Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right, so it being after 7 p.m. and having four or five members present, start the meeting. Pursuant to legislation H62, Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, extending the suspension of certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, General Law Chapter 30A, Section 20, this meeting of the Bedford Planning Board will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we will post on the Town's website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. So we have two items in the development session tonight, a public hearing for 145 Davis Road, definitive subdivision plan for four lots off of Jeffrey Circle, Middlesex Development LLC is the applicant. The second item is a site plan review for a proposed freestanding accessory dwelling unit at 103 Page Road, Middletex Development LLC on behalf of Swapnil and Uma Raut as the applicants. Business session items, discussion of accessory dwelling ownership options, dark sky lighting regulations, small clean energy facility permitting, data center permitting, Tree Protection Bylaw, 340 Great Road, that is the Plaza Hotel property. Reports from liaisons to boards and committees. Then staff updates with an expectation of adjournment by 9 p.m. so with that first item of business is the public hearing for 145 davis road i i understand that the applicant has requested uh that the hearing be continued uh that's correct so um the peer review engineer is still working on the peer review

The design engineer and the peer review engineer did trade some information today, so that's moving along, just not ready for today's meeting.

Move to continue the hearing for 145 Davis Road.

Second.

All right, so we have been certain.

Move to continue to August 25th. Thank you. I was just going to say that. Yeah. All right. Thank you. So moved and seconded. Member Hagan. Aye. Member LaFrance Linden.

Aye.

Member McLean. Aye. Member Crowley. Aye. And the chair votes aye. So hearing for 145 Davis Road definitive subdivision plan continued to August 25th. So that brings us to our second item, site plan review for a proposed freestanding ADU at 103 Page Road. Do we have a representative of the applicant or the applicants in the audience? I see a hand, David Brickman.

Yeah, do you want me to move you to panelist mode?

Here we go. Yeah, if you can. Can you hear me?

Yep. Please proceed.

Okay, great. All right. So this is, um, we're basically turning the current house that's there into an ADU. It's on 103 Page Road. Um, and we'll be building a new house on the corner lot, basically turning the house and putting it on Francis Kelly. So the, um, the application here is for the ADU. that's basically turning the current house that's there into an ADU, which is right now 1,568 square feet. I'm sorry, 1,552 square feet, which is basically a ranch-style house that was built in the 50s that has a... A big addition on the back that was put on later, and the addition on the back is the majority of the demolition to get the square footage down. There's also some square footage that's in the current house that'll come down as well. But the plans that were submitted shows what's getting torn out and getting the square footage down to 899 square feet. Um, so we're basically turning this house into an ADU instead of constructing a new one. And I can answer any questions that the board has.

Oh sorry, I had my audio off. I'm sharing a copy of the site plan that was provided with the application. Not so. Sony, do you want to provide an intro or I'm happy to do that?

Yeah, go ahead.

Well. Yeah, it's you can choose.

uh mr berkman if you care to proceed otherwise i'm i'll turn it over to staff and i have some comments as well yes i'll i'll address any questions or comments uh so tony yeah so

This is a proposal that would build a new house facing Francis Kelly road. The existing dwelling would be downsized to qualify as an accessory dwelling unit, freestanding accessory dwelling units, uh, do undergo site plan review. Normally, um, you know, normally the larger house is already existing and we're looking at the proposal for the small unit here. The existing house isn't really all that big and the new house is proposed. Both dwellings are allowed by right in all of our residential districts. The proposed house and the existing house meet the required setbacks. However, we are aware that the neighborhood has a lot of concerns about both drainage impacts, wildlife impacts, and some other items that will probably be raised as they are allowed to talk later in the presentation. Page Road is a scenic road, but there are no changes proposed to the stone wall or the driveway opening and no impact to any street trees along that road. particular road. Francis Kelly is not a public, excuse me, is not a scenic road, so there was no requirement for that aspect to be reviewed. The proposed driveway, along with the water and sewer connections, do require a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works. The department would also probably look at some of the drainage impacts from that proposed structure when it applies for a building permit. It is fairly common for the town to seek to have roof leaders directed into underground infiltration chambers of some sort. And so I expect that they will seek to divert at least the roof runoff into direct infiltration so it minimizes the potential runoff leaving the site from the new impervious surface. There is a driveway on the Francis Kelly frontage. Not a driveway. Did I say driveway? There's a sidewalk along the Francis Kelly frontage. They'll also make sure that any new driveway installed along that side would be aligned with the sidewalk so it maintains its accessibility requirements. There is no sidewalk headed north along this part of Page Road, and that is... that would end up being probably something that town will need to explore as part of a larger proposal we would not recommend that this property owner install a short segment of sidewalk that simply ends at their property line leading nowhere so so we do um we do want to uh let the there I know I can see there are many, many representatives of the neighborhood there. So they will also have questions if you do not.

So members of the board have questions. Please speak up. I have some notes to share. Mr. Crowley.

I mean, you can share your notes may have some more thoughts. I just want to make sure I understand and the public understands what our role is with this evening's discussion. And Tony, I don't know if you want to, I know you kind of explained it, but I think explaining it a little bit more as well, or Chris, Mr. Gittins, if you want to talk about it, that's fine too.

Sure. So, yeah, planning board is a land use board. We recommend land use policy to be adopted by town meeting. Fundamentally, town meeting controls zoning bylaws, what's allowed, what's not allowed, what's allowed by right, what requires a special permit. That is subject to Massachusetts general law. Bedford's local bylaws are subordinate to Massachusetts general law. In the case of accessory dwelling units, the planning board is charged with performing a site plan review. The site plan review is not about whether or not the project proceeds, but the board can make recommendations about particulars for how it proceeds. Again, it's Massachusetts general law and then Bedford's existing zoning bylaws, which dictate what's allowed, what's not allowed. Todd, anything that you wanted to add to that? No.

Nope. Okay.

So here I'm just going to go through my notes. And the section of Bedford's bylaws which apply here are 8.4. Those are available on the town website. Initially check to see wetlands locations. And 103 Page Road is indicated in the yellow box. Bedford's wetlands record. Bedford's wetlands are indicated in green. And then Massachusetts are indicated in light purple with the 25, 50, and 100-foot buffers. And you can see here that 103... Page Road is outside of wetlands and wetlands buffer areas. Noted here that the lot is approximately 31,000 square feet. It's in the Residence A zoning district. The minimum lot size to be conforming is 40,000 square feet in that district, so the lot itself is non-conforming. We can look to dimensional regulations for required frontage, setbacks in the front, side, and rear yards. Pay attention here to setbacks in the side yard and rear yard, 15 and 30 feet respectively, 15 feet corner clearance. Max height allowed, 35 feet, three stories for the primary dwelling. With respect to it being a non-conforming lot, recent passage of amendments to Chapter 40A of Mass General Law, the non-conformity would require a special permit only if the lot were not compliant with uh setbacks um yeah or or height and uh it is by my uh by my assessment so here i'm the the uh the zoning uh board of appeals there would be no hearing required by the zoning board of appeals for uh recent changes to massachusetts general law uh Looking at some of the details of ADU regulations in Bedford's zoning bylaw, I'm allowed 900 square feet or up to 50% of the area of the principal dwelling, whichever is smaller. An additional 100 square feet is allowed if there are universal design standards or energy efficiency standards met. The height and setback of the ADU is kind of less than that of the principal dwelling or the structure to which it is an accessory. A minimum of 10 feet of separation between the principal dwelling and the ADU. And C2 is... site plan review. And I'll pause. Any comments or questions, corrections from members of the board? Member Crowley.

The only thing to note, I believe this is a corner lot, correct? So it has two front yard? That's correct. It is a corner lot. And the existing dwelling does meet those, I believe. I don't have it in front of me.

We can pull that up afterwards.

There are off-street parking requirements. It leaves one off-street parking space for the ADU, except that it's not within a half a mile of... Oh, actually, it probably is within a half a mile of a bus stop. I won't dwell on this. These are straight out of the bylaws. And this is to reiterate that Bedford's ADU regulations are subordinate to the state's. The links here will take you to the Mass.gov website and relevant sections there. And I will share these charts with with the planning department so that they can make them available to anyone who's interested. Some other things that we will consider in the site plan review. Page Road is a scenic road, but as Tony noted, no changes to proposed frontage. ADU will utilize the existing driveway. There is a proposed driveway off of Francis Kelly for the new dwelling. A curb cut will require a street opening permit from DPW. And then finally, the new driveway will be to ensure that the sidewalk remains ADA compliant. So for site plan review, the matters that we are empowered to consider protection and enhancement of existing site features, protection of adjoining premises from detrimental uses by provision for surface water drainage, visual and sound buffers, traffic impact, adequacy of parking, methods for disposal of trash. And this site plan review, I'll pause here, is generally for... Commercial and larger residential projects. It just happens that when Bedford passed our ADU bylaw, that site plan review was incorporated there. So some of these may seem a little stilted for residential projects. project evaluation, but that's the origin. It was existing text that was referenced when the ADU bylaw was passed. And then finally, protection of environmental resources features, particularly groundwater from pollution due to runoff. So those were my notes. Comments, questions from members of the board? And the application looked in good order to me. Mr. McLean, before I proceed.

Yeah, so I understood there was a question about whether or not the existing basement would be considered livable space and And then I guess I do wonder about runoff, especially if it is part of site plan review. And it seems to be a question at hand.

Yeah, so that's my understanding as well that it is to be determined whether the basement space counts towards the 900 square feet.

Yeah, the basement does not include the 900 square feet. That's being brought down to six feet. Something I've been over with both Dan Sullivan and with Joe Reddy. So we're bringing the joist down to six feet and we're boarding the wall, the ceiling.

And for the benefit of the audience, Joe Reddy is the building inspector in town. Uh, and, uh, with respect to runoff, um, what are, uh, what's the plan for handling a roof runoff, both from the ADU and from the principal dwelling.

So it's on the, uh, it's on the, the plan, the site plan shows the, um, call tech systems with an engineered report from Michael Novak, Patriot, um, engineering.

Sorry, I'm trying to pull this up. Um, Do you recall the name of the document? Because I'm not seeing it. Yeah.

I think he had it up there earlier. Let me pull it up.

At the ADU site plan.

I'm not seeing anything like that in the packet. No, actually I'm not either.

Are you able to pull that drawing up?

Yeah, one second. Sure.

And I assume the new house is going to be more than 1800 square feet.

Yes, yes, it's more than 1800.

It's weird to be doing this backwards. Or from the opposite direction, which we normally do them.

So on your application, you list 3,900 square feet?

Correct. Actually, Michael Novak's jumping in. He can explain. And pull it up on his computer. He's jumping in right now. Two minutes, we'll be right on.

