Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Sorry to spoil your plan, Steve. I know. God. Two more minutes and then uh and then get started. 71.

I'm using my cell phone to check my  computer to see when we're at 702. Yeah. Just um Alexis Weiss, you have a question. I was just wondering if you could hear people  that were not on the planning board. So,   you can see me. We can hear you. Okay, perfect.  Thank you. Hands down, please. Yes. Hi,   Todd. Welcome. All right. The planning board is  at full strength. We got the five members and   Tony and Katherine and Carrie. All right. I'm  going to now call this the October 28th, 2025   meeting of the Bedford Planning Board to order. I  must begin by reading the governor's statement for   this. Pursuant to legislation H62, Chapter 2 of  the Acts of 2025, extending suspension of certain   provisions of the open meeting law GL 38 paragraph  20. This meeting the Bedford planning board will   be conducted via remote participation to the  greatest extent possible. No inerson attendance   of the members of the public will be permitted but  every effort 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  the proceedings as soon as possible after the   meeting. Meeting is now in session. First  topic on the agenda is 269277 Great Road   uh possibly preliminary subdivision plan.  who will be speaking for this uh project. I  

think I will. Okay. What we want to explain what  you're want to do tonight. Good evening. Well,   we realize that we did not submit um the  engineers updated plan, but I think we've   accomplished our goal regardless. So, we're okay  if the board um goes ahead and just votes to deny   the preliminary subdivision. It doesn't stop  us from submitting a definitive subdivision. Um, you want them to deny rather than withdraw.  I guess it probably doesn't make a difference.   I thought I mean we've submitted it so I  guess it we've already protected, right? We think so. I didn't research it. So, um I don't  think that a withdrawal would actually eliminate   the fact that we submitted and filed with the  town clerk. though to protect the zoning. I   think if it's kind of a moot point regardless.  Yeah, I think you're better off asking for the   board to render a decision rather than I think  I am, which is why I suggested that. And since   we haven't submitted updated plans, I think  you can you can deny it. Could could you um   I think we understand now. Could you somebody  crisply say what you're trying to have us deny?   So we have submitted a preliminary subdivision  plan and um the way that works is you can submit   a plan. The part of the reason is to get your  comments on a plan. We that's is that's all I   knew. Does somebody on the board want to say  uh move to deny the uh submission deny the  

preliminary submission plan for 26 as presented?  Yeah. So move pretended to Okay. All right. Let's   do a roll discussion. How do you vote? Discussion.  No, hold on. Discussion. Discussion. Why? I   thought all motions were made in the affirmative  and then we vote negative. Is that not correct,   someone? That's actually I believe that's correct.  that's required as it opposed to uh simply custom.   I don't know if it's Robert's rules or it's  standard procedure to to pose a motion in the   affirmative and then vote accordingly. Yes or no?  That's my understanding. I I may take obsession.   It is not worth delaying the meeting. who wants to  frame this motion in the way they want. I move we   approve the preliminary subdivision plan for 269  277 the Great Road as presented to us um so far. Does somebody want to second that? Second. Okay,  John. All right. Roll call vote in that order.   How do you vote? Todd, no. Oh, I see. John,  nay. Chris, no. Don, no. And then in that case,   the chair votes no. So, we have an  unanimous no. Thank you for confusing,   but we appreciate navigating the knot hole here.  Anything else on 277 Great Road tonight? That's  

it. Maybe not. Then if not, then we can  get on to 214 Great Road. All right. If   there's no objection, we're on to that. And  this is a review of a 10 family multifamily   10 unit multif family development at 214.  Who would like to speak for this tonight?   start on that one as well. Thank you, Pam. Thank  you. So, at our last meeting, I think we were   getting close. Uh we had a few discussion items  and we did promise that we would come back with Jeff. Okay. Thanks. Sorry, Pam. I just want to  make sure you didn't pass him pass to him and   he wasn't available to speak. Thank you. and and  and the chair comments that his video has stopped,   but his audio is working and I can see you.  You just can't see me. I think you're the   lucky ones. All right, press on, Pam. Thank  you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so we we have submitted   um an updated or detailed more detailed  landscape plan. I've got a color one that   I'll share with you in just a moment. Um and  then the um Andrew Burns, the property owner,   has met on site with the Shapiro who are the  abotterers at um 10 Sunset Road. And I believe   the plan is consistent with their agreements and  I think it meeting also helped to clarify you know   the project and the views from various angles and  so forth. Um so actually I will share my screen. we can jump into that. Um so, um and Mike,  I'm happy to have you or Andrew or anyone  

jump in on this, but um I tried to zoom  in a little bit just to help clarify,   but I think this plan actually helps a lot to um  better identify what's proposed um in terms of   the Shapiro property. Uh the agreement was there  were a few trees the three trees to be specific   um that exist um that we had originally planned  to save um but based on the discussion with the   Shapiro those trees will come down so that um a a  stockade fence can be installed along the property   line here and that's supplemented with 13 um 7 to  8 foot arborites that should grow pretty quickly   um to buffer Shapiro's yard. Um there was some  discussion. There's an existing retaining wall   along here that will be reconstructed. Um and  that's really just to hold back the land area of   um the back of the proposal, the patios  and so forth. Um drainage will be directed   um really north and south. So water flowing into  this area um and running off of the patios will   be directed to either side um front and back.  Not the Shapiro's yard is uphill so we'll not   be flowing that way. Um and this wall really  um won't serve to hold back water. In addition   um I think most of us know that um just vegetation  in general helps um with absorbing water. So,   when you have open land, it tends to be um  more likely to pool or pond when there's a   heavy rainstorm. With vegetation, um it'll it  should actually improve the current situation,   which I understand has some pooling in a heavy  rain. Um so, I'm sorry I keep doing this. Um  

otherwise um this plan you know we're showing  tree preservation of existing trees along the   property lines on both sides. We'll zoom this out  a little bit. Um all of the wooded area between   which actually the Bedford auto parking lots  way over here but all of this land area there   is wetland here but all of the existing tree line  along here will be maintained and then additional   um tree planting a couple of red maples  up the streetscape um and then some larger   trees supplemented with some herbaceous level and  shrub level um landscaping around the buildings.   So, um, if you have I think questions on that.  Um, well, I guess any questions on that before   I go on to the building elevations? Questions from  the board or Tony or Katherine? Todd? Yeah. Well,   I was just curious. Um, there's a central square  lot right in the middle of this page. Um and and   it says proposed for retaining wall. Like what  lot is that? Is that not a separate lot? I'm   just curious. I um Oh, here. Yeah. Yeah. It's  associated with I forget which number Sunset,   but the Sunset Road parcel here was actually  deed in two pieces and the two pieces still show,   but it's all part of the same property.  It's all part of the same property. Okay.   All right. Thank you. Other questions  or comments? from Tony or the board. Chris, this is a question to staff.  If a wall lies on a property line

are both of the uh are the owners of both  properties on which it's uh on which it lies.   uh are required to agree on the disposition of the  wall before anything's done to it. I know with uh   personal experience with trees, there were some  um trees that where the on my neighbor and our   uh property line and that the property line  biseected the trunks and it was necessary   to get written agreement that it was okay to  remove them before they could be taken down.   And I'm curious if there's anything analogous  with uh stone walls or other other features. It's a good question. Um I I'll ask Andrew or  Mike to just confirm this, but the there's an   existing stone wall and Todd, you're right. It  sits pretty much smack on the property line. Um   you might know a lot of historic deeds actually  did property lines bounded by a stone wall,   so doesn't surprise me. Um, but the the stone  wall that's here is intended to remain and then   the new stockate fence will be constructed on the  Shapiro property on the Shapiro side of the stone   wall. Um, I don't know if Mike or Andrew, do you  want to comment further on that? Yeah, I mean I   I think um if we look at our plot plan, the like  Pam said, the property line does fall very close   to the the outside of this um existing rock wall.  There was like basically I think field stones   rolled out from the old farms. Um, so I think when  they plotted it, they used that. And based on my   meeting last Sunday with the Shapiro, which was  very productive and I think it was a, you know,   a good way to explain the project a little  more, we we, you know, Brian, I'm sure they're  

listening. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we agreed  that basically we're going to take this, you know,   existing retaining wall and relay it because  when we take down these trees that we've all   agreed to on in our mutual property line, we're  going to have to stump them. And by doing that,   we're going to be pulling the thing all the way  apart. So, when we do that, we're going to bring   in machines. We're going to um trench out. Let  me just turn on my invisible ink. So, like we'll   trench out for like all of these arbor vites here.  pull all the stumps and then relay the wall. Um,   and what we agreed was I would keep the edge of  the property, the rock wall on my property and   then that way the fence would start immediately on  their property line and then the arborites behind   that. And um, it's not that we weren't talking to  the other neighbors, but if you follow the grades,   they fall pretty dramatically as you come down the  site towards the great road. So, I think this is   the most needed privacy buffer. Um, and you know,  and then so as you move down, you can see if Pam,   if you zoom out and scroll down, you'll see  the existing canopy that's going to remain. Um,   and you know, and I think if Jeff, if you want  to pop in here at all, our landscape architect,   and give any comments, um, please feel free. I  know this was all done with intent. I was just   going to say I probably didn't do it justice,  so Jeff, feel free. Well, actually, Pammy did   a great job. So, you know, I've been working with  Mike for many years and Andrew for several weeks   now on this project. And as Andrew said, we we met  out on site several weeks ago. He described to me,   you know, the site development and some areas  of concern that he wanted to address with the   landscape plan. And of course, we walked back  to this um property line um at 10 Sunset Road,   the Shapiro property, and we looked at  the stone wall and the existing trees,   and we talked about what we should best do  to to give these neighbors the privacy that  

I think they they were concerned about getting.  And so both Andrew and I agreed that, you know,   it was probably best to to take out the trees,  rebuild the wall on or near the property line,   and then build um a 6-ft privacy fence and a  new buffer planting, which are the Arborvite   hedge that you see there on the Shapiro property.  And then Andrew reviewed um that design approach   with the neighbor, I think, in the next few days.  I think he said on Sunday he did it and we got it   and showed it here on plan and additionally you  know we did some landscaping for the rest of the   site. But you know that that's sort of the primary  goal to address the screening issue and that was   what was discussed and what we show here on plan.  I think it's serves its purpose pretty well. So   I'm happy to answer any any questions about that  and why we chose to do what we did there. And just   quick note that I know what popped up a few times  was the screening around the um the dumpster. So   we we specified a sixoot privacy fence. If Pam  you can like zoom out or scroll up. Um and then   we surrounded it by arbor vitees. Um you know so  this it'll be kind of really blended in with the   rest of the green and we're doing our best to work  with everyone and um you know give the privacy   the neighborhood deserves. So thank you. Other  questions and comments from the board or staff? I can't see the audience. Tony, is there  anybody in the audience with their hand up? All right. And Andrew, let me So, um, that  direct neighbor Brian Shapiro would like to   speak. Okay. Let let me make one comment before  uh and hopefully Shapiro is going to answer what  

I'm going to ask. Um I think you're putting these  arborites on property that is not yours. You know,   that's your a better uh I think the  board would be more comfortable if   um you had in writing a letter from the owner  of that property agreeing to this approach.   I mean, we see your pictures, but we don't  know that this has been legally agreed in   any way. You don't need a I'm not talking about  a lawyer. Uh, you know, you know, Pam, of course,   could function as whatever, but just at least an  email from your butter that is agreeing to the,   uh, the wall modifications you're talking about  and the planting of the arbor vite. Uh, that's   my question. And so now maybe Shapiro was going  to answer that. U so whoever has their hand up,   please give your full name and address and you  had the floor. Yeah, this is Brian Shapiro from   10 Sunset Road. Um the the only question that we  have just we want confirmed is that the the rock   wall that's being rebuilt it's going to be 100%  on the 214 Great Road property and it not we just   you know the we just don't want our our uh yard  to lose any land except you know for the where   the that's my understanding and we'll put that in  writing is to have the wall fully on my side so   the fence starts It's immediately on your side  and you lose as little yard as possible. Okay. All right, Brian. Brian, are you the one that owns  where the Arbraite are going? Yes. Now, you're in   agreement with this. We're in a you're in a public  meeting recorded. Thank you. That makes everything  

go a lot easier. Thank you. It's good that you  and Andrew got together on this. Thank you.   Uh other questions are like Todd has a  question. Well, a clarification question   on the Arborites are clearly on um 10 Sunset  Road and it sounds like the fence is as well.   So who I don't know if it matters, but  who technically owns the fence? Tony,   anyone? The Shapiro will own the fence.  Okay. Yeah. Whoseever property it is.   Yeah. Okay. Yes. They'll they'll allow  Andrew access to be able to build with us. Other questions or comments from the  board sters of the public? If not,   then uh the question is what what  are we trying to do next on this   uh application tonight? Site plan review. Mr.  Chairman, I just wanted to scroll through. We   have some updated graphics that I think will  help the board understand because sometimes the   flat elevation pictures of plans are difficult  to read. So I think let me just scroll down. Got to get rid of I don't know if I can get  Andrew. Can you get rid of your There you go.   Thank you. Okay. So, uh me let me start find the  right one. Uh well, let me start at the back. So,   um we had an artist do a rendering of the plan and  we did make a couple of tweaks to the roof line,   but I think this perspective rather than the flat  architectural drawing goes a long way in helping   to visualize really the plan. Um so you will  remember we described at earlier meetings the  

