August 27, 2025 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript

August 27, 2025 - Planning Board

Autoscroll:

Anette Lewis: Wednesday. the 27th 2025 seven o'clock PM. This is the Wayland Planning Board. and we're leaving in the Wayland Town Hall. 41 Cochituate Road. It's for the board. It's an in person meeting the public can be . Um. I'm going to. well. I don't have to call do a roll call. Two of our members are not here this evening. That's Larry Kiernan and Jesse Newberry. Hopefully they will watch this after the meeting is forward. The agenda for this evening is called meeting to order five minutes of public comment. Then we're moving on to discuss accessory dwelling units with the housing boards. possible bylaw amendments. planning for a town wide forum. and the status on the how to summary to be able to to understand how to go about creating an accessory dwelling unit. And we're speaking with Michael Gitten. Wastewater Management District Commission chair. Hopefully he will explain to us the availability. how they assign and limit wastewater capacity and limitations on capacity. Then going to have an update from our Select Board Liaison. William Whitney. Then we're looking at fully approving our FY 2025. annual planning board meeting report. and we have review and approve draft minutes. I'm not sure that we'll get to that. updates from the town planner and brief discussion on the plan redevelopment zoning for route 20 corridor. So is there any public comment?
Robbie Bullard: Anybody online. Isee two attendees. I don't think anybody has their hand raised. No. you're good. Robin Borgestedt: Okay. Robert is here now. Anette Lewis: yes. and Doug Sacra is here too Okay. well. if there's no public comment. why don't we move on to the accessory dwelling discussion. Rachel Bratt and Kathleen Boundy from Housing Partnership have joined us this evening to discuss ideas that the partnership has. and hopefully to help us make some amendments to our accessory dwelling unit. By law. our bylaw was approved by the Attorney General. except for two things. There was a word that they didn't like. which they took out. and it doesn't hurt anything. It said minimum. and no. it doesn't say minimum. And the other was change that occurred after we prepared our Rachel Bratt: Kathy is going to talk first. I just want to make bylaw regulations came out. We did not have those regulations when we had to submit our bylaw application to the Select Board. And the change is just that in roadside business district. if you do have housing here already. then you can also create an accessory dwelling. So I don't know whether you want to talk first.
note. Mary. maybe Can we talk loud. as loudly as possible. Anette Lewis: You can come up to the table if you want. Mary Antes: I'm not a participant. but I can't hear very well Anette Lewis: oh. feel free. Mary Antes: Okay.
Kathleen Boundy: Yeah. we thank you for this opportunity tonight to meet with you. But want to clarify one thing. and it may just be a misunderstanding from the way it presented in the notice to the agenda. why we're here tonight. Neither Rachel nor I. as representatives of the Housing Partnership requested a meeting to discuss the need to amend the current ADU zoning by law for revisions. I just wanted on behalf of that the partnership itself. We have not discussed with the members of the partnership any proposed revisions. and so we don't see it as appropriate for us to be putting them forward here. either off the top. Anette Lewis: Hopefully put some forward you can comment for it. Robin Borgestedt: Thank you. Anyway. the purpose of that is in you know what our purpose is tonight is essentially to talk with you about exactly the two primary reasons we previously met with the town manager. and we also met with the Board of Health and And we basically were asking them how the Wayland Housing Partnership best weigh in. assist and materials that you just reference being produced by the town planners office to clarify for the residents. you know. the steps needed to facilitate development of as of right. ADU s. as well as ADU that would not be eligible as a right. but may require a special permit. The partnership wants to be involved and wants to engage. 20 years ago. Mary and Rachel carried the ball for the town. and basically were responsible for getting the bylaw into the Wayland bylaws enacted. And. you know. obviously there was some progress. but not the kind of progress that we would hope to see. Now move forward. Kathleen Boundy: Um. second that we were here to tonight to make the pitch to you to join in a collaborative partnership with the partnership. the Housing Trust. the Board of Health and hopefully others in the town. to convene a substantive informational forum on ADU. sometimes presumably before Thanksgiving. that will help clarify. explain and yes. promote affordable housing. Using ADU is at least one of the vehicles. a key vehicle. And as you know. when we at the partnership use the term affordable. we are not constrained. We do not limit ourselves to affordable in the context of chapter 40 B is consistent with the. you know. the housing inventory. It's a broader definition. Anyway. for the members of the partnership to help prepare and the applicants assistance. materials for the town website and prepare the town wide forum. We need. and hope we can get your participation and to seek your help in identifying what we previously had a brief conversation with Anette about. in terms of identifying. and you know. whether we call them various impediments. obstacles. for applicants that people find it difficult. it doesn't mean that they're something that's going to be necessarily revised or mended. But how do we look at these issues and other things that we can do to clarify and to make it easier for applicants to implement and the ADU as of right. and also through the special permit process. Anette Lewis: ADUs. everybody who builds anything has to deal with Conservation. and they have to deal with the water problem. problem in wetlands. flood plain. and also removal of trees. because that comes under a separate bylaw that they receive. So that's one one thing. making sure that there's enough septic capacity and that you. I mean. most houses have septic systems and then their reserve area. and you need to be able to make sure you can increase that reserve area and still put in a house or a separate development. When we've thought about things. we've thought about ADUs within an existing house and ADUs that are detached and in an existing house. it might be easier to accomplish. The permitting is the same. but not as complicated. For a new building. you have to do surveys around the whole property. and it gets expensive. and it is not. you know. I don't. for me. I don't think ADU are affordable at all. I think they're outrageously expensive. The numbers that we've heard are something like $350 to $450.000 for a 900 square foot ADU. And Doug Sacra is on the line or in the audience too. We can ask him to weigh in as well. Maybe he does have some ideas. I know.
I'll let the others talk in a minute. The other thing that I think we need to think about carefully is the SHI the list of Subsidized Housing Inventory anytime we create any new housing dwelling that's a new house. And if it's affordable. really affordable under the SHI then we're in good shape. If it's not. and we creating a lot of ADUs is not that I expect that we will because they're so expensive. But that's going to tip our 10% number. Rachel Bratt: May I follow Kathy's presentation? I just have a few additional comments to to start the conversation. Just on the affordable housing piece. just what Kathy said. I think. was very important. and what you said was very important to that any 900 square foot unit in this town is going to be de facto. more affordable than most other units. So even though it won't likely be able to be part of the Subsidized Housing Inventory. it will provide and meet needs in the town. Keeping in mind. of course. what you're saying. which is the denominator is going to change every time we add an accessory dwelling unit. so that I get that as an issue. But we also want. very much. to see more diverse opportunities for one bit. one bedroom apartments that will serve a variety of needs. And I just wanted to make clear that it's sort of in the framework of what we call naturally occurring affordable housing. as opposed to subsidized and intentional affordable housing. So that is part of the conversation with keeping in mind what you've said. the complexity of changing our 40 B calculations. Anette Lewis: but also if you're doing it in a house. that's more likely to be more affordable than if you're creating a brand new separate structure. Rachel Bratt: That's right. I think a lot of people are not going to well. we don't know what people are going to do. but I think a lot of people will try to retrofit their houses because it's so much less expensive. I mean. your your figure. I'm sure. is in the ballpark of many hundreds of 1000s of dollars. whereas if somebody has a garage and a roof. you know. or an attic apartment or a side wing that they're not using. that might be six digits. but only six digits right up or barely. So that might be an opportunity. So just to reiterate what Kathy said. what we're looking for with you guys is to weigh in on the website. to participate in making sure the information is accessible. understandable. something that we can add. to edit and be a partner with you in terms of working on the website. to make sure that it is as clear and accessible as it can be. So that's just again. reiterating Kathy's. we want to make sure there's good communication between us and you. and we want to. for example. we did not know until Kathy did some hunting about the state's questions about Our Bible and what needed. We didn't know about that. So we'd love to be on the distribution list when something like that comes in. We'd love it to see that that Anette Lewis: just came in and then the town clerk went on vacation. okay? And so she didn't put the notice in the paper. It just appeared in the paper in the books. right? Yeah. And so that's really okay first. so`tice. but I understand Rachel Bratt: that we want it. We want to be in whatever distribution list you will have on ADU. And then the real. I think the meat of today. as we've understood it. is to really think about the forum. And indeed. we may need more than one meeting. because there's so many topics. When you start to think about how many issues are involved. I can visualize that there might be one that's an overall overview of process and how to do it. and where do you go first and and then there might be some additional ones that get into the nitty gritty of all. if there possibly other solutions to septic capacity that I'm not aware of. but that I know has been discussed by Janot on our committee. but we need to be educated as well about some of the alternative possibilities. as opposed to redoing your whole septic system to add a bedroom. which we know is pretty untenable for most people to But is there a modest solution that adds one bedroom that deals think about.
with septic. that would pass health and safety? So I think that's kind of. you know. what I would love to do now. unless there are other questions. is talk about what the forum or what the meetings shouldn't include. how we can think about doing this. and maybe even coming up with a timeframe for when they should happen. you know. based on your schedule and when what you're thinking. I'm not sure that there's anything else on our agenda except trying to plan for this. set up maybe one community meeting. maybe two community meetings. but making sure that we move forward on that and have a good working partnership between you guys and us and any of the other boards that want to. you know. participate more fully.
Anette Lewis: Robbie. can you elevate Doug Sacra Actually. he has his hand up. I didn't even realize he ha Robbie Bullard: I'll bring him over.
Jim Grumbach: I'm just here to listen to everybody. Hi. I'm Jim Grumbach. I'm going away. We have a lot of friends who have Covid. I don't get it. So I'm listening. I Rachel and Kathy and Mary can speak for me. I just the only thing I wanted to say is. I think my view on affordable housing. having been on the zoning board as well as the Housing Partnership. is that even if it doesn't satisfy the exact definition of affordable housing. purposes of the 10% ratio. I think this is an exciting opportunity to allow for a more diverse housing stock. a more diverse group of people. more affordable than many of the houses are. and we support it. And my sense is we can help to assure that we don't run a foul of the 10% and I think the fact that the state supports this with the new statute. I think the state would be very understanding if we ran just shy of the 10% because we've added more ADU. I have a feeling that that's well dealt with them. For the last all I can say is. to me. that's not the biggest concern. and I've been a big advocate of getting over 10% and I will strive further to do that. All I'm saying is we're here to help out. We're here to strategize. to add expertise and thoughts and to educate the public. So that's why I'm here. Rachel Bratt: Mary. Are we okay with quorum issues. since they're four of us. probably not. So I'm Anette Lewis: So I'm just here. S she's not talking. She's okay. Rachel Bratt: Okay. great. Okay. just wondered Jim Grumbach: Sorry. I was not. yeah. I came here. Okay. Rachel Bratt: I just wanted to make sure that if we need to do something that I don't know what we would do. because it wasn't opposed to the meeting. So Anette Lewis: how many do you have on your board? Rachel Bratt: Do we have eight now? Mary Antes: we are in we're a nine member board. but we only have eight. eight Rachel Bratt: members. Okay. so I'll be fine. Well. with these three. okay. not with you. Mary. sorry. Jim Grumbach: I'll leave if you need Robert Hummel: a nine man board or nine person board. then you need five. it should be good Anette Lewis: not fully staffed. Rachel Bratt: We only have eight. Robert Hummel: Doesn't matter. if it's if it's 9 person and you have seven people. the quorum is still five. okay. based on the count. that's why. Okay. Anette Lewis: Thank you. Robert. do you have anything that you want to add right now and then I want to. Robert Hummel: no. I think. I think that this we're not. we're I would like to talk when we're done with the Housing not. we're not going to talk about zoning changes. but I think there's some zoning changes that are out there that people would like to see be increased and make it more easier. or make it more flexible in the future. potentially with some kind of special permit for largest sizes. But I know that's not what I'm talking about today. But that is what's on my mind. Of is it? But we the problem. We don't know quite yet. What is the the threshold? What is the magic number for larger over 900 square feet? Is it 1200 is it 1500 is it 3000 we Partnership. I want to talk about the amendments. because we don't know the number is yet. So I think this public forum is going to help to gather the information to figure out where people okay saying. Yes. we're okay with 1200 with special permite that's fine. So that's the that's the kind of problem. There's no magic number that we know yet or or have an understanding of what the public would be okay with. So I think that the public forum will be helpful to gather that information. and then gathering the information that could help need to start working on those. Doug. do you have any comments to better change than this bylaw.
