00140 as well we have a quorum myself and Joe are on zoom and um and Makita Keegan is in the room in town hall great thank you um and at this point we'll have the clerk's report thank you Madame Vice chair uh we received one correspondence from the public since the last planning board meeting and that is um of a nature specific that the um town planning office would respond not the clerk on behalf of the board thank you and for public comment Peter do we have any public comment online uh this is the time for a public comment uh for anybody online would you oh I see one person with their hand raised um with nobody in the room I will give it to Jo on Friday Joan can you please unmute I will
002ask you to unmute yourself uh and please step forward oh now I can okay junan Friday went your Road Ashland um I don't want to take a lot of your time um I haven't heard the new proposal yet and I'm sure you're working on the best plan you can for Ashland um I don't but I want to go on record as saying that I feel very strongly that the town should band together and fight this I feel the state is already mandating way too much for the towns thank you that's all thank you and the next topic on our agenda is the MBTA zoning update my Z is down so I'm just going to hold on okay we're gonna hold on just one moment since our Zoom got lost Alo okay so uh Tom planner
003Peter Mack and uh beside me tonight is Al par seon planner and so Alvaro and I um have been working really hard diligently since the last uh spring to come up with a plan that uh suffices and meets the MBTA uh law um zoning law and the criteria um and so what we're coming down with is kind of a not a new proposal well a little bit of a edited proposal from the Springtown meeting um I was able you know we Alvaro and I have been uh for the last couple of months have been following updates I think from the LA from the spring we said we're going to kind of wait uh what happens with these 240 BS that obviously we are still waiting uh on further information on and um and so with
004that said um we're still trying to put together a plan that meets the principles of what how we kind of set off um last spring obviously to to take into consideration what Ash has already previously zoned um um to obviously look at what ashon has permitted right and then also to look what um what areas in town make sense um with the lowest uh minimal impact obviously to the community uh with that said overall um just as a review um we uh the town of Ashen need to zone for uh 15% of our total housing um and so that is uh 1,124 units um just as a fact uh Ashland in the 2020 uh census has 7,400 and um excuse me uh about 7,400 units to be precise um so with that said just to
005go back we do need to zone for 1,124 units uh this has to be done over uh 50 acres um 20 40% indoor 20 of those Acres need to be within the MBTA District Andor um5 miles away from the MBTA station another fact that needs to be considered is that 50% of the overall Zone needs to be contiguous um and so going back to the spring um that was kind of an an easy one because we had cus and we had the land area known as lotu ug ugc um and that check that box um if we remove ugc from the equation uh due to that 40b obviously being in litigation um we don't really know what's what's going on there um that leaves us um the cus parcel which is the biggest parcel which
006is about 28 Acres right and so that is one of the hurdles that um has been one of the most biggest I would say um one of the most identifiable challenges to kind of to to to kind of or indoor hurdles to kind of meet um so with that said um what we have presented tonight are a few Maps Al do you want to run through the maps yeah so I guess just to point out parcel a that is on this light green color that's fully serious so that's kind of like the parcel that we are looking out and counting on definitely having on this proposal because it meets a the5 mile radius requirement within the MBTA station and um if we're looking to sewn on a Max of 56 Acres that will also meet
007a that would also be a contiguous District so just kind of like repeating what Peter was saying and just mentioning it that before we were looking at all this part of the RTE so right here where my mouse is that was overall 7 7% of our proposal on the spring since we are removing this light blue area around the cus parcel of course that acreage uh decreases and so for that reason we are looking at serious as the main parcel to maintain that contiguous and the maximum of overall land that we will be looking at zoning is 56 Acres um parcel B is 100 chest note we understand that that has been permitted in since construction so it's um a feasible side to reson and make a part of this this project um C is
008pwn Street we included on the last proposal and we still continues to look at as a potential parcel and good option for this proposal um we mentioned D just to kind of like show it again but that one is ugc and overall the rtdf rtda um district and part of the RTD but like Peter said because of the fact that he in litigation there's a 4B permitted there is age restricted um we're thinking that it could be less of a potential option because of all those factors um I know that in the spring we talked about potentially Pleasant Street and so we revisit that option um again because we are losing a lot of acres in this area by taking this out um and I know that one of the things that we were looking
009at is how much actually that could be built or how much actually could be built there by right or special permit and so we went deep in the zoning in there and you we will'll be showing a little bit of what we model um the zoning over there is through floor area ratio um so because of that it was a little harder to see how exactly what will be the number of units since there's no really standard square footage of a unit that you can just optimize and kind of like mention it so that's why we have to revisit and model it um but we're looking at that as an option um parcel f is 10 to 60 Main Street again knowing that um right now it's been reved as a it's proposed as a
0104B um is part of the ad zoning again that already permits by right housing in there we also looked at that and we also model a potential number of units how much by right based on the F will be provided uh we'll be running through those numbers again but that's kind of like why we included into this and then parcel G is uh 61 waiver Street that's again another parcel that has been proposed as a 4 EB so when coming down into looking at all the pars on town we also thought that since that is already being pro in the process of being proposed for more housing we could take a look at it included into this um overall analysis y uh thank you Alo um so right now just to kind of take a
011just kind of kind of stop um those are the parcels that we've kind of put together to analyze what could be kind of what could be kind of mesh together to meet the qualifications right now uh Parcels um andoor I would say A and B right which are cus um and 100 Chester um need to be the need to be in the equation most importantly cus needs to be in the equation uh because it meets requirements that the state law has kind of put forth other than that you can start to kind of build this mold together right um and in doing so um we can kind of we can build that mold up and then we can kind of move some pieces around regarding density um equations um and obviously there's pros and cons
012to every to every piece um but at this point I just want to stop does anybody have any questions um I'll start so the the partial there's three Parcels that are in play of this puzzle that mentioned 40b one of them is an approved 40b a friendly 40b which is parcel D which is ugc which understandably as a court thing but I I feel like I'm not getting how that really got potentially dropped from this like what what's the argument to drop that versus these 40 BS that aren't approved well I would say the the the question one has to ask is saying okay why would you drop it why would you not right if we kept it in right we would be increasing the density of that parcel by right so therefore right now
013we have a friendly 40b which is Aid's restricted at 180 units right which is in litigation it's been in litigation for the past two years right if we move that into the equation and that is 17.9 Acres right we have to have a minimum density of 15 units so therefore that would move the proposed by right use on that property to 270 units can I ask a clarified question though so I know that the acreage of that is 17.9 MH but like if you do all the green a plus c you're up to 41.665878 so let me start again I thought the required acres are 50 correct 5 yeah so I'm just kind of trying to do math so if you add the green the two greens plus C you get to 41.665878 N9 Acres
014out of D to Zone it that way and therefore not impact the legality of that project or not risk you will technically be impacting it because if you look at the map right and then you look at let's say the RTD e right here and you see right like these Lane right so all everything that is around it even if it's the Seven Acres you already are picking out the project that is ugc and then immediately when let's say we are only looking at 50 acres like the minimum we will be looking at a higher density so we will have to like play with the density on that I guess to clarify basically if we take N9 Acres out of that 17 acre property and we make it by right more dense you're saying the
