a uh, a bias about condominium blocks and applying

it. Maybe in a way that apply here. But aren’t they trying to incentivize rental housing? Isn’t that the goal? And and affordable purchased housing. It’s rental housing. What, what’s that? It’s rental. Just rental? Yeah. Let me just read the purposes again. So if it’s just rentals, then I take back what I said. Yeah. It’s rentals,

so it’s rentals so we should take out condominium association. One final on that page is the gross square uh floor area. I think that might be from, uh, The uh guidelines not to be Um, contradictory about this, but Under purposes. It says make housing units available to moderate income

households. So it doesn’t seem like it’s only rental. It’s also Moderately priced units. That’s a question. I’m not, I’m not clear that it’s only rental, the intent. Marked of an eager Insight into that under 3. 364 number 11, it says, The access dwelling unit should not be held in or transferred into separate ownership from the

principal. Then, yes, that’s contradictory then. Yeah. OK, never mind. Beckro Square, uh, gross floor area market did that. Come from Uh, rich. That comes from. state’s ADU regulations. It’s a new term, he said. Yes. It’s very new. It’s not my favorite definition, but I sort of recommend keeping it just because. Yeah.

Right. First floor area. OK. OK, So, um, With those amendments. And, and Mark, I’m gonna trust you, um, to, to make those changes because. Frankly, I can’t type. OK. Um, I mean, I suppose I could try with one hand. Oh, but it would be hard. So, uh. I think that that we have um a a

sufficient um. Memorandum and uh. My lot up that’s ready for review by Robert Stein. Uh, so if, if everyone agrees that it’s in good shape, uh, we can send it to her for any comments she might have, you know, I don’t know when these, uh, regulations will be finalized.

I don’t think they’re going to be finalized anytime soon, but I’m sure she’s been looking at these, uh, for other communities, and she’s looked at the proposed regulations, and I, I don’t. Have the sense that there’s been any significant pushback from communities about um the ADU regulations, I think there’s probably a fair amount of

support uh for this as opposed to 3A. I think everybody gets sees the wisdom of having these ADUs, so, um, she uh could comment on it and, and hopefully if uh If all goes well, she could even do it in such a short period of time

that we would be able to vote um on a final, um. Uh, memorandum and uh bylaw amendments, um. At our next meeting. Is there any limit on um. Time frame for rental, like short term rental, and that’s not a lot. I mean we can’t right in the bylaw it says no short term rentals. What was

your question? What’s, what is this? What’s the definition of that? I know that other towns are looking at, you know, saying, you know, 30 days minimum, right? It’s obviously more for long term housing than it is for short term, so I just wanted to make sure there was something there’s a reference,

I think, to general laws, um, chapter 64G section 1 short term rentals as defined. In mass law. So, um Shall we vote to send this off to Robin? Yes, I will make a motion that we send this off to Robin so Pat Norton, Pat Norton, Jonathan Jonathan Poor Wheaton Wheaton Amquist Bethur. Uh, Darcy Dale.

Darcy, and Marie Crouch, I. Good job, everyone. We made some progress. Well, thank you to Mark and to Marnie for doing all the work on this. Sure. No problem. OK, so That’s that Uh, next up, let’s do the site plan review and we might not get. To there, um. Mark has uh started

a proposed memorandum. I have as well. The one I have done, uh, with apologies to Mark does follow the format that Robin gave us, but this is pretty easy because what we’re doing is eliminating the existing site plan review by law and substituting um another one in its stead. So if you recall, um,

I believe I uh sent you uh a version of the amended uh site plan review section and uh. There was some discussion of it, but Mark um made the suggestion that a lot of the um. Provisions that are in the bylaw would more appropriately be in regulations so for example, the number of copies

and, and the contents of what would be required for site plan review and so he had, I think you have a red line, uh, copy as well as, uh, his final version, um, and so I endorsed that approach, not that I’m going to, you know, endorse precisely what’s in here because I think everyone.

