Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Well, officially we have a quorum, but I think  I'll wait a [clears throat] minute or two and hope   we could get at least a four. Did anybody notify  you they weren't going to make it tonight, Tony?   I did not hear from anyone. Okay. Maybe they're all waiting for 702. Don  looks like she's on as a participant,   not a panelist. Yep, she did show up. [clears throat] Oh, right. Okay. Thank you. Welcome, Don. Thank you. All right, we have quorum  plus [clears throat] and therefore we can get   started. Uh then I will Hi Todd, we are at full  strength. I will call this the U January 27th,   2026 meeting of the Bedford Planning Board  to order. Begin with a statement from our   government. Pursuant to legislation S2 2475  extending the suspension of certain provision   the open meeting on GL38 paragraph 20 this meeting  of the Bedford planning board will be conducted   via remote participation to the greatest extent  possible. No inerson attendance of members of the   public will be permitted but every effort will be  made to ensure the public can adequately access   the proceedings in real time via technological  means. In the event that we're unable to do so,  

despite best efforts, we'll post on the town's  website, an audio or video recording, transcript,   or other comprehensive record of the proceedings  as soon as possible after the meeting. That said,   to those that are participating,  this meeting is being recorded   and copies of minutes of this meeting will  be available at a point in the future. So I think on the agenda our first topic is here  and this is a continuation of discussion about   uh 49 Elm Street. Not sure if we have anything  else before that. Well, the technically the the   the subdivision for 145 Davis Road that involves  the extension of Jeffree Circle was the first   item on the agenda. But that got deferred,  didn't it? Yeah, but the board needs to open   the hearing. Okay. Agree to take no testimony and  continue the hearing to February 10th. And this   is 145 Davis Road. Yes. So, is there a motion to  continue open the hearing for 145 Davis Road? So,   moved. We got to open it then continue it. Thank  you. So, move second. Don, how do you vote?   Chris I Don I I Todd I John I. And the chair  votes I. Okay. Is there a motion to continue?   I have a question before we move to continue.  Just a question for staff. Technical question. Proceed. All right. So, the minimum lot size  is 60,000 square ft and a maximum of 35% can  

be wetlands or the like. I'm I'm noting that one  of the lots um lot D has got according to the map   75,000 square ft of upland and a total area of  uh 232,000 and change square feet. So percentage   wise it's much less than than 65% but in but as  a percentage of uh 60,000 it's obviously greater   than 60,000 so there's no issue there. It's a  question on how that percentage is calculated.   Well, technically we'll get into that at the  next meeting, but I for interpretation purposes,   the code enforcement director will look at the  inverse. In other words, you're allowed to have   35% of the required minimum lot area be wetlands  or flood plane. Okay? So if you've got 39 in this   case in the residents art district, if you've  got 39,000 square feet of uplands and you could   have acres of wetlands, you're you're going to be  eligible for a building permit because you meet   uh because you're it's it's not a percentage  of the total lot size. It's it's it's not you   know you're you're meeting 65 you have 65% of  the minimum requirement as upwards. Thank you. Okay. Glad we got that clarified. Now  again, is there a motion to extend the   hearing for 145 Davis Road to the next  planning board meeting? So moved. Uh,  

it was a tie. I think Don and make John be a  second. How do you vote? Don I. John. I. Todd.   Hi. Chris. I. And the chair votes I. Thank you one  and all. We'll be back to this subject again. Uh,   now are we up to 49 Elm? Yes, I read the agenda,  but I don't have it in front of me. Is there   someone to speak for this project? I am here.  Yes, but I suspect it's pan. You have the floor,   Miss Brown. Thank you. Um, David is also  online and I believe U Lynn will be joining us,   but she's got another hearing tonight and  hopefully will be on by 7:30. Um, let me let me   the chair would like to ask a health question.  David, where are you and what's going on? You're at a mask and you had people walking  by you. Are you in a hospital or a ward? Your screen froze up. He's muted. All right, I guess we're going to learn that  later. Pam, we'll go back to you. Thank you. Um,   so quick update. We did um have a great  conversation with the select board last night. Um,   we kind of presented a variation of the slides  that we' shared with the planning board um a month   or so ago, just kind of outlining 40y and um what  that law entails and what our proposal is here at   49 Elm Street. Um the select board um well I  think they seemed you know understanding and   relatively favorable towards what we're proposing.  Um they asked some of the same questions you had  

um about um 40y versus a local bylaw. Um, and then  having read Tony's, uh, most recent comments on   the zoning we presented, um, you all know that  we've been getting some informal comment from   the state. Um, and a significant part of that  is the state's goal of having this bylaw be a   standalone bylaw. So, uh, for example, at a prior  meeting, um, Katherine had presented some comments   of other sections of the bylaw we'd like to cross  reference, and the state really doesn't want to   see them cross reference. They want to see it  all in one bylaw. Um, I had picked through a   number of those sections that we might have been  interested in and I tried to pull in some of um,   those critical um, items, if you will, bullets  that we thought the board would be interested in   making sure you had some control over. Um but  fast forward and I will state right up front   Lynn does not agree with um this as much as I do,  but um I did speak with Tony briefly this morning   about whether we go back to trying to make this  a Bedford bylaw doing essentially what 40 Y is   intended to do with all the same goals, the same  project, but writing a bylaw that would just be   Bedford so we're not so constrained by some of  the state requests to not cross reference and so   forth. One example being site plan approval. Um,  you know, we I tried to bring in essentially those   critical elements, but they're very tied into  not having anything be vague, being very very   um crystal clear. So that um for example, I had  modified to just say off- streetet parking to   allow the opportunity for the board to evaluate  um what the appropriate amount of parking might be  

between the the developer and the and the board,  but the state really wants to see a number. Um,   so we've done some back and forth there, but I  guess my thought and maybe Tony's going forward   is maybe we take another look and I I'd like to  present this as the first discussion item tonight   is going back and taking out the 40 Y piece  here. Um now all that that really doesn't change   um any of our intentions on um you know what we're  doing here what the regulations are intended to   do or the intent of 40y which I think is what  we're trying to accomplish but rather taking away   the state control um the state regulations and  rather inserting whether it's by cross reference   or otherwise but inserting what Bedford wants  here so we can go back to like multif family   housing a reference to site plan approval um  or any modification that the board might be   interested in. So I guess before I talk anymore  I'd love to hear what the members are feeling   about that idea because I'm going to have to do  some quick drafting um to do revisions to either   be more consistent with what the state wants or  um be consistent with what you as a board want.   Okay, thank you Chris and then  Todd. Chris, you're first. Uh,   a couple of of questions. First one, just do  you have any insight into why the state is   uh requesting a a standalone bylaw when that  really does run contrary to how municipalities   operate. And the second is a a comment.  I've annotated you that the draft was   provided and when there's an opportune time  I'm happy to go through those those comments.

