December 10, 2025 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript

December 10, 2025 - Planning Board

Autoscroll:

Good evening. This is the Wayland Planning Board. It's Wednesday, December the 10th, 2025 at 7pm. And I'm calling the Planning Board meeting to order. So I will take attendance via roll call. Jesse Newberry. Here. Robin Borgestedt. Here. Ira Montague. Here. Annette Lewis. Here. Larry Kiernan isn't here yet. But when he does, we will add him in. The agenda for this evening is public comment for matters not on the agenda. Review and approve draft minutes of 11-19-25. And then review and discuss proposed zoning amendments. There are a number of them. I won't list them all here. We'll be running through them. And then we're going to talk about the schedule for town meeting. Then updates from the town planner and any discussion and board comments and concerns. And I'm not aware of anything that I wasn't aware of 48 hours in advance of the meeting. And then we adjourn. Is there any public comment?
I see no hand. Nobody online. Right. Here's Larry.
Oh, hi, Larry. We just did roll call. So I'm going to call your name. Okay. Larry Kiernan's here.
Where is the participant? Robert, can I? Am I? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I was just looking to see who the attendees were. Or just, okay. Okay.
Robert did a yeoman's job pulling all this stuff together. Jesse and Robin also did. There is a lot here. And as we go through these things, I tried to put them in the order of things that I thought we definitely needed to deal with at this town meeting. But some of, it's an awful lot. I think it's actually too much. So we need to think about that. And we tentatively have a hearing on the zoning bylaw for January the 7th. Probably at around 8.15, because we have the Carroll School before that. The filing deadline for any zoning articles for this town meeting is January the 15th. Robert has to have, we have to have finalized the zoning amendments ahead of public notice. So the last day would be December the 22nd. We would have to have them finalized by then. We have one meeting after this, before the 22nd, and that's December 17th, when we have the Coptic Church and the Carroll School. And tentatively going over the zoning in final form before it is submitted, is available for the public, first of all. And then after the hearing, if we need to make any changes, we can still make some. We can't add new things, but we can correct anything that seems problematic now. So I just wanted to give you that time frame. So as we go through these, think about, do you want to do it now? Do you want to wait till later? And how much do you think the public can handle? How much can we handle?
Do we have a view into the overall number of articles? No, I haven't a clue. No. I don't know that anybody does yet. Number of what articles, that's how many, are you saying? Yeah. Yeah. Hi, Nick. Probably dirty-ish. You know, there's... It's probably easy a good amount. I know, Larry, we might have an article for the rail trail, potentially. Yeah. It should be short and easy, though. Yeah, I agree. Right. Some of these should be short and easy, too, in the zoning, but you never know with zoning. And some of them are two-thirds. In fact, most of them are two-thirds vote. Right. Isn't there a two-and-a-half override this time? No. No? They're not well. So far, no. But who knows? Because there's that vote on Thursday, among other things.
And the final budget hasn't been approved yet, either. So why don't we go over the minutes first, if that's okay, and get them out of the way? And you did look at the minutes, correct, Annette? I did, but I had one question. There was a turn of phrase that didn't make sense to me, and I asked if anybody else remembered, because I couldn't find my notes. Did you see any minutes? Did you see any minutes? Yep. Okay. Did anybody have... Did you all read them? I did. Did anybody have any comments? Did anybody have an answer to the question that was raised? Can you ask the question again? Sure. The minutes say that the landscape architect said that some parents come ahead of time and wait. This is for the Carroll School. Yep. There are 200 students in Weyland in grades 7 through 9, which is similar to the Lincoln location. I did not think that they had 200 students yet. I thought that they were going to go up to 250, but they currently had significantly less. Yeah, that's what I remember. Yeah. I don't remember her saying 200. I can see if I have it in my notes. I didn't notice that. I mean, maybe there's a projection of 250 students in Weyland, which is similar to Lincoln. That's what I thought, actually, too.
Didn't the number of parking spaces correlated to the number of students? Students and staff and visitors. Oh.
And I think it was 250.
It's a projection of 200. Because I recall it as they had about 50 students and we're adding 200 more. Yeah. Okay. I thought they had something like 200. I don't recall. Okay. So it's probably okay. The number she said was 240.
And it was a projection. I have it in my notes. And elsewhere, though, they had 250. 250 is what we've seen. So she said 240, huh? She said 240. I wrote it down. Okay. Some parents come ahead of time and wait. Can I ask a quick question? Why don't we say, okay. Because it's Dover. Can they decide how many parking spaces they want? No. Not what? No, we control parking. Okay. We're allowed to do that. Maybe it should say the projection is for 200 and approximately, maybe, for approximately 240 students in Wayland in grades seven to nine, which is similar to the current Lincoln location. That's on the next line down, Robert, which is similar to the current Lincoln location.
Okay. That approximately just doesn't want to be spelled right. I hate that word. I never spelled it right. You just need a T. You need a T before the L.
E. Yeah. But once you do that, the spell checker will pick. Oh, you're so good, Robin. Mm-hmm. Okay. Is there anything else? No. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of the November 19th, 2025 as amended? So moved. Is there a second? I'll second it. All in favor, Jesse Newberry. I'm going to abstain because I wasn't at that one. Okay. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Larry Kiernan. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. So that's four, zero, and one abstention.
Okay. Okay. Moving on to. Yeah. Where should we start? Well, I would put, I'd like to start in the order that I have, at least for the first four or three for the order that we have them in. So the accessory dwelling unit. Yes. I draft, I originally drafted a article and then I received some comments from Robin that were more changes than I was expecting. So it's kind of a discussion of where to go. Because my article that I drafted up was pretty simple to the point. It wasn't really to make it, to add too much in it, but it was just to address what the plan boy was thinking and also to address what the AG's office flagged when they did their review in last, uh, his past summer. Okay. In looking at your, I have both of them in front of me. In looking at yours, Robert, um, it looks like you just dealt with what the AG. Correct. Plus, plus, plus the, the special permit piece of it, but not like super detailed. Uh, um, I'm trying to see if I have it in the packet. It was in our packet last week. Yeah, we've got, I've got it anyway. If people can look at it.
So I took what you had and put it into mine. Right. Why don't we, um, start with Robins? Because I don't know, Robert, that, um, the, the changes for the Attorney General are probably fine. But the thing with the special permit, I think, needs more rather than you can just get a special permit.
You want me to run through it, Annette? Yeah. Why don't we? And so the first change in the first paragraph, um, you have to take out the definition of it being 900 square feet because now we're going to allow larger ones. So the 900 square feet comes in and it's in the later, but the definition of an ADU is more broad now. Can I suggest something though? The definition, um, in the regulations that the state has, they call what they've got with the criteria, a protected use, ADU. I'm wondering if we chose that terminology, we have an ADU, and then the one that is the 900 square feet or half the gross floor area would be a protected use ADU. So, um, so we could do that by just adding that language in, in, down below, and I can, when we get to the next section, we can, I mean, we can put it up in the definitions and have. Yeah, I'm not necessarily, I just wanted to get that thought out before. Yes. We went down through it. So we can put that phrase into the, where we say, uh, by right ADU is 900 square feet and, you know, this is a protected use ADU or something like that, but where our definition right now includes 900 square feet, we have to take that out of our definition of an ADU. Um, and then, um, hold on, so I understand, uh, we're changing the wording here. So anything beyond 900 square feet would require a special permit and we would not call a protected, a pad, it'll be a, it won't be a padu. Yes, it'll just be an ADU, not a padu. So, and the reason I put that last sentence in there, I think I saw something about it. So in theory, somebody could take their primary dwelling and cut off the, basically the kitchen and say, that's now part of the ADU. And then the primary dwelling no longer has a kitchen. So I see what you're saying. If you look at the definitions though, um, If you, if you, if you look at the definitions of what, um, a dwelling is, it has to have all of those things in it. Okay. So you're saying, but you don't feel the need to say, I'm not sure. I, I, I, I just don't want somebody getting clever. I know. Well, but also we're changing the language here. It's probably going to confuse folks at town meeting. Yeah. And it doesn't have to be in there. It was just something that as I was reviewing other sources, I saw that there were some places where they put in that the principal dwelling still has to have all the same things that make it. But if that's already in the definition of dwelling, we can take it out. Well, yeah, you should check it again when before it, but that's what I thought. Uh, it's one Oh 4.2. A dwelling unit is, um, I hear my notes at the, well, anyway, that's the definition of dwelling unit. And it talks about having all the things that you got there. Um, but question, principal dwelling unit, is that defined in state law or regulations? Cause I don't think we define it or protected.
Um, well, the protected is the ADU, but the principal dwelling unit means the main house. Um, so we just need to check. And if it's in state law, then we should somehow deal with it. We're going to find that through all of these things. There are words that we use that aren't really defined. Okay. I'll make a note that I have to check that. Thank you. If we have to dig something out. Um, okay. So then moving down is where a single ADU lot per lot, which is not larger than gross floor area, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The 900 square feet, whichever small is permitted by right. Um, so we could work in, we could just a single comma protected ADU per lot. We could introduce protected right there. We have to define protected use ADU somewhere. So then I have to think we have to put up in the definition selling set of section. Okay.
Okay. So I have it up there to add it in. Okay.
And they call it protected use ADU, I think. I think that, yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. So, but otherwise this section is as it was before. I'm not, we're not changing that section. It just, that defines what is by right. Right. So then come, we get down to the next section where we've added in the language for the special permit.