015whole project could be at risk over those nine acres that are more dense I think it has a possibility of changeing there is a possibility I guess and have we sought an opinion from the state or from legal council as to whether that would actually be a viable problem I'm just trying to imagine you have a friendly 40b over 17 acres and they find out that 8.43 of it can now be high density are they really going to change their entire project because there's little sections of it they can make highly dense they may I feel like we should explore that you I think they potentially could just to make a note that whole parcel known as parcel 2 is actually 37.9 7 Acres right the town of Ashland um in with purchasing land within
016the um purchasing land within that ugc I mean excuse me within the RTD district from the land owner of lot two um the town of Ashton's going to get 20 acres back so that's why there's a differential to the 17 Acres that are in parentheses because that's the the the the I would say the developable area within that lot too I see a hand raised online just the FYI it um but that is a possible possibility right furthermore we also looked at e right which is the Pleasant Street Corridor which is a total of 7.56 um the the 10 to 60 Main Street project that has a total of 6.9 Acres um that both the Pleasant Street and the 1060 Main Street um they do have a f of two um which is allowed within
017a mixed use development and so that is now kind of opening up the door to the ashin downtown ovet district uh the second sheet that you see uh with every with with with information here is actually a f uh examples of f um and then the Third project that we looked at just you know to to put everything in is the the W Street which would be 13 acres of land um you know we can move we obviously we're still in the process of of looking at things and building the the model up um to meet that 50 acre goal um and the contiguous factor and obviously the acre is within that Five Mile district am I reading this so the parcel e on Pleasant Street um I I definitely I'm going to just repeat
018I have heartburn about that because we re we rezoned add as recently as 6 2021 at town meeting so that means it got reviewed we had an independent consultant Peter you were here then we had a board we had town meeting vote and now we're we're making this more dense with when it recently got reviewed like the it actually got more dense under that update date of the zoning no it did not um and that that zoning add requires it says this should be the most um commercial-based so without putting um I know there's a allowable to have some commercial on the first floor and they particularly say with downtown so have you explored that with partial e at all just to back up a minute the the change that went to the the the
019change that happened to the add District was really about design criterias and the update and no part of that bylaw update actually touch the density the densities within add the densities within ad go back to I believe 2015 uh which was the last change no I understand but my point is in a relatively recent given our snails pace of like making changes with government town government because that's how it works democracy is slow when we revisit it in 2021 we didn't say we want it more dense so the most recent visit so now this is imposing a density that I I'm going to stick to say I'm not saying it shouldn't be more dense what I'm saying is that should wait for the comprehensive plan process that we're in the middle of and and particularly
020unless we consider the commercial part of the MBTA zing that we're allowed to do and I haven't heard anything about that in the proposal could I just clarify one thing there so when we were looking at the the BW right um that one was add was the most challenging really to like compare because it was on F so right now by F depending of course of what is the square footage of unit that you will use you could actually make it more it could be very dense Yeah so basically what we are are looking at is that if we were to move on with this MBTA zoning we will be limiting at 15 units per acre and because it's an overlay zoning you will be allowing for any sort of commercial development to happen still
021um because they can still use the zoning that is under so like the add overlay and then the industrial zoning on the bottom so they can use all of those zoning in case that they would like to but there is an MBTA 3 a that does have a requirement we could put in commercial other communities have done this so what you're saying is I I get it it's Dealers Choice right now it can stay commercial just like all of downtown 10 to 60 main can stay commercial or they can decide to do some commercial and if we do the MBTA that right now what you guys are talking about is only residential yes but there is an MBTA 3A they up updated it since it was initially passed because communities they want we all want
022our community to be vibrant downtown so just putting housing with nothing there doesn't make it vibrant right the state that's why they Revisited the 3A so I I think putting given Ada adaa if you read our zoning specifically says that is the heaviest commercial density when you go B and C they they kind of say it's not we think it's not as important so that's an a like we shouldn't we shouldn't give that up we definitely should not give that up can can I ask a clarifying question do we have any questions from select board before I do Yolanda did have her why don't we give the select board some question time does anybody uh from the select board online and or in the room have any questions you land you're on yand I've asked
023you to unmute I'm also GNA now I can thank you now I can uh so my I had raised my hand because I had a question slash followup when Anna was talking about parcel C the ugc parcel can you have different zoning on the same parcel yes okay yep this would be an overlay District on top um and it would cover yep you can do that and then the other thing is uh in regards to I mean I agree with Kate in regards to mixed use that is something that the MBTA zoning does now allow originally they didn't but they do support mixed mixed use so I would say that for parcel the parcel along Pleasant Street we would want to make that mixed use versus just housing because there's already commercial along there so
024mixed use on that parcel as well as on the 10 to6 mream makes sense to have mixed use encouraged as well as just housing and that's really all I got thank you sorry I was late had another meeting okay um I had to unless there's other questions on line no um just to clarify the the orange and blue on that chart which I think is very helpful showing density is build or permitted versus MBTA I just want to make sure I'm interpreting things right looking at label f and g so 1060 Main Street am I reading it right that it's proposed at 250 units but if we Zone it for the MBTA the zoning would be for 124 yes he will be 18 to so the practicality of this is I'm just imagining how this
025works in Practical terms we had the 40b proposed to us it's now under review by the state if we Zone it to be 124 units that project can still get approved at the higher Den it just happens to be zon for the lower density correct okay y so I feel like that's a win-win right there me personally um and then the other question I guess it's the same question for G same concept it's being proposed as a 40b at 226 and the zoning would would be for 199 so again even if that project is approved at the higher density the zoning would be lower than what's approved basically the zoning makes zero impact on the reality if we Zone it for the MBTA we're still going to get something with more density that was kind
026of like the approach that we were looking at and then just so I'm clear correct me if I'm wrong Peter if this 1060 Main Street is approved is 61 Waverly are we over the threshold for affordability if 1060 is approved no no okay so we're still kind of vulnerable to 40b for assuming ugc succeeds in its progression you know what I think at this point you know ugc it depends on what ugc does you know obviously we approved that we got one year of Safe Harbor because it moved our mov the Shi needle about you know the 1% that it needed to because they didn't pull building permits we fell out of Safe Harbor if ugc ends tomorrow litigation they come in and they pill bu building permit then we could um we do have
027the opportunity however um it kind of depends on how the other two kind of shake out and also we have you know 501 Pawn Street which is also 25% affordable but that's a lit project it's a it's not a 40b project it goes through a different process to get on to the Shi that doesn't get on to the Shi until a regulatory agreement has been signed occup permits have been issued so you're just dealing each project is a different has a different set of cards or a different C set of circumstances and so you're still you're try you're still juggling a little bit of everything um including two possible 4bs that are right now under review at Mass housing which is FNG right correct so I have a question to to Anna to your comment