Um so I think in response to the first  question um the state and the 40y law is   really intended to promote as of right um housing  encouragement if you will. Um, and in doing so,   um, I think one small part may be they don't want  to have to review your entire zoning bylaw. They   want to review a standalone section, but aside  from that, they want to be very crystal clear   that these are the rules. It's it's allowed  by right and therefore the rules are really   focused on design, um, you know, health, safety,  whatever, um, you know, the police powers. But   um but not getting into a number of other  sections that make it much more discretionary. Thank you, Todd. Yeah. [clears throat] Uh I will  say I'm fully on board of abandoning the 40y   um rules and regulations that the state is is  imposing on us. um in that I think we could   uh frame it as we are doing what the intent  of the state is but yet putting a spin on   it and actually kind of making it slightly  more restrictive so that Bedford can choose   what they want to do with it and also more  cohesive with our bylaws. So I am fully on   board with kind of going down this route, but  I'd love to hear other members of the board. Uh Chris, you got your hand up again. Yes.  Uh so I'm I'm on board with that approach.   Um I don't see the um the benefit I don't see a a  significant benefit in trying to comply with the  

state's requirements. um if we could support this  as an overlay district and view u a density bonus   um is granted uh in exchange for um smaller  um heated living area. Um I think that that   would be a a positive uh direction to go in.  I I just see the the states requirements as   needlessly burdensome um complicating. I I do not  see a good reason to uh uh to go in uh as a 40y. Okay. I'll speak and say my personal opinion  is I'd like to stay away from the state 40y. If   there's some way to do it locally, I'd be in favor  of that. I'll let others u [clears throat] any   other questions of greater amount. Don, um not a  question, but I I'm happy to not go down the the   40y path. Wonderful. Well, that's at least four  of us. And John's got his hand up. John. Yeah,   I'll make it uh unanimous even though I won't  get to vote on it. But yeah, I'm I'm more than   happy to abandon the state. Um, and the only  thing I might tweak once we're free of that is   the language about three bedrooms. But like I  said, I'm not going to be able to vote on it,   so it doesn't really matter. Well, you probably  can vote on it, but that's up. If you think you   shouldn't, then that's up to you. All right.  So, the [clears throat] sentiment of the board,  

Pam, is do the local, stay away from the state 40.  What can you say to us next that gives a a miracle   definition now that will pass through the town  and up through the state and everybody will be   happy and, you know, we're we're all ears. Okay.  So, I've struggled with this because there was   no way this afternoon I was going to rewrite  the whole bylaw. Um, so what I actually did,   um, which is not perfect, but it might make  sense, is I did a compare version of Jonathan   Silverstein's original draft that incorporated  his first uh, or our, I should say, mine and   Jonathan's response to Katherine's initial set of  comments. and I compared that to the state's most   recent version from like yesterday. Um, so I have  a red line document on my screen. And the reason   I did that was in hopes that maybe we can just  kind of scroll through the bylaw. I started to   highlight things like, you know, we're going to  get rid of obviously 40 Y. Um, and when we talk   about regulations, we're going to refer to the  Bedford bylaw and not the state mass general laws.   um or at least not 40y. Um but I thought maybe  there would be a trigger so that we could see   sort of where editing was going on so we can take  a closer look. I'm not looking to wordsmith every   line right now, but if we can zoom in and then  maybe part of this is looking back to Katherine   and Tony's comments as well. Um I think we all we  we all just agreed and I I do agree. I think Tony   agrees that an overlay is the better approach than  creating new base zoning. Um, so that's one thing   we'll keep. Um, and then I know one of um, the  questions which you've done it in the past many   times is just the authority of the board to  grant waiverss. But if it makes sense to you,  

I'll just pull this up and we can kind of scroll  through. I think some of it the beginning part's   probably straightforward other than getting rid  of the 40y and then maybe we can get into where   we want to cross reference other Bedford zoning  rags. um where there are topical um things that   you want to make sure get incorporated here or do  we keep it really simple and say it's subject to   site plan review um might have been Chris I think  one of you just said um you know density bonus for   the smaller unit sizes and so I guess that that  makes sense um but one question would be I mean   we had drafted this as a a maximum of 10 units  per acre um just to essentially fit this project   including the existing house. Um I don't see any  reason to move beyond you know the proposed 1850   foot house that's probably less than half the size  of the new houses we're seeing today. Um but does   if anybody has another idea that's fine. I just  I thought maybe we could start there. Sure. Chris   has his hand up otherwise I do and I lost my train  of thought. Um, I do have my annotated copy of the   draft handy and I'm happy to go through that. Um,  I Oh, now I remember what I was going to say. Um,   yeah. I had an issue with just the stating that  um, the planning board could grant a waiver,   but the criteria not being defined. I think there  needs to be a fair amount of definition on that.   Just a general, you know, authority to grant  a waiver, I think, is is too broad. I Yeah,   thank you for that. I think the more recent  drafts actually limited it to um setbacks,   parking, it was it was much more limited. It  was not height and it wasn't density. Yeah.   Yeah. And I also think the criteria what would  constitute is I think okay for the way state  

plan review we have criteria that we evaluate  proposals against and even though there aren't   specific definition there aren't specific you  know quantitative requirements you know I can   go through that list and I can say okay you know  preservation of natural preservation of you know   features oh well we have um a a landscaping plan  and we have a a storm water management plan. So,   you can point to those as examples that  support the particular criteria. Okay,   why don't I pull this up and um stop me  at any point. I got to find the right one. Katherine has her hand up while you're doing  that. Yeah, Steph had originally commented that   we didn't think we really needed waiverss except  for the existing house where [clears throat] we   acknowledge that it's not not set back far  enough. So, um I think the case there have been   half a dozen versions of this flying around, but  certainly I've seen some where there seem to be   waiverss both for that and more generally for the  new development. Um, and I just think that seeing   as we've got a site that we're focusing on, we've  even got a conceptual development, um, I really   don't see any need for possibly any waivers.  Um, certainly not a broad range of waiverss.   And I have a strong preference for not including  waivers, but if this the sense of the board is   it's desirable to to do so, then I'd want the uh  the criteria that you're going to evaluate the   proposal against to be, you know, clearly defined.  Okay. So, first off, and this may seem silly,   but starter home overlay district sounds fine.  I don't love the acronym Shod. Um, but I don't   know if anybody else has a better I mean I thought  about cottage but then you know we get critique on  

like what's a cottage. So I just highlighted  that um in case anybody has a grand idea of   another name for this before it's too late. Um  and if you don't I'll just keep moving on. So,   I mean, there are a number of places we're going  to need to um pull out the um 40 Y, which I'll   just highlight as I go, but um I won't I won't  bore you with that. Um so, here um establishment   we're going to establish as an overlay district,  but we're again going to get rid of the 40 Y. Um I think the applicability is still fine. Um this  is the part that I think Tony was this the line   um shall be governed only by the  provisions. So we want to probably   just get rid of this alto together. Yeah.  And then this doesn't need to be a one. Um, so principal uses, I don't think this  changes attached or detached single   family dwellings not to exceed 1850.  Um, again, we're we're going to have to   um probably just delete this, but  I'll go back and spot check. Um, I don't know that we need to talk about  allowable accessory uses because they're   accessory, but I'm I'm happy to keep it.  But here, at least the cross references   um aren't a problem because we don't have the  state. So, I think these probably are all okay.   Um, and please stop me as I'm rolling  through here if anybody has any comment.  