And the part that's highlighted. So I went and looked at the, um, multi-family provisions in, in section 1A of chapter 40A. And I was surprised at how, where the threshold is for what is a multi-family, um, dwelling. And it is three or more residential dwelling units or two or more buildings on the same lot with more than one residential unit in each building. Um, and all of a sudden you jump into multifamily. Right. And that's, I think this is a little overkill for me. Anyway, I think it's too liberal. It allows many more ADUs than we would want to. And we have to think about the fact that our zoning districts in, for example, the 20,000 and the 30,000 square foot, there's just no way you would be creating essentially, um, uh, not a rooming house, but, um. No, but so this is the opposite. It says no property zoned for single residents may contain three or more residential dwelling units, which means no property can have a primary and two ADUs. Then you're already in multifamily. If you have two ADUs, you are in the multifamily provisions. So it says no property may contain. So I found it to be very restrictive. I'm reading it again.
I see what you're saying. When I read it before, I didn't understand it that way. Yeah. I lifted it right out of the section one. A.
I mean, that basically says. Can't do it. You can't have more. Well, if it's in one building, you could have, or spread out in two buildings, but only two in the main unit and one in an outbuilding. You can't have two or more buildings on the same lot with more than one residential dwelling unit in each building. I know that you took it from 1A. I'm wondering if we can simplify it and say you can own. I tried. I could not make sense of it. Because one single residence with three residential dwelling units. Okay. So maybe you could have the primary and two ADUs. But if they're in two buildings, you can only have the primary and one ADU. So whereas the ADU law talks specifically about having multiple ADUs if it's in a separate building, but then you jump to multifamily. I couldn't simplify it because it makes no sense. Oh, good. But this is saying you can't have more than two separate buildings, right? Is that what it's saying? You could have three ADUs up to, no, up to three residential units, but two footprints. Yeah, I think once you have two footprints, you can only have one in each. But if you have one footprint, you could have two ADUs all in one footprint. As long as they're attached. Yeah, it makes no sense at all. It's silly. It's so poorly written and it conflicts with itself. Yeah, yeah. So why do we want to use it? We could do better. Well, the problem is, do we have to be worried? This is a question for you, Annette. Do we have to be worried about wandering into multifamily territory by allowing too many ADUs? Has it become multifamily and then no longer, you can't do that in a single? Right. I guess going back to where, for me, where I've been, I understand wanting one ADU. I understand wanting maybe two, one in your existing building and one new separate building. And I don't think they should, as I've said before, if you're doing two separate structures and the new one is considerably, well, anywhere close to 2,000 square feet. To me, that's not an ADU. To me, that's another house.
Yeah. Yeah. So, but if that's the case, then this restriction makes sense. But I think we still need to know, and maybe it's a question for KP Law, that do we have to have this restriction, even if it's not in the bylaw, do we have to abide by it because we don't want to wander into multifamily territory? I think we do. Yeah. Do we abide by it? Yeah. So then do we have to have it in there so that people know they can't even come and ask for it?
Except that you can read this, you can read it and read it and read it. And if you're not zoning proficient, you're not going to understand it. I couldn't, it didn't hit me the first time. Right. But similarly, though, can you think of a way to make it better? Cordon's with a no property zone for only single residents may contain. I mean, the only thing I can think of is if you just said, as, as, as. Yeah. Yep, I'm getting tripped up. You could say, you could just limit, you could say, you know, we did say before, didn't we? You can have more than one ADU by special permit. Yep. Okay. So one could say more than one. You can have more than one. Well.
Not if they're in separate buildings, according to this. I almost think you take out the. You can have your primary and one ADU in the separate building.
Right. So can we say that?
Yeah, I guess I can. I can be more. I can have two short sentences. Um, so, but let me think about it and rework it.
But I think it has to be. Um.
No property zone for only single residences may contain.
The first part is fine. I'm wondering why we even have to have GL 40A subsection 1A in this. Because it won't be the four of us or five of us on the board forever. True. Somebody might wonder why that restriction is there and this way they know. Or it could just, I could just put at the end, C, general laws. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I, that's what I'm getting at. Like, you know, as, as, um, directed in, you know, mass journal laws, 40A, subsection. I'll just put us. That definition goes to properties that are not in single residence districts, doesn't it? Doesn't it go to the MBTA multifamily dwellings? Um, but it, it defines multifamily dwellings as this.
And if that's a multifamily dwelling, then it can't be in a single residence district. Right. Here's, here's what I'm thinking. Like, if they ever come back to fix subsection A in the way that's worded, then we're covered if we just reference subsection A without the description.
You know what I mean? We need, we need to understand what it is that we would want to do. Two. So why don't we talk about what we'd want to do? If we know that as of right, you can have the smaller ADU, um, and you can have one, then we have special permits that will allow, uh, maybe more than one ADU. Um, and I think what Robin is saying is if we. Um, it's like, do we want to say no more than three residential units, residential dwelling units.
Yes. See, are you saying three ADUs?
No, it would be three residential. Three residential dwelling units. I think is. Yeah. So the first part is, is a little easy. So there I took out what I'm playing with is no property zone for only single residences may contain three or more residential dwelling units in one building. Um, so, and I mean, we could say you can only have the primary and two ADUs. I suppose we can word it that way. Um, I'd rather say it that way. Yeah. I think that's easier. Don't you think? To understand. Yeah.
So that's a maximum, um, uh, number, but it's not as right. Right. It's under the special permit. Right. So play that out for a second. And what if someone appears to have the space, let's say it's a large lot and, but the neighbors object intensely, does that way into our. Yes. That's part of the day. That's part of what you consider when you give a special permit, how it fits into the neighborhood visually and, um, you know, what the neighbors have to say. Yeah. Okay. So this is my next attempt. No property zone for only single family residences may contain more than the primary dwelling unit and two ADU units in one building or two or more buildings on the same lot with more than one unit in each building. One residential dwelling unit in each building. I think is better. The second part, I think somehow you need to make it clear that it's the main house. You have one building is the main house. Another one would be an ADU. Okay. The first part is art. So I'm going to highlight that. I have to look at that. Yeah. I mean, for all this stuff, I mean, I was going through it today and I was thinking there's a lot that we still have to do with all of it. Yeah. So, and then I just put C, General Laws, Chapter 48, Section 1 at the very end of the whole thing. But I'll work on that second piece of it, the two separate buildings. I'll work on that some more. And with the planning board may grant a special permit to allow. So should it be, should we have a sub A and then a sub B for each of those things? Because one is for a larger unit and the other one is for more units. They're two separate concepts. Okay.
If that's the, I don't know what the convention is in that section of the bylaw, but, you know, either an A, B, or little i, little 2i. Yeah. Robert, can you figure out what that needs to be for that section? I probably do i and double i's because you use i's in the definition. And I know the definition in Section 901, not the exact same sections, but I think i makes the most sense. i and then double i. Okay. That's what I would use.
So break it sort of where special permits down below special permits for larger units or multiple units may be granted. And then the planning board, what it says is, I think the planning board may grant, this is a second paragraph under 3.1. The planning board may grant a special permit to allow, and then little i, more than one on a lot, or two, ADUs that are larger than the square footage thing, if that's what you're going to be saying there. And the sentence after that, you might not need, that says special permits for larger units or for multiple units may be granted. Well, I just figured that becomes the II. Okay, fine. Just break it so that that becomes the II. Okay. And then the, however, this language about multifamily, do we want to make that II if we keep it? I thought we weren't keeping, oh, you're just going to refer to the section of the bylaw? Well, no, I think we're going to keep something. We'll play with it a little before, and as long as we can get language we like, then we'll keep it. Okay. But does that become three I's? Planning board may grant a special permit to allow. Does it fit under that?
Yeah, because it's a limitation on the ability to grant a special permit.
Okay.
Look at it when you've got it all together and see what you think. I think it might need to be rejiggered in sequence. Yeah.
So the next provision, if we're scrolling down, was something that was in the original bylaw back in the before times. And it said that it couldn't increase the habitable area of the original building by more than 20%. I didn't know if that was something we wanted to pull back in or if we wanted to leave it out.
It was fine with me. I mean, it's a little bit, it conflicts a little bit with the definite, well, half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling.
So in theory. But this is larger than, we're dealing with bigger units. Yes, that's true. Yep. Yep. So we're going to restrict it.
Okay. The next one.
Do you, all you folks there, do you want to do it 20% or do you want to do it by a number, a gross floor area number? I don't mind the 20%. Okay. I just was wondering if that was too small. Wait, so are you saying if a house is 3,000 square feet and I want an ADU larger than 900 square feet? In the house. I'm maxed out at 20%. Is that what the section is saying? In the house itself, if you want to add on to your house, you create an ADU in the house. What this says is you can only increase the gross floor area. Is that what it says? Yep. Yep. By 20%. 20%. So if you've got a house that's 2,000 square feet already, you could only increase it by 20% and that would be... Well, it only applies to buildings larger than that, really. When you get to the 20% figure, right? So... Of your house. Yeah. I mean, if you have, well, say 2,500, there are some houses that have that divided by... I'm terrible with numbers. That'd be 500, though. That'd be 500? That's small. That's really small. That is small. So what would you need to get even 900? What size? Wouldn't you... You're adding the 500 feet, but you're probably grabbing a certain part of your... Existing footprint or...
Right? Yeah, you could be. But it's not necessarily clear.
If we... I mean, you need a 4,500 square foot house to get to 900 square feet. Wow. Yeah, that's a monster. So the 20% is too low, which is what I was just thinking, because if 900, you know, you can be half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, then it had to be higher than that. And so for, let's say, a 2,500 square foot house, the 900 square feet is like 40%?
Yeah, around 40%. That'd be 1,000. Yeah. Yeah. Again, do we want to do it by percentage, or do we want to do it by gross floor area? Because percentage could be really big. Yeah. Yeah. I also noticed that what I lifted from the old provisions said the 20%, it's 20% of the habitable area, but the new ADU rules are all on gross floor area, which is problematic in and of itself. But we should be consistent and switch to gross floor area, Robert, where it says habitable area up above.
I guess you could say 40% to be safe.
You know, and that makes sense. If you've got a little, little house to be adding a giant, you know, to be adding a 1,500 square foot ADU is a lot. It's a huge change. So generally, smaller houses are on smaller lots. So again, are we better with a percentage, or are we better off with a square foot number that you can't exceed?