the slope and here's the the new fence uh but the  slope of the property runs from the 10 um sunset   property down into 214. So the garages are really  being constructed by in a sense excavation into   the hillside. Uh which is why our base elevation  in our first floor is really um you know up here.   So even coming in the front door, you'll come into  like a mud room and go up half a flight of stairs   to get to the first floor. We talked at the last  meeting about um you know being a little bit like   a split level. Um so this is this is presented  both to give you a better image of what's being   proposed um as well as to talk a bit about the  roof line and um how this partial upper level   attic level um comprises a half story. I did have  a chance to talk with the building inspector who   once he saw this as oh good okay he likes it. Um,  and Tony, I don't know if he had a chance to chat   with you as well, but uh I I think we're good from  the code enforcement perspective. Um, in terms of   this being a two and a half story building, um,  I actually think the rendering is kind of pretty.   Um, but let me also, so from the rear perspective  again, the Shapiro, this is kind of looking from   Shapiro's property down on the building with the  new fence and landscaping. Now, this is kind of   from a bird's eye view, much further up the hill.  Um but obviously if you're standing in the yard,   you know, you've got the privacy at the yard  level because these trees will be much higher than   um eye level even at the time of they're  installed. And then the third plan um this   really again just a sketch, but this but this view  is is important because if you see on the right,   this is the fence that we're installing. So  this is almost eye level kind of showing if  

you were back there. You really don't see over  the fence, you don't see over the trees. This   really does give a great privacy buffer. Um, so  this is up at the back of the house looking up at   it. Right. Right. Looking more from if your back  is to great road from that perspective. So sad. Um, so I maybe can pause there.  I'm hoping that these graphics,   you know, help the members that um maybe  all of us had a little bit of a struggle   um trying to really understand uh what was  happening architecturally again because   the backyard is higher behings is higher  along the Sunset Road properties. You know,   it's clearly just, you know, your typical  two twostory two and a half story building. Thank you. Uh Todd, can you just go back  to the Well, I don't know if it's called   the front view or what the garage view. Yeah.  Yeah. I'm just struggling to see the patios on   the third floor in this drawing. That the idea.  So if you I one way I I don't know if it works   for you but I imagine this thinking of it as a  roof line and then chopping it off that allows   you know instead of going roof down to like a  knee wall a short knee wall we're chopping it   off so that you can have a walk out with the  patio here. So the patio kind of doesn't go   to the edge of the roof line. It kind of goes  halfway up or something. Yeah. Yeah. the roof   line comes up to about like 4550 in like top  of your belly height and then like you'd have   a slider or this patio is probably six feet  wide, six feet deep. Um but the idea being   if you're standing down here you like you  look up and you just see straight roof like  

you know I mean like there's no like cut out  patio there's no obstructive there's no box.   Um, you know, in our previous renderings, we had  the dormer coming out over here and similar. So,   we pulled it all in. We consolidated the the  design to really emphasize the gable and the   roof to fit in with both the neighborhood and to  soften the um exposure of it. So, do you know the   half stories area compared to the floor below it?  The percentage theater. Yeah, we talked about that   at the last meeting. Yep. I know. Just reiterate.  Can you please move They're basically under   under 50 under 50%. They're about 45 46% of the  second floor. Thank you. Uh Chris and then John. I'm Do we have a statement from code enforcement  regarding the two and a half stories? So I look   at that building and I say it's three,  but I will defer to code enforcement if   they have an official opinion. Thank for so  um code enforcement director did come over   this afternoon after looking at these plans  and confirmed that using the definitions of   the building code this is a two and a half story  structure. The garage elevation, the floor where   the garages are is partially under partly built  into the hillside. Therefore, it is not a story as defined in the in the building code.  And then the top floor being a partial   um I'll back up since we since there's no  definition of half story in the building code and  

the the reference to half stories that we use for  accessory buildings in the residential districts.   um which I know some of you would  like to apply to this structure   uh but the way the bylaw is written it applies  only to accessory structures. So for a technical   point of view he determines that this is a two  and a half story structure. Well, thank you. John muted. Um, I do appreciate the renderings. They're  helpful. I also appreciate the um fact that you've   brought in the the dormers at at the end. I  think that makes a pretty pretty big change. Um,   like I sense like Chris or like like with I sense  with Chris, I'm I'm somewhat uncomfortable with   the interpretation that this is two and a half  stories, but I think it's more a problem from   the driveway side, which I care less about. Um,  I mean it would be nice to have a rendering that   was like this rendering but lower so we could  get a better feeling for what it was going to   look like from the ground. But uh on the backside  but from the backside this this looks quite a bit   uh less imposing than than I feared. So all in  addition to the fact that my yard is 2 feet lower   than their backyard. So like you know my first  floor is lower than the walk out of the basement   behind me. The you know the second floor is lower  than the living space of the building behind  

me and then the third floor is lower than the  bedroom. It it's not as imposing and it's more the   definition of the outside where the foundation is  buried that's giving the story. Yeah. No, I'm I'm   generally encouraged by this rendering and this  new design with the with the roofline details. Thank you, Andrew. Katherine. Yeah, I just want  to add a little bit to what Tony said about the   the height question because I think it is a little  bit more complicated. I don't disagree with any of   the statements he made, but there's a question of  whether you should be looking more to the zoning   bylaw than the building code in terms of um the  height rules. Um, and I'm inclined to think that   because both the height in feet and the height in  stories are both underneath the heading of height.   Um, and the height section talks about using the  in the residential districts which this is in that   you you use the base elevation which is at uh the  lowest side of the building as the starting point.   So if you use that for the number of stories, this  is a three and a half story building to my mind.   Um I do find that looking at the development  as a whole, I don't think the height is really   harmful in this in the particular circumstances  of this case because of the way the higher side   faces the fact that the woodland is going to stay  because it's in wetland etc. Uh and because of   the historic house facing the main road, if this  development was say frontier onto the great road   with this higher elevation, I think the board  would have concerns. So I my main worry is that   it would be this interpretation would be set to a  precedent. So to be honest, I've really struggled  

with with this. Um, I'd be okay with the outcome  being that this somehow gets approved with,   um, a lot of wording to make it clear that the  circumstances of the particular lot and the   slope of the land and everything were taken into  account. Um, but it is a bit awkward, I think.   Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call  one thing out here. Um, I appreciate Katherine's   comments, but height and stories are two different  definitions. So, we fully compare comply with the   calculation of height. We established that at the  last meeting. Code had written I think it either   an email to Tony or talked to I forget exactly  how it came in, but I have seen writings from   the code department saying this complies with the  height. We've established the base elevation which   actually goes to regardless of what you see goes  to how tall is the building based on the elevation   on the low side. We did take advantage of the  two feet um that's allowed for fill. Um so the   adjusted base elevation to the peak of the roof is  still under 35 ft. Um the stories is a completely   different definition. So, I understand if you're  looking and your inclination to say, "Well,   you got a garage and then you've got more above  it. Um, but for the reasons discussed already, um,   that doesn't the garage level is not a story and  the top level, the attic level is is a partial.   It's a half story." And I think that halfstory  definition um with the current plan actually does   even though it applies to ADUs. Um I I think this  drawing demonstrates compliance with the intent of   being under roof and so forth as well as being  smaller um less than half or 60% of the lower  

level. So I just I guess that was a rambling way  to say I think we need to make sure that we're   taking those two definitions separately. You  don't use height to establish stories or vice   versa. Thank you. Uh Todd, you were next. Yeah,  I just wanted to mention um that uh Katherine,   I appreciate your comments and it's for me  it's very helpful to hear from the code code   enforcement director as well in terms of stories  and height making sure this under 35 ft. Um and   uh you know I've dealt over my years in Bedford  serving the various boards uh precedences has been   a huge thing on my mind. Al also always, but for  me, every lot is unique. And I do agree with you,   Catherine. I mean, having some verbiage in there  about this cuz um the way this is situated and   um that the slope goes up towards sunset versus if  it was going the other way, then it kind of would   be a different consideration for me. So, I agree.  All this combined um makes this unique lot make it   makes it workable for me. And you're right, if it  was a different situation, it would be different   and we would be voting on differently. So yeah,  it it is a unique lot and to me it does not like   set a precedence. It sets that we look at every  case uniquely and analyze it and what makes sense   on the lot or not. Thank you, Todd. Uh Don, I'll  get to you in a second. the chair wants to agree   with Todd and my parallel is I hate to repeat it  but I've been on cons about 17 or 18 years and   when I on that was the standard argument to stop a  project oh we can't set a precedent we can't every   single case in front of Kanscom was unique as is  this is unique as I that's I agree with Todd I I'm   a lot less worried about precedent because they're  almost all um unique in each in its own way. Uh so  

yes, I'm not concerned about precedent personally  right now. Um Don and then Chris. Yeah, I just   wanted to concur essentially with um Katherine's  statement. Um, yeah, I've been uneasy with the   renderings and I understand that it fits the  definition. Um, but I I do agree that I think the   property orientation matters, the you know, slope  matters. Um, you know, I think we've we've seen a   lot of good modifications, but um, yeah, it it has  taken me a while to understand what it what the   argument is for, you know, where the first floor  starts and what counts as height, but that uh,   yeah, the front of the things is uh, is imposing.  So, I don't know if that helps or not, but when we   look at this backside, um, the base elevation,  if I were to draw a line on the backside,   would actually be below this grade. And it's just  because of the way we calculate it. You calculate   it based on the low side. So, here, even though  we're looking at a height from I'm not sure if   anybody can tell me exactly the height between the  grade at the back and the peak of the roof, but   it's well below 35 ft. It's 27 feet from the grade  to the And that was exactly my point because we're   measuring in a way that's it's a calculation. Um  so here we're only 27 feet tall which is shorter   than a lot of buildings in Bedford, especially  before we reduced the height limit from 37 feet   measured to the midline of the peak which is now  35 feet measured to the peak of the the ridge of   the roof. Um, and that may or may not help you in  how you look at this, but I did want to call out  

that here base elevation would actually be below  several feet below the level of the backyard. Thank you, um, Chris and then Todd. Uh so  first off I want to say that I appreciate   Katherine's comments and I'm I I think u in  issuing decision incorporating language which   uh captures concerns raised here is very  much needed. Um and just a comment on on   uniqueness. I'm I have a different perspective.  Um you know I I look at this and just bylaws in   general and you know we have one set of rules not  properties are not properties are unique in their   characteristics but we don't interpret the rules  uh differently uh for for different properties.   Um and so I think I look at this and say oh we  have one set of rules and then those don't capture   um you know with without ambiguity um what's  going on on each on each property. So we have to   you know interpret the particulars of the design  in the context of the rules that uh that exist.   But in terms of language, I really bristle at uh  the use of uh unique and that there's a maybe a   an implication that uh there's a different way of  interpreting the rules for different properties. So my my two cents.

Chris, could I ask with all of what you just said?  Pam Pam, please let me get through with all of the   questions and comments before we do rebuttals.  No, I I had a question, but it's okay. I'll   wait. I'm flexible. Um, uh, Chris, we could have a  lovely discussion about this. It is super fun. Um,   I I view this as interpreting the definitions.  And part of this is great cuz we're learning   that in my opinion the 2 and 1/2 story is not  well enough defined in our bylaws. Therefore,   we have to interpret that definition and interpret  what it means for this lot. And so I hear what   you're saying. It's not totally fair to say you  need we're on the same page. Yeah, we're on the   same page. Um uh but I mean you know looking uh  reading online and everything uh what makes this   a bit more comfortable for me is that it's well  under 70%. And and that's a number that has stuck   out looking online about two and a half story the  half story is 70% or or less and this being 50 or   less or whatever is is quite encouraging for me in  terms of the you know feelgood slash yeah this is   two and a half stories in my viewpoint as well. Um  and and and Pam in terms of the height stuff just   just to comment like you know the zoning board  has struggled with height many over the years   and the town voted to decrease it from the 37 and  a half at the midpoint which was a great thing to   try and define when plans are not complete um  to like 35 max and and I kind of like that it's   there's a the base elevation takes into effect and  yes it kind of made this lower but I think that's   positive for Bedford. So, thanks. I wasn't judging  it, only commenting. And did do you have anything   you wanted to say to this, Pam, or can we press  on I guess it wasn't clear in Chris's comments.   I I appreciate the comments on interpretations  and all that's been said. It wasn't clear to  

me whether he was saying that he agrees that  this project complies with those definitions.   I'm I think based on code enforcement feedback  I will say that it does. I will also say that   the massing of the building um is significantly  different than I would have sketched out on a   napkin um when we when we drafted the u the the  zoning regulations for this district. Um but I   defer to um you know the legal definitions to the  extent that we have them. Thank you. Any other   questions or comments? The board staff members of  the public. So um Cheryl Miller has been waiting   to speak um from the audience. Okay. Please  identify your full name and your home address. I can't see her. Yeah, Cheryl, go ahead if you're  if you're there. It's unmuted. But hello. Yes,   that works. So, um, my question is concerning  street access on Great Road. Um this is a sizable   development and it's going to have an impact um  on the on Great Road. There's an intersection   of Great Road and Lumis I'm concerned about and  the intersection of Lane and Great Road. Both of   those roads have traffic and I'm concerned how  the flow of traffic is going to affect those   intersections. Are there any road um improvements  that are going to come with this property? because  

