[0:06] Looks like she's
[0:07] Yes. Margaret Costello, planning board
[0:10] member. Sorry.
[0:11] That's okay. Nancy Arsenal, planning board member.
[0:15] I'm sorry, my camera's not working, but
[0:17] I'm working on it.
[0:19] All right, Deb.
[0:20] Uh, Debbie Woods, voting associate,
[0:22] planning board.
[0:24] All right, Michael.
[0:27] Slegel, land use planner,
[0:30] and Valerie Ortiz, planning director.
[0:34] All right. And I am Lori Clark, current
[0:36] chair of the planning board.
[0:38] Um, so do you want do you want me to
[0:41] wave the reading of the public hearing?
[0:44] Exactly.
[0:44] Okay.
[0:45] I move that we wave the reading of the
[0:48] public hearing notice.
[0:53] Second.
[0:54] All right. Any discussion about waving
[0:57] the reading of the public hearing
[0:58] notice?
[1:02] If not, I'll take a roll call vote on
[1:05] waving of the public reading of the
[1:07] public hearing notice. So,
[1:10] Meg
[1:11] I.
[1:12] Nancy,
[1:13] I
[1:14] John
[1:16] I
[1:17] Karen
[1:18] I
[1:19] and I Okay. Now, a little bit about
[1:23] procedure for the hearing and then, uh,
[1:25] we will jump in. Um, so we're going to
[1:29] have the planning staff. Oh, and I'm
[1:31] sorry. There you are, Allison. Do you
[1:33] want to introduce yourself?
[1:36] Oh, hold on.
[1:41] Hello.
[1:43] One of the newer members. I'm a non-
[1:45] voting
[1:46] planning board member.
[1:49] All right. Thank you. Okay. So, uh the
[1:52] planning board staff will first give an
[1:54] overview of the proposed zoning um
[1:59] changes. Um and then at that point, I'm
[2:02] going to open it up to the public for
[2:04] comment and question. When I do that, I
[2:06] would ask everyone to raise their hand
[2:09] either ver uh virtually or using uh Zoom
[2:14] or just on camera like this. Um, and if
[2:18] you are not on camera, um, and you don't
[2:23] can't figure out the Zoom, uh, raise
[2:25] your hand, you can call out as well.
[2:27] But, um, at which point I would ask
[2:29] everyone to wait until you're recognized
[2:32] because of the way that, um, Zoom is
[2:35] working for this public meeting. Um,
[2:38] we'll have to unmute you. Um, and then
[2:41] once we do that, you will have one to
[2:44] two minutes to ask questions or make
[2:46] comments. I would ask that you address
[2:48] all of your comments and questions to
[2:51] the board overall and not to an
[2:53] individual person. Um, and then when you
[2:56] are called upon, please state your name
[2:58] and address to start. Um, let's see. And
[3:02] then, uh, I I do I I will revisit the
[3:07] timing um, at the hour mark. So after an
[3:10] hour, we can revisit with the planning
[3:13] board to see if um we want to continue
[3:17] or um I'm sorry, keep the hearing going
[3:22] or continue it um to another night. And
[3:25] it really depends how far we are along
[3:28] and and how much more it seems that
[3:30] there is um at that point. Um, other
[3:34] than that, I'd say we are recording this
[3:37] meeting, but if you um are recording it
[3:40] on your own, I'd ask that you not do
[3:41] that in secret and you please state up
[3:44] front that you are doing so. Um, with
[3:47] that, are there any questions on process
[3:50] before we dive in?
[3:54] All right, I'm going to hand it over to
[3:56] Valerie.
[3:59] All right. Um, just one moment while I
[4:02] share my screen.
[4:19] All right. Uh, well, good evening
[4:21] everyone. Um, thank you all for coming
[4:23] out tonight. We're here to present the
[4:25] planning board's proposed zoning bylaw
[4:28] to allow multif family housing in
[4:30] compliance with the state's MBTA
[4:32] communities act. So, this is a required
[4:34] step ahead of the town meeting scheduled
[4:36] for October 27th.
[4:40] Um the purpose of this bylaw um is to
[4:43] meet the minimum requirements in order
[4:45] to comply with the state's MBTA
[4:47] Communities Act while maximizing local
[4:50] benefits. So, we'll walk through this
[4:52] more in detail tonight, but briefly,
[4:54] this is intended to provide additional
[4:57] housing options such as duplexes,
[4:59] triplexes, and town homes. To protect
[5:02] open space in Stow by locating the
[5:04] district over residential land, to
[5:06] capture economic development benefits by
[5:08] locating the district by lower village,
[5:10] which is our primary business district,
[5:13] and to avoid legal fees and penalties,
[5:15] as the state has confirmed that our
[5:17] proposal meets their requirements. So,
[5:19] I'll pass this off to Michael to
[5:21] describe the basic requirements for
[5:23] Stow.
[5:25] Great. Thank you, Valerie. Uh, so many
[5:28] towns and cities across Massachusetts
[5:30] are considered to be MBTA communities.
[5:32] Stow is being one of them. And all of
[5:36] these towns and cities have to do a few
[5:38] basic things. So, all of these towns and
[5:40] cities must adopt a multifamily housing
[5:42] zoning district that allows up to 15
[5:45] units per acre.
[5:47] um this district is going to be as of
[5:50] right. So there's no special permit
[5:51] process and the towns cannot um create
[5:55] any age restrictions and or any other
[5:58] restrictions that prohibit occupancy.
[6:01] Uh the district size is dependent on the
[6:03] different types of towns that there are.
[6:06] Stow being a small town has a small
[6:08] requirement compared to others.
[6:11] This is a zoning change and it does not
[6:13] require any construction of housing. So,
[6:16] similar to all other types of zoning,
[6:18] there's no building mandate required by
[6:21] this.
[6:22] Um, we've also heard that there's a
[6:24] little confusion about what is changing
[6:26] and this is only the zoning and there
[6:28] are some uh permitting that will still
[6:30] remain in place. So, all of our wetland
[6:33] protection zoning, the wetland
[6:35] protection act, well, septic
[6:37] regulations, building and fire code, all
[6:39] of that is remaining the same. The only
[6:41] thing that we're proposing is the
[6:43] changing of the different types of
[6:45] housing that could be built in Stow.
[6:49] On the next slide,
[6:52] um we've learned that compliance with
[6:54] this state law is required. It is
[6:57] mandatory. And this was tested out by
[6:59] the town of Milton who did not
[7:01] originally comply. Uh this went to the
[7:03] state supreme court and they determined
[7:05] that this law is constitutional and
[7:08] enforceable.
[7:09] Um, so the town has been working to
[7:12] address this change in our zoning that's
[7:16] required. If we don't do anything, you
[7:18] know, the town does risk some
[7:20] consequences
[7:22] um such as civil enforcement from the
[7:24] attorney general and there are more
[7:26] consequences being uh discussed on
[7:28] Beacon Hill at the moment. Um, one of
[7:31] the consequences that we are aware of is
[7:33] the loss of grant funding um,
[7:35] eligibility and we've highlighted some
[7:38] of the big grants that the town has
[7:39] received in the past few years. Um, and
[7:42] projects like this wouldn't be possible
[7:44] if the town is not compliant with the
[7:45] MBTA communities act.
[7:49] So, taking this all into consideration,
[7:51] uh, the planning board took a step back
[7:53] and looked at Stow's goals, which is on
[7:55] the next slide.
[7:58] Um, and we've seen throughout different
[8:00] planning processes that there's been
[8:02] calls for different types of housing in
[8:04] Stow, diversifying what we allow, um,
[8:07] encouraging development in certain
[8:09] areas. So, we've seen a kind of a call
[8:11] for multif family housing since 2010,
[8:14] maybe even earlier. We didn't go that
[8:16] far back. Um, so we're trying to take
[8:19] all of these principles from these
[8:20] different plans to propose a compliance
[8:23] solution to not only meet the state's
[8:25] goals, but to meet our own local goals.
[8:30] On the next slide, um, we'll talk a
[8:32] little bit about the planning board's
[8:34] approach. As Valerie mentioned earlier,
[8:37] we're looking to meet the minimum
[8:38] requirements of the MBTA Communities
[8:40] Act.
[8:42] She mentioned some of the things like
[8:44] supporting businesses, locating housing,
[8:46] near services and amenities, putting um
[8:50] we also want to make sure that we don't
[8:53] disproportionately affect roads. So,
[8:54] putting multif family housing if it does
[8:57] get built near highcapacity roads while
[9:00] maintaining open space and protecting
[9:03] some of that those rural characteristics
[9:05] of Stow.
[9:07] Uh the planning board also wants to
[9:08] encourage incremental growth so we don't
[9:11] see um hundreds of units pop up all at
[9:14] once. We see a few here and there
[9:16] throughout the years as the bylaw gets
[9:18] implemented if it does. Um and we just
[9:21] want to mention that the planning board
[9:23] is considering different um housing
[9:25] things in the future. So this is one
[9:28] step that the town could take to address
[9:30] some of our local housing needs, but
[9:32] it's not going to be the only one that
[9:33] the town will pursue in the future.
[9:38] On the next slide, we have just some of
[9:40] the community engagement work that we've
[9:41] done so far. Um, and some of this has
[9:44] originated all the way back in 20121
[9:46] when this law became a law. Um, so this
[9:51] represents many of the big events that
[9:53] we've had throughout the past few months
[9:55] recently. And on top of that, the board
[9:58] has met with different people, attended
[9:59] different meetings of boards and
[10:01] committees um to try to spread awareness
[10:04] of what this is, gather new ideas and
[10:06] support.
[10:08] So I am going to pass it off to Valerie
[10:10] who will talk a little bit more about
[10:12] the specifics of what the planning board
[10:14] is proposing.