needs to talk about it, but I think it’s a great idea to put some of this material in regulations because it’s much easier to amend the regulation, we just need a public hearing notice and a requisite notice in a public hearing. So if we find that some of the provisions that we’ve added are too

onerous or that we inadvertently should have included something else, so we want to amend something. It, it’s much easier to do that. than to try and amend the bylaw itself. So I think the task for tonight is to take a look at, um, Uh, Mark’s version and Mark, you didn’t transmit your proposed regulations. I haven’t,

uh, those are, so the regulations would be something the planning board, if this were to be approved, the planning were to adopt that on its own, so it wouldn’t be part of the bylaw anymore. No, no. Um, My goal is to have a draft ready, so someone at town

meeting. wants to see what’s in there. They, they, you know, it’s fully transparent, but Uh, I guess that there’s not as much urgency because, uh, Obviously we, we don’t need that in time for, we don’t need to have that completely finalized in time. Right. My suggestion was to at least have

something in the nature of a draft of the regulations or or or just enough information that we can inform the select board that uh we’re not trying to pull a fast one here by eliminating all the content of the uh site plan review but that we have really just transferred uh many of the requirements to uh regulations.

That I have a, I have a document from November. Called site plan primer, you or you give that out. It was a memo looking at cases in Massachusetts which have allowed increasingly over time. Uh, design reviews through site plan with, with limits. And it’s a summary of kind of like You know what those powers

actually look like. Is that, did you send that? I just sitting here. It’s a word document. Patrick Refor OK, so he was, that’s we should all read that. Um, because what, what Mark is proposing, I’m quite sympathetic to, but it is really a very Comprehensive extension of site plan review.

Over, you know, almost all projects of any size, residential or commercial, that would be done. Uh, in town. And it provides us. You know, general framework in terms of style and, and harmony with the environment guidelines, and it, and it’s, Also very explicit is provides quite a process, just

like we do with stormwater bylaw. There’s a Uh, you know, an abbreviated site plan review if it’s, you know, there’s a, there’s a full blown site plan review and, um, Yeah You know, I think, you know, honesty, it looks like a fairly significant extension. Of planning board powers as they’re currently

elaborated. Would you agree with that? I don’t think so. I think it just takes a lot of that not controversial type information like how many copies do you need to submit to the town and what minimum requirements have to be in the site plan, because those are things that are more technical.

I don’t think, um, I, I don’t think voters would have an objection to transferring that authority to the planning board. But if I’m a, I’m just, if I’m a developer doing a 3 unit subdivision down the road. It seems to me this adds were a bigger 10 unit subdivision. This add one whole other primitive process. To normal

zoning. No, the thermal zoning and sub subdivision appro approval, it’s not part of the permitting process. The real advantage to it is not so much because it’s all advisory would be. To have this initial conversation with the developer on what the expectations of the, the town might be what some of

the, some of the comments of the planning board might be going forward on it and but you’re right, it’s a lot of work to put together because you have to show something. That, I mean, it’s a separate. Yeah. It’s a separate approval process, but there’s more latitude in what the planning board can do because it’s, it’s

the discretionary and that’s the advantage of it through persuasion, you can usually get something a lot better than, and I think that, you know, I, I haven’t, um, I, I need to go through this, but I think that that there are many paragraphs that start unless waived by the planning board so I think that

for uh. Probably typical we should go through this and make sure that it does say that, but you, you know, the planning board can wave in writing some of the requirements that might be. Perceived as onerous for a project that doesn’t really, that’s, yeah, you have this pre-conference and you go

through acquire it or you have an abbreviated process and that’s a, you know, that’s a good way of, you know, so at that pre-application conference you can filter out and and say well you could request a waiver of that in the planning board would, would be, uh, uh amenable to seeing something

like that. So I think that that It, it lays out, you know, Comprehensively what we’d like to see, but And there’s also a recognition that a lot of the times we have site plan review, it’s pretty perfunctory. I mean, I recall one, we had site plan

review when the Bank of America switched to a um uh uh uh real estate office at the Crosby’s Marketplace, well, OK. I mean, we’re not gonna have a full blown, uh, uh. Uh, uh, long drawn out battle over something like that. OK So have, have, have members had an opportunity to look at this draft that’s

