===PAGE 1=== TOWN OF LUNENBURG Office of the Planning Board Matthew Brenner, Chair Matthew Allison, Vice Chair Amanda Reid, Clerk Timothy Willsmer, Member Glenn McLeod, Member Minutes Monday, July 8th, 2024 Tel: (978) 582-4146, ext. 5 Fax: (978) 582-4353 960 Massachusetts Avenue Lunenburg, MA 01462 Richard Harris – Interim Land Use Director Logan O’Connell – Administrative Assistant Meeting Posted: Yes Address: Town Hall, 17 Main Street, Lunenburg, MA Date: 6:00 P.M. Present: Matthew Allison, Matthew Brenner, Glenn McLeod, Amanda Reid, Timothy Willsmer Absent: None CALL TO ORDER: M. Brenner called the meeting to order, and briefly outlined the Agenda for the public. PUBLIC COMMENT: None at this time. APPOINTMENTS: Montachusett Regional Planning Commission – MBTA Zoning Karen Chapman of the MRPC presented about the requirements of the MBTA Communities Act and potential models for compliance available to Lunenburg. She began by introducing some of Massachusetts’ relevant problems with housing:  Continually growing prices for rent and homeownership  A shortage of rental housing  A lack of zoning for multi-family housing. She reviewed the background of the law, which requires that: 1. Zoning bylaw provides for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right. a. This district can be an area that is already developed b. Although multi-family housing must be allowed by right, a site plan review can still be required. c. At least half of the multi-family zoning district land areas must comprise contiguous lots of land 2. Multi-family housing shall have no age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with children 3. The district must be of reasonable size, having a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, subject to any further limitations imposed by the Wetlands Protection Act and Title V regulations. ===PAGE 2=== p. 2 of 10 a. She explained a caveat to the minimum gross density requirement: If a developer weren’t able fulfill 15 units per acre (i.e. due to wetlands, needing more room for septic, etc), then the infrastructure needed to resolve that is the developer’s responsibility, not the Town’s. She reviewed the timeline of the MBTA Communities Act: 2021-12-15: Draft Guidelines Released 2022-03-31: End of Comment Period (400+ Comments Received) 2022-08-10: Final Guidelines Issued: 1. Revised Community Categories (removed “Bus” & added “Adjacent Small Town”) 2. Changed Multi-Family Zoning requirement for “Adjacent Small Towns” with no Transit Stations (which currently applies to Lunenburg) from 750 units to 240 units. 3. Allowed a cap on the number of units per acre, the “Reasonable Size Criteria” 4. Released a “Compliance Model” for determining Multi-family Unit Capacity. M. Brenner asked whether Towns currently classified as “Rural” that are on the cusp of a new classification would be subject to changed requirements. K. Chapman said this was unlikely. 2022-12-31: Lunenburg’s required “Action Plan” submitted to Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) with assistance from the MRPC. 2023-08-17: Revision to Guidelines: 1. Mixed use requirement in village centers or commercial neighborhoods allowed (providing for up to 25% of the unit capacity, requiring pre-approval from EOHLC and submission at least 90 days before Town Meeting vote on the matter). She gave an overview of Compliance: 1. Section 3A is a zoning mandate, there is no “opt out” mechanism 2. Failure to comply results in ineligibility for: a. Housing Choice Initiative grants b. Mass Works Infrastructure Program c. Local Capital Projects Fund d. Green Communities Grants e. Housing Authority f. Other Programs – One Stop 3. Failure to comply also results in: a. Risk liability under federal and state Fair Housing laws (per the Attorney General) b. Possible Civil Enforcement Action She noted that the law is a zoning mandate—not a housing production mandate—which is meant to address housing market conditions, not subsidize housing supply. Affordable Units are capped at 10% unless Chapter 40R applies (as in Lunenburg) or an economic feasibility analysis is completed. ===PAGE 3=== p. 3 of 10 Ms. Chapman then compared the existing zoning and hypothetical compliant zoning, in terms of acreage, density and final unit capacity: Existing Zoning Data Metric District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Name Tri-Town Smart Growth Overlay Lake Whalom Overlay District Rogers Way 351 Mass. Ave Acreage 9.2 41.3 37.1 114.1 Density Denominator 9.2 41.3 37.1 114.1 Final Unit Capacity 203 270 1,358 5,520 Units per Acre 22.0 6.5 36.6 48.4 Hypothetical MBTA Communities-Compliant Zoning Data Metric District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Name Tri-Town Smart Growth Overlay Lake Whalom Overlay District Rogers Way 351 Mass. Ave Acreage 9.2 41.3 37.1 114.1 Density Denominator 9.2 41.3 37.1 114.1 Final Unit Capacity 249 676 557 1,762 Units per Acre 27.0 16.4 15.0 15.4 She outlined the changes made to existing zoning inputs to achieve these modeled results: 1. Tri-Town Smart Growth Overlay: a. Minimum lot size reduced from 40,000 sqft. to 20,000 sqft. 2. Lake Whalom Overlay District: a. Minimum lot size reduced from 40,000 sqft. to 20,000 sqft. 3. Rogers Way: a. Minimum lot size reduced from 40,000 sqft. to 20,000 sqft b. Maximum Lot Coverage raised from 0% to 85% 4. 