The Raynham Channel
Welcome to Raynham Community Access & Media (RAYCAM), where we engage, learn, and create community access media. We are dedicated to providing a platform for all voices to be heard and shared. Join us in creating a vibrant and inclusive media community.
The Raynham Channel
Planning Board Meeting 1/16/2025
(Episode Description is AI generated and may be errors in accuracy)
Join us as for a presentation of a farm aid plan for two lots on Oakland Street and tune in as we uncover the challenges that lie beneath the surface of lot approvals. With valuable insights as we explore the need for a comprehensive approach to overcome hurdles like substandard roads and wetland crossings, emphasizing the crucial role of engaging various town departments for a successful application.
The complexities of land subdivision and zoning compliance come into sharp focus as we explore the intricacies. This episode dives into the debate over subdividing lots without utilities, revealing potential pitfalls and the importance of adhering to zoning laws. We shed light on the differing perspectives that challenge the planning board, while stressing the importance of balancing regulatory compliance with development goals.
In the final segment, we turn our attention to the Route 138 corridor and Raynham's evolving landscape, examining how demographic shifts and state mandates like ADUs influence development strategies. By proposing resident surveys, we aim to align community preferences with regulatory requirements, enhancing commercial opportunities while protecting open spaces. With a focus on minimizing survey fatigue, we explore rezoning solutions and creative approaches to corridor development, setting the stage for a new bylaw draft by June 2025.
https://www.raynhaminfo.com/
Copyright RAYCAM INC. 2024
All right, we're done.
Speaker 2:We're calling the planning board meeting to order. Today is January 16, 2025. You can join us in person or watch us live broadcast channel Comcast 98 at Verizon Channel 34. In attendance tonight we have Brian Oldfield, burke Fountain, anthony Nicoli and we have Chris Gallagher on the phone and myself, matthew Andrews, chairman tonight. First item on the agenda the minutes December 19, 2024 and the minutes of January 2, 2025. I make a motion.
Speaker 3:We table the minutes for December 19, 2024 and January 2, 2025. I make a motion. We table the minutes for December 19, 2024 and January 2, 2025.
Speaker 2:Seconded Any discussion Hearing. None all in favor. Aye, chris, did you vote on that? Aye, okay. Next item on the agenda for 601, form A, keith Oakland Street, if the applicant or representative would like to approach and state your name.
Speaker 4:Thank you, mr Chairman. Members of the board, my name is Ed Brennan. I'm an attorney with an office at 174 Dean Street, taunton, representing the applicant. This is a proposal asking the board to approve a farm aid plan for two lots on Oakland Street. The two lots are depicted as lots 61B and 61A.
Speaker 4:Our position is that they have the required frontage and area under the ordinance, as the lots will be provided with town water and they'll have an on-site septic system.
Speaker 4:We've got a letter from the Water District of December 19th outlying the conditions that we'll have to meet in order to get the hookup to the water and we're asking the board to approve the plans tonight so that we have the configuration of the plans and the frontage approved and then we can go to the next level of.
Speaker 4:Do the final design for the water connection coming over from Carlton Street? Do the final design for the water connection coming over from Carlton Street? We'd like to know that we have the configuration and the lots approved before we incur those additional expenses on the water hookup. But if we comply with the requirements of the district, the letter indicates that we will be provided with water and we would ask that the board approve the farm a plans, knowing that you haven't rendered the lots buildable. We still have other other permitting issues that we have to deal with, but we have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is to get the lots approved as to configuration, and then we'll move forward to comply with any other requirements the town might have.
Speaker 2:Okay, chris, did you want to start this off with any comments? Yeah, I have a few. I actually think this is more like the last step instead of the first.
Speaker 6:They don't have water currently, so without water or sewer, it's 200 feet of frontage. Unless you went the route of a definitive submission, which is what I think this should have done for several reasons. You have a wetland crossing and conservation would most likely have you do an alternative analysis and say why don't you bring it up from sandy hill up oakland, um, when you don't have to do a wetland crossing? So there could be an issue there, um. They also, john chase, had a letter about an easement that needs to be acquired and go through their legal department, um, and you know you have a road that's not even shown, which I had asked. So you know right now, oakland Street, it's paved but it's substandard. I think it's 18 feet but it's substandard at the time. So it's frontage off a substandard road. The problem, like what happens with doing it this way, is you take out all the other town departments to review it and it still needs other permits. So it's not an approval not required. An approval not required has to have the legal frontage as of the day that you sign the plan. So right now it doesn't have the 200 feet of legal frontage.