stated 115-2025. No, I’m looking at it tonight. Yeah, a couple of comments, one, A free very generous, very broad powers. In You know, 1061. The purpose of the project is the process for fitting the proposed development to neighborhood character, scale, infrastructure reasonably protect the town at a budding property owners from potential

negative impacts. Yeah. Uh, Like all the things that were being advertised as part of the form-based code in the comprehensive a little bit, yeah, so it’s almost like it would be redundant if you were successful in the other effort. I think though this section builder. There’s not many

changes to what. Actually, I think that that if you look at the old one, the old version of site plan review that the purpose is the same. Yeah. So, so it, so, so, uh, your view is we really haven’t changed. The scope and nature of what’s done it’s mostly process. Yeah, you’re not changing the

projects that are required to go through site interviews, so you’re not. creating any new like single family residential still doesn’t have to go through site review. You’re not changing any of that, you’re changing a little bit process with um 10.63 is a new Uh, requirement, which require the

applicant to meet. I would say informally with the board, uh, to describe the project. I think Having heard this discussion, I think it makes sense to add some language. Uh, specifying the kinds of projects that if it’s a very minor project, we probably don’t need to do that step, but

The idea is, um, I worked in a town where this was required and I liked it because it’s a non-binding discussion, so the the board members can say, I think this project is garbage, or you can be very blatant, uh, you can be very honest with the applicant, um, and you don’t have to worry about that.

Showing up in a core filing or something because the whole purpose is non-binding discussion. Uh, so it was. Those are my favorite discussions because they’re very honest, um. discussion. So I think for bigger projects, it makes sense to have that and it’s not terribly, um. Add a

little more time, but it’s, it’s a nominal fee. Uh, 3 weeks before you file the regular application it’s not a huge burden on the applicant. So Bill, when I’m saying in the last couple of decades what. projects, what we, what developments have we employed site plan review to review. Well, we’ve had a number of them. Pre-application mean?

Yeah, I mean you’re talking about site plan review site plan review. And, you know, the, the gas station Cumberland Farms, that was. One that was quite contentious, I understand. Anything else? The fire department museum, one, honeycomb was one years ago. Yeah, and we had one for uh some building and you all

talked about the the beams. You know, the overhang. Oh, yeah, that was, that’s Railroad Avenue, yeah, yeah. And we have the columns parking lot, which I’m not sure really required side plan review the parking for, for the, uh, um, uh, Appleton Farms, so we’ve had a number of them. And, and good,

good conversations have come out of them, so but you know, basically, Bill, that, that, that, that. This site plan review. I like what’s in front of me. I, I’m just trying to characterizes are just reorganized in a better way from what’s already there and the pre-application conference.

Yes, and to echo what Mark was saying, it, it’s a place to be candid. It’s also a place that you can help, help somebody to success, you know, in advance. In other words, you can, you can show them what they need to work on to get to yes, so it, it doesn’t need it. Actually in

the long run, it can expedite a larger project. Yeah, I mean, the first First one we had, I had anyway was the 133 Essex. I attended that. I was not on the board on it, so I was not on a I didn’t go through this. I didn’t application conference I

didn’t, I didn’t go through the pre-application. I, I, I sat in on it, but I was not a member of the board at the time wasn’t that for the special permit not special permits very different, but it was still a pre-application conference. Yeah. But it’s Well you could question whether or not in a

site plan, I agree with the special. I, I guess you wonder. Non-binding, the, the nature of the special permit process itself may not be, may not a pre-application. Process may not be as important. For for what? For a site plan review. Well it’s nonbinding discussion. It’s over. It’s this, that, but you’d be surprised. Well, again,

Marcus, you know, making a testimonial to the fact that it worked in the previous town, um, I, I served on the historic District commission in Gloucester for nearly 20 years, and we promoted that throughout my tenure there and it was, it was. A fantastic asset, whether we were dealing with Graham