[10:17] Great. Um so we know that we have to
[10:20] choose a location for the zoning
[10:23] district. Um so we've done a lengthy
[10:26] search really looking to do this in the
[10:28] most beneficial way possible. Um so we
[10:31] started with a map of the whole town. Um
[10:34] and on this map on the left um it's the
[10:37] land in white that can be counted toward
[10:39] our compliance. Um in green is the land
[10:42] that we are unable to consider which is
[10:44] information coming from the state and
[10:46] there are other um types of
[10:48] considerations as well in blue and in
[10:50] gray. Um, so we know we have to have
[10:53] either one area of at least 10 acres or
[10:56] two areas of at least five acres. So
[10:59] over the last year, we've um sought
[11:02] feedback from residents, members of
[11:04] boards, and committees and reviewed
[11:06] other town plans to look at what areas
[11:08] of town are preferred to conserve and
[11:11] what areas are preferred for housing
[11:13] development. So we've incorporated state
[11:16] defined excluded land and sensitive land
[11:19] and the planning board has created
[11:21] location considerations based on
[11:23] feedback and existing plans such as what
[11:25] Michael was referring to earlier. So
[11:27] we're really seeking the balance between
[11:29] the state's requirements and then
[11:30] maximizing benefits to Stow. So again we
[11:33] were looking at this full map of Stow
[11:36] and from um our review and our analysis
[11:39] we dug a little deeper into several
[11:41] different locations in Stow. So circled
[11:43] here in red are those areas that we
[11:46] investigated further. So these areas
[11:48] come from your suggestions from
[11:50] reviewing town priorities and from the
[11:52] mapping analyses. So you'll notice that
[11:55] some of these areas um do include land
[11:58] that's in the green or blue. These are
[12:00] simply areas that just kept coming up
[12:01] through your feedback. And so we wanted
[12:03] to take the time to look into them a
[12:05] little further. And I wanted to note too
[12:08] that the planning board has created
[12:09] documents that analyze each of these
[12:11] areas. So we have one document that we
[12:13] can share that indicates rationale
[12:15] against using about 20 different
[12:17] locations and a separate document to
[12:20] indicate the rationale for the proposed
[12:22] location of East Lower Village. Um so
[12:25] the output again is the location to the
[12:27] east of the lower village.
[12:33] So here, just to get you oriented a
[12:35] little bit, um, in red are the parcels
[12:38] that are within the proposed location.
[12:40] To the left is the lower village
[12:42] cemetery. Even further left off screen
[12:44] is the Shaw's Plaza and the the lower
[12:47] village. To the east or to the right of
[12:49] the map is the line with the town of
[12:51] Maynard toward Ericson's. Um this whole
[12:55] area is about 14 acres of land though
[12:58] that includes um uh wetlands and
[13:02] roadways. So once those are subtracted
[13:04] out, this is just over 12 acres of
[13:07] compliant land. Um, so this includes
[13:10] about seven parcels, three of which are
[13:12] only partly within the district and it's
[13:14] all residentially zoned land and all of
[13:17] it is within a half a mile of lower
[13:20] village which is generally considered to
[13:22] be a walkable distance. So, we've tested
[13:24] this location with the community and
[13:26] this was rated number one in a community
[13:28] survey. Um, a forum that we held in
[13:31] February and a survey that we provided
[13:34] to town boards and committees that are
[13:36] versed in land use. Um, we feel the
[13:39] proximity to lower village encourages
[13:41] economic growth. Uh, it provides access
[13:45] via great road to minimize traffic
[13:47] concerns. It encourages the smaller
[13:50] incremental growth versus a larger
[13:53] development coming in all at once. We
[13:56] know that it has proximity to
[13:57] recreation, pedestrian, and cyclist
[13:59] facilities. It's near town forest near
[14:01] the Asphet River Rail Trail. And it also
[14:04] avoids parcels with farms, um, historic
[14:07] and rural views and non-residential
[14:09] districts. And then further, we have
[14:11] confirmed that this location will meet
[14:13] the state's requirements.
[14:17] So what would the zoning article or how
[14:19] would the zoning article shape future
[14:21] development? So thinking about what can
[14:24] be controlled via local choice and what
[14:26] cannot be controlled. Um so items that we've received your input on are
[14:32] under the local choice. So we're
[14:33] allowing certain housing types through
[14:36] this bylaw which includes only duplexes,
[14:39] triplexes, and town homes up to five
[14:42] units in one structure. So this does not
[14:44] allow any type of apartment complex. Um
[14:49] we've also aligned some other
[14:52] dimensional requirements um to the
[14:54] typical residential district. So the
[14:56] building height is the same as it is in
[14:58] other areas of town limited to 35 ft.
[15:01] The setbacks, the distance between your
[15:03] home and your property line are all the
[15:05] same um as with the current residential
[15:08] district. And then we we've actually
[15:10] increased the open space component um
[15:12] from the typical because we know that's
[15:14] important to the community. What can't
[15:17] be controlled is whether or not multif
[15:19] family housing is built. That's up to
[15:21] the property owners. Um the town will
[15:24] not be selecting developers or having
[15:26] any hand in constructing homes. So the
[15:29] town is not taking property. We're
[15:31] simply adding flexibility to the land
[15:33] owners. We also can't control the size
[15:36] of the district other than increasing
[15:38] it. Um we do have that minimum
[15:41] requirement. And then we also need to
[15:43] allow the zoning up to 15 housing units
[15:45] per acre. Even though we understand that
[15:48] with current um well and septic
[15:50] regulations, we'll likely see a density
[15:52] lower than this. And again, as um as
[15:55] Michael said, um housing developed is
[15:57] subject to other types of restrictions
[15:59] and requirements such as the wetlands
[16:01] protection act, well and septic rags,
[16:04] and the building and fire codes.
[16:08] So, what does it mean for the property
[16:09] owners within the proposed district?
[16:11] Well, again, the zoning does not require
[16:13] any housing to be built. This is simply
[16:16] um an exercise in having zoning in
[16:18] place. So the property owners within the
[16:20] district don't need to make any changes
[16:22] to their property. So this just adds
[16:25] additional options if they desire to
[16:27] take action on them. So future housing
[16:30] is not needed to be constructed at that
[16:32] maximum density at the 15 units an acre.
[16:35] It could be lower than that. It's really
[16:37] the owner's choice and what might be
[16:39] possible on the land. And again, housing
[16:42] density is also restricted by um by
[16:44] other constraints such as the well and
[16:46] septic requirements.
[16:50] So, we did um you know, we wanted to
[16:53] highlight that what has changed about
[16:54] the bylaw and the location since the
[16:56] spring when we began to meet with the
[16:58] neighborhood. Um so, we did um shift
[17:02] around the location a little bit and we
[17:04] did work on um the bylaw to make sure
[17:07] that we are um producing the type of
[17:10] housing if it is constructed that um
[17:12] that the residents may be more
[17:13] supportive of. So, we continued to look
[17:15] at alternative locations as they came up
[17:18] throughout this process. Um, we shrank
[17:21] the district a bit. It used to include
[17:23] four additional parcels. Um, we modified
[17:26] the bylaw to allow residents to add
[17:28] multif family structures without making
[17:30] any changes to their existing home. We
[17:34] modified the bylaw to align the setbacks
[17:36] um to make sure that all the setbacks
[17:38] the same as the typical residential
[17:40] zoning. We incentivized landscaped
[17:43] buffers um and maintaining existing
[17:45] landscaping to the extent that we're
[17:47] able to. The state has dictated much of
[17:49] what we're allowed to do. Um so we've
[17:52] attempted to push this item as far as we
[17:55] feel we can knowing how important it is
[17:57] to stow. Um and then finally to allow
[18:00] the board to wave some elements of the
[18:02] bylaw if the development mitigates
[18:04] neighborhood concerns.
[18:09] So just in summary um to review the
[18:12] benefits of this proposal, you know, um
[18:14] we understand that no matter where the
[18:17] district is located, there are going to
[18:19] be concerns from existing residents and
[18:22] abutters. Um but we are mandated to
[18:24] create the district and we've tried to
[18:26] do this in a way that provides potential
[18:28] future benefits to the town. Um so this
[18:32] enables incremental growth. Um, we're
[18:35] locating the district near our retail
[18:37] center to offer that future support to
[18:39] economic development. Encouraging a
[18:41] walkable village. Um, locating the
[18:44] district near Lower Village to focus
[18:47] development in an existing population
[18:49] cluster, an existing neighborhood to
[18:51] avoid future sprawl and also to maintain
[18:55] our small amount of available commercial
[18:57] land to retain the existing tax
[18:59] diversity. So less than 5% of land in
[19:02] Stow is available commercial land. So
[19:05] that's land that is zoned for business
[19:07] use but does not already have housing on
[19:10] it. We're also um looking at minimizing
[19:14] the loss of open space and rural
[19:16] character which residents time and again
[19:18] tell us they value the most about living
[19:20] in Stow and also keeping this focused
[19:23] along Great Road Route 117 to minimize
[19:26] future traffic impacts. Um, Great Road
[19:28] is a principal arterial that's um,
[19:31] designed and intended to serve through
[19:33] traffic. And then lastly, um, this
[19:36] proposal meets the town's requirements
[19:38] for the state law. So, we would avoid
[19:40] legal fees and penalties.
[19:43] All right. Thank you.
