Planning Board (January 22nd, 2026)

001Good evening everyone and welcome to the Ashlin Planning Board meeting of Thursday, January 26. Sorry, no, Thursday, January 22nd, 2026. Um, I will call the meeting to order at 7:19 and want to remind everyone that we are uh broadcasting and recording. Um, first on the agenda tonight um is the chair or clerk's report. This is generally where we um let everyone know about um communication we have received. It's been a little quiet. I guess the start of the year um since our last meeting, we did receive one email that had to do that went to multiple kind of bodies. It had to do um with comments regarding the housing production plan which we talked about two weeks ago. We had a presentation given to us as well. And um there have been several emails about

002zero cross street um and um the conversation going on with that particular lot which I think um Jasmine will talk a little bit about later on in the meeting under administrative. Um this has kind of come up recently. Other than that, like I said, it's been a little quiet, so we will go on to um Does anyone else have any comments before I go on? >> Street. >> Sorry, that Zero Cross Street, that's the one with Hopkin. >> Yes, that's Zero Cross Street. Okay. Yeah. So, we can uh we can talk about that later. Um otherwise, we will go on to public comment. Um first, I will open it up to just general public comment. um either in the room or online. So I don't see too many of the public online. Um so um

003if there's no general comments um we do have a kind of a subcomment here on our public comment um category and that's an informal discussion with the Carolina Estates Preliminary Subdivision. So, this was a subdivision we looked at uh before the holidays. >> Yeah. Um and um it was a little bit um we did discuss the situation. There were some elements with the subdivision questions that were outstanding and um there actually wasn't anyone here for the project. So it was a it was a subdivision we >> we voted down at that time. >> A preliminary subdivision. >> The preliminary subdivision. >> You recommended that an ANRAD be done as well to ascertain the uplands for the site. >> Right. Right. So there was a couple things that were missing and so we we kind of

004sent that back. So um but so this evening who is here for >> Paul and you were here You were the one that we did talk to at the end of one meeting, right? >> I didn't have this email with you that night. I just need to give it to you. >> You might need you might need a microphone for them to pick them up. >> This is what I received for the meeting that I was supposed to show up for, which I did. And you guys had a meeting on the six, two weeks prior, >> right? So, I actually need you to go to the microphone if you're otherwise things won't get recorded. We kind of made that mistake last time. >> So, um >> so that email shows that um we were invited

005to your meeting on the on the 13th of November. You held the meeting on the 6th, which we weren't notified of. You uh there was no representation here. You guys looked at the project. You had a couple of buddies here that at the end of the road because I went back after the meeting and watched it to see what happened on TV and of course like I said nobody was here to represent the project and you denied it. Uh my client was really mad. So um >> I I asked for a informal hearing >> because you already voted on it and I know you can't change that and I I got no problem with that. It's a preliminary, but you know, not being able to explain it to you, there were a few things that

006you had questions on, and of course, nobody was here to answer them, >> right? >> So, I just wanted to go over the project with you, show you what we're proposing. Uh, first off, the comments from the two gentlemen that were here at the end of the road about the strip of land between their properties, uh, they kept mentioning it was an easement. That's not true. >> That strip is owned by my client. Okay. And I'll show it to you on the plan. >> Yeah. I mean, if um you know, you are on the agenda. It is informal. So, we won't be um taking a vote or anything. It's not something we take a vote on. They would have to reapply, >> right? I'm not any kind of vote. >> I you know, I just

007wanted to show you the project. >> We can't do anything. But I just wanted to get your feel and comments for stuff that because I couldn't answer. Nobody was here to do that. >> How how do we best do this because um can that microphone be changed? can be. Um, >> none of them are wireless, so you either have to hold it or >> just hold it. >> They're up on >> I thought it could I thought it could bend the other way. >> Um, >> so this is a piece of land off of Adam Street, which is close to the Sherborn. Take this one. >> There we go. >> Oh, thanks. >> Superhero right there. So, this piece of land is off of Adam Street, which is in the eastern part of town, almost.

008So, this is an existing condition. It shows the wetlands. >> Gotcha. So, this is a uh stand over here. This is a 6.8 p acres piece of land that was left over in 1954 when they did this subdivision. They left a road stub here and a road stub here which is owned by the person that owns it which is my client now um in 2006. So they never completed this project because of the wetlands and the water table is very high down here. And this was on septic in 1954. In 2006, they ran this sewer line right through the property. So that gives us a good advantage of getting onto sewer instead of doing perk test because it will never perk. So what we were proposing to do is bring those two road stubs in

009like that, creating four lots. Two houses on that road, two houses on this road. Uh we since have gone through an ANRAD process with the conservation commission. They've reviewed the flags. They're all set. Uh we notified a a brook going through this uh wetland area over here that's un we're still working with them to identify that. So that brook part hasn't been done, but the flags on the property are set. uh in your planning your subdivision rules and regulations for pre preliminary is kind of everything in a general manner wetlands topography drainage what we've done is we've accurately got wetlands we've accurately calculated the lots we accurately have topography on 88 datam and that's what it would look like with the proposed roads two culdeacs now I went to the fire department. I talked with

010a girl named Lynn for about 30 seconds. She was very busy. What we'd like to do is give the fire department at least this turnaround. >> So, is that our deputy >> our deputy fire chief? >> Deputy fire chief. >> Yeah, she's very nice, but she's real busy. I could I only had like two seconds with her. >> So, I showed her the stuff real quick. She was going to review it and get back to me. I haven't talked to her yet. Um, we because of the wetlands down in this area here, we still want to try and I showed her this. We still want to maintain the the tea turnaround on that bottom one. So, we avoid the wetlands. Uh this has been this has been done in other towns and they approved this

011if you got the right radiuses and you can fit a 60 foot truck up and down these things which we can uh buck and ladder can fit in here no problem and this would have the actual turnaround. So that's what we're aiming to do. We know after I looked watched your meeting that you want to see these roads designed in a way that they could be with your regulations and then you may waver some stuff from there. That's what I got from the last meeting that I watched. So if you have any questions I can answer them right now. Anything at all. I I think the questions last time were um fire department questions because we not you know doing what we call a paper road where we say hey there's room to do the

012culde-sac but we don't do the culde-sac is something that we would work very closely with the fire department um on because obviously the reasons of safety. >> So uh and the second thing on there was a measuring of the uplands. Now are you saying that all of that area has been done to the satisfaction of the conservation commission >> and that's >> I have not received last sorry madam chair through the if I may >> well they haven't had their meeting yet we just walked it >> they haven't had their meeting >> Saturday this past Saturday the Saturday before but they're all set with the flags okay I can tell you that now so the area calculations are set for the uplands the lot coverage I mean the lot areas in the uh upland areas,

013they're all accurate. There's I'm not worried about that. So, those four lots are what basically what's going to be there >> is the um brook or perennial stream or whatever it is. >> Well, that's what we're talking to her about now. >> Is that And is the setbacks for that potentially going to change this? Probably. Yes, it could. It >> absolutely. >> Well, we already know it's an intermittent, so we're not worried about it. But her my wetland scientist and Becca, >> they're going back and forth now on that on the watersheds. >> And if I may, Madam Chair, just through through you, the conservation commission has made it clear that that corner of the right culde-sac where it fills the wetlands will not be allowed to be constructed. They've made it very clear they

014cannot fill the wetlands to construct that culde-sac. Is that being addressed that you're hearing coming up as well? >> We don't know yet. Right now, we're dealing with them as far as uh the approval of the flags, which I'm all set. They we walked the whole site and now we're dealing with that stream that runs through here. >> The question of the streams, as far as I'm aware, again, Madam Chair, is if they are indeed perennial streams or if they are considered stream beds, you do have or if they are considered rivers instead of streams. um you know riverfront or stream beds have certain areas that you have to maintain so it may impact us. >> Yeah, your set beds go to 100 feet and 200 feet. >> And there's also an a a culver

015outlet at the end of that culdeac to the right as well that would have to be designed around also that it's designed directly over which may be part of a perennial stream. >> So from my understanding though you're not doing a culde-sac on the right side you're doing that like tea street. Well, we're going to design a culde-sac to meet your regulations and then we'll discuss waiverss from there. As far as um I'm still waiting for the fire department to get back to me on if you'll allow that to turn around. I just want to show you these pictures. I don't know if anybody out to the site or not. >> I got plenty. >> And but do the pictures. Well, what it's what it's showing here is if you look at the first one

016that's standing on uh Adam Street at this intersection looking up the street. As you can see by the picture, there are no sidewalks, no BMS. It's just 24 ft of pavement. The second picture is if you just turn right, you're looking down this dead end. The pavement stops roughly. Look at the third picture. standing at this uh intersection looking down this wooded area between the two houses. You can see the trees in there. In the last picture is just standing right here looking at the end of the road. So, as you can see from the picture that Adam Street, it's a long dead end, no turnaround, no verm, no grain of curving, no gutters, no uh sidewalks. It's just 24 ft of pavement. That's it. Um, so when we come back with the definitive, we're

017going to kind of look to image that as far as no sidewalks on these little two dead end walls, possibly reducing the width of the pavement. Now, we'd like to go down to like between 20 and 18 somewhere in there where you can say for two cars. I know roads in town right now that are about 15 feet wide. Measurements show you where they are. So, as far as two houses here and two houses here, 18 feet of pavement is more than adequate for that. And of course, we wouldn't be looking for any sidewalks or BMS. We may need BMS to control the runoff or drainage. We don't know yet. We haven't done any holes. >> Are there any questions from the from the board on this? or I I think um you know typically

018and this was part of the problem um last time I think is that not just that there wasn't anyone here but there's a lot of unanswered questions like the planning board isn't going to I don't want to speak for the board but I don't the planning board generally doesn't approve anything unless the conservation commission is okay with it right >> right um because those are right >> and also in in terms of the the roadways we're looking for the fire department to okay it right we don't go against our own fire department. So we're kind of looking for that we so we not having any answers on that there's no way we can there was no way for us to kind of give an approval. We would be waiting you know for that for that

019information. >> Right. >> So so the information it's good to hear but I don't there's nothing really different that we're hearing today that we didn't talk about at the time. I don't think so. >> Well I just don't think it was you you didn't have a chance to ask anybody any questions because there was nobody here. But um we're working with conservation now. We're working uh again. I only had like two minutes with the fire chief, >> deputy fire chief. >> Yeah. She's very nice. She's just real busy. >> So, she'll get back to me. >> Yeah. >> And we discussed quickly the you know, they really like to see this this one built because it is at the end of the road. I mean, she thought that was kind of critical for the town

020to have. I I agree with that's not a problem. this one. If we can get away with the tea because of the wetlands, that works in our favor. You can turn fire trucks around on it. We do have proven that on other subdivisions in town, not this town, but other towns, and we can show you that, but I'm waiting to hear back from her, you know. >> Yeah. I mean, I think um again, not to speak for the board, I'm just speaking for myself that um that uh you know, what happens in other towns is interesting, but we we deal with our town and >> Yeah. Yeah, >> we don't know if those other towns are doing something better or worse than what we're doing. >> So, um and and obviously, you know, than what