on a forum kind of thing? And we'll deal with. I know what your issues are. and we. Deal with those when we're done with the Doug Sacra: yeah. that's all I want to talk about is just the bylaw And okay. Anette Lewis: so Robert. what do you think the best location is to have all this information? Would it be on our web page? Would it be on the building department web page? Robert Hummel: right now. Right now. it's on the building page because they are the ones that actually approve ADU. unless it's a it's a additional detached which we haven't had one yet. which would be a special problem with the planning board. So at this time. it still lies with the building department. And I know the land use coordinator have been mostly involved in gathering the information and putting that together. Robin Borgestedt: It seems like all of you should link to the same form. Anette Lewis: right. Robin Borgestedt: They should all have a link to this. Anette Lewis: right. Robin Borgestedt: You know. informative. Anette Lewis: right Robin Borgestedt: document Anette Lewis: from the planning board and the partnership. and maybe the Board of Health and the and the DEP the house. not Rachel Bratt: conservation Mary Antes: building department. Rachel Bratt: conservation too. It's Robin Borgestedt: It's not where people will start. I don't think. It's just trying to imagine where I think would start Anette Lewis: we could do that. right. Robert/ Robert Hummel: right now the documents are have a different URL. Well. we can definitely try to change that and change the path with those great ADUs. if you do the billing department and then on the bottom of the ADU page. But there's a way to make create new path. But. yeah. we can. I can figure out a way to create a new path Anette Lewis: that would be great. And I think it would be very helpful. So Robert Hummel: I know I do want to say that the this is in the future. There's a future idea to create a land use page. which then you can go on it and actually be able to see. click on copyright. all of those kind of subsets. So at this point. not there yet. but that's in the works to make a one land use launch page. and that'll hopefully help the information out. Unknown: That would be great. So work. Do you want to take the lead on holding the forum? Yeah. Rachel Bratt: I think that's right. I mean. I Kathy. is that correct. that this is what we should focus on? I think. is there anything else? Kathleen Boundy: I also think. in addition to the planning. is participation. whether you folks. not just co sponsor or. yeah. supporting what I think would be helpful. just because. I mean for me. at least. not having a background in planning. going back and having to read about the dimensions. the setbacks. knowing which is covered by permits and which are not. it would be helpful to have somebody who has that knowledge without having to bother with list of questions and whether Somebody from the committee would be willing to work with us. and whether we could actually have a working committee that would actually this forum off the ground. I don't know whether that's viable. Robin Borgestedt: Yeah. I mean. I think that's viable. I still think. you know. if it's me. I still rely on Robert for kind of answers on that stuff. but as a as a group. we can come up with questions that we might have that we want to just confirm with Robert. and then. you know. sort of after. we can run it all by him. So Anette Lewis: so for other boards. would you do the reaching out sure to the Board of Health and the building department and I? About.
Rachel Bratt: So am I asking for a sub commit. for a representative from each or Anette Lewis: Its up to you? But they would need. I don't know if we'll come to meetings. but you would certainly need them at the forum. Rachel Bratt: So just it would be Housing Partnership. Planning board. Board of Health. Building department. Trust. Conservation. Unknown: conservation should? They should participate in the forum. but I don't know. because they can explain what they're overall. So Rachel Bratt: about the removal of trees issue. right? Is there anybody else? Robin Borgestedt: Robert. there's a Trust. or the Trust be involved with. I don't know. also. um. Housing Authority. authority. Robert Hummel: yeah. I would invite the trust in the housing for. I'm not sure if they'd be. like. highly involved in putting together. but just like this. mean. I invited everybody from the housing trust and Housing Partnership and housing for you just be able to if they wanted to listen in and provide feedback. So. Rachel Bratt: okay. okay. so we will reach out and make sure people are aware of this and get their input. and also ask if they want to participate on the subcommittee of Anette Lewis: But going . that you want them to be participating. Rachel Bratt: right? Yeah. absolutely. whether or not they participate in the subcommittee. Anette Lewis: So I have the dates for our meetings. and some of these are too soon. I'll start with October. Rachel Bratt: So does it have to be on the night of your meeting? Anette Lewis: No. not necessarily. but we're going to do it. I would not want us to have two meetings. two nights in a row. Okay. okay. so you said you want me to start with sure we October the fifth. we're meeting on Wednesdays now. Okay? October the 15th. October the 29th November the 12th. in November the 19th. okay? If that's before Thanksgiving. Rachel Bratt: So then Robert Hummel: I would not recommend putting on October 15. just because I know we have one site plan approval public hearing and potentially another one right after it Anette Lewis: getting zoom time. Okay. that's why we moved our meeting.
Rachel Bratt: So. Robert. you just said. November 19 is not October 15. Oh. October Robert Hummel: I am expecting. I'm expecting to open two public hearings for our site plans on that same night. Okay. one came in and ready. and one tomorrow. Rachel Bratt: Okay. got it. So it's also quite soon for organizing all of this. So. like so too. that would be unlikely that we would. Robin Borgestedt: because I think we want to have something to present. Yes. you know. an idea about what it is that the goal of the of our amendment is going to be. and what we're hoping to accomplish in a sort of a package of amendments. So.
so we need to hear where your amendments are going. into your amendment in the context of ADUs yes. yeah. Rachel Bratt: So I'm wondering whether a conversation about amendments is part of what people are going to be coming to the forum for because most people are not. no hard feelings about amendments. but most people. I think. wouldn't be that excited to they want to come in here. How do you how do I do this? Is this feasible? What do I have to do? And I'm not sure. Anette Lewis: Well. the amendments that we're making. one of them would allow you to. probably. we don't. haven't decided this yet. but to have a larger ADU. right. larger than 900 Rachel Bratt: so. so we would be asking people's input on that. Is that. is that why it would be part of the forum? Anette Lewis: Certainly be dealing with that separately. I think it's just that we would hopefully. before your forum. we will have something drafted. and we have to have public hearings on that of our own anyway. But you know. if you're doing a how to right now. you can only go up to 900 so we will be saying. Yes. we also have an amendment that we would be going forward with a town meeting that would allow for larger use. Robin Borgestedt: And the important part about that is that we'll have a completely separate path. So Rachel Bratt: cause that's a special permit. right? Robin Borgestedt: Yeah. probably. probably. and maybe that. you know. we could conceivably have an intermediate. so something larger than 900 but that's still as of right. But then a larger one that is definitely special permit. and then we have to figure out how we're going to do with the capital A affordable units. One question I had listening to you guys. So there's obviously small. A affordable and large A affordable. Do you guys use different words for those Well. or do we just confuse each other? Rachel Bratt: It's. it's 40 B affordable. which is okay. part of 10% right? The big ticket item there is deed restrictions. right? Which you know that's in red lights. What does a deed restriction mean on a property that you know. primary residence. that doesn't have a deed restriction. or within a house if you have an ADU. oh. I'd like to make it affordable. But how do you put a deed restriction into a wing of your house. unless it's a very short term deed restriction. the term of the ownership or something. as opposed to 10 year leaving your property right. right. which is. I think. untenable. Anette Lewis: except that when you have condominiums. you can turn the house into a condominium and put a deed restriction on the condominium. Robin Borgestedt: like well. and particularly. perhaps with respect to what you folks are talking about. with larger than 900 square feet. Even with smaller than 900 because it has to be a fully But it does. You can have shared entry. I believe these enclosed apartment to qualify as an ADU. It has to have cooking. bathing. living spaces.
Unknown: It's not really shared they have to be separate. You can go through the. Second door. but you have to have another internal. yeah. Robin Borgestedt: so you can split that off Jim Grumbach: I guess my thought is this. this is all very interesting. and I disagree with any of it. but I think the point of a forum is to get people interested. have them come ask questions. give us input. And while it's important that we talk about amendments. you know. some of the some of the responses from the public forum may help in determining the amendments. And a lot of this is very fluid and very early. and it might be better to set up a forum where we say. we have this proposal. we have this new bylaw based on what the state did. It's a very fluid area. There are a lot of moving parts. There are a lot of different states and and types of ways of doing this. and it's all open. We're here. We want to learn. We want to solicit your input. and nothing's firm. but we'd like to. you know. come and you know. whether you're 900 square feet or less. whether there's a septic issue or not. A lot of these issues are fluid and maybe changing. So this is a forum to start the process. and we invite you all. So I guess that's my sense. is I don't want to get feel like. let's not have the cart before the horse. because I think this is all sort of open to public discussion. I Anette Lewis: I think part of that is correct. but I think it needs to be about too. I really think that people need to understand. and have wanted to understand. how do I do it? So we can talk about it's up to 900 Jim Grumbach: Yeah. we can talk about what 900 is now. but there may be changes. You know. the cost. maybe $300 per square foot. I was listening to a seminar today. They talked about cases where it could be. you know. 150.000 if it's in your garage or something. There are issues with modular housing and prefab and they're just a lot of different possibilities here that. you know. I while people want to know how to do it. I think it's important for them to know that we are here to help them out. We now have a new bylaw. We've tried to set up a procedure with the building department. the planning department. how to frequently asked questions. But this is all open. We're we're here. and please come and inquire. And things are changing. Unknown: As to the modular housing. I think the building department can address that. Rachel Bratt: But before we go on. you're going to be working on amendments for units of more than 900 square feet. What other amendments are you contemplating? Unknown: And the other one that we've been trying to figure out is how to make more real affordable? Yeah. we'd really like to have that happen. Rachel Bratt: And. you know. I feel like we. I don't know what if the state is doing anything about that question. because every community is facing the identical. if you will. almost contradiction. dilemma. absolutely. So
Anette Lewis: the state hasn't brought through any of the stuff between the MBTA statue stuff and this ADU thing. and then their plans for solar. and then their idea on what you do with wetlands and how you conserve land. and how you have 61b land. None of it fits together. and they're not. They're not trying to get it together. It's totally disparate. Rachel Bratt: but we're obviously going to need Town Counsel. I think. to weigh in on this issue with how to make something affordable that would meet the standards of the affordable housing inventory and also not encumber the primary residence. Robin Borgestedt: It's not really town Counsel's job. That's the homeowner's job. Yeah. and there are plenty of real estate attorneys who can help them with that. Rachel Bratt: Well. I mean. is there actually a way to do that? Unknown: I think that you can do a minute at a minimum. You can condominiumize your house. Rachel Bratt: That's interesting. Well. that's. that's kind of a big deal. I mean. that is not a. you know. I don't know a lot about the condominium laws and regulations. but it's. it's not cheap. I think there's a cost to doing it. Anette Lewis: There's a cost to doing all of this. Rachel Bratt: It's not inexpensive. So I'm not sure what the incentive is going to be for a homeowner to go that route. I mean. unless we do something very attractive in terms of major. very low interest loans to do the renovations. or some kind of property tax abatement or. I mean. I don't know what the why that would anybody Kathleen Boundy: Do You know of other communities have is this identified as a strategy? Have you seen anybody's papers? Anette Lewis: Yeah. nobody. Sometimes Kathleen Boundy: I'm just curious about Anette Lewis: the forums that I've gone to. we've asked about this kind of stuff. The state hasn't thought about any of this. Robin Borgestedt: I mean. I did see like Salem was identified as doing tax property tax exemptions to pretty affordable. You encourage. promote affordable. Unknown: The problem is. depending on the size of the. if you're going to get something in there that's going to cost us money as an town. why would you want to give them an exemption? Because if they're having children in the schools that just doesn't make sense.