I I mean or any road restrictions for instance  maybe no left turn coming out onto great road   from this property. I'm just wondering what  what has been addressed regarding access. Chris response a left turn onto great road would be  illegal. Is that not correct? So this from this   house this part of this part of great road  is actually under Mass DOT control not town   of Bedford control. So um those conditions  would be set by the state not by the town. Is there going to be any widening of  the road or any other road improvements   there? Because this is a significant  amount of traffic that will be coming.   Yeah, significant right is subject to a range of  interpretations and so is there going to be any   kind of a traffic study done? The town does not  deem this to be a large enough project to require   a traffic study. Got to remember it's a state  road. We have limited uh impact on this. Go ahead.   I don't know of any traffic studies. There are  traffic studies done um on one further down   277 on property on the Great Road, which is 40  units. I refer you to that traffic study. That'd   be the closest we could offer you, Cheryl. I  don't know of any new traffic study for this   property. Okay. I I'm just concerned about the  impact it's going to have on those intersections.   Thank you. Appropriately noted. Uh Todd, then  Chris. Yeah, I was just I want to comment on  

Chris's comment. Um you mentioned you thought  it was illegal to take a left turn out of the   driveway. Question. Left turn. Not is I I looked  at the driveway and I've take right turn only. I   don't. But uh Tony, that's that's not a law  or anything, right? I mean, you could take a   left turn out of like Sonokco down the road like  Yeah, but that's you have a central lane here. You   do not. Your car you'd be crossing a double  solid line serve. So, I people on the other   side of the road can take a left out of their  driveway like to come down the hill, I think.   Right. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know if Tony,  if you know, I didn't think that was anything.   So um the quick answer is it it is not  an automatic prohibition whether it's   the town street or or the state part of  the street. it would be looked at for   um for those issues when in this case they  apply for a um access permit from MASDOT meaning this is a state level decision. All right,  Chris and John. Uh, question to staff. Is there   a specific threshold for deciding whether a a  development requires a traffic study or is it   uh is that you know somewhat flexible? What's  what are the criteria for determining if   uh a development needs a traffic study? Uh  there is not a there's not a hard number. But generally speaking, as with the  subdivision of single family houses,   projects of 10 or fewer units

generally don't generate sufficient  traffic numbers to warrant a full,   you know, to have a traffic study done.  Thank you, John. Oh, wait. Before you go,   Alex has his hand up. Maybe he's  been trying to speak for a while. Alex Swice. If not, we're going  to John Mlan. Alexis. Alexis. So,   I agree with Cheryl. First of all, that is  super big unit. How many units are in there?   But people cut through the traffic will  be sort of dangerous coming if they're   going to the left down great road. So I do  think traffic study should be conducted to   make sure that that's like however the flow is  is proper if it goes up the street. But they   can't just go on Great Road and take a left.  Like that's a traffic study needs to be done. Thank you, John. Um, so is there going  to be a new driveway for this project?   I didn't think there was. And do they have to  through the state to to get an access permit? Mike, you there? I didn't follow that.  So Tony suggested that when when they   apply to the state for an access permit that  the state could impose traffic restrictions,   but are is this project going to need an  access permit? They already have two two  

curb cuts and I didn't think they were being  adjusted, but maybe I'm misme misremembering. There will remain the same two curb cuts. Andrew,  I think you're widening one of them a little bit,   right? Um I think maybe Mike can comment better,  but I think the one on the left that's going to   the main unit is widening us a little bit.  So, if I may, Pam, do you would you like me   to please? Um so, uh the first answer is we  are not changing the amount of curve cuts.   There are two curb cuts now. Those will remain.  Uh nor are we changing the location of those   curve cuts. one will get slightly wider to allow  for fire access uh the main driveway. Secondly,   um this is a state road as Tony pointed out,  so we will need to file to do DOT for not so   much an it's not an access permit, but it's  a change of use because the the driveway use   is changing. It's a lower level permit. Um and  there's criteria that we have to meet in order   to apply for that. One of them is receiving  all approvals from the town before we approve   uh excuse me apply. We've received the  conservation approval. We'll still need   the site plan approval before we can fully submit  for the the DOT permit. They will then analyze all   their existing traffic data and determine whether  or not anything beyond what they have is needed   and will apply any recommendations beyond allowing  us to have the access the the access to remain in   the change of use to to go through. I hope that  helps clarify a little bit. Yep. Thanks. Sure,   Chris. Hi. Question to two members of the board,  Mr. Mlan and Miss France Lindon are members of   the transportation advisory committee. Any  concerns that you identify with uh traffic  

associated with this property? Don't forget  Todd. That's right. I apologize. H sorry. I mean in general Tony is right. You know a a  a development of this size is not expected to   create that much addition incremental  traffic. And as someone alluded to,   you know, a lot of our traffic problems are cut  through, which development in town does not impact   by definition. So, thank you. Yeah, I would  concur with with John's statement. Okay. Well,   you have two. There's a Janie's phone that has  her hand up or the phone has a hand up. Could you   identify yourself and your home address, please?  Uh, yeah. This is Jane Holland. I'm at 17 Alaska   Avenue. I'm just trying to understand where  um like what Chris was saying about where the   um where you come out from from that from that  building. Are you coming out into the area where   the there's a a there's two lanes, a turning  lane at the light like past hill? Like is it   already divided that there's a lane split that  you can either turn left or go straight? Yes. Um   so that to me seems a little bit problematic  like traffic-wise. Um like we walk out of   that like onto Hill um from Hill onto Great  Road. Um, so there's a lot of like, you know,   looking around to see if there's traffic coming  and then you've got another intersection there and   then you've got traffic going in one lane going  straight and one lane turning. So that to me just   seems a little like you should turn left there.  But that's my just what I'm It just feels like

Thank you. We appreciate your uh your  comments. Pam, you have your hand up.   Yeah, I I did just want to say um you know  remember that these are there are existing   driveways, there's already vehicles coming out  of here. Granted, there'll be more. Um but what   maybe personal opinion, but I think most of you  would agree is when there's a lot of traffic,   you sit there and wait until somebody lets you  out. And when there's no one around, it's not   a problem making these turns. Um and some of it's  the comfort level of the driver. Uh, so you know,   someone who's not comfortable crossing traffic is  going to pull out, take a right, sit at the light,   and then either turn left at the light or  go straight and turn around somewhere if   they want to reverse direction. Um, but the  other comment I did want to make is that the   the larger development at 269 277 Great Road did  incorporate this project into their traffic study.   um when they updated their report, they took  into consideration all of the potential projects   coming online. Thank you. That's a big help, Pam.  Appreciate it. Uh other members of the commission,   etc. or staff. U that's I think all the  discussion of traffic we're going to do   tonight that I'm going to entertain from others.  the so in front of us is this uh site plan review   and I think the numbers are the um measurement  from the front of the garage to the roof line   is 35 ft or less which is within the rules and  there's also uh comments from code enforcement   that they seem to be comfortable with this  regardless of the how you want to define a   uh a two and a half story or three and a  half story, but they are complying with  

the strict height limit and they've shown  the renderings. They've got worked with the   um neighbors for putting in trees on the neighbors  property, etc., etc. Um it looks to me like if   there's no other outstanding questions,  this could be a case where we say, "Okay,   we appreciate all you've done. We're looking to  approve this. I think you're asking us to approve   this at tonight's meeting. Am I corre? Who is  this person speaking? Chris, you got your hand up. No. Oh, sorry. I'm didn't realize I was muted.  I just like to go through the approval criteria   before we get to a vote. Go ahead. Can I  request that all members of the audience mute   their microphones, please? Yes, that would  be a good thing. If you've been speaking,   please mute your phones as well as uh if  you're not on the commission or staff,   please mute your phone. All except for Pam. I  feel special. Yeah, go ahead, Chris. All right,   so going to um the uh pre-reganization uh section  of the bylaws. I sorry I don't have a print out   of the the reorganized but this is section 7.5.2.2  two report of the planning board. Uh the criteria   I'm indicated are protection and enhancement of  existing site features, protection of ex adjoining   features against detrimental uses by provision for  surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers,   preservation of views, light and air. And the  third is the traffic impact of the proposed   development on the immediate vicinity of the site  and surrounding neighborhoods and the convenience  

and safety of vehicular bicycle pedestrian  movement within the site. Uh fourth is adequacy   of the arrangement of parking and loading spaces  in relation to the proposed uses of the premises. Fifth, adequacy of the methods of disposal  of refues and other waste resulting from uses   permitted on the site. Sixth, relationship  of structures and open spaces to the natural   landscape, existing buildings and other  community assets in the area and compliance   with other requirements of the bylaw. And  finally, protection of environmental features,   particularly groundwater resources  on the site and in adjacent areas,   adequate protection to prevent  pollution of surface and groundwater,   uh soil erosion, increased runoff, changes in  groundwater recharge or elevation and flooding. Okay, that's what I'm going to be looking at when  I when it comes to a decision. Thank you. Um,   any other comments? Does anybody I'm trying  to get a feel here. It seems as though it's   matched all the criteria as requested.  John, get your hand up. Yeah. So, I I I   just want to echo Katherine's suggestion that we  include language that uh emphasizes the the non   um presidential nature of this decision, which  I think actually aren't planning board decisions   generally non un generally non they're nonp  precedent setting. Yeah. So it may be to help   the board with its thinking. The units themselves  in this proposal are about 2500 square ft as are   which is the same size as the units in the  other projects that are approved or under  

construction. But and if this if this was a flat  lot where they you know the basement level was was   basement level and they put now the garage would  be on the first floor and you'd have the two and   a half stories above it. So I think somewhere  in history when the town created the rules for   thinking about how to measure height you know it  was it was intended to stop developers from ming   up building sites. So the new houses loomed over  the roadway and kind of dominated the neighborhood   around them. But it I think what we achieve here  is somewhat hamstringing uh a proposal like this   where it's built into the hillside. So you have to  measure the height you know from the lowest wall   elevation whereas you know so this instead of  and you know instead of creating a flat terrace   here to try to build on there you know it's built  into the side of the slope and therefore the what   might otherwise be 2 and 1 half stories above a  flat grade can't be done within the 35 ft height   limit here. So I think um but I think when you  compare it to the other projects where the units   are in that range of you know 2400 to 2600 square  ft whether it's Weber Avenue, Lumis or um and or   the the project that's next on your agenda they  the the actual unit size in these town houses   are quite similar. So, um, you know, the view that  you might see from the parking lot from the former  

auto parts store is different and it's it's going  to look tall. Um, but um, I think the, you know,   the the thing that I think you're struggling with  is that that that basement level under you know,   doesn't count as a story, at least under the  building code. And that may be something we need   to address in the bylaw in the coming year. If you  want to deal with uh creating better framework for   how to interpret stories and have stories, we can  do that. It's just they're not in place at the   moment. Thank you. I think for hopefully that's  a big help, John. Yeah. So, I I I would like to   see us improve um the bylaws in this area. Uh and  and I've made my piece with this project. I just   just as Katherine suggested, I think it would be  helpful to include a little bit of language that   calls out the I don't want to use uh uniqueness  and and uh cause other members uh indigestion,   but something the you know the massing to the uh  the reduced massing to the residential neighbors   and the I I I don't know what the words  are but I would like to see a little bit   of words that that further uh illuminate the  non-presidential nature presidential nature. So what I'm hearing is if people would like  some wording uh it's a comfort issue. Um Todd,   do you have in that Todd? Look like I I think  I see Don shaking her head. Is there a set of   words that people are looking for? uh this  satisfies the height levels and yes we may  

have some work to do on uh our zoning bylaws  about defining stories but wording Don you   got your hand up you've got some eloquent set  of phrases for us oh sorry to disappoint once   more but I all what would satisfy me I think  is just simply a an annotation that you So,   you know, you know, as in all decisions of the  planning board, this is not this does not set   a precedent for future reviews. Something along  that line that would satisfy me. I can't speak   for the others. And and I would surely agree with  you that this does not set a precedent. Chris, this is a a bit off topic and going back a bit uh  in this discussion, but question to staff. Um, did   we receive any input from historic preservation?  I I I've like the look of the the proposed   uh restored GR house. Um, but if there was any uh  comment from HPC would certainly uh weigh that. Um, I mean, I don't know. Nothing's really changed  since the last time we talked, but we met with   them in April, I believe. They were on board the  project. Um, you know, their purview is, you know,   limited to the GRAG house, which, you know, we're  going to be keeping and then adding on to and   restoring to its glory. And they said basically if  if you know, if your if your permit comes across   our desk like this, you should you'll be all set.  It hasn't come across our desk because it has to   go through you guys first. But I want to take them  at their word. Um, and it was a positive meeting.   Um, I don't foresee any issues with that. Thank  you, Andrew. Katherine, do you still have your  

hand up or you're you're set for now? Uh, you're  you're muted and we I can see your mouth moving,   but we can't hear. Well, sorry. I I was mainly  just going to say that we'd looked into what the   HPC had to say just from their minutes and they  they were happy with the changes to the historic   house that were presented to them and they had  a second meeting that I think was talking about   there being some small changes to the development  that they weren't too concerned with. Yeah, it   was a courtesy meeting. We went back and you know  because there had been it has an existing granite   foundation and we have to lift the house because  to get it out of the water table. So I knew that   this was part of the facade and it was kind of  a courtesy saying this thing's going to planning   board. Um you know we're thinking about this field  stone you know you know decor on the outside of   the foundation which they were receptive and  thankful that we came back to talk to them. All right. So, I think we're at the point of  saying we'd like to vote to to approve the   u the site plan for you 214 Great Road. I move  and as well if somebody wants to say that I'll   move already otherwise I'll just stop talking  and listen. Who's making that I move? I am. I   move that we approve uh the for 214 great road the  multif family housing overlay district the site   plan as reviewed on these multiple meetings um  for the 10 unit multif family housing development.  