021um just because the the current street isn't in a great state as far as sidewalks and everything, that doesn't mean we wouldn't like to do better as things are constructed new in town. We don't necessarily want to emulate the things that could use a little help. Yeah. >> Right. So, um so that's something to keep in mind as well. Well, we're going to design it as um you know, full roads. So, that's how we're going to design it. >> Drainage, >> all the calculations, storm water, everything. We're going to design it as by your rigs. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Then I can once I've met with the fire chief, if they kind of like the ideas and the BPW doesn't have a problem with it and you're u the conservation is all set, then I'll

022come back and talk about waiverss. Okay? I have no problem with that. But we will design it to the full full regulations. >> Yeah. I mean obviously that would be expected that it's designed to the full regulations of Ashlin and then it's just the planning board as a board that seeks expertise from from other areas. It it's good if you have those first and we have that letter first saying that that conservation is okay with this part and the fire department is okay with this part. then we can move forward because otherwise we're like well maybe it works maybe it doesn't we don't know. >> No I understand I understand but we are working on the definitive now >> hopefully to clear up the watershed area for the the intermittent stream have that in a

023week or two before conservation's meeting. That's what we're hoping on. So >> we actually have our conservation agent Becca Solomon just hopped on if you would like her to speak to that at all. >> Um >> it's up to you. I don't know. >> It's really up to her if she was She's not obligated obviously to jump in at this time. Um >> um Becca, if you would like to speak at all to the potential um streams on the site. >> Uh hi. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. Um, so I I just hopped on one to confirm the conservation commission has not approved the wetlands line on this yet. Um, they're actually still waiting for the file number from the state. The state does not appear to have received their

024copy of this yet, so it can't be approved until that happens. As far as the streams on the site, uh, one of those streams begins where the, uh, and forgive me, I can't see the plan too well. I'm on my phone. Um, the rightmost culde-sac, um, is shown partially within the wetlands. Um, that has a stream beginning at I believe it's wetland flag number three. um that under the Wetlands Protection Act, regs uh would be almost impossible, if not impossible, to to fill or relocate. And the Wetlands Protection Act regulations actually require the applicant to show that there's absolutely no other alternative um to build what they're trying to build on the site um before they fill in the wetlands. So it would be the onus of the applicant to show they can't put that

025culde-sac somewhere else other than inside the wetlands for it to be approvable under the wetlands protection act. >> We all know we don't know. >> They didn't say they approved the flags. They said they had no problem with the flags that they walked. I'm assuming they're going to approve them because they didn't move >> on the sidewalk. Sorry. >> Yeah. Um I obviously I can't comment on that. So um so uh >> thank you Becca. >> Does unless anyone has any questions. I think obviously this is justformational so that when it comes around again we have a starting point um with it. So, um I apologize for any confusion there was between when you came and when we thought you were coming um at the on the last round. Um, so when we get the

026additional information, as you kind of work through the these questions, by the time we get um a subdivision like this, usually the a lot of the questions, those type of questions need to be resolved. Otherwise, it kind of puts a dead stop on kind of what we do. So, >> by the time you see me again, we'll have all everything ironed out. Okay? And so we'll be submitting the definitive and again we're going to design it to your specifications and then go from hopefully the fire department will come around worry about the weapons already kind of >> we'll work on. >> Okay, great. >> And I appreciate you hearing because I kind of >> Well, it was it was definitely unfortunate last time. You waited very patiently and we actually thought you were part of

027the other project >> and then we were yeah kind of surprised that oh we didn't we just didn't realize >> show you the email we got you know just explain I know I told you that but sometimes >> yeah well sometimes sometimes things do get you know confused especially um as we approach the time around uh you know the end of the year a while that's going on. So >> thank you for your time. >> I appreciate your patience in in this process. All right. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, next on our agenda, we'll be moving on to public meetings. And this uh next one is uh new. It's an ANR approval not required for Ballard Road, Highland Road. So, I imagine we have a presentation kind of starting at the beginning to

028explain this to our board. and if you can just introduce yourself and your role in the project. >> Thank you uh madame chair, members of the planning board. My name is Jason Panos. I'm an attorney for the record practicing law at 246 Andover Street, Peodyy, Massachusetts. I'm joined by the applicant uh Sandra Deitri who's the manager of the Deitri uh group of 735 Main Street Boilston and also the civil engineer who uh prepared a lot of the plans you're going to see tonight, Mark Allenar from MP Design Consultants at 118 Turnpike Road, uh South Bro, Massachusetts. Uh as a brief description of what's before you, uh this is an application for planning board endorsement of an approval not required plan creating two parcels of land. Um I don't know if you want to put it

029up. Excellent. That's okay. So this is the actual ANR plan uh before you. Um and the two lots proposed to be created are parcel A to the plan left and parcel B to the plan right. Um and you see a lot of uh writing you know uh marking on that plan. It's all by reference to a plan I provided you with uh the application uh which is a 1950 subdivision plan that was recorded. So, if you see all those plan lot numbers, um everything I'm going to talk about tonight is by reference to those numbers. So, uh just to visualize, parcel A is lot 20 and uh portion of 19 and Marietta Road. and that um yellowed out portion of lot 22 and that portion of Highland Road that's directly adjacent to lot 20. That's

030parcel A. Parcel B. Um and this is all superimposed on your ANR plans. to uh you know after I'm done explaining this uh we can go back to that but it'll give you a better orientation. Parcel B is a portion of lot 19 and 18 the adjacent portion of Marietta Road and those little sliver portions of lot 22 and lot 23 that you see and the adjacent portion of Ballard Road. Now, Highland Road and Ballard Road, even though the fee ownership will be vested at least to the extent of those lots, parcel A and B, will be vested in the owners of parcel A and B respectively. However, they will be subject to easements to continue the use of Highland Road and Ballad Road respectively, which is not uncommon. So the reserved fee will be

031vested in the owners of parcel A and B subject to those easements for the purposes of continuing the roadway to pass and repass lay utilities and all the rest. But again, every uh reference that I'm going to make tonight is going to be by reference to this plan. Um, Marietta Way to give you so you could see it. Marietta Road rather, uh, is a paper street, a so-called paper street. Uh, we are going to be discontinuing that. It doesn't exist. Uh, Highland Road and Ballard Road do exist um for the most part. Uh, and we're going to fully develop those roads um once the ANR is endorsed. Uh, the >> I'm sorry. Can >> Yes. >> You said Highland Road does exist. >> It does exist. Yes. >> All right. Because I can't I can't

032find it on >> It's right. But there are two houses. There we go. There are two houses on the corner on the each each corner. You could see that. Uh where's Highland? >> Well, that's what I mean. I can't >> right >> which in between which two houses would it is it go >> uh they're the upland road facing houses. So if we go back to the 1950 plan, >> right? So >> it is right here. >> Yes. >> Sorry. Is there a document showing like like where you where you draw over this old map to show what you're showing on this map. So >> uh it we superimpose that that uh information on that map on that plan that 1950 plan. So, see, may we don't go uh down to Upland on this um

033plan, but on page two, sheet two, we actually give you the whole thing. Um >> is it? >> Yeah, there you go. >> Sorry, hold up. Okay, got it. All right. >> All right. But we do superimpose the the information we're presenting tonight. uh from that old 1950 plan. >> So it's the road >> so Ballard Road for example uh which is the plan right road that exists up to the it's paved. It exists on paper. It was created but it's it's actually uh exists up to the lot line. um you know of uh of of now parcel B that's in front of you. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. It's just really um it's so faint on here. It would be good to have it. >> Right. Well, we did this because we didn't

034>> for myself. >> We did that. We did it that way because we wanted to give you the ability to see it, but but at the end of the day, this is an ANR plan creating two lots and we didn't want to confuse things. We just wanted to show you when one plan set what was going on. So with all of the see so all of those properties now are one are one owner right >> are in common ownership. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> The road the paper road the three lots beyond. >> So the Yep. Um those lots on the left plan left. one, two, three lots. Um, then you move to the right. Uh, the plan the lots depicted. Um, hold on. Let me just get the 1950 subdivision plan. It's so

035much easier. Um, so those three lots on the on the left, lot 28. Yep, there you go. Uh so 31 30 29 28 uh 21 20 19 18 portions of 22 23 15 16 uh adjacent portions of Ballard Road, Marietta Road and Highland Road are all in common ownership. >> Okay. and that's important um for later on in the discussion. So, we're proposing these two ANR lots. Uh we believe they provide a lot of uh benefit to to the neighborhood. They're obviously undeveloped right now. the uh development of these parcels, parcel A and B along with the remaining lots created by that 1950 subdivision plan that uh I just oriented you toward uh will help address the housing crisis by providing efficient use of land um with a smaller footprint ownership dwelling houses catering to

036a demographic badly needing this housing. The development will help diversify the Ashland home ownership demographic and the development will also provide for storm water management where none currently exists, mitigating any currently existing or resulting adverse impacts to the neighborhood and adjacent property streets ways and generally improving the current situation. And right now the water just sheets off the property and into adjacent uh parcels onto upland wherever it can find a path. Uh and if you do have technical questions about that, we do have our engineer here. As I mentioned, uh the proposed development of the lots and parcel A and B will also provide the opportunity to um connect to the utilities that we will connect to. We're going to connect to water, sewer. Um, so those adjacent property owners who may now be on

037septic or uh, you know, who who may want to connect to what we're going to provide will potentially have the opportunity to do so. Um, so as I mentioned, does anybody have any questions thus far? Yeah. Sorry, one more question. Yes. Using this map, there's a house at the end of Ballard Road. Is that >> uh which right there? Yes. >> Right there. >> Yes. >> But that's further down. >> A little further down. >> Yeah. Look at the plan. You see where that right there? The house is somewhere there. Yeah. >> Thank you. I was having a hard time figuring out. >> Yes. And that's where the driveway ends. And then you mentioned that you're bringing sewer down to that the end there. So >> yes, that's correct. >> There is no sewer line

038currently on either of those two roads. >> That's correct. >> Right now >> actually guys, if you want to speak, come up. >> Yeah, please. If you're going to speak, we need you to go to the microphone. >> I chaired the zoning board of appeals for 10 years, so I'm totally sensitive to that. >> Hi, I'm Sander. Um, yeah. So, right now there are two homes there on septic while the rest of the >> Oh, right now I believe there are two homes there on septic um while the rest of the area is on sewer. >> Okay. And and just to be clear, I mean we're this is for an A onr this. >> That's correct. >> So, this is not for a preliminary subdivision or a subdivision. No. >> So, all of these things