028that it's a win-win because I I actually disagree with that because right now for the adaa ad add or at least the the versions that have come to us they a special permit and I think you know serving on the board how hard as much as we get beat up sometimes by the public or other people we work hard to make these projects better and I can honestly say there's they've been better like meaning safer and um I'm not the one to comment about Aesthetics but there's people here that absolutely put a lot of effort into making them so once this is by right I I mean that painful effort that we go through to make projects better is no longer going to happen for the town I guess what I was saying in the
029win-win is if I'm the developer and I've got a 40b proposal in front of the state for 250 and we pass MBT zoning which only has 124 I don't have any reason to pull out the 40b and come back in my opinion so I feel like there's low risk to the town of Ashland is the developer standing in front of the state with high density and all we did was create less density so I don't I don't really see the risk that we would like it's not like the developer is going to say oh sure I'll just come back for a bu right project with less density but we don't know this is where we were in the spring we don't know this 40b is going to be accepted that's the but we do know
030there was a project of 200 units in front of the planning board that has been withdrawn because it wasn't valuable at units so I I get that there's a risk like all of these things are risky and and maybe what we need to do and this is a great chart is kind of at least for me what would be helpful is to kind of visualize the risk of each one slightly so obviously the green ones there's very low risk the project is going to come back because it's happening would we all agree on that like it's already standing there it's built yeah so there's that um 501 Pond has this permit been pulled like are they so no a permit has not been pulled right but here's another you know risk risk right and and
031obviously you're you're we're we're talking about risk um obviously in 2014 the town of ashon permited a um elderly residential Assisted Living center right New Town 2024 issues a permit to the planning board for 120 units with that said the proposal would be to um you obviously looking at this and we've kind of looked at this a lot Alvaro and I is by right 501 Pawn Street within the pawn Street overlay District right has the ability to pull permits by right for 81 units right so if we the town of ashon included the pawn Street and excuse me put the units per acre between 20 and 25 right in at 25 units per acre you're just a hair above 81 units which is allowed by right but you're well below the 120 units that that
032permit calls for that was issued in 2022 so therefore you're it's it's you're limiting the risk right and you're minimizing the impact does that make sense I lost you at one point but because I'm not seeing 81 I'm seeing 151 81's not on there 81 is the buy right within the pwn Street overlay District right and so then if you took that plot of land which is about 3.74 acres and then you said you would allow around between 22 and and 25 units per acre you can increase your you're giving you're not giving up much right you're just saying okay and in the MBTA District you can you can develop say it's 90 units right well it's only nine units above what you would be allowed by right both at 10% affordable I think that
033makes sense I'm just confused because it says here 159 under 159 number comes from the total acreage everything per everythings with both you're just talking about 501 correct which is going to be about because you have to think about the both Parcels when you're looking at it because you're counting both as you build up that model yeah right so to me that becomes a very low risk like we in the we didn't have that information right yeah I think we can agree that so C is low risk a B and C are are low risk a and be your no risk now someday they can tear them down and rebuild and we understand that how is how the zoning goes C if they just said those people walked away at the 25% affordable and their
034credits someone can come back and and build in like less than the 120 and in range of what is already by right correct so that's extremely low risk so so I guess to me if if you do the green and the orange we're we're at right so we need to find whatever 8.43 or whatever somewhere correct and guess I guess to my question would be what is the most we know that the rest of this is somewhat risky can we grab thoughtfully sections of the rest in a way that would minimize the risk at those sites to losing the project correct that correct so I looking at it you know ugc has risk right if if it it it just depends on risk we could we could use ugc area is is rtte um or
035we could go to 10 to 60 Main Street right 10 to 60 Main Street 40b 250 units right um then you're looking you're looking at obviously a project in front of the planning board right that was at 200 units I think everyone kind of was starting to kind of wrap their their head around that number um and now if you include them that's 6.9 Acres if you put them in the realm of 18 units per acre you're at 12 124 now when you bring in the add right which is a totally different factors right about what's R Allowed by right and what you can fit in there and at that point also you got to think about height setbacks parking spaces how much you can talk about that because really f is almost a pancake
036model right of what you can stack into that lot right and so there's many different complications when you start talking about about f um but you're you're you're low risk in my eyes but you only have 6.9 Acres right so you're still short of that 60 Acres excuse me that 50 acres you need 1.44 so you still need to go someplace else now you could either look at pleasantry right or or you could look over towards ugc now Pleasant Street it's near the train station right it's on the other side of the tracks um we do talk about it but we're only minimiz we're we're it's under right the add A's F of two right which is going to call for mixed use buildings so I understand where you're coming from where everyone's coming from
037about the commercial uses but you're still slotting it in at a lot at a spot right that is yeah it's allowable by right at 15 units per acre however if you use add at the end of the day you're probably going to get more units on that site under that different bylaw right but it's a game of Risk and as we're just trying to identify all the op so why can't we if we're exploring areas in add why can't that's exactly why the State changed and allowed commercial we need to look at that if we're taking potential commercial areas in our downtown then we need to look at MBTA zoning that includes that I guess I'm going to go back to uh well first of all it seems like we're moving into the comment section
038so I want to make sure is there anything the select board wants to ask since we were kind of in the questions phase and I do uh yep Anna thank you um I just have one quick question for Peter it's one of the questions I forgot to ask uh at our last meeting when we were sitting down uh where you folks are tonight um with ugc respectfully to that uh they have been permitted is there a Sunset date for that permit when it when it expires or if it ever expires uh because this this particular situation is now in the land court and usually with lanc courts it's between one to two and a half to approxiately three years uh depending upon uh you know how the litigation is going to go so is that
039permit still accessible for these potential three years you know out out of three years yeah I can answer that question the the the correct answer is yes that permit is still viable so a special permit well excuse me just to back up a second so just for a facts right a comprehensive permit has a tolling period of three years from the date it hits the town clerk's stamp right um to starting the 20-day appeal period ugc ex that permit that 40b permit was appealed by the property owner um Mr Bob Gainer on the 19th day of the 20th day of the appeal ra that automatically stopped the tolling period so all the litigation right still has stopped that tolling period now depending on which whatever way the court kind of rules um either yay or
040nay uh if it is if they go in the direction of the the developer right then that totally period restarts that permit is there for live again for three years well become awakens I think is a better word so it awakens right and it has a lifespan of three years moving moving forward does that answer the question Joe yeah thank you you got it no sweat okay so I think we're at about a half hour mark and maybe we'll open up to more of a conversation with the select board and for the rest of the 15 minutes and comments anyone online y Yolanda has her hand raised Yolanda I think I made you a co-host so please feel free yeah I I see that I can now unmute thank you I I like the additional
041work that's been done I like where you're going with this uh my one concern with ugc is a lot of time and energy was spent sort of Designing what that would look like working within the neighborhood working within the property and and I know this is a concern that we've sort of chatted about a couple times is by changing the zoning by making it be part of the MBTA the 3A zoning they could then change their project and what what might that then look like potentially um I I also do like the idea of including Pleasant Street after consideration I know at one of our other meetings I forget exactly when I was like oh yeah let we shouldn't include Pleasant Street but as I listened to a few more people and a few more