Thank you. Second second. Thank you Don. Roll call  vote. How do you vote? Todd I. Don I um where's   Chris? Yeah, I'm looking at my faces here. I with  the understanding that uh the agreement between uh   the property owners and the abutters attend sunset  is captured in our decision. Thank you, John. I   and the chair votes eye. Thank you one and all and  we appreciate all of your um custom crafting as   however we want to phrase it. You've been very  cooperative with the your neighbors, with the   town, with us, etc. and HTC as you just mentioned.  All right. Uh that's a major accomplishment.   Thank you one and all. Look forward to it. Thank  you. And then we are now going to move on to 18   which might be a similar situation, but it's  not historic. Well, not not like yours. Okay. 18   Lumis, is there somebody gonna speak for them or  is it Pam? It's me again. Hi, Pam. Yeah, Alexis,   you have your hand up. Could you take your  hand down? Oh, yes, I will. Uh, hold on. Okay,   I lost Hold on. I lost my Zoom. All right, Pam,  please proceed with 18 L. Does Alexis have a um   clarification question or something? I'm just  curious. I think she forgot the hand was up. Alexis is the 18, so I'm sure  she'll have comments as well.

Yeah, press on Pam. Right. Thank you. So,  this is our first meeting on 18 Luma Street.   Um, it's a property located between Great Road and I'm spacing the street. Alexis's street. Sorry.  I'll go to my plan. Um, boy, that's bad. Winthra.   Okay. Uh, and actually, why don't I go ahead and  start sharing screen again because the graphics   will help me as well as you. Um, those that are  not in the audience, that are not wanting to speak   or be involved in this, we'd appreciate it if  you were would step down. It fills up our screens   with your names. Tony, can you lower them? Thank  you, Pam. Okay. Uh, there we go. All right. So,   uh, let me just orient you. Um this is 18  Luma Street. Um almost across from CVS.   Uh but Great Road here, the property we're just  talking about, uh 214 is here. Um we're one one   parcel away from uh Winthrop A. And where all the  numbers are down here is the other Lumis Street   um multif family housing that you've  approved that's under construction.   Um so this property again wonderful location for  um the the multif family housing zoning given it's   um you know really close proximity to schools,  recreation, rail trail, shopping really everything   is walkable or bikable. Um but I'll jump to the  um the zoning table. Um, so this property um is  

a much smaller property than some of the others  we've looked at. It's 17,000 square feet. It's in   the Lumis um the the Lumis Depot center district  um where the minimum lot size is 10,000 square   feet again 2 and a half stories, 35 um foot height  and a maximum density of 15. Um we're proposing   actually only um they're they're I'll say larger  units. Um they're not the 277 great road size   units. Um they are a little bigger, but only  four of them. Um the calculation would suggest   we could do five. Um and then all of the other  setbacks and so forth um are uh compliant. But   let me just jump ahead. So we showed the locust a  little bit more of a zoom. So, Alexis is on. This   is Alexis house. And it's actually a historic  home. Um, the existing Cape Style home had   driveway with a detached garage and the existing  house that would be demolished and then new units   built within the building envelope here. Um, you  may remember that 14 and 16 Lumis is a newer two   family. Um, nice property. Um, so we're trying  to respect the neighbors in the proposal here. Again, this is the um I just  have here the district. So,   you can see the multif family  housing district is um cross-hatched. Um, I will state now just for clarification  purposes, our our submission um really hasn't   changed in terms of two buildings um front  and back with a driveway accessing a single   driveway accessing all four units with the  garages facing each other in the middle. Um,   our drainage calculations and the engineered plans  that have been presented show the driveway on the  

right. Um but for multiple reasons um I will I'll  show in a minute the um plan where we've actually   proposing as an alternate plan that we think  is preferable kind of a flip-flop. The front   building gets a tiny bit smaller and the driveway  comes over to this side. So it's adjacent to and I   maybe go back to the aerial photo. Um you'll  see that the DR, it's a little hard to see,   but the driveway for the 1416 property or one of  them for 16 um is right along this property line.   So the idea was to um actually have the driveway  go to this side. Um, one because that driveway is   there and secondly because the separation between  um the 1416 house and the property line is greater   um than over at the um 22 Winthrop house. Um  nothing else in the plan really changes. Um,   assuming that the the board agrees that it makes  sense to have the driveway on the left, we'll   we'll tweak the engineering plans and um drainage  CS and so forth to reflect that. Um, so this is   the existing conditions plan. Um, this meeting  is kind of an overview. We're are looking for   your general comments um so that we can you know  tweak and finalize plans um based on any comments   we hear. Um but again two buildings uh this one  really is just showing where we've done test pits   uh for drainage purposes and have infiltration  in the gray boxes here. Some landscaping. Um   there are a number of larger trees at the rear  property line that will be preserved. Um, and then   this plan shows additional, you know, landscaping,  proposed foundation plantings, you know, walkways.   So, the two front units would have walkways  coming directly from the sidewalk on Lumis  

um to the front doors, but again, the access into  their garages is off the back for all four units. That one's twisted. I'm actually  going to jump to Here we go.   Bear with me one sec while I rotate this plan. Um, so I want to focus on this plan because we  think this plan is probably more desirable. Um,   but the color sometimes helps a little bit. So  we've got the footprint of the units here. Um,   a single driveway in turnound. Um, and then  access to twocar garages for each unit.   Um, three of the units would have patios.  Uh, we can't really do it on this unit. Um,   but the patios um are proposed to give  some formal outdoor space for unit owners. Um, I can we can talk about floor plans, but  I think I'd like to pause here and see if   um the board or the public has  any questions so far. Let's see. Uh Todd, well, first immediate question  is parking other than in the garages. Um and is   there enough room if people are parked outside  the garage for people to get around? Yeah,   this is actually um I guess that's only one space.  We have do have an extra space here um driveway   space but for the moment we may be able to if we  if we really I mean there's no parking requirement   here. We we thought this plan was sufficient. I  wasn't I wasn't necessarily worried about more I   was most worried about if every car everybody has  both their cars outside the garage. What happens?  

Um yeah the guy wouldn't work. Yeah. Yeah. It  really doesn't work. Um and so how are you going   to kind of enforce that? who gets to be outside  the garage for whatever reason. Can I Yeah, it I   mean we'll put it in the condo docks. They'll have  to be condominium documents and because there's   not a you know 30 foot area behind each unit um  that would allow for parking outside. They won't   be able to. Can I speak? Uh not yet, Alexis. Uh  we're still doing the board and staff. Thank you,   Chris. I'm looking at the uh submiss submission  package and I can't quite tell in my recollection   of the site isn't that detailed. Uh are you  proposing to remove street trees along Lumis? I   don't believe uh actually I take that back. Let me  go back and look. Um has the builder had to talk   on it yet or They're they're not public street  trees. Any any trees to be removed will be Yeah,   there are that's proposed. Sorry, I have to  sometimes you know how the one behind uh the   bank there, the the front two, you just  drive right into the entrance. These ones   you go around between both units and that's  where the garages are for each of them. So,   this plan actually, well, this one is with  the proposed driveway on the other side,   but there's a tree removal here. I think probably  still goes away. And then there's a couple in the   front yard. That's a decent sized backyard in the  back one. Mr. Gardner, are you uh commenting on   the If not, are you a are you the builder or  something or what? Who are you? I apologize.  

I was waiting for not not not yet. Thank you. We  appreciate it, Chris. No, my question's been a   my question's been answered. Was want to know  about removal of uh trees along Lumis. Sure. Um Tony Chia is on. I I may have just  been able to allow him to speak, but   um Tony is Beacon Point Development. Um,  who is the developer for this project? It's   actually Joe. Oh, it's Joe. It's Joe that  says Tony. Yeah. No worries. My apologies,   Joe. That's okay. No worries. I'm  doing nothing but reading my screen. Did someone have a question for me?   No, I was just I just wanted you to be able to  talk. Okay, sure. Thank you. John Mlan. Yeah,   I do appreciate that this design puts the  driveway the um the garages not facing the street and and the fire department has bought into  this. They just need the driveway. They don't   have to turn or anything. Um, have this fire  department Tony, do you have more info? I   have not talked to them. Fire department has not  yet finished their review. Uh, okay. Thank you. All right. In that case, the uh we've got uh I  actually failed to show I show the public the   front, but um this is what the street side would  look like. what I can tell there's uh there's  

Alexis who wanted to speak before a Cheryl  and uh uh Thomas Hubard Alexis you're first we're you're on mute please speak so I am  not and your home address again please 22   LUM miss. It's the budding property, right? So,  we bought this house because it's historic. It's   the first post office in library in Bedford. It  was built in 1801 and moved here by Lumis' in   the 19 whatever. No clue. Like a hundred  years ago. So, it it's a historic house,   but not deemed historic. Um, my husband and I  bought it because he wanted a historic house. Unfortunately, he died in um 2017. So, this is  a historic house and developers were all over   trying to get our house to build it with  the neighbors for this new MBTA zoning,   which is great. That's that's great. However, I'm not going to sell this house, but I want  to make sure I can live peacefully next to  

this new development, which is not great in my  opinion, but so having the driveway on my side   on the right side as a lot of those things,  all signs show it's on my property line. So,   I need a natural barrier. I think that's kind  of reasonable to have a natural barrier between   that house, those developments and my house is  I don't care if it's a fence, if it's natural   barrier. I prefer natural barrier, but whatever.  It has to be on their property. I have been told I should accept them putting it on my property,   which I'm not going to do. Um and a driveway  on the right hand side, my side is within 12 in on either side because it  has to be 15 ft side barrier.   So, if they're going to do a 14 foot driveway on  the right hand side, that's only 12 in. I think   it's not only dangerous to like have such a narrow  driveway, but it also when they do snow removal,   it's going to go on my property, which will kill  my like bushes, plants, everything on my side. So,  

I'm totally against having anything  a driveway on the right hand side, which I think is reasonable. Yes. No. So, Alexis has perhaps uh Pam  has you described having the driveway on   the lefthand side, right? But all the the all  the plans that I saw on the Bedford website,   which I looked this morning, they weren't  there. I looked this afternoon, they were there,   which like I'm sorry. Um were with the  plan with the driveway on the right side with the alternative Alexa to try to help you feel  a little more comfortable. Pam,   uh, can you assure Alexis that the driveway  is going to be on the lefthand side on this   development? I I can and I've emailed and texted  her that. Um, and that's the plan that I have here   on the screen now. Right. As I plan that's like  all the like actual plans like the I don't know   if they're whatever kind of plans they were were  on on our side. We we we understand Alexis what   we're saying is I'm trying to say as the chair  Pam is presenting it on the left side that is the   side that the planning board is considering we are  not considering this development with a driveway   on the right hand side only on the leftand  side regardless of what historical pictures  

were presented or diagrams presented or whichever  was on any website. The only topic in front of us   tonight is a driveway on the leftand side. That's  what the planning board is reviewing. Nothing with   a driveway on the right hand side. Okay. Alexis,  ju just for clarification, Mr. Chair, can I let me   let me please butt in because the Yeah, please.  The plans as the majority of plans as submitted   show the driveway on the right. Right. Yes, the  developer is open to a mirror image with a with a   driveway on the left. Before the board recommends  which way it wants to go, please be aware that the   butter on the left also has his hand raised and  is in favor of the driveway on the right. Okay.   before the board you know concludes an opinion on  which design is better I would wait until you hear   from from both sides other butters. Thank you.  Um as I say and because internal departmental   review remains ongoing uh so we have preliminary  comments from engineering but not we're not what   you're telling us all is we're not finishing  tonight I'm well yeah my recommendation is that   since this is the first time you're hearing it you  know that um this might be right unless everything   is satisfactorily answered third and you're  willing to, you know, you'd have to be making   recommendations subject to departmental comments.  We were not expecting a vote tonight. We're we're   expecting your feedback. Yeah. Let let me uh  let me ask the other members of the board's uh  

patience on this. If the a butter from the other  side is on has that here and has their hand up   like to hear from that person. I don't know who it  is. Hubard. That's Thomas. Thomas would you please   speak then? Sure. Yeah. So the the primary issue  with the driveway on the on the left hand side   is we currently have a big problem with drainage.  So there's a lot of runoff from our driveway from   18 Lumis' driveway and from 14 Lumis' driveway  and there's a catch basin or drain right between   the two properties and it just can't keep up with  the flow of water. And what happens is this lumis   floods on a good on a good rain or a good snow  day and what's going to happen is if you start   adding more concrete to the area it's going to get  worse. So putting the driveway on the right hand   side would uh you know push that water would help  that situation. Yeah, exactly. All right. Well,   we now have there's a Cheryl Milroy and a Ben.  Well, I'd like to try to get all these comments   of this nature out and then the board can go back  to questions. Cheryl Milroy, would you identify   where you live, please? Hi, can you hear me? I'm  Cheryl Milroy. I live at 7 Winthre Avenue. Um,   and I grew up in the neighborhood. I did  originally live at 22 Lumis. Um, I do have a   drainage issue concern as well. Um, because there  is an easement that goes through my property.   You've got a large amount of imperous surface now  on a property at 18 Lumis that once housed a 1300   square foot Cape and you've now balloon that into  a property that's 14,000 square feet of of house.  