Robin Borgestedt: Maybe the trade off that people did not give themselves for voting for the greater than 900 square feet. I mean. I don't know. I mean. I'm curious. yeah. and that's Kathleen Boundy: I'm really looking forward. Anette Lewis: that's nothing we can do that would have to come from. I think. a combination of the Select Board and assessors. and knowing that we are heading for a possible override. I can't imagine people giving their tax break. It just it doesn't really fit in with what's going on in the world. Rachel Bratt: but we do have to think about what the incentive is going to be for absolutely. to go down that path. as opposed Unknown: and we've been trying. which is why we reached out to to
you a while ago. and we're still reaching out to you. because we don't know how to do it. Rachel Bratt: Well. I don't think. I mean offhand. we don't know how to do it either. Robin Borgestedt: You know. the only thing I can think of is. if you have. if you have a home. and you are going to take a piece of it and make it an affordable apartment. Capital affordable apartment. there is an argument to be made to the assessor that you have devalued your property and that your taxes should go down. because you now have a part of your property that can only be rented according to the rules for capital A affordable housing. And so perhaps there is a true argument to be made that in in carving off a piece of your home and making it deed restricted. that you should have a lower tax rate because of that carve out. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: Has that worked anywhere? Unknown: I don't know Robin Borgestedt: you make sure it up as you go along Unknown: You do create an apartment kind of thing for a separate dwelling. You if you're renting it. you pay much higher tax. right? Robin Borgestedt: Normally it would putting an apartment would increase value. but if it's deed restricted as a as capitally affordable. right? There's an argument that you have that you have done the opposite. because if you then sell your house. whoever buys it from you has to also rent it as a capitally affordable unit. Anette Lewis: and that wouldn't necessarily require the Select Board to make any decision. because that's just how they do the assessments. Rachel Bratt: Well. it's a little breathtaking to think about. this is new to me. It's a little breathtaking to think about a homeowner wanting to. even on paper. devalue their property and making a request to the assessors to devalue their property when they're looking. of course. like everybody. to maximize the value of their property. Yeah. sorry. it's a new watch. I don't know. but it's good to know. It's 739 certainly. So sorry.
Jim Grumbach: I have two questions. The first is the hypothetical you raise. I'm assuming it's a hypothetical. It's very interesting. I hadn't thought about it. I think the more likely scenario that I had thought of with an affordable. capital A. unit is that. let's say you increase your house by 15% in size when you add this affordable unit. and let's say it costs an additional 15% but you can then get a tax bill that's only 10% more because it's affordable. and even though it's increased by 15% in size. it's because it's got the deed restriction. It's not a 15% increase. So there's an economic benefit to the homeowner. Owner. where the homeowner has actually gone out and built or made an addition that. to me. is more realistic and and is something that might be workable. So I just wanted to Robin Borgestedt: my scenario is. if you're taking and building a unit within the footprint of your house. I understand that. yeah. expanding the house. Jim Grumbach: right? And I might be just talking about in the garage or or whatever. whereas it. it doesn't have to be a huge new undertaking. but it's. it is an outlay of money. But given the outlay of money. or the expansion of space. because it's. quote. affordable with a capital A the tax rate doesn't go up as much as the market value. The second question I had is this thing about a condominium is totally new to me. I'm a lawyer. I don't. I'm not a real estate lawyer. and what is the concept of condominiumizing this? I don't understand. in theory. what it would do. Anette Lewis: because there's one owner. yeah. and you've got a separate. we were talking about separate. I mean. two separate deeds. two separate deeds. Okay. so if you have a condominium. you each have a master deed. and then you have your individual deeds. And they could put a restriction on the individual Jim Grumbach: I see a deed restriction for the one building Anette Lewis: I see. because that's what we have. you know. at Oxbow and and the other places where we have. those are rental. but we have that Robin Borgestedt: well. even. even the Launcher houses. they're condos. Anette Lewis: Yeah. Jim Grumbach: Launcher way condos. are any of the Oxbow houses. affordable? I didn't know that. Robin Borgestedt: Yeah. they are small A. affordable. but not large. Jim Grumbach: exactly. Yeah. yeah. That was a capital play. Anette Lewis: Was the developments there have affordable houses in them. in the condominiums. the Wayland Commons and the other one. yeah.
Jim Grumbach: okay. that I just didn't now I now I see what you're talking about. Thank you. I didn't understand the concept of condominium as part of this. but now I do Rachel Bratt: It's a new idea. Anette Lewis: Yeah. that's fine. The other thing on the forum. I think you might want to talk to the Rob Leroux. the Assessor there. that means he doesn't like to get pinned down. but if you can give us. sort of an overview of how assessments go. So if you did it in your house. would it be one thing? If you did it as a separate free standing. would it be something else? If you did it for a family member. would that cut the taxes? Robin Borgestedt: and it's up for rental? Yeah. and it's something that people should understand as a part of the forum. that if you build. let's say you build a garage to put one or two affordable units. or not affordable. just two ADU above it. you are going to have a significant increase in your tax burden. Anette Lewis: And so yeah. and as of right. you can only do one and do it by right? We have a special permit that allows you to do Robin Borgestedt: a second . if it's in a detached structure. Rachel Bratt: So the formum is already robust. Anette Lewis: but I think it can be done in a simple way. We don't have to go you have to go and explain the statute says the statutes that just a this is how you do it. Robin Borgestedt: This is who you have to go talk to. is really. what it's about at this point Anette Lewis: and these are the basic criteria. Robin Borgestedt: yeah. I don't think we want to do it before November 12. because we have to lasso all of these things. Rachel Bratt: I think that's absolutely right. So and October 29 is my birthday. so Robin Borgestedt: No. and it's Halloween Week. so people are Rachel Bratt: It's a horrible week to have a birthday. So if we just go through the list of items that Kathy and I had prepared before we met with you in that why don't I just go through these items and see if. and I'm mindful of the time on this Anette Lewis: when you've done a chance to talk to us about amendments. to be back I'm sure Rachel Bratt: okay. So the first item that I had was overview of provisions relative relevant to ADU development in the new state law. regulations and our local bylaw. just kind of five minutes of basic information. There are a lot of slides that are available. Anette Lewis: I think we do. Rachel Bratt: yeah. but we would want to do it again. I think review of continued relevance of Title Five and Wayland bylaw. septic. conservation. environmental. how the number of bedrooms relate to septic capacity in the. I think the I wrote. I wrote the role of closet to determine. but I don't think that's even relevant. I mean. I read it. Robin Borgestedt: it is absolutely I. Rachel Bratt: you know. I've. I've. I've been trying to read about the closet issue. Robin Borgestedt: A room without a closet is accounted towards your septic. Rachel Bratt: It's the septic. right? Anette Lewis: But so you have a house and you've got four bedrooms. and you do away with one of those bedrooms. then that you can create your ADU there yeah. at the kitchen and stuff. and then you're okay. Rachel Bratt: okay. alright. so that's still really cool. Anette Lewis: You have to take the closet out. Rachel Bratt: okay. and then getting into the steps that an applicant needs to follow for an as of right ADU. and an ADU that does not qualify as of right. which possibly would require a special permit Anette Lewis: or not at all. Oh. not at all be allowed to vote.
Rachel Bratt: Then we thought about presentations by some tradesmen about potential costs of different configurations a free standing 900 square foot unit. even though it's going to be site dependent in part. it's also not so site dependent. because square foot costs and septic systems and so forth are yes. Robin Borgestedt: it's such a moving target right now. Rachel Bratt: I know. But if people hear. I don't know if people hear from two contractors that a 900 square foot freestanding dwelling is going to cost in the range of don't even think about anything less than $200.000 and it could go up to much more than that. or something like that Robin Borgestedt: I mean. maybe that's something that Doug could Anette Lewis: I was just thinking that. yeah. Doug is still on. Robin Borgestedt: He's Doug still on. Doug Sacra? Robbie Bullard: yeah. he's still on. Okay. Doug Sacra: I'm still here. Anette Lewis: Okay. is that something that you might be willing to do? Doug Sacra: I mean. sometime this fall. we'll be bidding a project with a 900 square foot ADU. which is connected to a house. so it has the lower cost of not needing its own electric service and its own HVAC. even though. you know. we're expanding both those into the ADU. but I'll be glad to give you the information when we bid that project. Anette Lewis: that would be terrific. Rachel Bratt: Yeah. that's great. Something about septic and alternative septic? Anette Lewis: Yeah? I mean. you have to ask Robin Borgestedt: Board of Health? Yeah. Anette Lewis: the state hasn't approved too many alternatives. yeah. Doug Sacra: can I just mention that if the state doesn't change their laws. that the Board of Health is following as far as your title five. I can't imagine our Board of Health allowing you to do some small improvement to your septic. as opposed to. you know. replacing it with a whole new. bigger one. if you need to add bedrooms. to add the ADU. yep. Rachel Bratt: Well. I think. you know. I think that for a lot of homes. that's going to be the major stumbling block for a lot of people. Robin Borgestedt: especially in wet Wayland. Anette Lewis: especially southern part of town. where the lots are smaller.
