The Raynham Channel
Welcome to Raynham Community Access & Media (RAYCAM), where we engage, learn, and create community access media. We are dedicated to providing a platform for all voices to be heard and shared. Join us in creating a vibrant and inclusive media community.
The Raynham Channel
Planning Board 04/03/2025
(Episode Description is AI generated and may be errors in accuracy)
Facing a state mandate that could cost Raynham in essential grants, the Planning Board takes decisive action to maintain local control while complying with Massachusetts' 3A Multi-Family Development Overlay District requirements.
After efficiently handling site plan approvals for commercial projects, the Board tackles the challenging housing mandate requiring the town to zone at for high-density residential development with a minimum capacity of 750 units. Rather than passively accepting state intervention, town officials collaborated with regional planning experts to develop a strategic solution.
The innovative approach? Placing the overlay district primarily on Walmart properties along Routes 44 and 138. As Vice Chairman Matthew Andre explains, this creates "a higher barrier to entry" compared to designating vacant land, potentially deterring immediate development while still satisfying state requirements. The bylaw also incorporates an affordable housing component to maintain the town's safe harbor status against unwanted Chapter 40B developments.
Town Administrator Greg Barns emphasizes the critical nature of compliance: "Should we not do something, the state will do it for us." The stakes include millions in grants funding fire services, elder care, infrastructure, and more. This follows unsuccessful legal challenges by other municipalities, with the state reinforcing these mandates through emergency legislation.
Though Planning Board members openly acknowledge their reluctance about the mandate, they recognize the importance of maintaining local influence rather than surrendering control entirely. As one board member notes, "We're trying to propose the parcels for the public to vote on. It's inevitably the public's decision."
The final decision rests with voters at the upcoming Town Meeting, where only a simple majority is required—unlike the two-thirds typically needed for zoning changes. Want to shape Raynham's future? Make your voice heard at Town Meeting on these critical zoning decisions.
https://www.raynhaminfo.com/
Copyright RAYCAM INC. 2024
OKAY, folks, we're ON THE AIR. We're OPENING UP THE APRIL 3, 2025 PLANNING BOARD RAINHAM PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6 O'CLOCK. The MEETING IS LIVE BROADCAST ON THE CONCAST CHANNEL 98, verizon CHANNEL 34. It's ALSO RECORDED BY RAINHAM CHANNEL 98, verizon CHANNEL 34. It's ALSO RECORDED BY RAYHAM, the RAYHAM CHANNEL. Some DAYS AFTER THE MEETING. You CAN SEE IT ON YOUTUBE. You GO TO THEIR WEBSITE FIRST. Well, I'm CHRIS GALLAGHER. I'm THE CHAIRMAN. To MY RIGHT IS MATTHEW ANDRE. He's THE VICE CHAIRMAN. To HIS RIGHT IS ANTHONY NICOLI, planning BOARD MEMBER AND CIRCUIT REP. To MY LEFT IS BURKE FOUNDEN, the MEMBER, and TO HIS LEFT IS BRIAN. I MEAN BRIAN OLSHILL CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER. The FIRST THING WE HAVE IS THE MINUTES OF MARCH 20TH. Do YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO ORDER, bur? I MAKE A MOTION TO REWAVE THE READING AND APPROVE COMMITMENT. Do I HEAR A SECOND SECOND? Is THERE ANY DISCUSSION? Hearing NONE. All IN FAVOR.
Speaker 3:AYE.
Speaker 1:OKAY, I'm GOING TO TAKE A FEW THINGS OUT OF ORDER. The WAY I GENERALLY RUN A MEETING IS IF THERE'S A HEARING OR AN AGENDA ITEM, you KNOW, I INITIALLY DISCUSS IT, then I HAND IT OVER TO MY BOARD MEMBERS, one AT A TIME. After WE'RE DONE WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON IT, then I OPEN IT UP TO THE APPLICANT OF HIS REPRESENTATIVE OR, in THE CASE OF LIKE, a ZONING AMENDMENT, like COMING UP to 3A, I open it up to the public. In all cases, when anyone wants to speak, they have to raise their hand, come up to the podium and state their name, address and then present their project or present their comments. I'm going to takeENDMENT 3A. We're GOING TO PUT THAT OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE WE HAVE A FEW SMALL ITEMS WE'D LIKE TO CLEAN UP AT 6.05,. We HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. So IN THE MEANTIME ONE ITEM I HAVE IS A MASTERY IKEA CERTIFICATE OF ACTION.