039come back later, >> right? For >> No, not at all. And I'll I'll I'll go through why that is why that is the case that you're going to see this once. Um but there's a lot going on here and I wanted to orient the board to you know what what what will result um as a result of the ANR plan but we're only before you to create those two back parcels. >> Right. So, Jasmine, can you uh I mean, so in talking about subdivisions, none of that is locked into the ANR, >> correct? >> That's correct. An is only defined by >> It's just the ANR >> and does not any approval of the ANR here does not automatically give approval for any element of the subdivision. >> That's correct. No, aware an exemption to

040the subdivision control law. >> Okay. Um, and what is before you is parcel A and parcel B. Um, you know, but there's a greater development going on here with regard to these other parcels that are pre-existing non-conforming. And I I want to owe you I I want to give you that kind of background and context, >> okay, >> as to the overall development because obviously with all the storm water utility uh connections, it's not going to serve as just this parcel A and parcel B that you're going to endorse. I I hope tonight. uh it's going to serve as this greater um uh par you know project these other other lots that get pulled in by a a new statute that came into play in November of last year. >> What statute that came into

041play? I mean >> I can pull it up. It's in the application. I don't recall it off the top of my head. I'm I clarify this for me if but I'm a little confused about why we're talking about subdivision issues for an ANR. >> We are. >> So because I mean you could you could come back with the ANR and and say you know next week that you're going to turn this into you know a strawberry field. Right. Right. Versus a subdivision. So, like what I'm just wondering what the >> the subdivision already exists from that 1950 plan. >> Okay. >> It already exists, >> right? >> It's pre-existing non-conforming. It got pulled forward by that statute um that came into play in November. Uh but that does not apply to the lots that we

042are trying to create through the ANR. The two lots those lots are entirely conforming to dimensional requirements and zoning. The use obviously here in a residential A is is allowed. So we have no issues there. And I've actually provided you with a plan to show you what the footprints might look like. um to show you that they are dimensionally uh conforming to zoning. We're not here to talk about a subdivision that was approved in 19 Well, we are here a little bit to talk about the context of the subdivision that was approved in 1950. Um but it it it's only contextual. It has no bearing on the the the parcel A and parcel B being created here except to the extent that the ways servicing those parcels existed from that 1950 subdivision plan that that

043I showed you earlier. So, does that all make sense? I still think it I I don't think it would hard for the board to understand what zoning or change, excuse me, in state law you're referencing. Sure. >> I'm trying to understand where in your application it is. >> I don't I think it's a plan note. >> Yeah, >> it's what? >> It's a plan note. >> Note. >> Uh it's sheet two, I believe. Note number four. two number. >> Yes. General law, chapter 48, section 6. Adjacent lots under common ownership shall not be treated as a single lot for local zoning purposes. If at the time of recording or endorsement the lots conform to the then existing requirements of area, frontage, width, yard or depth for each such lot has not less than 10,000 square

044feet of area and 75 ft of frontage and are located in zoning district that allows for single family residential use. Any single family residential structure constructed on set land shall not exceed 1850 square feet of heated living area shall contain not less than three bedrooms and shall not be used as a seasonal home or short-term rental. So you're saying that particular state law allows you to do what? >> Uh it allows me to pull forward um if we could go back. >> This is a new state law, right? Yeah, it's a few months old. >> Are do you agree? Have we run by town council that we agree with note four, which I am shockingly able to read? >> Yes. >> Um, >> yes, >> thank you. My contacts. >> Yes, >> it's not my

045organic state of my eyes. I went to law school, so I I could not read that without contacts. So, so my question is, are we confident that the interpretation of the applicant of note >> four is correct? >> Yes, but I can get that confirmation writing for you. But that was something that was confirmed by council. >> So to translate it to civilian speak. >> Yes. >> I think what you're saying is that you don't have to come back for a subdivision. That's exactly right. Basically grandfathered in to do whatever you want. >> That's exactly right. So, um, just to close the loop on that discussion, 48 section six is the pre-existing non-conforming >> um section of the zoning act. >> Okay. >> So, what they did when they added this provision is they said,

046well, we're going to we need we need to address the housing crisis and we have all of these stale subdivisions that were created a long time ago. We want them revived. We want to build housing and we're going to put guard rails on that 10,000 square feet, 75 feet of frontage and conforming with zoning at the time they were created. These laws were created in 1950. Zoning didn't come into play in the town until 1954. So I don't have um certain dimensional setback guard rails um which which helps quite a bit in the storm water management design. Um but we do meet the 10,000 square foot minimum. We do and that is a minimum. It's a floor. Um, and we do meet the 75 foot frontage requirement with regard to certain lots, not the lots

047we're creating by this ANR plan. >> So, the lots >> those are conforming to current zoning requirements. So the remaining lots may not conform the the remaining lots in this parcel conform to the zoning that was in place when they when they were created which is what the which is what the new >> in essence yes >> right is about >> these two lots you're looking to create so that you're creating two lots instead of three so that we you don't need this road that goes >> the Marietta well we needed we needed to take from Marietta to create zoning conforming lots because we needed 30,000 square feet minimum and we needed 150 ft of frontage. So that's what those lots accomplished. >> And is that because those didn't fall under the new the new

048you couldn't have kept it exact as it was? >> They didn't they were 8,000 square foot lots. >> Okay. So they're too small to fit under that. So, so you so you're combining the the three that don't work into two that do work. >> Correct. >> Okay, now I'm getting it. >> I think that's important to clarify. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> So, my question about the and and sorry if if there's more um the one lot A is a strange shape. Yes. Right. Is this does this is does the rule of 22 not apply to this lot because of its because of this new regulation >> or >> I'm sorry the rule of 22 >> um >> and >> yeah it's a part of um ashen bylaws I believe and about strangely shaped lots.

049>> Ah >> uh yes or mark Okay, go ahead. >> Um, yeah. So, I saw that flash up your screen and I noticed so what we're ultimately going to do is we are going to shift um parcel B's area a bit to mirror what we're doing on parcel A and use that to use the 3,000 ft gain there to make a more appealing shape or a regular shape. Um, so you would likely isolate off um that storm water area into a non-buildable >> and just not have it be part of the lot. Have it be >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> It's a strange little rule in there and I'm caught. It's a weird lot. >> I saw it flash up on the screen and I noticed that something that will need to be

050altered to conform to the rule of 22. >> Okay. >> So, the plan before you was not ready as I'm hearing for endorsement. However, um uh then what's the pleasure of the board to just continue or to because this isn't subject this is a noticed hearing, but it's not a notice hearing actually. It's an ANR. >> I mean, well, first of all, I want to I I think I got this all in my head now. Is there any more questions from the board to >> to clarify it with everybody else? Now understanding more about the old subdivision and how you're putting these two new ones on as you are extending these roads and putting, you know, electricity and sewer and everything going down it. Are you planning on using the outside lots at some point?

051>> Yes. So, um I'm sorry, were you finishing asking your question? >> That's the question. Yeah. >> Okay. So, um, the so-called outside lots actually the three lots on the plan left, right? And the lot which is kind of uh shaded the lot 21, that's lot 21. Okay, those will be developed subject to 4DA section 6. Minimum of 10,000 square ft, 75 ft of frontage, 1,850 square foot, 3bedroom house of 1,850 heated livable space, that type of thing. So, those lots get pulled in from that. Okay? They will be developed. I don't need to come before you for that. I don't need to come back to you for that. Now, there are lots on the opposite side, plan right, uh top top right, the one below it, those lots will also be pulled forward. Until

052this statute came into play, they were dead lots. They weren't conforming. I would have had to come back to the zoning board of appeals for dimensional relief to allow for them. Now they get pulled forward again. They get revived. That lot that little lot which is not which is non-conforming. It's only 8,191 ft. That's our storm water management lot. We're going to use that to dump storm water and to let it percolate and do its thing. Um, >> so and basically these small lots from another era. >> Yes. >> And this new regulation basically lets us produce lets you produce >> some smaller houses on smaller lots but new smaller houses on >> old smaller lots I guess. >> Okay. And and the great thing too about the ANR lots is the proposed footprint and

053I gave you a zoning compliance plan, a site plan. The proposed footprint of those two houses are 2500 square ft. They're smaller. They're on the smaller side. Um, so again, what this allows us to do is a really compact, efficient um, efficient plan that allows us to create more practical housing and we get all of these other mitigation benefits. On top of that, we're developing the storm water management system that will require a storm water permit and we're currently preparing that. Uh we expect to be before the con well we expect that to be filed sometime next week. We expect to be in front of the conservation commission uh by the end of February for that. So we'll be working very closely as we have been uh with the town to develop that side. But

054those are the only two permits that we need to accomplish all of this. This ANR endorsement will be coming back to you with another plan and the storm water permit. Yeah, I'm I'm certainly glad to see some certainly glad to see some unique situations where we might be producing some like you said small houses on smaller lots instead of the McMansions that we've has been for decades has been kind of been the norm. So I think >> in Nashville it's it's an amazing town. I mean I I'm really impressed and I I mean that earnestly. Uh when I drive through here it's uh you have everything going on. There's a lot going on. Yeah, there's a lot going on >> and you have you have a beautiful town hall on top of that. >> Thank

055you. >> My pleasure to be here. >> So, is is there any other >> is there any other questions with this? Okay. So, then we will >> do we continue an you may continue it for an amendment it so that way just so it's on the next agenda >> if you'd like it to be on the next agenda. >> Yes. I think obviously we want it to to come back in its finished form. How long is it going to take you to have a plan, Mark? >> February 12th, >> I think it's like three weeks. Right. >> Thank you. They're close. It is 26. >> Yeah. >> And and the key to is again Ballad Road, Highland Road, they're going to continue to exist. They're going to be subject to easements that allow their continuence.

