[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.

Stow Planning Board Hearing- Zoning for Multifamily Housing 9.9.25

Transcript