So a lot of imperous surface there um drainage  that's going to be an issue that is going to   come down through my property. And that easement  was put in place in the 60s. The town has never   created any other easements to offset the amount  of building that's happened in this town. So,   you can't keep putting water onto my property.  That's a huge issue for me. So, that's one issue   I have. Second issue was something that was just  u previously mentioned um was the fire access.   You've got twocar garages, so eight cars that  could potentially be in a driveway. How can a fire   truck get in there? Are there any fire lanes? Is  there a fire hydrant? I don't see that this is the   fire the fire department will make do an analys  out, but we'll leave it to the official of the the   fire station. Yes, I Great. I just want to make  sure that my concerns are addressed. I don't see   anything. They are no doubt and they're going  to be addressed pretty thoroughly by the fire   department. Ben Bule, you have your hand up. Would  you say where you live, sir? Where did you move? You have a hand up. Uh, yes. This is Laura  and Ben Boule. We live at 14 Lim Street and   share the condo with the Hubards. Right. Our  butter. Um, we completely agree with Tom and   on the flooding issue. It's a major issue. Even  people walking down the street there on a rainy   day get absolutely drenched. Like our son has  walked to the bus stop up the road and a car   goes by and drenches him because the water is so  bad and sprays up over over onto the lawns. Um, in  

that location, I was curious about things such as  trash removal, mailboxes, um, and parking as well,   like if someone has kids or they have three cars,  what then happens? Um, right. Is is there going to   be a central mailbox and where would it go? Where  are the trash bins going to go for this property? Thank you. All right. They'll we're not closing  this off tonight. Things of that nature will be   coming up in a future presentation from them.  Thank you. They've heard uh your questions. I   think that's everybody's had a chance to speak.  I'm going to go back to the pod. Great. And then   Chris. Yeah. Um I'm looking at the street view  right now. And currently the driveway is on the   left side of the property, fairly close to the  left property, and there's a tree in between. Um,   Pam, do you know if we're planning on keeping  that tree that's there? Um, regardless of the   driveway. Yeah. So, there the tree. Can you  still see the Am I still sharing? Yes. So,   the the tree Let me get I don't know whose  property it's on to be fair. So, the tree here   uh will need to be removed, but the tree here  at the back between the properties is proposed   to stay. Oh, I'm showing the wrong uh hold on. Uh  I got to get to the right one. Here we go. Um so,   the the tree here at the the along the property  line, it's on 18, but this tree is intended to   stay, but there is a tree up here that would  need to be removed. Um the fact that the the   16 driveway is here was one of the reasons um  that we thought it made sense and the existing  

driveway is here um to keep it there. Um  but this the existing driveway is going   to move over by five or six or seven feet to the  left. Correct. No. Um let me find the existing. Well, because the tree is a good three or  four feet from the current driveway. Yeah,   I had to remember where this one was. Unless I'm looking at the property. So, the  new the new driveway would be Oh, actually,   I'm sorry. This This is the driveway as it is  now. That was a horrible line. But so this tree   that I'm looking at on the Google Maps, which  I don't know if somebody could bring it up,   but is not on this property then I'm guessing.  Oh, you know what, Todd? I'm sorry. I keep looking   at this plan incorrectly. You're right. The it  moves over and the tree, it's this tree. Yeah.   Would need to be removed. So the driveways are  going to basically abut each other. Yeah. pretty   pretty close. I according to the survey, the six  the 16 Lumis driveway actually encroaches onto   this property. That's why I was getting my lines  mixed up. Got it. Thank you for the clarification.   Thank you. If I may, I just wanted to make a  comment about drainage. Sure. So, I'm going   to start here. Um because Cheryl was commenting  about I I don't have a plan with the ement on it,   but the the grades this this is sort of a high  point here with a flow this way. Um and then also   this way. So I I could draw the lines, but the  drainage from here flows towards Lumis Street.   The drainage currently from here flows kind  of this way that I think probably goes it goes  

towards Winthro. This is Alexis's house. Um but  if I if I can call your attention to this plan   uh without getting into all the details of  drainage. So current existing residential homes   don't have any requirement to handle drainage.  this project will which means that despite   the addition of imperous surface additional  driveway and or buildings all of the drainage   um needs to equal and usually reduce flows in any  direction offsite. So for example um these are   roof um drains. So the the house the building will  have gutters and the roof drains will flow into an   underground infiltration system here. Same here  for the driveway. And then at the front we have   roof leaders taking the drainage from the roof of  the front building to an infiltration system here.   Um so certainly won't exacerbate existing drainage  um conditions and we have submitted a full   drainage report again with the driveway on the  right side. Um the engineers working on updating   all of the engineering plans to reflect it the  other way. The plan with the driveway on the left   actually has this front building a little bit  smaller. Um, so again, going down to this plan,   this building gets a little bit smaller. Um,  we probably won't downsize the drainage, so   we'll gain a little bit of additional um, drainage  storage. Um, I I guess that's all I had on that.   We can continue. Thank you, Chris. So, that's  a great segue to uh to my comment and question.   um note in DPW's preliminary uh review they  commented that reducing imperous area where  

possible was desirable and I follow-up question to  that can the applicant walk us through the storm   water management plan or sorry storm water  analysis um dated September 12th there's a   drainage summary on the second page Perhaps it  would be useful for uh for folks to see that.   And I do not have the engineer on tonight.  Um but let me pull that up quickly if I can. While she's pulling it up, just a question  because it's going to change slightly if   the driver does get moved, but so  we may have to go over this again,   but just a comment while she's looking for it. The interest potentially of time. Chris has posed  a good question. If you're you got to come back   next week anyways. Do you want to delay till  then to do a uh storm water presentation? Pam,   I can. I'm actually looking I'm looking for  the I I'm fine. I would be fine with that if   we deferred till next meeting. Right. And you  were going to bring an engineer then. I mean I   I described it in a nutshell where the flows are  going. The drainage calculations take the various   waterersheds and shows what's flowing where and  so forth. But we we we got it. We'll take this   next meeting. John so in that vein if we have a  drainage problem on Lumis Street itself um I don't   know if we can get any input from DPW to to go in  tandem with about any street level problems it we   have not seen the preliminary comments from DPW so  that would be helpful if you have some well yeah  

I mean I mean often DPW's comments are concerned  with just the land you know just the lot itself   self and I'm wondering if we need to look a little  bit more broadly in this case. But um I I will say   that the client the owner um of the property did  meet with DPW a little bit different perspective   about utilities and size of pipes and so forth.  Yeah. Um so they've had that conversation but   we hadn't heard the comment about impervious. We  could certainly consider using pvious pavement.   Yes. that among the options. Let me um Tony, is  this something that we need to vote to continue   or it's not that formal? We can just say we'll  see you next month. Yeah, this is not a site.   Excuse me. This is not a public hearing. So, you  don't need to make a formal motion. Um before you   discontinue, I would note there's at least one new  audience member who would like to comment. I I I   know I've seen multiple audience members. I would  like to defer that till next meeting. There seems   to be um there's some moving parts here. Where's  the driveway? You know, what's the storm water   plan? What's does Lumis have a problem, etc. And  the interest of moving ahead and productive use   of all of the u the the town people. Uh, now Don,  you have your hand up. Is there something special?   Otherwise, I'd like to move this to November.  Yeah. Um, just quickly, Steve, I would propose   if we could just ask any anyone who has a comment  if they just briefly state their concern so that   that can be incorporated into the thinking of  whatever the the Thank you for that. Especially  

if it's a new concern. Well, a a new concern and  just Okay, we'll we'll call on them. But yeah,   understand that nothing's going to be today.  But here, just don't re repeat what was already   said. Who is the new I didn't see a new face. Um  Tony, the hand is down now, but um Ann's iPhone   had their hand up and then they Cheryl, Ben,  and Hubard, and they've all spoken already.   I you wanted new concerns. There's some  new concerns. What What's the new concern,   sir? Uh snow removal. Where where's all this snow  going to go? The fence between 16 and 18 lumas   that already exists. So, we have an agreement with  the previous owner. We'd like to know what's going   to happen to this fence when the new place is  built. And then finally is the traffic. So,   if you look at the street view and look across  the street from us, you'll see the driveway to   CVS and and between our two driveways and  the CVS driveway that is just a hot mess. And and the building across the  street, which is rarely used. I mean,   there's a there's one company across the  street, but there there's not a lot of   traffic from that. But I I remember Bob So, Bob  Tagert used to own the house. So, Mr. Tagger and   us would battle to get out of the driveway  sometimes when traffic's coming down Lumis and many of us have drew that street and  I appreciate the exactly the depth of what   you're saying. Yes. Uh any other different  comments or maybe I'll just leave it open.   I do Cheryl Cheryl Coho what's different  Cheryl? Yeah, my my other concern here is  

um traffic flowing onto Winthre as a shortcut.  We it's a cutthrough street and going to echo   some of the concerns about traffic here. I'm  just concerned that with increased traffic,   we're going to see a larger increase of  cutthrough traffic down Winthrop and onto   Lane and back onto Great Road, which is going  to circle around to 214 Great Road that you   were just discussing previously. So, I see  that as being a an incremental problem. Um,   that's one thing. My second thing I was going to  mention the snow removal as well to echo Tom. Um,   it doesn't look like the plan allows for a place  to put the snow. So, I really feel that whoever is   managing that property needs to move the snow off  the property. I think that needs to be part of the   stipulation for that development if it's going to  be that size and there's no place to put the snow. They'll be including that for the next meeting.  U did you have something else different? Yeah.   Um we just wanted to have it notated as well  that there is a public bus stop right by our   driveway on the 14 Lumis side. So kind of in  between the two houses that adds to the chaos   of CVS and the bus regularly picking people  up there which can cause a backup in traffic.   Thank you. Well said. All right. I think  we've got a fair amount of input. Uh Pam,   you and uh the developer have heard this and uh  we look forward to meeting you again next meeting.   Sounds great. Okay, that's Thank everyone for the  comments. Okay, that's all for 18 Lumis. We're   moving on to 104 Page Road now. Who is Is there  someone 104 Page Road? Yes. How you doing? This  

is Greg Gardner. Yes, you have the floor, sir. Uh  so, uh we're building a new two family. It's in   the construction phase now. Uh the house is framed  up and um we're starting to finish the inside with   you know the roughs and um uh finishing you  know the the whole house for construction.   What we're looking to do is move the existing  entrance over roughly uh 20 feet and into the   there's a you know an existing stone rough stone  wall um that runs along the property and what we   would like to do is move the driveway 20 ft over.  It will give it a better sight distance. There's   some um trees at the budding property that are,  you know, town property uh right along Page Road   and um so we'd like to move that over, help the  site distance of oncoming traffic pulling out of   the driveway and you know um give us a little bit  more of an entrance space and we would relocate   the existing stones from the the wall now over  20 ft and you know fill in where the existing   driveway is now. We'd remove the asphalt and uh  regrade up to the wall with you know lawn and   um just change just change the entrance  over 20 ft by relocating the stone wall. Todd I'm just clarifying you're moving it to the  southeast down that way correct? Yes. Okay. I   was just clarifying. Thanks. I drive by this house  every day. Um the construction I should say. Uh so   um it seems like it'd be beneficial to  move it to because the other Northwest  

is a bit of a curve. So helping with  that curve would be helpful. Yes. Questions or comments from the board and staff? Um, so I do support this request for um moving  this driveway about 20 ft to the south because   as noted, the uh there are street trees and other  vegetation that do hinder the view looking north   or left as you try to exit out of this driveway.  Um this is a scenic road and it is a this is a   public hearing and therefore the um the pro  you know it the process is more formal than   um to be honest than the two projects  you just discussed. Um but uh anyway,   the the stones that would be displaced by  opening the new driveway location would be   used to fill in where the existing driveway is.  So there's no net loss of stone wall here and no   street trees are impacted by this proposal.  So it literally is just the stone wall here. Thank you, John. So, do we have to open So, I I  I think I have three or four things. One, do we   have to open a public hearing? Yeah, technically  move that we uh open the public hearing. Second.   Roll call vote. John I. Don I. Chris I. Todd  I. And the chair votes I. We're open. Okay. Um,  

continuing on, um, just a commotionally complaint  that the very small photographs in the the packet   were not particularly useful. Um, they were  low enough resolution that I did not get any   um uh good feeling for for what the wall was like.  Nice walk. It's a nice walk, John, to go look at   it. Well, and and well, and actually I have looked  at this property in the past, so now that I know   uh where it is, although I'll note there's no  sidewalk in this slide. Um um so just if staff   unfroze or mine froze. I'm okay. Okay. So just if  staff could advise um submitters to submit bigger   photos, that that would be helpful. Um, looking  at street view, it looks like this is a very   low wall and maybe a single single layer of rock.  So, I'm assuming that reconstruction is is accept   should should be expected to be successful.  Um, it's not like we're going to have to   import craftsmen from 188 1800 Bedford to to redo  this. Does that seem like a reasonable assertion?   Yes. Okay. And uh I think that was feel like there  was something else, but I think that was it. Thank   you, Chris. I Who has authority deter determined  that the wall has been adequately rebuilt? Thank I think you just volunteered, Chris.

sufficient subject that can check it out. Um it  it that power does fall with the board. Um yeah,   should you choose to inspect it yourselves  or you or you delegate staff to confirm that   it's adequately rebuilt. I would gladly take  that. Or we might be able to dedicate uh to   delegate to one of us. So yeah. All right,  Chris, you still got your hand up. Uh, no,   I'm done. Thank you. I If there's no other  discussion, let me There's a Janie's phone   that still has the hand up. I don't know if this  is relevant to this. Okay, hand just went down.   All right. Is there a motion to close the public  hearing for 104 Page Road? So moved. second. And   it's a tie with Todd and John. I'll flip a coin.  All right. John moved it and Todd second it. How   do you vote? Uh John I. Todd I. Don I. Chris I.  The chair votes I. Hearing is closed. I think we   need a motion to approve the for uh project at 104  Page Road. So move. Thank you. Don moves second.   And Chris seconds in that order. Then how do  you vote? Don I. Chris. I. John. Hi. Todd. I   vote I and I volunteer to. The chair votes I.  And thank goodness we have a volunteer. Um I'm   going to have to Janie, you're you got your  hand up. Were you trying to say something?