056the culde-sacs we had reviewed by um deputy chief Monahan uh Morahan I'm sorry and um uh she found the culde-sacs and the turning radi we provided her with a swept path analysis were were fine she has one condition that she would like um imposed which is no parking in the culdesac to allow for constant free flow in the event of an emergency. uh and we're happy to to accommodate that without a doubt. Um but uh we're trying to cross our tees and dot our eyes for you. So >> we appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> All right. So um if there's no other questions, comments, we'll look to continue this until what did we say? February 12th. >> I'll make a motion to continue Ballard Road, Highland Road, ANR to February 12th. Is there a

057second? >> Second that. >> And a roll call vote. >> Anna Tesmanitzki I. >> Sculletier. I >> am Montasino. I >> and Trisha Kendall. I. So continue that and we will see you back in a couple weeks. >> Look forward to it. >> Thank you. Sorry for the confusion. >> Oh no. It's a little bit of a we haven't had one like this before. So it's a little little >> That's why I was toying back and forth with how am I how do I approach this without overloading the the board? And at the end of the day, it is an ANR plan. So >> yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> But thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> You know, for next time too, could you just uh as use the the old using

058this old plan? Can you just draw use this and draw a big fat line around your two new lots so that we can have them in our head easily? >> Yeah. Just just >> simple diagram. It's just it's hard to see on this other one. >> Thank you. >> I was going to say that they have to be all black. >> Yes. >> It's more just a graphic in our little so that we can just picture what's going on. >> Yeah. >> They don't show as black as I would like them. >> Yeah. So we could darken this. >> I can darken it. >> I think you could just show it on here in there. How super it? Yes. >> It's just a cartoon that it just >> gets in our heads. So >> that's

059good. >> Yeah. I don't want to interfere with the reading of that one. It's more just >> Okay. >> No problem. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Scott, were you gonna add something or No. >> Okay. Wanted them to have Okay. So, next on our agenda are the public hearings as I hope everyone uh saw when they looked at the agenda. Uh they both did. We didn't we did not have uh uh Tilton don't remember the address on here. >> 55 Tilton >> 55 55 Tilton because they're they continued till February. >> Thank you very much. Um, but we did have these two on here and they're both still working on what they're working on. Um, and so they're both looking to be continued. Uh, 55 Tilton, is that the 12th? >> It

060is al also on the 12th. >> Did any of either of these ask for a continuence further out than the 12th? Neither did, but Metro West still hasn't confirmed if they're submitting artificial turf or grass or if they're still looking for a variance for the parking. So, I I suspect they'll likely be continuing again. They It's not confirmed, but just with the pattern we've seen since I haven't received any materials. >> Well, what's the thought of the board? We can >> It's also your choice to continue it further. That's >> Yeah. Like, do I mean, do we want to would we prefer to continue one until the 12th and one until the >> the the second meeting in February. >> Yeah, the 26th. >> That's what I would suggest. >> Okay. >> Which one is

061more ready? >> What the YMCA most certainly? >> Yeah. So, the Y to the 12th. >> Okay. >> So, I'll make a motion to continue the Memorial Drive YMCA project hearing to February 12th. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Hannah Tesmani. I >> scaffelino I >> and Trisha Kendall I >> and I'll make a motion to continue 240 260 Pleasant Street SPR DPR and site alteration SP to February 26. >> Yes, please >> second. >> Roll call vote. >> Anna Tesmanitzki I >> say no I >> I very efficient. Thank you Anna. Oh, I am so sorry. That is also the present the draft presentation of the goals of the housing production plan of the joint meeting with the select board. Just so keep that in mind as we move forward. >> But this

06226 >> the 26 just so that way keeping that in mind going forward maybe we don't want to add too much more to that agenda if we can help. >> I mean I would assume that one is not that this one is not that big for a conversation. >> I'm hoping not. >> Yeah. But good to know that other things we may not want to move to the 26th. >> Yes. >> Sorry. So what was the I'm sorry. What >> on the 26th? There's the housing production plan. There's their presentation of the draft goals and strategies to the select board and the planning board jointly that evening. >> Okay. So then we have so we would have on the 26th we would have potentially Pleasant Street, Tilton and that. So we're back to three things

063right on that day. >> But just be mindful of that as we go forward. So if come in, I can push them out further if you'd like. >> Yeah, I think we'll need to >> because I think the housing production will be a pretty lengthy presentation. >> Okay. >> At least an hour. >> Yeah, we'll also need in February to do a meeting with the select board for the implementation committee um piece for the comprehensive plan because Yolanda responded to me. She's going to draft up something for the select board and the planning board. Realistically, at this point, we're looking at February. >> Well, I mean, >> we might be able to do it that night. Is that too much? >> Maybe, possibly. >> Since we're already meeting >> I mean I I don't Is

064it is allowable that we we revote and put this thing back on the 12th and we have >> We could >> you can amend. >> Let's do that. I'll I'll make amend your motion. Sorry. I'll make a motion to amend the last motion and that we move 240 260 Pleasant Street SPR DPR and site alteration SP to February 12th. >> Okay. And then we'll at least we and then we'll keep off. >> I mean we we'll have the ANR coming back but that should be that should be quick and we'll keep have to keep the other ones on a time slot. >> Is there a second for motion? >> Second. >> Roll vote >> and a test I >> got both your eye. All the casino I >> and I. So, it's all to February

06512th and we'll see what holds. >> Thank you. Sorry. >> Yeah. No, it's it's good to I'm glad you said that because we do want to give that the time it's due. All right. Okay. So, now we're at in-law apartments, the bylaw amendment. We did talk about this quite a bit last time and and what happened. So, the uh the new one has the red on it, right? Yes, the new one has the right >> but in between. So what happened? There's one on your um I think there's one on the website as well after our discussion last time with the original document that was created by Doug Scott. Um, after our discussion, I went through it and kind of obviously edit it to meet what we had talked about in the discussion, but also

066had it kind of side byside with our um with our ADU bylaw, which obviously is very new, so that the two of them relate to each other and that you can much more clearly see what the difference is between an ADU and an in-law apartment by putting these two bylaws side by side. So, um, Jasmine, Lisa, me, who's our town council, um, Doug Scott and I had a meeting just to go through the changes that the board had talked about and also my draft of just trying to get it into a nice clean order relative to the ADU bylaw. And then this is where it it landed. This is where it is now. So, hopefully it's getting much cleaner and and we still have time to keep making it cleaner until we have to put

067it on the warrant. >> So, >> I'm still having a hard time understanding why the ADU putting the .edu wording like that bylaw into play somehow took out inlaw apartments. Like in my my understanding, you weren't here last time. >> No, but in my understanding of the ADU law, it wasn't it was to not separate like to not create two different instances of these things. They were just going to call everything in ADU. >> Yeah. So, as soon as um so when was this last spring uh when when this came up >> immediately actually it was right before a town meeting, Doug Scott was like, "Well, this is a problem. You're taking out the ADU. You're taking out the in-law apartment bylaw and replacing it with the ADU. Now, I don't have an in-law apartment.

068>> But why can't you just call it an ADU? Like, why does it have to be >> Because they're because they're they're intended to be or at least this is intended to be two separate things. An ADU requires fire separation. It requires two means of egress. It requires a lot of things because they are two separate houses just like a two family. >> They don't but they don't have to be two separate houses. They can be >> but they have to have fire separation an ADU >> right >> has to have fire separation say from from the the main dwelling right >> and utility separation wasn't that another part of it >> I think it's at least at least partial separation yeah >> where an in-law apartment is meant to be and put in-law the

069the name in quotes right we're not talking about that it has to be an in-law but um for But for the for the permitting when people come in for building permits, um an in-law apartment is something that is fully contained within a single family home, meaning it doesn't have its own door with its own address. It's tucked inside the house. So that um one means of egress would be potentially be to run through the house it's associated with. Right? So that would be someone it would be a family member or someone you know well not a stranger you're renting to as they will have full access to your house. You see? So that's why but it could look when Doug goes to permit these things it could look like an ADU. So he needs the

070two things to be able to permit one way or another. Right? So, say you turned your he always gives the example of like if you turned your basement into an in-law apartment or for a grown child or whatever. Um, it looks like a rentable unit because it has a kitchen and a bathroom and a bedroom. It looks like a little apartment, but the point is that it's actually contained within. >> So, you you're saying that an in-law apartment cannot be rentable. >> Correct. That's right. It's not meant to be rented. >> So if you're if you are putting your older child, you can't charge them rent for living in the >> Well, that's kind I think kind I mean you could c you could probably charge kid right now. You could charge your kid rent,

071right? For >> why are you looking for ideas, Scott? Or >> but it's not rentable. You can't put it out there on the market saying, "Hey, I have an apartment for rent." >> Right. So, >> if I may, Madam Chair, in the in So, in the state in the state law, we they use ADU and in-law interchangeably. >> Yeah. >> In the building code, this is where Doug Scott, our building commissioner, runs into issues with the way this ADU bylaw is written. It specifically says you have to have two means of egress and there has to be fire separation between your home and an ADU. So >> is that is that Ashlin's ADU version of it or >> Yes, this is our adopted ADU bylaw that says >> so we >> which is by state

072law, >> right? >> So state law matches that. >> Yes, absolutely. But the building code says you can also have an inlaw and you don't need two means of egress and you don't need fire separation. But if we don't have that provision in a bylaw because it's not included in this, we can't give use variances. So, if we don't actually have a bylaw that says you're allowed to apply for an in-law, Doug Scott can't give you a permit for one. So, what happens is you end up with a bunch of illegal in-laws because there's no way to legally permit it. We can't grant you a use variance and you're not going to apply for an ADU because you don't want a second means of egress and you don't want fire separation or you don't need

073it. So, under the building code, Doug Scott can grant you a building permit for an in-law apartment, but right now our bylaws restrict him from being able to grant that permit. So is every other town in the state creating >> either it has and together or they have two separate. Do the exact same thing when we passed the ADU. We had to amend it to read in the in-law apartment because the exact same situation happened. >> Yeah, I know. I know Doug um has told me over, you know, that that this has been a big discussion between building inspectors >> because they're like now what do we do, right? Our hands are tied. So I would have to look up where that exactly is in the building code. I didn't ask and I didn't ask

074where it is. >> I think it's good that we look it up so we can actually see >> what the difference. >> So what's the enforcability of the not being able to rent out an in-law? >> So it's really the ability is we can't restrict it. So you can't legally tell people you cannot have an in-law, right? I can't we can't by law say you can't have that. But right now we can't legally permit it either. So that by law, we can't say you can't have this because you may rent it. The same way we can't restrict an ADU. And that's why the law uses those words interchangeably because they're protected under the same affordable housing act. But without that specific verbiage in the bylaw, Doug cannot grant by law cannot grant a permit for

075an in-law apartment because there's no way to apply for it. You'd have to build it in >> or you just have to build an ad. So you'd have to have a second for a feed raster and a fire, >> right? But if you want to, you know, put your mom in or you've got like a cousin who is having a hard time and you want to set her up in the house, we don't necessarily want to make you pay for an ADU. >> Say, I understand that. But now what I'm what I'm interested about is somebody builds an in-law, >> right, >> and doesn't follow these and then starts renting it. >> You can't an in-law doesn't have that separate door, so that person has access to your house. That's Trish's point. >> Yeah. You

076could lock the door. You can put things on it like >> Wait, hold on. So, yes, you could. Um, yes, you could. Right now in your what wherever you live, you could rent out your basement and, you know, under the table and yeah, probably no one would know. >> No, >> but but in the time it, you know, but there's there's lots of things we can do within our houses that no one would know, right? >> And this makes it known, >> right? So, this actually makes it known that there's an in-law suite in the house, you know. So, is that understand you make it like you're making the you're allowing the permitting to do the in-law piece, but there's nothing to stop somebody from renting it, right? And now if you go to rent

077it, >> they can't stop your mom doesn't live there anymore, >> but I want to have some extra income, so I'm going to rent it to somebody because it's the thing, but now I don't have those >> safety regulations of a second egress and a fire protection between the two things. >> You you can't leave. There's no way to stop it before this bylaw was in place. There's no way for us to leave. I understand that. But like the point of the ADU thing was to allow more rentable space to be out there, right? >> And I think by us doing this, it's >> because we want to not allow the somebody they can build it without having the second thing or the fire >> um you know, separation between the two units. Like people