[19:48] All right. Thanks, Valerie. Um, from
[19:52] here, I'm going to open it up for public
[19:54] comment and question. So, just a
[19:56] reminder again, if you could raise your
[19:58] hand, I'll call upon you. Uh, we will
[20:01] unmute you if you could then state your
[20:03] name and address and you'll have one to
[20:05] two minutes to ask questions or make
[20:07] comments. Please make those comments and
[20:09] questions to the board overall. Um, and
[20:12] we'll go from there. I do want to
[20:14] mention that I will uh attempt to call
[20:17] upon um different people first before I
[20:22] uh call on repeat um people who would
[20:26] like to make more than one comment. Um
[20:29] and so we will go from there. All right,
[20:32] let's start with RL. Uh hold on one
[20:35] second. Let us unmute you.
[20:41] All right, Raml, go ahead. Uh, please
[20:43] state your name and address.
[20:45] Hi, my name is Romel Mammud. I live on
[20:46] 32 Peabuddy Drive in Harvard Acres.
[20:49] Thank you, Lori, and thank you for the
[20:51] planning board for hosting this meeting.
[20:53] I just want to point out a few things.
[20:55] Um, some of which I included in the
[20:58] letter that I sent to you guys. I'll
[21:00] highlight some of those points here, but
[21:02] I just want to say that this pop this law is very unpopular across the
[21:05] state. it's likely going to be voted
[21:07] down at the referendum in 26. They're
[21:09] going to easily get enough signatures.
[21:12] So, the argument that incremental growth
[21:15] um you know that people don't have to
[21:17] sell, you can't make that argument and
[21:19] also say this is going to benefit the
[21:20] business district cuz you don't know if
[21:22] anybody's going to sell or how long it's
[21:24] going to take, however many decades it's
[21:26] going to take because the preference is
[21:28] it'll be incremental and slow.
[21:31] So, you know, we keep talking about the
[21:32] rural character, but the the biggest
[21:35] violations that I see from this
[21:38] selection is things that are stated in
[21:41] the recreation plan um and conservation
[21:44] plan. And the things that they
[21:46] highlight, which you guys have failed to
[21:47] acknowledge, are the scenic views in
[21:50] this district, the agricultural
[21:52] heritage. These are all things that are
[21:54] pointed out in this plan. the
[21:56] agricultural soils. There's a map in
[21:58] there that says there are agricultural
[21:59] soils on this land. Doesn't matter. Um
[22:04] there's vernal pools in this in this
[22:07] area that's also highlighted in the
[22:09] plan. And there are endangered species
[22:12] in this plan in this location and a
[22:14] drumland. So the last thing I'll say is
[22:18] we appreciate you guys having this
[22:19] meeting and I'm sure other people will
[22:20] speak up. We would like to host a debate
[22:23] with you guys where each tide gets equal
[22:26] amount of time to present their views
[22:28] because we only have a very limited
[22:30] amount of time to speak and anything we
[22:32] say is going to be rebutted by you guys
[22:35] but without us having a chance to get to
[22:37] for a rebuttal. So, at some point, at
[22:39] least a week or two before the actual
[22:41] vote, we'd like to host a public debate
[22:43] in a neutral territory where each side
[22:46] gets an equal amount of time to be fair,
[22:49] where we can debate these ideas and
[22:51] debate what we think is hasn't been the
[22:55] best process and hasn't been the best
[22:58] solution. That's it. I'll shut up.
[23:01] Thank you, Raml.
[23:05] Uh, let's go to um Brian and I'm sorry
[23:09] if I get this wrong. Mhousen.
[23:17] One second while we unmute you.
[23:20] I'm unmuted on my end.
[23:22] Okay, perfect.
[23:23] All right. So, hi. Thanks for having me.
[23:26] Brian M. Housen. You got the name right.
[23:27] Nicely done. Uh, nine Hastings Street.
[23:30] So, so I just had a few questions. Um I
[23:33] understand this MBTA uh act is sort of
[23:37] related to transit. So I was sort of
[23:39] wondering how and why it was
[23:42] not selected in an area closest to our
[23:46] uh MBA lines like in South Actton area
[23:48] or along South Aton Road. Uh why we
[23:51] selected 14 acres over the minimum of 10
[23:53] if we can't in the future do anything
[23:55] but expand. Why start greater than the
[23:58] minimum? And uh why is the old Bose
[24:02] complex, whatever that area of town is
[24:04] called, why is that not counted toward
[24:06] our requirement for the state, right?
[24:09] Why are we why are we zoning more if we
[24:11] already have multif family, etc., etc.?
[24:15] Okay, let's take uh one at a time. Um
[24:18] Valerie, do you want to take a few of
[24:21] those?
[24:22] Sure. Um so I understand that the that
[24:27] transit oriented design is certainly um
[24:30] part of this law and the the rationale
[24:33] of the state. Um they're also looking at
[24:36] um walkability. Um and so for Stowe,
[24:39] we're thinking about how do we capture
[24:42] that economic benefit um within Stow and
[24:45] not give it all away to another town.
[24:47] Um, so looking at our long-term vision
[24:50] for Lower Village as a walkable village
[24:53] center, uh, we feel that this multif
[24:56] family housing law really fits in quite
[24:58] nicely, um, with the town's vision of of
[25:02] that. Um and also we've taken we have
[25:05] taken a look at the land around um uh
[25:09] South Actton Road to understand more
[25:12] about um what is there and we've kind of
[25:16] described that a little bit further in some of our other documents but
[25:19] essentially um the land a lot of the
[25:22] land there is not eligible for this
[25:24] initiative u because of the state
[25:26] definitions of excluded land. Um and
[25:30] then there is we looked at a a portion
[25:32] of land that is uh you know not state
[25:35] excluded um but it's the location of a
[25:38] former dump. Um so so we have taken a
[25:40] look at some areas in around there but
[25:44] really thought about um you know the
[25:46] results from commu from surveys that
[25:48] we've received from the community not
[25:50] wanting to put in a new pocket of
[25:53] population elsewhere in Stow and really
[25:55] looking at um creating more density
[25:59] where there already are homes. Um so
[26:02] again trying to preserve open space
[26:04] capture the economic development and
[26:06] allow some future walkability toward
[26:09] this vision of lower village
[26:12] and I would say um you can also take a
[26:14] look at the alternatives document where
[26:16] we have outlined uh each alternate
[26:19] property that we've considered and the
[26:21] reasoning behind. Um next is really
[26:24] around the 14 acre question. Um and you
[26:28] want to take that up Valerie? Sure. Um I
[26:31] understand that one's a tough one to
[26:33] kind of um wrap our heads around too
[26:36] because it's it's not just a strict
[26:37] acreage requirement. The state has um a
[26:41] compliance model where they look at our
[26:44] specific parcels that we're zoning and
[26:46] really consider the setbacks, the
[26:49] frontage requirements, open space
[26:51] requirements, and they're doing this
[26:54] complicated calculation around our
[26:56] specific parcels um and the wetlands
[26:59] within them, the right of ways within
[27:01] them, and really trying to understand
[27:03] what what is feasible. So when we give
[27:06] them the shape of the district that
[27:08] looks like 14 acres, they kind of
[27:11] automatically subtract out a few things
[27:13] that gives them around 12 acres, right?
[27:16] And then from there, they're still
[27:18] making sure that we're meeting their
[27:20] minimum requirements. And so we have
[27:23] actually talked with our consultants
[27:24] about taking out another parcel or
[27:27] shrinking it at all. And unfortunately
[27:30] the result is that we would have to
[27:32] increase the density allowance if we
[27:34] were to shrink it closer to that 10 acre minimum. So in fact we'd have to
[27:40] go um increase from the 15 units an acre
[27:43] to something more like 16 17 18. So,
[27:47] it's hard to comprehend, but the shapes
[27:50] of the that make up the district um are essentially showing us the output of
[27:55] this model is that we cannot uh shrink
[27:58] it further without kind of tugging at
[27:59] some other levers.
[28:01] And in set a different way, it's not a
[28:04] straight 10 acre. If we zone 10 acre, it
[28:07] doesn't necessarily meet the state's
[28:08] requirements. So, we've been working
[28:10] with consultants to make sure that
[28:12] whatever we're putting forward does meet
[28:14] those state requirements which they have
[28:15] confirmed. Um, and the last part of the
[28:18] question is really around the master's
[28:19] academy and the Bose property.
[28:22] Yeah.
[28:25] Um so so for that property um in fact
[28:29] the it does the site does not meet the
[28:31] minimum area required for a district um
[28:34] because so much of that land is within a
[28:37] district called the water resource
[28:38] protection district um which requires a special permit process in order to
[28:45] protect the groundwater for existing and
[28:47] future residents. Um, and the state does
[28:50] not allow there to be a special permit
[28:52] process in conjunction with this law.
[28:55] Um, so we would essentially need to wave
[28:58] that uh process in order to locate
[29:00] housing there. And we are not
[29:02] comfortable uh waving uh a law a bylaw
[29:05] that's intended to protect groundwater
[29:08] uh for existing or future residents.
[29:12] All right. Uh with that I will go to
[29:18] the next person.
[29:20] Um let's go to
[29:23] it's believe it's Catherine although on
[29:25] RL's video.
[29:37] Sorry. Just one moment.
[29:44] Thank you, Lori. Um, it's Katherine
[29:46] Michael, 19 Great Row.
[29:50] The planning board has dismissed the use
[29:52] of unoccupied open space and instead
[29:56] chose an occupied family homes for this
[29:59] 3A site. So, I'm wondering how can you
[30:02] in good conscience justify that? In
[30:06] addition, you have told us that we don't
[30:08] really have to sell to the developer. So
[30:11] then what's the point? It would appear
[30:14] that there is some truth both in
[30:16] established Stow residents to the and to
[30:19] this both to established Stow residents
[30:22] and to the state. Your mission can't be
[30:24] accomplished unless homeowners are
[30:27] willing to leave their homes and I for
[30:30] one am not. So that is a mixed message
[30:33] for me.