Speaker 6:I think this would be better served to withdraw and submit it as a definitive process. That way all this work will be done before lots are released. So I think that's the route that should have gone in as a submission and get all this done. The water isn't an expensive job. I mean that's a two-day job to install. You know it's two-inch water. It comes in 500-foot rolls.
Speaker 6:I mean I know the water department just did 1,000 foot in a cemetery cemetery and that took them two days. So I'd be more comfortable having this work all done or at least approved, and I think we'd be better off going through the definitive process, because you take out all the other town departments and and I know the fire I had mentioned for them to look at it to see if they're happy with what's there, and I think they want a turnaround at the end, which I think would better serve that neighborhood. So I don't feel comfortable with this right now. I think it should go one of two routes either withdraw, file a definitive we might end up waiving some fees and that type of thing because it's just a small project or put all this stuff in and make it legal and then you only need 150 feet of frontage. So as it sits right now, I'm not in favor of it.
Speaker 2:Okay, brian, do you have any questions?
Speaker 1:Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, they do not have water on these two properties. They do not. They have a letter from the water department telling them what they need to do to bring water over there. So, as far as I'm concerned, these are not 4 May lots according to our bylaws.
Speaker 2:Have you obtained the easement yet?
Speaker 4:Well, we wouldn't be obtaining an easement. We would be giving an easement, yeah.
Speaker 1:And you also have a wetland cross. Well, we wouldn't be obtaining an easement, we would be giving an easement. Yeah, and you also have a wetland cross, right? So, as far as I'm concerned, have you talked to?
Speaker 4:Conservation. We haven't taken all of the departments out of the loop. I'm not sure I follow Chris's comment in that regard. What I'm asking you to do tonight is to approve the lots in the configuration that they're in. They're not buildable. There's a notation on the plan itself saying that we have to get the water connection from the water district. So we're not bypassing any, we just have to something has to happen first and to go through the engineering for the design of the water line and to go through the engineering for the design of the water line, to go through the engineering to file the CONCOM, all before we have the lots. That's backwards. We're not taking any town departments out of the loop here, from conservation to the district to the building department. They're all there. We just have to start somewhere and we're representing to you that. And I agree that for these lots to be buildable we do need to have the water to them. But we're not going to bring the water over to the lots if the board's not going to approve the lots as configured. What's here before the planning board tonight is the access issue in the area and the fact that we're representing to you that. We understand we don't have a buildable lot when you sign this plan tonight. That just allows us to go to the next step and this is a very logical sequence in order to render these lots buildable. And so I don't agree. We're not bypassing anyway, we're not skirting anything required that's going to be required by the town. We've just got to get started.
Speaker 4:And this, I think, is the logical starting point. There are no lot releases. This is not a subdivision where you know you're giving me some kind of lot releases tonight. You're not. All you're doing is approving the frontage on that street and, provided we bring water onto the lots, we would have a buildable lot. And we have the Conservation Commission crossing as well. Those aren't all gonna happen first. This is just the first step. They're not buildable. If you sign this plan tonight and I walk out, I don't have buildable lots, we all know that, but it's the first step. Out, I don't have buildable lots, we all know that, but it's the first step. If I go water department, the district has indicated that as we do what they're asking us to bring now, they will give us a water onto the site.
Speaker 6:So now you add all these conditions wetland, cross and water so it's time to feel like it's, an approval is required. So you have all this stuff. So if you file it as a definitive plan, then age is nothing. You do the same proposal. It goes as a definitive plan and we assign, we approve it as an approval required. And then, once you get all the work done, you get your lots released to build Right now. Create the lots before we do all the stuff you need to build on them.
Speaker 4:You don't need any conditions to this to render them unbuildable.
Speaker 6:I think you could get 15 grand or 10 grand and put a water line in. If the water's there, you're going to get your lots. It's simple as that. So I think we're putting the cap before the horse, not the other way around.
Speaker 4:I think we need to know that we've got the lots and then we can go forward and get whatever else is required by the town of Rainham to render these buildable. There are not going to be any lot releases. This is going to be if they're Form A lots. We're not taking any departments out of the loop. We just have to stop somewhere.
Speaker 6:Next, Chapter 61, an approval not required. Where next chapter 61 and approval not required, it says to endorse an approval not required plan, it must comply to zoning the day you sign it and without the water physically there it doesn't comply. And it's simple as that. That's just the way the law states and I mean that's we don't think when you're on the board you'd probably agree.
Speaker 6:But if this came as a definitive big deal, you fill out another application, you have some fees, you do it as a definitive, everybody's fine and happy and you get your lots when you put everything in, so it doesn't even change your timeframe.