042residents it was like oh no it does make sense to include Pleasant Street um so I I like the way you're going here and I think for 10 to 60 and 61 Waverly if we can put zoning in place that might curtail a little bit of the construction I don't know I don't think this will but if we can do that and or if we can then use it as part of our number and to get there I think that's a good thing and thank you to the the subcommittee who worked on this I know it's been a painstaking thing so thank you for doing that yes no I want to thank I want to thank thank you so much I want to thank Joe and Trisha but also I want to really thank you
043Alvaro Alvaro has been uh the day to-day as Joe can attest uh and I'll speak for Trisha on that Alvaro has been the day-to-day guy on this so thank you Alvaro so I have a question for Yolanda I think is that we I'm assuming you wouldn't be trying to exceed the minimum or are you because you mentioned Parcels that would bring us over the minimum potentially um and I not sure that is's an advantage to that minimum of the 50 acres or minimum minimum 50 acres minimum 1,124 units as close to that I would think is what the community would be wanting yeah just one clarification we want to stay within the 56 Acres just to maintain serus as our contiguous parcel so just to stay within those 20 56 Acres overall of zoning ideally
044you want to stay within 56 well one of the requirements is to have a parcel that is contigous big enough yeah that is continuous so that has to be at least 28 acres and 50% of like the overall zoning that you give to the town so we want to within 56 so if I do the math of a b and c we're at 4166 and then if you go 56 which is our goal minus 4166 we need 14.34 acres is that right that's what's left to collect somewhere else corre so if we're looking to collect 14.34 Acres our choices are d e f and G um and you know my my one thought is that 14.34 originally when we first met as two boards the reasoning there that really appealed to me was the idea
045that our community appreciated if there were areas where projects were either already thought out or in process or about to be built so for me what appeals to me where I want to collect the 14.34 is in areas where there's already project that has been thoroughly thought out with minimal risk that it's going to be harmed it sounds like ugc has a bit of risk because it is a um it's not a multifam or it's it's age restricted it's thought out as age restricted and it's in litigation so I can see why messing with the zoning there could be high risk f and g to me are lower risk in the sense that both of them have high density proposals with the state as 40 BS I am having a hard time seeing how any
046developer would say oh I don't want high density anymore I'm going to go for the lower density by right that that kind of doesn't make sense to me so I personally think FNG actual projects thought out are lower risk U than D and then as far as e Pleasant Street I know that there are some voices in our community on that but there is no actual proposed project that has been analyzed or thought out and so I view that more as a theoretical concept that until there's a project I personally would not consider that as part of this Dynamic and I think we can pull our 14.34 Acres from FNG with minimal risk can we look at what the commercial part like that part that we're allowed to do like I I I'm having harburn
047giving up even if you think those projects are going to come in that are under 40b right which we we did ask for commercial oh we don't know what's going to happen but like I to just flat out give that up and go to housing I am not going to no that's a given of course the state now allows MBT zoning to be commercial it sounds like that's a great thing to explore does the math CH like does the math and the blue stuff change if you do commercial no I guess the only thing I guess the only thing that we have to look is that there is six requirements I don't I honestly forgot to like bring the the paper where is that but it has like six requirements that we have to meet
048and they have to get pre-qualified I don't know how long that will take from eohc to pre-qualify a district so I guess we could check in with Lisa if there's any way that you know when building the bylaws you can put something like like similar to what we were doing with pwn Street with the affordability saying like these could be way upon something like that kind it moves in that direction but I can I can look for that those six requirements that mix use has under NBTA and I can share it are there any other comments or thoughts from Brandy has her hand up hand up Brandy please hi guys thanks um so I I I do think that the the work that you guys have been doing on this is great I think we
049should get credit for what um what is coming down the road with these 40 BS um because I think you know from from a um you know I agree with Anna things that are that are planned um or and or permitted um make a lot more sense to include in this so I I think you know again you know a B and C are are you know no-brainers um and I like the idea including uh FNG in there as well with ugc you know I think part of the risk is twofold one is whether ugc will um you know potentially change the project although I don't think the risk is so much with ugc changing the project I think the risk is if the project falls apart what happens to that parcel um so if
050uh if that doesn't go through so you know I if we have Alternatives that meet the needs of MBTA communities without having to include the ugc paral I think I think it is a a the the lower risk is is is the way to go um as far as Pleasant Street goes I I do think that um I you know I I I've heard the same the same voices that Yolanda has a few folks um but I I do think that you know the mixed use is is really important to that Corridor um and so you know with the zoning that's been put in place I'm not sure if adding more density on housing um for that entire Corridor because it looks like from the from the chart there's there's you know potentially 103 more
051units of housing that would come to Pleasant Street is that that's that's that would be the max or would that be what it would be zoned for what would be the what would be the max potential build out at that density for for that Corridor do we know so so just to answer that question so at the 15 unit per acre that would be under the M under the MBT however if somebody went under the MB excuse me the add bylaw which is a square I mean excuse me a f of two then the potential for higher density is there and so doing calculations I would predict um that a developer uh would choose the add bylaw to get a higher density Net versus the MBTA along that District yeah and I guess just to
052like maybe like give a little bit of they would be able to to to use both it's one or the other correct yeah and I guess just to like give some numbers we model it not really like knowing but we took like the average size of what a dwelling unit is on right now on downtown Ashland based on the last projects 128 main 21 Main Street and 9 949 Homer and so when looking at that square footage and giving 13% of commercial um the unit breaker was around 72 of course that is like a rough model but that that could be like a a case scenario that like like by R using the add they could look at 72 units per acre okay so so I'm just trying to kind of visualize how how how
053this story kind of plays out with this if we would include Pleasant Street and MBTA communities the potential impact would be mitigated by add so we wouldn't have to necessarily think that we're going to automatically because I you know i' I've said this before and I think I think it's true I think housing is going to come to Pleasant Street I think that that that that Corridor is really um you know will be redeveloped you know in the next 10 years and I think that housing is going to come no matter whether we we Zone it for MBTA or whether we keep it as it is or whether we make changes you know once we're done with the comprehensive plan but um but from a from a risk standpoint you would you would think that
054this would be a low risk to add to MBTA to get to where we need to be with our acreage is that is that what I'm hearing yeah I I mean I think that's a matter of opinion I you you would be taking a purely theoretical property that has no project proposed and you would make it by right right now it's purely theoretical with no project proposed that requires a special permit so that's the risk no it's by right it actually I think it is by right but they but they do have commercial and I think that's the so where you can have the potential win-win if Brandy's right everything's going to be developed within the next 10 years is saying as a fallback you you we could technically be getting less than with MBTA
055which no one's going to do probably but if to give us some comfort of that add the commercial right as a consideration what would that do I guess just to clarify both are by right like jazz residential egg me makes use both are by riding Pleasant with a higher density under add yes so we're just allowing lower density through MBTA through the MBTA would we would we force lower density in that area essentially correct it's a but you force housing only right now kept that 15 unit so but what I'm hearing is we could also choose in exploring how to play with ef and G what I'm hearing is we could explore having an element of commercial be a required element and therefore Force lower density through the MBTA zoning that's what I'm hearing if