[30:35] The second thing is how much actual time
[30:39] have you spent considering the turmoil
[30:41] your decision causes for families who
[30:45] are in the zone that you've targeted as
[30:48] the only site that can be designated for
[30:51] 3A housing. Because of your actions as
[30:55] trusted leaders in the town, it is very
[30:58] clear to me that you value open space
[31:02] over the rights of residents to remain
[31:06] undisturbed in their homes. And I'm
[31:08] wondering how you justify that decision.
[31:16] I can I'm going to make a few comments.
[31:18] Um
[31:21] I think we are our mission is to meet
[31:24] the minimum requirement of the state to
[31:26] create a zone.
[31:29] The benefits potential future benefits
[31:32] that are talked about is if anything
[31:34] were to happen there those benefits
[31:36] could come. But our mission is to meet
[31:39] the minimum requirement of creating a
[31:42] zoning district required by the state.
[31:45] Um again, if you uh um one of the
[31:48] criteria when you look at our
[31:49] alternatives document is that uh we
[31:53] chose not to go after open parcels
[31:56] because that would bring in
[31:59] um you know over 100 units potentially
[32:01] all at once which would have a big
[32:04] impact on Stow whereas um here very
[32:08] little could happen or slow uh change
[32:11] could happen over time. um into us that
[32:14] would essentially mitigate the impact on
[32:19] Stowe as a whole and I think as Valerie
[32:22] mentioned in the presentation we
[32:24] acknowledge we don't have a magic answer
[32:27] there is nowhere to put this where no
[32:30] abutters or property owners would be
[32:32] were not would not be upset so we
[32:35] understand that there are going to be
[32:36] upset residents and um believe me that has weighed in our discussions
[32:42] But the fact is no matter where we put
[32:44] this district, there will be upset
[32:46] abutters or property owners. And so
[32:49] again, we're looking at how do we make
[32:54] how do we achieve being compliant by
[32:56] state mandate but yet minimize the
[32:59] overall impact to Stow. Um and I'll move
[33:02] on to the next person and that would be
[33:06] Brian Martinson.
[33:13] Can you hear me?
[33:15] Yes.
[33:15] Okay. Actually, I'm going to ask a
[33:18] question about the draft bylaw itself.
[33:21] Um, so I'm looking at section 5.6.8,
[33:25] site plan approval.
[33:27] And and there are other sections in here
[33:30] about um
[33:32] uh notices uh to the planning board that
[33:35] you may confer with other boards or
[33:38] other people. But there's nowhere in
[33:41] here where you require the developer to
[33:45] provide notice to residents that they're
[33:48] thinking of doing this. And I'm
[33:50] wondering if you could put something
[33:52] like that, a clause in there so we're
[33:55] not surprised if somebody sells land and
[33:59] never hear about it. I'd request
[34:02] respectfully request you put something
[34:05] in like that. There's also I understand
[34:07] no provision here for any kind of public
[34:10] hearing.
[34:13] You could have put a uh provision in
[34:15] there where you suggest a meeting
[34:18] between uh a butters.
[34:21] Um but you haven't and I'd also request
[34:24] that you put into a clause that would
[34:27] require that as well.
[34:30] I don't think these things cost you very
[34:31] much. Um, and it would mean a lot to
[34:35] people who,
[34:37] well, me and everybody else who is in
[34:40] this district and surrounds this
[34:42] district. We don't want to be surprised
[34:45] again like we were surprised
[34:47] by this.
[34:50] Could you consider doing that?
[34:52] I guess Valerie, do you want to make a
[34:54] comment on what the state would allow?
[34:56] Um, I I think I'll just mention that both of those are included in the
[35:01] bylaw. Um so in so when we refer to
[35:06] um the planning board's rules and
[35:09] regulations for site plan approval that
[35:11] does include the public hearing
[35:13] requirement um and the notice to a
[35:16] butter iss within 300 ft.
[35:19] It doesn't say that in section 5.6
[35:23] when you have a section on site plan
[35:25] approval though. So we I understand um
[35:30] it's there is a little throughout the
[35:31] all the zoning bylaws there's a little
[35:33] bit of a hunt that that folks have to go
[35:35] on. Um but it it is um the site plan
[35:38] approval rules and regs are noted within
[35:41] section 5682 under submission
[35:44] requirements and that is the document
[35:46] that that um has the planning board
[35:49] require that the the public hearing and
[35:51] the notice to a butters.
[35:56] I guess I'll take your word for it.
[35:57] Thank you.
[35:58] We're going to go on to Laura Rainer.
[36:15] One one second. Laura, we got to unmute
[36:17] you.
[36:22] Uh Laura Reiner, 35 Red Road. I'm not in
[36:27] a butter, but I am not far away. Um it does sound as though we're trying to
[36:32] meet the letter of the law without
[36:34] really meeting the spirit of the law.
[36:37] And I think for the residents that's
[36:39] reassuring uh up to a point, but I'm
[36:42] trying to understand the mechanics of
[36:43] it. Um
[36:46] we are excluding large
[36:50] parcels of land that are undeveloped and
[36:52] are ripe for that. Um, the one I
[36:55] proposed some time ago at one of these
[36:57] hearings was the golf course that's
[37:00] currently closed on White Pond Road,
[37:03] also very close to the lower village,
[37:05] um, actually more walkable than the main
[37:08] street without a sidewalk. And,
[37:12] uh, not only is it not being used as a
[37:15] golf course, it's highly likely it's
[37:17] going to be sold to a developer for
[37:18] hundreds and hundreds of units of
[37:20] housing. So, it's it's seems to me an
[37:23] excellent c uh candidate for a spot like
[37:26] this. Um,
[37:29] but but saying setting that aside, since
[37:32] it sounds like you've kind of picked the
[37:34] spot, is it true that the an individual
[37:38] in that zone can sell to a person and it
[37:43] does not have to be developed as it
[37:45] could just be sold as a normal house and
[37:47] remain.
[37:48] That is correct.
[37:49] Yes. Okay.
[37:50] Um and that person could then turn
[37:53] around and sell it to a developer who
[37:55] would then cram it full of these 15 acre
[37:58] units to the acre, right?
[38:02] They could certainly sell it to a
[38:03] developer. Uh whether or not they can
[38:05] really create 15 units per acre would
[38:07] really depend on
[38:09] um the other requirements regarding well
[38:13] septic um wetland protection act etc.
[38:18] So this is going to be incremental based
[38:20] on any individual who sells a parcel or
[38:24] sells their unit, their their land to
[38:27] someone who actually wants to build
[38:29] these. And to what extent does this
[38:31] build affordable housing as opposed to
[38:33] luxury town houses? Say
[38:35] it's the same as our current residential
[38:38] district. um which is if they uh re
[38:44] refresh my memory Valerie, where do we
[38:46] land on the number of units?
[38:48] It's um so 10 10% of units can be deeed
[38:51] restricted affordable
[38:53] which is exactly the same as any other
[38:55] residential property.
[38:57] Okay.
[39:01] I can speak to the um the White Pond
[39:05] Road parcel too if you'd like. So Laura
[39:07] is referring to the former Stowaway um
[39:10] golf course along along White Pond Road
[39:12] which which is close to Lower Village.
[39:15] Um and it's it's interesting we this
[39:17] parcel did come up as you mentioned in
[39:19] some of the early forums. Um though it's
[39:22] also you know high priority parcel for
[39:26] conservation as well. Um and we've it's funny there's we've also heard from
[39:31] so many residents that they would far
[39:33] prefer um conserving that piece of land
[39:36] rather than seeing housing developed
[39:38] along the river there. Um so again, you
[39:42] know, the thought is if we were to zone
[39:44] it over Stowway, there's one single
[39:47] owner. Um they could convert it to
[39:49] housing all at once um quite quickly
[39:52] while Stow is within this period of
[39:54] growth. Right. We do have other
[39:56] subdivisions, other developments coming
[39:59] down the pike. Um, and we want the town
[40:01] to have um to have time to um uh to
[40:06] adapt to that as well. Um, so this is on all sorts of town plans. It's um that
[40:14] parcel is seen as development not
[40:17] preferred from plans that are um that
[40:20] have considered community input. Um, and
[40:24] it's also one of those high priority
[40:26] conservation parcels within the open
[40:28] space and wreck plan. Um, I think I'd
[40:31] also say back to your your other
[40:33] question about um what residents within
[40:37] the district can do, I do want to note
[40:38] that folks can stay within the district
[40:41] while taking advantage of it. So, uh, we
[40:44] do allow the conversion to duplexes.
[40:47] um you could add another unit on your
[40:50] property that might be larger than an
[40:52] accessory dwelling unit. Um so there's
[40:55] there is more flexibility there u for
[40:57] folks while they stay.
[41:00] And again, I just want to make one more
[41:01] plug for the alternatives document. Um
[41:04] if if you are interested in seeing all
[41:07] the parcels that were reviewed and the
[41:09] reasoning behind there, I highly
[41:10] recommend um taking a look and certainly
[41:14] bringing forth whatever questions you
[41:16] have um to the planning office. Um I'm
[41:19] going to move on to Mark Forges.
[41:26] I'm sorry I keep forgetting to unmute
[41:28] you.
[41:36] That would happen.
[41:44] Okay, Mark.
[41:45] Yeah, I'm I'm trying. I lost it for a
[41:48] minute.