Speaker 4:Well, if you approve the definitive, would you approve the definitive without the water on the lots?
Speaker 6:No, and I think that was an error, and so I think, from here forward, we're getting ourselves in trouble with these Form as that aren't Form as.
Speaker 4:There are no conditions required on this Form A because we know we can't get a building permit until we stop at all the various departments in the town. No town board is being bypassed at all.
Speaker 6:Well, no, with a Form A we don't send this to highway and to fire and everything like that. You come in with three copies. It comes in front of the planning board and that's it. The only reason it went to the water is because you first brought it and said it didn't have water or sewer. So we said go back to the drawing board and get water or sewer or make it 200 feet of frontage.
Speaker 4:So that's how the water department came up with it. It would go to all those departments through the building permit process, so we're not bypassing anyone what if we need?
Speaker 6:what if the highway thinks that the roadway needs to be upgraded? He can't do that to build a permit process. The locks are already done the highway department is already.
Speaker 4:If I wanted to, they've approved three houses on this. They're out of luck. Oh, ch gonna have the rest of the board. What are your?
Speaker 2:thoughts.
Speaker 3:I think that mr Gallagher makes a good point. Until there's water available, you need 200 feet and you don't have to in your, so you don't comply with zoning.
Speaker 4:You're saying we have to bring the water physically onto the lot.
Speaker 1:That's what the bylaw says. The lots need water or sewer To be built, to be built Right Agreed. Excuse me, brian, I'm sorry, so you need to me. You need to get water to both these before I'd say they're approved. But if water in there, if you brought the water over, I'd be more than happy to say form a lot, because it follows our bylaws and we just change the bylaw. Water or sewer has to be there and it's not there. The water department gave you dog gave the list of what they want so you can get water or sewer over there. So to me.
Speaker 1:I'm gonna vote against it until you get water or sewer. I'm following the bylaw. That's why we have it.
Speaker 4:But I think for purposes of discussion, if you approved it the way it is, with the notation on there, you would be approving it subject to what? No?
Speaker 1:Doesn't follow the bylaws as of this right now.
Speaker 2:Is this just currently one large parcel that's being subdivided into two, divided into two, divided? Yeah, so I mean, aside from you just subdividing this into two separate parcels, parcel a and parcel B? You know this is denoted as lots. You know, lot 61 B, lot 61 a, you know.
Speaker 4:Right with the notation that we have to bring water on them to render a buildable.
Speaker 2:Yeah but they're not even buildable. We're just subdividing a larger plot of land into two separate parcels where, like you, would have to come back to deem them buildable once they are buildable.
Speaker 4:Not here. I wouldn't have to come back here. I would have to go to all the other departments and satisfy them, which we understand, that we just have to come back here. I would have to go to all the other departments and satisfy them, which we understand, that we just have to start somewhere and having the lots subject to whatever else I've got to get, which is obvious then we can move forward. But to move forward on those other issues, then come back and say, okay, approve the configuration of the lots. I mean I think that's backwards. I mean this is what you see here with. I mean this is what you see here. A lot of the lots A and B is a typical form A plan. The only issue here is the water.
Speaker 2:Yeah, there's no utilities servicing them Correct In their current form. In their current form, yeah.
Speaker 4:But we have we've addressed that issue through the water district.
Speaker 3:What do you have from the water district?
Speaker 4:The letter of December 19th saying you have to ABCD in order to get the water steps that are needed to be taken have you seen a lot.
Speaker 3:I did see Anthony you have any questions?
Speaker 2:comments concerns I.
Speaker 8:Concerns. I'm in agreement with the rest of the board. But I agree it's a slippery slope if we were to say yes to something like this without the utilities. But I have to think back on precedent that we just did this for 10 lots off of Pine Street. How is this, for the sake of discussion, any different? Because we just did this, we just approved it. Well, we all didn't approve it?
Speaker 1:So I'm just asking. I was against it and I'm against this Because it doesn't have water or sewer.
Speaker 8:And what we did in that situation was the conditions that I think we removed a lot. It was the bylaw states, the conditions that I think we removed a lot. It's not buildable on the plan.
Speaker 1:But it's a slippery slope Taxes.
Speaker 4:If there was water in a water line in Oakland Street now, we would still have to go back to the water district and get permission to tap into it.
Speaker 1:But you can't tap into the water or the sewer. You still better go get permission. We're getting permission to tap into it, but you can't tap into the water in the sewer.
Speaker 4:You still got to go get permission. We're getting permission to bring it in from Carlton. What's the difference?