351 Mass Ave: a. Minimum lot size reduced from 40,000 sqft. to 20,000 sqft. b. Building Height reduced from 4 to 3 She explained the recommended next steps for the Town: 1. Apply for more technical assistance funding, which could be: a. Another Planning Assistance Grant b. District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) for 2025 c. Mass Housing Partnership (MHP) Funding 2. Accept or decline the four potential districts. a. If chosen, develop bylaw and map amendments accordingly b. If undecided, model alternative new districts 3. Choose where to incorporate public outreach into the timeline of accepting a proposed district 4. If choosing 40R, submit a preliminary compliance application to the EOHLC 90 days before the Town Meeting. ===PAGE 4=== p. 4 of 10 Ms. Chapman discussed communication issues with the Town following Adam Burney’s departure as Land Use Director. M. Brenner confirmed with K. Chapman that compliance would need to be passed by the Fall 2025 Town Meeting. He then asked what would happen if the voters “said no”; Ms. Chapman explained that there wasn’t a precedent for that yet. R. Harris asked about using existing multi-family units to meet part of the zoning requirements. K. Chapman confirmed it was theoretically possible, but that the district would still need to zone for 15 units per acre and she wasn’t ultimately sure if the state would accept the heavy usage of existing multi-family units. R. Harris noted finding another 40R area or adding to the existing one as options. M. Brenner asked if increasing density within the Tri-Town would meet compliance with zoning density. K. Chapman stated it would depend on state approval, citing example of the Town of Sterling’s attempt to use a 40B district being declined. R. Harris and K. Chapman discussed potential funding for technical assistance, noting the unlikelihood of receiving another Planning Assistance Grant but mentioning DLTA and MHP as options. G. McLeod asked how many towns have voted against compliance so far, which K. Chapman didn’t know. He knew of approximately 11 communities that had done so at Town Meeting, citing the posted video of Tewksbury’s Town Meeting. K. Chapman noted varying degrees of discontent among towns, as well as the shift to majority vote for housing bylaw. G. McLeod questioned why this was voted on at all as a State “mandate”, and emphasized the particular importance of community outreach and information. He was concerned about the possibility of compliant zoning districts being accepted by the public with an understanding that they were unlikely to be developed, only to be subsidized into developer desirability after the fact via State programs. T. Willsmer inquired about major complaints from towns like Tewksbury, with G. McLeod citing that the mandatory nature and open-ended infrastructure concerns of the law. G. McLeod suspected the State intends for new units rather than using existing ones. M. Allison confirmed the uncertainty of state approval for using existing units with K. Chapman. G. McLeod reiterated that this was one of the types of questions that the Town needed answers to. M. Brenner provided background on the Planning Board’s history with the MBTA Communities’ Act for the public. Previously, the requirement for units was larger and compliance was tied to eligibility for two grants which the Town typically doesn’t receive anyway. After multiple towns considered non-compliance, more grants were added to the eligibility blacklist, along with punitive measures for non-compliance through the Attorney General. He noted divisions in early backlash to the law: a given requirement (i.e. density of 15 units per acre) might be “excessive” from a rural standpoint, but “relaxed” from an urban standpoint. G. McLeod noted one of the State’s goals of making more rental units available. He and K. Chapman were unsure about vacancies in local rental units. M. Brenner clarified the law’s focus on affordability, noting that it doesn’t explicitly require the multi-family units to be rental instead of purchasable. He noted that although the law addresses whether Lunenburg has enough Affordable Housing by the legal definition, the Town doesn’t have enough “housing that’s affordable”. R. Harris asked when the MHP grant would be due, to which K. Chapman explained that it was rolling with the Town as the applicant rather than the Planning Board. ===PAGE 5=== p. 5 of 10 M. Allison asked about the district’s distance requirement from MBTA stations, which K. Chapman clarified no longer apply to Lunenburg. He noted that the law’s guideline revisions overlapped the MRPC’s development of the 4 potential multi-family