[41:50] Hey, Mark Fogs, White Pond Road. Um,
[41:53] I've gone to some of the public meetings
[41:55] with this and u this is one of the the
[41:59] development areas that I thought would
[42:00] be might be a decent area. The reason is
[42:03] that there's some restrictions on the
[42:06] wells that allow only three I believe
[42:08] it's three uh three pro three houses per
[42:11] well. Uh if you got 10 different properties there, you know,
[42:18] you're allowed 30 houses rather than 15
[42:20] per per unit. My my question is is that
[42:24] if a developer were to buy uh let's say
[42:27] the the little farm that's over there
[42:29] and they could convince main to tie into
[42:32] their uh well and well and septic
[42:35] systems uh town water town sewer,
[42:40] can the town of Stow stop that or is
[42:42] that something they could just do uh if
[42:46] the town of Mus will to do that
[42:50] because that would then make it
[42:51] allowable. 15 units per per acre like the like the bylaw states,
[42:57] right? So, um so yes, Mark is uh getting
[43:01] at the point that the the water
[43:02] restriction is holding back um some
[43:06] development there. We've we have reached
[43:08] out to Mayor to to ask them this
[43:10] question. Um you know, whether whether
[43:12] they would in the future provide water
[43:15] um to some of these homes um or these
[43:18] parcels. Um they the town Maynard does
[43:21] currently provide uh utilities to to
[43:25] some homes along the town line uh within
[43:28] Stowe. Um however, right now Maynard
[43:30] does simply does not have the water um
[43:33] or the resources to allocate it to
[43:35] additional housing units, even homes
[43:37] within the town of Maynard itself. So
[43:40] they are they are not for um providing
[43:44] additional water and in fact um that
[43:46] would require a vote of their water
[43:48] board which is made up of their select
[43:50] board. Um so so the select board in
[43:53] Maynard would need to vote to approve
[43:55] something like that. Uh meanwhile their
[43:57] residents are are struggling with uh
[43:59] with their water capacity and supply.
[44:01] So, so the odds are in in a people's
[44:04] favor that there won't be 15 units per
[44:07] acre in that area because of the water
[44:09] restrictions. Um, and you're saying that
[44:12] maintenance says that they don't have
[44:13] enough water supply. So, someone
[44:15] couldn't come over. Someone couldn't
[44:16] come over and say, "Gee, let me drill
[44:17] you a new well and give you more water
[44:20] supply." Uh, then maybe vote it in. But
[44:23] that probably going to be a long
[44:25] process. Could can this My question is,
[44:27] can this town stop them from doing that?
[44:29] then who would have the authority to do
[44:31] that if they did? And it's just a
[44:33] question. I mean, I'm in favor of this
[44:35] area because I think it's got less less
[44:37] chance of being developed with 15 units
[44:39] per acre than any any place else you
[44:42] know, we talked about when in the public
[44:44] meetings. So anyway, just a just a just
[44:46] a thought.
[44:48] Yeah, to be to be honest, I don't I
[44:50] don't know what the process of rejecting
[44:52] that would be. Um I I think one thing is
[44:54] important to note too is thinking about
[44:56] what is allowed or what is possible with
[44:59] current water and cell and um and septic
[45:02] uh regulations is you know the town is
[45:05] looking to construct um six units of
[45:08] housing um at the former Canelius
[45:11] property along Redacre Road. Um and so
[45:14] they're looking to do the affordable
[45:16] housing trust is looking at creating six
[45:18] units of housing on a 9 acre parcel. So
[45:21] that's that's with um private well and
[45:24] private septic. So you you do get um
[45:27] smaller or you get a lesser density u
[45:30] with with private utilities.
[45:32] Correct. Okay. Very good. Thank you.
[45:34] All right. I'm going to go to It says
[45:38] Jen, although it looks like it may not
[45:40] be Jen. Oh, no. It is Jen. Okay.
[45:45] One second while we unmute you.
[45:49] Okay.
[45:50] I'm Jen. I'm at 60 Great Road, so
[45:52] directly across from um where this is
[45:55] being proposed. I was just wondering if
[45:57] any traffic feasibility studies have
[45:59] been done. As somebody who routinely
[46:01] pulls out onto 117, do we have bandwidth
[46:04] for hundreds of more cars to pull out at
[46:06] the same time?
[46:08] So the fact is uh with typical
[46:11] development there's a special permit
[46:13] required and the town can require the
[46:16] developer to do a traffic study but um
[46:19] with the state mandate of being this is
[46:21] development by right. Um, frankly, we
[46:25] chose Great Road because of that fact.
[46:28] Um and while I understand concern
[46:31] anywhere in town for increased traffic
[46:35] um that you know from a mathematically
[46:39] speaking um you know a 1% increase in
[46:42] traffic on great road um versus um a 50
[46:46] to 100% increase on a on a local road um
[46:50] is what we had to consider given that
[46:52] the state um does not allow any
[46:56] requirements or special permits. All
[47:01] right.
[47:03] I don't want to.
[47:04] Okay. I'm going to go to Ruth.
[47:07] One moment while we unmute you.
[47:14] Unmute. Okay. Is that Am I unmuted?
[47:17] Yes.
[47:18] I don't know how to make the camera
[47:19] work. I apologize.
[47:20] No worries.
[47:21] So, Ruth Leblanc, 33 Pompacetate.
[47:24] directly behind the proposed area on
[47:27] 117. Uh I'm kind of wondering that why
[47:32] the westbound side of 117 was chosen
[47:36] above the eastbound side in East Lower
[47:41] Village and why you didn't consider as a board as is the whole not you
[47:48] personally is the whole um board did not
[47:51] consider um expanding
[47:55] the district to the include include
[47:59] the center of Lower Village and maybe a
[48:02] little to the west of Lower Village. Why
[48:04] did you limit it?
[48:06] When you said center, do you mean the
[48:08] actual retail portion?
[48:10] Exactly. Yes.
[48:12] Okay. Um Valerie, do you want to first
[48:14] speak to the retail portion?
[48:18] Sure. Yes. Um, so we did look at um
[48:22] whether or not the the lower village
[48:25] proper, the business district itself
[48:27] could um uh could comply with this
[48:31] bylaw. Um, there are there are a couple
[48:33] different factors within um the state
[48:36] law that do not allow um the lower
[48:39] village area as as it is to um to
[48:42] comply. So, we'd have to increase the
[48:44] density, get rid of the the bedroom
[48:47] limits, um, and also let go of the
[48:51] special permit process for housing
[48:53] development within Lower Village. Um, so
[48:56] we've spent quite a bit of time, um, on
[48:58] a vision for Lower Village that includes
[49:00] a mixed use with residential and
[49:02] commercial businesses um, at once. Um we
[49:06] just went through uh we just finished a
[49:08] long uh uh public process around that um
[49:12] that really allowed the planning board
[49:13] to maintain some control over the look
[49:16] and feel of those um structures, any
[49:18] structures that would be built in the
[49:20] lower village for that long-term future.
[49:23] So if we were to put our district there,
[49:25] we would no longer be able to have that
[49:27] special permit process. Um in addition
[49:31] um we would not be able to use that area
[49:35] for more than a quarter of the town's
[49:37] total requirement. So even if we were to
[49:41] put it over the lower village, modify
[49:44] that zoning, we still would need to find
[49:46] a second area uh for more for more
[49:49] housing.
[49:51] I think in addition um we would also
[49:54] need to allow um so right now you can do
[49:59] residential on the second floor of the
[50:03] retail district. Uh but if we place this
[50:07] um in the retail district uh we would
[50:10] not be able to have that as a
[50:12] requirement and so it would likely
[50:14] shrink the retail district. Um and given
[50:17] that um you know 5% or less of our tax
[50:22] base is made up from non-residential
[50:25] uh we did not we also thought it was not
[50:28] wise to um shrink uh the retail
[50:32] district.
[50:34] Yep. That's right. We have to allow
[50:36] standalone residential
[50:38] um within within that district. But just
[50:41] to reiterate one point Valerie said,
[50:43] which is again in the state law, it
[50:46] actually limits
[50:49] uh what percentage of uh the commercial
[50:54] um space you can use for this law
[50:57] itself. Um and so that was um one of the
[51:01] biggest factors as well. Um,
[51:04] I mean, I was kind of thinking of there
[51:06] are a couple little side roads off of
[51:10] the dead center there and then west of
[51:14] lower village um where there might be
[51:17] some possibilities of areas. I'm just
[51:19] wondering why those were not considered
[51:22] just over here where it's wetlands and a
[51:26] lot of aquatic life and uh just so much
[51:30] wildlife over here that will all be
[51:31] destroyed. And I guess I want to share
[51:34] two thoughts on that and Valerie you can
[51:36] add in which is just a reminder that um
[51:39] you know wetlands protection still
[51:41] remains and so um that will still
[51:46] control a bit of what can happen near
[51:48] wetlands. Um but the other the other
[51:52] biggest factor I would say is uh most of
[51:55] the roads on the other side are uh small
[51:59] deadend culde-sac roads um which
[52:02] basically would mean increasing the
[52:05] density would increase uh traffic on
[52:08] those roads uh percentage- wise
[52:11] significantly um and because again this
[52:14] is by right um and the town doesn't get
[52:17] its normal say in um traffic flow or
[52:22] traffic study or um anything else? I
[52:25] think those were some of the um biggest
[52:28] considerations.
[52:29] Um and so Valerie, anything else you
[52:32] wanted to add?
[52:34] Yeah, I think so. We we did take a look
[52:36] at some locations along Redacre Road um
[52:39] and along Bradley Lane uh and Lan's End
[52:42] Road as well. Um, so I think we we did
[52:46] we really did focus early on on our
[52:48] village centers. So, um, Town Center,
[52:51] Lower Village, uh, we looked at
[52:53] Gleonale, we looked at, um, Hudson Road
[52:56] and Great Road. But yes, we when we
[52:58] looked all around Lower Village, um, we
[53:01] were trying to figure out what would be
[53:04] compliant land and there was a lot of
[53:06] that water resource protection area or,
[53:10] um, state excluded land. So, um, and at
[53:13] the same time really looking for, um,
[53:16] uh, traffic, uh, concerns along deadend
[53:19] roads or along, um, small, uh, local
[53:21] roads.