078are going to look at this and take this as the cheap way >> even though it may not be their intention. But that's kind of where your building commissioner and his intuition comes into play because he's meeting with these people. He's going in. He's actually doing >> then they sell the house and somebody else comes into it. You know, >> that's a risk you stand with anything. I mean, they could do it without a permit now. >> Yeah. The thing is now that you can't you can you can put two kitchens in your house. You can do this. You you can do it anyway, right? So, um, >> without the in-law, I mean, you can have a second kitchen without without an in-law apartment, you know, it's tough. You can't really you can't really police

079it, but by law, we put ourselves in a sticky situation where if somebody wants to apply for it, we tell them there's no provision for that. And then they >> Well, there is a provision for it's called an ADU. >> No, but we can't tell them you have to build an ADU. That you cannot you don't have the right to build an in-law. That's illegal. But we don't have the legal means for them to build an in-law. you could get serious. >> So, so this is also the part I was confused with because to me an ADU and an in-law apartment are used quite interchangeably. So, I thought we followed the state law and created an ADU provision and I personally am confled by why we need this. That's kind of my my instinct. My

080instinct is the state already told us what this is supposed to look like. Um >> yeah, I'm the same way. That's kind of my thought is just like if somebody comes in and says, "Hey, I want to build an in-law apartment for my >> they would use the ADU." >> Then we just be like, "Okay, here's the qualifications. This is what you have to use to build it." >> So if somebody has an ailing parent, you would like to make them install a second means of egress and a firewall while their mom's going through cancer treatments and they're helping her pay for those. That's what this bylaw is intended to do. I understand the potential. That potential exists whether this bylaw exists or not. I understand that the policing of it is a concern, but

081that concern exists whether this bylaw is there or not, but we can't help our residents that our building commissioner who has 30 years of experience going through and reading people. And yes, when they sell it, that's a different story. But in these times, we have to review things as they come before us. And the building commissioner uses their purview to say, "Hey, if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it's probably a duck and I think you need to apply for an ADU." But if they go in and they show him all these things, he's like, "Yeah, you know what? I really think this is the right thing to do for you and your family." Usually, you have to trust that some people are just

082going to do the right thing. We can't default that everyone will sell it. But we're we're giving we're denying people an opportunity that's a buy right by law and telling them that you have to go out of this complicated, expensive way to do this by not allowing them the in-law bylaw. And it could potentially open us up. I could ask town council of course what the case law is on this, but it would open up us up to a lawsuit. If we denied somebody and said you have to do it this way, we could get in trouble that we don't have any provisions to allow an in-law outside of second means of egress and firewalls that could get us in some serious trouble. Have we had have we turned anybody down and they said I

083can't afford this because it does it's forcing to have a second form of egress because honestly I think having if somebody's going to have an in-law apartment like where they have their own separate thing there is a door between the two things they probably should have a second form of egress >> right like if you're above a garage >> and you only have one form of egress and you have to go down those stairs it's probably not a great idea >> that's building code so we're not here to you know I'm not going to negate the building code the building code says an in-law apartment only requires these things if you know um >> so it sounds like there's still >> not clarification the main question is like there's there's >> um a not understanding

084the difference between the two and the need for the two different things is that >> because I don't I don't want I don't want this conversation to go in circles tonight that be a waste of our time >> has somebody come to us and said like no so so for perspective >> I know this has been like about >> this has only been in for May so it hasn't been a year yet. We have had two ADUs come in and on average you see less than one in-law apartment application probably a year. >> Well, I can give an example. I mean, so there is um an ADU that I did in Ashland um that originally the um the you know when I when I did and this was under the old in-law, right? um that

085um Doug had said that hey if you just make a few changes in this this this project doesn't have to go they had two they had two choices they could take the project and make it an official in-law apartment which has become the ADU right um and make it have full separation from the house or you can integrate it more into the house and then It's basically just another bedroom suite, right? It's a part of your house for some members of your family. In that situation, this family, you know, this actually um in-law, this actually was for an in-law, they decided they wanted to separate it out and go through the extra process of it getting approved at that time by the ZBA as um as an ADU, right? They wanted it. So they made

086a decision about how they wanted that unit to work. So that unit was built basically to the standards of an ADU which is under the old law. It could have been built within the envelope of the family house. Right? Those are two different things. Two family. It's a two family lot. Now, it's an ADU as a family and the existing dwelling house is a family. An in-law suite that we're talking about is fully contained and a part of the house. It's just a part of this. It's all one family or group of friends or whatever, but it's all one. So, there's two different things there. >> Yeah, I understand that. Okay. I just like >> you don't know why this can't always be an ADU inside this house. >> You can be you can have

087an ADU inside the envelope of the building of the house. It can still be called an ADU. >> Like it there's nothing that says you have to have a break in the sighting, >> but it is but it is the way the units work. It's the way the units work architecturally. Like I have to be able to close my door. There has to be a way into mine and into yours that we that we don't get into each other's units. There has to be fire protection between the units. If it's if the if the unit's in the attic, if the unit's in the basement, there has to be a different level of fire protection between a two family. If everything is all in one envelope, there's not there's not those things. We all share the

088same doors. We have the same address. We um there's no fire protection between your little apartment and the rest of the family. there's no it's it's together in one envelope versus two envelopes. So there's there is a difference between these kind of units. Um yeah, so like I said, I don't want to go in circles on it. So if we're not we can either I'm not sure it's worth going through the changes. I think I think I think the bylaw as an in-law thing is looking pretty condensed at this point. Um I you know I we I could go just through some of the things we talked about last time. You know Kate um Jerzik who used to be on the board um talked about several points. Um one was um just the name in-law

089like and and in the definition here now it says it does not have to be for someone related. It could be a friend that you're taking care of. It could be whatever. It could be somebody else. The point is it's someone you trust enough to share your home and that's up to you. Um we talked about we took out something that said um hey if you have a in-law apartment you can't have another dwelling unit on the property which is not true. So you can by mass law you need to be able to have a primary dwelling an ADU and you can have an in-law within your house. Right? because there's still just two dwelling units on that house. >> So, can the ADU have an in-law also? >> So, I have to say I'm

090super confused >> if you can fit it into the >> I mean looking up the difference in Massachusetts between ADUs and in-law apartments. And in-law apartments are a subcategory of ADUs. >> Yeah, they use the definition. >> Truly, it's one of the same. So, again, >> the only difference is in the building. That's where the difference is is in the building code. That's where you see the difference of the definition. >> I want to make sure we can point out that exact place in the building code. So, and I don't know that. So, I We need to do that. And I I think for me my understanding of the ADU provision by the state was it was meant to make it by right with as few limitations as possible to make it that was the

091purpose of it. >> Y >> so I would have no problem creating an in-law apartments bylaw as long as it honors the fact that it basically has to replicate the AGU provisions. Meaning we have to be equally flexible. Whatever the state required for the ADU provisions, we have to do it for in-law apartments. We can't limit in-law apartments because in-law apartments just like any ADU have to now be by right. >> So for me, I think I need a better understanding of why we're doing this. If we're only doing it to address a particular section of the building code, then this should be super short. It should literally say an in-law apartment is an ADU. The ADU bylaw applies. Here's the section of the building code that we are making more flexible for in-law apartments.

092So, I'm I'm personally very perplexed by the length of this because it's almost like we're treating it like it's its own type, but it's supposed to be an ADU with all of the flexibility of all the other ADUs. >> Well, yeah, you have to separate like what you can Google online and No, no. And wait, let me finish because it does say an ADU and a is a it might say it is an in-law apartment. So that's why I have this other I I Googled looking for other titles and one thing that came up was a secondary suite is sometimes what they call it, right? But it it's such a nonused term that Lisa thought it was better just to use in-law apartments and define it a little differently, right? So So yeah, these these

093terms are kind of uh you know, it used to be an an in-law suite or a grandma a grandma suite, I think they sometimes they called it or whatever. There was lot Grammy granny flat. That's what I was trying to think of. >> There's terms of these and they've evolved into different things. So, we want to go with the definition we're giving and not, you know, what's out there historically about what these two things are. Um, so, so yeah, I mean, um, it sounds like we more, we need, um, a little bit more information like, you know, um, Doug talking about the difference in the building code, um, and how these things are. Um, to me, they're very different. You know, talking about someone who designs them, they're very different. But, um, but I can

094understand kind of the confusion. and I'm trying to figure out how to make it more clear and I'm not sure what that like um >> so for me I think I just want to make sure that every single thing in here is exactly what the EDU provisions require >> and if we have different changes the change but >> because they're not the same >> they're not because you can't rent it so there's no borders or lodgers you can't use it as a short-term dwelling So this is where are we confident that this is not violating state law because essentially what we're creating is an ADU. I know we're calling it something else but technically this is an ADU by state law. We're prevent you're pretending it's not and we're putting limitations on it as to

095who can rent it which is not the way an ADU is supposed to work state law. >> But but you can but you can remember then that but you can also have you can have an in-law apartment and an ADU on the same lot. So if you can't >> So So are we saying that this is if you have an ADU and then you choose a second dwelling and that's what we should call this. We should call it second dwelling. >> It's not it's an in-law but we should stick with what it's called. >> What's the second dwelling? >> The ADU is the second dwelling. There's a primary dwelling. The ADU is the second dwelling. The in-law apartment is folded into the primary. It's like having two master suite. So, so but why are we

096if somebody was to come and say, "Hey, I want to build a master suite. I want to put a second kitchen and another bathroom and another thing. Why do we have to have a can they do that right now?" >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I can I can build a set of rooms in my house right now with a kitchen, a bathroom, and a bedroom. >> If you do that, Doug Scott, our building commissioner will say you're building either an in-law or an ADU, and he would ask you to apply for that. If you have a bathroom, a bedroom, and a kitchenette, you can have a kitchenette right now without anything else. But if you have those three things, it looks like an apartment. You either have to apply for an ADU or an in-law.