Rachel Bratt: that was kind of my list of what I mean again. that might be way more than you know. if we do a forum that's an hour and a half. let's say a maximum. I think that's about what. Yeah. we'll have to figure out what we can reasonably fit into that time frame. But that was kind of the subs of what we were talking about. So what we'll try to do is. I think as kind of wrapping this up. we'll reach out to the various boards. tell them what's happening and welcome their participation. And however they'd like to participate. let them know that there'll be one or two meetings. perhaps before a forum. and make sure that they're going to be at the forum. and if there's an assignment that we want to assign to them. for example. like health. to talk about septic that we have given that assignment. And Robin. are you going to be the liaison between planning board? And Robin Borgestedt: I think I am. Rachel Bratt: Congratulations. That is very nice. Robin Borgestedt: It laser eyes. Robert. I assume you're available for that meeting on November 12. Robert Hummel: Yes. I should be there. Yep. Okay. Rachel Bratt: well. I don't think we have this firm yet. Robin Borgestedt: but it's that's what we're aiming for. We want to make sure we're not picking a date when Robert can't be there. Rachel Bratt: I mean that that is a good place to start. because it is a few months away. Robin Borgestedt: and we need time we're going to be working on this. because we need time to be working on these amendments. and that form might help us. you know. with our direction and things that we really need to pay attention to. So Kathleen Boundy: are you seeing in terms of the amendments. regardless wherever it goes here. but assuming better. more clarification. the 900 plus is being one at least. that this is going to have to go to the Town meeting. Yeah. definitely. And you have a sense that you have a pulse on the Town that this will fly after. I mean. the vote last time was pretty extraordinary in terms of how fast. and Anette Lewis: we've been pretty lucky Robin Borgestedt: last time we also. I mean. the reason we had to. I mean. our ADU bylaws were more generous before. It's just that they were special permit and we had to roll it back quite a bit in order to have a bylaw that we could pass with just a majority. the majority. And we didn't want to push it. We weren't sure how the Tom would feel about being more generous. so we didn't try to overstep. We knew we'd have to come back again. right? So. Anette Lewis: yeah. but there are people. I mean. Doug is here to tell us tonight. yes. there are people who want to be able to put in affordable ADUs that are larger. So we need to get a handle on that. And you know. it can be done several different ways. One could be. you can have a percentage increase. if it's attached. a percentage increase based on the size of your existing house. percentage increase based on the size of your lot. right? I know that. yeah. Well. right. maybe. maybe not. right. I know that some people would like. you know. 2.000 square feet. to me. if you can fit a 2.000 square foot accessory dwelling unit. then you should be downsizing.
subdividing your lot to accommodate it. Rachel Bratt: It's not an issue for me. Kathleen Boundy: Timing one is. what does that mean in terms of. like the Town meeting? When would this have to be? Anette Lewis: Well. we have to. I think it's either December or January. We have to get something in mind. And we have to have had hearings before that. Kathleen Boundy: right? And the Attorney General. things should be that simple Anette Lewis: too. They decide after. after the Kathleen Boundy: two corrections that need to be made. Robin Borgestedt: they just make them. yeah. they just strike. But they struck a word. and then they so they made the changes to Town Meeting Rachel Bratt: yes. interesting. Robin Borgestedt: but their changes were Yes. yeah. Rachel Bratt: got it Well. I think we have marching orders. Thank you very much. And Robin. I'm sure be in touch with you. Okay.
Robin Borgestedt: thank you. I'm working full time. so my year or your time is a little okay. but I worked. I work early. Anette Lewis: so talk to us about increasing the size. Go ahead. Sorry. it took so long Unknown: or short time. Yeah. I sorry.
Kathleen Boundy: he's from California. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: I don't see anybody outside calling it in. Jim Grumbach: Thanks. Rob. No. He was there and he left. left. zoom. Unknown: oh. no. that's me. Thank you. vacation. Thank you. Jim. okay. Robbie Bullard: this is. Robin Borgestedt: You going to come back and talk to us?
Anette Lewis: i don't know if everybody can hear it. though. I don't know. How does Robin Borgestedt: he can? Does he want to? Is he on his way home Anette Lewis: because your wait to later tonight? Oh. well. you can try us when you get home and see if we're still here. I'm sorry. I'll tell them about the conversations that we had. Okay.
right? Okay. okay. thank you.
His computer died. His cat died from over here. he's driving home from Natick when I spoke with him about coming tonight. his concern is that we do an amendment that allows for larger ADU. and he would like it to be by special permit with no specific criteria that it be. as long as it's reasonable. And either. I don't know who would decide. either the zoning board or us. whoever is thinks it's okay. then that would be fine. I don't know how I personally feel. Yeah. to me. it seems a little loosey goosey. because if you've got a five acre lot and you put on one or two ADU of 2000 square feet each. why wouldn't you just subdivide and put on a house.
Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: maybe in laws at a distance? Robin Borgestedt: Yeah. but I. I think it's entirely possible that what we're going to do is sort of have a stepped process so that you can go up to 1200 with. you know. with one process. but then if you're going over that. whether it's by having multiple units or. you know. or a percentage. or whatever. that we're going to have sort of an upset. where we become more. where there are more limiting factors. Anette Lewis: I think. when you start getting into the multiple units. yeah. that's essentially a subdivision. And you know what we've gone through with subdivisions? You know. it just. it doesn't to me. It feel right. Robin Borgestedt: No. unless you imagine that somebody builds. I mean. in Wayland. there's some pretty big garages. If somebody put in a really big garage that they could put two units above. That's different. That's a little different. But I think we have to imagine what some of these various scenarios are going to look like. And we may have. we may amend by adding two different processes. one. which is sort of more or less a rubber stamp. and making sure you're following all the setbacks and everything is okay and it's not outrageous. And then one for when it is borderline outrageous and there are more concerns. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: We got a right criteria. obviously. Robin Borgestedt: absolutely. So we have to figure out where those lines are. and free standing is going to be separate from inside of the house. I think. incorporated in the house. We have to figure all of this out
Anette Lewis: that's correct. Fast. Are we done with this?
Let's move on to wastewater management. Oh. thanks you for coming.
Michael Gitten: I don't think I can cover an hour Anette Lewis: well. we will have questions. So really appreciate corrective. your coming. Two of our members are not here tonight. Unknown: Oh. a long time
Michael Gitten: I realized I moved into town the year we built the new plant. Does anyone know what year I moved into Anette Lewis: Um. we acquired it in '98 town?
Robin Borgestedt: United . the original betterment Yeah. Michael Gitten: No. you were you did your homework. okay. yeah. Anette Lewis: what was the original date? Robin Borgestedt: 1999 Anette Lewis: oh. I'm sorry. for when we got the plant. Yeah. I think it was around '07. '08. does that sound right? Michael Gitten: No. I think. I think they No. the plant in '97 I think. But the plant itself was rebuilt in '99 but. oh. don't quote me on that. yeah. Anette Lewis: well. I don't know it was rebuilt. but yeah. we've got it. Yeah. it was. Michael Gitten: Yeah. it was. it was rebuilt. And so that that that's kind of a key thing as we talk so Mike getting and and basically what I'm going to talk about is what I to prep. I just reread the documents that I helped prepare. and kind of pulled out the key points that. and I can give a little color. but. is. the key documents are the Wastewater Management District Commission privilege between policy and summary of flows that we updated April 24 which explains a lot how this works. and then the rules and regulations. which were updated December of 2023.
Yeah. so we the Commission was established in '97 and what's key on that is. in 2014 the state program that we were formed under changed substantially and they whereas in 97. I believe the DEP controlled. they almost act like the Board of Health. approving connect. connections. etc. They changed regulations in 2014 to focus more on the performance of the plant and meeting discharge requirements. and left connections up to the commission. So that was it. So it gave us a lot more local control for increasing and allocating system capacity. So. and of course. the permit is really from getting this from the federal government. The state is a shadow government. I don't know. They don't really have much authority. but don't tell them I said that. We still honor their their permits so for plan was in 1999 and that's when the the main. the force main. and the distribution system. tie-in most of the current customers was built. and the actually. I take it back to current facility was constructed in 2014. built the force main in 1999. Okay. so my quiz was wrong. and it's it moved out. The system remained pretty stable until Alta Oxbow. whatever you want to call it. came online as a public private partnership. So we got a. we got a state grant to build the force main to and from the facility. And Alta Oxbow built the absorption field on their property. and then gave it to gave it to us and and the so that that expanded our capacity. which we'll get to. And when we talk about all this. you know. we're fully self sustaining. We raise all revenue from from user fees and betterments. And our ultimate mission is to do what's in the best interest of the users and comply with our permits. So you we had asked about connecting. And so when. when new users come on. or changing users come on. their flow is evaluated the same way as if they're building a septic system under the title five design slope based on how many bedrooms or that might be. in a in a house. or how many sinks in a in a. in a stylist space. But it's very prescriptive. And the Board of Health makes the first review of that with with our professional staff. But it's pretty. pretty look up. same way any other septic. any other development. is done. And the one. one key thing on that is the knowledge that it's a very conservative. It's like. especially with Wayland being ultra low use water town. it can be up to 200% overestimating what actual flows are. yeah. and but it represents a fair way to evaluate connections. Otherwise we'd be negotiating on. you know. exactly what type of water saving device they have. You know. do they have urinals versus toilets? So it makes it very fair. So it said the treatment plant was rebuilt in 2014 and at the time. the we it's. the state still had a lot of control. So all the documents read like its capacity is 52.000 gallons per per day. which was the discharge permit limit at the time. It's hard. In reality. it's soft. What real capacity is. The documents you might see in ranges from like 60 to 85.000 but it also depends on how much factor of safety you want. because it's gallons per day and flow ebbs and flows and and so the engineers are very conservative. So the board. there was a study done by outside consultant. I think. about six years ago. where they looked at the flow. and once again. it was really all tied to at this at that time. we still were looking at 52.000 is our limit. So anything that you see written. if we're above 52.000 they said. great. So it gets soft. All the studies kind of get soft above that. Anette Lewis: but your your original. but your last site specific. and NPDES permit was 52.000 gallons per day on average. Michael Gitten: On average. It's all. everything's on average. right? Anette Lewis: But sometimes the permits. Michael Gitten: it's on average. You can have excursions by the Anette Lewis: end of the year. Unknown: and even if something funky happened. if. if. 10 houses all sudden. you know. their toilets break and something we can't figure out. we would be okay. We just can't accept more than that. And that's where the whole. that's really the fact that the plant. on paper might have been designed for 80.000 gallons. Anette Lewis: I believe it's 130.000 Michael Gitten: but no factors. no safety factor into that. but when we did the study. there's some critical some components only had a factor safety of 100% which in the engineering world is not very much. And also. even though the plant is. I believe. very well maintained. we have a pretty much full time operator. We have an on call service company that helps with with the heavy lifting. and an engineer that's on call that's been involved for many years. It's getting old at 2012. years. sorry. and parts are being replaced. like we invested about a half a million dollars in screens and filters. and so the board. the commission. when we looked at that in there. we set a flow. acceptable flow of 65.000 gallons per day for now. because the plant had never run continuously much Above 20. 25.000 and that's when we started seeing things needing more maintenance. when we even went from 25.000 to 30. And even today. I just got I was actually kind of curious. I don't know whether I guess this maybe the Council of Aging building is getting a lot of use. We recently connected the Council of Aging and the Library. and I just got the June numbers right here today. highest I've ever seen. I guess people washing their hands a lot. Anette Lewis: so what did it go up to? Michael Gitten: last month. In June. we averaged 34.000 Wow. and the flow range from 28 to 40.000 there might have been something going on. Sometimes there's backwashing. This is just what came through the meter. So when they do maintenance. like we're replacing screens. we run water through that gets counted into this so it is. Creeping up. But when I. when I just put my notes together the other night. I was gonna say. yeah. 30. 32.000 we'll see. But we also have two restaurants coming in and and the Whole Food Plaza hasn't been using its flow that it has. so that's one reason we're cautious. So based on the 65.000 gallon per day throughput that we feel. without seeing how the system runs. keep in mind it's only been running at about 30. 35. 34.000 gallons per day. we set that as a limit. which means the the design flow Title Five available is under 30.000 so we're that's. that's a key number. and we hit on the permits we have. We have the Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Michael Gitten: that soil absorption system at Oxbow permit for 52.000
that's permitted from that is from the state. that's a groundwater discharge permit. And that that gives us 37.380 additional gallons. And so it gets a total of 89.380 gallons per day. And then you go back to the 2014 change in the regs all the Feds in the state care about is that we're not discharging more of 89.380 gallons per day. and we meet the discharge criteria. so. but we're not the plant. Can't handle that. but you asked about wishful thinking. we could build a new plant and and it would have to be permitted. someone have to pay for it. Anette Lewis: But where would you put the water? Michael Gitten: What? Unknown: Where would you put the water though? Michael Gitten: we have 80 we're only discharging 34.000 gallons per day on average right now. So we have. but the plan itself couldn't handle it. The current plan. Anette Lewis: right. we can't. that I understood Michael Gitten: we put it. We put 52.000 in Sudbury River and 34.000 back up to Oxbow. Anette Lewis: So you build a new. you could build a new. replace what we have now. Michael Gitten: yep. but someone have to pay for it. It's not going. it' be very hard to justify that yes to the great payers. but if some angel investor wants to come in. Anette Lewis: yeah for no return. So.