[53:22] And actually, if you take a look at the
[53:24] map, I think if I'm not mistaken, um,
[53:26] Meeting House and Elmidge are both in
[53:30] the water protection zone,
[53:33] right?
[53:34] Okay. Thank So, and my and the other
[53:37] part of that question is, and I'm not
[53:39] advocating for this at all. I'm just
[53:41] asking why you didn't put this zone on
[53:44] the um eastbound side of 117 across from
[53:48] where you currently have the proposed
[53:50] area.
[53:54] Uh let's see.
[53:58] Sorry, I'm looking at the map to refresh
[54:00] my memory.
[54:02] I think that if if I'm recalling, there
[54:04] may have been a time that we were
[54:05] actually thinking about both north and
[54:06] south on the westbound and eastbound.
[54:09] Um,
[54:11] but I'm I don't know if we've ever
[54:13] brought that to a a public forum.
[54:16] Um,
[54:22] all right. We can we can certainly have
[54:24] take note and uh and see.
[54:28] All right. Uh, let's see. Are there
[54:32] other
[54:35] resident
[54:36] questions or comments? Lori, all that's
[54:39] wet land across the street. Like that's
[54:42] the marsh land by the Malone Road there.
[54:45] I mean, there's it's all water there
[54:49] where all the houses are.
[54:52] Um, it looks like there's there's some
[54:54] parcels that have that that wetland
[54:56] area. Um, but there there may we'd have
[54:58] to look into a little bit more um to
[55:01] see, but there are some homes that that
[55:03] are not within it.
[55:05] Um, but we could we could look into it a
[55:08] little bit more.
[55:11] All right,
[55:14] other questions uh from people who
[55:17] haven't spoken yet.
[55:23] All right, I'm going to go back to
[55:27] some of the folks. Oh, Linda, um, you
[55:31] haven't spoken yet. Let's get her first.
[55:40] Hi, Linda.
[55:41] Hi. Thanks. Um, I just wanted to say to
[55:44] the planning board,
[55:46] sorry, can you state your name and
[55:47] address?
[55:48] Linda Hathway, 76 Crescent Street.
[55:51] obviously not within the district and I
[55:54] understand the residents concern about
[55:58] having it um this overlay district there
[56:02] but it I look at this is I'm not happy
[56:04] that the state is requiring us to do
[56:07] something like this but I think this
[56:10] particular zone gives us a some
[56:15] flexibility
[56:17] in the in the sense of anybody in the
[56:19] district if they choose to do something
[56:21] with their property, they can. No one
[56:24] has to. And
[56:27] um
[56:29] and I don't think that in my just
[56:32] thinking about how the development works
[56:34] and the well restrictions and the septic
[56:37] systems and the setbacks that these
[56:41] um parcels will ever see the full
[56:44] maximum. And even if we can only get a
[56:47] few units, it's better than nothing. And
[56:51] so I I I really do appreciate the
[56:54] planning board's thoughtfulness and
[56:56] taking all this information in and um
[57:00] providing this um as an area uh for the
[57:04] development. It does make a lot of sense
[57:07] and I do understand the residents in the
[57:10] districts, their concern. Um, but I
[57:14] really I mean they don't have to sell
[57:16] and they don't have to develop and it
[57:20] will be slow and incremental and I truly
[57:22] believe that. I've lived in town a long
[57:23] time and I've seen the issues and um I I
[57:28] don't want us to lose grants if this
[57:29] gets voted down. I don't want to have
[57:31] the town um you know lose a lot of
[57:33] funding and I I really do appreciate the
[57:36] planning board's um work on this.
[57:41] Thank you, Linda. All right, I'm gonna
[57:43] go back to Brian M. Housen.
[57:51] Thanks, Brian Mhousen. Nine Hastings
[57:53] Street. I'm in that area just on the
[57:55] other side of the street there. Um, so I
[57:58] just wanted to raise another question
[58:00] about what what came up when I asked my
[58:02] first question, which is why not closer
[58:04] to the MBTA, right? if if the idea is to
[58:07] create low-income housing close to
[58:09] transit, not necessarily like close to
[58:12] our tiny little mall that doesn't really
[58:14] seem to be going anywhere. Um,
[58:18] why and and and then we didn't get to
[58:20] didn't really get an answer on why we
[58:22] didn't count the town homes that we
[58:25] already have over by the old Bose
[58:27] property. I I meant to reuse those sort
[58:29] of already exist home. understand that
[58:33] and I understand why you don't and I
[58:35] understand why you don't want to like
[58:36] the wealthy land owners down by the
[58:38] river don't want to look at the
[58:39] low-income housing
[58:40] um there but and give those low-inccome
[58:44] housing a nice view of the river. I
[58:46] understand that too. So, but it doesn't
[58:48] seem like this was really selected for
[58:50] anything other than development of the
[58:51] lower village which doesn't really seem
[58:53] to be developing. It seems to be ant
[58:55] like going backwards.
[58:58] Thank you. That's all
[59:00] that way. Can you comment on
[59:03] the housing near the old Boris property?
[59:08] Um yes. So we we cannot count existing homes
[59:14] toward it simply because we have um
[59:17] other other housing developments. Um you
[59:20] know we can't say that we've um provided
[59:23] our our multif family requirements.
[59:25] What do you mean we haven't met the
[59:27] multif family zoning by having multif
[59:28] family housing there?
[59:30] No. Um, unfortunately. So, you
[59:38] Okay.
[59:38] It has to be new.
[59:42] I don't know.
[59:43] Okay.
[59:44] It doesn't seem great.
[59:46] I'm going to move to Brian Martinson.
[59:58] Hold on, Brian. We haven't unmuted you
[1:00:00] yet. Sorry.
[1:00:10] Okay. Am I unmuted?
[1:00:11] Yes.
[1:00:12] I I have a comment uh and and a question. There's
[1:00:16] been a lot of commentary and not a whole
[1:00:18] lot of questions. So, you could place uh
[1:00:21] a 3A in on top of an existing
[1:00:25] multifamily neighborhood.
[1:00:28] Many other towns have done that. We
[1:00:30] could have done that.
[1:00:33] I know that people there living there
[1:00:35] wouldn't like it just as people who live
[1:00:38] in the East Lower Village don't like it.
[1:00:40] But you could have done that. So that's
[1:00:43] my comment. My question is
[1:00:46] I as you know I'm not happy with with
[1:00:51] the direction that the planning would
[1:00:52] take and and I've been very evocal about
[1:00:55] it. you did an analysis of where you
[1:00:58] looked at 20 or so sites.
[1:01:01] And when I read this analysis,
[1:01:06] it's like a a a a neverending
[1:01:12] list of why it would be impossible to
[1:01:15] put a 3A zone there.
[1:01:19] And then I look at the one that you
[1:01:21] prepared for the East Lower Village.
[1:01:25] and you don't have any negative impacts
[1:01:27] on the at least East Lower Village. All
[1:01:31] you list is why this is the only place
[1:01:34] in town that you could put such a
[1:01:37] district. And if you read it, I think
[1:01:39] you will see that. Do you think that was
[1:01:42] a fair way to evaluate these sites?
[1:01:48] you we there's a lot of negative reasons
[1:01:51] why the East Lower Village shouldn't
[1:01:53] have been considered, but you didn't
[1:01:55] consider that. All you considered, if
[1:01:58] this is true, are all the reasons why
[1:02:00] it'd be a great place.
[1:02:03] Why did you decide that? Why didn't you
[1:02:06] not look at the uh uh negative impacts?
[1:02:10] Certainly our residents, village
[1:02:12] residents have been giving you all the
[1:02:14] negative impacts that they feel, but you
[1:02:16] didn't consider them. Why not?
[1:02:19] So I I don't mean for that document to
[1:02:21] be interpreted as not considering the
[1:02:24] negative. That document is intended to
[1:02:26] be our argument for
[1:02:28] Oh, why didn't you do a fair comparison
[1:02:31] among all the sites, including the East
[1:02:33] Lower Village? Again, the alternatives
[1:02:35] document is trying to be transparent at
[1:02:38] the reasons why we didn't choose. Now,
[1:02:40] some of those are
[1:02:43] hard and strict in terms of um the
[1:02:46] states excluded land and some of those
[1:02:49] are choices and criteria that we
[1:02:51] applied. So again, the alternatives
[1:02:55] document is meant to show you what our
[1:02:59] decision criteria was or why we excluded
[1:03:01] it. And the other document is meant to
[1:03:03] show you why we chose uh East Lower
[1:03:06] Village. Um
[1:03:08] yeah, clearly that's what it was. Do you
[1:03:10] think that's kind of a fair way to
[1:03:13] analyze individual properties and um
[1:03:17] look at the costs and benefits and pick
[1:03:19] the right one?
[1:03:22] you haven't
[1:03:23] I think if you take a step back and look
[1:03:25] at the larger greater criteria we
[1:03:28] applied in terms of not wanting to be a
[1:03:31] local road because of significant
[1:03:33] traffic impact from a percentage
[1:03:37] standpoint, not wanting it to be a large
[1:03:40] all at once uh development and really
[1:03:43] taking the input from citizens of town
[1:03:46] um not only in preferred location but
[1:03:49] also in um what they wanted to protect.
[1:03:54] That's those are the criteria that come
[1:03:56] across. That's what you see.
[1:03:58] Okay. I I I'm by the way, Brian, across
[1:04:02] the street. I'm I I agree with you
[1:04:05] entirely. And my preferred site is the
[1:04:08] one on South Actton Road. It's perfectly
[1:04:11] developable.
[1:04:13] There's no reasons. It's not a landfill.