Speaker 1:We HAD A SITE PLAN APPROVAL. It WAS ALL VOTED ON. There WERE CERTAIN WAIVERS THAT WE'D LIKE TO REVOTE ON AND ALSO VOTE ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL. The WAIVERS WERE SECTION 4.7 AND 5.1, waiver FROM REQUIREMENTS OF PROVIDING LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SITE PLAN LIGHTING, and THIS PLAN WAS JUST A SMALL ADDITION ON AN EXISTING MUCH LARGER BUILDING SECTION 4.21 AND 5.2. Waiver FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROVIDING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN FROM SITE LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS SECTION 4.22. Waiver FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY SECTION 6-0, a WAIVER FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVIDING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT STATEMENT. That WAS THE END OF THE WAIVERS. I LOOK TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GRANT THOSE WAIVERS AS READ, so MOVED. Is THERE ANYTHING FOR SECOND, second, second, any DISCUSSION HEARING?
Speaker 5:NONE, ALL IN FAVOR.
Speaker 1:AYE OKAY IN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL. Condition ONE SITE WORK SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ALL FEDERAL, state AND LOCAL PERFORMANTS ARE ISSUED. 2. Erosion control measures shall be installed as shown on the approved plan to prevent sediment from tracking onto 44 adjacent properties in the wetlands. 3. All project review and legal notice fees shall be paid in full prior to endorsement of the plan and the minimum balance of $1,000 must be maintained in the review account for as-built review and site inspections FOR AS BUILT REVIEW AND SITE INSPECTIONS.
Speaker 1:Four PRIOR TO ENDORSEMENT OF THE PLAN, the APPLICANT SHALL PHOTOCOPY THE STATISTIC OF ACTION ONTO THE COVER PAGE OR ADD A PLAN SHEET WITH A PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATISTIC OF ACTION TO THE SET OF PLAN SHEETS. Five THE PLAN SHALL BE ENDORSED BY THE PLANNING BO to the issuance of a building permit. Six the special permit shall be recorded in the Registry of Deeds, bristol County, north District, and the applicant must furnish the planning board with a copy of recording prior to the issuance of the building permit. Number seven all revisions are subject to review and approval by the Rainham Planning Board and its consultant review engineer. 7, all REVISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE RAINHAND PLANNING BOARD AND ITS CONSULTANT REVIEW ENGINEER. And LAST, number 8, the RAINHAND PLANNING BOARD SHALL RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND THIS SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHOULD PROJECT DESION TO APPROVE THOSE CONDITIONS AS READ SO MOVED. Is THERE A SECOND SECONDED MOVED ANY DISCUSSION HEARING NONE ALL IN FAVOR? Aye NOW, this WAS ALREADY SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL PERMIT ALREADY VOLATIED. So IN THIS INSTANCE.
Speaker 6:Since YOU'VE READ THROUGH THE WHOLE THING, I SUGGEST THAT YOU REAPPROVE IT AS AN ABBREVIATED SITE. Plan AND SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVAL OKAY.