districts, and opined that the options had become outdated due to being respecting those requirements at the time. K. Chapman disagreed, explaining that preferring already-developed parcels to raw parcels was a greater influence. M. Allison confirmed the exclusion of non-compliant towns from the Green Communities Grant, as well as M. Brenner’s previously described compliance mechanisms. M. Brenner and R. Harris discussed the grant application process. R. Harris recommended pursuing MHP funding, and explained that he would fill out the application form and have it forwarded to the Town Manager for their signature. G. McLeod asked about typical grant amounts, with R. Harris stating they generally range from $10,000 to $50,000. M. Allison moved to state for the record that the Planning Board supports pursuing funding for technical assistance to further evaluate the MBTA zoning compliance requirements. A. Reid seconded. Voice vote, passed unanimously. Economic Development Committee The EDC was unable to attend, and tentatively rescheduled for 2024-07-22. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 255 Sunny Hill Rd – (Cont. FROM 2024-06-10, TO 2024-07-22) See separate minutes. 3 Lancaster Ave – (CANCELLED, Pending Resubmission) The hearing was meant to review a Special Permit Application for a Freestanding Sign at 3 Lancaster Ave, pursuant to §250-4.17H(3)(j) of the Code of the Town of Lunenburg (as amended at the May 2015 Annual Town Meeting). Applicant is Steven Borodawka, 2 Shaker Rd D-103, Shirley, MA 01464. Property owner is Art Calvillo, 3 Lancaster Ave, Lunenburg, MA 01462. Sanford Leavenworth represented the applicant via Zoom. Logan O’Connell explained that internal miscommunication over the Planning Department staff’s legal ability to determine application completeness led to premature acceptance of the applicant’s submission. This led to the Public Hearing being advertised and scheduled without the prior documentation or processes in-place for the application to be approved. M. Brenner questioned whether the board should open the hearing with the application as incomplete as it is. R. Harris noted that the Board isn’t able to take input from the applicant without opening the hearing, and recommended that the applicant give the board an extension to its deadline to begin the Public Hearing. S. Leavenworth was deeply frustrated, explaining that his last communication with the Town was that he would return with the required information, and now he was involved in this meeting. He asked to be back on the agenda in four weeks. R. Harris suggested cancelling the Public Hearing because the notifications weren’t properly distributed. S. Leavenworth explained that he wasn’t told the full process for notifying abutters, and emphasized that he doesn’t know how to deal with this and just wants to get the full application in later. M. Allison suggested that the applicant withdraw without prejudice and reapply. R. Harris explained that an email to himself and L. O’Connell would suffice for that. ===PAGE 6=== p. 6 of 10 G. McLeod moved to cancel the hearing based upon the applicant’s indication of additional material to be submitted and miscommunication between the Town and Applicant about application requirements, causing improper notice. T. Willsmer seconded. Voice Vote, Passed 4-0-1. (M. Allison abstained). CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION: 317-321 Sunny Hill Rd Tim Battles (CTB Holdings) requested a Certificate of Completion for 321 Sunny Hill only. GEI was at the site 10 days ago and the report for 321 met specifications for what was needed, 317 would remain open until construction is completed. The board reviewed GEI’s report and briefly discussed with R. Harris. T. Willsmer moved to grant a certificate of completion for the Stormwater Management Permit regarding 321 Sunny Hill Rd only. A. Reid seconded. Voice vote, passed unanimously. BOARD DISCUSSIONS Water Supply Protection District – Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments Fran McNamara (Superintendent of the Lunenburg Water District) called the meeting of the Lunenburg Water District to order, beginning their joint meeting with the Planning Board. He was joined by Lunenburg Water District Commissioners Mark Bursch and Matthew Woodward. R. Harris clarified to M. Brenner that the draft’s permitted uses for Zone 1 matched those in current bylaw (except the new addition of “Hunting where otherwise legally permitted”). Section F(2) explicitly outlined permitted uses within Zone 1. F. McNamara wanted Water Treatment to be included, and sub-sections (e) (“farming, gardening, nursery…”) and (f) (“Uses accessory and subordinate to [a-f]”) removed from Zone 1’s permitted uses. M. Woodward noted that although the Water District could ultimately prevent the uses in (e) as property owners of Zone 1s, they wanted to avoid passing bylaw provisions that would be overridden by conflicting state regulation. R. Harris explained that removing (e) as a permitted