Michael Gitten: so we have 130.000 gallons per day. Title five design flow that's based on the 65.000 gallon per day plant capacity that we don't want to touch until we see how the plant operates. And right now. we've. we have sold people are paying for 119.809 gallons per day that is subscribed. which means we. right now. we have another 10.191 gallons today available first come. first serve. We don't hold it based on meetings. We hold it when they pay the appropriate fee. and if and so that's what's available right now. 10.000 that's what I thought. 1009 oh. we've we've sold some. Got it. we've sold some. And the selling occurs like I imagined that the two restaurants going into the old bank. Are going to need more capacity than the bank. They do and but they have yet to put in. They've yet to request it. Robin Borgestedt: And the restaurant in Terrain as well. Michael Gitten: They have yet to request anything formally. They might have talked to people. They can talk all they want until they write. write a check. It's first come. first serve. Anette Lewis: about 6000 gallons. Michael Gitten: But they already. I don't know their flow. They they might already have that Anette Lewis: the shopping center had three Yeah. and I thought that the dentist has around 3. Yeah. that's what they told us with the last development that was going in Michael Gitten: yeah. I mean. I don't. I didn't I. Don't have that number either. but. but yeah. between I. I know nothing about what they would need. but that this is 10.000 above what they already have bought. yes. so and it's allocated on a first to come. first serve basis. Now. people who aren't using their their capacity. the way we bill people. there's a base there's a base fee that they pay that is set on their design flow. and then the additional charges are based on their water use. We don't meter. we don't meet sewage. We meter water. or we get the water bill. and they pay that way. Anette Lewis: I thought that you had. at one point. were changing that. Michael Gitten: No. there's no meaningful we can't figure out. you know. it's okay. So if someone goes from a restaurant to a bank and wanted to give back some of their capacity. We don't pay for it. but it would reduce their yearly costs. if they wanted to. When we at one time. we thought there'd be like a secondary market of users. but hasn't happened. So right now. 10.000 let's say just 10.000 gallons available if. if the property already has paid the betterment and is paying the base. even if they didn't connect. we change. the privilege. to pay a privilege fee. And the privilege fee is based on our capital expenses. not big things. but medium things that we forecast. And right now. that's $24.75 a gallon per day. So if. if the example of the bank going to the restaurants. if they go from 1000 to 2000 gallons. they'll write us a check for $24.750 and we'll take 1000 off that 10 and it's theirs. So that's how people people who already have a connection and have paid the betterment that's called a privilige fee or or properties. It's not people. it goes by the property. And then the betterment is for new connections. So if someone was offered a connection and chose not to take it and pay the betterment. they're paying the same betterment fee that was in place at that time. So if a property back in. the way back. yeah. was was offered connection. right? And chose not to take it and not pay the betterment. but now that property wants to connect. I see then they can. but they'll pay the full the old Betterment fee. We don't want to reward property owners who chose. But if it's if it's a new property. they'll pay a betterment fee of reduced $24.75. because we the betterment has to be tied to actual capital costs. Anette Lewis: No question about that. In the statute that created the Wastewater Management District Commission. there's a provision that says. with regard to adding a new facility or increasing the design flow of an existing facility. service cannot be provided if the facility is unable to produce a wastewater design plan that is approvable by the Board of Health. right or the DEP and is relying solely on being able to tie into the district. Michael Gitten: I'm not prepared to go into details on that. But I believe the 2014 changes we looked into this. that that that is. that is tied to an underlying regulation or statute that is no longer effect. We looked into. I can't get into it. We had counsel give us an opinion and and I can't. I can't. I'm not here to debate it. Anette Lewis: I don't want to debate it Michael Gitten: but our understanding is that now. the commission has a lot more ability. Once again. the state and the federal government are concerned that we don't go over our discharge permit. Anette Lewis: I understand that. but waste. there are municipal wastewater systems that have to serve the community. Whenever they come in. we have to give them. but that's not what we Michael Gitten: no I know have. Anette Lewis: I thought that that was the reason that that provision that it was there. Michael Gitten: and once again. we can. I'm not prepared to talk about that. Anette Lewis: I just wanted to understand so that when. when. if there are new applicants coming in who've never had a permit before and who couldn't put in a septic system. they'd still be able to pay your privilige Michael Gitten: I think then that that that falls into what you're talking about and and that's where it comes in. also not every if someone comes in. it depends on the size of the flow. So if. if it's less than 500 gallons per day. a new connection. or increased connection. we're we were granted. They do have to. if it's a new connection. they pay all the connection costs. They have to get approval from the Board of Health. They have to get approval from the highway if they're touching the road. But so if it's between 500 and 1500. it depends where we're at on our flow. we have the option to charge them to do the engineering evaluation of the system to see if. if. if it can handle it.
Anette Lewis: If it were like 500. for example. that would be that Michael Gitten: almost as of right. Anette Lewis: yeah. like. right. but it would be like another four bedroom house. or five bedroom house. something like that. because it's 110 gallons per bedroom Unknown: or an addition? Yeah. and if it's between 500-1500. it depends on it's the commission will will decide. and it's not arbitrary. really. has to do with if we're at 40.000 and the plants not been behaving well. We would. we're not saying no. but we might say we're having we think the plant can't handle another based on our performance. If you want to sponsor a study and see what is going on. we'll enter. We're open for it. And then if it's between 1500-3000. we're definitely charging them to evaluate the facility. to do. take take it out of the limited professional and volunteer Michael Gitten: new businesses. For example. do you have a staff. and we're going to hire professional if it's between preference 1500-3.000 gallons. and then maybe we will pay for it. And then if it's over 3000 they're going to pay for it. If they want to pay for that new plant. it does. We left the door open. I mean. we who would have thought that that would happen with Oxbow. so we wanted to leave it open. We have spoken to other parties like. like it's in our meeting minutes. you could see it the the mowing people came to speak to us. We said. Sure. do a study. Get us a free connection. It's going to be $2.475 a gallon. Come back when you're got a proposal. they did not come back. But. and including if we need to evaluate whether our our underlying statute is. you know. it's not in our rate payers interest to do something that aggressive. What's in our rate payers interest is to slowly optimize the capacity of the plan so we could spread . the capital. the operating costs
We have no preference. It's first come. first serve. If they no no preference Anette Lewis: for a restaurant. I think it's 15 gallons per seat. Michael Gitten: I don't know. but I do know. But I do know they need to have a. they need to have a some extra controls in there. right? The grease trap. a FOG- fatty oils and grease Anette Lewis: restaurant kitchen flow for sizing of grease trap. is gallons per day. And fast food restaurant is 20 per seat. This is each per seat 15 gallons per day. where you've got kitchen flow. Good Lord. this is so confusing. for a restaurant on a Thruway service area. it's 150 gallons per seat per day. Michael Gitten: per seat? Anette Lewis: per seat. Michael Gitten: Eat. yeah?
Anette Lewis: So. so we would have to do some calculations to see. you know. if there were restaurants that were coming in. how big they weren't square footage. assuming what the
Michael Gitten: Yeah. right. right now. there's. there's over 10.000 gallons available. And that sounds like a lot. but it's not. well. it's. it's. it's 20.000 Yeah. that's yeah. 10.000 gallons at the door. based on a title five. which is in a double that and. and. but the board. the commission. is open. like it is acknowledged that the the Title Five is. is. is overestimates. If there was some user that wanted to come in tomorrow and had with the $30.000 gallon discharge they want to hire. to pay for us. to hire someone to evaluate what actual appropriate correlation between the title five and actual flow is. to down our galaxy. We're open for that. was that right now the limit is our 11 year old plant. As we up from 25 to 30. things start getting tired. right? So we want to continue slowly. because we don't want to have the current users to be passed. you have to take the burden of a capital cost without some planning. Anette Lewis: So on route 20. I don't think everybody is connected. Michael Gitten: No. Anette Lewis: okay. Michael Gitten: there's people who are paying Anette Lewis: the base fee Michael Gitten: New England. I mean the base fee. I but there's. if you're gonna. yeah. that's. there's a lot of creative things could happen. If. if. if. if someone funded. right? I mean. there's still. I mean. the property out here was evaluated for a leaching field. Is it time to re-touch that thing yet? No. no. they never did it. But. no. no. but it was done once. It could be done again. is what I'm saying. There's a lot of creative public but. but the but we. as a commission. we have no incentive to invest that kind of money. because our it's not our rate payers would have to carry that unless someone or some other party. like happened at Alta and
carry.
Anette Lewis: so in terms of what we're looking at is rezoning number 20 area. I think a redevelopment district. and we want to allow for businesses to go in. is there? I heard that you said it was first come. first serve. yeah. but we don't want to zone it. so that. so zoned and you can't possibly build a thing. yeah. Do you have any guidance for us? Michael Gitten: No. Anette Lewis: thank you. Michael Gitten: I'm sure. I mean. they they do creative engineer engineering. They could do. like some of that. some of the buildings at the town center have septic. and some. some of some of those apartments. some of those condos. go to septic. right? Some come to treatment Come to the facility. I mean. they can do pre treatment. They could do pre treatment and and convince and do a study to say why it's. you know. there's. there's a lot of engineering fixes. It doesn't it. to so I don't think it's a. we can't answer those questions. because the engineering is changing also. Robin Borgestedt: But if so. it's basically the wedge between route 20 and sort of Stop and Shop and that kind of wedgie shaped area there. if someone. if some developer. got a hold of a bunch of those pieces of property and developed it as a group. which in some ways. for the town is preferable. they could put something on the parking. you know. area. and maybe do something on site for some of their right. their discharge. Michael Gitten: but they also would get. I mean. it's public info. I don't have it. Robin Borgestedt: Some of those properties don't have them Michael Gitten: all them. Yeah. all those properties have capacity right now. so you'd be doing the delta for the improved use. Robin Borgestedt: On the other hand. if. Each of them sold separately to people who all wanted to open restaurants that might not .it would be Michael Gitten: it would be very more of a challenge. But there are. once again. there are a lot of creative engineering things that could be done. Restaurants have higher flows. because it has a higher organic loading. They could do something limited pre treatment. so that their flow becomes more like gray water. That's. that's. that's. you probably see that on developments here. were alot smaller. It's allowed. There's. there's. I don't know the name. but there's. there's basic bleaching fields. and then there's. there's semi operated like there are many. there are many treatment plans. but they're not that's what they would have done up at Oxbow. And then they decided it was better to tie-in to us. Robin Borgestedt: So the lesson is. he doesn't know. So we don't know. but. Michael Gitten: but it's nothing that energy. that in. you know. money and engineering. yeah. Well. yeah. we can't. All we could say right now is there's 10.000 gallons available. There's a strong potential that there could be another 10.000 which would be 20.000 double available. once the system. you know. shakes out beyond that. we need to look at the plant when it's operating at a higher rate. I do know that the 26 year old force main on route 20. There's we are looking at it to see what its service life is. It's on our it's kind of on our longer range plan to replace that. Anette Lewis: Wasn't that when the town center project went in. wasn't that part of it? Michael Gitten: No. they did some pump stations. yeah. but not that. maybe through the property. but I'm talking. Anette Lewis: No. I was talking. I thought they had to do it all around
Michael Gitten: So unfortunately. these getting the details where I can just talk to you about the process. and and the main thing is our overall objectives. complying with the discharge permit on quality and quantity. and do whatever we can to keep rates stable if not decline. I mean. if we get. if we could sell all 10.000 gallons we had now. we might even go and do a rate reduction next year. I mean. we. I can tell you. we didn't. we. we didn't do our budget based on 34.000 gallons a day. We were a little conservative. because we have. a we have a betterment fund or a privilege fund. It's actually privileged now. which is like a rainy day fund. which unfortunately we do have to allocate into our budget. But if we have. if our flow goes to 35.000 gallons. we can. we can help that to cushion the blow when we have to redo the force main in route 20. whether it's in five years or 10 years. we can start building the nest. because that that is not going to be cheap. unless you it gets rezoned and some developer sees same way. we got a free connection to the old.