I think I like a percentage because a larger house on a larger lot can absorb more square footage without it maybe seeming so overwhelming.
I mean, to get to 1,500 at 40%, we're talking a 3,750 square foot house. That's a giant home. I leave this to somebody else. I'm not good enough with numbers. Fun with math. Yes, well. I mean, the idea here is to hopefully curtail the amount of special permits that come to us, and hopefully people stick within the 900 square feet. Yeah. Right? Hey, Nick, do you have any thoughts on this?
No, I think the 900 square feet's right. Well. Yeah, but this is for when we're allowing more than 900 square feet. And you're saying it should be based on a percentage of the size of the house? Sort of what should the max be based on? The size of the house, and we call it a percentage? Or should we have like an absolute maximum size for an ADU that we can't even exceed with a special permit? It should probably be related to the size of the lot, right? Or maybe a ratio of the existing house and the lot. Yeah, we could do that. We could peg it to the lot size.
That would probably be better. Because then they'd have to stay within all the confines. And when you have a 20,000 square foot lot, it just can't handle a huge thing. Good suggestion, Nick. Yeah, that's good. Now we just got to come up with a formula for it. How about, though, if you had a lot that was a couple of acres in size, wouldn't you end up with a huge ADL in that case? But then does it really matter if you're so far away from all your neighbors? Does it matter that you've put a big addition on your house? Well, I'm sure it'll matter to somebody nearby.
Well, they can come and tell us that. Oh, okay.
I thought there was already a provision, and I'm not able to find it right now, that said that you couldn't fill up more than a certain percentage of your lot with an ADU anyway. Is it in the state guidelines?
I thought it was somewhere in here when I was doing the writing, but I don't see it now. Yeah, I don't remember. I made it up. But we, I mean, you can't, if, we know that if you're in a 20,000 square foot zone, you have to stick with your sidelines, your setbacks and all that stuff, so you can't fit anything huge in. Right. And even, I mean, they're maximum lot coverage, right? So you're still stuck with the maximum lot coverage side, which is 20%. Right. So do we need to say anything then? Because people are going to be limited by that 20% of coverage? Yeah. Well, again, you have people that have large, huge lots, right? Yeah. I mean, look at Annette's lot. Yeah. It's true. No, it is. But on the other hand, then, if Annette is fortunate enough to be able to put a large ADU on her lot, and none of her abutters would even notice it, what's the problem with that? Well, again, I personally- I know, you think we should divide the lot and have a separate- Yeah, I do. I agree. But this ADU is going to be attached to your house. So, you know, when the dog learns how to take care of you, the dog can occupy the primary residence, and you can move into the ADU. Sounds great. When can I do it? When it learns to cook. Okay.
So, do we just take this out and say they're limited by the 20% lot coverage anyway, and that's enough?
Can you explain that again? 20%? Yeah, so in single residence and roadside business areas where you can have an ADU, you are limited in all of those areas to the maximum lot coverage of 20%. So, you can't have your home occupy any more than 20% of your lot. But it has nothing to do with the ADU. That's just how our general zoning bylaw works. Right. So, if you're putting an ADU on, you still can't fill up any more than 20% of your lot. But 20% of a five-acre lot is huge.
Okay. So, then we'll leave it with a percentage of the building or a maximum square feet. Should we take a poll?
Sure. Okay. Who thinks we should have a maximum number of square feet that we're allowed to special permit? I do. I kind of do, too, but I don't. It's just simpler. It is. Absolutely. It's simpler. That's what I do. So, then what's the biggest? People will understand we won't get gamed. Yeah. We have very creative folks here in town. Yeah. So, what do we think the biggest number should be? For an ADU? Yeah. I don't know. We can check with the building department on what is being permitted right now. Yeah. There are some. And I'm thinking no more than 2,000. That would be like the max. Yeah. That's, yeah, definitely. Oh, wait. This is for in your own house, right? Extending your own house by. Sorry. Take it back.
1,200? Are we bidding now? Yes, we're bidding. Well, why don't we leave it and we'll look at it. We can maybe see what the range is in town now from the building department and maybe even send an email to Doug Sacra and just ask for his opinion. Yeah, I would ask him. Okay. I think also we need to keep in mind that people had a certain impression of this when we started. Like, oh, I can add a 900-square-foot ADU. And by allowing these very large or whatever we decide the number is, may change the meaning to a lot of folks. If you say 2,000 square feet, to me, that's like another house. We may get pushback. We need two-thirds to vote. Yeah. I don't know. Is this two-thirds, Robert, or majority? I think it's majority, isn't it? Because it's housing.
Oh, we have to check on it. Anyway, just keep that in mind. But we had all the public meetings, and this is kind of changing things. Or we could say that it's all up to the special permitting authority, but housing, and I don't know how you say this, but if you're getting to the point where you're creating the equivalent of a second house.
So we could, in theory, do both. We could have sort of a maximum that we're looking at, but we can say, but also not more than this percentage. I think you should take your best shot when you go through this, figure out what you think works, and we'll get to look at it, hopefully, at the next meeting. Okay. Not to cop out, but do we really even need to put a number? No, not necessarily. Well, because there are many factors here, the land, the size of the house, the neighborhood situation. In some instances, it may be okay to do a very large ADU, but we have discretion over 900 feet either way. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I put it in there because it was in the ADU bylaw before we had to change it. And so I assumed it was something that people wanted a limitation like that. But it is very situational. I mean, somebody could be building a large ADU for a disabled person, and they need more space to be able to maneuver a wheelchair. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, I'll get some information from the building department and see what Doug Saker has to say about sort of a range, and then we can decide if we want to leave it in and be generous or take it out and leave it very much up to the planning board to make the decision. Okay. Sounds good.
Okay. In 901-133, that last highlighted thing, isn't that repetitive? Didn't we already deal with that? We did. Again, it was something that was in the old one, and for some reason I put it in there because the old one had a reference to, this one says, make special permit findings in accordance with the zoning law. So I didn't know if that needed to be in there or if I could combine it with where that language is up above. I think you can combine it where the language is above. Yeah.
Do you want to take us through, or do you want me to? Hang on. Yeah, I'm just making comments. Terrific. Don't want to rush you.
Because 15 minutes or a while, I won't remember what I was going to do. The next one down, 1.3.4, we said that the ADU couldn't be rented for more than 30 days, but we need to say the principal residence can't be rented for the more than, it has to be rented for more than 30 consecutive days. Right. That's good. I don't know if we said this before because I'm getting myself confused. Principal residence, principal dwelling unit, we need to keep the same terminology throughout.
Yep, so that should be dwelling unit. I think so. And do we have a definition of principal dwelling unit? No, we discussed that before about whether we needed to, whether dwelling already had a definition, and I have a note to look at that. Okay, thank you. I can't, I just couldn't remember. Yeah, no, I had a note to add that in if it isn't otherwise defined. Okay. And then the next thing down is the taking out a minimum of because the AG struck it.
So, and it should be that there's one parking space for each accessory dwelling unit since we can have more than one. And then language saying that if we give a special permit, we can require whatever we want for parking for those units. Okay. So, in addition to the minimum parking required for the principal dwelling unit, not residence. Yep. Didn't we have to say a maximum of one off-street parking? No. I pulled the AG's thing and it said, it said one. It didn't say a maximum of, it actually, they just struck a minimum of. That was the only thing they did. They didn't say a maximum. Okay. They just said it had to be one. Principal dwelling unit, one off-street parking. And that's for a, rather than each, that would be for a protected use ADU?
Yeah, since we're going to use that phrase, then we'll put that in. Okay. Because that makes it clear that that goes to the protected use one. And then, if ADUs or ADUs are permitted by special permit, I think it just has to say, with the AADUs, I'm personally uncomfortable having them by special permit. I know why we did it and we weren't sure how to deal with it. Yeah. But if somebody needs one or wants to do an affordable one, I hate to have them go through special permit. That's just one more thing that they have to do. So, we talked before about whether we can leave the building inspector responsible for making sure that the deed restriction gets filed. Because that's the only reason, when we discussed it before, was that somebody's got to make sure the deed restriction is kosher and that it gets recorded. Right. And is that something that we can make the building inspector responsible for or not? Robert? The thing, all of this stuff is, though, supposed to go through the planning department anyway, right? Uh, kind of. Before it goes to the building inspector. Mm-hmm. That's not really how the law is, but, but, yeah. But isn't that how we set it up? Um. Because you wanted to have your ore in. Yes, but it's not really how it works, unfortunately. So, how, you know, who are we going to have in charge of reviewing the deed restriction and making sure that it is both kosher and recorded if we don't do a special permit? Well, I don't know, but it's just to have, it's, I think it's unlikely that many people are going to do affordable units, period. And if we add special permit to it, the chances are much slimmer. Well, who does, who does the recording now? Does the, does the, um. Applicant. The applicant does the recording? Yeah. Oh.
Um. I don't want to belabor this. We have so much to do tonight, and it's almost eight o'clock. Okay. Um, how do you, people feel about having to have a special permit for an, uh, affordable unit? Well, I asked last time, what does it cost to do a special permit? I didn't hear it, but I know it's extra work for the applicant. Right. Why, why would we require a special permit just because it's affordable? What's the reasoning behind that? The reasoning was that you have to, for an affordable unit to stay affordable and fit under the state's requirements, um, and let it count against our regular units in Wayland, because we have to have 10% affordable in, um, you need to file special papers. You need to have certain kinds of restrictions on the property. And, um, we wanted to make sure that we got those kinds of restrictions. So is that something, can, can I write it so that if it's an ADU going by right, that the deed restriction has to be approved by the town planner and proof of, you know, of filing with the registry of deeds has to be provided to the town planner prior to a certificate of occupancy? Robert, what do you think? Sounds good to me. Wasn't there a, didn't we have a, the housing authority record all that stuff like Brian handle it for a while? Um, no, he only handles it for things that are under the housing authority. Not everything is under the housing authority. I think you should try that, Robin. I'll try that. Um, okay. I'll work that in.