Um again special permit we have to allow  sorry there was a do we have to allow an ADU I think so Tony might have a comment  on that although this is one ADU for   the whole development I understand but not per Yeah, it's an interesting scenario where  the [clears throat] way that law is written,   the property is eligible for one protected ADU. Why 600 ft? Oh, because of the size of  the homes. Got it. Well, that's Well,   we'll have to we'll take another look  at that. The way that's the way the ADU   statutes are written, the protected ADU  can be 900 square feet in most cases. and   um here with mult we'll yeah we'll take  we'll we'll we'll have a better answer   for you in two weeks. Thank you. Because  I don't know the answer. Um okay. And then so I think this is probably okay. I mean, our  bylaw in general prohibits any uses not  

otherwise allowed. Um, here we're referencing uses  that aren't indicated. Um 11.7 D. Where is it? It's It's maybe redundant, but it's it's this  is really just referencing above what's allowed.   Um I'm not I'm not sure we're gonna we might be  able to delete that whole section. That's that's   what I was thinking. It's kind of gets redundant  because you've said it above. Um, okay. So, um,   these are we still have Bill's annotation here,  but we can just overlook them for the moment. Um,   minimum lot um, area 40,000 square feet. I did I  think this was a change I made just based on some   prior comments. It's of the development locus,  so we're not suggesting that there are individual   lots that have to be almost an acre. Um [clears  throat] the proposal is shy. I put two stories   in 30 feet based on our last discussion. Um Tony  had made a comment about you know one and a half   stories but I think we don't quite we're a little  bigger on the second floor than the definition of   a half story. I'm personally not sure we want  to get into trying to define one and three/4er   stories. I think I with the height limit um or  m or maybe in the design criteria we say that   um you're looking for some of the upper story  floor area to be under the roof, you know,   the ridge. I don't know. I two Does anybody have  a huge problem with two stories? Two stories and   30 feet is good. Keep it simple. I'm okay with  it. Thank you. That makes my life easier. Um we  

I've lost track with all the revisions. We're at  10 10 dwelling units per acre. We're not trying   to exempt existing structures. The only thing  that really we're trying to do with existing   structures is um grandfather their location or  their height or whatever. Um so I think that's   what we were trying to do in this footnote.  Pre-existing residential structures shall not   be subject to setback and height requirements um  but shall comply with lot area density height. Oh,   I needed to delete height, I think. Um, and unit  size requirements. I'm actually not sure how tall   that existing house is, but it's fairly tall and  it sits close to the street. So, um, I think we   were just trying to, um, exempt the existing  structure from its current nonconformities. Um, and I guess we can get rid of unit size  also because you know our proposal is David   will be taking down a portion of that house  um, replacing it with a garage but non-livable   space so that it actually meets the criteria  that we're putting in the bylaw. I think from   the standpoint of grandfathering in existing  structures and and you know not demolishing   if if uh not necessary that you're you're good  to eliminate unit size as well as height. C can   I just jump in there because this is the bylaw  and that you're not guaranteed to get what's   been waved in front of you as a concept. So I  think the the criteria needs to stay in here.   Um they are proposing to comply with the unit  size requirements. Oh comply. Yes. I'm sorry.   So it's not a problem for them. We but we  want to take away height because I think   there's a chance it's strong. Correct. Correct.  That's why it was there. Thank you for that. Um

we did have a slightly different setback  requirement for unenclosed entry stairs   and landings um for side and rear setbacks. Um so  they're not they're semi-structural but no roof   um or not enclosed anyway. I suppose it could  have unenclosed. It It could have which which   is often a problem with our bylaw. Um so  I like this because sometimes you want to   have a little roof over your um your stairs,  your entrance um to get out of the rain or   the snow or whatever. Um but it wouldn't  be enclosed. It wouldn't be living space. A pet peeve. Yep. Uh neighborhood character. Can   you just make that design  standard? Yes. Thank you. Um shall include following features to  enhance. Do we want to say that here too?   Um no. Just say the following features.  You don't need to add anything to that. Everybody okay with that? I hear no objections. So, pedestrian  entrance, pitched roofs. Um,   is there anything else we want here? Pitch or  or No, I think the idea was not flat roofs. Um this change from shall to should. I guess I agree  with it. Um this came from the from bill at the  

state. Um because it was not definitive. Um so in  the first sentence it says should best practices   so so on and so forth. But then we get to  the specific at a minimum they shall. Um,   now I didn't I I I did a little more than throw  a dart, but some of these metrics I added just to   try to be more definitive. Um, so I would like to  revisit some of these like pvious materials. Um,   do you like keeping the 20% metric? Um, or would  you rather just have it be part of your site plan   review? No, I think it's good to have a number  in. Whether 20% is the right number, I'll I won't   weigh in on that. I will go back to the the use of  should though and I think that is appropriate. Um,   if you were going to use shall, then you would  need to be definitive on what constituted best   practices in energy efficiency, environmental  protection, and storm water management.   So if you're just going to leave those general  then it then should is appropriate. I think   yeah I agree. Thank you. Okay. So we  like a metric there. Um green spaces   um passive design. I think all of these  came I mean I think these were fine. um universal design to design. We spent some time  on that too, but again I tried to include some   stronger metrics um so that it wasn't just  sort of a requirement without something. Yeah,   I think in with the infrastructure or the  bathroom infrastructure, I think you know   making putting that requirement on all bathrooms  makes sense. This is really just reinforcing

uh areas where you would attach  grab bars and the like. Okay. So,   you want it to say off. Yeah, I would like  that. Yeah, I'd like that 50% to go away. Thank you. And then all door openings clear  with 32 in 48 in. I think that's okay. Um, oh, and then, um, well, I'm happy  to hear any comments on these,   but I think we can go back to not  calling it the plan approval authority,   and we'll just call it the planning  board. Maybe we just say that here. Um, I'm trying to think. We previously said  limited use of thresholds. I'm trying to   think if it's actually I guess I think I I think  you could drop planning board permission there   except as required by law. And it's ex not ACC.  Is that correct? It's except as in an exception. I got to find where you are, Chris. Uh 3C.  Oh, yeah. No raised thresholds except as maybe   required by state or federal law. But Katherine  has her hand raised. Yeah, I was partly going   to make some of the same points, but um sorry,  I'm getting an echo here. It's confusing me. Um,

oh yeah, in relation to the thresholds in  the discussions between various parties,   there was some confusion about whether  thresholds was just internal or whether   it was about access into the house from  outside. Now, the original intention when   these three main criteria were put forward  was that they covered access into the dwelling   as well as within it so that they were  meeting at least a visitable standard. So, I'm not quite sure whether the current  wording is being restricted to being just   within the dwelling or whether it includes that  intention that there's no more than one step to   get into the dwelling in the first place. I'm  not positive I would call that a threshold,   but I guess it is like a front door  threshold. So, let's at least for this line,   I think getting the intention clear one, however  it's worded, is the important thing interior and   you want to I'd love David's comment on  this to make sure this is feasible, but I think there may have been an issue  with the conceptual design because I   think when we look closely there were several  steps into some of those units. Yeah. Well,   so but I think maybe that's a separate um um limited. Well, I think it should be a  maximum of one step into the   dwelling from the outside is basically the idea. I'm just trying to think if there's  circumstances in which it's not feasible.  