Speaker 2:There isn't water for those two lots I think that there's a large difference, because we're looking at a wetland crossing for a water line to service two lots. I think that this is a far stretch from going in and saying Oakland is right up front and connecting from the front side you have if you had wetlands on lots a and B yeah next to the street that you had to go through to get to the house.
Speaker 4:Yes, in situation. I can really give it on calm. Yeah, issues at this point. You know what we can and can't do under contract. But if those wetlands were along open, it would be the same thing would need a wetland crossing to get the water line to where the house is going to go. We're just bringing it in. For Oakland there's no difference. They might be different scales. How far?
Speaker 6:we have a raw man where you don't have to cross what would come in down sandy hill. But regardless, if you simply withdrew this submitted as a definitive subdivision, you get the same end result and it would be legal for us to approve it.
Speaker 4:I think it's legal now, especially with the notation on the plan. You haven't given me anything except for lock configuration. I don't feel comfortable with that turnaround.
Speaker 6:I'd like some sort of cul-de-sac at the end of it.
Speaker 4:You approved that. It's already been approved.
Speaker 6:I mean, it's not off of you launch Now you've got another half dozen launch down there and want to get in you might recall the approval of I think that would be to me, and I thought it was communication with the fire department. I don't know if there's any correspondence, but I thought, um, it was communication where they may have said they want to turn around, but if it went through the definitive process it would go to highway, it would go to fire and it would allow them to have input on what they want.
Speaker 4:Chris, when you approved this for the property owner across the street, you required a turnaround. The turnaround is already there. It's a hammerhead. It's a little hammerhead.
Speaker 6:I mean a round cul-de-sac, but you know I had nothing to do with that approval anyway. But it doesn't matter. But we're just dealing with the case in front of us and that's my feelings. They're not going to change right now. You're still going to get the lots if you just file it through a defender. I don't know why there there's such kickback on that.
Speaker 4:The board has improved the upgrades to oakland and that included a hammerhead. It's already been done. I don't know how you could go backwards now and say you want a cul-de-sac when the board has already approved the hammerhead well, that was approved, based on another person's proposal.
Speaker 6:Um, but approved regardless. Yeah I I think other issues require it to come in. There's a definitive another person's proposal, but it proves Regardless. Yeah, I think that the other issues require it to come in as a definitive, or come in with your online instructor in the way.
Speaker 2:I think that we need to. I mean, if the board doesn't have any other comments, questions that they would like to bring up, I think we should take it to a vote, because I mean mean, we're just talking about the same topics at this point. So I mean, does anyone else have any other questions? For I have a couple go for it.
Speaker 3:You say this is for me. What do we get to look at? What are the parameters for our review? In other words, we're talking water and you're saying, no, you don't have to have water. Now. What is there now that we should approve this?
Speaker 4:You should approve it, based upon the representation on the plan that we're going to be water over from Carlton and the letter from the Senate District saying if we need the A, b, c and D, we have water to the lot, no different than if it were the water line extension from 100 feet down the street. The fact that it's coming over from Carlton shouldn't make any difference. The fact that it's coming over from Carlton shouldn't make any difference. We're complying with the requirement of water by saying we know we have to bring it to it. We've got the letter from the Center Water District. We've got the notation on the plan. If we don't bring water there, we have nothing. We don't have a bill for water. The plan says it doesn't certify compliance with zoning. Certainly what you do here tonight doesn't make this buildable. It just allows us to move forward with the other departments.
Speaker 6:It's non-buildable on your plan. You're saying that it doesn't meet the requirements of a form a on your claim, so I don't know, but I agree with that that discussion should be moved to a vote.
Speaker 3:You have another question, sir? Go ahead sir. Well, I have a hang up on the zoning and the 150 feet versus the 200 feet, because currently it doesn't comply with the 150 feet, because currently you don't have water and don't have water available.
Speaker 4:Well, I think this letter says it's available. I mean we have to do something to make it available. But that's true with every water hookup, unless the water stub's already on the lot and we can just tie into it. That's something that has to be done with every water line extension or whatever you're going to do to get water to the site. So we went to the Senate Water District. They said do A, b, c, d and you can bring the water to these two lots.
Speaker 4:So we presented as a Form A, with this letter, knowing that we have to do A, b, c, d for the Senate Water District, this letter, knowing that we have to do ABCD for center water district. But to require us to do that first would be like requiring water line extension to these lots before they got approved. I mean, many lots get approved subject to bringing a water line down to it or in some type of an extension, but we're not. We're not going to be able to go back and say, okay, we've got buildable lots because they signed a form, a plan. That's never the case all right.