[1:04:15] Nobody is proposing to build on that
[1:04:19] landfill. there's plenty of acreage
[1:04:21] beside it. Um, the water resource
[1:04:25] protection zone, that's a bogus issue.
[1:04:28] You could very easily site a driveway
[1:04:31] over that. It wouldn't require special
[1:04:35] permit necessarily. In fact, if you
[1:04:38] wrote it in here, it wouldn't require a
[1:04:39] special permit at all. So, there's no
[1:04:42] legitimate reason why you can't consider
[1:04:44] that. Plus, it's within walking
[1:04:47] distance, a half mile.
[1:04:49] of the train station. I think that's the
[1:04:53] best site for for Stow.
[1:04:56] All right. Well, thank you.
[1:05:00] Any other uh
[1:05:03] let's do uh Ruth. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, no.
[1:05:07] J. Yeah, Ruth
[1:05:09] and Jim. We'll get back to you.
[1:05:12] Hi. Thanks. This is Ruth. Um, so I know,
[1:05:17] um, I've come to understand that a lot
[1:05:20] of the reasoning for this area, East
[1:05:23] Lower Village, is for to create a
[1:05:25] vibrant lower village business district
[1:05:28] and walkability. Um, and you cannot walk
[1:05:32] from the proposed site to um the
[1:05:36] business district at all. So, I know and
[1:05:39] it's been said before that it may
[1:05:42] incentivize a developer to put in a
[1:05:44] sidewalk, but if you're leaving it up to
[1:05:47] say one homeowner who decides they want
[1:05:50] to sell or one homeowner who decides to
[1:05:54] build a second unit on their property or
[1:05:58] two units on their property, they're not
[1:06:00] going to put in a sidewalk. So it's not
[1:06:04] isn't going to make it any walk there's
[1:06:06] no walkability with this plan.
[1:06:10] So Val
[1:06:11] about the state.
[1:06:13] Yes. Um so the state has opened up a
[1:06:16] capital grant source for towns that are
[1:06:19] compliant with MBTA communities. And
[1:06:22] given that it's long been been a
[1:06:24] priority of the town to construct a
[1:06:26] sidewalk from lower village um to the
[1:06:29] Maynard town line, um I feel that this
[1:06:32] would be a great grant application to
[1:06:33] the state so that the town could um work
[1:06:36] on its own behalf to get a sidewalk at
[1:06:38] that location.
[1:06:41] All right, let's go to Moren's iPad.
[1:06:58] Sorry.
[1:07:00] Um, this may be a stupid question. I'm
[1:07:02] not sure.
[1:07:02] If you can just state your name and
[1:07:03] address first.
[1:07:04] Oh, sorry. Marin Vanesse, 55 Pompacet.
[1:07:08] Um, I know the state's goal is to create
[1:07:12] more housing because we know in
[1:07:13] Massachusetts we're low on housing. Um,
[1:07:17] is there any way that the state could
[1:07:19] change its mind and take this property,
[1:07:23] these properties by imminent domain?
[1:07:28] Has anybody
[1:07:30] asked town council or researched that at
[1:07:33] all? I don't know. Maybe, as I say,
[1:07:34] maybe that is a stupid question. I'm not
[1:07:37] sure, but I'm just curious.
[1:07:39] That is that is not the state's intent.
[1:07:42] No, they they do not own any of this
[1:07:44] land. They are not looking to acquire
[1:07:46] land. Um in in fact the state is looking
[1:07:50] at um at some properties that they own
[1:07:52] across the state for housing but it is
[1:07:54] not this type of land. It's the dam
[1:07:57] owned land.
[1:07:58] Right. I know but I know that well as
[1:08:01] far as the construction of the the
[1:08:04] bridge in um the Sagamore Bridge that
[1:08:07] people that are living near the bridge
[1:08:10] their properties are being taken by
[1:08:12] imminent domain. I I know that's a
[1:08:15] roadway and a bridge and it's different,
[1:08:18] but I just wanted to make sure that
[1:08:20] there's no way the state could change
[1:08:22] its mind and decide, well, we need this
[1:08:25] housing and too bad.
[1:08:29] The state has not indicated at all that
[1:08:31] they are looking to become um housing
[1:08:33] developers in this way. No. Okay.
[1:08:35] Thank you. Let's go to Jenny.
[1:08:52] Hello.
[1:08:54] Yes.
[1:08:55] Hello.
[1:08:56] Yes.
[1:08:58] Hi. Actually, this is Dorothy Granite,
[1:09:01] 11 White Pond Road, and um I guess this
[1:09:05] is a comment. Um,
[1:09:08] I at this point uh
[1:09:12] feel like
[1:09:14] the thought
[1:09:19] Dorothy, you're breaking up a little
[1:09:21] bit. Um, and we can't hear you.
[1:09:23] The area being where it is walkability
[1:09:26] to that.
[1:09:28] Just a moment. Can you hear me now? Is
[1:09:31] this better?
[1:09:31] Yes.
[1:09:32] Hello. Guess not.
[1:09:33] Yes. Okay. All right. Um
[1:09:36] I feel that um the comment about the
[1:09:40] area closer to the train station is
[1:09:43] pretty valid. I also wanted to comment
[1:09:46] as someone who's near there but not
[1:09:48] abuing to the proposed place. The um
[1:09:53] comments regarding they don't have to
[1:09:54] develop. I don't think so many of the
[1:09:57] people worried about themselves
[1:09:59] developing. It's what's going to happen
[1:10:01] right beside them. Also, the other
[1:10:04] comment is where it's proposed that you
[1:10:07] want this so we can help develop a
[1:10:10] lockable area like in our lower village.
[1:10:14] that was said a lot when the new zoning
[1:10:17] for the uh lower village business
[1:10:19] district was and the road that I was
[1:10:22] that I live on was touted as the
[1:10:24] pedestrian walkway because it connects
[1:10:28] track road the asabet wildlife and the
[1:10:32] bike path to the town but after that was
[1:10:35] passed then the permit was given for a a
[1:10:40] property owner that
[1:10:44] developed without without following his
[1:10:47] original permit and it's turned White
[1:10:49] Pawn Road into a nonfriendly spot for
[1:10:54] the pedestrians. So, it just leaves me
[1:10:57] feeling
[1:11:00] do we believe like this is great for
[1:11:02] pedestrians because it didn't show that
[1:11:04] that's where the followrough was with
[1:11:06] the last two for pedestrian downtown.
[1:11:10] That's my comment. Thank you, Dorothy.
[1:11:14] Okay, we are well past the hour. Um, so
[1:11:18] I'm going to see if we can take any last
[1:11:20] comments and then we'll see if the board
[1:11:23] wants to close the hearing or not. Um,
[1:11:25] so Ruth
[1:11:31] um
[1:11:32] Ruth the Blank 33 PMP Pacific Street.
[1:11:35] Um, I don't have any other comments
[1:11:39] except that I would really like to um
[1:11:42] revisit this again
[1:11:44] uh and find some more open space that
[1:11:47] can be developed where we won't be
[1:11:49] destroying a lot of uh wildlife and
[1:11:51] woods. Thank you for hosting this.
[1:11:55] Thank you, Ruth.
[1:11:58] Okay. Um, so going to open up to the
[1:12:01] playing board to see. Um, Nancy, um,
[1:12:06] just in response to some of the
[1:12:08] comments, I'm just curious, um, Valerie,
[1:12:12] because you've followed the whole
[1:12:13] process, if a new site was to be
[1:12:17] introduced,
[1:12:19] and I know the process going through the
[1:12:22] state is is quite complicated for
[1:12:25] approval before a town meeting. would it
[1:12:27] even fall within the time frame of what
[1:12:31] is left before the deadline?
[1:12:34] Thank you for for asking that so I have
[1:12:36] a moment to clarify. Um appreciate it.
[1:12:39] So um if the planning board opted to go
[1:12:42] with a different location um we would uh
[1:12:46] we would not be able to present at
[1:12:48] October town meeting. Um I you know it
[1:12:52] took the board this is I think month 13
[1:12:54] since we really started this process in
[1:12:56] depth. Um so took us 13 months to get
[1:13:00] here. I can't say how long it may take
[1:13:02] us to potentially find a secondary
[1:13:05] location. Um but we have until the end
[1:13:07] of this year to comply with the state's
[1:13:09] law. So we have 3 months left uh four
[1:13:12] months left. Um, so
[1:13:14] and that includes the pre-submissions
[1:13:16] that we have to give them on the way to
[1:13:19] getting things approved by them. Right.
[1:13:21] Yes. We've been working with the state's office of um livable
[1:13:27] communities um the AG's office, town
[1:13:30] council, multiple different consulting
[1:13:32] firms um on on this effort. So
[1:13:35] yeah, I just wanted to check
[1:13:38] other playing board member comments or
[1:13:40] questions.
[1:13:46] I did I did actually want to just bring
[1:13:48] up one other um item regarding the
[1:13:52] sighting of housing in near that
[1:13:54] landfill. Um we did receive uh written
[1:13:57] comments from the state that landfills
[1:13:59] are not appropriate sites for 3A
[1:14:01] districts. So I did ask them
[1:14:03] specifically about that site off of
[1:14:05] South Actton Road. Um so given given
[1:14:08] that the state commented that um I am
[1:14:11] unclear uh you know it seems that they
[1:14:14] would reject that location in the
[1:14:16] future.
[1:14:21] M
[1:14:22] um can you just clarify? There was one
[1:14:25] speaker who um seemed to indicate that
[1:14:29] it was his impression that all this
[1:14:31] housing was going to be affordable. Can
[1:14:33] you just clarify that and make that
[1:14:35] really clear uh what the actual is going
[1:14:38] to happen there?