um or at least giving the board,  let's see, um limited um limitation. You may not like this end part, but um I just I'm  not the builder, but I have a little discomfort   with making that a universal required about D.  Well, we also don't need to solve this tonight,   right? Just we raised the point because Bedford  is an AARP age friendly community and since Rich   Dhy had always talked about trying to make this,  you know, retirement cottages, we would argue that   minimizing the steps to get into the unit is an  age friendly feature. The the architect's design,   I would argue, is not necessarily an age friendly  design because there are steps from both the   outside and from the garage into the house. So,  um I I go would be to minimize that, but we don't   I'm not, you know, that's not necessarily  um you know, it's not necessarily something   we need to impose as part of the zoning, but just  something we will right think about how to how to   be aware of the desire to have at least some of  the units be ADA accessible. What uh we did have  

some amount of provisions on this in the Pineh  Hill overlay as we we had also some sustainability   and as well as accessibility criteria there. And  I think we can take another look at those and   see if any of that language might be applicable  here or andor whatever else we might have that   um could get at that and we can have that in time  for the next meeting. Great. I I'm not opposed to   the intent. I'm just thinking about circumstances  where sometimes you've got some grade on a   property and you want to build with the land.  Even if it's not like you have to go up three   steps to get to the front door, but maybe you've  got a walkway from the driveway to the front door   and you know, there's some grade change there and  you have one step and then walking and then maybe   one more step. I I just want to I think we need to  think about it a little bit before we mandate it. Okay. Um, constructed fully. Oh, I see. Okay. I think that's okay.  Although this maybe should just be   another letter. Units. That's That actually  looks like it's right out of the Pine Hill.   that units constructed or renovated  specifically to be I think we've used   that before. Should this just be E though or  should it be a separate kind of standalone? I don't think it's I don't think that's part  of the list. Um but if you're going to have   reference to the ADA standards, then you should  probably be saying what percentage of units are   supposed to meet that. Otherwise, it's it's  kind of hanging around hanging around a bit   loose. Well, this would read to be all  to me if it's constructed or renovated  

specifically to be fully accessible. There's  no requirement for any of them to be that. I   I don't know that there should be, but Right.  But then is it main it's meaningless then? Um I think it's these um universal design  lower standards that are important to have   in preferably all of the units. Yeah. Okay.  So, but this is still probably the right   place unless we want to try to incorporate  it somewhere else. Um well we can come back   to that plantings again. I tweaked the language  to try to satisfy the state. Um I would I would   just make it trees and shrubs and eliminate and  plantings but because you could have onegon pots   of various flowers or grasses. Oh yeah. All  right. I think the trees and shrubs are your   main concern there. And you've you've indicated  no invasive species. So, I think that really   covers the essentials. And I'm not sure 70% is the  Oh, wait. This is native. Uh yeah, that's okay. Um, yeah, obviously people like to have some   ornamentals that aren't all  necessarily native, but um

trees, I Yes. Anybody have any comments  on the percentages here? The way it reads is most are are native and most  are shade rather than ornamental. I think that's   good. I I guess I guess that works here unless  David says otherwise. Um, you know, we're not   putting this in another location right now, so I  think it's okay. Um, but you know, hypothetically,   you could have a little development that's  tucked into the woods where maybe you wanted   the development to be more ornamentals because  the woods are surrounding you. Um, but we can   leave it alone for now. Catherine, you have your  hand up. Yeah, these planting requirements tell   you what percentage have to be particular kinds of  plantings, but there's no requirement for um say a   minimum lot landscape area or how much planting  has to be provided. So I think even if it was   something fairly flexible, there needs to be an  introductory bit about what planting is required. What would you like? It could be  something to think about. Yeah. Um, site plan has a minimum  landscaping requirement.

Um, so this one was intended to allow for family  housing, not just seniors. I It's It's 50% so   I think it's probably still right. How about  Well, 50% three or more. I three bedrooms is   a pretty generous starter home and I think  you could reduce that to two and still be   consistent with the spirit of the uh starter home  concept. Yeah, this is also this is a state requ   this is part of the state's requirements.  If we are now not trying to do compliance   with the state, do we care right how they divide  the 18,800 square f feet up because it's 1,800   square feet is not large and therefore um I think  these two sections and and like subsection two   here we're not if we're talking now spec this  specific property we're not going to get to 13   units and therefore for the the state mandate  for an affordable component does not apply.   So the question will become whether we would  like to impose something on our own or again   given the 1,800 square feet let them propose  how to you know how many bedrooms and how many   um uh you know and again from from the government  side we don't like to impose age restrictions you   know if if the property management ends up doing  that, we kind of let them do that. But, um,   you know, the state was weary of communities that  were trying to push [laughter] over 55 housing in  

order to overcome the public opposition to school  kids here. You know, I here I think right we're   thinking, you know, these these missing middle  houses are going to serve either young, you know,   young households starting out or downsizing  households. We don't really, in my mind, we don't   really care which. We're just trying to provide a  a greater mix of of housing options. So, I'm not   sure we need um I'm not sure we need these pieces  here. Yeah. Well said, John. And then Chris, um, yeah, I mean, I I mean, I been watching  the state make these, you know, three-bedroom   requirements, and it's clearly to prevent us  from uh, zoning that keeps families out, but I   I I just don't feel like that's a concern in this  particular case. I'd be happy to give the market   more flexibility in how many bedrooms they want  to provide. Um, and then on the affordability,   yeah, I mean, I don't have any particular desire  to have a big A affordability requirement. Um,   I will note that at the select board meeting  yesterday, there was concern about affordability.   Wasn't clear to me if it was big A or little  A. Um, that's probably a longer discussion, but You know, I I think big a affordability  is is not a very good hammer actually. Thank you, Chris. I'd be perfectly  happy to see one and two struck.