Robin Borgestedt: So just to be clear in my mind. now also fuzzy. whoever's going Terrain. going into Whole Foods. they already own some capacity. and the question is. will they stay within that capacity. or need increased capacity? Okay. Anette Lewis: And I think that they said at the hearing that they were fine.
Michael Gitten: which lie. it could. because there was one two restaurants in there at one time. One. there's Robin Borgestedt: a super restaurant. supermarket. supermarket restaurant. Michael Gitten: Yeah. and yeah. So they had their own. I mean. even if. even if they underestimated. they're going to be under the that's. I would speculate the 3000 gallon. where it'll be hard for us to say no. if we have the capacity right which. right now we do. And. In a year. we've sold 1800 gallons. And
Anette Lewis: 1800 that you sold was that for people who wanted to add Michael Gitten: changing use. mainly. it was mainly changing use. maybe. maybe the dentist. I love dental places. new. yeah. Robin Borgestedt: it was a dentist before. though. Michael Gitten: but it's bigger. that's true. And. yeah. it Yeah. it is. It is confusing. because. as I said. our objective is not really this similar to yours. It's more whatever lets us keep rates down. I would love to be the chair of 100.000 gallon per day plan. but no but whatever flow. flow. more flow is better for our customers and excited and. and. and. you know. we have a really good professional. as long as the plant. as long can handle it.
professional staff that we have now is really good and forward thinking. and we are looking for grants and stuff. But they're. they're far and few through between. There aren't many facilities like ours in the state. We're in a small category. Anette Lewis: right Michael Gitten: Like that permit we have is just for under. I think. 100.000 gallon per day. Anette Lewis: The general permit. Michael Gitten: Yeah. there's 6.8.10. Anette Lewis: in the region Michael Gitten: in the state. just in the state. I thought it was because a mass. it's a mass general permit. Anette Lewis: I don't remember. I remember looking at it when it was going through Michael Gitten: and then. yeah.
Anette Lewis: so just for the board. I made a comment. I went and looked at the title five for regulations. 15 CMR. and it tells you. for individual places. how much you have to have. any gallons per day you have to have. and what the minimum allowable gallons per day for the system design is. that is the plan. And so for things that we would have. for
single family dwelling. 110 gallons per day and the minimum allowable flow is 330 with two asterisk that probably ties into the explanation of what a bedroom is. And then. anytime you're dealing with housing and bedrooms. it seems to be 110 per bedroom we have housing for the elderly is only 100 and it's 150 for a two bedroom unit. So that's less than what you would have for two regular unit
Robbie Bullard: or gasoline station. 75 gallons per day per Island. 300 minimum allowable gallons per day per system and if there are service bays. It's 125 gallons per day for service bay and veterinarians. office per kennel is 50 gallons per day. An office building for 1.000 square feet. it's 75 gallons per day. Minimum allowable design is 200 that's so weird. I can see what you're saying about the difference between legal and design. Michael Gitten: But that's one thing where. with the new since 2000 we do we can modify right now. we're doing bulk. and we know it's. it's experiences. it's more like 40 or 30% is what we see. like. like. we're. we're really hoping to have more flow from. from Oxbow. We're not. Anette Lewis: interesting. Michael Gitten: pretty much. Yeah. yeah. Uh. they're like. the flow there is 10. 15% less than we've had conservatively. um. anticipated Robin Borgestedt: people leaving and going to work during the day. Michael Gitten: No. I think it's more. The those numbers are very because the low flow and. and I don't know when that was updated. Anette Lewis: You know. this is pretty old. I think. isn't it? I mean. when they created these. yeah. yeah. I think it's the original. So in a retail store. except for supermarkets. for 1000 square feet. it's 50 gallons per day. and the design is 200 now. this is interesting. This has restaurant at 35 gallons per day per seat. But somewhere else. it said only 15 gallons per day per seat. Restaurant. okay. so if you're looking at these. how do there's a restaurant. there's restaurant highway service area. which we don't necessarily have. restaurant fast food. and then restaurant. oh. it's kitchen flow. Proceed. Okay. so you have to do the restaurant and then the kitchen flow separately?
Michael Gitten: Sounds that way. And that that's once again. we defer the Board of Health and and that's another thing we if. if. by some chance. someone came in and said. you know. for nominal capital investment. we could really add more to your plan. We would need to get approval from the Board of Health to do that.
Anette Lewis: And they look at Michael Gitten: the title five. and they have their own. they updated their their and that goes. that goes back to. I think. kind of what you read to me out of our our enabling back in the 60s. when Board of Health was the environmental stop all for everything. And so there's. I think there's some underlying chain that gives them a lot of power.
Anette Lewis: It's helpful but what are going to do with it Michael Gitten: well we want we get us more flow.
Robin Borgestedt: not up to us. but Michael Gitten: Right? And who gets it is not up to us.
Anette Lewis: Yeah. it's Michael Gitten: first in we gladly if someone wants to. we did. We could have one time think that once we because we we worked out for quite a while and we increased it. We really thought. you told me.
Anette Lewis: seeing what your grades are Michael Gitten: are. Well. I think if you properly maintain your septic system and have to build it. it's. it's the same. it's not free. but it's we. we have looked at that it is to pay the betterment or the privilege fee and and then you'll use us for 10. 15. years. Is the same as if you had to build a septic system and maintain it. I mean. it's. it's. it's 20. 50.000. 100.000 that build something simple. and you can get a loan and and we're talking the connection fee is 20 grand. plus it's cheaper. but then you're paying whatever. I think our it might be 1.500 to $5.000 a year. It's less than the water. It's cheaper going out than going in.
Anette Lewis: An amazing job pulling it together. It's gotten much more professional. Michael Gitten: Well. this staff is we have really good staff.
Yeah. thank Anette Lewis: you. Thank you very much. That
is why don't you come up? William Whitney: Does that mean I got more time? Yeah. good. I.
Good evening. I'm Bill Whitney. member the Select Board and liaison to the planning board. First. I'd like to say on behalf of the board that there really is an appreciation of the work and the workload that the planning board has. and so we thank you for your efforts. Last year was particularly challenging. and hopefully going forward. it will be less so. but thank you for the work that you do. I'm here to discuss two items. one pertaining to updating the design review advisory boards guidelines. and the second. having to do with a mechanism for potentially providing public comment to the planning board as you continue to work with Respect to route 20 zoning so as to the first the Select Board was approached with the idea of appointing an ad hoc advisory group to update the design guidelines as we reviewed the 2012 warrant at the annual town meeting at which the design review advisory board was authorized talks about it references the fact that the design review Advisory Board shall adopt rules and guidelines as necessary for the conduct of its responsibilities. And I'm not a lawyer. but I infer that that would suggest that if the guidelines need to be changed. that could be done by the design review Advisory Board. obviously in consultation with the planning board as a member. But point the members of that board had a brief conversation with Robert and also spoke with Bill Sterling. and I gather that there is sort of conceptual agreement as to how that would occur without the necessity of appointing a separate ad hoc advisory group by the planning board or the Select Board or anything else. So I just wanted to confirm that understanding. Anette Lewis: that's my understanding. and Robert's on the Design Review Board. And I don't know that the design review board is discussed anything. Robin Borgestedt: We haven't discussed it at all yet. And I think right now. we are not technically short handed. There are three of us. but it would be nice if. if we. you know. even if we begin the work now. it would be nice to have more people on the board. so that we had more input. really just the three of us. And sometimes we have trouble getting three of us for a meeting. So and as long as the board is listed as five. and we still haven't gotten resignations from two of them. we are. yeah. but Anette Lewis: but that doesn't mean that you're looking to have a separate committee Robin Borgestedt: No. no. it's. I think it's because I think you asked Bill what kinds of changes. and he's. I think there had been a sense of first that he wanted to sort of chuck it all and rewrite the whole thing. which would be a major undertaking. but he just wants to update some things. things having to do with current technology and climate change. that sort of stuff. right? And those are things that can be done. And I wonder if the rooftop solar. if we want to sort of combine it with the work we're doing on ground mounted solar. if there's information that might come in. I know they're separate. but in the process of doing the ground mounted solar. things we might learn. things that would inform what we're doing on rooftop solar. Anette Lewis: I don't know that we have. Robert. I'm going to let Robert speak. Robert Hummel: Yeah. I just want to chime in. So we had. we had. Anette had a meeting. Anette and I had a meeting with Bill and kind of discuss. kind of bring this honing to if you want to do minor changes. do with the design view board. if you want comments and you want feedback from whoever board. committee staff. then bring them into a meeting. ask them to attend meeting. to provide feedback. not I don't think there's a need to have a new ad hoc group while the board is that design review could. Could hold that within their own meetings and make those minor. minor changes. And I provide that information to Bill. and that's what Bill is discussing. that that that's what our understanding. or our agreement with with Bill Sterling was at the end of the day. I don't know if we still. is he walked away with. but that's that's our understanding. Saying that ad hoc group right now might not be the best idea. William Whitney: Well. that's consistent with my conversation with him. So Robin Borgestedt: we have a meeting. I think we're going to have a meeting next week. because it's a new application. so I'm sure we'll discuss it Robert Hummel: Okay. Agenda. It's. I believe it's on the draft agenda. discuss it okay? Anette Lewis: Just so you know. if we're solar on the roof. we can't really do anything under state law. You can just put them on the roof. We do have our own bylaw standards where you we ask people to screen those and that that's under the bylaw already.
Robin Borgestedt: I didn't know if. maybe. if people are putting batteries up there with them. or anything like that. if there's any energy storage that's going with them. if that also should be commented and it should also be screened. if it's being put up on the roof. Anette Lewis: yeah. and we have something for. Robin Borgestedt: I assume. but we should just. if there's anything else that's going with the solar panels. it should also be screened. that kind of stuff that we're learning about as we're doing the ground mounted. in case that informs our decision making. That's William Whitney: all right. And you know. I think the MBTA zoning is a good example of how you contemplated the possibility of these things happening and incorporating it with the screening and so forth. So I think it's. it's a great approach. With respect to the second item. it's been suggested that an advisory board or an ad hoc advisory group. rather be appointed to advise the planning board as it continues its work on through 20 zoning I know that you've been working on the zoning. I wonder if you discussed the notion of possibly appointing such an advisory group. or what your thinking was with respect to public comment as as the zoning preparation goes forward.