Speaker 2:Anything else? No, all right. If there's no other comments or questions, I would say we. Uh. If someone would like to make a motion to either approve or deny, the plan?
Speaker 6:Okay? Well, if that's the case, matt, as non-chairman, I get to make motions.
Speaker 2:Yep.
Speaker 6:I make a motion that we deny this plan based on it has inadequate frontage because it doesn't presently have water, it needs permits for wetland crossings, it needs easements. I mean, I think it should come back as a definitive. But my motion is to deny the plan based on inadequate frontage because water is not presently available.
Speaker 2:I'll second that so what we'll do is we'll do it. I guess we can do a roll call vote as to is we'll do it. I guess we can do a roll call vote as to you know, anyone who says yes would be denying the plan. Anyone who says no would approve the plan. So, chris, is that a yes? I'm a yes, brian Burke, I'm still thinking.
Speaker 3:I hear what you two have to say.
Speaker 8:Anthony, aye, yes, yes, well, aye Burke.
Speaker 3:I guess I'll go yes at this point. All right.
Speaker 2:And I'll vote yes as well. So that five yeses. There are no. Next item on the agenda for 605 is serpent review of master plan survey. If server would like to talk up to the podium, state your name.
Speaker 9:Hi, good evening everyone. Lizette Gonzalez.
Speaker 7:Hey, I'm Howard Cabral. For those of you, nice to meet you.
Speaker 9:I'm going to go to the fourth, sorry. Is there a way to connect to?
Speaker 10:We didn't plan on that, I'm sorry.
Speaker 9:Oh, no. No, no, you're totally fine. I knew I wouldn't have it ready for you. Done, Slide that underneath. Thank you so much. Thank you. Let's go to the back one too. I didn't know you were rolling it on. Oh, it's for the back one too. I don't think so. I think you're just rolling out. Oh, it's for the TV. Oh, I see.
Speaker 1:Is it going to go on the back?
Speaker 10:I don't think it's going to go this way. That's a remote talk. Usually they're in there.
Speaker 8:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:Just pick the source.
Speaker 5:Something I insisted on that is ahead of schedule. I think that's important, so you're sure you aren't nervous that people watch me. I walk through one of the train cars and chat with everybody.
Speaker 10:That should be plugged into the front screen. Okay, why don't you try to side it up and see if it'll pick it up? There's no, there's no, there's nothing in there. I'm trying to go. I'm going to start passing around for some source. Is that just a? I'm trying to go. I'm going to start passing around. Is that plugged into the TV. It's plugged in directly to the TV. No, the plug you gave was plugged into the outlet?
Speaker 2:Yeah, just pick a different HDMI plug. What Right here? Yeah, just pick a different HDMI port. No, no, what is the PC or the AMOLED.
Speaker 10:No, you can go through it. Okay, we have to get something started, so let's just go through it. Okay, I think I did share what you said. We've been around here for hours. Okay, no worries, just tools, real tools.
Speaker 9:No, no, fine, you're fine.
Speaker 8:No, I do and.
Speaker 9:Okay, no worries, I apologize for the technical difficulties. If that's the case, I'll go. We'll do a verbal presentation. I'm sure to send it out to everyone.
Speaker 9:At the end of the day, today is really just kind of talking Conversationally about some existing conditions for the route 138 corridor study. I know it's been a while since we've been in front of you guys. We had some opportunity to take some feedback, listen to what you as a town were looking for to get out of this particular study, so we're hoping it really meets those expectations. Can you pass around the map and show them the consent that you want to? So one of the main things that we discussed the last time were the study area boundaries. You know we were hoping that that was something that would be set by you all and we came to the consensus that it's something that should be determined by the existing zoning of the corridor, and so we decided to use strictly the business district and industrial district. You may notice some slight yellow in there that denotes residential, but that's likely split zone lots and something that should actually be part of the recommendations of this.
Speaker 9:So at the end of the day, this corridor is about 2.75 square miles and wanted to go over.
Speaker 9:There is some spatial data that we covered, part of it being improvement to land value ratio, and this is something that tells us the improvements of a parcel say structures, buildings that are built upon it, based, and compare that to its land value.
Speaker 9:And so the lower the value, the higher the desirability for redevelopment, some type of new use, given that it may be vacant, it may be underutilized, and so the lighter shades that you see on that map there are telling us that, okay, these parcels have a high likelihood of redevelopment and some type of new use because there isn't too much activity going on there at the moment. We've produced, as part of this, existing conditions we did listen to you all and some initial concerns from residents that you know. Rainham is a busy place, it's growing. We want to recognize that and, as such, we want to be sensitive to existing traffic concerns. One of the things that we pulled from our data was crash data, and this really tells us that the southern portion of the corridor experienced some of the more frequent uh crash incidents and so the northern portion again similar to some of the information that I mentioned earlier reutilization, redevelopment, similar to here that's a more less frequent an area, so there will be less crashes in that area.