Um, all right. And then the next big thing was down below the next thing existing ADUs. And so this was this procedure for getting one that was already there approved. Um, I'm not sure people will do that, but it's there. It's going to increase your property taxes, right? Um, but we needed to have a, Oh, before it said it, you could have approved, but we didn't have any formal pathway for that. I thought that looked fine to me. Okay.
And then everybody pipe up. Don't let it just be us talking to each other.
And the rest were just the procedures we'd already designed saying for when it's by right or by special permit, they have to do these things. So, right. Um, you asked in your question on the bottom of the next page, uh, do we need more footnotes to differentiate by right and special permit, or just refer to the text of the bylaw? I think we, well, maybe we've dealt this with this already. We need two separate definitions for the by right and the special permit. So, okay.
Okay. Okay. Nice job. And we're lots to do. Super straightforward. You caught your stuff in here, right? Robin caught it. I would have to go back. One was about the parking. One was about the, um, let me just quickly try again.
One was about roadside business. We have to allow it in roadside business too. And she did that. Yeah. Unfortunately. Yeah. Or we could change and amend the roadside business. Yeah. I mean, we could say we're not going to allow the special permit ones in roadside business. Well, you need to have a dwelling unit in roadside business. So if you have, I mean, we don't really have any dwelling units in roadside business. There's only a few. It's a very, very small handful of them, but it is what it is. Yep. Okay. Do you want to move on then to the next one? Moving on. Um, which is the multifamily housing. We talked about this at the last meeting. And, uh, did, did, um, did Dave Watkins, did he speak? Did he? No, he didn't. He didn't speak. He didn't need to. And we, we just sort of dealt with it. Um, and we talked about the maximum building height increasing to 58 feet. And he had sent in a memo that we could see that, um, explained that you would only be able to sit from the road, the route 20, you'd only be able to see 30 feet of building. Um, and that would be, um, shorter than what you see at Alta Oxpo. Um, and then, um, Robert, you had said, um, 32 units per acre, but it doesn't work with the one. Oh, I think he had 106. Um, it really needs to be 33 to fit that number of units in. Yeah, I, I just went by the numbers he gave me. Oh, okay. So, uh. He also mentions, though, about a lot of coverage being higher, but I don't know if he, he did. And I talked to him about that afterward. Um, and I just thought it would be easier. He doesn't need it. He didn't think he needed it. And it would be easier to just have two changes. I thought. Yeah. Through town meeting. Yeah. And I did, I, we, I did have a discussion with the state and it seemed like there'd be no issues with, um, changes to this because the height, we, the height, the height, not the height, but the number of units will increase, which mean the year that you could, you could produce would be higher. And so the state wouldn't matter to the state because now you, you, you can, you can build more units per your whole 50 acres. So they didn't seem worried about this change being affected. Okay. Which is good. So is everybody okay with that one? Yes. Mm-hmm. Okay. Um, then permanent and temporary signage. So this is a one that we could, we could really honestly kick it down the road for a year. It doesn't, it's not, it's not like, oh my gosh, we have to do this today. It's just something I've been working on. And it really was just about honestly defining the way of display area, which we don't ever have. What is a sign, a temporary sign. And the real reason was to try to allow for temporary signage because you have a real lot of businesses that just come in and they just put up their A phrase signs. And we don't have a mechanism today to allow for temporary signs. However, the terrain development, which they just did, their special permit, did allow them to put up a temporary sign up to 30 days when they open up. Um, but that, that was just through the special current process for the, for the, for the terrain, um, okay. So, um, what happens when a business puts up those, they're like banners on a, on a pole. On a stick. They'll come in or we're open or whatever. They're not allowed. If they move around, they're not allowed. And temporary signs are not allowed.
Currently. Right. Yeah. But I thought you just said they were allowed. They're not allowed. Only the, only the, the realtor signs are allowed and somebody working on your property, uh, doing construction kinds of stuff is allowed to have a sign. But for a fixed business, it's not. Yeah. Got it. Speaking of which, Robert, did you notice that Whalen Pack and Ship moved over and they took their sign with them? Yeah. That's the way we, we, we, we, yeah. We're going to talk to him. Okay. I don't, don't worry. I, I, I, I catch everything. I know exactly what's going on. So, um, if, if this isn't required, can we skip it for right now and then go back to it? Is that okay? Fine. Honestly, if we can skip on for a year, it's not gonna, it's not gonna be, it's not gonna be it's not gonna make a difference. The first two, I think we really need to get in this time for town meeting. Um, ground mounted. So can we skip that for just a minute and go just finish, go through the housekeeping and the floodplain? Because I think the floodplain is something we have to do this time. I don't have that. I don't think I have the floodplain on here. You sent, it's in the package. It was in the package. It wasn't in the first package when we got it, but then it was in this most recent one. Um, um, so can we do a maybe floodplain and then the housekeeping, the housekeeping could also wait if we had to, couldn't it? Uh, yeah, I mean, I can, I can very quickly run it for, it's not like, um, it's nothing crazy. In the housekeeping, when you and I went through the zoning bylaw, um, based on what the town clerk gave us and suggestions, is this everything or just some of the stuff? Nope, I did, yeah, I did yellow, green, yellow, and red. Red is like, we need to work on, which is site plan. Uh, yellow was like, maybe, and green were like, easy things. Like, no, but in what you gave us to look at. Yeah, this is, this is all like, all like easy green. Okay, because I didn't have color and stuff, so. Yeah, not, not in this version. The original version, I, I, I gave you guys a, a color version. Yeah, a while ago. Oh, I remember that. Yeah, that was, that was like, it's like doing mass housing and, and EO, ELOC and. Right. It's very, is this, is this, again, I'm gonna, cause I'm confused. Is this everything that. No. Okay. That was all that I asked. Like very easy, very easy ones. Okay. They're mostly, they're mostly the same thing. They're mostly ELOC and. Right. Over and over again. It's just, it's just like, very like common sense changes. And then they want to, on the top of it was changes to, to clear variances and stuff. And the building commercial stuff. That was something else that would, that would be, that would be, I didn't miss discussing it. It needs to be cleared up. Cause it's, it's very unclear. Yeah. At 205.2, you're referring to Acton in the second line. So you must have taken this language from Acton. Wait, which, which lines are, that was like, that was a common pace. Okay. So for right now, could we do the floodplain? Because I think we have to do accessory dwelling unit, multifamily housing, and the floodplain. Because the federal government sent us something and said we had to have a bylaw, right?
Yes. And has Linda seen this? Yeah, Linda has seen it. I sent it to the contacts from the state. I have not heard back from them yet. Okay. So this is what I have so far. Let's just try it right now.
Just under floodplain, at the heading, Article 17, you need to take out watershed protection district because that was removed a number of years ago.
So it's just floodplain and federal flood protection.
And just let me ask you this, Robert. It looked like the floodplain district stuff is administered by the zoning board and the flood, federal flood protection stuff is administered by the conservation administrator. Is that right? That's why I dedicated to, but that's not, we don't have, we actually don't have a floodplain manager now. Well, I think the town manager thinks we do, and I think he thinks we do, but there's been some disagreement about. Well, I saw how you wrote it, so that was fine. But it's just conservation versus ZBA. That's all that I'm trying to clarify. Yes. Okay.
In the definitions under, unless somebody has something before, I have the first definition. I do, I just want to make sure I've got the right version. The one I have has a different title under Article 17.
I just changed that. You just amended it. Oh, I missed that. All right. All right. Bye. So you probably should say, Robert, floodplain and federal floodplain protection. Maybe town floodplain and federal flood protection. Something like that, because I think it is a town one, isn't it? Yeah.
So shouldn't that be underlined or crossed out or? Yes. The other thing, you're right. It should be. Oh, all right.
So we deal with that, Robert? Yeah.
You need to add districts to the end of watershed protection. So I have a comment in this, unless somebody has one before, on the definition of the flood boundary and floodway map. Okay. The thing that says for maps done in 87 and later, the floodway designation is included on the firm, if applicable to your community. Is it applicable to our community or isn't it?
I don't know. Okay. You need to check. Linda should be helping you with this, because I don't want to leave it in like that. It either applies or it doesn't apply.
Yeah. Right? And you would qualify by saying qualified in Wayland, right? Something like that. So people understand. This is just Wayland. Right. All that we're writing about is Wayland. So it either applies or it doesn't apply.
For those that apply, we can't change the wording?
The stuff in parentheses, I don't know that we even need at all. Right. I don't think you do. Right. It either, either the map is done after 87 or the map was done before 87. And whichever it is, we have to get it so that it matches what we are doing in Wayland.
In the flood hazard boundary map, again, at the end, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title V, if applicable to your community. We need to know if it is or it isn't applicable, Robert. Yeah. It's going to highlight. And it wouldn't be saying applicable to your community. It would just be applying it to us. And then in the flood way, at the end, base code, Chapter 2, Section 202. I don't even know what that is. What is the base code?
I don't know. I mean, this is a, I put together based on the template that I got from. Right. Then that's great as a start, but we need to understand. And again, Linda can help you with this and you should insist that you try and look at it because we need to, I wouldn't even know where to go to find that.
Functionally dependent use. Do you need that term at all for what we're doing? We're not going to have docking facilities, port facilities, et cetera, for loading and unloading of cargo or passengers. We're fine, we're fine to get out. I don't know. I might start running a little delivery service on the Sudbury River. Uh-huh. And yeah. Well, you can read it. I don't think it applies to us. Um, do we need to do here a definition of FIRM, F-I-R-M, because it gets used later?
Uh, good question. I think we probably do.
Yeah, in alphabetical order.
I would be before the L.