097But right now, they >> just literally if I'm just finishing my basement with those things, then he's going to say, "This is an apartment. You need to apply for a permit for an ADU or an in-law." But as of right now, they quite he cannot grant an in-law a permit for an in-law because it's not allowed under the bylaw. like the he cannot grant that use even though it's >> so he would just he would just tell me you have to do an ADU and here you have to follow these rules >> but and you may not be able to understand >> is the state law the state law wins as far as the definition of what an ADU is. So to me it's really really straightforward. We need to find the regulations from the

098state as to how they're defining an ADU under their new ADU law. if they're defining an ADU to include in-law apartments, the bylaw in referencing an in-law apartment needs to honor the state law. Now, so maybe our bylaw is not consistent with state law, but essentially we're dealing with an ADU. Now, when you present an application for an in-law apartment, if the ADU laws define in-law apartments as part of the ADU regulations, you have to apply the state concept. You you realize that like our I'm missing something. >> But our but our ADU bylaw was based on the regulations provided by the state and the wording that the the state gave us. That was our starting point for our ADU bylaw. >> Yes. >> Right. I wrote it. >> So if we let's say we

099we have this let's say we have this, right? And I tell you that scenario, I'm going to build this out. And he says, "Okay, >> um but this bylaw is in place." And he says, "Okay, it sounds like you have an in-law apartment." >> And I say, "Okay." And I don't know. And then I decide to rent it out. And then they come to me and they say, "Hey, you can't rent this out." Because I put it on Zillow. I did whatever. Yeah. >> They said, "Hey, I'm allowed to. I built an ADU." >> They say it's not. You've got an in-law. >> But the mass state law says ADU and in-law are on the same thing. >> No, they don't. No, they don't. >> And they use them synonymously, which is a mistake. And

100that's what happens when you have people who write the legislation who have never worked in a town government because those people have never worked with a building. I don't think that >> under the building code they he does have to treat them differently and he needs a way to be able to enact on them differently. >> He doesn't need to. He can just say if you're building this thing it is going to be >> know that it's legal for us to say you have to build it as an ADU. I don't think we can legally require somebody to build an ADU and then you're going to end up with a lot of illegal ins. >> All right. So we're gonna we're going to cut this off right now. This is 845 that we've talked about

101it before. >> So we're going to cut this off. We're going to go back and get more information from Doug, more information from the state and what the state publishes. We're going to get more information from Doug and about where exactly the problem is with what he's trying to do as far as like permitting things according to the building code, which is he's required to follow. And then we'll see where the confusion is is coming up. if we're if we're doing the right thing, if we're not doing the right thing, if you know, I don't know because I think they're valid questions. >> Um, yeah, >> but we're just going in circles here and no one at the table has the answers. So, we're going to wait and we're going to go back. >> I

102mean, those are really where my questions are is the use limitations that it lists on here about it has to be owner occupied, has can't have any borders or lodgers. Um, some of those things that are on there. And then you know this part about I know it got crossed out but why was this even in there about the occupancy permit part? >> Yeah because that was under that was the old law that we and that's why that was taken out. That was the old >> Got it. >> version um which I think was almost impossible to regulate at that point. >> Thank you. >> So okay >> we don't have a deadline for the proposed. So, we have, you know, we're sending a notice of intent to the town manager's office to let them

103know that we have proposed warrant articles. We don't have to have the deadline for our articles submitted isn't until March 23rd. So, February is pretty busy. I really think it would be a good idea if we could get count council to come to a meeting on this if you'd be amendable to that. >> Yes. I think one as long as we're also we have all the other data as well. Yes. So, um >> so I don't know if you want to put this off until the first meeting in March because you don't have to close it. You don't have to close your hearing by March 23rd. >> I want to just keep kicking this down the road at like kick it to the February 12th knowing that we may not discuss it at that time

104because we have a lot of but but if we have time and if we do our homework ahead of time, we'll have something to talk about. So, I want to keep putting it on and continuing it and we may not talk about it until we have time. Does does that make sense? So if you keep seeing it on the agenda, that doesn't mean we're talking about it. It's just that if everything else drops out and we have new information, I want to be able to talk about it. >> That's fair. >> Okay. Because otherwise we're going to everything keeps dropping out and I don't want to have an empty meeting and waste time. >> I just I feel like sometimes when four other people get to go have and I understand why you're there and

105having that meeting, but when some of us have questions, we can't be there at the meeting because then it violates town laws and stuff like that, but it's not really fair or effective for the rest of us to not be able to ask those questions at the time. So, >> it's hard for you because we had Doug Scott here. He actually was here for probably an close to an hour. I mean, online and you just weren't here. So, he was here to answer questions. >> Okay. I didn't know that he was here for that. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, the meeting we had that Jasmine and I and Doug had with Lisa was after that because Doug had already gone to Lisa with his version of the in-law bylaw. the the longer one. She had already

106kind of read through it and so that's why we had that meeting because she was reading through it again. So, >> okay, >> I'll just stop screen sharing. >> So, we're going to >> um Okay. Um yeah, I'll take it. Janet, do you wanna >> Hi, sure. Janet Platt, 11 Rodman Road. Um I have I just have a comment. Um the link on the website goes to the housing production plan. Um so if you could >> the link >> for what? >> For the um for the in-law bylaw. >> Oh, okay. >> When I click it, it went to the housing production plan. So it was really hard to >> find what you were talking about. Um >> yeah, she's right. I did see that on the TV up here earlier. Our meeting was not

107shown on this TV. >> No, it's that TV isn't always that TV always shows something different. >> Normally it shows our meeting. I've seen it. >> That one can show. >> Yeah, it always shows us. >> It always shows us >> that was showing a different meeting tonight. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> They can't see that though. >> Okay. Only we >> We'll try We'll We'll check the link. >> She's talking about the link on the website when you >> on the pl on the planning not the planning board website, but the planning department website has the link for the um inlaw bylaw, but it isn't. >> So, the bylaw document goes to the housing production plan. >> Yeah, that's weird. It's just a link. Somebody just got >> All right. Bad

108link. Thank you. Another thing we need to fix. Okay. All right. So, we'll come back to this and try to part for the course, I guess, right? Bylaws are complicated. Laws are complicated. Building codes are complicated. It's all fun reading. Okay. So, do you need a motion to continue this? >> Oh, yeah. Let's have a motion to continue this to February 12th, knowing that if if we're busy with everything else, we'll kick it down the road. >> I'll make a motion to continue the in-law apartment zoning bylaw amendment to February 12th. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Hannah Tesman. I >> skip. >> Paul Matino. I >> and Trisha Kendall. I Okay, we'll get this thing figured out. Um, planning board task. Oh. So, um, this is in draft form right now, but if

109you look at your binders, this is one thing I'm just we're starting to get this thing in order. So, first you'll find that there's the agenda. Second is the meeting minutes that we need that are we need to approve with that agenda. So, that would be coming up next. And at the back of that, right in front of the number one is the planning board task list in my revised new and improved revised graphic. Um that starts to put a name for the lead on it. I've divided it into our list into two sections. ones that are just, hey, it really is a task and the other one is just, you know, we'd like to have a meeting with the cultural council or the historical commission. Those were things that were on the list before.

110The two things at the bottom were things that were on the list, but I'm not sure are things that we're looking at pursuing. Um, they seem to be kind of notes we had put on at a certain time. So, don't have to go through that right now, but I wanted to kind of show where they're at. And then if you flip over to number one, the projects in here, and right now we only have number one. I assume everyone has number one filled in. Do you have Does everyone have this sheet after number one? >> Yep. >> This >> uh that one. >> So, it's after after the number one tab. >> Oh, actual tab. No, >> I don't think so. >> I go right into the Ashlin Planning Board email with the YMCA. >>

111Okay. >> Nobody has a sheet that says YMCA30 Memorial Drive. Let's talk. >> All right. So, that this should be added then or you know, especially when we start to talk about these projects. This is um remember well Anna will remember that when Kate made that >> for each item >> sheet. Yep. We should >> Yeah, it's a sheet to try to document, okay, >> what we're doing. >> Yeah. When was the application date filed for YMCA? What was the first hearing date? When was the um technical review meeting held? And so we try to have um so this is kind of a new thing that we haven't really implemented, but we're going to start doing that. And so this one would be just for the YMCA. It would be the first thing under say

112project one. um and that we're going to be using the tabs say one, two, three, four for various projects. So number one is YMCA, number two might be the Metro West Fields, number three might be Sultan Aav and kind of all start in the same way with the sheet and then the application and then things in kind of chronological order instead of reverse chronological order. At the very back of this thing is where we're putting um meeting material, not meeting materials, but things that we often use like what is the site plan review bylaw, what is the um special permit bylaw, what is the um site modification bylaw, the things that we kind of typically use so that we all have them. If you don't bring your computer, you have them at your disposal during

113the meeting to know, you know, what those things are. So, um, we're going to keep modifying this as we go so that we hopefully reduce, you know, all the paperwork, you know, by going online into tablets, but they all we also have a record of kind of the most critical items in front of us. >> So, is the is the goal. Um, that's the only thing I really want to discuss to kind of go through with that tonight. Um, but if anyone has any questions, comments, suggestions, we can take All right. Is there anything to report on those three committees there? Anyone have a >> on the comprehensive plan? Yolanda responded. She's going to draft something up like I had proposed and once I see it, we'll make some edits. And she was indicating that

114February would be the earliest in her mind that this could come before both boards. Sounds like we're going to aim for the 12th maybe or no, the 26th. So, I'll send her an email kind of telling her about that so she's aware and hopefully by then there'll be a letter from me and Yolanda to both boards that will outline what we had agreed upon as the process for the creation of the implementation committee. >> Okay, >> great. Good thing to get started early in 2026. Um CPC, anything? >> They didn't meet or we didn't meet um in January. Um, we haven't met since the town meeting. >> Okay. >> Uh, I think there's only one thing coming to us um at our next meeting. So, >> Okay. Right. We'll check in with that next time.

115Okay. Uh, administrative ad matters, housing production plan. And obviously we're going to have a presentation on the 26th and they did have um community forum on Tuesday night. >> Yes. >> Um there's that other meeting or something happening. >> Yeah, it happens all the time. >> Um >> it's just that one. >> Yeah. >> I don't know why. >> Um update on the 40bs the >> So I I think you're aware. So obvious Waverly has been approved and the 21day appeal period has passed and they're before conservation right now. um 10 to 60 Main Street was approved and their 20day appeal period expires on February 3rd. Um so after that they'll be applying for conservation. We anticipate they'll be on for their first meeting in March in 55 West Union is finishing up. They're just

116closing up their design review. There's a few questions left from water and sewer from Haley Ward, but other than that their deadline is February 22nd and we don't anticipate we'll be getting any extensions. So, we'll be looking to close that. 22nd is a Sunday. So, we'll be looking to close it the Tuesday prior to that and then we have 40 days to write the decision after that and then a 20-day appeal period after that. >> On the 40bs, I know they don't have to necessarily follow all of our zoning there, but do they have to follow the concom? >> Yes. So, they still the conservation commission can't be waved by zoning board of appeals because it's a different state agency. So they still have to apply for them for all of their wetlands. Any um

117>> That's a river, right? >> Yeah. But they have to do riverfront restoration. There's going to be a lot of remediation. They need a dewatering plan. Um they there's a lot of information about the discharge and the storm water that they have to review. So it there's nothing that the 40B process does to wave conservation requirements. >> So they will have to adhere to all the riverfront. So provisional to them passing. When do they start going to construction? >> 10 to 60 main will be a long time because of the site remediation that has to be done on site. So there's going to be a lot of soil work that has to take place before they'll break ground. So you'll see a lot of activity there before you start seeing any construction because they have