[1:14:39] Yes, thank you. So this is um this is uh
[1:14:43] in intended as any other housing
[1:14:45] development. So, um there's only 10% um
[1:14:49] of housing if if homes were to be
[1:14:52] developed, only 10% would be required to
[1:14:54] be deed restricted affordable. So,
[1:14:56] that's typical to any other subdivision.
[1:14:59] Um so, this is not intended as um like
[1:15:01] the low lowincome housing. Um so, it's only 10% that would be deed
[1:15:06] restricted.
[1:15:07] And again, that wouldn't kick in unless
[1:15:09] they were building at least how many
[1:15:11] units?
[1:15:13] At least 10 units,
[1:15:14] right? So if they were sticking to less
[1:15:17] than 10 units, uh there would actually
[1:15:19] not be affordable
[1:15:21] units,
[1:15:24] meaning just so everybody um is clear,
[1:15:27] that would be the state defined
[1:15:29] deed deed restricted affordable units.
[1:15:33] Um
[1:15:36] okay. Um any other comments or questions
[1:15:39] from the board?
[1:15:45] All right. Um, Brian, I know you have
[1:15:47] your hand up. Uh, so the question is, is
[1:15:49] there something new you wanted to share
[1:15:52] before we close? One second. We haven't
[1:15:54] unmuted you.
[1:16:01] Yeah. I'd like to seek some
[1:16:02] clarification on something. Can you hear
[1:16:05] me?
[1:16:05] Yes.
[1:16:06] Okay, good. So Valerie, um,
[1:16:10] regarding the South Actton road site,
[1:16:12] um, you frequently raise this issue of
[1:16:15] the landfill and that, uh, the state
[1:16:19] wouldn't allow something on a former
[1:16:21] landfill.
[1:16:24] We haven't even been talking about
[1:16:26] acreage that is on top of the landfill.
[1:16:29] we've been talking about or suggesting
[1:16:32] and you guys have suggested it as well
[1:16:34] at one time that acreage which isn't
[1:16:37] part of the landfill.
[1:16:39] So
[1:16:41] are you deliberately trying to confuse
[1:16:43] things for people because it seems that
[1:16:46] way?
[1:16:48] Um uh no again I think if people look at
[1:16:51] the alternatives document we do outline
[1:16:54] overall the entire parcel why we did not
[1:16:58] choose that parcel and there are
[1:17:00] multiple reasons. So again the reason
[1:17:03] why we created the alternatives document
[1:17:05] is so that it would be transparent the
[1:17:08] reasons why we did not choose various
[1:17:10] parcels. So again,
[1:17:15] there's very little much of the land
[1:17:18] along South Actton Road is state defined
[1:17:20] excluded. So when folks have referred to
[1:17:23] the South Actton Road land at the at the
[1:17:27] um town line that that is the land that
[1:17:30] we have been looking at which is on page
[1:17:32] 14 of that document. So I I am not
[1:17:35] intending to confuse the matter. I'm I
[1:17:38] am fully feeling as though I'm
[1:17:40] addressing the concern.
[1:17:41] Again, that land included both the what
[1:17:45] was the former dump as well as the land
[1:17:48] adjacent to the former dump which has no
[1:17:51] frontage on South Aton Road um without
[1:17:56] going over the water resource protection
[1:17:59] area. And again, there are multiple
[1:18:01] reasons possible. Everybody can go and
[1:18:03] look at the alternatives document and
[1:18:05] see the reasons we said and again I we
[1:18:08] never said
[1:18:10] a lot of the properties on the
[1:18:12] alternatives it was not possible what we
[1:18:15] and none of them were submitted by the
[1:18:16] state so we can't say for sure but what
[1:18:19] we did say is that we've we've looked at
[1:18:21] them and discussed them and put our
[1:18:23] reasons forward of why we did not put
[1:18:25] those pieces of property forward again
[1:18:29] um that there's a link to thatter
[1:18:32] alternative document as well as a link
[1:18:34] to the reasons why we we did choose what
[1:18:37] we did choose.
[1:18:38] Yeah, I understand that. Um, and I've
[1:18:42] read all those documents, but the
[1:18:45] planning board respectively, you've
[1:18:47] known that this was a con controversial
[1:18:50] selection from at least since March of
[1:18:53] this year, and you had plenty of time uh
[1:18:57] to maybe provide an alternative or to
[1:19:00] give people a choice at town meeting.
[1:19:02] Would you like this area or this area?
[1:19:04] But you decided not to do that. And I'm
[1:19:07] wondering why you didn't allow or didn't
[1:19:10] pursue two potential options to give the
[1:19:13] town a choice because I think most
[1:19:15] people if you were to ask them would you
[1:19:18] like to have a 3A development on top of
[1:19:20] your residential neighborhood? I think
[1:19:22] most people would say hell no.
[1:19:25] And there is no residences on some of
[1:19:27] these sites.
[1:19:29] And if if
[1:19:32] I I don't know why you didn't do that.
[1:19:34] Can you explain why you didn't?
[1:19:37] Again, I think our foundation actually
[1:19:39] touches upon some of the areas. One
[1:19:42] being we are choosing incremental
[1:19:44] development over a large development as
[1:19:47] well as protecting open space which
[1:19:49] multiple
[1:19:51] uh you know the through resident
[1:19:53] engagement and multiple town plans and
[1:19:56] boards and committees uh have basically
[1:19:59] said and given input that they uh would
[1:20:02] prefer to keep those open. Um, so
[1:20:06] but you never engaged. Okay, I'm not
[1:20:08] going to sit here and debate you except
[1:20:10] to say that we can acknowledge that no
[1:20:13] matter where we put this, they will be
[1:20:15] upset property owners and abutters. And
[1:20:19] I don't think we have um tried to hide
[1:20:22] that fact um that we understand that
[1:20:26] there are set abutters and property
[1:20:28] owners and we expect that no matter
[1:20:31] where this goes even if it is on open
[1:20:34] space by the way there will be a lot of
[1:20:35] abutters to that open space. So I just
[1:20:38] wanted to say that. Um, with that, I
[1:20:42] guess I would ask the board if um we're
[1:20:46] ready to close the hearing.
[1:20:54] Actually, Lori, can I make a comment
[1:20:57] about
[1:20:58] Brian's comment? And I and I'd say that
[1:21:00] I mean we did look at lots of
[1:21:02] alternatives and we did present those
[1:21:05] alternatives to a information meeting
[1:21:08] where we got input from at least the
[1:21:11] people that were there of what their
[1:21:13] priorities were and also we the board
[1:21:16] has talked about the possibility of
[1:21:19] presenting two locations at town meeting
[1:21:23] and we thought that was
[1:21:26] very risky because how do you manage
[1:21:29] that uh and know whether or not
[1:21:34] hopefully at least one of them would
[1:21:36] pass and a town meeting that would be
[1:21:39] very risky and I think that was why
[1:21:41] certainly I thought that wasn't a good
[1:21:44] strategy to try to put two zones uh up
[1:21:48] as a proposal at town meeting.
[1:21:51] Yeah, I agree with John. I I can't
[1:21:54] imagine coming to going to town meeting
[1:21:57] with two proposals because one
[1:21:58] neighborhood's going to be pointing to
[1:22:00] the other neighborhood and you'll get
[1:22:02] nowhere.
[1:22:04] Exactly.
[1:22:08] Right. Um with that, I'll take a motion
[1:22:12] to close the hearing.
[1:22:14] I move to close the hearing.
[1:22:17] Second.
[1:22:19] All right. Any other discussion before
[1:22:22] we close the hearing?
[1:22:24] I just make uh ask is there other
[1:22:28] opportunities
[1:22:29] for us to get public input and if there
[1:22:33] are we should just tell people about
[1:22:34] them
[1:22:38] are there or or are there not?
[1:22:42] Um we will be doing additional outreach.
[1:22:44] Um but because we need to have the we
[1:22:48] need to uh finalize the bylaw and the
[1:22:50] location um there this really is the
[1:22:53] last um opportunity for input that would
[1:22:56] shape the bylaw or location.
[1:22:59] And of course, I mean, people could
[1:23:01] always join our planning board meetings
[1:23:04] which are open to anybody who wants to
[1:23:05] come and I'm sure this will be continued
[1:23:09] to be discussed at some of them.
[1:23:12] Continued to be discussed.
[1:23:13] Yes.
[1:23:15] Um just one thing I want to add before
[1:23:17] we close is that
[1:23:20] um I think Valerie's slide um I know we
[1:23:24] went over it quickly but um this process
[1:23:27] has been going on for a long time and I
[1:23:30] can tell you that we we have done more
[1:23:33] engagement on this process than probably
[1:23:36] any other
[1:23:38] zoning change we have. Um, again, it's
[1:23:42] been going on for a year. The people in
[1:23:45] the district were notified, I believe,
[1:23:47] in March. Correct me if I'm wrong. Um,
[1:23:50] and so we've been and and we've actually
[1:23:53] held um individual sessions and and
[1:23:57] invited uh property owners and butters
[1:23:59] to those sessions as well. So besides
[1:24:02] the in uh initial public process um
[1:24:06] which again was more expensive than any
[1:24:09] other zoning change we've had we've also
[1:24:11] had specific sessions with the butters.
[1:24:14] Um so just putting that out there for
[1:24:16] everyone to know. Um we have had a
[1:24:19] motion we have had a second. Any other
[1:24:22] comments from the planning board about
[1:24:23] closing the hearing?
[1:24:29] All right. If not, I will take a roll
[1:24:31] call vote on closing the hearing. Nancy
[1:24:34] I.
[1:24:35] Meg.
[1:24:36] I.
[1:24:37] Karen.
[1:24:38] I.
[1:24:39] John.
[1:24:40] I.
[1:24:41] And I. All right. Thank you everyone for
[1:24:44] attending.