use would likely be found compliant with MGL 40A s. 3 by the Attorney General, but specifically excluding those uses would not. The Water District agreed. M. Brenner asked for public comment on the removal of (e). Joan Pease (11 Wintergreen Court) said that there were no objections to removing (e). Section F(3) explicitly outlined Zone 2 and 3’s permitted uses. F. McNamara wanted verbiage in sub- section (h)—the exclusion of “new treatment works and related”—removed, as building new treatment plants outside those Zones would impose large expenses, such as new land purchases and miles of pipe construction. R. Harris explained that the language was included in response to the feedback of residents opposed to new treatment work at the Planning Board’s Public Hearing on 2024-04-22. He also clarified that the draft does allow treatment in Zone 2 by Special Permit, under section H(1)(d). M. Brenner compared Site Plan Approval and Special Permit requirements: “By right” uses are subject ===PAGE 7=== p. 7 of 10 to the concrete “checklist” of Site Plan Approval, while Special Permits give the Planning Board more leniency in holistically determining whether a project is appropriate (even if underlying zoning would allow it). R. Harris noted that a Special Permit requires a supermajority vote for approval, while Site Plan Approval requires a simple majority and is more difficult to deny. M. Woodward noted that construction of new treatment plans within 5-10 years would be required by MassDEP mandates, and opined that the Special Permit would be unnecessary given the pre-existing requirement for Site Plan Approval. J. Pease spoke. She felt that the Water District had criticized herself & the Planning Board unfairly in a recent meeting, and noted the breadth of needs that factored into Planning Board decision-making. She clarified that the proponents of F(3)(h) weren’t completely disallowing new plants in Zones 2 and 3, but were asking the Planning Board to be involved via Special Permit as an avenue of public input. She noted that there were Zone 2s less than 50 ft from residential homes. R. Harris noted that Site Plan Approvals still require a public hearing process and abutter notification, and they commonly have attached conditions for public concerns like screening, buffering, noise- generating machinery, and operating hours. The Water District Commissioners enumerated the current process for building a new treatment plant: 1. A Water District constituent vote to appropriate money for creating a construction plan (~$700- 800k) 2. Approval of the plan from the Massachusetts D.E.P. 3. A public meeting to present the plan & vote on appropriating money for its implementation (~$20m) 4. Site Plan Approval for the plan through the Planning Board (a public hearing). M. Brenner asked concerned members of the public if they were comfortable with this process’s safeguards and existing opportunities for their input. Iris Sinkel (13 Wintergreen Ct) asked whether a body representing the public’s interest existed in this process. M. Brenner replied that this was the Planning Board’s job and the purpose underlying the Public Hearing process. A Site Plan Approval allows the board to add conditions, and the passing vote requirement is a majority. A Special Permit also allows the board to add conditions, but the passing vote is a supermajority and the board has an easier time denying applications. He noted that a supermajority requirement can create quorum issues that prevent the passage of projects that people do agree on. Andy Starvaski (8 Wintergreen Ct) noted that only the Water District voters had input in steps 1 and 3, and said requiring Special Permit would give the Planning Board the more capability as a body representing the entire Town. R. Harris opined that the timeframe of a project as substantial as a new water treatment plan wouldn’t be similar with a Site Plan Approval or a Special Permit, aside from potential continuations from lack of quorum. Barbara Turkington (110 Royal Fern Dr) opined that voters were seeking the most stringent bylaw ===PAGE 8=== p. 8 of 10 regulations possible to make sure that their needs are heard, and would prefer a Special Permit. J. Pease opined that the only way the bylaw revision would pass at the next Special Town meeting would be including a Special Permit requirement, and that voters didn’t want to extend the process further. Returning to Section F(2), F. McNamara discussed language to allow for treatment plants in Zone 1 while specifically excluding Hickory Hills to address residents’ concerns without impacting other Zone 1s. J. Pease suggested a limit of at least 400 feet from the shore of a lake. F. McNamara counter- suggested 100 feet, citing potential problems with future wells planned at Lake Shirley. M. Woodward reiterated the depth of the existing process’s regulation for building treatment plants, and questioned the Town’s benefits from adding to it. J. Pease opined that while the Water District voters and Mass