118to get those contaminated soils out and everything that goes out and comes in has to be tested and brought to specific places. So that you'll probably be a few years before you see construction. 61 Waverly. If they get through conservation commission, you could see them pull a building permit within a year, assuming that all of their funding goes well and they get through conservation non-issue. >> So the tenants at 1060 probably won't kick out for a while. >> I'm not sure because they could if they get through conservation, they could start that ground work within a year, but that groundwork is going to take a long time to remediate unless he's got an astronomical team and they move at lightning speeds. You never know. >> So, I just know there's been a lot happening with

119that. OB Jasmine is at all those meetings. I pop in when I can, which is a small fraction of the meetings. >> They've had a lot of work. They've had a lot on their shoulders, the ZBA. >> They appreciate your support. Certainly. >> Yeah. Just warming a seat really, you know. >> But, um, but anyway, uh, so I just wanted to have an update on that. And then ongoing and new projects. So, this is where I thought um uh you can bring up um >> Can I ask one more question on that that's totally unrelated? Um it's the water issue. Does that come into play ever? >> So, you mean >> the fact that we don't have enough water for our town and now we're adding even we're doubling? So the way that >> this

120is a very simple very simple nondescriptive answer for a very >> very difficult question. So please excuse my my nuance with my lack of terminology. This this takes a lot more explaining than I have the ability to do. But essentially we get our water from the MWR and we have a certain amount that we've already paid for. There is more water available if you pay for it. So it's not that we have no more water. is that we've paid up to a certain amount and we haven't reached that threshold yet. We are getting closer of course with these developments. We haven't reached it yet, but there is more water available if we so choose to enter into that agreement. Again, there's a lot that's a very simple explanation. So, that was pretty good. >> Thank

121you. >> It might it might I'm sure there are some people watching that's like that's really oversimplified. It is. What's the implication to the town if we have to get into an MW agreement >> that I don't know the details of >> it short-term or is it a long-term agreement? >> Likely you'd want a long-term agreement unless you have something else in mind. I don't I mean we do have some areas in town that are marked for potential aquafers, but they're not designated at this time. So you you have other you you would want to explore some options depending on what the financial situation looks like. I mean, this topic was raised I mean I kind of raised it up last month with >> Yeah. in December with the concerns about the water usage >>

122because it kept coming up in emails. >> Yeah. >> One that just came out this week and it's like okay, >> you know, at least it raises the concern to to ask are we okay >> and will we be okay if there's run on the water? >> Right. That's something we've we've discussed. A water study is we would like to get a quote for what it would be, but I don't know that we'd have the funds to follow through with such study as much as we might like. >> Is it something we can put on some of the larger developments as part of their approval that they have to do like a water study? >> We can run that by council. The issue with that is that here's the problem is if you haven't done

123it all along and all of a sudden you do it for one developer now you're doing something that's not normal and you could be picking on them and that could be a case for court and they could say you know they're putting unfair regulations on me unfair unreasonable restrictions unreasonable requests that are making my project uneconomical. So I'd have to ask council about that one because it really depends on what you're asking. Obviously there has to be a point at which you have to start doing things. So what's that threshold >> and is it something that you you I don't know it's all developers over x amount of units have to do this and then it's fair for everyone >> right and that would be some like if we put that in I don't know

124design guidelines or put it in the site plan regulations then it's very fair as long as we put it in our regulations but as of right now we don't have anything it would just be conditional and that's where you get that's where that risk comes in >> is it in our purview to ask for there being some conservation mitigation to collect rainwater to use for some >> you can make a request but to be able to condition it if they can prove that that would make the project unfeasible I don't think we could condition it that way >> you could create a bylaw >> exactly >> so we absolutely have jurisdiction to create zoning >> to create you yes you'd have to do it through zoning >> add that to this wonderful to-do list and

125if you build research on it >> I think it's something that keeps coming up in our town. You know, whether we can buy more water, that's all handy and dandy. Like if I travel somewhere and the water source is limited and I have to bring water, that's nice. I could afford to do that. That's not ideal. It's not sustainable. >> So if we as a community care about it, it keeps coming up. Technically, the jurisdiction over water lies, I believe, with the select board. >> I believe it does. But jurisdiction over the zoning lies with us relative to certain requirements. So that would be the most sustainable thing for us to do as a community. Just like we've been talking for years about a tree bylaw >> and the water keeps coming up and bursting

126pipes and all this. That's that's the power really of and I believe this was somewhat addressed in the comprehensive plan as a concern um as something that we should be thinking about and could be part of the implementation committee's discussions but it doesn't prevent us as the planning board to start drafting a zoning bylaw that addresses it. I think it would be it would be good to both see what comes out of the implementation committee um as far as priorities because we can't do everything at once and to look at our checklist or our the task list that I was just talking about. We can definitely add this on, but to see okay, of that list, which ones are pri are priorities, you know, maybe relative to what's on the list, maybe that wouldn't be

127a priority, but we have to weigh them all and see which one would we one or ones would we want to start working 2026 start working on. So, >> are there any examples in the state of Massachusetts where somebody has created a water conservation mitigation plan? No idea. >> I think that's worthy of research. Like, if you're willing to look into that, let's add it to our to-do. >> Let's put it on the list and let's give it a run for a little while. >> Do some research and see what you can find. >> I don't mean to make it a mounting topic, but concern I have is we run out and have a problem. >> And that's a real concern. >> And then, >> well, any of you have to pay for more water?

128We're all paying for that. So is there a way to mitigate it? You know, if you have a huge development, I don't know what the the codes apply to a huge development, but do you force like if you have a development over a certain amount, you've got to use ultra low flow everything so that you're minimizing water and go above the what the plumbing code requires. >> I don't know. >> Or you would donate fund or >> right >> put land into an aquifer or something. Well, I mean, they they get a water bill, they pay it. >> Yeah. >> Just like the rest of us. >> I mean, just because they consume 160 times the amount I do. >> I mean, their bill will just be 160 times higher. >> How much of that

129do we make >> on the water bill? Does Tom make any money on that? >> It goes right to MWR, right? >> I believe so. I don't believe that we have any that we collect any. Maybe it's uh you know looking at our planning board task list and one of the things on there is to um uh under the second section um is DPW understand in infrastructure capacity and potential updates to regulations. It's already on our task list >> under DPW. So, so it sounds like the first thing we would want to do is invite DPW, >> Doug Small, say we have Doug Scott and building commissioner and Doug Small is in DPW. Um, and uh, and try to maybe understand more about that to educate oursel, educate our board more about that. Um, February

130looks a little busy as we already discussed, but maybe it's um >> maybe it's a a thing we should try to get on our agenda for March is to just really try to understand DPW. >> Um, and that would be a good starting point. Um, not that research if someone has an interest can be done in the meantime. If anyone wants to put their name on one of these, like they're interested in water or whatever, um, let me know. We will just fill that in. >> Do you want me to get you contact? >> Understanding like water. Okay. >> Water. Okay. >> I will put you in touch with him. >> Great. Okay. Um, all right. All right. So, the thing I wanted other thing I wanted to look at on there in under this

131topic is just just so that everyone would understand a little bit about what was going on at uh Zero Cross Street because those emails have been going back and forth since the the first week of January. Um, and if you can just give a synopsis of the issue there. Absolutely. That would be great. >> So, this this little tiny triangle right here, this is Cross Street. This is zero cross street right here. This entire large parcel in Hopkington is se this one in particular has a solar farm on it. This is 71 Frankland Road in Hopkin. So on this project in Hopkin, a developer had come in and he applied for this project to put in solar panels. Hopington said yes you may. So this property owner, sorry, let me back up. Owns all of

132this property right here. This is contiguously ownedcledcledcledcledcledcledcledcledcledcl incl.cl.cl.cl.cl.cl.cl.cl.cl.cl.cling including see how this line continues here. He owns this corner in Ashland as well. So all of this is owned contiguously by one property owner. And when they went in to do the application in Hopkin for the solar array, they said, "Okay, we will give you the special permit to put in the solar array if you commit to put the remaining owned land into either open space or conservation restriction in some way restrict this property. So it cannot be built upon. The applicant agreed to that and in their map in the decision it does include this small triangular portion in Ashland and they can do that because it was contiguous ownership. So they're not dictating what Ashlin can do. They're dictating what this owner can do

133with his owned property. So they were allowed to make that condition on this decision. Now the issue is that when this person applied for their building permit somehow it was missed that only a very small section oh I can't draw on this only a very small section um about this area was put into open space and restricted. So none of the area in Ashland ever got restricted and the rest of the parcel wasn't put into the open space. Now the problem is that the the project is built. So now the building commissioner can't do anything and the planning department can't do anything. So now it's up to the town to actually take legal Hopington has to take legal action against this applicant to bring them to court to enforce them to put the remaining property

134to comply with the decision that was um issued because the building commissioner his only recourse would have been to withhold the permits and the project's complete. So now it lies with town council who oddly enough also happens to be our town council. Um so the town council in Hopkin is also me in Tailorman. Um and so one of the abutters to this zero cross street somehow I'm not sure how they became aware but somehow became aware that this parcel did not become an open space or became conservation restriction or land trust. However, it was written in their decision and has written to the town and spoken with Becca Solomon, our conservation agent, and Lisa me and our town council and myself and asked if we could do anything to impose into to reinforce that condition.

135Our town council has said there's nothing legally we can do. It's Hopington's decision. They have to enforce it. However, if the board is inclined, if you're empathetic to this, you may write a letter of support and you know, or the not really support, but a letter um to Hopington essentially encouraging them to take action against this and to enforce the full extent of their conditions of their decision and to put this parcel into restriction. So besides not putting it into restriction, they're not actually doing anything with that little piece of land on our side. >> Not that I'm aware of, but again, I don't know how this person was made aware of it. So I don't know if someone was looking at it if there's a for sale sign, if somebody was out flagging it.