Member Crowley? I can wait until after this discussion about water. Well, we might have a minute, so if it's relatively brief.

Sure. Well, yeah, maybe. Looking at the plans for the ADU, you know, I see that the family room is going to be demoed, which makes sense. But this conversion... of bedroom three and closet to storage with a six foot ceiling and the basement converting to a six foot ceiling. I don't like it. I feel like it's a hack to get it below 900 square feet, a hack at best. I feel this structure is a lot larger than 900 square feet. I feel this is not being, it's not meeting the spirit of the bylaw of an ADU. I don't know if anybody agrees or not, but this is to me is a little bit of a stretch. for what an ADU is supposed to be. You know, I understand the family room is being demoed, but the basement, I don't, what's down there now? Is there a door? Is there windows? Are they, are just tiny windows?

It's a six foot seven ceiling. We're just bringing it down to six feet. So that it's not considered living space, right? Well, anything under 6'8 is not considered living space. but we're bringing it down. I spoke with Joe and with Dan and they want it down to six feet. So that's what we're bringing it to.

So there's the basement, but it's also just that third bedroom of, of bringing the ceiling down. So now all of a sudden it's not a real room. It's not a living space.

Correct.

I mean, I'll go measure my ceilings. I don't know what I have upstairs, but they're pretty low. I don't know. I struggle with this in terms of it meets the 900 square feet.

I mean, this is something that I went over with the building commissioner, so he was fine with bringing that down so it's not habitable space. It just seemed like it would be better to try and save this than create a new ADU. on the property.

Member McLean.

Yeah, I understand the game being played with the basement. Like member Crowley, the bedroom game strikes me as gaming system.

You're allowed also to have a covered porch. So, I mean, I could take the walls out and make it, you know, you know, just a covered area too. And that meets the standard for the state as well as non-habitable space.

So I had a recommendation that unless you're able to pull up the I'll stop my screen share. Is Mr. Novak able to present that drawing showing how the runoff is handled? Yeah.

I can jump on. I can pull up a plan as well. I apologize for being late. No worries. Lost track of time. Bear with me one second. Just trying to pull this up. And let me know when you see everything. Yep, can see it. Great. So the existing conditions are shown here on the left, existing house with garage and deck, which, and again, I jumped in late. So if I repeat myself or anything you already discussed, just let me know. But these will be removed. The proposed house in the back, sorry, flip to the right. side we're showing the proposed house and the removed deck and garage. So just showing the square of the existing. And what I did here in terms of runoff was the entire roof area for the proposed house will be captured via roof drain and infiltrated into this system and the entire roof area for this structure captured within roof drain and brought to this infiltration system, um, per the bylaw size for the one inch runoff. Uh, so up to and including all storms, uh, one inch or less will be captured and fully infiltrated. Um, we left everything else as is the existing driveway. We are not capturing the proposed driveway, uh, as it's on the low side, but we could, um, We felt that, though, it made sense to capture both roofs instead. Again, clean runoff, easy to grab, no more maintenance burden on the homeowners other than checking the systems to make sure that they function. So that's a very quick overview. Happy to answer any questions, go into any other deep details you need.

Thank you.

Sure.

Questions from members of the board? Member Crowley?

yeah, I just curious, you mentioned one inch, uh, rainstorm. Is that like the standard, the state standard or something?

I believe that's, uh, Bedford standard for new construction. And if it's not conservation, uh, standing through engineering, but, uh, okay.

Just understanding. Thank you. Yeah, no problem.

Uh, so I have no questions about this. Um, Mr. Berkman, perhaps you could put up the planting plan. There was a concern from a butler regarding visual barriers. And I noticed that you did have a planting plan as part of your application package. Yeah.

I'm in trouble pulling up anything.

Is it on that? I can pull it up.

Thank you. So, face of the green is is where we want to replant trees. In the area, the stone wall usually, as I've always thought it, with designated lot lines, but the lot line goes over a little bit more. So we put some more trees on the other side of the wall, basically creating a screenage between the neighbor that's directly next to the property. And basically taking out for every tree we're taking out, we're replanting something. So that was the intent here.

And there's an evergreen hedge on the corner of Page and Francis Kelly, maybe in Arborvitae. Sorry, I didn't get the species, but there are no plans to change that? No. Okay. And trees over one foot in diameter? I plan plans to cut any there.

Yeah. So total trees, I went six inch, I counted six inch, uh, in up and between, you know, from six inch to up, there's 25 trees that we want to cut and replace it with 25 trees.

All right. Thank you. All right.

Um, member Crowley. Yeah, I'm not trying to harp on this, just trying to understand and make peace with it. In terms of the existing house converting to ADU, what year is the house? Do you guys know or do you know? I thought it was 55. 55. So, you know, I'm just curious, does it have insulation? Are you putting in blown-in insulation in the walls or anything or kind of bringing it up to code at all or, I don't know, not even just code, but better energy efficiency? no there is insulation in the walls um are you asking about the extra 100 feet no well yes yes and no you know you know i i understand your argument of um it's kind of nice not to tear down a building that that works and and you know exists where i struggle with the where we're making it work with the law but yet you know having square footage for something and whatever it is um but just trying to also understand the quality of the building itself and what shape it's in, in terms of, yes, it's worth saving this. And it already has all this, or, you know, we're going to bring this up so that it is airtight and this and that, you know, just trying to understand that because I do understand the logic of not tearing down a building, but not always if the building is not great, you know.

You know, Todd, I've been building for almost 20 years in the town and it's probably one of the nicest houses that I've seen that's this old. Um, it's in great shape, um, whoever owned it for definitely great shape. Um, you know. The, the utilities are great the, you know. Flooring the walls, there's really nothing that the bathrooms are in great shape. So. It'd be a shame to do anything, you know, to tear it down. It really would. Understood.

Thank you. So, if there are no further questions for members of the board, I'll. Open it up to questions, comments from the audience. See a hand from Nicholas Howard. Please identify yourself and your residence. Now seeing a hand from Kevin McElroy and Ron Stewart. Mr. McElroy and then Mr. Stewart.

Hello, this is Eileen McElroy. And I'm sorry, I'm using my son's laptop. That's fine.

And your address, please.

Oh, I'm sorry. So I'm a direct abutter at 99 Page Road directly across from this project.

Thank you.

Yes. So I have a couple of questions. And this is for David. David, I know when we were at the zoning meeting, you had spoke about moving the house back because it is quite close and going to be quite high across the street from us. I have expressed and I sent in a written statement, it really is going to affect our privacy on our deck and in our yard that this house is now going to face our backyard. So I was very happy to see the plantings And we would really appreciate the evergreens to be as high as the hedges that are over there so that we at least have some privacy. So if you could answer those questions for me, please.

I just want to pause and sorry, I should have stated this at the outset. Protocol is that questions are directed to the chair of the board. That's me. And then I will redirect them as appropriate. So I apologize for not.

Oh, that's OK.

I apologize for not introducing that. So I will invite Mr. Brickman to reply if he's so inclined.

Yeah, so that was the goal was to plant evergreens in the front. of the plan. And then more on the side as well to do some more evergreens and then mix in along the rock wall and stuff some regular trees. Hopefully that answers.

And what's the height of the house please?

34, roughly 34 5? It's under the 35 foot ridge height.

And sorry, in the evergreens, what would be the height?

Well, I mean, evergreens, we'd be planting some emerald greens and some green giants. I mean, green giants grow three feet a year. So in five years, they'd be 15 feet taller than whatever we plant. So let's say we planted six footers, you'd be, you know, 21 feet in five years. And green giants are plants that I'm not sure if you're familiar with, arborvitae. but they're the fastest growing of them. So, you know, will you have a, you know, will you be not seeing the house, you know, day one? No, that's, that would be impossible. But the goal is in a few years that you'll, you'll definitely have some privacy.

Okay. Um, in my last question, please, as the timeline, you know, we haven't, I know you're working through details. Um, can you share what your timeline is for like the ADU demo, um, the new construction? I know there's some other steps that have to be met. Um, but if you could give us a ballpark, cause we really don't know in the neighborhood, um, when this project is, is, uh, planned for exactly.

Did I wait for you, Chair?

If you wish to reply to that.

Sure. Yeah, we'd like to start right away. The goal is, you know, to start in September. And then, you know, we're looking at an eight and ten month build. And both things will be done congruently.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

You're welcome. Mr. Stewart and then Mr. Howard.

Thank you. This is Ron Stewart, One Francis Kelly Road. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yes, thank you. A couple of questions just on what have been already mentioned. Talking about the street opening, we understand that there are plans to bring sewer and water from the Francis Kelly side. Our street has been recently paved in the spring and we were all sent notices that it's sealed for five or seven years for any work, cut work. That's a concern that we would be cutting into this brand new street. Having lived here since 78, we know that it's had no street work until this spring. So we are delighted with the new surface and we're concerned about that plan. Is there any commentary on having to go to Page Road? Why not go to, sorry, having to go to Francis because you go to Page Road and get all the services that way?

So I'll direct to Director Fields regarding street opening and then to Mr. Brickman if he wishes to respond to choice of driveway placement.

So As Mr. Stewart notes, typically when the town redoes a road, there is a one-year moratorium on cutting into it. So... So that's an issue that would be worked out with a DPW, but it may be either that they'd have to use a technology that tunnels under the pavement without cutting the pavement, or they'll have to figure out how to make the connection out to Page Road, unless they dropped anything. uh laterals for anticipated development when when you know when the system was when the sewer and water were installed in the past okay thank you uh mr berkman hey thank you sure so um just i'm dealing with actually this right now on wilson road um so the paper was paved recently

And what we do is we go in and we put up, there's a $5,000 fee that we pay for doing this into the road. And when we put the asphalt back, we're not just patching the actual trench, we're patching 50 feet, which is what the DPW wants us to do. So even if the trench is only 10 feet, we're mulling, they call it mulling, and then resurfacing the road. So it's brand new. And I can elaborate if you have any questions on that.

Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

Yeah. Sorry. May I continue? Yes. There was a statement about a bus stop being within a half mile. What bus stop is this, please?