056I'm hearing it correctly um are there other comments brandy or from the select board anything from the planning board um with that I I think to summarize our work it sounds like there's some interest from both boards in hearing more from the planning department on what this would look like if commercial was added into the mix for EF and G so that we can better understand the Dynamics of that and you had mentioned some requirements that the state might have so it sounds like it's important to explore those so that we know if this is a real possibility or not before we have further discussion would would others on both boards agree with that summary as to what we're we seem to be interested in exploring a little bit more I did not hear any
057consensus as to where we're going but what I did hear was a curiosity about commercial as part of our conversation I don't think we were looking for consensus at all I think we're just giv we're just giving an update about what's going on um but I I do want to just make a note that um I believe the select board made it it official that the town meeting in November was scheduled for November 20th and so with that we were able to kind of piece back in time when the planning board would hold public hearings um obviously when newspaper ads would have to be put in newspaper so Alvaro and I made kind of a theoretical or a draft that would say timeline for the fall um right now we are scheduled into our working
058group uh Joe Trisha Alvaro and myself plan to organize MBA MBTA public discussion where we kind of start to kind of talk about this on a zoom we'll have probably a zoom meeting like we did leading up to the uh spring annual town meeting um and obviously that would be posted and and put out on the um on the on the on the wire on the Via via Facebook and all their options and then um we'll be having two of those and then we will hopefully be coming back into a plenty board uh select board meeting to kind of start to kind of talk about some of these options and build a consensus so I guess to clarify I did not mean to imply that our goal was to build consensus what I'm saying is
059there seem to be no consensus about any particular path other than can we get more information on the commercial so how do you envision delivering that to the boards in light of the fact that the next thing is the Public Public discussion I think we're going to I think we're going to you know get the facts and I think at the public discussion we're going to talk about those facts and what those options were and and what the what needs to be done to obviously mend those into this zoning bylaw as far as those requirements it sounds like those requirements could be important so we may not even be able to meet them yeah yeah and I guess we are as kind of like we were thinking of like after this just kind of start
060drafting what is the actual proposal and like putting down what are the partials that we're thinking of including what will be the zoning looking like all of that um yeah and I guess we'll just get that information about the commercial see those requirements could be meet and then include that within the analysis okay any other questions or comments um two things one I think there was consensus ABC right um yes and I want to just reiterate the thanks because I know this is like maybe there alose is getting to test all his skills but it's a lot of work and it takes you away from other things so thank you thank you okay and that covers that particular topic does the select board need to um adjourn or you want to hang out with us
061for the rest of our meeting we we can adjourn youand I think yes I believe we can if I can get a motion to adjourn so moved second thank you and uh I think it's just the three of us at this point m is in person oh okay uh so we have uh Kinsman i manani i m uh Keegan I and gavves I thank you that uh adjourns the select board meeting thank you planning board for allowing us to attend and participate thank you thank you have a good rest of your night everybody thank you thanks y you sure you don't want to stay no that's quite all right thank you thanks good night all right on on that note we're switching does anybody need a break before we switch gears all right we're moving
062on to item five review and dra discussing draft checklist for application status I believe Kate worked with Peter on this Kate do you want to present um sure so I it's in it's right behind the second page I just did a draft of some things that I think we always have to keep track of um I didn't get I don't know if you were here at meeting DEA but I asked if people so this is just an early draft of the things the second page um Peter added I had come across this and that was the one I was thinking about but it's more technical for the planning department I mean I would if Peter wants to go something like that I would I would say combining them because it makes sense all in one
063place right yeah and I and thank you so much Kate for putting this together obviously um but yeah I just found this and I thought oh all right this pretty good thing and I just kind of figured it was something to circulate obviously continue the conversation so that's where that comes from um and then um and obviously yes so is the tab is the one you add is that like too much for playing department or is that like you know what I think can I while while you're looking at it can I give uh Deepa and Marcel some context for this because I don't think they were at The Retreat meeting correct so just for context I I don't know if you watched The Retreat video in case you didn't um what this was was
064we had a conversation about how it might be helpful for every project that we have to start the project off with our own personalized checklist that kind of lives with the project from the start where we as a board can be organized and know where the project is and certain things are happening so that was the idea this is a document that would kind of live with the project and presumably the board would sort of check in on it every time we met with the developer or the applicant and know where we are and so that was Kate's item and Peters was meant to be more on a planning department side to sort of keep things flowing as well to support our checklist that's the context sorry Peter you were going to look at it
065and comment yeah no this is obviously yeah it's from a technical standpoint it's it's a it's a special permit checklist it's not within our site plan review um and so obviously this could be kind of amended this is just an example is is it is it is it is it rather technical uh yes however I think it has some good elements into it that needs to be Blended together um and from an idea standpoint obviously you know a lot of these big projects you know like third party gcg obviously traffic open does it need it yes or no um multiple party technical review stuff um these are all great things and I think that that a checklist could be kind of developed and kind of put together and um created obviously to suit the bill
066um but I I think both are important right both I I I think both can get you to the same destination um but obviously site plan's a little bit different right and site plan um lives at the local level um time frames are different and so which is something just um which is to think what it's something that we should all think about you know um you know if you look at special you know special permits and variances the town has 65 days to open a public hearing uh a lot of towns align their spe special permit state statute with their site plan review our site plan review states that we have to open the public hearing within 30 days I think it could be an amendment and I would propose it I think I
067would like to propose the amendment to align site plan approval with special perit variances I think it makes I think that's kind of has some common sense grounding into it um especially with the public hearings and notification processes um that we do have to update our special permit excuse me our site plan approv process yeah yeah our bylaw our site plan approval bylaw is old it needs to be updated um Alvaro and I actually talked about it today um to align both um because as you know looking through our site plan approval you know our site plan approval says to host a a a public fact finding it doesn't say public hearing notification is not spelled out now so we should probably be careful just because it's not on our agenda to kind of discuss
068discuss uh changes but to Che list checklist reminds us of all the things we may want to clean up for sure and I will add Deepa Marcelo that when we had the retreat we agreed about the importance of talking more about things that we want to clean up in the bylaws so I think Peter which I appreciate is speaking in that spirit that it's good for us to start to create a list of all the things that we're noticing need to be cleaned up and yeah we should probably add that to the list uh and I will say that the special perit checklist that I have here it doesn't have the third party review and it would be very nice for all the Plenty board members and whatever project to look at this one sheet
069and say yep third part of review we got you know letter one on such and such date and you know and and the response came on such and such date from the applicant and just to kind of Follow that back and forth I I I think I thought this was great I really liked Kate's draft um the way I look at these two documents together is I feel like Kate's document is more for like the planning board members who are we're all just kind of trying to visualize where are we when a project sometimes lives with us for a year um and the second document I see more technical behind the scenes for the planning department to kind of track things and deadlines and all of that stuff which Peter and Peter does well already