D.E.P. have their own specific interests, the Planning Board best represented the neighborhood’s interests. She said that requiring a special permit for the construction of any new water facilities in Zone 1 and 2 could help reach a compromise. M. Brenner explained that the board wouldn’t be making any decisions tonight, and its next discussion on this would be on 2024-08-26. F. McNamara mentioned that the current Zone 2 bylaw provides for protective Zone 1s around potential well sources to prevent development that would eliminate them as water sources, and recommended including those Zone 1s on the new upcoming Zoning map to protect them. R. Harris said he would include this suggestion in the list of possible revisions from this meeting’s discussion. M. Brenner clarified that the next discussion of the Water District on 2024-08-26 would not be a Public Hearing but a Board Discussion, hoping to resolve technicalities and in-depth discussion before the official Public Hearing in September. R. Harris recommended 2024-09-23 to allow for slack time before the Town Meeting. M. Bursch asked who the enforcing authority on Town Bylaws was. Under State Law, the Zoning Bylaw enforcement authority is the Building Commissioner. M. Bursch and M. Brenner adjourned the joint meeting between the Planning Board and Water District’s and thanked the public for attending. Pledge of Allegiance (Inclusion in Meeting) M. Brenner asked if the board wanted to discuss tonight or postpone to a future meeting. M. Allison opined that there had already been enough prior discussion, M. Brenner disagreed. M. Brenner opined that including the pledge within the meeting could be a form of “pseudo-compelling” speech which alienates members of the public who are uncomfortable with saying it, is against his primary goal of government accessibility for the public. M. Allison disagreed with the notion that it was compelling. T. Willsmer opined that the local community is more important than the Federal Government in the Board’s context, noting that Lunenburg is older than the country itself. G. McLeod was surprised that this was an issue at all, and opined that every town board representative of the local government should open the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance for members of the public who wanted to do it. He found the local involvement with government to be fundamental to the Pledge. M. Brenner emphasized the importance of creating the most ===PAGE 9=== p. 9 of 10 welcoming environment possible. Erin M. (attending via Zoom) asked Board members in support of including the Pledge what its importance to them was, in the context of the Planning Board. G. McLeod responded, citing his previous statements and opining that traditions are important. Erin disagreed, and opined that the addition of “under God” during the Eisenhower administration violated the separation of Church and State. M. Brenner paused discussion to prevent escalating contention. M. Brenner explained that if the Board voted to include the pledge he would make room for it within the meeting, but he wouldn’t be leading it himself. M. Brenner asked for a voice vote from all in favor and against. Aye – M. Allison, G. McLeod, A. Reid Nay – M. Brenner, T. Willsmer MINUTES APPROVAL R. Harris found that the minutes from 2024-05-13 showed a motion made and seconded but didn’t include the corresponding vote, which should be included. He also recommended that the minutes from 2024-06-12 include that the Public Hearing for 255 Sunny Hill Rd. The Board did not approve these minutes, awaiting the above revisions. COMMITTEE REPORTS Master Plan Steering Committee Per T. Willsmer, no Meeting Open Space Committee Per G. McLeod, he hasn't been to a meeting yet. Municipal Building Design Committee Per M. Allison, no meeting. Agricultural Commission M. Allison no longer a member, finding new liaison can be for future meeting. Capital Planning Committee Per M. Brenner, meeting on Wednesday. Economic Development Committee Per G. McLeod, they plan to attend the next Planning Board meeting. Stormwater Task Force Per T. Willsmer, no meeting. Montachusett Regional Planning Commission Per A. Reid, no meeting and no meeting scheduled this month. ===PAGE 10=== p. 10 of 10 Montachusett Joint Transportation Committee Per A. Reid, no meeting. MEETING SCHEDULE 6:00 P.M. at Town Hall, unless otherwise noted. Upcoming meetings on 2024-07-22 and 2024-08-12. PUBLIC COMMENT Dave McDonald (155 Island Rd) thanked the Board members for voting for the Pledge. He opined that people would still come before the Planning Board for their business, regardless of their opinion on the pledge. ADJOURNMENT M. Allison moved to adjourn. T. Willsmer seconded. Voice vote, all aye. Documents Referenced: 2023-01-30_ NA_ Lunenburg Action Plan for MBTA Communities 2024-06-26_ 317-321 Sunny Hill Rd_ GEI Site Visit Report 2024-06-30_ NA_ Memo regarding WSPD Revision with Attachments 2024-05-13_ Planning Board_ Minutes 2024-06-10_ Planning Board_ Minutes