I apologize. I was speculating that there would be a stop on Springs Road that would be within a half mile. I don't believe that would affect the parking requirements, though, for...

okay property the reason i just bring that up is because um that corner that specific corner uh 103 page is a major school bus stop all buses stop there so it's an enhanced area for kids getting off and getting on the bus um every day of the year but all grades So that has been brought up as a concern. The other concern is, and it was recognized, that we knew the owners of 103, Joe and Loretta, Sarah, until they passed on and moved out. Loretta was the last to leave. And they were fastidious of this house. And it is true that they did their very best to maintain it. But the feeling of jerry-rigging the ceiling and the basement, I have not seen the basement, but all of the basements along Page Road are lived in or have bedrooms in them. So they are major features of the house. And to bring down one of the main floor bedroom ceilings, seems weird to do that. So the feeling is, if this is being moved all around to fit 900 feet, It may be best, sadly, to relocate this whole foundation into a forward fronting area on page so that the existing home that's being planned or the new home being planned, 36,000, it's 3,600 feet, I think, 3,900 feet, something like that, can be moved further to the left and away from the declining area uh topography that is basically 26 feet away from the um border of this property the foundation of number two francis kelly has a direct runoff from this hill that is a major concern And I imagine the owner can speak to that, but I do know there is consistent pumping under that particular house. The drainage in this area is exceedingly serious and there is heightened concern that any building affecting trees or the foundation being moved in an area that would disturb this brings heightened concern. And the question is, is it literally got to be where it's being planned or could it be moved 10 or 15 feet to the left and a new foundation for the adu to accommodate which is really a very large building area on a smaller three-quarter acre lot it's a substantial amount of building and maybe not currently being used best from the property side. So that's a question of the board, I guess, and the builder, what are possibilities here?

So I'll interject and then I'll let Mr. Crowley speak before going back to members of the audience. But site plan review, it's an opportunity to offer commentary, but the board is not empowered to direct the applicant to make any changes in a proposed building location provided that the locations are in compliance with our zoning bylaws. okay i am yeah there certainly yeah members of the public are free to express their their opinions um but what is allowed what is not allowed is dictated by our our bylaws remember currently well it's a kind of a clarification question in terms of and i apologize i know i should know this but um sounds like there was a zoning board of appeals hearing uh about this and i just wanted to

me and the audience to hear what that was about and why that happened.

I can answer that for you, Todd. So normally when we've done this in the past, any lock that's non-conforming we're bringing in front of the zoning board. It just so happens that I didn't find out until after the fact, after the meeting, that I didn't need to go to that meeting. So that's basically what happened. All right. Thank you.

And I will add here that with recent changes to Massachusetts general law provided a project is compliant with setbacks and with building height, if the lot is non-conforming by size or by frontage, there isn't the need for the ZBA variants or special permit, but there isn't the need for ZBA review.

I don't know if I should bring this up, but I'm going to anyways. I just want to indicate, I believe, and Tony, you can correct me if I'm wrong, by right, they could make a two-family house on this lot right now and have an ADU. Correct, Mr. Fields? That's correct. Technically. And that is Bedford zoning bylaws, but also... the state. That's now state law.

No, it's not yet. The two-family is still pending in conference committee, but the statewide application of that possibility is expected.

But there would be a FAR for that, correct, Tony, for this one? Yes.

Yes.

Thanks. Just

Yeah. By building just a single family, there is no limit other than the setbacks as to how big that structure can be. Thank you. If it was a two-family, then we do impose limits on how big the two-family can be.

Nicholas Howard and then Tom Neal.

Nicholas Howard, 7 Daniels Drive.

We can hear you. We can hear you.

All right. I have two concerns that I think the board should resolve before approving the site plan. First is how the proposed ADU gets below the 900 square foot limit. The plans achieve compliance in part by constructing new joists and drywall to deliberately lower ceiling heights in portions of the existing house and basement so that those areas no longer count as rural area. the building inspector has signed off that as constructed this complies with the 900 square foot requirement i'm in that determination my concern is what happens afterward Bedford would be approving a configuration whose continued legality depends upon an interior architectural contrivance that the town ordinarily has an occasion to see again. Once the certification of occupancy is issued, what mechanism ensures those deliberately lowered ceilings remain in place? five or ten years later after a sale or with a tenant occupying unit they could be removed entirely inside the building restored substantially full height space without changing anything visible from outside this isn't an accusation about the application's intentions enforcement question precisely zoning approval outlives the current owners a 900 square foot limit should mean something more durable actor brings out a tape measure If the board approves a design deliberately engineered around the six-foot exclusion, I think it should identify what mechanism makes that compliance durable. Second is the question of the ZBA review under the new Chapter 48A amendment. I understand the argument. The existing nonconformity is strictly lot size. The proposed construction complies with current setbacks in height and lot size nonconformity is expressly addressed by the new law. But that still leaves a critical question about the words the legislature actually enacted. the new provision says that a pre-existing non-conforming residential structure or use may be extended or altered as of right this proposal doesn't simply extend or alter the existing principal residence it substantially demolishes it converts what remains into an adu and constructs an entirely new and substantially larger principal residence in a different location on the lot that's how the planning department itself describes the proposal Immediately before this new provision, Section 6 expressly uses the words alteration, reconstruction, extension, or structural change. The legislature clearly knew how to say reconstruction, yet in creating this new as-of-right provision, it shows only extended or altered. So the question isn't whether lot size conformity is covered. Clearly it is. The question is whether teardown and replacement with a substantially different structure elsewhere on the lot constitutes an extension or alteration at all. Before the board relies on such a broad reading of brand new statute, I think town council should answer that specific question. Additionally, I have another moment. I want to address the wildlife corridor issue. The staff memorandum says that absent endangered species habitat or proximity to a vernal pool, wildlife corridor concerns cannot be used for denial. Even assuming that's correct concerning outright denial based solely on wildlife habitat, that doesn't mean the issue is irrelevant to site plan review. The planning board site plan criteria expressly require consideration of the protection and enhancement of existing site features, the relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape and protection of environmental features on the site in adjacent areas. The board also has authority to impose conditions and modifications to address those criteria. So you don't have to determine that this is legally protected endangered species habitat to protect the existing mature tree corridor through reasonable site plan conditions. In fact, the staff memorandum itself says shared is this concept of maintaining trees within the setbacks could benefit this proposal. i would ask the board to turn that suggestion into an enforceable condition identify the mature trees within the setback areas that can reasonably be retained throw them on approved site plan and require their preservation rather than simply encouraging it that's it thank you mr howard i am mr neal he's coming up now

Hello, can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hey, thanks. So my question was, there was mention earlier of the drainage plan. And I think people were confused that it wasn't in the documents. I was wondering, since Mr. Novak's here, Can I have that? Because I want to have my own engineer look at it. By the way, I'm a direct butter on 2 Francis Kelly Road. I just want to try to paint a vivid picture of the topology. My property is at the very bottom of pretty much the whole neighborhood. I don't think I'm the lowest house, but I catch buckets of water from Daniel's Drive. It all comes down Daniel's Drive and goes into the storm sewer and a whole bunch flows down the hill and winds up in this annoying bowl shaped depression with clay bottom right next to my house. And I also catch all the water coming down from Page Road. And part of the reason there was a hubbub at the ZBA hearing was that there's like six houses along Francis Kelly and you know, Daniel's drive that were, that are just really low. And, um, we, we have significant problems with water in our basements. It's not every year. Sometimes we just have a dry year. This year is pretty dry. Other times we get just utterly inundated and, um, ron and i have been back and we've sleuth we sleuth around back in the in the forest behind our neighborhood and found that the the outflow pipe from the storm sewers where all that water is supposed to go this is infrastructure owned by supposed to be maintained by bedford it's not maintained at all the outflow is under like two feet of mud so what happens when we get water coming down from two hills at once is it just kind of explodes and creates a ton of pressure And it wreaks havoc with drainage systems. We can't use gravity drains because it'll explode back up the pipe and flood our basements. We can't really pump because it has nowhere to go. It just turns into a huge bowl. And part of the reason that the new construction causes anxiety is that we're replacing vegetation with a building. And I understand there's probably nothing in the power of this board or the CBA to alter that. And I appreciate Mr. Brickman has explained these cool tech things are going to catch the water. So he's not going to be dumping it all straight into the street. um but still the reason i want to look at the plan is because even those coltec things if there's a bunch of water going into the soil where there used to be vegetation now it's just going straight down into the soil there's a pretty sweet chance that it's just going to go it's going to drop that seven or eight feet of altitude between me and them and just run downhill into my basement where i will again have absolutely nowhere to put it so um that sort of informs the interest in this i'm trying to raise awareness about this absolutely epic mockery of a fail of the infrastructure that we have back there where no one can really see it where our outflow pipe is supposed to be running to the shasheen and it's just running into a solid wall of mud and this whale hasn't been dredged out in like 40 years and ron stewart has been trying to get the town to do something about it For 40 years, Ron, maybe 50. That's our status quo. That's kind of why people are freaking out. And yeah, just so everybody knows, this is a thing and probably will continue to be one. That's it for me.

Thank you, Mr. Neal. So, Director Fields, hearing a concern with town infrastructure, do you know if DPW is aware of this? Have you been aware of this and have you spoken with DPW at all?

Based on comments from the abutters, we are aware of it now in the planning office. What I don't have an answer to because the key personnel or not weren't available over the past week are whether the maintenance is done by the town or whether or not it was intended to be maintained by private properties. It is fairly common. that the drainage facilities that are outside of the road right of way, that maintenance is a requirement of the affected property owner, not the town. I don't know if that's the case here, because there are situations where it is a liability or obligation of the town to maintain that. I don't have an answer for this specific case.

Am I still off mute?

You're still off mute.

So Ron has brought this to the attention of DPW extensively for decades. He's had the DPW director guy out. I think it was the previous one. And so... Sorry, did somebody say something? Please proceed. All right, hot mic. And so I went back there with David Brickman, too, and we pulled up the GIS maps, and it's definitely Bedfordtown property. It's not anybody's private property. It would be an egregious criminal trespass if I tried to take a backhoe back there and clear that thing out. So it's not something that the private landowners could clear out. And Ron seems to be under the impression that it's conservation land sort of mixed with infrastructure and some weird, impossibly incongruous legal absurdity. And that's part of the reason that it couldn't have been dredged. But anyway, we can raise this in front of the DPW. Just wanted to make sure everybody knows about it.

Appreciate you raising the issue and that this is being recorded for TV. Hopefully is a good thing for raising awareness. Last, Mr. Novak, the drainage plan that you showed, have you provided that to town staff?

Directly, I have not. David, did you send that in? Say that again? The drainage plan. I submitted it.

You know what? I thought I sent it to Scott. I thought it was with everything else. Apparently not.

I mean, I'm happy to send it. That's not a problem at all. I just wanted to make sure we're not duplicating efforts, but I can send that right away. No problem. I'll get it to Tony.

Thank you very much. Absolutely. And I see hand, Mr. Stewart.