Gunn from Boston or a homeowner applicant. Yeah, so. Yeah. Brian, did you want to add something? I was just looking at this. It says, you know, pre-op conference within 21 days of application submission. Are you saying It gets applied for and then you have the pre-op conference, which doesn’t, it’s contradictory,

right? Or is it? Which section are you in? Yeah, you’re right. I’m on my phone. Yeah, there should be review time and then a then a meeting. So yeah, you’d think you’d want to come in just if it’s informal, come in before you apply, right? Because to apply you have to have Drawing everything ready,

right? So the pre-op conference is useless if it’s saves the developer money and time, actually, if you do it in advance of the applications so that, that’s an advantage to everybody. That’s the incentive for him to come in early, right, but the way it’s worded, it sounds like it happens.

After application. Yeah, no, I, I picked up on the same thing, yeah. The dates should not be identical. There shouldn’t be I don’t think you need to it, right? It’s just getting on your agenda. Yeah, I don’t think we need 21 days, uh. That’s just saying we will. You, it won’t go longer than 3 weeks,

so. If you email me the plans, I’ll, I’ll make sure within 3 weeks we’ll get you in front of the plan. For the pre-ha conference. It’s also just a small typo in that paragraph. Um, it’s just, yeah, planning board may make suggested, I think it means, and it’s just missing the ED and suggested

it’s like the 6th line. from the bottom up The planning board may make suggested methods for resolving potential challenges. So maybe that’s important what Brian’s mentioning and what A start with in the rules and regs. There’s a list of the things you should have when coming forward in the pre-application permit and then the things that

are required when you actually get in for. Your formal Application There won’t be this Full blown set of engineered drawings if that’s what you have. It should be like maybe. Maybe the site plan. You’re like whatever the minimum set of requirements that we would need to have to have the

pre-application. pre app should be before the regulations so you you’re saying put you’re saying put the form it outlines what the requirements would be in the submission to attend a pre-application permit. But it could be completely just a conceptual idea and they wouldn’t even get to the, what,

what are the regulations maybe so yeah. But usually there’s a company in form. Just application. Yeah The idea is actually conceptual is good because they would. Come to the board hypothetically before they spend money on engineering so that they get your feedback and then they spend the money on, you know, engineering and all that. And any other

comments? Um I just wanted to just to comment on the pre-application conference materials, whether She kind of, uh, key off some of the 8112. Um Open space comments on uh You know, 4 or 5 steps, not go through each step, but the primary one was identifying and delineate, um. Special site features protected and

unprotected, you know, give examples of those steep slopes, um. Um, wetlands are protected. He’s got under To So. Um, see. See May be conceptual in nature but sufficiently clear to illustrate the nature of the proposed improvements depicting general conditions of the site including bounds of the. Property topography, wetlands, existing structures and

associated features and Proposed improvements to the property. That’s pretty good in a general way, yeah, but I wondered if I know again, just, just based on the 133 Essex, the, uh. What was overlooked on that whole project was what. that notion of conservation development and um that wasn’t fallen at all in that particular project that would,

that would come about in a pre-application meeting, and I’m sure it didn’t in that meeting. And, uh, But it was in the bylaws. I just wonder if it’s good to put it in, just remind people in a pre-app. Could, could we reference that so they could read it in its

full bouquet. Yeah, because this would be, this would be in the bylaws, so, uh. Yeah, good reference. So we don’t repeat it, just reference it. Yeah. I, I would support that. Yeah. Could you, could you provide Mark with the language that you would like respect to that. And I apologize, I would be writing

this down, but I can’t. It could be. You put it. All right, no mocking the chair. I OK, I’ll send Mark something in there. Yeah, so there was. So, Emily, you’d be referencing all of 8.1.12. Uh, I’ll look at that section. Not, we don’t need all of the, you know, the all 5 steps. No, but the

because it’s it’s I think it’s step 1 or 2 where it delineates all the pieces identifying features and we’ve already pulled the sentences apart in the revisions or have we, where it’s a run on sentence and they skipped the attorney, the applying attorney skipped through the the run on sentence,

protected and unprotected. Yeah Yeah, or they just put identify and they didn’t say delineate there you go. Yes, delineate the magic word delineate. We identified it. You too. I got a trip down memory lane. Painful. Uh, I think that was the only thing I had. So this, this, oh,