Not again. Okay. All right. Next, we're  moving on to 35 Crosby Drive. And this is   uh who is there someone here  to speak for this project? This is for putting a canopy over. Yeah.  Let me um let me move the players to um analysts and and Mark, can I ask if Natalie's part of  your crew? Uh yeah, it would be u Natalie Wall.   She's um And does um does Ryan want to  stay in the audience or be on the You want And I think there might be a Michael Scott as  well. Yeah. M. Uh yeah. Now are are you doing   this speaking, Mark? Um I other than my um  perhaps standard introduction, Mr. chairman.   I was going to turn it over to Natalie, but I as  Tony is u looking to get those folks in. So, I am   uh Mark Vaughn uh attorney with the law firm of  Reamer and Bronstein representing uh the property   owner in this instance. Um right, Brian Herd is  here. So, I know this is a property and a building   that's been before you in the past, a former uh  Hologic uh building and tenant that was in there   and has been repositioned uh you know successfully  through um you know, efforts of um you know,   the applicant with the assistance of the board for  um you know, other tenants that are um either in   there now or moving in there. And I think as we  may have previewed with at least planning staff  

um and perhaps members of the the board as  well previously when we before you for a   minor engineering change um there was a desire  to have a um some solar um array in the back   portion of the parking lot into the side of the  building a bit. So, um, with that, I think, um,   there was an application that had been filed,  uh, by Natalie, uh, Wall and her group, uh,   Power Flex, and perhaps I'll turn it over to to  them to maybe just walk the board through the   proposal. Thank you, Mark. Natalie, are you doing  the speaking? Yes. Hi, nice to meet you all. Um,   I'm Natalie Wall. I'm with Power Flex, as  Mark said. Um, we are the solar developer   for this project. Um we're very excited about  the carport array that we have planned here.   Um it is a 1.3 megawatt um solar array that we  have filed for utility interconnection for. Um   it's consists of eight canopies. Um those  canopies will provide shading as well as   um protection to cars parked underneath in  addition to offsetting the building's electrical   load. Um so very excited to be presenting  this project. I'm also joined by our um civil   engineering partner Mike Scott from LDC. Um let me  know what would be what would be the best way to   um proceed I guess with um with a picture or  some other Do you Mike want to present? Yeah, let me pull it up. So you should now have  permission. Okay. And Tony, this is Mike   Scott. Could you also admit Chris Peretti as a  panelist if he's not been? He's he we did. Okay.  

Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I'm here. Okay. Sorry, just  waiting. Just working on my screen share here. Okay. Okay. Um, can you all see my screen  soon? Still black. Now we can. Okay,   here it is. Perfect. Okay. Um, so yeah,  so this was the uh Please proceed. Okay,   great. Thank you. Um, this was the site plan  package that we submitted to the planning   board. Um, just to kind of orient us, we're  talking about this lot here on Crosby Drive.   Um, as Mark mentioned, you saw this  property recently for the updates to the   um, parking lot. This is primarily just for the  addition of carport arrays. Um, let me get to   what I think would be the most helpful, which  is the main site plan. Um, which is here. Um,   so this is the location of the eight carport  arrays. Um, we have two to the left um of the   building. If you're standing on Crosby Drive, the  majority of the work is behind the building. Um,   in the um parking lot here, which is graded. So  the there's sort of a lower and an upper parking   lot. Um, so this is the where the proposed arrays  will be. Um they are will be built for 14 feet   um clearance for um the drive aisles. Um we do  have a loading dock here where we do anticipate   um truck traffic. That being said um the primary  path is um or we do have a vehicle analysis on  

the next page, but the primary path is would for  those trucks would be entering um one of the two   driveways and just remaining on the outer path  there. Um regardless with the 14 foot clearance   um we don't have any concerns around um the  vehicle traffic but just wanted to highlight that.   Um it's also worth noting that the arrays will  be a single tilt design. So the 14 ft clearance   is actually the minimum clearance. It's higher  um at the upper end um more in the 21 ft range   um on the upper hand there. Um any questions so  far on the layout or just general um design here? Not seeing any hands up. Okay, please proceed.  Okay, great. Um, Mike, would you maybe want to   speak through the um the zoning table and  um you know impacts to the um parcel here. I'm sure needed to unmute myself. Correct. So  the the eight um structures uh would fall either   foundations would fall either at the intersection  of parking spaces or within the existing islands   and the um there are a couple trees to come down  but essentially the work um is pretty minimally   invasive. Again the parking lot would be restored,  the islands would be restored. You do see um the   bold line if and I know I don't have control, but  maybe Natalie, you could highlight the trenching.   All these all these um canopies would be connected  via underground conduit and routed to the would be  

the south side of the building. So the right  side um as as you look at the sheet, correct?   All of this work falls within existing pavement  and relative to the zoning because this is no new   in increase in impervious. We're not increasing  any or reducing any kind of you know usable green   space or open uh imperous sorry pvious surfaces.  So you don't see any kind of drainage impact. And   again, having located the foundations either  in an island or at the intersection of parking   stall stripings, um there's minimal impact to the  parking stalls themselves. So, we don't foresee   any kind of impact to the parking uh on the site.  It accommodates the new loading dock that's been   recently permitted in terms of its layout.  The trucks can continue to u reach the loading   dock as they would have without the canopies.  There is a turning template or sorry a vehicle   um analysis on the last sheet that shows the  fire apparatus can continue to um you circumn   the building and without having to pass under the  uh the panels with possible exception at a couple   points. Whereas Natalie expressed um the lower  edge of the panels would or the lower edge of   the carport would be 14 ft above grade which  is below the height of your vehicle the fire   vehicle generally though it would miss um or not  need to travel under any of the uh structures. So   we're viewing these as um accessory structures  um within the within the um parking lot. There   are some there are a few components and this needs  to be highlighted. There are a few components that   are within the uh sideyard setback to the left  or the north side of the building. Um a few of  

the panels would project into the setback.  Uh we would ask that if the board does not   have the authority to wave or modify dimensional  requirements through the site plan process that   um this be allowed or that you know power flex  be allowed to take this up with the building   commissioner or the zoning uh enforcement  officer to determine whether u a variance   would be required or if in his mind this would  be a permitted use as it's presently designed.   mind. Um and and as a fall back to going to the  zoning board or needing some other relief, power   flex would look to relocate the offending panels,  but they effectively fall along that northern lot   line. So it would be to the left side. Yeah. Where  Natalie is now highlighting it. The remainder of   the structures all fall well within, you know, the  building the allowable building area of the site. Thank you, Michael. Sure. If tell you what, let's go to see if there's any  questions or comments. Uh you you've presented   a fair amount of material. I don't know  if you need to present more yet. Uh Todd,   I'm very excited about this project and uh please  do more. Um please come to MITER and put them in.   And yeah, no, I'm very happy to see this  um very large array. Uh just to clarify,   is it just that one I don't know, I don't  want to say the wrong direction because yeah,   it's southern one that would go into this uh  sideyard setback or is there more than one array? This is Mike Scott again. The there's a portion  of Natalie maybe you could highlight that setback  

line that runs along be the northern side the  dash line that's correct the dash runs along   that it's a portion of four but it's really one  significant offender to the south okay and again   they overhang the existing driveway there's  no encroachment into any kind of vegetated   buffer right yeah so yeah it's really that  southern one or the western one that we're   looking at. And you can see the the setback  line as it arcs through the uh the canopy. Thank you. Uh Chris and then John. Yeah. I  question to staff. Um why is it that the board   needs to review this? Why can't the applicant  just go ahead and build it? Thanks. And with   obvious approvals from Yeah. code enforcement and  the like, but why is it necessary for us to be in   their review process? Well, they have an approved  site plan. Um, so this will be an amendment to it. Yeah. Basically, you're looking  at this as here, you know,   here's here are objects proposed to  to be built on the premises and it   so it's this is an engineering change  to the approved site plan and it's um so even though it may seem like and you may  wonder why it needs review and and I think the   the applicant would have been happy if they could  have bypassed this step but um but it's um it is  

uh something that we require and that's your point  of having this be considered a major amendment and   that we'll need to vote and approve it. Uh John.  Um so this array in the the center of the screen   right now, which way is it canned? Is it is the  high edge on the right or the left? Um we would   have the high edge facing the drive aisles.  Okay. So in this particular case, facing the   drive aisles. Uh well, they have to be south.  The opposite needs to be south facing, right?   So, north is to the left, right? Correct. Yeah, good point, John. Um, so I guess I'm still confused because I having  trouble. I mean, there are a bunch of drive   vials in in this image, right? This is correct. I  believe this is Mike's. I believe what Natalie is   saying is on this particular one, the low edge is  on the right. The high the high side would be on   the left. Okay. South is to the right. The right  the high edge is on the left. Left. Okay. So,   which means it's it's to the extent that it's  an access issue for um the setbacks, it's even   less of an issue because it's going to be 20 feet  off the ground. Correct. In this case, yes. Yeah,   that's in both the two the two big offenders  being the top left and the bottom left on this   view. Yeah. I mean, I have no idea what authority  we have over setbacks, but it seems to be to me it   seems like a non-issue, but Chris, so I look  at this and say, is this an appropriate land  

use? And emphatically, yes. As far as access goes,  that's not for us to weigh in on. That's for fire   department. So, I'm ready to go ahead and vote  to approve Sounds like you need to make a motion,   Chris. I need a It says it's a mo Yeah. make a  motion to approve the project at 35's Crosby Drive   uh of installing the solar canopies as a major  amendment to their previous project. So moved.   Second. All right. How do we vote in that order?  Uh Chris I. John I. Todd. A very loud yes. Don   I. And the chair votes yes. And Todd wants you  to drive by the MITER contest and see if you   want to put a bid there too, please. I thank you,  sir. And and the entire team. We appreciate this.   Looking forward to its successful completion.  Thank you. Thank you very much. You're very much   looking forward to it as well. We appreciate  the enthusiasm. Okay. Next up is uh 15476   Hartwell Road. This is a land swap between uh two  other organizations. This may be just a courtesy   uh to explain this to us. Uh is there anybody  representing this? Um if I if I could again   uh Mr. chairman. Uh for the record, attorney  Mark Vaughn with Reamer Bronstein representing   the applicant Runway Realy Ventures. Um yes.  So this is an ANR plan that has been submitted   uh my client is the owner of the parcel that uh  might be commonly known as the the old Navy hanger   uh site. So uh through an arrangement that they  have with Massport, the owner of the surrounding  

land, there is a bit of a land swap that's  going on whereby um uh Runway Realy would be   um getting title to two parcels of  land that were shown on the plan and   um in return um runway realy is conveying a small  portion of land uh to Massport. simply allows for   the Navy hanger parcel, if you would, to  be squared off in a better fashion. Um,   and actually allows for a u slight building  encroachment that exists today on a corner   of the uh Navy hanger building uh to no  longer be an encroachment. So, uh again,   I think that it comports with all of your approval  not required um you know, requirements. um this   uh really just interior lot line adjustments  if you would that need to be done by way of a   an ANR plan. So, thank you Mark. Any questions or  comments from staff or the members of the board? If not, there's someone by name  of Michael that has a hand up. He he is u my client. I just he's joining just in  case there was any question that he might need to   answer. So I don't think he has anything to say  um beyond answering a question. Yeah. Go ahead.   I I I won't never let me just be quiet and not  say what I was concerned about. Okay. So what   action do we need to take is to say yes we agree  with this or it's not quite is you're not this   is our normal run-of-the-mill business or um Tony  what what do we need to do here? Yeah. So we it's   I guess it's been a while since you've had an  approval not required plan. So the board would  

need to vote to endorse the plan as an approval  not required. Meaning that right that means that   formal subdivision plan is not required. So  that a public hearing isn't required to move   these lot lines around which this plan qualifies  for. And then um the second piece is since you   is since you meet remotely, you need to decide  whether in whether you as in as members want to   individually come into the office to sign the  plan or to authorize the chair or the director   to sign on your behalf. So that when it goes the  because the plan needs to be signed and then it   goes to the registry of deeds and then uh but  it it literally needs an endorsement on it. So   um if the board if a majority of the board does  not endorse the plan then we'd send a letter with   it if you've authorized the chair or the staff to  sign on your behalf. Okay. So we first we need to   have a motion to endorse the plan presented for  154 176 Hartwell Road. Correct. Yes. So move.   Somebody want to say so move. Who did the move?  Well, Todd did. I'll just I'll just call the   roll call. The Carrie will sort it out. How do  you vote? Todd. Hi. John. I. Chris. I I and the   chair votes I. Um the chair has to come to town  hall tomorrow. Anyways, I move that the chair,   if you're willing, go ahead. I move that the chair  signs for the board for 154 176 Hotwell Road.  

