The meeting began with a discussion on the Elm Street water and sewer improvement project. Steve Peterson provided an overview, detailing the installation of an 8-inch gravity sewer line along Elm Street, impacting approximately 50 properties. The project, backed by grants from Mass Works and the Economic Development Bill, covers both the design and construction phases. The town secured a $3.5 million grant tied to the redevelopment of the property on Elm Street, owned by Reen Barton. Peterson explained the financial structure, noting that water main upgrades would be funded through water rates, while sewer project costs, after grant deductions, would be covered through betterments. This includes mandating property owners to connect to the new sewer system within seven years, a point that sparked considerable debate among residents concerned about the fairness of the cost distribution.

Paul Dppi, the planning and economic development director, emphasized the urgency of redeveloping 47 Elm Street, citing its blighted status and potential health risks. He highlighted the financial benefits, including substantial revenue generation from property taxes and building permit fees, stressing that redeveloping such key sites is essential given Norton’s limited commercial-zoned land.

Attention then turned to broader redevelopment efforts, particularly the TPC property near Mansfield and the Reed and Barton site. Access to sewer infrastructure is critical for these sites, with the Reed and Barton property flagged as a development opportunity. However, concerns were raised about potential school impacts if the site transitions to residential use. The town received a $35 million MassWorks grant for redevelopment, covering 41% of the project’s total cost, with the committee seeking an additional $2.5 million from the town. The risk of losing funding if the vote fails was discussed, emphasizing the need for a strategic approach to secure the town’s financial interests.

Disagreement emerged over community sentiment towards the proposed sewer project. While some committee members noted improved public understanding of the benefits, one member highlighted ongoing resident opposition, with financial concerns remaining a significant barrier. Alternatives, such as running a force main to avoid mandatory residential tie-ins, were considered to alleviate financial burdens.

Historical practices of sewer betterment assessments were scrutinized, with references to past projects like West Main Street and the Wheaten pump station. The current project budget of $8.4 million, split between water and sewer costs, was discussed, alongside the potential financial strain of borrowing $2.5 million from the town’s budget. A resident vehemently opposed the betterment plan, arguing it misrepresented the benefits and financial implications, highlighting a broader distrust in the town’s approach.

Further discussions revolved around the potential demolition of 47 Elm Street, with concerns about the high costs and legal complexities of assuming ownership for cleanup. The committee stressed the need for community alignment before proceeding, highlighting the precarious nature of the situation.

The planning board’s proposal for the Great Woods Overlay District was also a focal point. Tim Griffin explained the state’s multifamily housing requirements under the MBTA communities law, emphasizing the need to balance compliance with the preservation of community character. The proposed overlay district aims to create development opportunities without obligating the town to provide land or infrastructure, a point met with mixed reactions from committee members and residents.

Finally, the implications of non-compliance with state housing mandates were discussed, with potential penalties and ineligibility for state programs like Mass Works and Housing Works underscored. Concerns about the financial burden of increased school enrollment from new developments and the need for careful financial planning were reiterated.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on the proposed overlay district’s impact on local neighborhoods and schools. State mandates were a recurring point of contention, with residents expressing frustration over perceived state overreach. The committee acknowledged the need for clear communication and community engagement to address these concerns, emphasizing transparency around the risks and impacts of non-compliance.