Speaker 1:IN THAT CASE I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE 1555 NEW STATE HIGHWAY, brainham, assessors, map 16, lot 61B AND 61C PLANNING BOARD, file NUMBER SSP 2025-3, mastery IKEA DEALERSHIP. So THAT WOULD BE APPROVED WITH BOTH THE SPECIAL PERMIT AND THE SITE PLAN. Do I HEAR A MOTION? So MOVED, second, seconded, any DISCUSSION HEARING NOTION? So MOVED, second, seconded, any DISCUSSION HEARING NONE? All IN FAVOR? Aye, okay, that's OUT OF THE WAY. We're AT 6.05, so I'M GOING TO TAKE THE 1.40 BROADWAY OUT OF ORDER. This IS A PUBLIC HEARING. This WAS NOT OFFICIALLY APPROVED BUT WE WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PLAN AND I THINK WE WERE ALL PRETTY SATISFIED. I'm NOT SPEAKING FOR EVERYONE, but YOU KNOW THAT'S THE FEELING I HAVE. So WE HAVE A DRAFT CERTIFICATE OF ACTION WITH A SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY SPECIAL PERMIT. We have a draft certificate of action with a site plan approval by special permit. It has conditions. So what I think I'm going to do is read the conditions. Well, actually, I'm not going to read the conditions. They were identical to what was just read as the mastery of site plan of eight conditions. I think I vote on the conditions and ask if anyone in the planning board has any issues.
Speaker 1:Mastria SITE PLAN OF EIGHT CONDITIONS. I THINK I VOTE ON THE CONDITIONS, then ASK IF ANYONE IN THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ANY ISSUES, and THEN THE APPLICANT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO EVEN BOTHER, say IT MUCH, but IT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO GET UP. But THEY'RE THE SAME EIGHT CONDITIONS AS WAS ON THE MASTRIA KEA AND I'D LIKE TO ENTERPAY A MOTION TO VOTE ON THE CONDITIONS. So MOVED. Is THERE A SECOND, seconded ANY DISCUSSION, hearing NONE? All IN FAVOR.
Speaker 3:AYE.
Speaker 1:I THINK AT THIS TIME WE'RE PRETTY SATISFIED, so WE'RE GOING TO JUST VOTE ON THE SPECIAL PERMIT SITE PLAN APPROVED.
Speaker 6:MR CHRIS, mr CHAIRMAN, if I MAY, I THINK WHEN WE SENT THEM AWAY LAST TIME, we HAD A COUPLE OF CONCERNS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE IN FRONT OF US AT THAT LAST MEETING. One WAS A PLAN AND THE OTHER ONE WAS A SOME WAY, because WE HAD TO FORMULATE THE STATISTIC OF ACTION CONDITIONS, which YOU JUST PUT INTO THE RECORD. So I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION IS THIS A TWO-STORY BUILDING OR A ONE-STORY BUILDING WITH A HIGH CEILING? You CAN COME UP.
Speaker 1:JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
Speaker 6:STANLEY, marco 71, red, circle TAUNTON. It's JUST A ONE-STORY BUILDING. Okay, no MEZANINE SPACES, no MEZANINE SIR. Okay, because WHEN I SEE THE BUILDING, it WOULD IMPACT.
Speaker 2:YOUR PARKING.
Speaker 6:REQUIREMENTS.
Speaker 1:IF IT WAS A TWO-STORY BUILDING CORRECT. Thank YOU. Thank YOU, stanley. Okay, I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME A CERTIF THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY SPECIAL PERMIT. So WE'LL BE VOTING ON BOTH THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
Speaker 1:I WANT TO VOTE FOR A SITE PLAN ON 140 BROADWAY, rainham, assessor's MAP 7, law 14, planning BOARD FILE NUMBER S-SP-2025-2. I know this certificate of action went around to everybody on the board. Did anyone have any discussion on it? No, okay, then I'd entertain a motion to approve the site planAL PERMIT FOR 140 BROADWAY. So MOVED, is THERE A SECOND, seconded, any MORE DISCUSSION HEARING NONE. All IN FAVOR AYE, unanimous. Those TWO ARE OUT OF THE WAY. You GUYS HAVE A GREAT NIGHT.