136I genuinely don't know. They don't have to tell us. As far as we're aware, there are no plans for this parcel that we know of. But if it doesn't get put into restriction, it could easily be built upon and there's nothing Ashlin can do about it because it's not our condition. We can't uphold a condition of Hopkin. So unfortunately, Hopington has to take recourse and enforce this if they want them to comply with their condition. >> Is there is there frontage on the on a road, right? >> Oh, yes. They have plenty of frontage on Cross Street. >> Are they is Hopington currently because they have all the rest of that land too that's in Hopington that was missed according I'm not sure about the rest of that because that's outside of our jurisdiction. So,

137we only asked about the portion that was in Ashlin. >> So, I'm My question is, is Hopkin already trying to get the rest of it? >> I'm not sure. I'm not positive if they're taking any legal recourse at this time. As far as I'm aware, they are they are not, but it sounds like this has just come up in the last month. As far as I know, unless somebody else brought it up before the butter, this is the first anybody's heard of it. as far as I know, unless somebody in Hopkin had brought it up previously, which I I would. >> What happens from a building permit point of view for this piece of land? >> Right now, >> falls under our purview. The town, right? >> Right now, if somebody comes and pulls a

138building permit, we have to issue it. There's nothing restricting Ashland. >> We have to issue it. The town >> we do because there's no there's that land is not in restriction and it's not under a condition under a decision from the town of Ashland. We are not beholden to any decision of the town of Hopkin. The decision was that this owner had to put their owned property into conservation restriction or something of that nature. And if they didn't comply, if somebody builds on it in the meantime, that's not anything the town of Ashlin can stop, unfortunately. >> But they have to apply for permits. >> They do. And we there's no way for us to stop it because there's nothing on the property. There's no conservation restriction on the property. And we can't say because

139it's a condition from Hopington, we can't do that because it's not legally binding yet. Nothing has happened. So, we can't stop anybody from building on that parcel unless the applicant, the owner, actually complies and puts the property into Oakland. >> Well, if I'm the owner of this property, I could go and build a house >> right now >> and I don't need a permit to build. >> You do need a permit. You need a permit to build. >> Can we control it from the building permit side? >> You cannot deny a building permit for that because it's not a it's not anything that's been issued in the town of Ashlin. So, we can't uphold Hopinson's permit. >> Yeah, there's nothing so there's nothing legally restricting it. So, >> which is where the concern, right, >>

140and the urgency comes >> because the building inspector doesn't have the a right to say, well, I just don't think it should be there, right? He has to follow the rules and there are no rules applied to that property. >> So, anyway, that's the reason these emails have been going back and forth. Um I do know that I think um when this first kind of came out at the at the beginning of the month around January 7th um Rober Robera Sulman um she heads the open space committee and she was going to reach she was going to put this issue on the open space ag meeting agenda and reach out to um to you know the the resident to invite them to come to that meeting. I don't know if that happened. That would just

141been a couple a couple weeks ago um that she had mentioned it. So, um >> yes, >> somebody's Tony on Zoom. >> Oh, >> yeah. I'm I apologize for interrupting. Oh, sure. >> Tony and I are here and we're the abutters that um brought this to the attention of the town. Oh, >> I don't know. It's Yeah, I apologize. we have the map up and so we can't see um who's who's lurking out there in cyerspace. >> So um yeah, if you if you would like to um this isn't this isn't an item on our agenda. This is just something I wanted to update the planning board about because they they obviously are getting these emails and to understand what the situation was. >> So it isn't something we have that are that we um

142like I said it's not on our official agenda. So we want to be a little bit careful about what we discuss. But if if you would like as public comment during this time, if you would like to make a comment about it, that would be fine. >> Sure. Thank you very much for the time. Um, yes, I I did uh go Tony and I went to the Open Space Committee and presented about this and they made a motion in support of Ashland having a coordinated effort and conversations with Hopkin about this to let them know that that land matters to us and our understanding is it should be part of the open space. The conservation commission has similarly um reinforced that same u motion or adopted it. And then last night, Tony and I were

143at the select board um about uh and commented about it in public comments. The select board said that they would talk with town council and um Joe Manyani said that he would work with them to get a letter off to the town of Hopkin planning and zoning boards about it respectively. Um yeah, that that's kind of the update. The reason I even got wind of this is as an abutter, we were notified that there was a conservation commission meeting in Nashland about it and a an entity was working with Agilatas uh energy who's the successor owner to Seabard Solar about, you know, their interest in buying that Ashland parcel. And we said, "Wait a minute." We understood that to be part of the open space designation going back to like 2020 when Seabard Solar first

144got their um special permit. So, as you can probably tell from the emails, we've done a ton of research into this. Um, I've talked with the Hopkin Area Land Trust who, uh, Agilitas still hasn't transferred any of the land to them. And yet, uh, as outlined in the note that I sent, they're they're operating the facility and have been since 2024, which is against Hopkin, uh, zoning laws, state building code, and against the terms of the special permit. They haven't, as far as I can tell from public records, been granted a certificate of occupancy um, from Hopkin. So technically they're not legally operated operating from a town perspective, but the uh whatever the state energy uh powers that be have granted them the permission. It's a separate um permission for them to operate. So it's

145kind of a complex situation, but the land is a beautiful parcel. Part of the trail system is there. It was meant to be protected habitat for the community, the greater Ashland and Hopkinon community. So we just feel passionately that um it's the right thing to do for that land. It's a beautiful piece of forested property and it just um it the intention and the commitment of Seabard and now subsequently Agilitas Energy they should be upheld to that commitment to the community. >> Thank you. Yeah. So I I think the um the question here is um is if and and I I was unaware of um any of the other letters being um the letters of support kind of being written, you know, by the boards. But if um if the planning board wanted to um

146you know wanted to formulate something as well again it's um it's it's we we don't have any um jurisdiction. We have no power to tell Hopington what to do. >> No I understand. >> Yeah. Um but but but we can um we can weigh in is I guess is you know is our only uh is the only jurisdiction we we have on that. That that's exactly what I was hoping. I feel like the weight of multi-boards in Ashland letting Hopkin peers know that this matters to us and that you know encouraging them to enforce their rules because they have the authority and they have the obligation candidly to enforce those rules. I'm not sure what's taken so long for the transfer to happen because Agilityas Energy in what is it? Rochester. >> In Rochester, Massachusetts,

147they did transfer about 200 acres as they were supposed to. So, I'm not sure what the holdup or what the issue is in um in this case with Franklin Road. >> Oh, yeah. Yes. And that Ashland property we discovered has been on the market even though there's never been a for sale sign on it. Apparently, it was listed on uh sites. And again, Agilityas has offered a purchase option contract to a a land developer entity from uh Hopkin and Holliston. Um so it's it's very disappointing to us and it's just not the right thing. >> So any comments from the the board on that situation? It's it's complex. It's unusual and complex. So >> I mean my thought is this. But I think anytime you're going to send your thoughts and prayers to a different

148town or community, you have to link it to Ashlin very very strongly. So I don't know if I would want as a planning board member to start getting emails from other planning boards on things that don't substantially impact other communities unless we're working together collaboratively on a project between multiple boards, multiple cities. So my only thought would be, you know, if we're going to start commenting on other towns, we just need to kind of come up with a standard of when we do it, how we do it, so we're consistent, and we're being respectful because we're going to be treated the exact same way. >> Absolutely. And just I I have um I have lots of information I can give to you that would help you comment, but uh one of the comments I made

149last night to the select board was just that that designated open space land that was to um offset the deforestation from the solar array, which is about a 23 acre solar array. It was mitigation that justified the solar project's approval. It's to preserve habitat to maintain trail connections between Ashland and Hopington. So it is something that was promised to both communities and both communities enjoy and it's to protect the watershed and the downstream resources because there is a >> so that's the connection and you know I I I think that's the important kind of link um to basically say look this is how it impacts Ashland. >> Um yes >> I do wonder if this is better from the select board planning board or both. Um, I mean I for one would entertain like if

150if you and I'm so sorry I don't recall your name. >> This is Susan Susan Thorne and Tony Quatron. >> So you know if Susan presents the planning board with some kind of proposed language that she wants us to share with another community. I'm game for reviewing it as part of our next agenda and thinking about it. I'm just kind of generally commenting that we as a planning board, this this particular planning board just needs to realize that once we open up that door, we need to have a precedent that we're comfortable with with some standards and it becomes a two-way street. >> Did Did they say that the select board is already writing something? >> I haven't heard from the select board on that. >> I know there's been a request made, but I

151don't know if there's been a vote made. They did just meet last night. Why don't I Why don't I reach out to Joe, the chair of the select board right now, to see to see where they're at on on theirs. It might be something that we can collaborate on. >> I was thinking more like just tag on. >> Yeah. Yeah. Not >> I mean, given that we're kind of just This wasn't even on our agenda for tonight, right? So, um, let me catch up and see where, um, the select board and Joe is on this and we can, um, >> sign along with them or whatever. >> Yeah, we can kind of, you know, it might mean that, um, if things are happening more quickly over there, it might mean that if they just if

152they just met last night, then they're probably just with us kind of. >> Yeah, I don't think they would have had it drafted yet. Okay, let me let me find out and we can um you can always uh Jasmine can always send out something some kind of notification to see where we are. >> That would be fantastic. Thank you so much for the support. Really appreciate it. And I did also contact uh Michael Herbert and um I missed his office hours. I was working and couldn't get away. But um we're going to talk next week. So I just wanted to have an opportunity to chat with him as well. >> Yeah. Thank you. I'm I'm glad that you you know have that you um thought to come to the meeting tonight. This is sounds like

153something that must be very frustrating for Hopkington because it sounds like they had all good intentions and somehow something got missed and that that happens. >> Um so um so we'll just see you know I'll like I said I'll I'll be in touch with the select board. We'll see where they are they're at and how we can um talk about working together. >> Super. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Is that good with everybody that approach? Okay, great. And then um Okay, so upcoming meetings, as we know, February 12th and then Oh. Oh, meeting minutes review. >> Oh, >> let's take care of that. I didn't have a chance to look at them. Jasmine, do you know what? In line 132, what is a cadile? C O D I C I L. I

154don't know. Is that a Is that a typo or is that a word? I don't know what it means. >> That's a typo. >> The guidelines had a codicile. Coticile. I line 132. I >> think that's I'll have to go back and listen because I can't even think of what >> what that would be. >> It could be a word that I just don't know the word. But >> I don't think that is a word. >> That sounds kind of sounds kind of legal. Is that >> recalled somebody saying that at the meeting? I would have been like, "Oh, what does that mean?" I'll check on that. Oh, >> it is okay. >> A legal dog. Okay. >> No, >> it sounds it's fancy. All right. >> Oh, >> I don't think that's what we

155meant. That's very specific. Yeah, go back through and listen to what actually supposed to say. No. >> Okay. Yeah. So, um also it's it says that uh >> which line is this? I'm so sorry. >> Oh, no. Never mind. it. I thought it was a mistake, but it's not. It's okay. >> I was getting >> Is it okay? >> I mean, it's typically to a will, but I'm thinking it's usually a a change to something like a minor change. So, maybe that is the word that they used. >> Okay. You kind of use it the same way you use the term Scribner's error. Maybe like maybe you use it the same way you use the term Scribner's error. Like >> it's kind of like the same thing like you just you were like, "Oh, we

156just made like a clerical error. It's just a scribers error. Like you just, you know, like a typo. It's a fancy way of saying somebody made a typo. >> Okay. But I don't think I actually have any >> changes. Just a word I didn't know. Does anyone >> I don't have any changes. >> Okay. >> I'll make a motion to approve the January 8th, 2026 minutes as is. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second the motion. >> All right. Espia I >> Paulino I >> and Trisha Kendall I so those are approved anyone have anything else >> I'll make a motion to adjourn >> at 9:29 >> 9:29 p.m. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Then a roll call vote. >> Anna Tesmaniski. I >> skipped your eye. >> All the I.

157>> Angel Kazdian. I >> and Trisha Kendall. I All right. Thank you. >> Okay.