Other board members agree with that? Um, yeah,  I'm fine. I do. Yeah. Yeah. Others. Thank you,   Don. You're agreeing. Does anybody object?  We'll reverse it. Okay. We're agreeing   with striking one and two. Okay. We're  good with keeping no age restrictions. I guess I agree with Tony's comment. You know,   these are smaller homes. Let the developer  determine how they want to break them up. Well, well, the developer choosing  and also the customers. Yep. Um and then parking. This is  another one we went back and   forth. I think the board was kind of  inclined to not have a minimum. Um, my preference is to not have a minimum. If  you put a minimum of one space per unit,   I wouldn't object to that. Okay.  But I would prefer none. My initial   thought was just say it'll be shall be  provided with off- streetet parking and   then let that play out. But I'm open  to hearing thoughts. [clears throat] And again, I I'd be okay that. And again, it's  the customer is going to decide if they say and   you you don't have a garage that decide whether or  not you can don't want to buy it or go somewhere   else. Um, Katherine, yeah, one idea I thought of  was you might want to have a maximum of one garage   space per unit just to keep the building mass down  given that you're allowing this higher density  

on the property. Um because if if  say somebody tried to build the   the cottages or houses of this size and  then add a twocar garage to each of them,   you you'd have a very dense development. And  right now, like I say, we don't even have um a   minimum lot landscaping to kind of balance that  and push back at all. So, I would have thought,   you know, one one enclosed garage space  per unit might be a reasonable maximum. What do the board members think about  that? [laughter] Not prevent I don't   mean preventing an extra um open parking space. I'd be I am nervous about the density  of structures if they do build two   um garage units per um well if we give  the board some waiver authority which   we can still discuss we could certainly put in um pieces I myself am fine with that restriction  but I'm curious about other board members Which restriction, Todd? [clears throat]  Uh, only allowing a maximum of one garage   per unit. One garage space. Space. Thank  you. Um, well, Chris, then Don, yeah,   I'm supportive of that. I do you want to have an  ability to wave it in a unique circumstance or if   you describe what those unique circumstances are?  I don't know. I I don't want general I don't I   really don't want general waiver authority.  If there's going to be waiver authority,   there needs to be clear criteria where it would  apply. And then maybe we don't uh let's see off  

streetet parking. We don't have a number. Garages  open streets. I don't think we need this. Well,   the wait, Donna is still not yet spoken  here. Yeah, I like um I like Katherine's   idea of maximum of one garage space. Um I I  see her point about the massing of buildings. Um, and again, I'll I'll object happily being in the  minority. If the builder wants to make twocar   garages, two garages, so be it. That'll be up  to the builder and the customer. But, yeah,   obviously that squeezes the place. And that's up  to does the builder believe this will still be   an attractive site if it's um fairly dense. But  I'll leave that. If the other board all want to   make it one garage space only, then then so be  it. Do we need to put that in writing though? I think so. Well, we'll leave it for now. Well, to your point,  Steve, it's not really I mean, it's restricting   to one garage space, but you could still have  additional off- streetet parking. Oh. Oh. Oh,   agreed. I understand that. Okay. They are.  And again, I'm just pulling this out of   the sky because we all depends on where  you're looking at. And again, downsizing,   if this is a downsizing people and they are uh  [clears throat] been around for a long time,  

let's just say, good chance they have two cars  and might want a garage. But that's that's why   I say that's that's between the builder  and the customers. it. But that's if the   board wants to make it only one closed garage,  then uh the majority should win on that. Okay. Um so this is where I had added a lot of text,   but I'm not sure we need it if we're just  going to be subject to site plan approval. Um yeah, just reference to section  of the bylaws which describe the   site plan approval criteria and  that's done. Let's see. um 40. I guess it doesn't hurt to kind  of call these out, but if we say it's subject to site plan approval  um the requirements of this section um plans, written narrative I see your hand up, John, but we'll whittle Pam  is ready. Um, part of me likes having these things   here, but I guess at the same time, you want  to cross reference the existing regulations. Tony or Katherine, can you remind me of the  the new section for site plan approval? 25 2.5 I don't have a problem with calling out  the important things here, you know,  

as long as you're not precluding anything  else that's mentioned in the site plan   um section and the site plan rules and  regs. The rules and regs include the   fees and things like that. Um it's it may  be helpful to have a shorter list of the   main things to submit because the site plan  regs have quite a long list because it covers   commercial developments and so on. I I think  the main thing is just to get the the cross   referencing correct and not to be precluding  reference to the regulations for example. So [clears throat] this section what I did was essentially and it really doesn't apply to this site  but hypothetically somebody could ask for   this zoning to be they could ask at a  future town meeting they could ask for   um adding their parcel to this zoning district.  So, I think it's helpful to have something. Um, I guess one challenge is the I assume it's still  the ZBA. Um, but correct me if I'm wrong. So, no,   no, it isn't the ZBA and it's a planning board  now. The flood plane. Yeah. And we've recently   rewritten um a lot of things in the flood plane  section. We had to go through a long process to   and fro with FEMA. They had to approve the exact  wording. They even made us put in definitions of   words that we don't even have in our bylaw. Um, so  it's really important not not to rock the boat on   this. So I don't think we should have any specific  reference to the flood plane stuff here. Just,   you know, that it will just apply because  it's elsewhere in the zoning bylaw and   I think it really needs leaving that. So  you want to just delete this? Yeah. Yeah,   I would take it out. For the, you know, now that  now that we're not precluding other sections  

of the zoning bylaw from applying, then then  we're fine because just leave leave them alone. Hey, John. John. Yes. Yeah. So, I had something  about the site plan review. Um, one that also   came up at the select board meeting yesterday was  uh a concern that site plan review doesn't have   enough teeth. Um, which again is maybe a longer  conversation. Um, and my general preference is   to to as a computer scientist say normalize the  specification. So not so try to keep to a minimum   the the number of duplicated material here versus  the definition of site plan review uh elsewhere   in the document. But so John, are you saying  you'd like to see more text here or less? Less.   But but I'm I'm also hesitant to to to disagree  with staff expertise too strenuously. [snorts] So I'm going to have it both. These these four  items A through D are somewhat helpful. Oh,   except we need to get rid of  the governing regulations. Um,   if nothing else, as a reminder of what's needed,  you know, the things that are needed to submit,   you know, the narrative, the drawings  and so forth, requested for waiverss,   um, and their basis so long as we're  cross-referencing here. Um, but I'm happy   to hear from the rest of you on whether we leave  these in. Great. Just a question to uh Mr. Mlan   about select board's comments regarding uh site  plan review. Given that there is no statutory  

basis for site plan review are they are they aware  of that? What was the basis for their comment that   um that site plan review didn't have enough teeth?  this may not be the place to discuss that but I am   very interested in I I I I think I think it's  just a my take on it was that it's a general so you know we're allowing a relatively  high density here there isn't uh anything to force a negotiation and and there was  a little bit of uncertainty around that. That's   good. My right supposed to be I I I understand  that. [laughter] Um um my personal feeling is is   is that we've actually done a pretty good job at  site plan review um negotiating between the board,   the neighbors, and the developer and getting  getting to things that where everyone's happy   or mostly happy. So, I actually think that  it's working well. Um, but I don't know,   maybe we need to have some sort of heart-to-he  heart talk with the select board about this sort   of thing. And I I I do think that the select board  is not so versed as this board in the various,   you know, site plan review versus special  permit because if you put too many teeth in it,   if the intent is to say no, then you're not really  talking about an as of right use anymore. Yeah.   subject too. Yeah. I wonder if the underlying  objection is to to buy right use. Yeah. I mean   I I I think they're trying to find some place,  you know, some balance point. And I mean it's   reasonable to be concerned that we're not at  quite the right balance point. But I think  