Speaker 9:So as we propose different zoning types. We want to be sensitive to the existing conditions of traffic. Just want to mention open space, and residential uses were particularly high areas that we did not want to touch when it came to this study.
Speaker 9:We understand that you know, residential areas don't want to be impacted by further additional growth and we do want to continue protecting our green spaces and open areas, so just wanted to be sensitive to that. And then we I do want to go over some general existing conditions. I know we recently completed the master plan within the last five years, but there is some change that we want to talk about and remind everyone what our demographics are, what our economic trends are, and really we recognize that Rainham is growing. It seems that that trend will continue for quite some time, even though it has been tapering off over the last 20 years. In addition, rainham is also getting older. It actually exceeds the state and the Bristol County to be able to say that the median age in Rainham is about 43 years old. Households are getting smaller. School enrollment has actually stayed pretty level over the years. It has gone up and down, but it stayed pretty level over time and Rainham is an affluent community. It actually exceeds again both the state and the county when it comes to these things An average salary of 105,000 in 2022, whereas the state and the county are 80 and about 95, relatively One of the things that we wanna highlight because when it comes to the Route 138 corridor and the emphasis on commercial redevelopment and finding new revenue streams to provide and maintain good quality services.
Speaker 9:As Rainham does provide taxes and revenues, it's a big thing. Right now the residential tax rate in Rainham is about thirteen point six, commercial eighteen point five three. So this split tax rate shows us that Rainham is a town that's interested in offsetting the burden of services and those types of amenities from residents to commercial uses that may use a little bit more, may make more of a burden on our roads. So with that we want to be able to take advantage of that and propose additional commercial growth. Find ways to increase that creatively along the Route 138 corridor. Find ways to increase that creatively along the Route 138 corridor.
Speaker 9:And one of the things that we realized in our discussions looking at the master plan is that Route 138 is a great place for small businesses and housing. Mixed use is something that we've discussed a number of times. Obviously it has to be measured and managed appropriately, but given its existing conditions, it is an appropriate place for it. Now we're not the ones to tell you what should happen on Route 138. That's something that we want to hear directly from you and the residents themselves. So after tonight we'll be releasing a brief survey that asks residents their development preference types and it's very fundamental, I would say it really looks at existing case studies around the region nearby a little bit further that residents can say I like this type of development, maybe it's a village style two-story type of development or it's up to five stories.
Speaker 9:On the survey but again this is a good thing, because we're trying to get people to tell us what it is that they want to see and what types of configurations are most appealing on this type of corridor. Yeah, did it open? Hmm, okay.
Speaker 7:What we can say is you know, we met with some folks here Mr Barnes and a member of the select board I think we've got Mr Andrew here. Yep, we got some feedback about the direction of the survey and the types of questions we want to ask, so we can show you guys some of those pictures and see if they kind of fall in line. It's a visual preference survey, primarily so folks in town or in the neighborhood who take it.
Speaker 7:They can say I'd like to see this on the 138 corridor. It kind of gets away from asking numbers and those kinds of questions which can be hard to visualize and we can apply a value. As I just said, it's kind of got two flights, two sets of windows. It's a two-story building and we ask the setback and we ask about kind of the relationship in addition to the setback, the relationship qualitatively to the street. So by value of setback, how far away from the street are we talking?
Speaker 7:and qualitatively is sort of like like what types of amenities do you want to see on the street itself?
Speaker 7:so we kind of try to distill it into those three things and the reason why is we write the bylaw. Ultimately we'll have those kind of improvements you want to advocate for in public realm. We're going to write setbacks and we're going to write FARs and building rights. So if we can get that information from the survey, we can distill that and put it in the bylaw basically, and it will reflect the town's preferences, you know, and so you know if anyone's kind of listening or thinking about it, if people don't like an image and it seems particularly offensive, you know, for whatever reason, we can take it out.
Speaker 7:But also, if it's something you just don't like, you wouldn't want to see it's a, you can vote no on it in the survey too. So you want to get that range. Some of them probably are what you want to see it, but we want to find the sweet spot.
Speaker 9:Is the point of the survey so, yeah, any questions, sending out the survey and sharing it with Bob in the town to be able to website I have a couple questions.