OK, sorry, go ahead. 1067. I know you want to move on here, but I’m 67. I don’t know whether this was. I say, but the second this was site plan review. Application content the planning board shall be empowered to adopt and enforce sight plan should review be in there? Review regulations? Yes,

yes. Yeah. OK Uh, 1069 is a new section. It gives you the option if you wanted to, to, um. Established a design review committee to help you review applications. It’s an optional, um, Sort of exercise, so it’s If you choose not to have this process, you don’t have to, but

um I kind of like it. Yeah, I was thinking, uh. I was writing this after the 3A decision came out, so I was thinking, you know, that comes to be then perhaps this might be a, a good, good. Yeah. Good thought because remember, uh, 3 egg is subject to site plan review’s right yline review. So the, uh,

you know, the better this, um. We need a consultant. We need to pay a consultant to build a set of guidelines for ADUs and 3A. And site plan review. So there is a whole set of design guidelines for the downtown that were done 10 years. It’s a good base. That that’s what

Cumberland Farms at least. Sort of used. We’ve got a better, better combies than we’re gonna have, um. But I think there’s, there, there are additional opportunities. Of course there were, but yeah. You know, this is a buy right process, right? So there’s only so much you can it’s education. It’s not non-jurisdictional education.

Right, right, exactly. No, there’s always opportunities for greater education, right? The question of who then is on a on a design review committee, right? It is always my question, right? Like, you know, it’s only you two won’t always be on the board as architects, right? That’s a set of guidelines that lives outlives the people is

more valuable than the people. No, I agree No, I agree there’s No, I agree. I totally agree there’s institutional memory as well, but there’s always, you know, the interpretation and you know, if you don’t have I’ll say the right people on that committee, and it’s going to change over time, right? So, and it could change for every

project. Well, the other thing too is the design review committee doesn’t necessarily have to be members exclusively members of the planning board. So there’s an opportunity to to reach a brother, um, group of people, but uh the, yes, if the design review, uh, regulations are, are. Worthwhile they will be long lasting and you’re

right, you know, one place to start looking would be the existing, um. Uh, design guidelines for the downtown. And you know, to the extent that that They, they haven’t been, uh, examined. I mean they, they could be, um, I, I. I haven’t looked at them recently, so don’t, if you were

instrumental in in developing them, don’t take offense, you know, it may be that over time, you know, maybe some new thoughts would, uh, be, uh, useful to uh uh amend them or inform them better based on what we’ve seen over time and, and whether they’ve been used successfully or not, so, and it,

it could form a basis of, of this and this is not saying we have to do it, we just can’t do it. and that’s that’s not a bad thing, yeah, and they’re, you know, they’re not design requirements. Right, right, right, right, guidelines but you’re and you’re right, it’s more about education and this

is what we prefer promoting success, let’s do something. Reminiscent of the executive office, maybe we want to say design review guidelines. Take out regulations. Yeah. Putting guidelines and when we say guidelines we will mean guidelines. Yes. Yep. Touche. Yeah. I, I would promote that. So regulations appears twice, I believe. Yeah, we should also

always be wary of using the term regulations because they connote something that’s required versus something that’s not. Um-hum. So we will have site plan review regulations. Right. Design review guidelines. And when and if We ever were to tackle the definitions in. Our zoning bylaw, we could add that. Regulations have one meaning and guidelines have another.