in fact we are. But that's that that's the I  I bring it up not because I agree with him,   but because it's, you know, and in order  to eventually get us all in alignment, across the town, you got your hand up. Yeah, I  know we're going down a rabbit hole here and I   I won't I won't take too long. Um, coming from  the zoning side of things, um, I can say that   the zoning board of appeals in general, at least  when I was on it, was not aware of the limited   nature of site plan review and what what what  can be changed, what can be modified, what can   be encouraged. It's and I I like a little bit of  gray as we've discussed and some people don't and   that's totally okay. But I do feel a little bit  more teeth would be good for the planning board,   but not much. But I feel that I want to get  the knowledge out there to the people in town   of in my opinion how limited a site plan review  is. It's making sure that things are um I don't   know uh uh to to spec in terms of what the state  requires for you know flood plane and so forth and   other than that like we can't change much you  know and that's not totally bad but I want to   make sure that the town knows it as well um and  or slightly change it. I'll get off my soap box [clears throat] your hand up again. Yeah. So maybe this is  just just a marker that there's some useful   uh cross town conversation  to have about this topic. Okay, Pam, back to you. Yeah, I'm  making a note. Sorry. Hold up one sec.

Okay, so we've gotten rid of the flood plane  text. Um, planning board can impose   reasonable conditions. So, these are the  kinds of things that we were talking about   um that you want to be looking at to, you know,  talk about control. It's not quite a yes or no,   but it's certainly how we mold a project  or tweak a project to improve it. Um, so   um again, we need to get rid of the governing  regulations mitigate extraordinary um adverse   impacts. Um and then here the so this is really a  statement of your goals. So these are the it helps   put the teeth behind any conditions you might  make. So if you think about it like that, you   want to spell out here the types of things that  are important to the town um to be looking at. Um,   and even though they may be guidance, it gives  you support for your decision that might have a   condition that says you have to have, you know, x  percentage of the site landscaped or um, you know,   buffers for neighbors or that kind of thing.  So, please strike B5. And I I like the rest. Oh, yes. Um, now, do you like the  first part or you want it all gone?   I hate appropriateness of the proposal to  neighborhood. the neighborhood. Got it.   Right. So rather than using that that phrase,  Yep. what what we do is you have setbacks,   you have height limits, you have percentage  of the the lot that needs to be landscaped,   you know, you state what those criteria are and  then reference those in the in the decision. Well,   and we we've got site features, we've got historic  structures, um we've got drainage, buffers,

So you go through those four things  and then that those are the criteria   that determine appropriateness. Okay,  Katherine, I just wonder whether it needs   the word extraordinary before adverse  impacts. Um I don't know if that was   uh that [laughter] reassurance to the  state, but it seems a little overkill. I think maybe say significant um  extraordinary I agree is kind of sure wrong. The reason I'm suggesting that is that this  board may think everything has been the the   concerns have been mitigated, but you could have a  neighbor who just wants to say the tiniest little   thing is adverse. And if we don't qualify it some  way or another, I I think it opens a can of worms.   Significant, something like that. Better than  extraordinary, but significant. You're right.   We're we're used to neighbors uh coming  on the call and objecting to something. I mean, the color of the house or the  type of tree, [laughter] I don't know.   Um they don't like Well, there's  always traffic. There's always   effect on traffic somewhere.  Yeah. Okay, back to you, Pam. All right. Um, so here's where we're getting  to waiverss um that we maybe don't need. Uh,   strict compliance of setback parking or  design requirements if it determines such   waiver to be in the public interest or  that will allow for improved design.   um provided in any case satisfactory sustainable  development standards and all other requirements  

applicable to starter home projects are satisfied.  Um I think this puts some limits on it. Um but   Chris had some comments on this earlier  and I don't know about the others of you. Yeah, I think in the end it'll come down  to if we're writing rules to effectively allow the proposed project on this property,  waiverss may not be relevant, right? You want to just get rid of it. Well, my my my  recommendation is that it becomes superfluous. So   I would I would for the moment um eliminate that  section. Yeah, we had the waivers for the we had   the wavers for existing houses. So we don't want  to we want to make sure we're not removing that,   but I didn't feel we necessarily needed them  for anything else. The flip side is I always,   you know, a waiver allows you to wave something  that you hadn't anticipated that comes up and   something something doesn't work for some  reason and to comply makes the project less   desirable. Um, but I agree, we're doing this  pretty much for this project on this site and Chris, so as on that theme, um you know, I I don't  expect that that any set of zoning bylaws is going   to cover every case. So if we come up with a  description which we feel is you know going to   be relevant to the overwhelming majority of cases  and then uh there's a proposal with some special  

circumstance that to me seems like something  that should go to the zoning board of appeals   where there is an appeal of the existing zoning  bylaw because there's a special circumstance. The challenge there is to get a variance,  you need a hardship that's created by the   soil shape or topography of the land or  structures, which may or may probably   would never be applicable as Todd might  confess um in the case of new construction. Just playing devil's advocate. Oh, sure.  Sure. So I think I would push back there   and say if there isn't uh hardship based on  the particulars of the the lot should there   be a variance is is that a case where Yep. the  the bylaw should apply as it stands. Yep. No,   I think my really the only valid point I have  here is that there's something in there that   no one anticipated at this stage in the, you  know, con conceptual stage of the game and the   board agrees it's improved, you know, better  design if the waiver could be granted. Um,   yeah. Yeah. And I I I would agree with Pam on  that in that we're thinking of this specific   property if we're fortunate enough that this  ends up being um general enough that we can   use it for a cookie cutter to other locations in  town, then you know the lot will be different,   the dump topography different, etc.  And so I I I agree with Pam on this. Let's see here. We're only we're talking about  setback parking or design requirements. So,  

it's pretty limited. Um maybe should  say landscaping just because we have   those numbers like 70% in there. But, um Oh, you see I guess you could call landscaping design, but it's not height, it's not stories, it's not  density. Um, and you would have to determine   that it's in the public interest or allows for  improved design. So, this is fairly limited,   but again, I'm Yeah, I'm here to hear what you  all have to say. And the um the site plan approval   could be appealed if there was uh if someone  disagreed with the waiver basis. Is that correct?   No, no, no. They'd have to appeal  the building permit issuance. Okay. Right. So, it' be the special permit that  they could uh Yeah. If it was a special   permit permit, they could Yeah, that could be  appealed. But a site plane is not a permit,   right? And what were the design requirements  again? Um, it was just the one, right? Or that   that one universal design. Okay. Um,  because we had that down to Yeah. So,  

right. Pedestrian entrance at the facing  the closest street and pitched roofs. We could go through this and pull out if we're  talking because you're you're pointing out   that design could be a little vague. Yeah. So  maybe we go and reference particular sections.   Um because I don't think you want to get  rid of front entrances or pitched rooms.   I think I think referring referencing particular  sections is a good idea. Okay. Um let me let me   try to just tackle that by going back and and  being very specific on a couple of these. Oh. Um so one thing that is spill over from the state  is it required um a decision within 120 days which   I think this board always acts that way unless the  applicant needs more time but do you want to have   a limit in here or just leave it open? I think  limits are good. Yep. I I don't think 120 days   is unreasonable. I can't think of a situation  except with an applicant request for extension   that you have 12 days I'd have an issue but 120  is fine. Yeah. Okay. Let's leave it. So here   um I don't let's see a decision of planning  board authority grant or deny plan approval.  