Speaker 10:As you know, communities are getting bombarded with new state mandates and ADUs, 3a, multifamily zoning all things that most people don't want to hear or listen to because it's adding more residents and more residential, which is what we're trying to do. Your mixed zoning is adding residential to the business corridor. How do you think those two items? We just went through the ADU by-law this past week. You got it approved. I know we're gonna be talking about the 3A zoning multi-family at the Springtown meeting all of which residents really don't want to hear or listen to. How do you think that's going to impact what we're trying to do with the master plan within that 138 corridor?
Speaker 7:I think that's a really good question and I guess when you look at your toolbox of planning tools, they address some of the same things and some of the different things. If you look at the I'll start with the multifamily of 3A.
Speaker 7:I think you look at this corridor, the two parts of the development along this corridor, and what we can say about this one in particular is that this is initiated by the town and the town has the full power to make all the decisions on it. There are certain parameters you'll need to meet for Section 3A the units per acre, the unit zone. There are certain parameters you'll need to meet for section 3A the units per acre, the unit count. But in this case, if the town decides I mean I personally think 8, you might not see a lot of development, which is why it's set a little higher for 3A. The Commonwealth wants something that's probably realistic to see development, but say you wanted to set it at 4 or 3 or whatever. The town has full control over these parameters in this case. And the ADU I think that's one of those things, that it's a different tool in the planning toolbox and they're complementary. I think.
Speaker 7:When you talk about just in common parlance, what do I think? When I think of an ADU, I think someone's like mother-in-law might want to live in an apartment in their house or whatever. So you set aside that area or you might want to rent it to one other person. It kind of sets that situation up, whereas this is a focused mixed-use area corridor where you're looking to build residential on top of some of those commercial spaces. So it's a more focused area of development where you could see sort of not just residential but a lot of the things that people do enjoy in the town Going out to dinner at a nice restaurant, some shopping. Those things are all kind of combined along this corridor. So you think of different things in different parts of towns. That's how I can see those fitting together.
Speaker 10:Great answer, thank you. Second question over the last several years a lot of the potential growth and that 138 corridor has been hampered by the fact that the business zone doesn't go back far enough and we have split zone lots. We have a lot of that frontage at the back of those lots of residential a which doesn't allow you to develop it or enhance your business opportunities in the front of lots. What can you do to solve that problem other than going back to town meeting and rezoning the whole property?
Speaker 7:right. I mean, I think we can sort of work through how we analyze that as we get into the nitty-gritty of the bylaw. So yeah, option one is just to rectify the lots, which might not be the first preference.
Speaker 7:But that's always one way to do it. And when you go to town meeting to pass the district anyway you could look at the map and look at it. But also we could look at what kind of commercial frontages and square footages I guess we enable, with what we're doing, to see some of those things doable by right in the bylaw itself.
Speaker 10:Yeah, so one of the things I talked about at our meeting last week. This past week is two of the most difficult things to accomplish when you're talking about your bylaws is one, passing a bylaw and two, changing the zoning map. So both of those things that we're talking about doing. So I think if you built it into the language, it would probably be the easiest route easy for people to digest yeah, folks, the sound fight is kind of talking too much jargon.
Speaker 7:I apologize. I guess, if you have the box, which is the parcel. You could expand the area by which will be sale. We mean, rectifying this split zone is making the whole parcel able to be commercial, or we could fit the words or the building to what's there on the ground now, aka we allow something that doesn't require an expansion of the commercial zone, area but that footprint of what we're allowing in the new zoning could basically be done and leave the map the way it is.
Speaker 10:So a lot of communities, other communities I shouldn't say a lot, but other communities that I've been involved with they would allow in those circumstances up to, let's say, 80% of the total audio area to be used commercially with buffer zones. So those kinds of things that you put in the language would solve problems like that. We don't have that now. It's strictly business and residential. So if you had a three acre parcel and one acre was business and two acres was residential, with a buffer zone part of that, and you went to, let's say, 80%, you may be able to get more people to develop those smaller lots that don't have a lot of business zoning.
Speaker 9:That's a good creative solution and something we've actually like. Buffer zones We've definitely included in other zoning projects as well.
Speaker 7:I think it's a good approach and you know there's multiple ways to attack that and that's a very valid one. If it's, if it's more, you know, positively received by the town, there's no reason not to do it. That's a good, it's a good approach. Last question, and then I promise you know, positively received by the town, there's no reason not to do it last question, and I promise no more after this.
Speaker 10:So, before you actually have a document for us, how many more months and how many more surveys are you planning in order to gather the information that's required to put the language?