Uh thank you. The roll call vote gone. I Todd.  Hi. Gone. Nay. I want to find something. Yeah,   right. Chris Hi. And the chair votes eye. And the  chair says, "Yeah, I have a one:00 meeting." Uh,   your depot part, you know, is at town hall  tomorrow at 1. This forces me to make sure   I attend. All right. Thank you one and all and we  appreciate it for the press on with your project,   sir. Thank you very much. Appreciate  your time. Have a good evening.   Okay, it is now we're about to start a discussion  on uh 40 Y and this would be the one off Elm   Street or you could call it the the DHY properties  and although it's someone else um does anybody   want to take a 4m minute break before we  start this? This could go on for a while. If not, I would endorse that, but I'm  fine to continue as well. Either way, the chair is going to take a four minute  break. You guys can press on. See you in a bit. So, in the absence of the chair, uh, member Gitton  as clerk has the has the floor. I will um I will   note that um attorney Brown is joined by housing  consultant Lynn Suite who is uh perhaps the the   most familiar with 40y as the state tries to  unveil or or that's the wrong term tries to roll  

out how this can be used across the commonwealth.  So um I don't know which of you wants to lead off.   Well, I was gonna say I was going to be on because  Lynn had another meeting, but given the hour Lynn   is here. Um, Lynn, do you want me to put up the  slides stack and you can start talking? I can I   can take care of the slides stack. Okay, that's  perfect, too. And I'm going to let you jump in   because knows knows everything Bedford. So, Lind L  present and I'll jump in if you want. Can I wedge   in a question before we get going, Mr. Chair? Yes,  please. Please, Mr. Mlan, proceed. Um, so are we   discussing the Dory property in particular or the  concept of 40 wise in Bedford in general? Oh, I'm   I'm going to suggest you can So, his question is  because he he's technically in a butter to 49 Elm,   but because of the broad nature of this discussion  and no action is taken, he could participate. I mean I was actually asking out of interest  but yes also the uh the potential issue. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are you are do you want to are  you going to discuss that or you want me to do our   quick presentation? And I know the hour is late  and you're a very hardworking board. Presentation. Go ahead with the presentation, Lyn. Yeah, there  you go. Great. Um, and we're also joined by Zoya.   Um, so this is really just an overview of of 40  Y, which I think you're a little bit familiar  

with because of potentially because of the the  state land that you've been uh working on. Um,   there have been um regulations um the law has  been adopted, but the regulations around it are   still in draft form. We um believe that they are  really not going to change much. they mirror 40R   and they are are expected to be um accepted by  the end of the year. Um so that's kind of the   first first part uh and thing to know about  it. It is um essentially an overlay district   um that overlays the existing uh zoning and it  is um adopted through simple majority vote at   um town meeting. Um we I if everyone is interested  in this topic, we are certainly not looking at   fall town meeting. We would be looking at a  spring town meeting as well. We want to take   our time with this and get everybody comfortable  with it. Um one of the main features is that it   really is a starter home bylaw. they are trying to  go back in time to not having 3,000 foot homes and   um 30,000 square foot lots. So the maximum heated  living area allowed under the statute is 1850   square ft. Um in addition um they are looking  for something that is is dense and compact   um no few fewer than four units per developable  acre. And um although they still want to make   this familyfriendly um they are looking for half  of the homes to have three bedrooms. Um that means   you could have more homes with three bedrooms um  but not um less than 50%. Um and much it basically  

the project has to comply with the state wetlands  act. has to comply with the state title 5 and so   on and so forth. Um so in that sense it's a little  bit closer to 40B um because you're essentially   creating you know your own zoning. Um the statute  again because it's starter homes is not allowing   an age restriction. However, that doesn't mean  that you can't age target um your buildings. Um,   and the bylaw itself allows for the town to impose  um, reasonable design standards. Um, and then it   does create an expedited site plan review process  of 120 days. Much like any project, if everyone's   getting along and more time is needed, then you  know, more time will be given, if you will. That's   the way I approach a project. But during that site  plan review process, you can do a peer review of   storm water, you can do a peer review of traffic,  you can do a peer review of architecture. Um, you   know, uh, whatever is kind of the normal standard  when you're kicking the tires on a project. Uh,   you can do that and and sometimes if we're going  to town meeting, we do some of that stuff in   advance, too. the project that we're talking  about today is a fairly small project. So, I'm   not sure that traffic as big is as big an issue,  but storm water is always an issue. Um, and then   um for projects that are larger that are 12 or  more units, there is an income restriction to 110%   of AMI for 10% of your units. So, uh, the project  we're working on in Mansfield has 80 units.   Therefore, eight of those units need to be income  restricted to 110% of AMI. And that doesn't mean  

that the developer can't offer to do that lower uh  at a lower, you know, AMI. You just can't require   it under the statute. Um, and so, similar to to  240R, there are incentive payments for a town to   work on these things. And this is just kind of an  overview. Um, in this again the the project that   we're going to talk about tonight, since it's less  than 20 units, when the uh state passes the bylaw,   um the town gets $10,000 that goes into the  general fund. You can do with it what you   want. And then there's a production bonus for  3,000 for each unit um that is created. Um,   building permit fees apply, annual real estate  taxes apply, and and what really what's not   mentioned here is sort of the brownie points that  you get with the state for taking control and,   you know, potentially becoming, you know, a a  housing community. Um, if you're not, you know,   kind of already, I think Bedford does have the  gold standard already. Um, so this project we   came and we talked to you a little about a while  ago about potentially doing a friendly 40b and I'm   sure you're all familiar with it. It um has  um a farmhouse today with a garage. It is a   fairly tried and it's in um my mind an excellent  location uh because it's walkable to many things.   Um, so it is what even though it looks green,  it is an urban location. Uh, you know, near the   supermarket and other other matters. Um, and this  is this is what the the home on the property looks   like today in case you haven't um gone down  and taken a look at it. Um, and um, you know,   a lot of the property does have dense tree buffer  around it. Some of it is is not as dense. Um, some   of it is more, you know, like um, scrub trees.  Um, and so these are just a few views if you're  

kind of standing in the middle of the property and  looking around um about what you might see. This,   I believe, is a view of one of um the neighbors  homes. And I know Ralph is on and he'll he'll fix   anything that I haven't said properly. So, we're  back at you, but we're we have a much smaller,   less dense development than we were talking about  um in the 40B discussion of nine homes, eight new   um uh renovating and preserving the farmhouse,  getting that down to the 1,850 square ft. Um   and very different from the last time you looked  at this, a mixture of one, two, and threebedroom   units that are concept um compact in size. And  we use the word reasonably priced because these   are not going to be $1.2 million homes that we're  selling here. They are going to be far below what   you know you're seeing um of a new construction  home because the size is smaller. We have the   density compact and so on and so forth. Um we'll  show you on the site plan that we have um garages   as well as visitor parking as well as outdoor  spaces. Each unit will have one indoor space,   one outdoor space. Um, and we actually have  preserved, you know, I'm using 63% open space,   meaning that's not covered by building. Some of  that is covered, you know, by pavement. So, it's   still um, you know, got some room on the edges and  and we've tried to maintain that tree buffer. So,   so what is it that we're proposing? Um, four  three-bedroom units, two two-bedroom units,   and two one-bedroom units. And those um two and  onebedroom units are are substantially smaller   than than than what you had seen previously.  And I I think the next slide has a little bit   more of the dimensional requirements on it. Um oh  nope, it's the actual site plan. Um so you've seen  

this before, a driveway coming in. Um some visitor  parking over here. Um this is the existing home.   There's quite a bit of buffer around it. Um and  this is showing um the setbacks to the homes. Um   we might end up you know having patios you know  on the units or balconies um but um they are much   shorter and you know when I get to the you know  the next slide you'll see that they are smaller   buildings. The one-bedroom homes actually are all  um living area I believe on um the first floor and   then a bed um a bedroom I believe on the second  floor. Um so we have increased kind of the the   green buffer around the outsides of the building.  We've pulled this this back from where it was.   I think we used to have like actual units over  here. Um so we have less less building period.   Um and so we took a look at what the underlying  zoning was. Um Ralph did that and kind of put   together a chart of well how do we fit in with  what you could do if if density was allowed um   if you were building you know um not as many units  but complying with underlying zoning. and um and   and we we have um for the most part met the side,  you know, side setbacks um a little bit, you know,   the rear setbacks are a little bit closer. Um but  the height has come down considerably. That's the   299 ft there. Um and um the parking isn't qu is is  is is two per unit um with a little bit of visitor  

and the lot coverage. I guess there isn't there  isn't a bylaw and that's down a little bit. Um so   I'm just going to show you a couple of elevations  of what the duplexes look like with the garages in   the middle. Excuse me. I just like to jump in for  a second. Uh Mr. Mr. Cwley's had his hand up and   if he has something to interject or can wait. Uh  thinking away for now. Thank you. Sorry. Thanks.   Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. Thank you. Sorry  I have my my head on the other screen. Um so this   is just you know ideas of elevation certainly you  know it's not a colored rendering yet. We're at   the concept stage. Do you like the idea of 40 wy?  Do you like the direction this project is going?   um you know the fact that we are doing one and  twobedroom units that we're not going up three and   a half four stories um and you know again these  smaller footprints um for the units as well um   and I'm just going to you know kind of go through  them um not giving you you know a lot of detail   um again I think you all know this difference  between habitable area is heated the garages   aren't considered habitable. Um and um you know  I think we're still looking at doing potentially   you know all all electric energy saving and so on  and so forth. So that was it. I know it's late.   Um you know we we'd love to have the discussion  with you tonight. If if if there's, you know,   some good ideas going around and you feel like you  want to continue it at some point, we would want   to meet with the select board, meet with the  community, um, draft the bylaw. We we've got   a good one that we're working on in Mansfield, but  that's more of a a single family home subdivision   sort of idea than an infill. So, we can tweak  that. Um, continue along with the site plan.  

Certainly, we know there's going to be questions  about about storm water and snow storage and all   those those good questions and potentially um move  on to a Springtown meeting if there is uh you know   continued um collaboration. Uh so that was really  it. I know I ran through it a lot. I I did send   it on to um to Tony and we're certainly happy to  share it with you and and listen. Um, well, let me   note that the chair is back. Uh, and I'm going to  call on Todd. Let me just make sure we understood,   at least I understood your presentation. You're  moving on. You're This is a courtesy presentation   because you're going to the select board next.  If the I'm not not with one not without your   blessing. We are not going to do that. I I didn't  get that in the presentation. That's why. Oh, no,   no, no, no. No, I'm just It matters what we say to  you then. All right. Thank you. Now, no, no, no,   no, no. This is this is we had a discussion with  you about 40B. We we too big, too dense to this   and idea. There's four or five discussions on this  already. I'm just wanted to see. All right. So,   Todd, then John. Yeah. Uh, let's see. I  don't know where to start, but first off,   I'll say I'm uh more excited definitely about this  this potential project, especially the 1850 size   and everything like that. I know they're all  under that or H9 and smaller. So, definitely   more excited. This was more what I was thinking,  but I I a couple questions maybe more about 40 Ys,   but in terms it says an overlay. So, normally an  overlay is an overlay district which would cover   more than just one lot. So, is it a proposal  to have 40 Y all over Bedford? Is it just this   lot? Is it or like that's the thing we have to  work through? Really good question. So, the way  

that it works is that we would literally have this  lot attached to the bylaw unless there was an in,   you know, because we have no control over the  planning board homeowners and the last thing we   want to do is scare everybody to think, okay, this  is going to apply to the entire zoning map. So,   very specific. So, with the 40y, it did say a  minimum of four units. Um, can the town when   we propose the bylaw amendment, would we say  it's a maximum of x units or is it just no,   it's four and up? Nope, you can do that. Okay.  And then you said it was supposed to uh comply   with zoning, but the the proposal, loose proposal  was it would encroach into the setback the current   existing setback requirements. So can the overlay  district um negate those requirements or whatever   or you know change the uh setbacks? Yeah, that's  what the overlay is going to do. You're going to   basically have your own dimensional chart.  Okay. And say these are what is allowable. A   minimum of this, a maximum of that. Oops.  Did we lose them? Hey, John. Then Chris. And there's an alarm going off  in the background. Um, yeah. So,   I had the same question as Todd about, you know,  where is this this overlay going to go? And I mean   I guess the question is can we have an overlay  of a single lot or is is that spot zoning? Um   which I I don't need an immediate answer but  I I do have that question. I mean in general   not commenting on this project in particular  but this is the sort of thing that I would   also like to see in town. Um so I would be open  to to something broader than just this one lot.  