070and it's I see the first piece is more kind of for us for the board um any thoughts on that Deepa Marcelo do you guys like this idea I do like the idea but looking at some of our projects past projects that's been a year year and a half maintaining a document that will need continuous updates for the life of it for example you may have five design review committee meetings and having that info kind of updated during the process the second paper uh irrespective of the content has very clear Milestones along the Journey of the checklist and I feel like we need to get that here so that it's very clear we also know as a board that we are kind of hitting a milestone and not have an open-ended project that has a
071life of year and a half in front of planning board maybe like a dates column yeah like something that kind of Keeps Us in check and make sure like if gcg it may have multiple times reports going back and forth so um you have the big topics but I feel like to maintain that on the long run need a little more crisper ads I'm not sure how that is because this second document definitely has very clear um Milestones if it makes sense do you want to take a stab at maybe editing it a little bit for our next meeting with some I mean so I put it in blue right that the shot clock important right that's the date and that can be rolling date if they agree to extensions but otherwise that is the
072date based on when it's filed I'm sorry when the public hearing is open not when it's filed so you have the 120 or the 180 so I think what deep is suggesting which I can kind of appreciate is maybe a third middle column of dates so that if you have multiple you can almost track oh technical review is such and such date design review meeting is these three dates so that the document becomes like a story where you look at one piece of paper and you can see what happened when is that kind of what you're thinking it almost becomes more chronological that's what I'm imagining you're looking for correct and I'm assuming this is kind of maintained by the planning board office versus each one of us maining I'm thinking think the cler okay
073so not no offense but I think if you created it I think you should as cler Ian like I'm trying to to be honest create something sustainable right so like I won't be the clerk forever um not going to be on the planning board forever so I I guess so I guess yes I would absolutely do it as clerk because I would be doing some of this I find when we get at the end of the projects we're scrambling saying oh that's open oh crap there's four things on that one and we didn't and I'm trying I would be doing this for myself I would not want to create extra work for the planning department I feel like if the planning board is drafting a checklist that live with us as a planning board maybe
074Kate does other things or doesn't become a clerk I think we should take responsibility for things like this yeah um and again they're not technical these are things to keep us kind of moving so that would be if Kate is willing to do that unless there's concerns about that from the board if you're comfortable with that that that to me seems fair we're we're not adding work on our staff yeah I'm happy to work with Kate because I think it makes sense I think the end of the day it's I think it's best practice um you know um it's best practice for myself it's best practice for the board um and I think hope it would make things um and and I think at the end of the day it's a low hanging fruit and
075it's easily obtainable to take care of and to maintain and um you know even if you know to have a sheet like this and you know I think we can all say okay you know as as you get your binders right uh it's in there right and and you kind of know what's knew what's not and it's a way to filter through all the information and um look I think we're going to have a lot of we have the possibility of I don't you know having some bigger projects come up and um and we'll kind of go from there Marcela do you want to add anything before we move on to the next topic uh I I don't have much to add I I I agree with what Deepa said um I think in principle
076the the the list makes sense and it's kind of anun organizational tool um I like the idea of uh if if if we if we are going to keep it current for every application uh maybe inside the binders um the first thing that should be for any application should be that list so that everybody knows uh where the project stands sounds great I mean I'm imagining we we can almost like be like hey where are we with this let's look at the checklist it's a good way to like remember where we are and reset sometimes I take notes at meetings and then I kind of forget or I'm like I can't read my chicken scratch no you know it's funny even in the last one you know we're dealing with the cell tower right obviously
077we're not hearing them tonight because you know a couple people are absent no obviously no no harm no foul but even with the sell Towers right you have a 60-day shot clock regarding the fedile FAA regulation so therefore it changes a little bit and obviously we obtained you know from the last meeting I obtained extension uh which I fed to to Clerk and I did all that stuff but it's easier if you guys have if if the pl board has it in front of them everyone's on the same page so Kudos a k for putting this together so are you looking that I we should take a stab at sort of combining these like the details you need or just keep them separate I would keep them separate I would keep them separate because I
078think they're two different things obviously this is more Cy plan review um and to tell you the truth if you keep cyan review happy that the special permits the big thing regarding special permits is the 65 days you know the the the chapter 40 um 408 section 11 which is the notification processes that I follow by heart right and so those are the big elements that I do really see on on this page um and it's always obviously getting out to other departments and the decision and um these are things that obviously you're just kind of at this point branded on my brain I hate to say it I'm sure over time we'll amend this as we go it sounds like all we're all we're asking you to add Kate is a dates column where
079we can start to track things as they happen by date so that we know kind of where we are um with that um we're going to move on to discussion of housing Bond Bill and accessory dwelling you agu regulations not to kind of create deadlines for us but I think we should try to um try to end our meeting by 9:30 if we can or aim for that if possible if if not sooner so uh yeah so this let's give it a shot just to jump into it obviously um a lot of information's been coming out I did print everybody that the bomb um uh which is right here oh uh this also came hot off the press I haven't even had a chance to read it it's advisory from Town Council regarding the Affordable
080Care Act um I've been doing some research on this a little I I've been able to kind of get some stuff over the wire um excuse me over email the internet right um about what's going on but um in the grand scheme of things um the biggest piece is in the housing Bond bill they add two sections that are applied to um accessory dwelling units right and that's in section seven on page 75 of 181 um that leads into section8 on page 76 of 181 um those two item this this one big item in particular accessory dwelling units um now moves accessory dwelling units which is a a a accessory dwelling as as a definition of of of a line 1673 is a self-contained housing unit exclusive of sleeping cooking and sanitary facilities on the
081same lot and that's key is on the same lot right um as a principal dwelling subject to otherwise applicable dimensional and parking requirements that number one maintains a separate entrance either directly from the outside or through through the entire Hall excuse me through an entry hall or Corridor shared with the principal dwelling um that speaks to attached dwellings um sufficient to meet the requirement of the State Building Code for obviously uh safe eess number two is not larger in Gross floor area than half the gross area of the princible dwelling or 900 sare ft whichever is smaller so number two limits accessory dwelling unit to 9900 squ ft um Andor if that would be smaller than half of the um gross area square footage of the house per se if you have a house that
082is just for the sake of this conversation 1,500 square fet of livable area um on that same lot you would able be You' be able to build a accessory dwelling unit of ft um number three it says subject to additional parking restrictions that may be imposed by a municipality included but not limited to an additional size restriction restrictions on the prohibiting of short-term rental um and I did pull the definition of short-term rental um and I can we can kind of talk about that as defined in uh section one of chapter 64g provided that however no municipality shall unreasonably restrict the creation of rental IND assessory relling units that that is not a short-term rental second 8 is following obviously I'm not going to read the whole thing um but at the end of the