I think we just get rid of this right Tony? Yeah.  Okay. Go do you think that 120 is a problem or I I just wondered if we should be leaving the  process to the um general site plan review uh   section and regulations. What does that say? I  can't remember. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm trying to I'm   trying to pull that up. We may we may already have  if we kept a 90day review period so the 120 would   give us more time. Yeah, I just think it'd be nice  to just keep it consistent if we can rather than   having variations in different sections.  I I like that as well. Long enough. Yeah. Let's see. Actually, I think we're going to  delete all of this then, right? Hi, Lynn. Sweet. Sorry I'm late. Um, we're  all done, Lyn. We have the problem solved. So,   are you doing the new bylaw? Are you  doing the 40? Why? New bylaw. Okay. So,   then what? But why didn't they just say they're  okay with 120 days? I'm confused why you're   deleting it now. Because they have a shorter time  period in their current regulations. Perfect. Are we missing anything? I was going  to say, how much more is there,   Pam? This is it. That's it. We got  the the district doesn't change. Yeah, this was actually very productive.

Okay. Well, was there anything else in Tony's  um memo that I've missed? Uh I don't think so. So, I have a little more cleanup to do, but um yeah, we can we can get through this in the next  week or so. So, okay. I think our goal based   on what I'm hearing from the board is we will  get you a revised draft for the next meeting.   And if we if if the board um concurs that  it will support that, we can get it on the   select board meeting agenda of the 23rd  when they will close the warrant. And um uh and that we can advise them in the  meantime that we're we've we've got a   um that we've got a template that we we have kind  of agreed to keep moving forward with. and and um we'll um you know, we'll figure out how to time  a hearing in there somewhere, but we can at least   um at the next meeting confirm here's the draft  for the warrant, right? Your next meeting is   the 10th. Yeah. So my s I I can turn this  around cleaned up from our discussion tonight   um in the next few days and I think if Tony and  Catherine if you want to review it uh first but  

then maybe it could get sent out to the board  and if there are any other comments before the   meeting on the 10th if they could get fed back  through staff um so that we can be more prepared   to really try to finalize in that night. It would  be great. Yeah, that would Yes, that would be the   goal. Especially because like the select board  meets again on the 9th also. Yeah. So, we can,   you know, for the meeting on the 9th, we can we  can advise them that we've made this progress   and that they um when when does the state review  the bylaw? Is it just after it's passed it gets   set up to the to the attorney general to approve  it after town? No state review until after town   meeting approval and and what's the timeline  on that? Well, they have 90 days to ratify the   action from they have [clears throat] 90 days from  receipt of the materials from the town clerk. So,   it's not just 90 days after the day of town  meeting. It's 90 days once they receive all the   required documents. Okay. But I think if I recall  correctly, well, it's retroactive to the date of   the vote. Yeah. It's effective the day of town  meeting, right? Um unless they over unless the   AG for whatever reason overturns the the action.  And I believe that that wouldn't at least at our   risk prohibit us from filing an application  for site plan review with the board. Correct.   We usually advise people that they can apply at  their own risk. And and does this tri trigger   inclusionary zoning? No, we the board has agreed  not to require any. Okay. Thank you. So I'm I'm  

sorry. My my other meeting ran over. I just want  to make sure all caught up. Thank you very much. No, I think we're I think it's looking  good. So, I will um I'll clean this up and   get it circulated as quick as possible. And  after Tony sends it out to we on the board,   I encourage everybody reply as fast as possible  because there may be more than one iteration   and just reply back to Tony and Katherine, not  to the rest of us. So, we're not deliberating   and Tony will broadcast out whatever we need. All  right. Great. Thank you so much for the collective   effort. I think it really was worthwhile.  You bet. We're a worthwhile board. [laughter]   Yes, you are. Have a wonderful night.  Oh, we all can. Now we Thank you all.   What else is the subject? I know this was  the concentration. Tony and Katherine,   is this it for the night? Well, that's that's  it except um for just confirming that um um the comprehensive plan openhouse. Is this our  first meeting since the open house? No, no, we   met after we met after. Yeah, we met afterwards.  Yeah. Anyway, so uh the advisory committee is   meeting on Thursday taking a first look at some  ideas for the draft vision and goals. And um and  

I know there are there are some local committees  that are looking for broader uh or or ways to have   input and I guess they didn't really understand  that they they could have and should have should   um you know should be as individuals responding  to the community survey and as a group could   have taken part in a meeting in a box. But  but also just a need to get maybe broader   understanding that we've only just started on the  comprehensive plan, right? This is this is going   on all you know through most of this coming year.  So the opportunities for public input continue and   um you know it's as much as the community survey  is you know we're going to take it down at the   end of the month that doesn't mean that we're  not continuing to take input. So um there there   are going to be new opportunities and new public  events coming. We're just not um uh we're just   closing out that the the the that first phase of  of public engagement, but there's more to come. Yeah. Don. Yeah. Just to let everybody know,  there's, you know, I and some of the other   members of the committee held some of those  meetings in a box over the last couple weeks.   I've been in four sessions. So, you know, the  effort continues. But if there is feedback from   the planning board to go to the comprehensive  plan group, I'm happy to take it. you know,  

if people are concerned that um committees  have not had sufficient ability to give input,   um if there's any concern at all, you know, please  just say something and you know, I'll I'll bring   it back to the group because, you know, I don't  think that there is anything set in stone about   um what has been done. I think if there needs to  be outreach to the committees, we need to do that.   So, you know, let me know what you think. Good.  And thank you for your extensive work on the area,   Don. Other subjects for tonight. Oh, any uh  feedback from liaison? Uh John, you got your   hand up. Yeah. So, just yesterday's select board  meeting, um, which I think Tony was also at,   so I he may have more useful color than me. Um,  so like I said, there's there's some general,   um, grumpitude about affordability in town. Um,  and some feeling that the some people feel that   there was more affordability promised by the MPT  Communities Act, and we're not seeing that. Um,   and my personal take is we need to understand  how expensive stuff is in Bedford and $1.15   million is perhaps actually an improvement  over uh the status quo ante. Um, but but   there's some again some larger conversation and  and understanding about the market dynamics that   we need to work work our way through as a town.  And then the other thing was charter and bylaw.   Um there was a long and not completely satisfying  discussion about um the relationships between  