Speaker 1:Unless YOU WANT TO STAY AND TALK ABOUT THE ZONING ARTICLE, okay, the LAST THING ON OUR AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING. Public HEARING ON A ZONING AMENDMENT 3A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT. I'm GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF 3A Multifamily Development Overlay District. I'm going to give a brief synopsis of what this is about and what the town proposes. 3a zoning is something that's mandated by the state for all cities and towns that have certain proximity to railroad stations, no MBTA lines. Every town has different requirements based on the size the town, the population of the town, the amount of homes. In rain hams case, it's required to have 50 acres minimum zoned for this and 15 units an acre for density, and at least 750 units for this, at LEAST 750 UNITS FOR THIS. So THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
Speaker 1:There WAS A CASE MANY OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE MILTON CASE WHERE THEY CHALLENGED THE the law, saying we're voting this down, we don't care, because there's like a handful of grants you could lose. Milton said we don't care about the grants. So it went to court. The judge said well, I mean, they wrote that if you don't do it you don't get the grant, so it's an unenforceable law. So the state turned around and retuned it up and did an emergency session and now it's mandatory. There's no way out of it. And in this particular case there's a list of grants we could lose in the future. A lot of them have to would fire council, on aging, bridge construction, public safety, construction library, I mean there's a ton of them and for what we have coming up on the plate, it could be up to $9 million in grants we'd lose if we didn't do this.
Speaker 1:This, the SELECTMEN ENDED UP TAKING A PROACTIVE ROLE IN THIS AND THEY SPENT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE TUNE OF, I THINK, $30,000, $40,000. I THINK THE COUNTER ADMINISTRATOR MAY BE ABLE TO EXPAND ON SOME OF THIS. And WHAT THEY DID IS THEY CAME UP WITH A BYLAW. They HIRED PROFESSIONALS HIRED to expand on some of this, and what they did is they came up with a bylaw. They hired professionals I a legal team and they came up with a bylaw that the people that serve at southeastern Regional Planning District helped with this. Along with a legal team.
Speaker 1:They come up with a bylaw. They think that complies with what the state is demanding of us. They've also come up with areas that they think are sound areas. Two areas they came up with is basically the Walmart on 44 and the Walmart on 138, and they think it's a legit way to do it. Hopefully the state's okay with it. If they're not, then we'll address it later and come up with another solution. But they put a substantial amount of time and hired professionals and that's what they think. We're on pretty firm ground. So that's where it stands now. Now, and our job here is just the recommendation. You know we don't vote on any bylaw. That happens at town meeting. So anyone really interested show up the town meeting. But that being said, and they ask the members of the board if they have anything to add Matthew a few other meetings myself.
Speaker 5:Anything TO ADD, MATTHEW. I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST WE'VE DISCUSSED IT AT.
Speaker 5:A FEW OTHER MEETINGS MYSELF, greg, ken, collins, bob, we ALL SAT IN ON A MEETING WITH SERPIT MONTHS AGO WHEN THEY HAD PROPOSED A SEPARATE SECTION OF TOWN. That WAS VACANT CLEARLAND. And AFTER DISCUSSING IT of town that was vacant clear land and after discussing it with Serpid, they had kind of explained to me that it doesn't have to be vacant land. It doesn't have to be contiguous land. It can be two separate parcels within the town overlaying something that is existing. It doesn't have to be vacant.
Speaker 5:So at that point in time I had spoken to Ken and Bob and Greg and said I think that even with speaking with the other selectmen, joe, I had said I think it would be best to put it over the Walmarts because the barrier to entry would be higher than as if they just went at vacant land. And after looking at it a little bit more with Serpid, they said that that would be. They felt as if it would be allowed HIGHER THAN AS IF THEY JUST WENT AT VACANT LAND. And AFTER LOOKING AT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH SERPID, they SAID THAT THAT WOULD BE. They FELT AS IF IT WOULD BE ALLOWED AND IT WOULDN'T BE KICKED BACK BY THE STATE.
Speaker 5:But AGAIN, you KNOW I THINK IT'S GOING TO GO TO TOWN MEETING. I'm NOT SAYING THAT IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH, easily BUILT ON IT. At LEAST, this IS THE LESSER OF THE TWO EQUALS, I GUESS. I MEAN I DON'T THINK ANY OF US UP HERE ON THE BOARD REALLY HAVE ANY DESIRE TO SEE THIS HAPPEN, but AND IT COULDN'T BE OVER EXISTING HOUSING- IT WOULD ONLY BE OVER EXISTING BUSINESS.
Speaker 5:I MEAN IT COULD BE put it over land. Low-income housing.