Thank you, Mr. Gritton. Thank you. I would just like to give a brief background. We moved in 78 and in November of 78. And in February of 79, we had our first major basement flood. And it occurred because of the backflow from the swale area through the system. There's only our properties at 110 and the outlet is at 106 feet. So it's very, very flat. So the water backflowed from all of the sewer system into our backyard, which we're number one, around the back of number three and over to number five. It was a massive problem. In the early 80s, 82, three and four, it went before the town as a town article. And in 1984, it was passed for the town to address this. Part of the problem was the open drainage from Page Road that fed down between two Page Road houses into our property and not contained. we have an easement that's on our property that was an open pipe. In 1984, those two pipes were put together with a manhole and a backflow capability, and the town dredged out the swale in 1984. From that point on until about 2019, the swale managed to keep open and drain out Francis Kelly without serious flooding. But in 2019, we had serious flooding continuing in all of the properties because of the backflow from the swale. These Have been pictured and site visited with the local engineer with the public works, including the present director on the property to discuss addressing this. Nothing has been done to that. And the records that we have kept, the pictures, the records, the flooding, property after property is very distressing, particularly if we now have fear of a new development causing some continued enhancement of this flooding. Tom Neal lives at the very bottom of the site runoff and all of the vegetation in that area is a protective source. In the course of time for the studies that were done, Dyes were set into Alaska Ave and caught, brought into this water system that comes, the aquifer that feeds under our Springsbrook area here, was determined to come even as far away as Alaska Ave, which is in part one of the reasons why Tom is having a flooding problem. I believe 99 Page Road, the McElroys have had water in their basement as well. So it is a serious concern not to be taken lightly. And this development, particularly if the basement is, I understand based at the zoning board that they tested down to 10 feet, They are very high property. They need to go 20, 25 feet to see where the water is if they want to determine where the basement floor might be relative to a water table. But all of Francis Kelly sits on the water table as it is today. So that's the history. It is all documented and can be easily produced with the pictures to show. Thank you very much.

So, members of the board have any questions, comments? I do want to address Mr. Howard's comments and questions before there's one more hand from the, a couple more hands from the audience. I will offer my opinion that regarding the 900 square feet, my view is that the owners are on their honor. If neighbors feel that there's been a violation, then call that in to the building department. I'm regarding tree protection. I am an advocate for a tree protection bylaw. We don't have one on the books now. Um, so I would not be in favor of imposing, um, a requirement on this, this property absent a townwide bylaw as for, um, The fact that the existing structure is being modified and that there's a new one proposed and how that relates to the changes to Chapter 40A, that's a fair question. And I would put that to Director Fields, whether he feels input from town council is warranted on that. And then Mr. Member Crowley, I'll take your comments.

I don't want to just repeat what you said, but I'm going to hit it a little bit as well. I think to address Mr. Howard, I was obviously struggling with the 900 as well. I do struggle. I think what you said, Mr. Gittins, sort of makes sense. I think for me, tearing it down, building another EDU in the same location, similar location to me just doesn't, completely isn't what we're trying to do here. I don't think we had power anyways. I think in sense it met what the building inspector said, I think it works for this location. If what they're trying to do, I feel that the, it isn't reconstruction going on here. It's new construction. And I would be curious what town council has to say about in terms of if it should go in front of the DBA or not. It's just, it is a bit of a, interesting time right now, but they're not increasing non-conformity. They're not making a new non-conformity, right? They're actually making a conforming structure. So, you know, I think it is arguable that it doesn't necessarily have to go in front of ZBA. In terms of the trees, I am curious how many trees remain torn down in the setbacks. You know, they, the builder indicated, I think 25 total and then 25 new, which is great to hear. but I'm curious how many were being in the setbacks and could any be saved? I'm not saying that we should impose that they have to. I am excited because we've discussed this many times on the board already in terms of potentially having one in the future in setbacks. I think it's actually required replacement, right? Just again, it's not necessarily keeping them. But I'm curious, Mr. Brickman, if you know how many are in the setbacks that you're taking down.

Hold on, please. I would like Director Fields to respond to the Town Council question before we move on from that.

Yeah, so I will note that the public hearing with the ZBA actually remains open, and we anticipate that Town Council the Newtown Council is coming to that next meeting of the ZBA to review these changes to Section 6 that the legislature just passed and specifically look at the impact on this application. Also addressing the issue of whether or not the um ceiling modifications might get changed in the future i would also note that in theory the assessors go through every house every three years and would note changes like that and bring it to the attention of the building department because we do from time to time come across illegally created apartments and and other things that um that are then recorded to be undone. There is a way to find that. that there have been changes made that get at that building height issue. It is a frustrating question under the building code because we do find spaces in all new constructs when we're trying to calculate even the 15% floor area ratio on two family houses. There are spaces within a building that don't count as floor space. So ceiling height is one of the factors.

Thank you. I will take... First, Mr. Brickman, if you care to respond about trees within setbacks.

So I didn't count which ones were... When you say setbacks, you're talking about the 15-foot setback on the side there? Yeah, so when I'm talking about the trees, I'm talking about all the trees we're cutting down, which are outside of the setback as well. So there's 25 that we want to cut down. And there's 38 that we want to save that we could cut down, but we want to save them. So if I was probably to guess how many are in the setback, you're probably talking, you know, 15 maybe.

Thank you. Actually, Mr. Chair, may I speak to that? I was looking at the plan and Dave probably doesn't have the plan up. In terms of the trees that were located, I want to be specific because I believe you said 12 inches or bigger and we've located six inches or bigger. Of the removed trees, I would reserve the right to double check this, but I believe it's only about, it's probably four trees that would be flirting with the setback. The rest are internal to the lot.

thank you very much remember mcclain so if the zoning board of appeals hearing is still open and we don't have a opinion from uh the town council i mean where does this leave our process i mean given and given that we're doing this kind of backwards right we're approving a uh a How do these two pieces fit together, I guess, right? The ZBA's appeal or non-appeal and our site plan review. Can we carry through a site plan review if the building of the primary structures hasn't been approved yet by the ZBA? That was not as coherent as I wanted to say, but hopefully you get the idea.

I understand your question. I had similar thoughts.

Yeah, so because your purview is over the ADU, not the new principal dwelling that's proposed, you do have the option of authorizing the ADU And if it turns out that council opines that the special permits required, and if for whatever reason it wasn't granted, they wouldn't be able to implement the site plan. But based on a seminar we were at last week with a variety of municipal councils from across the Commonwealth, Other than the, I will say they were equally confused as to how this new Section 6 wording is poorly written, but I also think we anticipate that the legislature intended it to be permissive, but... I would not speculate. So I think if the board is thinking it wants to wait for more feedback on that issue, as much as I know the applicants are hopeful to get underway in September, You have the potential to defer your action until your next meeting, or actually you have 90 days from whenever we got the application, but if you were to hold over to the meeting of the 25th, I believe the ZBA meeting is before that, and therefore you might have further insight on council's overview of those issues related to the non-conforming lot size.

I'll opine that if it is permissible for us to act on the ADU only without the overall site plan being approved, then I would advocate that we do so. All right. So the way I think of it, we can vote on the site plan as it relates to the ADU. And if the overall plan were not to receive approval, then that the ADU would be allowed or not would be beside the point. So I'm going to take input from the audience in the order that I saw hands. Tom Neal, Nicholas Howard, Ron Stewart.

I don't know that I have specific remarks about the ADU issue. Okay. Your hand is up. Oh, my hand is up? Okay.

Yes, it is.

All right. Mr. Howard.

Thank you. Nicholas Howard, 7 Daniels Drive. First, thank you for addressing my first two questions. I appreciate the clarification about a suspected future violation. I think it's asking a lot for nearby residents to be the enforcers on that type of thing, and I don't think that's a good precedent to stand, but if that's the way you believe it should be, then that's the way it is. And yes, I hope to hear from town council at the ZVA regarding that other question. I just want to clarify one remaining point about the trees because I may be misunderstanding the board's position. I understand that Bedford does not currently have a general tree preservation bylaw preventing a private property owner from removing these trees by right. But this isn't simply a property owner removing trees by right. There is a site plan application before you and the existing site plan bylaw expressly directs the planning board to consider the protection and enhancement of existing site features The relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape and the protection of environmental features on the site and in adjacent areas. So my question is very specific, why does the board believe it needs a new tree protection by law before it can require preservation of particular existing trees as a condition of this site plan approval. when the current site plan bylaw already expressly gives you those criteria to apply. I'm not asking whether you can regulate tree removal generally throughout Bedford. I'm asking about your existing authority over this particular site plan that is presently before you where Local residents have identified reasons to believe that this is a wildlife corridor and should in some way be protected to allow for the continued looping of animals between the areas behind Reed Lane and the Springsbrook Conservation Area.

Thank you, Mr. Howard. Mr. Stewart.

Thank you. The ZBA's next meeting is Thursday, the 27th of August. Thank you. Anything else? Is that it, Mr. Stewart? That's it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So comments, questions from members of the board? If not, then I will bring back my slide with the site plan approval criteria. Again, share that. So I'm presuming here that Members of the board are comfortable proceeding with the review, or are there concerns about the status of ZBA's review?

Mr. McLean. I guess I have concerns about passing judgment on a site plan review for an accessory dwelling unit when there's no non-accessory dwelling facility. as, as a, or even, even an approved plan for, for a non-accessory dwelling. Um, it seems a little, I mean, that seems bizarre. The nine, I'm still chewing over the 900 square foot thing and, and you know, why we put that limitation in the first place, um, which was mostly before my time. So I'd be, I'd be interested to, to, to hear about what other things, think, think about that. And, um, But it just seems like if part of it is about massing, then we're not really squaring that circle. And the third thing is I'm still trying to come to terms with the drainage issues. I'm not a civil engineer, so I don't know if the new basement is going to cause a problem or not. my intuition is no, I do worry a little bit about, about the new driveway. I think it's good that both, both roofs are going to be captured and that, that I could imagine that being an improvement over what's happening now. So.

I will know to the extent that massing is addressed in the bylaw, it's by square footage and by height.

Member Crowley. Yeah. I don't know if I, this is the right way I'm supposed to look at this, but unfortunately I feel like our purview is the ADU and I feel like near the ADU, there's like not many trees being torn down because there's not much change going on on that side of the property. Where the new house is, that isn't actually part of our purview. I don't know if you agree or not. And I'm curious, it's kind of a discussion, but I don't know what you think.

It's an unusual scenario, as we usually have an existing principal dwelling to consider the ADU with respect to. So this is all design at this point. Mr. Brickman, did you have a comment? You're still muted.