Robin Borgestedt: I can answer. I think. a little bit. so I we've it to my mind. we've already had public comment. and this is our chance to try to implement and incorporate that public comment into bylaws. But once we have bylaws. we will then have to go to public meeting. And I think having a group now. when we've already. we're we're trying to incorporate public comment now and then. adding more public comment seems to be just an opportunity for that to conflict with this holding process we've already undergone. And you guys have undertaken to receive comments and to have a professional incorporate that into something that we can work with. And I think we are. We've already begun the process of wrestling with and trying to figure out what the goal is in terms of how. if. if a dream happened and all of these properties turned over and everybody wanted to rebuild. what is the dream layout? We've kind of thought about something like CVS. because they're set back from the road. there's a sidewalk and there's a greenery and then the building. and that seems to be what Beta as after all of the public comment. this is what the goal is. to have it look more pleasant and more uniform as you go up or 20. but to provide a nice. safe walkway and screening for the buildings and then access around the back. So these are all things that came from the public comment before. and so now we are trying to figure out how to incorporate that into the zoning bylaws. And the first thing we had to tackle is whether we were going to add yet another overlay. or try to eliminate some of the overlay that's going on already because it's already so confusing. and try to pare the whole thing down and rewrite everything that we can. Rewrite some things. we can't obviously. and then try to make it work so that as buildings change hands and owners might want to tear down the existing structure. they understand what their new structure has to comply with. and what the goal is to have things look like. And we want to try to find ways to encourage owners to have shared curb cuts and shared parking on the backside of the buildings. And you know we look at. for example. the sub shop and the convenience shop. which just is a giant building. wide curb cut. and to discourage that. And so we're already working on that. I'm not sure an advisory committee is going to help us to do that. We already have public comment in the form of the Beta study. and now we're working from that. William Whitney: I gather some people were entirely happy with the Beta study. Robin Borgestedt: no. but in that. that's fine. We're not working from the words in their study. but we. we did listen to the public comment. I wasn't on the planning board when that was being undertaken. but that's all available to us. and we understand what our marching orders are. so to speak. And so the the reason it's a slow process is that we're trying to translate it into meaningful zoning bylaws. more public comment and more advisory opinions. I don't know is going to help with that. I think our goal is to come up with these zoning bylaws and then take them to public hearing and receive public comment there. and to have a a well thought out process so that we can express the vision that we are trying to put onto paper and then. and I think people will be happy with that. William Whitney: yeah. no. I personally think. not speaking for the board .that you know. we all work better from a draft and for you to set forth draft zoning makes a lot of sense. I think that the sense is that a more iterative process than having the required zoning hearing that where you prepare the report you go to town meeting might not be sufficient. in view of the importance everything places on route 20. the the aspirations we all have. the wastewater question notwithstanding. which Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: I cana bring up the town center had a lot of reviews. yeah. back and forth. anyone who wanted to. I'm wondering. though. are there people that are focused on doing this type of planning. rather than just whoever wants to join on this committee that that would be helpful. We're getting stuck on a few things. I mean. like. where we want to do with. you know. Wayland Power. that whole area. what we put in there. and that's kind of a banter back and forth. Robin Borgestedt: yeah. sort of. what do we allow on the street side? What do we allow on backside? And honestly. I think if there's an advisory committee for me. it should be more for people to brainstorm on how to bring new businesses into town. and not so much what the bylaws look like. I think we understand the goal of the bylaws in terms of the what the physical setup should look like when somebody does choose to rebuild a building along the corridor. but the real goal is to bring in business owners and the I guess the dream for the town is to have somebody come in and take a big chunk of the wedge. sure and and buy up those Town William Whitney: assembly Yeah. yeah. of course. it's a little bit of a chicken and egg problem. because if you. if you help some property. and you make it more attracted to the property owner to sell and relocate. and allow something else more dense to come in. more tax revenue. right. septic flow.
Robin Borgestedt: all of that. Anette Lewis: And I don't think. I mean. we haven't talked about how we would roll it out. We're not going for this town meeting. Robert did. He's been explaining to sure. you know. I am sure that before we have the final hearing on the zoning we'll have forums and have people. William Whitney: okay. Anette Lewis: I just also want to mention. and you can take this back to your board. Under Mass General Laws. there are several sections that give the Planning Board certain authority. One of them is 81c where the board does studies and reports. There's another 801d where the Planning board is assigned the responsibility of doing master plans. And then there is 81e where we're responsible for the official map of the county. or we've been making those changes for Town meeting. and maybe 1f which also deals with the visual map. So as an elected board created by state law. we have certain responsibilities. and we're really mindful of them. And I think that all other committee should be mindful of their responsibilities as well. and we need to have a better way in town to coordinate and consolidate. We've had the Assessors come in. Mike Gitten come in. We've had others come in. and we will have more as we go through this. We need to be functioning. All of our boards and departments need to be functioning as a whole. and we don't do it very well. So I would encourage the Select Board to encourage that to occur. and in that way. we'll all be talking to each other. and people won't feel like they have to create separate ad hoc committees all over the place. William Whitney: Makes perfect sense. If you have specific suggestions. love to hear them. Anette Lewis: right. I have them for each of the boards and how we can get our areas more organized. William Whitney: Okay? Projects. excellent. Thank you for your time Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: Thank you. William Whitney: Sorry. I ran over my time. Anette Lewis: No. that's okay. Robert. sorry. without you sitting here. I forget you're there. Robert Hummel: Right I don't know how much Robin Borgestedt: night Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: Andrew. one major way of doing that is to bring people in as they are talking about Facebook that responsibility to handle or to call us and build board meetings or even a couple of people Anette Lewis: meetings calling us in. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: Yeah. right. exactly.
Anette Lewis: Yes. Thank you. Robert. I had an opportunity to look at the annual report. This covers the period from July 1. 2024 through June 30. 2025.
and for the members. we took those members who were here for most of the year. and then next year. we'll add the new people. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: the most comprehensive ones I've ever seen before. Anette Lewis: I thought we've been doing a good job. Yeah. Robert Hummel: there's no way real major changes. Kind of follows the same kind of format as in the past. starting with who's on the board. duties and purposes. a summary of different different projects. ANR. subdivision. site plan view. long term planning. which includes we 20 zoning and map revisions and then goals. That's pretty much it something. something. It's nothing special. but as required. we need to the board needs to draft and approve one. yeah. Anette Lewis: and it doesn't have to be approved and submitted until the end of September. if somebody wants more time that we thought we would get it together and see if any comments. Robin Borgestedt: So since we lost Jennifer and gained Jesse and had a change in chair. should that be reflected on here the dates of those changes? Anette Lewis: Well. the problem is that for one month I was chair. right. and then Jen was chair for like eight or 10 months. right? And then I was chair again. and I thought. screw it. yeah. because I. I was also voted in to be vice chair if appointed. So. right. Okay. Robin Borgestedt: fine. It was just a question. Anette Lewis: I know I thought about it. yes. Robin Borgestedt: it's too complicated. yeah. because it. it almost because it. it sort of reads like she's still the chair. but you're signing us. I don't know. Do Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: you want to put a date? The date she was chair. her name. Anette Lewis: I can. but that would be Robin Borgestedt: just sort of in and out. Yeah. So it Anette Lewis: was. yeah. because I've got a month. and then she's got. like. 10 months then I've got. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: I mean I don't think anyone cares. No. Robert Hummel: wha would you like to do I'd like to approve tonight. Or what do you need more time Robin Borgestedt: so we have more people here? No. no. Then I move. We're happy. Then I move that we approve the 2025. annual report as written. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: I'll second that Robin Borgestedt: all in favor. Yes. fine. Yes. Anette Lewis: it's three zero. If they have a problem. they can let us know. They could have let us know. Robert Hummel: Yeah. I did not receive any comments from Larry or from Jesse on any revisions. So no. yeah. Robin Borgestedt: all right. efficiency. Robert Hummel: I would recommend just pushing to just pass over the minutes to the next meeting. because I know it isn't about on Monday. I don't think. I don't think there's no enough time everyone to look it over. So this is the. this is the draft minutes of of August 13. And I would just recommend just passing them over. Robin Borgestedt: Did Jesse edit them yet or not? He did okay. but you haven't. So. so then let's wait. Okay. Robert Hummel: up to count. plan and share. I do. I did receive my wrote this. When I wrote the put the agenda with Anette. I did not receive the Rice Road site plan. but I haven't received that now. and that's slated for Oct 15. 7:10pm public hearing. Today's discussion is requesting storm water and traffic peer review and for the town to put out a request for quotes. to get a peer review Anette Lewis: This is. this is for the. say. the name of the church. Robert. Robert Hummel: oh gosh. the Egyptian of Orthodox. I just. I feel the name of the long church. It's on a Rice Road. Yeah. Anette Lewis: Coptic Church. correct in the future. when you're going to write it up. put the name of the organization into if you don't mind. Robert Hummel: sure Anette Lewis: I understand that. So What date did you say the hearing was going to be Oct 15. October on Rice Road. where the Episticopal Church used to be. Oh the 15th. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: Oh. interesting.
Anette Lewis: So will you be discussing with them who you're going to use? Are you just going to go out? And
Robert Hummel: we were in the middle of doing massive special contract with someone. We haven't done that yet. We've haven't executed yet. We cannot use Dillis & Roy. because they did the survey plan for them. So at this point. DGT is the one we can we could use. or we could also use another engineer. So if you throw at least three quotes out there. or ask for three calls. Anette Lewis: okay. and then. if that's something you still need to discuss with that. with the applicant. right? Robert Hummel: Yeah. I will. once we get. once you get the quote completed. once we they okay with each team. We just put the quote of then they would actually review it too. But this is. I think. I think they. the town. and also never listens. said. ask for me to get the authorization to actually get the peer reviewed or start the process. because it takes some Anette Lewis: that. I just didn't know. because sometimes. I already talked to them. talked to they had no problem with DGT. time
they're probably fine. Some people have certain contractors that they just will not use.
okay. fine. and that's all I wanted to make sure. So can we have a motion to have Robert initiate the peer review process for the Egyptian Coptic Church at 169 Rice road for further site plan review. So Robin Borgestedt: So moved second. Okay. Anette Lewis: yes. oh. we actually can raise our hands. We're all here. It's three zero. so you've got that vote. Robert Hummel: And at the next meeting. I will be asked. or Anita will be asking for approval for another one. but it has . has not been submitted yet. Anette Lewis: So okay. you're not here for the Robert Hummel: next not here on the 10th. and Anita will be in. Will be present in your Anita. sorry. she'll be here. Yeah. Barry. she she'll be here. I already arranged that. And if Anette Lewis: that other one comes in. are you going to have the hearing at the same time. Are we going to Robert Hummel: Yes. same. same day. So much fun. So October 15 should be Anette Lewis: just we have two site plans. Robin Borgestedt: yes. that one is coming in. a Dover Amendment One also. Anette Lewis: yep. and you make sure when they come in that you look at them carefully. and if there's anything that is not what it should be. that you get back to the people and tell them to fix it so that we can start the hearing on a good note. Robert Hummel: Yeah. I review the one that does is just that just came in. and it's. it's pretty complete. And. Also. I worked on them multiple times before the meeting to go over what we want. what we would like to see. including a memo from the their lawyer to demonstrate why and what's the reasons for. for the uses that the the reasons why they need. In this case. it's about. it's about height. Height is height. Height is one of the biggest issues. and explain why height is would fall under the regular. you know. the regular Anette Lewis: that they have submitted. They Robert Hummel: They did. Yep. they did. They Anette Lewis: offered materials that you sent the other day. I Robert Hummel: t's what Anette Lewis: it's in with the materials that you said the other day. because I didn't Robert Hummel: material that was in today. yeah. is it? It was. it was finalized today. just because they send the electronic version this morning. So it has been. it's been included Robin Borgestedt: so. and the project includes senior housing. right? Robert Hummel: It does. yes. Is Robin Borgestedt: it going to be affordable senior housing. Robert Hummel: It's gonna be. I think. believe it small A that's it. it's. it's. there's a few issues that we kind of work through. But I'm necessarily that this door remember is it's slightly Gray. it's not black and white. And so it's really up to the the lawyer to Anette Lewis: we don't want to talk too much about the project Robin Borgestedt: right Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: Anyone hear anything about St Anne's Church? Robin Borgestedt: They're working on it. They are. Oh.