boards and staff and who appoints and fires  the town manager or the board. Um, and what the charter and bylaw review committee proposed is  everyone except for the school board, sorry, uh,   everyone except for the superintendent of schools,  which has its own state thing going on and the   library director uh, gets hired and fired by the  town manager. manager in in in consultation. Um   and then there was a long discussion about why  is the library director special. Um there was no   discussion about director of planning so I felt  personally left out. But I I since I was the uh   planning board's representative on charter and  bylaw, I can speak to any of those any and all of   those issues if anyone would like. guy. Yeah, my  concern more than anything else is given the level   of discussion yesterday that um I'm not super  optimistic about how town meeting is going to go,   but um I think the consensus was of the uh  charter and bylaw committee was that if the   library director was included in the list of uh  department heads that the town manager supervised   that the proposal would almost certainly lose.  And so by leaving the library director out, there   was a a better likelihood of of the uh proposal  passing. And it was preferable to not let the   perfect be the enemy of the good. There are still  there's still issues outstanding with respect to  

uh how human resources issues are are managed.  But now was not the time to try and resolve   those. I think that's I that was the essence of  the decision. Yeah. I mean that was my uh my uh   uh uh uh understanding but the chair of the  charter and bylaw committee maybe did not   uh do a great job presenting the  board's or sorry the committee's view. I'll I'll leave it at that obscure. You clarify.  Thank you. Any feedback from any other boards?   There's nothing from Conscom or Depot Park.  Any others? Well, yeah. I just Yeah. Chris,   can you clarify the human resources aspect or  anything? You mean is certain parts potentially   going to be dropped from the proposal? No. So,  so the the proposal is just what department   heads to include under to specifically call  out as I get under supervision of the the   town manager. Do you not think it should be  broken up into two different bylaws or two   different proposals for town? I think that  there are I think that the proposal that   is going to be put forward I'm presuming it it  goes ahead as as I recommended. So the assessor,   the planning director, the health department  director I'm missing anyone I think just those   three and the library director is the fourth  and sorry and who else helped it? The library   director is the fourth. No. So that's it was  not we did not recommend that. Nice. Yeah,   those are the three. Yeah, those are the three  that we recommended. And the consensus was that  

those three department said it was appropriate  to have the recommended relationship. I think   uh there was considerable discussion  about how the library director should relate to the uh the town manager. But those  were not adequately resolved. I know. Sorry,   I didn't I didn't ask the question correctly.  What I was trying to put was can that be a   separate voted on thing versus that that whole  thing and then versus the other changes that are   being proposed such as it's going to be broken  into multiple uh great multiple articles and   there'll be the opportunity to amend. Great.  So yes, absolutely. Great. Thank you. Yeah,   if memory serves, there was on the order of  six different Yeah. charter and bylaws and you   know the the calendar related ones were broken  out into a pair and then there was substantive   which mostly comes down to this issue around who  the the directors report to. And then there's a   bunch of non-s substantive changes that were in  their own pair. Hey Todd, hand up again. Yeah,   just a couple minor things. Um, one, just want  to hit upon the 1.15 million uh remark by Mr.   Mlan. Um, I encourage everyone to check out um  the 37 Pine Street in Bedford. Um, that is for   sale right now in terms of the price of that uh  and and visit it because I did tour it as well.   um just for a uh I don't know, take a reading in  Bedford. So, in terms of houses that are for sale   and the price that they're at and square footage  that is there. Um so, interesting dynamics going  

on in Bedford. Um what's what's special about  it? Well, it's 850,000 for 1500 foot and a fairly   small lot. 27 acres. So, um sorry, 849,000.  Sorry, did not say it right. But, uh yeah. So,   but it is a conforming lot, right? Or or maybe  it's not. Wait, it's not. It's not. Okay. I'm   pretty sure it's a non-conforming lot. Yeah. No.  Yeah, you're right. So, anyways, um [snorts] and   then I feel like I'm not doing Transportation  Advisory Committee justice, and I apologize,   and I encourage the other members of the TAC to  to speak up. Um, uh, one member did an amazing job   getting all the speed limits and finding out the  discrepancies in terms of signage that's lacking   and not and and slightly different if you're  going one way on the road versus the other. So,   amazing spreadsheet and and they're providing  the data to to the town. So, and I think they're   receiving it with open arms. Um, and there's a lot  of discussion about I'm gonna please Mr. McLean   or somebody to speak up in terms of like speed  discussions and how we're going to approach this   and um but it's not really speed, it's trying to  get people to drive appropriately. So there's a   ton of work going on behind the scenes. So I'm  very proud of the board and how they're doing. Thank you. others. If there's no other liaison  reports, any staff reports? No, I'm not really. Was that we may have  just lived through a staff report? Yeah,   could be. I did attend part of the  MMA conference this past weekend,   but you know, nothing really exciting to report.  the governor um clarified a few things that she   didn't raise during her state of the state  of the commonwealth address last Thursday,  

but um they did announce some  funding for certain programs and   um but not you know no real earthshattering news  there. Um otherwise um the um you know I did point   out some training opportunities that are coming  up this spring and um um otherwise we are um gearing up you know we're just going to gear  up for the next meeting which is going to   include probably a fair number of abutters  to this proposed subdivision as well as   um trying trying to finalize this um this new  overlay district that we're trying to solve. So great. Thank you, Todd. Sorry, I did forget  one thing. Not that we have a school committee   representative, but um I'll just take that role  for now. Um but there is a healthy hours start   time survey out there. I encourage everyone in the  town to take the survey, look at the information.   They're trying to change the start times of all  the schools, but mainly the high school and and   the um JJMS, and that will affect the other  school start times. Um I have a very strong   opinion about this, but uh but I encourage you  all to at least read the material and then and   then make your choice. So, and feel free to talk  to me if you want to hear my opinion, but um yeah,   thanks. Yeah, if we knew your opinion, then we  could vote right with you. A just go option A. Oh,   option A. Okay, I got it. Any other uh feedback on  any areas? We have any other subjects tonight? No.  

If not, we could all congratulate ourselves for  a heroic effort on our 49 Elm Street uh project   and then entertain a motion to adjurnn. Move that  we congratulate ourselves and then adjourn. Thank   you, John. Anybody second that? No. Second. Uh,  congratulations from Todd. All right. How do you   vote? John I Todd I. Don I. Chris I. And the  chair votes I. Thank [snorts] you one and all.   And now we're going to be fully prepared for our  next meeting. And hopefully you're all uh reading   everything about the Super Bowl and getting ready  and uh I'm trying to figure out how to make what   right kind of chili for my party. All right. Thank  you once again. Okay. Good night. Good night.