Sorry, I'm talking to myself. When I spoke with the building commissioner, he affirmed that this goes through planning board for the ADU. The house is by right. There is no issue with that. And he made that clear with the new bylaw. The issue with the trees and everything, there's nothing being cut down next to the ADU. I thought this meeting was basically for the ADU only. All the trees are staying around the ADU. Nothing's changing with it. The owners have a buy right to build whatever house they want to build on the lot. Moving it back, moving it to the left, I think that's up to the owners to do. That's not my decision. I don't own the property. um but you know the the trees that we're taking down um you know a lot of them are you know six inch caliber trees you know we're we're putting and replacing the trees that again i don't think the the owners have to do i think that's something that they you know they want to live on the street and they want to you know have friendly neighbors and you know they're not here to to uh to you know have any you know ill will with anyone so just on the, the, um, the wildlife corridor, I brought this up, you know, after the zoning meeting, because it was a question that they had, if they just wanted me to check with conservation, if this is a wildlife corridor, there's nothing that stops, uh, there's no wildlife corridor on the property. There's nothing in the town that says there's a wildlife corridor. Um, it's just, obviously there's trees. So you're going to have birds and you're going to have, I understand the neighbors, um, you know, wanting to keep trees, but, At the end of the day, the owner of the property wants to build a house on the property. So we're trying to do as much as we can to save as many trees as possible on the property. So that's really it. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, so site plan review criteria. I'm thinking specifically of the tree cutting, that the, again, this is really, again, Hard for me to separate ADU from the overall property, but that the applicant is proposing to replant, that there'll be a substantial number of trees remaining. I feel that that captures the... spirit of protection of environmental features. Before I continue, other members have input on that? Okay. As far as protection from A runoff goes. The tree planting and retention of pervious surface goes towards that. The proposal to capture the roof runoff, I think, goes towards that. Other members with thoughts? I just agree with you completely. Thank you. Okay. Adequacy of parking, didn't see as an issue. Loading spaces, that's really for commercial or larger scale residential. Disposal of refuse, again, that's more oriented towards commercial or larger scale residential. Thought that the plan appears to capture that adequately. Traffic, yeah, it's residents. Once again, more a concern for commercial or large scale residential. That's largely what I saw as the issues that we needed to evaluate and render some discernment on. It is to me unusual that we don't have a principal dwelling to yeah refer the uh the atu to um but i don't see that as a i'm a blocker i think that we can i make a judgment on the adu proposal independent of that and then it will proceed or not the overall proposal will proceed or not proceed depending upon how things go with uh The CPA and Tom Council's assessment of section 6 changes.

seeing any comments from members of the board i'll take final input from the audience mr neal then mr howard hey um can you guys hear me yes yes um i'll be quick um i know that some of the drainage issues are probably you know not within the purview of this committee but um and uh I know that the building of the dwelling is as of right. And generally, the owner of a property can just cut down whatever trees they want in the absence of any kind of tree bylaws. And I think it's cool that the new owners want to plant trees in between to foster goodwill. I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but I just want to underscore the severity of the flooding issue. I feel that we are well beyond the area. We're well beyond the the point where the stakes are just about goodwill. I think our neighborhood is, it's been 50 years, we're ready to move into the area where the stakes are about liability and accountability. I'm tired of sweeping mud out of my basement. If I'm going to get hydrostatic pressure that folds the walls of my basement in, that's going to be about holding somebody to account. So the drainage plans from next door at 103, fine, do it, but they need to be squeaky clean. And we intend to see this issue through with the town because we're past the point of asking nicely. That's it. Thank you.

Understood. Thank you, Mr. Howard.

Nicholas Howard, 7 Daniels Drive. I agree with the idea that the staging makes things awkward, but doesn't preclude you from giving an approval. However, I do believe that the particular staging issue does actually give you the opportunity to look at the broader area of the entire site plan differently. uh rather than just what is affected by the adu because the adu's proposal is largely contingent upon the greater plan here and uh well i agree that you don't seem to see my way with regards to this particular set of trees. I will point out that replacing trees is great, but it doesn't replace what exists as an existing canopy that connects from one side of the street to the other. Particularly the trees to the right side of the wall there create what is an actual connecting path to a forest on the opposite side of the street. to the extent those trees are removed and replaced with new landscaping of the same total size it doesn't change the it doesn't change the removal of what it stands as a corridor connecting one space to another and while while yes there currently is not an actual identified corridor that's only because nobody has been bothered to actually try and identify one i mean for example there are blue spotted salamanders in the neighborhood i Took a picture of one back in June on my own property. There are other things that could be. So just because nobody has actually identified a specific corridor because they've never helped me to identify it because, hey, everybody around here has been keeping the trees because Of all of the 47 or so lots that were developed under the plans in the 60s, pretty much to a T, I think there's three exceptions, all of them have 15,000 square feet or lower of a developed area with basically three exceptions. This one currently has 15,000 square feet of developed area, and they're proposing basically increasing it to 25. And so that's where I think you have an actual ability to consider that and take it into account when making this approval.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Howard. Mr. Brickman, I see your hands up and then I will invite the board to make a motion to proceed.

Sorry, I left my hand up from before.

Well, I'm so sensitive. I asked one one comment here before I'm inviting a motion. Since the applicant did include the drainage plan, I would advocate for incorporating that as a condition of approval and also the tree planting plan. So do we have a motion to move forward? And if not, what are your hesitations? All right. I'm waiting for a motion to approve the... Motion to approve the...

Especially dwelling unit at 103 Page Road. Okay. With or without the conditions that I... With the conditions of the two documents that you mentioned, the included.

Okay. And of course, conditional on any necessary ZBA approval. Approval. Yes. Do we have a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Member Crowley. Aye. Member Hagan. Aye. Member LaFrance-London.

Aye.

Aye. Member McLean. Nay. And the chair votes aye. 4-1-0. Site plan is approved with conditions as stated. And I think here we've, I have learned about, sounds like a very serious drainage issue at the bottom of Francis Kelly. So, yeah, look forward to hearing what town will be doing to address that going forward.

Thank you. Thank you, board.

All right. With that, we move on to the business session. At the last meeting, I'm I'm Mr. Gardner, who has been involved with a fair amount of development in town recently. I expressed support for private ownership of ADUs under a condominium arrangement. Director Fields sent out a presentation from our slide deck that Mr. Gardner had provided. I reviewed it briefly. I have not had a chance to form an opinion of it. Director Fields, do you know if Mr. Gardner cared to return to speak to those charts, or is that just for us to consider?

He is in the audience.

Hey, Tony, you're distant.

Yeah, I can hear you.

There was some background noise, so I might have turned my volume.

I can see your lips moving, but can't really... I see Mr. Gardner in the audience, so if he is inclined to speak. I do have your charts here somewhere, I believe. It might be more convenient if you had them.

Yes, how you doing? This is Greg Gardner from 10 Holton Street, Bedford, Mass.

I can share my screen. This is Derek Gardner, 104A Page Road. If I'm not positive, I have to get invited to share my screen or if I can do that manually.

Mr. Fields probably needs to grant you permission to do that via Zoom. He had to do that for me earlier. I believe it's just the meeting organizer who initially has permission.

I just joined as panelist and I'm going to share right now.

Just allowing.

Are you guys able to see my screen now? Yes. Okay. I'm going to the slideshow. Can you see the first slide of allowing separate ownership of ADUs? Yes, we can. Awesome. We'll start right now.

Good evening. This is Greg Gardner, 10 Holton Street, Bedford, Mass. This is also Derek Gardner. He'll go over a couple slides later in the game. So we really appreciate you guys listening to us and letting us talk at the last meeting. We had the other ADU on the agenda last meeting. we're, you know, we really appreciate the board's work on, you know, creating or looking into more affordable housing, um, with the cottage overlay and, um, you know, everything that the board's doing, uh, trying to promote housing and making it, um, affordable and, you know, living place for younger generations and older generations. Um, bedford you know has had an adu bylaw since 1990. uh the original rules for that were more restrictive the owner was required to live in either the primary home or the adu generally had to be located behind the primary residence so it really made it hard for you know people to fit that onto a lot um the new massachusetts adu adu law significantly changed that framework allowing owner occupancy not to be required and ADUs have much more flexibility in where they can be located on a property. That means an ADU can potentially sit more in line with other homes in the neighborhood while still meeting Bedford's required setbacks, height limits, building codes, and other dimensional requirements. ADUs have already evolved considerably. What we're here to discuss today is what we believe could be the next step allowing separate ownership for an otherwise legally permitted ADU. Our proposal for separate ownership, attainable homes, and address the need for housing in Bedford. These houses on the proposal are still going to preserve the character that Bedford is known for. The request is narrow, allow a legally permitted ADU to have separate ownership through conduing. The goal is to create an ownership option at a price point that is largely missing in Bedford while keeping the same physical development standards. The proposal is more about ownership, not density. We can already build the ADUs and people can already have ADUs on their lots. This is the key distinction. We are not asking Bedford to permit any extra unit beyond what zoning already allows. The building does not get larger. Setbacks do not change. Parking rules do not change. The safety requirements do not change. The change is only to the ownership of the structure. Separate ownership encourages pride of ownership and gives residents a greater incentive to maintain and invest in their property. When both the primary home and ADUs are rentals, there is a greater risk of deferred maintenance over time, potentially impacting the appearance and condition of the property and surrounding neighborhoods. All the existing regulations still apply. Zone requirements, setback in height, building code, parking requirements, inspection process. Separate ownership will not weaken any existing regulations. A condo to ADU would still have to satisfy zoning, building and setbacks, you know, parking. Right now there's, you know, A handful of states that are moving in this direction of being able to condo ADUs. Separate ownership has set a precedent elsewhere. California provides the clearest model. Municipalities may allow primary residents in ADU to be converted into separate condominium units, create an independent ownership without requiring a traditional lot subdivision. Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii also demonstrate established condominium frameworks capable of creating separately titled residential units on a shared property. We are not asking Bedford to create more housing. We are asking the town to consider whether ADU ownership can be thoughtful pathway to home ownership, aging in place, and long-term success for our community.