Could add definitions to that effect. Um I think I would say, I, I wonder if uh under Saline standards, um, whether we consider general standards, which would be townwide applied. Uh, for basically it be be for non-residential buildings. I don’t think you’d do this for residential at all, but, um,

and then special standards or specific standards like the downtown area. Uh, the That’s sort of a parallel with the formba code, but they’re more specific on detail. Then the form-based code will be, um, you know, once we find out what they are. From UTL. Um And then kind of tackle things like

citing landscape organization, the architecture and signage turns out to be a big deal, especially in downtown. You know, I Something I found out, I thought it’d be a sort of a An afterthought, but it isn’t. It’s signs are everywhere and and uh. I know there’s a First Amendment Amendment right, you can’t, um, Um deny anybody to

say anything, uh, I remember we even tried these. There and it’s you wanted to put a Telephone number on the, you know, on a, on a sign. And um He fought his First Amendment rights, but the idea was signages for information, it’s not advertising and that that was what we were trying to

promote anyway in terms of for the downtown, otherwise you get all kinds of slogans and Any he walk-ins welcome or I don’t know, kind of degrades, I think the general, um. Signage, but anyway, those are the three main categories I think in design, uh, any kind of design review. But, and then each one

of those is a lot of sub subtopics all all sort of um. Standard good practices and not really subjective in any way, so I think that would be a. I don’t know, I I’d like to jot something down, Mark, if you take a look at that and then.

See how that, how that works with the board. OK, so I think that, um, uh. Alicia, do you have any, anything else? So, so Mark has, um, all our comments and we will review. I just we never got to Rich Maloney, we’re gonna do that next. Oh, OK. One thing at a time, uh, just under Section 11

definitions, um, site plan review is referred to section 8.26. It’s now section 10.6 that’s in the definitions for a site plan review. So that’s a change. Yeah, this, I have to. night off. Good good thank you for um your comments, Brian. Um you write definitions here. Could you just make a note for me there? OK. Thanks.

OK. Thanks. Um OK, so, uh, this is a to be continued, um, and so, uh, well, I’ll try and get the uh memorandum that will go to the select board, um, and, and, uh, uh, uh, better shape, uh, and then, uh, Then You will have it at the next meeting.

Hopefully, and then Mark will have the final version of the um, Of the um 10.6 itself. Uh, but I will have to, uh, adjust the memorandum to also include uh a one article to amend the definition. Um Well, actually, is that just a mistake that we can correct. I don’t know. I’ll look at it. That, that whole

definition section is is a conundrum. It’s you can’t find the definitions you want when you want it. And they’re all over the place and some of the definitions are in the statutes themselves. Patrick and I were trying to look up front yard, the definition of front yard setback, and it was under yard

front yard front that I was going, where is it? It’s not, there’s no F here. Um, OK, now we are going to turn to um on definitions, Mark, there’s no definition anywhere on coverage. And that’s a confusing, um, me anyway, is it just building coverage? In other words Doesn’t include paving.

It doesn’t include any other impervious. Stuff, which I think is typical coverage. They It, it’s anything that’s impervious is part of coverage as, as I believe it is it does vary from town to town though. Really? The definitions are all over the map. OK. So you got to,

that’s why it’s more important to look, you know, to define it. Yeah, this says building coverage, uh, so that’s. Pretty clear. But Typically a coverage of all impervious is a more useful, I think, a data point. And that allows you to get an understanding of what is green that’s left. stormwater perspective lot coverage versus

building coverage, yeah, that’s usually the difference in terminology. lot coverage is more inclusive. Yeah. Yeah, that clarification would be good, you know, as. Here, yeah. OK. Now we get to now we get to Section 4 and, and so you all I believe have the memorandum with respect to the, uh,

amendments that, um, Rich Maloney suggested. So, Um We can talk about that now, uh. Would Do you know if rich has had an opportunity to to look at this. I think I sent it to him. He had, I think had something with respect to Um Gross floor area residential.

Uh, and I don’t know if I need to add that to my, um, memorandum. I don’t know I talked to him today about 80 years, but we didn’t talk about this, uh, section so um. Because we have this gross floor area for ADUs. We also have Gross, gross floor area business and gross floor area

residential, so he recommended defining gross gross floor area residential as the area of a residential structure used for living space. Excluding unfinished basement and attic area. Um But that would be different than the definition. For an ADU, which is kind of mandated by statute, so maybe the the issue is um uh, Uh Excluding. Um The definition of