There you go. Then under the historic structure, um, can you indent where we need to indent so that the A, B, C was moved over? Thank you.
And under the, okay, sorry, under the D, the one and the two have to go in further.
And what does the U.S. code relate to?
And I'm just copying the template definitions from, that was provided. I didn't really, I just kind of put the things on the paper. I think we need to understand it, though, because the CERC preservation programs have been certified. It might be that the certification, I don't know this, comes under, uh, the code title 44, part 59, but I don't know. I mean, it had, if we're going to put references, they need to tie to something so that we know what to do with those references. Yep. And also, generally, instead of writing code of federal regulations, generally, you just put CFR. CFR. Yeah, but you would normally, but I don't know that anybody here, other than a lawyer, would know what the CFR was, Robin. I guess, but after the first one, you could just put in parentheses CFR, and then you CFR the rest of the way through. Mm-hmm. Because if you don't know what the CFRs are, you also don't know where to find them, so. That's true. Even if you know the full name, you wouldn't know. And if you Google CFR, it'll tell you where it is, and it'll take you right to them. So, I would, after the first one, put parentheses and just change all the rest of them to CFR. Yeah.
Okay.
So, do you want to continue on? Yeah. Okay. Under new construction, there again, there's at the very end, reference standard ASCE. I have no idea what that is.
And then the recreational vehicle thing, you can go through and just fix all of the formatting, but the A, B, C, and D need to be indented, and, okay, under start of construction, the date of issuance for, the date of issuance of what for new construction? I don't know if it's a permit.
Sounds like a building permit, doesn't it? I don't know.
So, Robert, if you can figure out what it is, it would be after the date of issuance of what?
Okay.
Again, if anybody has anything before the things I'm talking about, pop in. No, but I know what the ASCE is. It's the American Society of Civil Engineers. Oh, that's interesting. Thank you, Google.
That's a good way to be smart.
Anyway, you can be smart is a good way, but Google helps. It helps you appear to be smart. Exactly. That's right. The Substantial Repair of a Foundation. At the end, it says, as amended by Mass in 9th edition B.C. So, it's the 9th edition of the Building Code with the Massachusetts Amendments. Question that I have. First of all, it should say Building Code because nobody's going to understand what it is. But, Robert, should it be tied to the 9th edition or should it be the 9th edition and any amendments or any amendments to the 9th edition? Or amendments. Or amendments. Or as amended. Or as amended, wherever that term is used. Yeah. This is an overall question. This is a zoning bylaw. And this right now is a section of our zoning bylaw. And under zoning, the ZBA can grant variances. And it's under state law. And it has a defined term. Here, we've got, it's supposedly coming, I guess, from the Code of Federal Regulations. I have no idea. And it's variance means a grant of relief by a community from the terms of a floodplain management regulation. I think somehow we need to either use a different term or differentiate or something because we're using variances at other places in the bylaw. And it'll have two different definitions. Well, floodplain variance. Okay. That's a good idea. Yeah, I agree. And where it says a community, should we be specifying from the zoning board or the permitting authority or, you know, it's not like you can go ask the guy walking down the street who's a member of the community. Should we specify who grants this relief? It's true. And the floodplain, as I said, looked to me like it was the ZBA.
But it's different. It's a different kind of variance than a regular zoning variance. So, so it would be relief granted by the ZBA, if that's correct.
Yeah, I think most of the places where it says the community, they're intending, you know, it's sort of like when you say, when you're giving somebody an oath and you say, say your name here. They're not supposed to say their name. You're supposed to put in the correct body. Right.
Okay. Right.
Okay. Under violation, the one, two, three, fourth line, something is required in section 60.3, but 60.3 of what?
Maybe the CFR that's there, but yeah, we have to specify. Well, it doesn't fit to the CFR because it's part 59. Well, part 59 could have a section 60 in it. Oh, well, that would be really confusing.
Welcome to legislative drafting. Let me see.
Also, throughout here, Robert, you have capitalized the entire word. And I don't think that fits in with the rest of our bylaw. Don't we just capitalize the first letter of a defined term?
We have to go back. I think that's generally how it is in the bylaw. I don't think that we've had the big capitals, so that needs to get corrected as well. Just reading through my notes. So, just going back to that, where we had the section for variance. Yes. That- Violation or variance. Variance. Just going back, because I just pulled up the CFR. Right. It is what was in there, word for word, means the grant of relief by a community from the terms of a floodplain management regulation. Okay. So, are we meant to basically be putting 44 CFR 59 right into our bylaw?
And violation is the same thing. Yeah, I mean, I thought maybe there was something in there for something. I don't think it needs to be referred to there. We could say in one place, somewhere. Yeah. This follows the requirements of Title 44, Part 59. I mean, the way they wrote this, the template they gave me was pretty- The template was problematic, and I told you- Probably lacking. And part of what they did is they used the definitions of what they wanted you to put in there, and they cited where it came from. Right. But it was, and it's not meant that you put it in there, which is fine. It's probably okay to, like, when you go through this, to understand what the process is. Right. And delete it. Wow. You could also do a footnote that refers to the Code of Federal Regulations, you know, so that you know what to check against at some point in time, if you want to. So the site to Section 60 in that violation section, just as it is in Robert's draft, it is on the CFR. It just says Section 60, but there it includes a link, and the link is to a whole different CFR.
What is the whole different CFR? So it's still 44, but Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part 60, Subpart A. I mean, okay. So it's just, it's another part of- What a mess. Yeah, this is crazy.
You're telling me. I've always been doing this and not haven't gotten any feedback from- Yeah. So what we really, so in the violation section, instead of saying Part 59, it should say Part 60, because that's what you're actually referring to, is Part 60.
But again, for some of this, couldn't we just, like, under somewhere, just say that the basis for this is the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Parts 59 and 60. I mean, that's what we're trying to implement here, rather than- Yeah, so do we even need to, do we need to restate their definition? Can we just say, violation as defined by 44 CFR, Sections 59 and 60, and not put any of the text that's there at all? Just make a, just a reference to the CFR. I'm just reading to see if this adds anything.
Compliant with Wayland's Flood Plane Management Regulations. Well, the first sentence you would need, maybe. A violation means failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the community, with Wayland's Flood Plane Management Regulations. Except that that's verbatim what's in the CFR. Oh, no, I know, but people won't go and look. No, I know. Yeah.
Yeah, the site to Section 60 has more to it than that. Yeah.
It needs, it would be best if we could, someplace in the beginning, acknowledge that this section is, uh, because it's required under, uh, federal, right? 44 CFR. Yeah.
Okay. Robert, do you understand that?
Repeat that again. Somewhere in the beginning, there needs to be a reference to the fact, and it could just be like, uh, the equivalent of a footnote under the floodplain district thing, saying that, well, it's not the floodplain, this, whatever. This is very interesting. Um, what if it's right in the title? So it says, yeah, but what I'm looking at here is the definitions are under the floodplain district. And we have another section that is called, I thought, are we, are we amending the floodplain district or the federal floodplain protection thing here? We have two separate floodplain districts in Weyland. One is a town floodplain district that's based on a map from 1975, which probably needs to be updated. And the other is based on the federal stuff that's based on the, um, the new maps that come out every 10, 20 years. I think the federal stuff. This is the federal, but you've, you're amending the floodplain district. That's, that's what's here right now. Yeah. And the federal stuff is in 702, but you've got it under the district. You mean this section here?
Yeah, that's, that's really, I thought what was happening. So the 1701.1, I think all of those things, I don't know if any of them relate to our floodplain district. So it'd be moved down to 1702.
For the federal, yeah. I think that's the case.
Okay. But we do, do we still have something under the floodplain district? I mean, the stuff could be, doesn't have to be put in there. I think that's only, there's only a few things.
Okay. So that 1701.2 is really the floodplain, the local floodplain district. Yeah.
Okay. Um, continuing on at 1701.2, um, you had at one point talked about floodplain district. Um, you had sent, when it's some other place in here, you sent us back to look at the, um, creation of our overlay districts. And we could look at the map that, that created the overlay district. And I think you need to do the same thing in 1701.2, maybe at the end that says C302.1.1.1 for a description of the floodplain overlay district. At the end? At the end? Yeah.
I think that's where I would probably put it. I was just following your format from the other ones, but you can decide where it should go.
But the other question is, is this data too old from 1975?
That is the last time they updated the map.
That was a long time ago. They really haven't updated since then? Nope. Not according to what's in the bylaw.
So perhaps Anina can help you with some of this stuff, Robert.
What would updating the map entail? Um, probably the town, um, surveyor and the GIS guy, or maybe just the town surveyor figuring it out. Why wouldn't we use the federal maps? Because we have a separate zone. Um, and again, I think we, I don't understand why we have so many of these zones. So, you know, it would be possible to do away with the local one. I have no idea. It might, it seems to go beyond what the federal requires, or at least it was going beyond what the federal required. But that's a good question, Larry. Who should we ask?
Linda. Linda. That's the, um, that'd be an incredible undertaking in Wayland to survey all the flood piling. I agree. You're right. And it would be better if we could just have the federal one and call it a day. Yeah. Um, at 1701.3 at the end, um, I think that needs to be underlined because it's new, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Next thing that I had was at 1702.1.
Oh, here it is.
That's, that's what they're looking for. That's the federal, uh, that's the federal floodplain district destinations or those of the overlays. Well, one isn't the, 1701 isn't the federal one. No, we have both of them in there. We have the federal one and we have the regular one.
Okay. The federal one is at 1702.1. Um, okay. And so that says, please see, uh, 198, 302, one, two. Should it be for the specific federal flood protection? Is that what we're talking about? That it's for? Yeah. Okay. And then, um, federal flood protection, uh, overlay and district, uh, federal flood protection, overlay district and designations, because it defines the district and it has the definitions of AE, um, A, whatever the different, um, intensities of the flooding are. So should it be federal flood protection overlay? I think it should say specific federal flood protection overlay district and designations. And when you're doing 701, you should have something similar. Yeah. I just highlighted that.