Hey everyone, this is Derek Gardner, 104A Page Road. Just wanted to go over some of Bedford's missing housing options. So in Bedford, the existing start and home price, it's all the way up to the 900,000 range. Those homes are usually older homes requiring significant renovations, limited inventory at this price point. Those houses usually have multiple offers, very competitive, hard to get, and you get something and you still need to update systems, roofs, A ton of variant updates will be needed. And then Bedford recently started the cottage overlay home. And those are great. They're going to be up to 1850 square feet. But those homes are still going to be priced at 1.2 million plus. Generally priced for established families, not the first time buyer. And then the proposed affordable dwelling unit separate ownership would be around 1000 square feet. two bedrooms, brand new, energy efficient, low maintenance. And this creates an attainable home ownership currently missing in Bedford. Ideal for the first time home buyers, young professionals and downsizing seniors to age in place. And those price points would be 600 to 750,000. We believe the opportunity would be to fill the gap for attainable ownership and expand ownership opportunities, not just rental housing. In the picture right here is a kitchen and a two bedroom ADU, still rather large kitchen, great layouts in a lot of these with the 900 to 1,000 square feet. Why ownership matters. Rental ADUs add housing, but ownership creates a different benefit. A buyer can build equity while a homeowner who builds the ADU gains another way to make the project financially feasible. This is especially important because construction costs can make an ADU difficult to justify if the only option is to retain both units forever and not split them off in condos. One housing tool, many uses. Even with only 1,000 square feet, ADUs are extremely versatile. Younger families, starter home, affordable ownership. They can build equity in Bedford, stay close to where they work and become a part of Bedford. Older residents, less maintenance than older house, age in place, stay near family and neighbors they have grown to meet over the years, independent living, and they could potentially downsize. targeted towards young families this is a new entry point into bedford this is a picture of 104 a page road two-story adu with living space above thousand square feet it provides a hot high quality starter home option without the land and construction costs associated with a traditional single family home separate ownership could allow a young family to enter the Bedford housing market, build equity as their family and housing needs grow, sell the ADU and use that equity towards their next home, giving them a pathway to remain in Bedford long-term and contribute to this wonderful town we all live in. And another ADU example right here would be the older generation. This is a ranch style house, can serve a completely different demographic, all living on the first floor. A single level layout with an attached garage can let an older resident downsize while staying in Bedford near family, friends, doctors in the community they already know. And then I put in a floor plan right here. This is a two bedroom with kitchen, open living area. And then you have a garage with a little mudroom and laundry off the backside. And all these homes would be very energy efficient.

Helping Bedford seniors. Many longtime Bedford residents have substantial equity in their homes, but no longer want the cost or responsibility of maintaining a larger aging house. In many cases, ADUs will be built for parents while their children or other family members take over their existing home. Condoing the units creates clear ownership and eliminates confusion over who is responsible for taxes, utilities, repairs, and other expenses. It can also provide a much better aging-in-place option. Making an older home truly accessible can be extremely expensive. Adding a ramp may be relatively simple, but creating first-floor living, accessible bathrooms, walk-in showers, wider doorways, and other accommodations often is not and very, very expensive. A new single-level ADU can be designed for those needs from the beginning. For a senior who builds an ADU for themselves, separate ownership also gives them the option to sell the existing home and use that equity for retirement rather than continuing to maintain it or becoming a landlord. After retirement, many people are looking for less responsibilities, not a second home to maintain and a tenant to manage. Why condo ownership helps seniors? existing home you could build an adu once it's sold condo ownership age in place and sell and maintain sell sell the main home seniors get to stay in bedford remain close to family lower their costs and age in place with dignity this is the scenario separate ownership can unlocked build the right size adu establish the con the condominium structure move into the adu and sell the main residence to another family and this enables the senior to put money in their pocket the senior converts some home equity into liquid liquidity while remaining in bedford the community they have given so much to and all while remaining ownership of appreciating assets Challenges with separate ownership. If they're not condoed, the asset is tied. So even if it's family members, it'll be tough to get both people on board to sell. Financial hurdles, high construction costs make new ADUs difficult. to finance without the ability to sell one unit. And as they, you know, as people start to age, they really don't want to have to take out another mortgage to build an ADU. So it would be nice if they could sell the main house and have the money for that. landlord burden many seniors do not want to be landlords collecting rents and maintaining two homes becomes very difficult at that age family-built adus can create uncertainty if ownership remains tied to the primary residence separate ownership provides stability

Good. Yeah, trying to go to market reality here.

Okay, market reality. So market reality, this is an existing house. This is actually my house at 10 Holden Street. Being a local builder, we do not believe every ADU will be condoed. Every property is different. This lot could support an ADU by right, but separate ownership is not practical because it would reduce the value of the single family home. And, you know, the lot is too constrained. So, you know, there's going to be spots where not everybody's going to want to condo the ADU or have an ADU. We do not believe every ADU will be condoed. In fact, many properties will not make economic sense to convert. Some owners will prefer family use or rental income, and some single family homes could lose value if converted into condominium ownership. That natural market check is important. This proposal creates an option, not a requirement. Benefits to Bedford. Attainable home ownership, greater housing diversity, increased tax revenue, supports local businesses, stronger local workforce, efficient infrastructure use, preserves neighborhood character, and lifecycle housing. The benefit is broader than simply creating another unit. It can add attainable ownership, housing diversity, lifecycle housing, local workforce housing, and potentially additional separately assessed taxable value while using existing roads and utilities and preserving neighborhood scale.

Why we believe this matters. We've spoken with more than a dozen bedford residents interested in building an ad you and the question has been can it be separately owned. We encourage the board to view the to view these not as accessory dwelling units, but as affordable dwelling units, a new housing tool to expand attainable home ownership, while maintaining bedford's neighborhood character. And that's the end of our presentation. We wanted to see if there was any concerns that we could address. Is the board interested in exploring a bylaw amendment? And how can we work together to make this a responsible housing option? Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your presentation. Questions or comments from members of the board? Amber Crowley. Come on, guys. Speak up.

I struggle with this one. One, I'm very curious about the whole tax revenue concept, but regardless of that, I'm glad that I feel like we were a bit ahead of the game with ADUs and we were trying to stay on top of it in Bedford, and then the state changed their laws and they said, oh, two families can have ADUs as well. And I think that's where really things get complicated and make things difficult. But my problem with this proposal is that if you have a two family and then you make an ADU, now essentially, and if you make it ownable, now it's a three unit. So effectively we're allowing three units across town in all residential areas. And I don't know about that. I'm not necessarily opposed to bring it in front of the town and see what they say. but I'm not going to be a proponent of this. Not yet anyways, maybe someday, but I'm not there yet. I feel like if you're talking about separate taxes and everything, then you're talking about, we need to change our zoning bylaws so that we allow smaller lots everywhere in town effectively, because now you're going to make new lots, all these ADUs. We're just basically saying you can make a thousand square foot house, carve off part of your lot and make a thousand square foot house. And it's just, I don't know. I'm not there. I'm not there yet. I respect what you're trying to say, but for me, accessory dwelling unit has always been accessory dwelling unit. And that's where I still stand for now.

Member LaFrance-London.

Yeah, I think my feelings are similar to Todd's. One question that I have is what prevents these from just becoming rental units? You know, somebody buying them and then just renting it out. And then what we have is not the pride of homeownership. We have extensive rental housing in Bedford, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but that's not what this is being sold as. So I find it intriguing, but I have not had the opportunity to weigh all of the implications of it to come down one way or another quite yet. It feels to me a little bit like the accessory dwelling unit train is just speeding down the track. And I'm just not sure where it's going to end up. It feels like it's gotten a little out of control. But we'll see. We'll see how it goes.

So my two cents, I am generally favorably disposed towards the proposal. I need to consider it more. I think you mentioned at the end a change in title from accessory dwelling unit to affordable dwelling unit. And I think a name change is appropriate and that it reflects a change in approach. What you're describing to me is it's no longer an accessory structure, it's something on its own. And so I look at it as I'm more aligned perhaps with the cottage courts and that the change would be more about allowing multiple multiple structures, multiple detached homes on a single lot. I tend to think that that would be fairly effective relative to other zoning changes in terms of promoting affordability. Member Crowley mentioned smaller lots kind of being effectively, uh, yeah. What would be realized if, if this were to be, uh, uh, this were to change were to be adopted. And I, yeah, I agree that in spirit, that's what it would be. And I think that, you know, reducing, um, Yeah, maximum allowable minimum lot size. That was a mouthful. Capping or putting a floor on, no, putting a cap on lot size would substantially lower than its current. That would allow lots to be split. That would probably go a long way towards creating new housing. Yeah, the missing middle sort. Yeah. So I do think there are things to like about this. I do want to consider it more. Member Hagan.

As the others are saying, an intriguing possibility, and Todd correctly says that means it's three units per lot around. But I'm going to ask the proponent, thank you for the work. Any chance you're going to have a booth at Bedford Day such that we can be confident there's a large amount of input from members of the town on this subject? And the alternative is a table outside Fall Town Meeting. You told us you've talked to a dozen people, but you're the builder. So that's why I don't mean that in a negative way. I just wanted to be confident this gets shopped around with more people in town before the planning board gets into too deep on it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Member McLean. To maybe address Todd's concern, and this may be a question for staff, I mean, could we do something like Condolization would be allowed if it's shared with a single-family lot, but not with a... Sorry, with a single-family dwelling, but not a two-family dwelling? I mean, is that a way to split the baby? As for making lots smaller, especially if duplexes are allowed by right everywhere in Massachusetts... at some point we're going to have the problem where we have 6,000 square foot lots and with three units on them, which may, which may be what we want or maybe not. But, um, it, it, it did occur to me when thinking through all these things that, um, because in general, I think lots should be smaller as well, but, uh,

Yeah, I just interject to say there are setbacks to consider. Sure. And then there are infrastructural limitations. There's only so much density that our water and sewer and electrical could support. So I'll put it back to the presenters. follow-up comments or would you just like us to digest what you presented here? I will take input from the audience after you have a chance to comment.

I really appreciate you guys, all the questions on them. They're all questions too that we keep going back and forth on ourselves. As far as to touch on the two-family and the single-family, even though you know there's no more zba or zoning um constraints on there with the two families if it's an undersized lot you still have to go by the total um floor area So if it's, you know, a 30,000 square foot lot, you would still only be able to have 4,500 square feet between the two units and then the ADU. So it would definitely, you know, on the smaller size lots, it would definitely stop. um two families from you know being developed on those um but you could still do a single family as big as you would want and then do an adu on that lot too um so i mean it's definitely different and um with you know with the the um jesus i just i wrote everything down and now i uh i can't read my own handwriting i apologize for the uh

To Mr. Hagan's question about Bedford Day, I'm a builder, this is Derek, and a realtor in town as well. I'd be more than happy to go into Bedford Day and discuss with local residents kind of what they think. And then another response to another question with a worry of these becoming a lot of rentals, these units still are very expensive to build. We're pricing out these detached ADUs upwards of 400 to $500,000. These units aren't 150 to 200,000 as a detached unit. You're still building an entire home with all the same steps of building an entire home, but they're limited to 900 to a thousand square feet. And there's still one bed, two bed, um, So I don't think it would command the rental to make that work. I don't think it would get the rental you would want at spending $400,000 to $500,000 to build these units. It's kind of my thought on the rental, and it really would give another option for attainable homeownership in town at the $600,000 to $700,000 price point.