083day it is key to note that um the planning board we deal in this realm a little bit um in section three it's the list of exceptions um it's also known as kind of the do Amendment uh that's how it all started out of obviously churches and schools are exempt from zoning laws um there's many other things that the latest that was added uh was solar obviously solar energy solar energy facilities green energy facilities uh do not need to obtain a a buy by Z local zoning code um what they did is they added accessory dwelling units to section three so it is a uh bu right um exempt zon in use um for any um single family zoning District so no setbacks um so no can there seted have rules though about you can
084have reasonable you can have Reon reasonable setbacks um within this and as you get deeper into it um the state the you know the um the eoh LC um they are going to provide guidelines this was signed into law last week um as we kind of dig through this um but yes I was just going to say the the legal document is this the memo from Council is very helpful I I think we do need to be aware on page three that um the portion of the ACT regarding adus is effective in 180 days which will be February 2nd 2025 so that's our chance until February 2nd 2025 we have to consider how we want to do this because without it our current bylaw which is not by right is basically null correct and anybody
085in our community can propose an Adu and we will have nothing to guide us and so while there's no quote unquote emergency there kind of is importance for us to address it by February 2nd so that we have we've done our best so I personally would love to see this be done in our in our fall meeting but Qui quick question Anna what what does that mean um and I looked at what was circulated but um so the existing oh oh able to even out so I can just that's fine but I did read that I did read the document that Al sent when when the it was sign into law uh when when you said Anna that um that we need to act to address or amend our zoning to to respond to this
086um is what what what it is that that that can be done I mean if I understand what Peter just said uh it's almost into a part of the of the law that um the basically bypasses what we can do well we the the law does allow us to create reasonable regulations so we have the opportunity as a planning board for example to think about what should the adus look like what should be setbacks what are reasonable setbacks do we want to create some guidance for our community as to what they should look like or what they should be like we the state allows us to do that without that it's pretty much a well I also think it probably def reality important to decide help the community decide or let if if we're if
087there will be restrictions on short-term rental or not and I know at least in board discussions people were talking about that um so that would be really important because again otherwise there's people can do whatever and and then you have short-term rentals all around which as you pointed out they're already here but some reasonable restrictions and the other reason I asked to have it on the agenda because I think it's really important is that if we can work with the executive office of liberal communities and find out what we could do to have those count as affordable because this is like sort of lwh hanging fruit right a developers get subsidies for affordable housing this is potentially a way for like homeowners to get and stay in their house like I I built I you
088took out your home equity you built it you're an older couple you in that you rent out your house you're allowed to that's the law but it may be both providing affordable housing and it certainly will provide housing like not massive apartment buildings that the community has said over and over again I'd prefer not to have we didn't say no housing we said I'd prefer not to have massive apartment buildings so there there is a way to get them to count affordable and if we are trying to get a buy law soon I don't know how that like that could maybe be an add-on but I I want that to be part of the conversation because it is possible so I mean it depends how we want to do it we can do it in
089phases like we can we can do the easy stuff first which is not so easy but like from what I understand Trisha has done some of those she's done adus for clients so I think we have some expertise if you will on the planning board as to what might be a reasonable restriction and and what what could an Adu look like in our community I would suggest we start there and then you know things like affordability and incentives were affordable and had count it and like short-term rentals that feels a little bit more complex it might take more time to figure out but at the very least like we should be able as a board by February 2nd to come up with like what should an Adu look like in Ashland is there such a
090thing as an Ashland Adu that's reasonbly I I I totally agree with what an I just said and give it a shot keep it simple because if we want to try to do it for town meeting all we have to say to our community is the law now allows it by right whatever we have in our bylaw disappears on February 2nd and pretty much anybody in the community can kind of go with the flow so why don't we try to create something minimalistic that works quickly so that we feel some certainty and consistency of what these adus are like and leave the hard stuff for later when we have more time yeah I I agree 110% I just just want to obviously this is so new we're all kind of digging through it right um
091I just want to just to a point I don't want anybody to think you know they're going to the edu is going to be built on top of their property line right now in reasonable correct in residential a right in res all of our our our our zoning bylaws you know we do have setbacks right so we do have setbacks existing today on our books that any Adu has to abide by right and so um I just want to make that point of clarification that um because I think there is some confusion there's some fear it's a huge change yeah like I said they look necessar how they look 100% right um design criteria height all that type of stuff you know um what do we want yeah we can kind of go go in
092that direction um but I just want to be clear that we do have bylaws we do have some elements that are there they're in place that it's not going to be um suddenly have massive uh strange things on our on our property Lin just want to clarify that for the me it's the ability to do it by right versus through a special permit process right and and just as a note as you fur as you dig further into this um which I'm sure everyone will um you know there's no more owner occupancy issues um it can be anybody it can be anybody um obviously if it's a if you can rent both you you know you can put Adu in and rent that and obviously the principal structure you can rent as well um so
093it's a massive change um I just just want to say the state of Maine it just went through this process not too long ago I believe they had a very similar law that went into effect uh December 31st excuse me January 1st of this past year um where they did have they they they dealt with the same issue um uh learning that at a planer conference in the fall um that was something that kind of as a takeaway Point um but yes there many other elements um just not edus I can tell you right now it gets into um you know lots that were created in or um of 10,000 square F feet in size and at 50,000 if 75,000 Square F feet um it's an exemption to the merger act obviously um which is
094there's already that that's helped me out with one conversation that I've already had last week with a gentleman in Ashland um where he was looking at of variance right and so there that's a buildable lot right there now um maybe in effect you know so this is a major change everyone's kind of trying to um digest and take in what all the changes are um but is there lwh hanging fruit regarding protect you know for what to do I'm sure there's more to come you know in the very you know in the coming weeks and and that will obviously be presented to um to to all boards and committees uh just for a fact you know looking at this bill and not just to keep on continuing to talk but this bill was for $5.1
095billion um $2 billion was to the public housing monetization 150 million to the public housing decarbonization 800 million to the affordable housing trust fund 425 million to the housing sustainabil sustainabil and Investment Trust Fund and it continues on uh 200 75 million to the sustainable and green housing initiatives um so yeah this is obviously a huge deal and it's a lot of money uh and it's and it's going and it's meant to Help Housing and obviously loosen the uh loosen up the the current market obviously what I was going to add is that uh looking at the legal memo um it's very clear that um it leaves a lot of room for communities to regulate airbnbs because the way it's phrased is no municipality shall unreasonably restrict the creation or rental of accessory dwelling unit
096that is not a short-term rental so it's basically inviting communities to say hey use this for affordable housing or use this for housing in your community but feel free to regulate short-term use feel free so I look at that as an opportunity so that even if we don't do the Airbnb regulation thing a town meeting we should highlight that for the public so the public is not scared the public is excited they're aware that hey this is an opportunity this is a lot of money coming from the state to allow you to build something for your parents or for your kids or for or to rent long term and make some money because it it's really hard to afford to live these days with inflation and don't worry we're not going to become crazy Airbnb