ADU. Except for the definition of gross floor area pertinent to section 3.6 of our bylaw, the area of a residential structure for living space excluding un. I’m reading that wrong, uh. Well Excluding unfinished basement and attic area. I can add that to his um. To his suggested changes. But should be, should be the sum of

the floor areas first of all, because he, he didn’t. It’s not, it’s not a footprint, you know, of the building, but it’s all the floor areas and there’s a sum of the floors that go into the growth. So his definition, so his proposed amendment doesn’t work for you? No. So there’s a conundrum. And the

other thing is habitable space, um. You know, anything above 6, 68, I think is the number he said last time. Would anything above 68 would be habitable. So a basement. Below that is a crawl space below 68. Yeah, so that also excludes under Eve’s faces and right, right. Um So long story short, given all

this, I didn’t add it to my, uh, memorandum because I I don’t see any, any definition that I could just plug in. Yeah, I mean, I don’t know what he thought I just use the building code definition, not the ADU building code, but the, the, the state required to use the the state definition for the

ADUs. Right, right, but not for not for anything else, anything else, but for, for business buildings and for um Residential buildings. Uh, uh, with, with the. It’s usually measured from the exterior face of the you know the foundation of the framing but I, I, I’m not, uh, adept enough. And Frankly, I cannot.

Physically. Harsher words and put this into any kind of cogent anything. I’ll write it up for you if you like. Well, somebody has to, you know. Yeah. Because I can’t do, I can’t do it. I, and I, and I’m not, I, I don’t even, I’d have to Google building

code and spend, you know, a half an hour looking for whatever it is that So I mean I can work with you and Rich to sort of sort that out and then let me know or you know, yeah, because I will have to. I will have to uh Add another section

to uh uh definitions. OK. So, um, you had questions about the table of use regulations, uh, I, I had Basically just one question, uh, when the front yard minimum front yard was changed from 25/50 to just 25. And that kind of eliminates footnote 5, so I think you could just delete that whole.

Mhm. Uh, well, not delete it. I have to cross it out. Um-hum. And I have to make sure I. That’s eliminate that in the table of use. To do it? Yes, please. So do you want line through that. And then take out the um oh, it’s already out so OK, so we’re good. Oh, well,

I’ll make sure it’s out. It looks like. The 50s out, but we want to make sure the subscript is out too. Yeah. OK Anything else? Uh, nope, not for me. Oh, good. Good. So this, this memorandum just needs uh. Um A little more work to add that definition. And we will get this, um, He Uh, actually,

maybe we can get this off. No, I can’t. We have to get the, the, uh, the definition of the gross floor area, so it needs. We’ll try and get this finalized for our next meeting so this can go to Robin as well. I, I don’t know that will, will we be ready to get a site plan

review to Robin at the next meeting or the meeting that. I think we’re in pretty good shape. It means the next meeting. The next meeting is January 29th. This one feels like it never ends. You try You try. Pat, you say that I, I definitely want to leave here soon. I see. Yes. Yeah. OK, so

I, I think that, that we’re, we’re, we’re, uh, Next Wednesday via Zoom. Uh, we’re at the home stretch here. We have just one more item on our agenda which I hope won’t take long at all. Finally, we have some progress. uh, so, um. Is this master plan we’re talking about? Yes. Yes. I’m not hiding

from you this time. Uh, the, um, I made some changes to sort of plan. Uh Changes that had to be made and then the town manager’s assistant has helped the formatting. She just sent it to me this afternoon. I haven’t even opened her email, but I know she, I spoke to her and she said, uh, She thinks

it’s in good shape, so. OK. Do it and send it to perhaps a meal would be my sort of. First person to take a look at it, but um I think at that point we can send it to everyone and be done with it, uh, endeavor. OK Progress. And And Marty,

perhaps the The next meeting on the 29th. Perhaps that could be over Zoom. Yeah. Yeah, I don’t think we have the room here. I think it is. I think it has to here. I think it is. I think it has to OK. Are you ready for a motion to adjourn? I absolutely

am. Second. Oh great. Any discussion? I like to think about this. Pat really wants to stay. Let’s think about it. Pat Norton. Younger than poor Jonathan Poor Bill Wheaton Aalst Amilquis, that’s her. Darcy Dale. Darcy Dale, I and