And this is what I was thinking of. I apologize. And not to shove the ADUs down you guys' throats or anything like that, but we have two ADUs that we've done on Wilson Road and Page Road. And... Both of my children, you know, my son, Derek, and my daughter, Brenna, they're both professionals. They both have great jobs. And they wanted to, you know, we wanted them actually to stay in Bedford. You know, we weren't looking for them to move to New Hampshire or, you know, to move further away to, you know, an unaffordable town. And both of these guys have paid for the construction of the ADUs. Yeah. And if you ask me or my wife, we didn't plan on letting this happen. The ADU thing was brand new and we gave it a shot. It was a way for us being a little selfish to keep our kids in town and let them have a little sweat equity in building the property and project out. I mean, that's just my background on this. Do I think that some people are going to be able to make money off these? Yes. I just thought it was an opportunity for a couple of young professionals that can get some equity in a house and then hopefully sell this house eventually if this was able to be condoed and sold and they could... have the money and equity to buy their forever home and uh stay established in bedford you know i i think it's really something that would you know help help the town and help promote it you know thank you thank you uh take comments from the audience uh mr howard then mr neal nicholas howard seven daniels drive

I would say let's just call this what it really is, and it's a way of codifying ADUs as subdivisions all but in name without the benefit of side setbacks and frontage requirements. If what Bedford really wants is more of these housing, then there should be a new subdivision plan created that allows for dividing some of these larger lots in ways that are makes sense with a better plan than something that's building a band-aid on top of a band-aid of what the adu laws are trying to create thank you mr howard um can you guys hear me yes yes

Um, substantially the same point as Nick. I mean, if the point is to make more affordable housing, starter housing, you can put a family in, you can't put a family, you can't start a family in 900 square feet. And why do that through a squirrelly ADU angle? If we're really talking about trying to pack condos in a small space, why not go all in and just argue to change the setbacks? And why put a two-family home in an ADU? Why not advocate to be able to put three or four condo units in the same amount of space if that's really the objective? If it is, do that. That's what I think. Anyway, that's all. Thanks.

I'm just going to add that my wife and I, my parents and my grandparents all started there. Our family's in homes under 1,000 square feet. So it can be done. All right. So thank you to the gardeners. And looking at the time, I want to move forward with items on the business section. Can I make one quick point? I apologize.

Please. In terms of the one interesting conundrum with this is it is hard to get builders to make something small and to get them to build a thousand square feet or less is very tough. And we understand it's all complexity. So even if we allow like four units per acre or whatever, because we just did this with the MBTA housing and what are we seeing? Because we allow 15 units per acre, but what are we seeing? 1.2, 1.3 million dollar units packed on the lots. So it is just tough to get small houses that are cheap enough in Bedford. And so that's why we tried the cottage court thing. So we'll see how that goes. But anyway, so I can kind of see the appeal of a thousand.

Anyways, that's it.

Thank you. Thank you again to the gardeners and to input from members of the audience. So moving on to dark sky lighting. I'm, I have not made significant progress there, but yes, I'm Katie Durham in the audience. I am. I understand. I, you have input to share. Uh, yes, go ahead.

Hi. Um, this is my first, um, town Zoom meeting. So I'm hoping you can hear me. I don't know if you can see me.

We can hear you fine. We cannot see you. I don't think we'd be able to. Well, we might be able to. We can hear you fine.

Okay. So KD Durham, 43 Brixby Road. I'm a 35-year resident of Bedford. My interest in this bylaw initiative is twofold. First, the intense light trespass into my bedroom windows every night, all night. And secondly, nightlight pollution impacts on wildlife. My background is wildlife biology. I focus for some time on creating native wildlife habitat in my own yard, as are an increasing number of Bedford residents. So I've had a few exchanges with Mr. Gittins. A year ago, he directed me to the Dark Sky Massachusetts Model Bylaw, and recently he forwarded materials on Chelmsford Bylaw, which I understand may be an example of what the planning board may pursue. So I have a few quick broad brush comments relating to the Chelmsford Model I would like to make this evening, but most of what I want to tell you, especially with regard to wildlife impacts, I will include in separate written comments. First, for those of us who are not electrical engineers, please demystify technical aspects of the bylaw as much as you can. Making the technical stuff less overwhelming is critical for public buy-in. The diagrams on shielding are tremendously helpful. Color could benefit from some wordsmithing to clarify the ranges in Kelvin. But how can I know whether the proposed standards for lumens and foot candles are adequate or maybe onerous? Does someone on the planning board or in the building department already have a reliable light meter? And if so, can examples in Bedford be identified so the public can experience for itself what the bylaw is trying to correct versus what would be acceptable lighting? And I would offer 36 Brixby as an example. Second, as I understand from Chelmsford history, last year's proposal was rejected as too onerous with respect to residential. So significant modifications were made and this year it breezed through town meeting. But I wonder if it went further than it needed to in relaxing the residential standards. Maybe we can learn from it. So at a minimum, all new residential construction should comply with standards. Bedford may be mostly built out, but as properties are sold, many single-family homes are torn down and rebuilt, presenting a golden opportunity. Let the developer deal with it at the time it is the most appropriate and cost-effective to do so, so that future homeowners and neighbors are spared the friction of light trespass, which is very difficult to resolve cordially or inexpensively at that point and would preclude enforcement action. Maybe not all the standards in Chelmsford Section 3, but at least those in Section 4.3. And really, all new outdoor light fixtures requiring an electrical permit should meet the same standards, particularly for shielding. This would still allow non-conforming existing fixtures to be spared in the absence of enforcement action if that's the direction the planning board wants to go. My third major point is that a 10-year grace period for commercial industrial to fully comply is too long. Populations of insects and songbirds have been decimated in recent decades, in significant part due to nightlight pollution, all while industry continues to make light stronger and more unhealthy. At this rate, a great deal of damage could occur in 10 years. If the law includes a grace period, please consider a term of no more than five years. And fourth, I want to point out a difference in how Dark Sky and Chelmsford handle environmentally sensitive areas. Dark Sky includes residential use in the definition, Chelmsford does not. It arises in the applicable foot candle standard for nuisance-like trespass. So Chelmsford residential standard is relaxed by half from what both would require for environmentally sensitive areas. So I'm going to explain separately in what I'll be submitting writing why I think that's important, but I am encouraging the lower foot candle standard to apply to residential as well. My final comment is shielding, shielding, shielding can't be emphasized enough. I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. More will be coming in writing. I look forward to helping in any way I can to move this initiative forward. And I appreciate hearing what kind of timing might be anticipated. I guess most immediately, like if this is going to be on the next planning board meeting, when my comments should be submitted. Sound like there was maybe a seven-day advance period you might be looking for.

I muted myself there. Thank you very much for your comments. I really appreciate those. The dark sky, outdoor lighting regulation is a recurring topic on our meeting agendas. There would be an opportunity to speak every second and fourth on Tuesday of the month, you know, until the point where, you know, we were going to, you know, a public hearing for, you know, a draft, you know, a draft bylaw amendments. What else was I, sorry, lost my train of thought there. I'm In terms of input prior to board meetings, I'm say typically I'm the I should defer to Tony. I'm the meeting our meeting package. I'm planning board members meeting package goes out the Thursday before a meeting. So I'm yeah. The Wednesday prior I'm I don't know how late Tony is able to accept input to meeting packages, but yeah, roughly a week.

Okay.

And I see, well, I'll invite members of the board to ask questions or comment, and then take comments from the audience. Seeing none from the board, Mr. Neal, you had your hand up, and then Mr. Howard.

Sorry, I forgot to raise it, but I think this sounds cool.

Thank you.

Mr. Howard. Nicholas Howard, 7 Daniels Drive. I just wanted to share, while I'm generally supportive of this, I largely see it as a good opportunity for introducing some tree protections alongside it, where trees naturally contribute to a lot of dark sky conditions. preservation and so perhaps there can be some opportunities to protect trees in the process or in some cases in lieu of i will relax some some protections in lieu in exchange for keeping some trees because they provide much of the same purpose thank you mr howard i'm mr of any uh

parting comments. I look forward to speaking more. All right. So with that, we can move on to small clean energy facility permitting.

Yeah, so we did forward for you several presentations that we were able to partake in last week at the Mass Municipal Lawyers Association event where small clean energy permitting was the topic of a half-day seminar and the I think that information combined with some of the recently released state tools are going to be very useful in helping us kind of bring closure to a proposal that we should have for your next meeting. Typically, the state recommends we break energy facilities into three tiers of facilities, and we're going to do that. And then that enables us to regulate them separately so that what the state will identify as a Tier 1 facility is something very small. and typically allowed in all zoning districts and then as you get into the bigger sizes those can either be limited in their in what districts you allow them in and or you could require special permits for them if they are of a size that you think needs more scrutiny than allowing them by right. So we will have a concept for you to think about at the next meeting. And the uh plus as uh as i noted we have newtown council and one of the presenters at this event works for newtown council and they they look forward to helping us get something together in time for fall town meeting thank you um

Data center permitting. Thank you for forwarding the Attorney General's opinion on Mansfield's bylaw.

Yeah, so the Mansfield bylaw is something we might look at for reference for local adoption or something similar. The These are users of fairly high amounts of energy and it's funny that we're on the one hand, talking about energy production facilities. At the same time as facilities that can consume all that. production. So we are needing to again, I think think about regulating more specifically how data centers might be permitted locally rather than the currently you could interpret that they're within the broad brush of uh information technology in the in the bylaw and we want to pull them out because they do come with issues that we're hearing from many of our colleagues across the Commonwealth and across the country. And so we're seeing several ideas on how to regulate these uses in a manner that minimizes the impact of building new power facilities for which the costs are otherwise spread to all the users in the community. And we want to make sure that we don't have those impacts on the residents that if, you know, if there's going to be an impact from, you know, power distribution to the facility that they're paying for it themselves or they're putting something on the property that generates it on site. So and then there's other issues. you know, related to noise, emergency generators, and what's the source of fuel for the emergency generators. And then there's questions about emissions from these facilities. So we want to make sure we have all the environmental impacts addressed. And so we hope to have something ready for fall town meeting on that topic as well.

Very good. Thank you. Member McLean?

I did like how they segmented it by total power use of the data center. I thought that was a good model. Yeah.

So to tip my hand, I'm agreeable to Tier 1, but I would strongly oppose Tier 2 or Tier 3 being allowed in town.

Okay.

Okay.