Even though there's a lot of stuff, Robert, you did a good job. Thanks. You're welcome. Um, in that section where we just. I haven't, I really have not gotten feedback from Linda. So all this is. You have to, you have to go and sit beside her and get feedback. You need to be aggressive. Um, right above what we just were talking about in 1702.1. Here is, it's a definition of firm. It's used here in firm meets federal insurance rate map as described. So if you get the firm somewhere in the definitions, that would be better in 1702.3. You need a period after the three. Hold on. Let me just highlight this. Okay. Sure. Back and look tomorrow. I'll do it. All right. Which one? Uh, 1702.3. Yep. You need a period after the three. Okay. So that's how we do them. Um, and, um, when you've changed the third line down, um, you're talking about the building code and you've changed it to current, which is fine. You need to underline current because it's new. Yeah.
Okay. Um, in 1702.4, I think we dealt with this when we talked earlier, but just make sure it works. The third line talks about waivers or variances. And, um, again, the term variance is problematic. So whatever we did to fix it before we should do here because it's, yeah, whatever.
We put floodplain variance. Okay. Thank you.
And it would need an S on the variances and it would be just a capital. Well, it, since it's a divine term, a capital, um, initial caps.
1702.4, third line, floodplain variances. And you wouldn't capitalize all of the word variances because it doesn't conform to the rest of the way we do the bylaw. You just need an initial cap. In the sections following, uh, in that are all under all development, please make sure to check those, uh, CMR references to make sure that they're still correct and that they haven't changed.
Which one? I'm sorry. Okay. All of them. All of them. 1702.4, one, two, three, four, and five. I mean, you need a second. All right.
I'll double check. Um, and then in 1702.4.4, um, I think it's 15.000, not 15 comma zero, zero, zero. I think it was wrong in the original.
Not, I mean, in what's in the bylaw already. No, I'm sorry. Um, and I don't think we need this, um, but, uh, do we need to think about, this has 194. I don't think 193 comes into play, but check that with Linda to see if 193 needs to be in here too.
193. And in this section?
It's just a question. Then in 1702.4.6, I want to understand why we're just talking about subdivision proposals and development. Isn't a subdivision approval or proposal a development? Isn't it incorporated in that term? Yeah, but we can pull it out. I don't know. Hey, because I was also thinking, what about site plan? So I wasn't sure why we were saying just subdivision. So think about that. Okay.
And under that section, 1702.4.6.1 and 4.6.2. Um, aren't these essentially the same things? Can't we combine them or do we not want to combine them for a specific reason?
You mean 4.6.1 and 6.2? Yeah. Um, I was just copying the template. From what? From the state provided. Oh, the state provided. Oh, Jesus. Yeah.
Well, somehow this, I mean, it's fine if they think that the 6.2 should be specifically stated that way, but the such proposals is somehow it needs to be either more specific or just, or somehow combined. Okay. Yeah. I mean, when I read through what the state said, I thought it was really poor. So you've done a, an admirable job here, Robert. Yeah. Because each of those little subsections reads like a heading. You expect there to be text. Right. Yeah. It's weird. And plus it's all subsumed in the same thing, really. Yeah. Um, and then 1702.4.7 needs a period after the 7, and we need to change the variance thingy to the floodplain, whatever it was, the terminology that we're using. And wherever we have variances, we should do that when it comes up in, in 7.1 as well. It also comes up in, uh, 4.7.2 twice. And in three.
Well, you can just search for variance everywhere and have it change it. Right. So you catch them all.
All right. So I'll take a look at these. Okay. In 7.3, um, third line down, premium rates for flood insurance, should it be, or insurance coverage? It doesn't, the sentence doesn't make sense.
Which, which one? The third line down in 7.3, 1702.4.7.3. Mm-hmm.
Insurance coverage. Third line. Flood insurance of insurance coverage. Result in increased premium rates for flood insurance of insurance coverage. So I thought it probably should be, or insurance coverage, but I'm not sure. Or just flood insurance coverage. I have no idea.
I'm just going to go ahead. That sounds better. Yeah. I mean, you, you, you're probably right, Robin, but who knows? Yeah. This is not my forte. Let's put that away. This has been very dry. Rain this up. The last sentence in the section we were just doing, such notice, such notification shall be maintained with the record of all variance actions as required by whom and where.
Since we know it's probably required by the federal things. And so you need to know where they're going to maintain them and who's going to maintain them. I don't think you even need to say it said it. I think all you need to say is such notification shall be maintained with a record of all of the kinds of variances we're talking about actions and who it would be maintained by. And when you look at the numbering, I think the convention that we're using is a period after the end of every number. So the 472, 473, 474, all need periods. Okay. Okay.
Anything else on this? So that's all I had.
So now we've done, let's see, where is it? The floodplain. We've done the accessory dwelling unit, multifamily housing and the floodplain. And unless somebody thinks differently, I think those three definitely need to go forward. And then the question becomes, for temporary signs, ground-mounted solar and housekeeping amendments, do we want to propose them or any of them this year or not? Well, you had noted that if we don't have ground-mounted solar, we're kind of, we have a problem. We do. And in the meantime, regulations came out from the state and I don't, I didn't read through them. Hopefully Jesse has, and he can tell us if we're screwed, if we don't have regulations or if we're not.
I don't know the answer to that offhand, but I can certainly research and find out. What did the state regulations require? Do you know? You didn't look at those. Okay. At the very least, given the changes on credits and reimbursement from the federal government, I assume if someone didn't do it this year, it'd be more expensive to do next year, right? So, is there going to be a rush, I guess, is my question. If no one's doing it now. A rush, when? For solar, ground-mounted solar. It just got more expensive, right? Right. That I understand. So, you think because it's more expensive that people are going to rush to? People are going to try to get them before the credit expires? They'll be less interested. They're going to. So, my question was, is anyone rushing to do it now? I guess we have no bylaws. So, we wouldn't know. Well, isn't part of it whether you get credit, tax credit for this, which you know is going to go away? Yeah, it's either gone away or is by end of the year. And in any event, anything that passes at town meeting needs to get approved by the Attorney General. They have 90 days to do that, and our zoning stuff doesn't go into effect until after they've done it and after we publish something in the newspaper for X number of weeks. And so, we're talking about the earliest that, probably, that anything that we passed at town meeting could go into effect would be September, which is not to say that we should shelve the thing. I mean, I think we should be working on it. But the question is whether we want to do it for this town meeting or not. Well, Jesse can tell us how good it looks, what we have today, right? Sure. What does he think? Yeah, I mean, the draft I have, I mean, we've gone through it, I think, three times now. It's incorporated everything that all of us have brought up. It's tried to address some of the things that were inconsistent in there. It's tried to address small, medium, large. I mean, I think it's, I think it's in good shape, but to Annette's point, like, I just want to compare it to what the state has cooking for this and just make sure it's, you know, consistent. So, we could always propose it and then just not go ahead with it. Yeah, right. I think it's in good shape right now. When you have a hearing, you have to, I think you have six months after that to go to town meeting. So, we wouldn't be able to make annual, but if there were a special, then it would be.
I mean, if we feel like by the deadline, it's ready to present to the public and to, you know, at least put up, see how people feel about it, we can make our decision when we have to. Okay. Well, when we, yeah. Yeah, but if you present at town meeting and they vote yes for it, then that's what we get, right? Is that what you're saying? That's why we have to, if we think it's ready for prime time and ready to be implemented, then, you know, we can pursue it. And if at some point between now and town meeting, we realize it's not what we want, then we can withdraw it. That sounds good. Or we can, we can have a hearing and not file it as an article. Yep. That sounds good.
Sort of one step at a time kind of thing. Okay. Um, so do people want to go over the ground mounted solar stuff? And I know with the caveat that Jesse has to check the state, the state, uh, regulations because I think that the state regulations will have changed some stuff that we would have thought. I'm trying to find the state regulations, the current state regulations. I thought I sent them to you. Yeah. I thought you did too. Um, I can, if they're on, like, you know, you know me, I'm always looking to see if like something's changed on the DEP website.
I'm not sure if this is DEP.
I think it's the, it's something with energy, not DEP.
Well, regardless, I can walk us through this. Good. Um, so the small scale, medium scale, large scale, the only change there was removing the kilowatt hours. And, um, that was that the advice of a friend that I have that works for Eversource. I, so I asked her about this and, and she said, listen, my, my advice is to not even get into kilowatt hour efficiency as to like how big the arrays are, because the technology changes so fast that you're going to come back to this every like two or three years and have to change it. Um, she said, just do it by size. So that's where I ended up here. So less than an acre between an acre and five acres and over five acres, which is consistent with what we had in there. We had a kilowatt in an acreage. I don't think there were any changes in this section. You scroll down a little bit more, Robert.
Okay. Dimensional standards. I think that the small scale, medium scale, large scale for lot coverage, I think we kept that the same.
We didn't change that. So that, so the percentages are something that we should talk about if we think that that makes sense. And keep in mind, you know, large scale is probably more of the commercial end. So the large scale is, the sizing is based large scale, greater than five acres. Got it? Yep. Okay. Very few spots in town where that can even happen, I think.
Yep. Unless you do it in the floodplain.
All right. Let's keep going down.
Vegetative buffering. Okay. So, um, 10 feet deep measured output from the edge of the array footprint. Existing trees and vegetation should be preserved to the maximum extent practical and supplemented as necessary to achieve a continuous visual screen. That was changed a little bit because it was, um, it was unclear if it was like meant to be on the, on the lot line versus like around the actual, um, solar array installation. So there was some wording changes there. Cause it was a little confusing. Can you even do that? Um, be that close to the solar array with planting? So as long as you're not going with things that are going to grow up above and block out the sun. Yes. But isn't that we want the vegetative buffering. So you can't see it. Right. So I don't know if you, if you really want to measure it from the edge of the array footprint.