Speaker 6:Yeah, you could not put it over 40.
Speaker 5:You know, serp was clear you can't put it over existing 40Bs, you can't put it over a chestnut farm. You can't put it over Larkwood. You can't put it over the development on 138. They said that those were off the table. So this was what we felt would be the lesser of the two evils. If it does get past WHAT WE FELT WOULD BE THE LESSER OF THE TWO EVILS IF IT DOES.
Speaker 1:GET PAST IT TOWN MEETING. So THAT'S MY TWO CENTS FOR THE RECORD. That WAS THE ONE MEMBER OF THE PLANNER BOARD THAT REALLY WAS TAKING AN ACTIVE ROLE IN THIS OUT OF THE FIVE OF US, and THANKS FOR TAKING ALL THE TIME YOU DID WITH BOB AND CRAIG AND KEN VAUGHN. So IT'S MUCH MORE VERSED ON WHAT HAPPENED AND HOW THEY ARRIVED AT IT, but THIS WASN'T ARRIVED AT LIGHTLY. You KNOW A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE, including MATT AND THE TA, spent A LOT OF TIME AND TOOK AN ACTIVE ROLE. Antony, do YOU HAVE ANYTHING? No, spent A LOT OF TIME AND TOOK AN ACTIVE ROLE. Antony, do YOU HAVE ANYTHING?
Speaker 4:NO NO.
Speaker 1:GERD.
Speaker 6:NO BREY. No, JUST FOR THE RECORD, CERPET HELPED US WITH THIS AT NO COST. We HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE ALLOCATED FOR CERTAIN AMO a certain amount of hours, I believe a year that CERPET helps the town.
Speaker 4:I think we used most of that up having them formulate this document, and so there was no cost to the town, but it may have cost the number you mentioned.
Speaker 6:Yeah, it was a budget item. Although it's not ideal, it's what the state is mandating and it seems like every, every community is kind of following suit. I think most of the language in this bylaw is similar language that other communities are using, although their locations may be different than the one we're proposing. Again, it was created by CERFED with some guidance from some of the people in this room.
Speaker 6:It was reviewed by CERFED's attorney to make sure that there were no pitfalls when it gets to the state for their approval, and we have a cleaned up document that's now ready to move forward to our meeting. One of the things about this is we also have a 10 affordable component that people need to know about, so it makes the development a little bit more difficult to accomplish, because you're not going to be able to sell 100 of the units or rent them at a market rate. So, so, that being said, you know there was a lot of effort, a lot of. So, that being said, you know there was a lot of effort, a lot of back and forth. We were pretty comfortable with the document that we have moving forward. Yeah, it's unfortunate. I mean the states.
Speaker 1:This is one thing they're jamming down our throat Like they did 40 years ago. They have other things coming down the pipe that are gonna taste worse. I believe they're trying anyway, in effect, eliminate zoning and planning. The deputy said open it up to the public. It shouldn't go over there. I think so say your name for the record great.
Speaker 4:I'm the Greg Barnstown administrator. I just want to reinforce some of the points that the chair noted. First of all, this is a mandate from the state. The courts have affirmed that as a mandate. Should we not do something, the state will do it for us. So we're trying to be proactive here, not reactive. We would make ourselves very vulnerable to losing a considerable amount of grant monies in the future should we not do something.
Speaker 4:So I recognize no one likes the state telling us what to do. I certainly don't like the state telling us what to do, but in this particular case, much like the ADU, they're mandating it and the courts have backed them up on that. So we think this is. As has been mentioned, there's a certain barrier to entry to these locations. We don't think you would be seeing apartment complexes in these areas any time in the near or foreseeable future, and we can change this in the future should we so desire. So that's about all I have to say. But again, it's an unfortunate situation, but we have to react to that unfortunate situation. We don't want the courts or the state telling us what to do, so that's what we're trying to avoid here.
Speaker 1:I think that's an excellent point that if we don't do it they're going to make us sick anyway, and that it is better to be proactive than you know letting the state come in, because they will come in. I mean, they've had court cases that went through and the AG will come into your town and force you to do it where they want. So that's a great point. But anyone else in the public except Lorraine I mean Clay Paul must be be psyched.