Robert Hummel: but I would recommend reviewing the material to understand everything I'm just been talking about the last few minutes. and I do have hard copies. if anyone. because Anette Lewis: I would like a hard copy. Robert Hummel: if I can put one aside. Okay.
Anette Lewis: Is there anything else that you need to tell us? Robert Hummel: Nope. I is next week. Next time me. me in person or remote or hybrid. Anette Lewis: I think remote. all right. that was just Robert Hummel: my need to know. Some teeth. 17. Are you looking? Because that's that's give me a fast turnaround. because once when I'm on vacation. I believe. I mean. I could post it on Monday when I come back. But just knowing what's with the 17th skill. look like remote again. Anette Lewis: on the temp. We've got ground mounted solar. maybe restaurant regulations. Did you and Ira have an opportunity to talk about those? Robert Hummel: I've not talked to Ira. but I review the material. and I'm able to provide that material to Anita to bring to the temp. to me in the temp. Oh. you were you able to pull some stuff out of it? Yeah. I was able to take. take what you had. All right. you look. you're looking for the you're looking for regulations like site plan. the site plan regulations that we posted to the website correct. Anette Lewis: We're looking for something that is more understandable than the site plan regulations that we have. Robert Hummel: Okay. but you're looking. but you're looking for. are you looking for regulations? That would be. there's that one Anette Lewis: sheet that we had that were guidelines that needed to essentially be turned into regulations. Robert Hummel: All right. yeah. I can clean that up. I have it
Robin Borgestedt: at the September 10 meeting. I should be able to provide an update on the design guideline question. because I will have had a design review board meeting by then. I think Robert Hummel: we'll put that on the if you were like. we put that on the agenda. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: yep. If you need help. Robert. by all means. let me know. I'll come down and and sit with you. We can hash it out if we if we need to. Robert Hummel: okay.
Anette Lewis: design review guidelines. I thought that. I don't know if I told you this before. I looked at what was there already. and I thought that they were fine. There were just and I mentioned this to bill. there are places where it talks about like neon signs and oscillating signs. and it said they're discouraged. They're not allowed under our bylaw. so it shouldn't say discouraged. And there's one other thing. oh. he talked about putting fencing around each of the individual developments or properties. And personally. I don't think that that's such a great idea. I think that you could where needed. You could put plantings or something. because I thought what we wanted to do is get it more homogenous. rather than right section Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: just a point. Fencing around it. Anette Lewis: fencing in the design review guidelines that that are in front of that they already did years ago. It talks about. for each new development. that you put a fence around the property. perimeter of the property. um. uh. well. I mean. depending on what's being developed. it Robin Borgestedt: might make sense. but it depends on where it is. and if it's feeling where the old Mahoney was. You know. if you were developing that into a commercial property. there are residential houses around you might want a fence. right? But then again. landscaping would do just fine. as long as it's dense enough. So like screening is just Yeah. we don't necessarily need to say right. because if Anette Lewis: you look at the town. the area that we're trying to rezone right now to put fences. I mean. my God. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: it's gonna look like a maze.
Anette Lewis: So for 17th. I don't know yet. Robert. we'll know. but we'll be here. Do you have any suggestions? Of course. probably still be working on the zoning? Yeah. Robert Hummel: I would probably. I would probably wait discussing zoning onto the 17 when I'm back. just because I've been more in the loop than right? But no. I only. I don't. there's no public hearings either that I'm thinking of. Okay. Anette Lewis: I think I mentioned before that the town clerk had given me analysis of our existing bylaws that came from the town code people who put our code together and do the printing. it was about this thick of things that they thought needed to be changed and things that we should think about changing. And I went through it all. and then I sat with Robert just to confirm what was what. And then I gave it back to Trudy. There are a lot of housekeeping things that we have. like a real thought. and Robert is trying to decide how many to do each year. It's just overwhelming when you go through it. Robert Hummel: yeah. I mean. it's like. Anette Lewis: the code. yeah. the bylaw the town's bylaws Robin Borgestedt: like. oh. cleanups Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: the language cleanups. I know. but I didn't realize Anette Lewis: it's not the coding. but it's the code. different sections in the code that don't match each other Robert Hummel: That makes sense. Like. some are like. we needed. we need to change. We have the bylaw. We need to change DHCD to eloc. the new the new Office of actually Office of Housing. liberal communities. But then some are. like. really silly. like. like. we spelled marijuana wrong and you would never you. They mess up. They mix the J and the ID and whatever it was. this really big questions. Like. and a lot of the questions I had. like. we need to talk to count Town Counsel. like. I'm not touching this until. until we talk to town council about so many changes. Because. yeah. because it's then we also have changes. Like. if you change this. we'll change other things. decisions. It's like. so I. I went through it very slowly. and went and made the changes into a massive document of why document change. and then. like. I put a lot of sticky on. like. we need town counsel took a look at that. So there's a. I would say there's a phase one here. easy changes. Phase two. we can do later. I just don't have time to. like. chase each rabbit down the hole. Anette Lewis: Yeah. and I don't know that we want to do it now. but whenever you have an opportunity look at our site plan bylaw. I find it incomprehensible. and I know that the building department has found it very difficult as well. I think it can be made much more simple. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: What do you suggest we hired that person at one time and she got Anette Lewis: Oh. yes. well. that's
Jim Grumbach: the water. Anette Lewis: yeah. The interesting thing was that as I went through it. what Trudy had given us. I went back to see when changes were made. and. you know. if there was background to it. and one of them was really weird. and it was a change that KP law made. and it changed the whole sense of the whole section. and it doesn't work. I mean. I couldn't make it work. So it used to say something like. behind the dwelling house. you shall have X number of feet. And now it says in the rear of a building. You should have. and that's a big difference. And it did. You can't tell. for example. for the ADU building dwelling house. well. what are we doing is. if you put it in the front yard. if you put it back yard. maybe just it got really weird. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: So you have people approach you and wanted a 2000 square foot ADU. Did you say that? Anette Lewis: I said that some people might want that. Yes. it wasn't. It was mentioned. but it that way. our home cut our panel. Unknown: I don't think my first house was that big.
Robin Borgestedt: Okay. Anette Lewis: is there anything else that you guys want to have on the next agenda.
Robin Borgestedt: unless we want to. you know. if we're really going to get the ADU stuff on there. we should start having. we should start talking about it at every meeting. Okay.
Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: what the next steps need to be? We Robin Borgestedt: have to sort of sketch it out first and then put it into words. And. you know. maybe some of it is really simple. but a lot of it is not really Anette Lewis: similar. But what you did for tell me I thought was good. yeah. I think a good place Robin Borgestedt: to start. And I think the other piece is to take our old ADU Bylaw and see what we would have liked to have kept from the old one that we had to Anette Lewis: scrap for making changes. yeah. Robin Borgestedt: yeah. And. I mean. is there something from the old one that we want to bring back. stuff that you're not allowed to bring back? Yeah. but that's. but there's also stuff that we had to scrap because it went with that. but maybe it's a way to bring the idea back. okay? And. you know. into it worked before. You know. not what the state wanted to accomplish. but it was working for the town before. Anette Lewis: Yeah. you can't break down words. I don't think we're ever Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: going to have a lot of ADU from old articles. Robin Borgestedt: Well. if they violate the statute. we can't bring Yeah. yeah. so. but the idea of them can maybe be worked into the framework of the statute like. like to have larger ADU is in blood. So it's just. I wanted to sort of sit down and look at what we had to throw out and see if there's anything in there that we want to work back in without making it violate Anette Lewis: the statute. So I'll put it on the next agenda. and you get to speak on Robin Borgestedt: great. You're welcome.
Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: There's some way to use AI with planning board. Everybody is Anette Lewis: Well. Robert and I were talking about it. and I asked him if you would try and see if maybe some of our tables. if they run those through AI. if they could be organized better so that we could figure out how Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: to run it. Can they just scan it to get I think that's what they do. Robin Borgestedt: really. Yeah. you just copy and paste it in. But I have such distrust. I don't trust we just had a case at work where somebody had. AI write a brief. and it had completely bogus cases. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: and they didn't check it before they present it. Anette Lewis: you're kidding. Robin Borgestedt: And it was. yep. completely. absolutely out of the Ethernet. Not real at all from the government. Anette Lewis: On the government side. no. no. Robin Borgestedt: The Other Side. It was the plaintiff's attorney who submitted it. and it was to our appellate board that I practice in front of. and they had to admit that we we picked it up. that it was fake. and the attorney had to sort of admit to the judge who owned the case that he'd used AI. and could he resubmit the brief Anette Lewis: why didn't he check Robin Borgestedt: I got it? Yeah. yeah. he should have. But the more appalling thing is that he resubmitted it with just that case site taken out. So AI still wrote the brief. He just took out that one fake case site. And I would have. I mean. I never would have anyway. but I would have been so mortified. I would have completely rewritten the brief. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: You know. even when AI is used on a Google search. I'm searching on things I know something about. it comes up with one answer. And so that's not right. so Google again. it'll come up with another answer. All right. We can't. yeah. I don't. It's really easy to fall back on it. Anette Lewis: And I just was thinking that for organization. if something was really draft. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: kind of Yeah.
Robert Hummel: well. thinking of AI. I was able to put the tables. the dimensional table and the principal use table. into a more of a by district format. So if you go to your own district. you can see what you. Says are allowed by by Ray not allowed. or by special permit. I put it at the very bottom back of your packet. I'll just kind of play around a bit. a little bit. take the information from the table and make it to more of like a section by section for each each. each zoning district. So if you if you know. I'm in the business zoning district. you know. roadside business road city. you can see exactly what use is allowed. So I was just kind of playing around with a little bit because trying. you know. probe. a little bit of a challenge to see. how do we. you know. provide this information. but in a different way. in a different format. The Robin Borgestedt: other thing. in terms of AI is the only thing I would maybe try doing it. You know. when we've got an old provision that is just unreadable. if you fed it into Grammarly. which is which only corrects grammar and syntax. if you fed it into Grammarly and then compared what it spit out instead of what we had to see if it made it more readable. And you may not adopt it wholesale. but you might be like. Oh. I like the way it fixed that sentence. That's a much better sentence than this one. So there might be some use for when we have. you know. these old by law provision. You're like. I don't even know what that says. But on the other hand. if you don't know what it says. Grammarly. probably doesn't either. So you might get a very you used it. have you? I haven't. but I know people that I work with. not lawyers. who use it for me. I think my grammar. syntax and spelling correction is better than what AI would show. Albert Ira Montague. Jr.: How do they put it? Do they scan you. Robin Borgestedt: you copy and paste it in and say. check it and it checks it so and I have an attorney who works for me who was a high school English teacher. so she's way better than grandma YouTube. so I feel like I've been disciplined when I get it back with red pen marks on it. So. you know. there may be uses for it. but not not for most of what we do anyway.
Anette Lewis: Oh. well. so Robert. is there anything else.
Robert Hummel: Sorry. muted. Sorry. muted. Nothing I can
Robin Borgestedt: think of. so I move to adjourn. I'll second favor. Public Anette Lewis: favor. We're adjourning at 930