Speaker 9:together. I'm gonna say this is probably going to be the only survey. I understand that people have survey fatigue having done so many and covered, you know, lots of different topics on it. From here, I mean I have to speak for both of our workflows at this point, but you know the project is set to be completed based on the grant program itself. So June 30th 2020 2025 is our deadline, which gives us a few months of time. But I know I want to meet your needs if you're trying to present a certain type of meeting, if you're trying to work it into another process that you have ongoing, but I mean, I would think the spring for, for a draft bylaw, we would have a public event to share with people what that bylaw would produce when it comes to or enable I should say, not produce any what type of development that bylaw would would enable, and then have them give their feedback in that manner if you have a survey at an actual town meeting.
Speaker 7:I never have. No, I wonder if it's even possible.
Speaker 10:but that's something that I kind of thought about the other night. With that on a special town meeting, you have a lot of people in one room. Yeah, that might be something to think about. That's pretty cool.
Speaker 2:Were you guys planning to come in for a planning board meeting where we would advertise it, where you know different people in the town will be able to come in and we could do that with the results of this and see how people yeah, I think if you did the survey and then we had some results from the survey and you could kind of combine feedback from people who would be here, because you know they would give it.
Speaker 10:We're definitely gonna. Yeah, they're gonna want to come up and you know, this is like the best venue for people to speak their mind, so I think that's a given we're definitely going to have a public hearing.
Speaker 2:They're going to want to come up and, you know, this is like the best venue for people to speak their minds. So I think if they were to come in and got to stand up and say a few words, I think you'd probably get a lot of feedback at that meeting.
Speaker 7:Yeah, and it's probably normal that some of the feedback will be, I won't say, ambiguous, but we might not have a clear direction and it might be really helpful to clarify some of those points. Or maybe the survey doesn't lend the opportunity for someone to be a little more expository about what they think and why they think it, so that detail can be very helpful.
Speaker 9:So we appreciate that suggestion. Yeah, I don't know that we have a set closing date, but what we could do is, at the end of the survey, maybe work with bob to get a date for what that planning board meeting, when that planning board meeting could be, and set it at the end of the survey so people know when they can come and talk to us about it you want to start another meeting, a small meeting with the select board selectman andman and Matt, like we had before.
Speaker 10:So why don't you email me next week and I'll set something up, oh sounds good, yeah, okay. Awesome, that's great. Thank you so much. Yeah, no, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 9:Thank you, we will definitely be in touch.
Speaker 10:Thank you so much guys, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2:Sorry about the hic item on the agenda is invoicing bills payable. I didn't see any being passed around. Was there any?
Speaker 10:okay, old business, new business, bob, anything a lot of old business and I sent it out to you. Regarding the cemetery easement on Sydney Drive, we've been talking about this and waiting for something to happen for many months. A couple weeks ago, after a conversation with the developers superintendent, I realized that nothing was happening, so I reached out myself to town council. I think I sent you his draft letter. It's being delivered tomorrow, so the perpetrator was going to get his letter tomorrow and I'll keep you in the loop. My suggestion is to, once this is finalized, maureen and I can keep track of the expenses that we've incurred incurred for doing this, instead of having the developer do it, that we back charge the developer for all the expenses, including the you know the cost to drop the letter, which was done by town council.
Speaker 10:Okay, All right On the other thing too, regarding that subdivision. Maureen realized that there is no plowing account for that subdivision, so before we do log releases, we'll have to have them establish snow plowing account for that subdivision.
Speaker 2:Don't run.
Speaker 10:Don't run.
Speaker 2:Okay, Planning corner your update.
Speaker 10:So it's part of all business. The electric vehicle charging station which we got word of was we're gonna have one installed at the, the old mobile station it's called all town now at 1266 Broadway, which is in the intersection of Elm Street, east Broadway. I don't really think we need to take any action, is basically just just informational so that you know what's going on.
Speaker 10:They're actually going to be going through a major renovation at that site. Also, renovation would be the store and the pumps, no relocation of entrances or additional space in the store or changing of parking spaces. So it doesn't qualify for a site plan, okay serpent up a.
Speaker 2:I think we got that plans to be signed none, and with that we have adjournment Motion to adjourn Matt did you guys sign the Tom meeting report? Is that this one here? Yes, it should be. It's under the old business.
Speaker 10:I'm sorry I missed it, this one here.
Speaker 2:We will have this signed.
Speaker 6:Okay, well, have a great night, everybody, stay out of the hot sun. Thank you, chris. See you, chris, okay.
Speaker 3:Is there a second on that motion? I'll second that.
Speaker 2:Any discussion Hearing, none all in favor. Aye Good cheese, still walking Good cheese.