Um and oh yes. So, and then the third thought  or the third question I think for the board is I mean for I mean I I think the big advantage  of a 40y is that we get some money from the   state. One could imagine that if we don't like the  constraints of a 40y we could do something that   was both bigger and smaller if we were willing to  forgo the uh the money from the state. And I think   staff suggested that um the strings associated  with the state could be a pain in the neck. So,   you know, so for example, I mean my what was  I thinking about? Oh, yes. I mean, I'm I I get   that the state's trying to build family housing.  Um but I don't personally feel like um the 50%   requirement is is maybe the right spot. Um, so you  know, if we didn't care about the money from the   state, I would personally uh maybe be in favor  of something that was gave more more developer   flexibility in peing the unit mix. But in general,  I I I like this direction and I think this is the   sort of thing that exactly that Bedford exactly  needs. Is is it okay if I just respond to the   first part of that? Yeah. Well, but it has it  has to do with the idea of including other lots,   spot zoning. Yeah, there's two there's two tweaks  with that. Um, one is for them when when the zone   gets allow gets accepted, they have to figure out,  well, what what is allowed under zoning versus   what are you doing and subtract that from what  you're getting. Um, so there's sort of like this  

calculation that we have to give when we apply  to the state saying, well, under under zoning,   all you can do here is one single family home.  So really, you're getting money for eight units.   In this particular instance, it really doesn't  doesn't sort of matter. Um, the other thing is   you do actually need to give them a map. So if  you are interested, if there are other locations   in town that you want to add on to this, it needs  to be very specific similar to MBTA zoning, which   um you need to actually have identified it. So  this isn't to say that you can't do more. Um   you would just need to know what you're doing  if you're going to add on to this. Yeah, sure. Chris. Yes. Uh, so we'll say echo uh Todd and  John's comments. You I really like to see the   smaller unit possibilities. You there's been  some question in my mind whether the financials   work in uh the more wellto-do suburbs and I  infer from what you sketched out there that   uh that they can. So I'm I'm very encouraged by  by that. Um yeah, the only uh downside for me is   yeah, if it were a single lot, um I generally  react very negatively when it is a isolated   uh proposed zoning change. So I I would hope  that u that the board would recommend a wider   scale adoption. Um yeah, even if the focus is  on this particular lot uh in the near term. Other questions or comments? Todd? Yeah, just  comment. Um I hear what you're saying um Mr.   Gittens and uh yeah, slightly uncomfortable  with just the one lot. I'd like to at least   explore the concept of either larging it or  what makes sense. Is there another area as well  

um that would make sense? Um but at the same time,  you know, uh plenty of feedback been received with   the MBTA zoning and and the places that you  know, the houses that are going up u at the   density they are and I am a bit concerned about  too much density in too many areas in Bedford.   So something something to consider, but yeah,  I would be interested in talk about it more. I just had one comment related to the  district whether it's a lot or more. Um,   and I appreciate the comment even if the focus is  on this lot because this is a neighborhood that   has pretty dense housing already. And if you jump  down u Elm Street, I think it's it Rodney I think   is the next street. I think there are eight units  on that street and if if you were to look at the   property lines of each of those lots, I think it's  pretty close to the same size as this parcel. It's   probably about an acre. Um, and then you have  the town, you know, the public housing. Um,   so even if it wasn't developed immediately, we  potentially if those areas were to be zoned,   then if there's ever a redevelopment, the door  is open to going through this process. Um, so I   I I think there's some validity to that. That's  that's not just um I don't know the right word,   but you know, it's not just, oh, it'll never go  there. I mean it might be 10 years or 20 years   and it still would lay out something that for a  future redevelopment might be a really good thing is u Chris yeah is a comment on density  I remember when was you researching   uh MBTA community zoning yeah that area around  express pizza Bacon, Lumis, South Road, and what  

is it? Hartford is the cross street. Yeah. And  that was like six units an acre. So that's Yeah,   that's a great neighborhood. So yeah, fully  support Yeah. the that type of density. I   think that would be a really nice uh option  for uh for town. Some of you might remember   that I actually drafted a bylaw for this site,  just a local Bedford bylaw. Um, right. I kind   of wanted to do a test location and my client at  the time thought it was great all over town and   I think that may be partly where it fell. Um,  because it was just way too broad and people,   you know, too many people wondering what might  happen in their backyard. Um, so I, you know,   I think 40 Y is a great way to proceed, but if the  town actually had an interest in trying to do your   own thing, we could, there's nothing that stops  you from doing or us from doing a by, you know,   our own bylaw that avoids the 40y, but lays  out and overlays on the similar requirements. Uh just comment on again Chris um the six units  per acres and where you were talking I like that   sound when it's around 1,800 2,000 what we're  being proposed will often times are at least   2500 you know with the MVTA zoning so you know  larger units and that's why I kind of like this   40 wy where it is 1850 is a max or smaller um and  even just you know if it's this lot and then a bit   more with Rodney or whatever in that area which  already is fairly dense it just kind of feels   better if it's that whole village or whatever it  kind of Maybe that's all. Just trying to expand it   a bit versus just one lot. More discussion in  future. John. John. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm looking   at the GIS and and and the Rodney lots are like  point2 acres each. So that puts you right in that,   you know, four and some of them are two families  already. Oh, yeah. So, so I mean I mean to me  

actually four acres I mean I I might not get get  reelected because of this but you know I mean four   acres seems like a reasonable four um and four  units per acre, right? Four units per acre. Yes.   And you know and and Foster Road is you know maybe  the lots are a little bit bigger but they're not a   lot bigger. Um, so yeah, I mean it's but they're  proposing eight or nine for this acre just to be   clear. Sure. Eight, right? This this proposal is  about 10 units per acre. 10. Sorry, 10. You're   right. Yeah, just to be clear. But this is uh  these are But as the esteemed lawyer points out,   the uh Rodney Road has a bunch of two families on  it. So, you know, that that that's I mean, this   part of town, you know, is denser than other parts  of town, and it would be nice if it all burned   down if we could rebuild it. Some really dense,  you know. Yeah. Strike that from the recording,   please. Yeah. Um, well, no, I mean, I'm I'm I'm  I'm serious because I mean, I love living here   and I love living here because it's because of  its density. And it seems crazy to me that if   something bad happened, we couldn't rebuild it.  It's it's it's a great place to live and we could   not rebuild it with the current zoning. So, I will  I will uh I'm I'm sure Carrie will will will uh   will record that appropriately in in the minutes  in in a slightly less inflammatory way. Um Lynn,   given this is a an overlay district, uh what is to  stop us or any town from saying just to have this  

as an option? We're going to throw this overlay  district on a quarter of the town. we'll just take   a whole section of the town and throw this on as  an overlay and then whenever lots become available   or whatever then uh they can go ahead with these  smaller size and greater density. Is that just   the only thing preventing that having town meeting  approve it? There's no state restrictions on this. Um it's an interesting question. I don't have  an exact answer for you and wouldn't want to   say anything wrong, but you do need to come  up with dimensional requirements and design   requirements. Um, so the question becomes, is that  really going to cover 25% of lots if if and are   you going to have the people that live in those  25% of the town coming out and saying, you know,   kind of coming out against it because you still  need them to vote on it. So I of of of course I   think there's a practical part sure I I'm gonna  ask the state the question but but I think yeah   Lynn that is the practical answer but the question  is this is a state policy that's not done yet and   there's this sweeping movement among various towns  uh uh to say we need a lot more dense housing even   beyond MBTA this would give them the opportunity  to just fact if the town really wanted to do this,   they could adopt it townwide. Correct. And the  state will the state I don't know the answer,   but I you don't have to worry about which town  fighting which part or that part. You can say  

it's it's townwide overlay. Meanwhile, everything  else is our standard uh zoning. I'm sure there's a   limited pot of money. One would I was gonna  say I think you would bankrupt, you know,   the pot of money, but it's a really good question.  I I'm going to get some answers for you on it. I   I don't have it yet. Yeah. I I just don't want to  say anything wrong. As far as money goes, you only   get the money when you do it, not when you do the  overlay. So, this is a You get the money when you   do the overlay and then you get the money as well  when you do the units. You get the money on the   overlay. You get the first the first pool of money  comes with the with the with the adoption of the   zoning and you get a payment based on the buildup  capacity of the overlay district. But you have   to fill out building permit figure out if you're  going to do it beyond this one lot. what the what   the underlying capacity build out is for anything  within the district versus what you're you can   add under the new district and that the delta is  what the payout is going to be. I was going to   say I didn't realize how much free money there  was floating around in this state. Now if you   can get it Yeah. Yes. I know. I know. But I want  to I want to postulate these right for 200 lot.   What is the upper limit on this stuff? And that  becomes how much any town meeting is going to   approve it. Oh, and by the way, that's for those  of us that have open town meeting. What about   towns like Burlington that have representative  town meeting? Could they just forcibly adopt this?   I think we're getting a little off topic. So, so  the fi over over 500 over 500 units the maximum is  

600,000. So, I do have one answer for you. The  max a town can get is 600,000 um if if they're   over 500 units. Um I don't I don't have the  answer about town meeting. I assume it's the same   thing as super majority. I mean a super majority  shaking the tree. All right. Any other questions   or comments from the board or others? Other than  that, we thank you very much and appreciate the   um lively discussion that you've engendered and  now we need So, what do you I was going to say   what do you think is is a next step for this?  Is it something you need to continue to talk   about as a board? I I give it Why don't you  give us one more meeting? I think it wasn't   quite clear and and and can you find out when  what's the state schedule on approving this? So   we'll know more crystal and what we're agreeing  to. Um I can tell you we're going to a December   9th town meeting. So we're expecting it within  30 days. But let me get a few answers from you   and we be very happy back to another meeting.  That would make life a lot easier for us to go   through this. Thank you. Thank you so much. Have  a great night. Thank you. Thank you. So, we have   um at 10 minutes to 10. I'll ask the board's  opinion on what you'd like to do. We've got   comprehensive plan discussion, uh, liaison to  boards and committee reports, staff updates,   and minutes. You want to try to do them all or I  could I will make a suggestion. We do the minutes  

because Carrie worked on them and they're usually  instant and then then we go back to upgrades this   uh leaison updates. I don't know we  should spend time on comprehensive   plan given the hour. I leave it to the board.  Is anybody objective pressing on to minutes? I I would like to vote on minutes and I will  be off at 10 p.m. Yes. I kind of figure we're   getting close. All right. Let me start  with the minutes where I wasn't there.   That's a lot easier. Uh is there a motion to  approve the minutes of October 14th, 2025?   moved. Second. Okay. How do you vote? Chris, John,  I Todd. I the chair and I think John abstained.   Yes. Okay. The minutes of September 23rd, 2025. Is  there a motion to approve those minutes? So moved.   Second. Okay. How do you vote? Uh Todd I. Chris  Don I. John I and the chair votes I. Okay, minutes   are done. How about uh any important liaison  reports? I have nothing from KCOM and depot park   that are worth repeating. Todd, uh, just want  to indicate I attended the the zoning board of   appeals had a two-hour session with town council,  uh, last meeting. Um, and it was sort of build as   training. It was sort of it wasn't really asked.  They had some questions beforehand. Anyways,   they talked about comprehensive permits. They  talked about a bunch of different things. ADUs,   um, and, uh, lively discussion. Um bottom  line for me up front uh I've been writing the  

um time manager back and forth um as I felt that  with comprehensive permit discussion they didn't   bring up this 20 thou uh 2000 document that  actually Tony Fields gave to me um where it was   like basically comprehensive permit um guidelines  for the zoning board of appeals and it was never   brought up during that session and I was really  surprised that it wasn't Um, and I talked to the   town manager, wrote back and forth, and he said,  "Yeah, that's a that's a legit document uh as   meant to be a guide." So, I'm like, why wasn't it  brought up with the the zoning board? And so far,   he hasn't got back to me about that particular  question, but so it's ongoing discussion,   but also I feel it's time. I don't know if it's  possible. I don't know if this bed's ever done   this in the past, but that town manager or select  board that we get select board, planning board,   and zoning board and other potentially together  like once a year to discuss any big things coming   up or that we make it a plan to like discuss  things before they get to the final board um or   somehow get this process slightly better, get the  communications better. Um so and part of that for   me uh is honestly I feel when I've gone to zoning  board meetings the select board member has not   been there and I think that hasn't helped with  the communication and in my opinion having the   zoning board be hybrid would potentially help with  that because then the leaison could attend hybrid   easier because they could just listen in and and  chive in and get communication going appropriately   but it can be hard to attend all the meetings as  which we I'll understand. Um, so I'm going to keep   pushing that thread. Um, and potentially more with  uh the town manager. And that's it. Thank you,   Todd. That sound like well worthwhile.  Any other leazison reports, staff reports?

So just quickly just um to combine the my  comments with the comprehensive plan just to   note that the community survey is up and the the  links from our website are up. There's mention or   or link to it in the town manager report this  week. And so um so to the extent we all keep   um keep at getting community engaged,  we we'll we'll um hopefully get a broad   representation of input as uh as we keep this  open for the next um two and a half months. Thank you. Good. Uh, Don, um, is there anything  prepared for the citizen because I'm not sure   anybody knows that these things are available?  Yes, I I've been um I've only been back two days,   but I I've um now put the links on our website  to the project hub and having done that,   I've done a news flash and I've contacted  the citizen. Actually, they picked up our   news flash so fast that they'd already kind of  put it out there. So I just provided them with   further background like the um the consultants  um press release and so on just in case they   want to do any kind of follow-ups or something  a bit fuller. So have they published something   because I have I haven't Yes. They put a small  a short article with the links. It's in today's   citizen and it's also been picked up by  the Bedford MA today Facebook page. Okay,   great. Thank you. Thank you John. And it was  also in the town manager well the assistant   town manager report which was read out yesterday  at select board but otherwise there was nothing  

from yesterday's select board. Any other subjects  from anybody? Does anybody want to help? Let Chris   do meet his 10:00 uh move that we adjourn. Thank  you John. Is there a second? Okay. How do you vote   John? I I Don I the chair votes I but I'll leave  it to Chris to make the decision here. Make it   unanimous. Okay. Meeting adjourned. Thank you one  and all for a lengthy exercise here. Everybody bye.