Speaker 2:he has the night off I just have a quick question first okay, you gotta say your name.
Speaker 2:Yeah, kid um, I just wanted to say thank you all very much for being creative and innovative and trying to find a solution for this horrible thing that everybody in the state is facing. But I just have a quick question because I can't tell by this map what the land actually is that we're going to rezone. I just want to make sure and question that the land on 138 to the left of Wal-Mart that goes all the way up to Rainham House of Pizza, that's undeveloped at Norbury Zone that I think the Water Department might own now that's not part of this rezone, correct?
Speaker 4:None of that land is part of this reason, correct?
Speaker 1:not about land stops right before the tractor dealership.
Speaker 2:It doesn't include the tractor dealership. What's time I'm towards right now. How's the pizza? Because I can't tell by this map, because it's not like it doesn't have all this stuff, no, it's just Walmart. It doesn't include any of that undeveloped land, because that's a lot of land there. That's what I was a little concerned about.
Speaker 1:Well, the bylaw is very specific on what assesses parcels are affected, so that overrides it. There was a thicker line on a map that covered the beach you're talking about is mostly wetland anyway. Yes, I surveyed that years ago and while I was doing it I'm looking at track machines going through the wetland. There was an order department drilling for wells and they found an unbelievable well there.
Speaker 2:So they ended up taking the parcel and it wasn't all what you thought, but they took it. But that's not why it was reasonable.
Speaker 6:I know that okay to the left of walmart. It goes to the walmart property line and that's it. It doesn't go any further, right uh?
Speaker 2:south, if you will. It didn't look it, but I just wanted to make sure and ask the question.
Speaker 1:That's all and it was specific on the assessor's map at parcels. So because I know the this only map so small it's tough to read it.
Speaker 6:It's more accurate having a zoning description and they won't allow you to use wetland in the 50 acres if you if you look at this map, property line yeah, so the property line for Walmart comes as this whole area then there are a couple of other parcels that were added into this parcel just to get this, the acreage that were required, which would be to these two and the one across the street, this triangle, across the street.
Speaker 2:I thought that was in the interest of Walmart.
Speaker 6:No, this is 138. This is 138. Alright, so what is this here? This is a parcel of land across the street so I think what would this be like?
Speaker 2:the whole island or whatever. It'd be an adjacent property. So that is that the place that doesn't have a room, I believe.
Speaker 6:I believe this is all right. This is the place that doesn't have the roof, okay, and then it's further south, further south of that, and then there's a single family home here, yeah, and then, on paramount drive, it's the whole Walmart possible, plus the stone for the state can also change the same time they want and up that figure from 750 to whatever they please right?
Speaker 2:Unfortunately, that's correct. All right, thank you. Thank you for being innovative and creative. Thank you, Thanks all right Anyone else?
Speaker 1:do you have anything to add?
Speaker 3:I wasn't sure because Dan Shammer, taunton because Taunton Gazette regarding does the planning board have any concerns over the as of right by right stipulation that these overlay districts will come attached?
Speaker 1:with. We're not happy with it. We'd rather it come under some sort of site plan review or special permit, because now we have special permit for site plan review so it has teeth. Yeah, before a site plan approval really didn't have the teeth for some of the appeal. We like it that way. But it's mandated right in the law that it has to be by right. Same thing with the ADUs, where they have their by right. They can just come in, do a plan. They don't have to actually come in front of us and they just go to bill the commissioner and issue a permit.
Speaker 6:This, though, will be site approval process.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it gives us limited, cannot deny it, we can't deny it. Right, it is the same requirement. We can review drainage, aesthetics, that type of thing, but it's by right, so we have to approve something that comes in front of you that we have to.
Speaker 3:But it's by right, so we have to approve something that comes in front of you that we have to prove it but you can like place order of additions and I guess my other question it was my understanding based on my previous coverage of this law and other communities that technically affordable housing is not necessarily part of the component with this overlay district for multifamily housing. Is my understanding based on what you're proposing here? That's been approved with help from a surface, so it's including now affordable housing and it is believed that the state will approve this built into the document that a minimum of 10% needs to be affordable and, through sir pet, we believe that the state will approve that.