097land because the statute allows us to regulate for for short-term rentals so I think this is really exciting and we should um that's just a definition yeah and we should be able to um we should be able to in my opinion make this really exciting for the town of Ashland like we should think about how to Market this to our community so that they're excited about it because I think it's exciting to be able to build 900 square ft accessory dwelling unes if you have that opportunity um and rent them long term or or have someone in your family live there if you want it's a really incredible opportunity think for a lot of our families and this is just you know these just a note these are a lots that they're right now single
098family houses you know there are some questions that have come up that right now are two family units uh into three family units are saying hey is this a way for me to get an extra lot that's not the case this is a lot that has one principal structure on it Zone single family uh single family is allowed by right um and and obviously I agree it's very exciting for Ashlin for the state obviously it's a huge change I don't think it's I don't think every lot down Main Street uh um is going to have an accessor dwelling unit that's Z single family um you know thinking not just in Ashland how it affects the region it's a much it's a it's it's a whole kind of concept right and I think um through so
099many conversations I've had over the years about adus a adus via special permits um it is a huge change it is exciting but it's not met for every homeowner in know for every parcel so it's just one element of a bigger picture of affordable housing or housing I think the reason it excites me for Ashlin specifically is we have these sections of town that are still kind of rural where you have single family homes I can think of a friend whose property is more rural than mine I live in a condo and she has you know a single family home and some land she absolutely could put one of these on her property and you know what with the cost of living Etc she might be tempted to sell that rural land to a developer
100for multif family housing otherwise and so now this gives her the option to put this unit on it rent it long term make some money be able to potentially stay in Ashlin longer keep the property more rural longer I look at this as a solution to a problem which is we're being somewhat targeted for really heavy development and this is a different way to do housing that in theory can keep us smaller and more green relative to our rural areas so that's sort of my my piece of it um I think it's it's just one element but it's a way to keep us um affordable anyone else want to add anything before we move on to the next topic and we have reports from board members and our town planner comprehensive plan Kate we have
101upcoming marathon meeting next week at the library so it's um 6 6:00 p.m. to 900 p.m. and it will be kind of the final draft interim draft I'm calling because she said it's iterative of the vision and the goal themes and we are going to start working on goals so I believe I read the email today after that meeting that will be published for the public to start commenting and it's a short window I believe it's only a couple weeks of public comment but we want to get people hopefully make sure they know about it so they can comment thank you Kate anything relative to design review or sustainability or CPC Peter uh I can't no I I don't really have anything on that uh we sustainability was been has been meeting uh I think
102they met uh Samantha um has been really busy uh doing some green some some great stuff I know our sustainability coordinator in the suil committee met with energized ason that was looking at a pretty good solar uh uh Community solar project so that was pretty exciting stuff um coming through uh indor from our sustainability kind of Department other than that CPA I have no idea Metro West Regional collabtive they're taking the summer off and I think you've heard enough about MBTA communities okay any reports on planning topics uh no we're still working through all the processes um the biggest item that we continue to kind of follow up on is the economic impact tool um obviously we're still working with Framingham State Merc uh Metro West re uh Metro West um uh Environ economic research
103center um as a continue on obviously um in those conversations about making a tool not just for asham but for other communities within the region uh which is obviously exciting I think at the after the last meeting I did follow up with plenty board members and I did send out the Merc um Regional report which is actually which was great which is full of great information um which I hope everyone was able to review and take a look at they do some great uh great work over at Framingham State the Rams I started taking a peek at it and I was going to do like a short summary for the board in case other people don't have time to read it um I can try to do that for next time any planning office updates
104uh nothing to in particular I think the biggest thing is MBTA stuff is just you know Fast and Furious and we're really starting to we want to get this thing kind of moving and um you know and on the right track and and you know that has been a big thing last Thursday I did go to the mass uh lawyers Mass Municipal Lawyers Association meeting I in Sturbridge and I did kind of uh kind of review obviously it was a good dust up on the MBTA what they're looking for uh I can tell you right now all I think it was 47 communities um at the at the Town level cities and towns that passed zoning um at the previous uh Springtown meetings they they're waiting their um approval of their zoning from the Attorney
105General's office so as as Kate mentioned earlier the wheels of local government do move slow and so obviously I think we just need to be in a position to get ready for the fall and and have something that is uh suitable but obviously um I feel we have a good plan we have a good bylaw and we'll be able to obtain that goal and then we're going to talk about our upcoming meetings for August 22nd is there anyone who cannot make it just so we can get a sense of who's going to be here here that's our next meeting I think that's going to be a full board great hopefully uh we're going to reor I think we're going to reorganize organization on that agenda uh this the first time we've been able to meet
106a full board in a long time great um I think um oh just a note um I think we have to uh Kathy Rooney applied to be um re activate uh re um she applied to a position on design Review Committee we will hear her um application into our talent review her Talent review form um and then we will have the cell tower which will be the um the public hearing and so it sounds like a fairly light agenda maybe uh we can come back to the checklist if you're going to edit it I think this should be a light agenda I think we can come back and uh finalize the checklist finalize it hopefully we'll have more information on this housing I think maybe we'll have we can have a 10-minute update on this
107I think within two minut I think within next two weeks a lot of information will continue to you know roll out every day something new coming over the wire uh regarding this this affordable housing act and maybe you can show us that main bylaw that you found yeah I I'll try to dig out the main LW I went to the this past fall I went to the Northern New England planning conference um and which which represents the the American planing Association of main Vermont in in New Hampshire um and uh and obviously Maine and all New England's just not Massachusetts it's all New England um you know cities and towns are facing Challen you know housing right we have the with the oldest housing stock in the nation um Massachusetts in Middle sex County alone
108have some of the most expensive housing uh in the country um so yeah it's a it's a it's a tall it's a tall task it's a tall hurdle and um it's going take a lot of different tools to kind of to to to correct or into or WR the ship and that leaves us with our minutes we're reviewing the June 27th 2024 minutes they should be in your binder I did not have any changes um line 10 two I think the parking space Dimension is not correct 9 by two what do you think it should be 9 by 20 9 by 20 all right there you go 9 by two is very small maybe maybe could fit my motorcycle it's a small motorcycle all right any other changes I'm out Marcelo any any changes is
109Marcel still there yeah I'm here no I do not I I do not have any changes okay okay can I have a motion on the minutes I'll make a motion to accept the June 27th 2024 minutes with the amendment on parking space there second a second and roll call vote Anna teski I I cath Jers I and unless there's anything further I will close the meeting of the ashin planning board at 9:12 p.m. I think that's an hour and a half meeting folks shortest one we've had congratulations do do we need to make a motion for that oh yes may I have a motion for that I got excited I make a motion toour the meeting second that and a roll Co vote Anna teski I Katherine Jersey still an hour and a half and
110we close thank you e e for