Um, and what is the footprint? They have, um, sort of stands that they stand on and they take up, um, I don't know if they look like they're five, six, seven feet, maybe more in length and, you know, five feet or four feet in width. Um, I don't know if they look like they're five, six, seven feet, maybe more in length and, so what's the footprint?
Would it, would it be easier to deal with if it was around the perimeter or at least, you know, you're talking, you're talking about how the array is, is measured. I'm talking about how you determine where you're going to put the buffer on the lot. Yep. So.
Yeah. So, so footprint would be like. Edge of a panel. And that's not a footprint because it's not on the ground.
So perimeter is probably better. Can't you redefine footprint in this particular application? We could just call it, it's something different. It would be like the edge of the array, you know, 10 feet from the edge of the array. And I don't know if that even works though.
Okay. Yeah. Maybe the outer most edge of the array, the outer most surface area or they, most of them seem to not, well, I sent Jesse, um, an address for one where, um, one of my neighbors has one and she's got her arrays that would be situated like you've just described Jesse. Yeah. And it's not at the perimeter and it looks good, but sometimes being at the perimeter would be okay. And sometimes being. Yeah. It depends on where you're putting it. Right. Yeah, exactly. So maybe you could give it a little leeway. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Talk about the panels too. I took some notes. I'll, I'll, I'll play with the wording. Okay.
But yeah, I see your point there.
Um, glare and noise, I think was the next spot.
Um, so this was just a differentiation between, um, small installations and the medium and large installations for the noise analysis. Is there any definition of hazardous condition? In what? That glare and noise. Oh. You know, if your neighbor says, oh, it gives me a headache. Yeah. Well, for noise there, and it's pretty loud. There's, um, a DEP regulation on noise and it, but what about glare? No, nothing for glare. Except that our bylaws have stuff for glare and you can't put lights, um, anywhere so that they shine on to, I think it's, I can't remember. It's in the general section of the bylaw, our existing bylaw. Yeah. Is there, it is like, it's related to, um, like roads and I think even residences, right? Like you're not supposed to, yeah. Right. I can't remember the exact language. I always say you can't have a light shining onto the roadway period, but it's all over town. Probably good to reference that in that section. That's what I was just thinking. Yeah. I'll look it up and find it. Okay. You're talking about glare from the actual panel, right? Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Isn't that going to move around depending upon what time of day it is? Some of these are fixed and some don't. Yeah. Yeah. Depends on how it's installed. And, um, that would go into that analysis that we're asking them to do. When I see panels on houses, I don't see glare in general. Oh, we had a, a near dispute on Jeffrey road about, you know, someone puts all the panels. The other said, you know, I can't have breakfast in my breakfast room anymore. Too much glare. Really? I've never seen it. Yeah. Nobody else saw it either, but these people were horribly offended. Um, section three here, trails and wildlife. We just added the conservation commission portion of that.
Um, drainage and stormwater management. So there was a comment that we should probably try to differentiate this and, and make it, um, a little easier for the small scale and not as onerous for what we need. So we changed that here. Um, this is very interesting. There are the regulations that are being proposed and by the conservation commission. Um, and we have a bylaw that exists. Uh, the regulations go well beyond that, but they say, um, if you disturb land and it's a very right now, the disturbances, I think 500. I can't remember 500 square feet or something. Um, when you put in these, um, the, the foundations for these things, it's going to disturb the land. So this might have some kind of an interplay with those regulations. Yep. Sure. Um, and I don't know if, um, if you might ask Linda Hanson, um, what she thinks they're regulating so that we don't step on their toes. Um, I was actually thinking for this whole thing, I would just have her review because they're mentioned in here a couple of times, you know? Yeah. Yeah. That sounds great. I mean, who knows if she has time, but one has to make time. Um, okay. Sorry, I didn't want to slow you down.
Um, okay. So, site plan review was another area where we made a differentiation between, um, small and medium and large.
So, building department and then medium and large scale, uh, uh, scaled site plan showing everything, basically. Um, the decommissioning plan was the other one.
So, the plan shall guarantee removal within one year of cessation of operation with notification to town boards that participated in project approval. That's how I left it.
There was a question about who needs to be notified. I figured that would cover it. Are you talking about someone, um, voluntarily taking their thing down?
Yes. Yep. Yes. Oh. Um, you want to, sometimes you want to make sure that it does get taken down when it's finished its useful life. Not just abandoned. They may want to put up, uh, ADU.
Maybe they want to take the panels down, put in an ADU, right? Yeah.
All right. Yeah.
Um, and I think, I think that was just about it. We have our separate, um, battery, um, energy storage systems section. Below this.
And I think that was in line with what we had in there before. Just check the, um, the regulations. Cause they might have come up with something for BES. I think there was one thing that I put in here, which was, um, related to the DEP noise control regulations. Yep. I see it. So that was, that was it.
Just referencing back to that. Right.
And I think that's it.
Well, good job. So I just checking back to the state regulations there and just making sure that we're in line with that. And there's not any conflicts, um, attempting to get the conference conservation commission to just give it a look. And then, um, I will play around with the wording on, um, the, uh, the, the, the vegetative buffer. Yeah. And try to get that right. Yeah. Cause you'd want to be able to do it in one or two places, one of two places, one of them to be closer to the array. And another one was, if you couldn't do that. Yeah. Somewhere else where you'd be protecting. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Okay. Um, we haven't yet done the signs or the housekeeping. Does anybody have the desire to do either?
No. You go through it or present it? Um, go through it and, and see if that's what we want to do. If we want to propose it. Well, is there anything important in housekeeping? Yeah, that's, that was what I was going to ask. Like, like in the housekeeping stuff, is there anything that we absolutely need to take care of? Not really. We can probably push, push. It's just cleaning up language, right? Yeah. I would just put, I would, I would just push both articles back and just, just, and they both are, I mean, the first article housekeeping has been developing for, you know, months and months before we had all the other articles in play. So people won't even listen while you're at the podium. Um, they'll put their headphones back on. Last year, the housekeeping one was right before we finished for the night and people were just like, yeah, whatever. Yeah, exactly. You have like two people in the audience. People are running out the door. Maybe it's a good thing to do. Yeah. We have to give EDU, MBTA, floodplain, and then potentially grab mountain. That's a lot. Yeah, so I would, I would, I would just recommend pushing it off in a year. Yeah. But we should continue to work on this stuff. Oh, correct. And not wait until the last minute. I mean, even though we have tried to have started last year at this time. Yeah, but within those categories you just mentioned, what, is it just rewriting certain things or a total redefinition of parts? What, in the housekeeping? Yeah. Yeah. It's corrections to language. It doesn't change anything. Yeah. I don't think, does it, Robert? Just clarification, right? Yeah. Yeah. What happened was Trudy, the town clerk, got something from the code people, pages and pages and pages of things that didn't make sense or that were inconsistent. I think they ran it through an AI system, actually. And Robert and I each reviewed the multiple pages and said, oh, yeah, this could stand to change. No, that doesn't need a change. No, what they're proposing isn't a good idea. And we went through all of them. And then Robert cataloged them and then put this thing together. But I think he said it's not everything. I mean, it was pages. Our bylaws are not in the best shape. I mean, I could see in the housekeeping thing, if there are things that are easy, like just the simple changing, you know, E-locked, you know, those kinds of things. If we do one that just has those very simple typos, name changes, that kind of stuff, some of the changes, if they're a little more substantial, maybe those get pushed off. We could do one. You know, I don't think people mind a housekeeping article. It usually goes quickly. Then I'll really dial it back and make it really simple, the simplest changes that are a no-brainer. It's worth looking at it, that, and just saying, okay, these are the things that are simple. They're just fixing things that just name changes. But you can also put it onto the public hearing, and the public hearing, if people are like, you know what, we'll just, we'll, we don't, we don't need this, and then we'll just, then we'll just get rid of it. But if you put it on the public hearing, and then you can at least discuss it, so. Yeah, and most of them, the ones that are just so straight, we might as well at least look at it as pared down and see if it's worth just pushing that through. But, all right, we can do that. If that's okay, everybody else. Does anybody else agree? I agree. Sure. So for the signs, we're just going to push that off? Absolutely. Definitely. Okay. So we have one, two, three, four, five zoning amendments. For the schedule going forward, again, Robert, we need to have finalized, finalized, finalized, before the public hearing, finished getting these in shape, so that when the public hearing notice goes out, people will be able to read the proposed amendments. I am posting that on, what was this, the 7th? January the 7th, you were posting. No, we're going to get the 21st and the 24th. I might, I might just post it for the 30th and 23rd. I'm sorry. What are you talking about? The notice in the newspaper? Yeah, the little notice. I think I would go getting it into the newspaper on the 22nd or the 23rd. Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. I was going to do the 23rd and 30th. Okay. Well, whatever the second date winds up being.
Okay. And the time for the hearing, because on the 7th, we have the Carroll School at 630 with the CONCOM, and we have things that we'll do with Carroll that, maybe, that are in addition to what we do with the CONCOM. No, no, actually, hopefully, well, maybe, for the schedule coming up, let me go back for December the 17th. We have the Coptic Church at 630. We have the Carroll School at 830. We have minutes. And hopefully, we can finalize these zoning bylaw proposals. Is that in person? Yes. Unless they can't get the microphones. I've been, Robert, me, and Nina, have been going back and forth with the town on microphones. I'm going to wake him tomorrow to try to go for it in the laundry room. You know, they had one in that room, even though it was kind of crummy, at least. We used to have everything in many of the rooms. Nothing is there anymore. I don't know what happened to it all. But the IT guy is working on it as well. So, again, depending on, we might be going to the Council on Aging new building. Why not? Yeah.
Our staff is working on this. But anyway, so we need... What did the plane board, when they continued it, what did they... Because if you continued, do you continue to the town hall? We didn't continue the location. We just continued the time. Right.