And for the benefit of the audience, tier two is a tier one is less than two megawatts. Tier two is two to 10 megawatts. And then tier three is greater than 10. Um, and I do see that, uh, Patricia Fabian, um, uh, from, uh, Energy and sustainability is in the audience. I invite you to comment if you're so inclined. Not to put you on the spot, though.

Yeah, you don't have to put her on the screen. We would note that Energy and Sustainability has offered and is poised to help us with both of these two items. And we'll be reaching out. I believe they're meeting sometime in September. And we will attend both to introduce them to Kylie and to... Well, talk about these specific things, plus perhaps how we can help with some of the other goals they have.

And I do see a hand up. Ms. Fabian.

Hi, thank you. I couldn't find the unmute button. No, so just to say that we have been in conversation both with Tony, Chris. We've provided a lot of different information, I think, and sort of raised the issue and happy to join any conversations. Really, our role has been so far to sort of elevate it as an issue, both for the data centers and the small energy permitting, and then just trying to get as much information as possible to help the town make decisions. So that's where we are.

Thank you very much. I'm moving on to tree protection by law. Once again, I have nothing to report.

unless member mcclain may want to may get to how it was discussed at the select board meeting last night yes and if you did not watch the meeting the select board did not take action on the proposed changes to the fees relative to both either permitted tree removal or penalties for unapproved tree removal. And so that's still out there for discussion. Which that and that policy is really, though, for just town owned trees, whether it's street trees in the right of way or trees on town owned properties, whether it's a municipal building or an open space, you know, and not related to. prior you know trees on private property and the you know so the that discussion about whether we would eventually try to regulate trees within the setbacks when there's a construction project remains an unanswered item on our potential to-do list but um but the the what uh what bark proposed last night did not see action at the meeting lesson so remember mclean and then member lafrance london yeah just to add a little more color i mean it was something

I mean, it was tabled, so it was not rejected outright. But when something fails, it's always a little bit hard to tease apart why. There was quite a bit of pushback during public comment. There were three different comments, including from a member of this committee, against the proposal. And I think the big thing was the scale of the mitigation fees and whether they... you know, it was a fairly dramatic increase over our current mitigation fees, which is a flat $500 per tree. And there wasn't a good feeling for whether it was the post fees were well aligned with, or with our neighboring communities. Right. So there was a lot of concern that, you know, what does Burlington and, and the record do? So if we propose something, I think we'd want to, uh, be able to answer that question. Um, And, yeah, and there was a couple, I mean, there's sort of three different things at question here, right? There's the application fee for removing a tree. There's the mitigation fee. And sort of, you know, the thrust of the proposal was to make it variable based on the tree size. And then the penalty for taking down a tree without going through the process. Um, which I think if they had talked about it, there would have been a general, a general, uh, agreement for the first and third and third, but it got lost in the conversation, uh, about the second. Um, I think there was something else rattling around my brain, but I don't remember what it was.

How to current penalties, uh, for tree removal compared to, uh, the going rate for a green firewood.

Anyway. So it should be noted that the current rate for removing a tree is less than the cost of planting a new tree. Thank you.

Remember LaFrance Linden, sorry.

It's getting late. Yeah, some of the questions that occur to me as I read through these things is I don't think I've ever seen data on how many trees are we talking? Like in the last five, 10 years, how many trees have been through the policy that we have? How much money has been collected from the policy that we have? What has been done with the money from the policy we have? And has the policy we have been effective? What has been its impact? And, you know, kind of on the flip side of that, what I would like to see is the corresponding projections for the new policy. You know, do we think, you know, how many trees do we think we're talking? What do we think the financial, you know, results are going to be. What do we think, you know, what changes are we hoping for or expecting? And how are we going to measure whether the policy is successful or not? And part of it is that while, you know, I think it's great that Bedford, you know, is so green and so lush and whatnot, and they see it as a valuable thing. What kind of percentage of the trees are we talking? That's kind of what I would like to know.

Thank you. Mr. Hagan.

Don, well said. You have just captured why the select board tabled this. All your questions were not answered. None of your questions were actually answered. And that's why this got tabled. Thank you.

I'm sorry. Sorry, I muted myself. Member LaFrance-London, did you have further comments or your hand's still up? No worries. Okay. All right. So with that, 340 Great Road, I have nothing to report there.

Yeah, I have no update either. Okay.

So with that, reports from liaisons to boards and committees.

Member Crowley. Exactly, report, but I'm just going to put a plug in. A couple things. One, Just to make it clear, the sidewalk clearing, everything that's being put on hold for now. I've had multiple discussions with the assistant town manager, a bit with the town manager as well. So with everything else going on, it does not make sense for this upcoming town meeting, but it's still in the back of my mind. And still discussions going on and the assistant town manager's aware and they're gathering data and potentially going to be doing some outreach and some education and so forth. So stuff is happening behind the scenes, but no bylaws yet to be proposed. And secondly, I talked to assistant manager about this as well in terms of potentially or looking into requiring certain boards to at a minimum be hybrid, though therefore having an online option, especially regulatory boards. I am completely and utterly frustrated and fed up with the Zoning Board of Appeals not having a hybrid. It's just very hard for me to get to meetings, but hybrid I could do. I'm on a soapbox, but I'm going to do my best to push that forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Before calling on Member McClain, At the beginning of the year, we did discuss the possibility of meeting in person, perhaps once a month, and it hasn't percolated up to the top of my to-discuss list. So perhaps next meeting we can have a conversation about doing that. Member McLean.

I figured I would talk about the slight board meeting. But before I did that, I support Todd in his quest to get more meetings hybrid. My watch is trying to get my attention. So... Speaking of in-person meetings, they did approve the contract for the town hall stair replacement. Work isn't going to start on that until after Bedford Day, and they expect the memory serves to last about 12 weeks. um they don't think they'll be able to put in an alternate handicapped access i'm a little bit surprised that they can't do a ramp to the back door but um that's the current state of things um i'll let tony talk about the review of the comprehensive plan strategies um oh they they uh they dissolved the housing partnership and did more appointments to the affordable housing trust. Uh, which is, this is something that's been in the works for months now. And was that done last time meeting the housing trust has two openings out of seven. Um, we already talked about the, the tree regulations. Um, they accepted the two 77 great road trail easement, which was part of our, um, conditions of approval. Um, there was a discussion that I don't completely understand around, um, the traffic comment policy and about the changes posed for, for, uh, for, uh, Hemlock lane. Um, and they're probably going to talk about the traffic comment policy at the next, next select board meeting, if that's sort of thing that interests you. Um, and they did not talk about, uh, rejiggering the select board liaison assignments because they were missing Dan member Dan and but they did approve the select board goals acknowledging that it's a working document and they can update it at every meeting if they want to they're going to talk about leaf blowers at the next meeting We're going to talk about the traffic calming policy at the last meeting, and solar roof work is starting at one of the schools soon, and probably the fire station next year. The fire station is on schedule.

Thank you. Member Crowley. Sorry, I know it's a little different. I just meant to add, I don't know if I can make the next meeting. I'll be in New York City. Thank you.

All right. Before we move on to staff reports, I do see a hand in the audience. And so, Mr. Howard, if you care to speak, but given the hour, please try to keep it brief. I'll be very quick.

Nicholas Howard, 7th Annual Thrive. Just wanted to, since it's kind of more of a general public meeting, but it's related to this overall subject matter. There has been a fair amount of public consternation about some of the trimming that has been going along along the roadways, particularly people not necessarily being particularly aware of what is theirs and what is not. And it might be an opportunity for the planning board to kind of raise awareness of where people's properties lines are and what right ways exist and what the town is allowed to do without them going and complaining on Facebook with without really having a good source of information on

yes that's allowed thank you yeah i'm i will opine that i don't think it's really a planning board issue but it is in general a town government and good relations with the public issue so yeah there's there's something there there are things to be done there to make things go more smoothly um absolutely uh

believe that to be the case.

All right, so finally, staff updates.

So just as Member McClain noted, we did give a quick overview to the select board last night of the comforts of plan status and ask them to individually review the 65 strategies that have come out of this plan and forward their comments through their staff. back to us and similarly need to get a few more committees scheduled where I still have to make myself or members of the committee need to address, get on like the Board of Health agenda, the ZBA agenda. conservation recreation commission so so those things are happening we will the our advisory committee meets i believe a week from thursday where we will continue to identify um where we're headed with an implementation matrix and the overall land use plan, which is a map. And then we will have a public survey added to the project website as part of the run up to Bedford Day so that we'll be soliciting kind of the final public engagement piece over the next three to four weeks after this committee meeting next week. And then once we get past Bedford Day, we'll Right around that time, close the survey. The committee will address what comments it wants to recommend be incorporated in the plan. And then we'll work on getting those comments into the draft plan, which we will be back to the full board in October for your final reviews and acceptance of the plan. and then um assuming there will be time at the fall town meeting we would like to make a presentation to special town meeting in november to kind of say here's the plan and whether we simply say here's the plan Or whether we asked the body to accept the plan is something we'll have to discuss as we get closer to the end but under the Statute only the planning board has to adopt the plan so. And, to be honest, you can do it even with. Well, technically, you could do it without talking to the public, but obviously we. We would not recommend that. And to be honest, this is the first time I've done a plan really from the ground up where we really went out and said to the residents, You know, what are your, what are your issues rather than starting with the various land use boards and saying, what are we working on and what is it we want to get? What do we want to get feedback on? Because we already have some biased opinions as to how we want to be working on those various land use issues. Uh, but in this case, we, we started with the residents and now we're telling the boards what the residents have offered for comments. So it's, it's been really interesting to do it from the ground up. Um, Other just a just a more on a staffing level update. I just wanted to call your attention to some and a shout out to Kylie for doing. A major improvement on the website on the transportation page that we have under the planning board site and also check out. New information on energy that we've added because we've added some energy and sustainability functions to our departmental role.

So there's a lot of new good information there.

And then also on the staffing front, we hopefully have a new administrative person starting next Monday. So hopefully I'm back at full staffing starting next week and look forward to that. taking advantage of having all the people to get caught up on some things that are just things that I'm behind on.

All right. Thank you very much. Was there a date by which Select Board was going to respond with feedback to the comprehensive plan draft?

I had asked for comments by the end of the month, I think. I hope.

All right, thank you very much. So with that, we are at the end of our agenda. Final comments, or do we have a motion to adjourn? Member McLean?

Move that we adjourn. Second.

The onslaught. I'll yield to Todd. Member McLean? Aye. Member Crowley? Aye. Member Hagan? Aye. Member LaFrance-London. Aye. And the chair votes aye. Thank you for a productive meeting. Thank you. See you on the 25th. Good night all.