Speaker 3:So they will approve it, even though tech you do believe that they will prove it, despite the fact that technically part of the MBTA wall the guides of SERPED.
Speaker 6:We were told that they believe that we can get the 10% affordable component approved okay, no more than 10% of the document.
Speaker 1:One of the reasons that makes sense is because now we have 750 more housing units, so that opens up. You know it could put us under our 10% and that would open it up, thank you. Thank you keeps it level, yeah, so it kind of makes it more level playing field.
Speaker 3:My understanding that technically random has reached state park road well over 10 percent, but if you add more units the percentage goes down.
Speaker 4:If you built uh, it's a percentage of the total housing. So the more housing stock you add, the low it lowers the percentage if you don't keep on increasing the affordable component.
Speaker 1:Okay okay, if you get on to nine point, nine percent, you can come in with a thousand unit forty feet mission on a ten percent. You know you can't really deny it. So now that we're above it idea, we'd like to stay above it.
Speaker 3:It's very helpful.
Speaker 2:Thank you very much I only said, you could get up once uh, one more question from well, not the focus. I guess it's a great mechanism, not the ball pointed out across the street on 138. I just want to question what is this new zone going to be zoned? What's it like it's?
Speaker 1:it's an overlay. Okay, so it's the underlying zone.
Speaker 2:Does not change at all, okay because across the street that little piece over here is still right yeah, it'll have a multi-family development overlay district component and over a resident area. That's correct thank you.
Speaker 6:I don't believe that's residue, though I think it's business. I think it's business, yeah, I think it's all business Across the street is business not Res D no this side Across the street is business.
Speaker 2:I thought it was Res D to the top line.
Speaker 4:I don't believe so We'll check. But I'm almost certain it was all business it was going afterwards the other way.
Speaker 6:What's all business that was going on afterwards the other way it was. Britain residency starts at your street.
Speaker 1:I believe, or the possibility for your street, and then it goes to breton, britain street. Yeah, thank you. Any other now which is voting on a recommendation? They're not voting on the article when it goes up to town meeting. Our town clerk I mean our plan of clerk is lucky enough to get to read the thing and then people are going to throw eggs at him. He's a pretty tough guy, but so if there's no more input from the public, I'd ask if there's any more input from any board members.
Speaker 5:Matthew I think that the biggest guy greg.
Speaker 4:Well, I was just going to say uh, when it goes to town meeting, one thing to point out uh, it's a majority vote at town meeting.
Speaker 5:Uh, a lot of zoning changes require two-thirds, but this is, it's a majority vote, yeah, and it's mandated that way, thank you, and I think to the point of what we're doing here is we're trying to propose the parcels for the public to vote on.
Speaker 3:It's, it's inevitably the public's decision as to whether or not this is approved we're only here to set, you know, the spots to vote on.
Speaker 5:I think that that's a big part. A big point on the board is that a lot of us don't want to see this happen. We're forced to pick a parcel and send it to the town for the public to vote. So it's up to the public to show up it to the town for the public to vote. So it's up to the public to show up, come to the meeting, ask any additional questions, and then the decision is in their hands. So that's all I have.
Speaker 6:Okay, thank you. All we're doing is recommending it. Yes, correct.
Speaker 1:And you know, again, I think the team that worked on this did a pretty good job, real good job, and I think the selection was about as good as we could get. So it's the best possible. That's to thank you guys for your help in this. Yeah, those are the best possible. So I guess I'd entertain a motion to recommend the approval of this bylaw along with the partial so the way it's going to be situated on. So move second, second, any more discussion. All in favor, aye, aye. Recommendation that being done. We had invoices and bills we have sent around. We sent around invoices and bills old business, new business. A certificate of action 1555. We voted on Certificate update.
Speaker 6:No.
Speaker 1:Do we have any plans to be signed? No, do you have anything more? Okay, well, hearing none, we can send a detaining motion to adjourn, so moved Seconded. Any discussion All in favor? Aye, okay, thanks, we're going to go Good.