And I don't... Well, yeah. I don't know. Normally, it was used to be in the town building, so you didn't have to think about it.
We can also have it in my office. That'd be... It's a good... Perfect. You could fit everybody right in there. David, I think we would have a... A time rally and pitchforks if that happens. So, for this schedule, currently, we have to have a decision on the Coptic Church by the 31st. And I'm thinking that, unfortunately, we may need to have a meeting on the 29th or 30th to review the decision. Is that doable for people? I will be driving back from Wisconsin both of those days, but, you know, I will be, you know, done driving for the night. By the time we would meet, I just would have to be remote. Okay, that's fine being remote. Be around.
Ira? 29th of December, right? Obviously. Yeah, 29th or 30th.
That's fine for me. Yeah, those are good for me, too. Okay. I mean, I was just... I've been trying to figure out how to fit everything in. Yeah. Then, our next meeting after that is January the 7th, Carroll School at 630, in the public hearing for zoning. We haven't decided the time. I was thinking that 8.15, I hate to do it that late, but God knows how long the Carroll School will take, and it's with the CONCOM. Can I make a change here? The only day that you mentioned, it would be the 30th for me.
I'm sorry, what about it? Not the 29th, but the 30th is okay for me. The 29th isn't okay, but the 30th? No, I'm just looking at my schedule. No. Okay, so I'll cross off that Monday, and it would have to be Tuesday. Yep. I should be back in Whalen by then, unless the weather's bad, so... Okay. So, do you think that 630 to 8.15 is enough for the Carroll School? That should be funny. Or do you think it's too much? Let's just do 8.15. Okay. Because we can only... I know, you can't do it earlier, right? Oh. And we can always do something else. So, January 15th is the filing deadline for the zoning articles. I've already asked the select board to make arrangements so that Michael can... The procedure that you have to do when you're doing zoning articles, even if they're ours, we have to submit them to the selectmen. The selectmen have to submit them back to us, and then we have the hearing. And it's not because it's an article. It's because it's a zoning change, any zoning change. I'm sorry. I did reach out to... Before I left on vacation, I reached out to Abigail, who's the new admin in the town manager's office, but she's so brand new that she doesn't... Yeah. So, I sent an email, as you know, because I copied you, Robert, to the chairman of the select board, to Michael. Michael, and I got a response right before this meeting saying that, yes, they would arrange for that to happen probably at their Monday meeting. So, what we need to do is give them whatever the best that we have is whenever we want to, and then Michael can give it back to us. And then we can... But it all has to happen before we print in the newspaper. Correct. Okay. And then by the 15th, we have to file the zoning articles, any of them. And then we were going to have a scenic road tree hearing on January 7th, but it was just too much happening that night. So, we've moved it to January the 28th.
And I don't have any real issues. Does anybody have any real issues with any of the trees? It could go very quickly.
They're evidently, I found out yesterday, on January the 28th, the FinCom is having article hearings, and that's something that we need to be at, because if we have this many zoning article things, we have to be there. They'll be starting at 7.
And so, if you can make this, I'd like to start the scenic road tree hearing at 6.30 on January the 28th.
Yeah, I think. Maybe May.
Should be fine. Okay.
The Carroll School decision deadline currently is January the 30th. So, we have a very, very tight schedule coming up. You said 6.30, right? Yes. Okay.
And that might be hybrid. You know, we might be able to just do it by Zoom. You never know. Does anybody have anything else to be discussing?
You said 6.30 on the 28th, not 7th. Right.
Unless somebody has a problem.
Okay. No, I can't.
So, how do we want to break this up? Robin's going to be working on the accessory dwelling units. Jesse's going to be working on the ground-mounted solar. The multifamily housing is done. We were skipping the signs. Robert's get a work on the housekeeping amendments and the floodplain stuff. Yep. And if you need help, Robert, just ask me. Okay. And I'll see what I can do. Is there anything else anybody has to say? I do have an update on the under updates from the town planner. Since we approved the, or the plan board approved the various academy decision, there has been some chatter from one of the neighbors. And they have had some issues. So, the building commissioner has received a request for stop order of the work because of multiple issues that are occurring. And the neighbor has appealed the determination that the building commissioner or the zoning enforcement officer has not taken any action. And now he's appealed to the ZBA. So, the ZBA is most likely going to have a hearing on a zoning enforcement determination that the DHD permit was issued incorrectly and has a number of issues that the neighbor has said that things that he would like their work to be completely stopped. So, just, we're going to work with the town council on that, on the best, I'm not, I'm not, but the zoning board is, and staff are working the best way to handle that. So, if you do see something in a zoning board application on their docket, that's what it's about. So, at this time, I think work is probably, it's halted for now.
So, yeah. Great. Yep. I think this stuff is be, hopefully, we resolved in one meeting. There's some confusion about different pieces. One is about the aquifer protection district, and the neighbor does not think they comply, but we did the whole scenario of putting the lots together, and that was what cured the aquifer protection district issue. Yeah, and we referred to it in the decision as essentially being cured. It's, I think the neighbor was not present for a lot of the meetings and then is now making some noise. But, but at this point, it might be a zoning board of appeals to determine it, and then from there, he can take it illegal, take it to the land court. Yeah. Yeah. The issue for appeals these days is the statute changed last year or the year before, and you have to post a bond to do an appeal. And if you lose, you have to pay the fee, the attorney's fees of the other people and costs of the other people, the other side. So, it's really pretty onerous to appeal. I don't know if you know that part. Oh, well, he'll find out. So, I know that, I know Nate is, Nate is absolutely trying to reach that town council and wants that opinion because this is all brand new to him, and he doesn't quite understand everything, how it happens and how it all works. So, yeah, and our regulations and bylaw on site plan are a little bizarre, actually, because I've been reading them and it looks as though on a special, on a site plan, if you want to appeal, you appeal the decision of the building commissioner on a building permit. And then, you can go to the zoning board for adjudication, and then you can go to court. So, for the projects that we have and have been deciding, it sounds like they have to go wait until they issue a building permit for somebody to take the appeal. And some of these projects don't appear to be ready to go. So, that'll be very interesting.
The appeals will be years later. Yeah. Oh, one thing I thought about, Robert, I think Bill sent the draft minutes of our last meeting where we discussed the Coptic Church. And I think I probably should suggest to him that we have a meeting as soon as possible just to approve those minutes so that they become part of the record. That sounds good. Okay. Also, if you get an email from me saying that you need to wire money, it's not me. Yeah, we know. Yeah. Unbelievable. I don't know how much time, I spent so much time on that, and it's really frustrating because they're using my name, and I have apps that have to do with the zoning and planning commission, whatever they call it, whatever this scammer has put down as a fake committee. And it's been such a headache for me because I have to deal with this. And there have been a lot of people who've followed through and sent these people money? I don't know. I had two people come up to me. One person almost paid it. And then that person was like, I'm so confused. What is this? I'm like, I have nothing to do with this. This is all zoning board appeal stuff. And then just using my name and then using some watermark says, if you read it, it says Waylon, Idaho. So, I'm like, oh, you can't do it right, then don't do it at all. But it sounds like it's the same scammer. They're using the same, like, the document looks exactly the same. For the Coptic Church, I was going to try, and I've talked to the DPW, do a site walk, at least for the openings of the driveways. And I haven't reached out yet to the church, but I was going to ask them to at least mark where the building, where the church building is at the driveways, because we're allowed to do that. And we need to see if the sight lines are really okay. Okay, if I do, if we do do the site walk, do you want me to make sure that you can all come? Is there, I was going to try and do it this week, but I don't think it's going to be this week. I think it'll probably be next week. Next week, after Thursday, I'll be gone. But, okay. If it's Tuesday or Wednesday, I can try and at least be there for a little while. Yeah, I'll try to go. Yeah, I'd like to know. Okay.
Yeah, I just need to see when all the bodies can show up. And not that we're not important, we are, but I want DPW guys to really look at it and maybe the traffic consultant as well. Yeah. Okay. So I will reach out and let you know what's happening. And, Robert, for the church, is it, who are we supposed to communicate with? Is it the gentleman who works for the church and the architect? That's who I've been emailing to. Sean and McGee, that's the two people I've been emailing. Okay. And that's been my contact of sending those emails to those two people and then sending them to the lawyer and who else is on the team. They send it to the lawyer or we send it to the lawyer? I've been sending it just to Sean and the person who's on the board and the church. That's it. Right. Okay. And then they just send them on? I'm assuming that they send it to you and all that. But I've been just making it easy for myself, just sending it to two contacts. Okay. Let them do some deal from there. Okay. But you should have to look at the Boston Globe because there's a nice article about us. There's a nice article about us? Raylan, yeah. What was it? There's an article about church and site plan. But the lawyer cannot say what church location it was, but we can tell exactly what church it was. It's about the coffee church. When was it in the Globe? Sunday. I believe that someone sent the link to us and sent the description to us. Do you have the link that you can send to us? That email was only sent to me. They were criticizing the planning board or the church? It said about site plan house. Sometimes some towns take site plans too far. And then they're saying that this lawyer was working in a town, but didn't say what town it was and what any of the church it was. But the lawyer, it's the same lawyer that's on that church account. So we know what, what, what, what, so it's a little, it's a little. What was the criticism? I don't understand it. That town, town, town, town, take it too far. They asked for things that are not required by law or by the Doverman. Uh-huh. It's not great.
Well, I think we've been doing just fine. And someone, someone in the community picked up and saw the article and knew exactly what it was. Do you have the link to the article or not? Um, I do. If you can send it to us, that would be great. Okay. Does anybody have anything else that we need to deal with?
You did a good job tonight, guys.
Hard work. It is.
Well, would anybody like to, uh, end the meeting? I'll make a motion to adjourn. Seconded. All in favor, Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Uh, Larry Kiernan. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes, please. And Annette Lewis, yes. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Good night. Bye. Bye. Bye.