The meeting’s central topic was the in-depth discussion regarding the select board’s recent decision to reinstate the pre-COVID in-person meeting policy. Julian Kadish outlined the policy, explaining that while public and applicants could participate remotely, commission members were required to be present physically unless a prior request was made for remote participation. Concerns were voiced about the potential difficulty in achieving a quorum under such a policy, given the physical attendance requirement. This decision sparked a debate over its impact on the commission’s operations and accessibility.

John Thomas provided insight into the logistical challenges posed by the policy, noting that the designated meeting rooms lacked the necessary technology for effective remote participation, such as screen sharing capabilities. He mentioned that discussions with the town council clarified that the select board could not override state policies permitting virtual meetings. The inability of the select board to incorporate feedback from various boards before making their decision was a point of frustration, as expressed by a member. The benefits of remote meetings, such as improved accessibility and efficiency, were emphasized, particularly for those with mobility issues or other obligations.

The commission members expressed a strong preference for maintaining the option for hybrid meetings, highlighting a divide between the need for in-person meetings and the advantages of virtual formats. There were questions regarding whether the policy represented a reapplication of the original 2019 guidelines or if it included new changes. Concerns about the enforcement of the policy were also raised, including the potential non-reappointment of members who failed to comply with in-person attendance requirements. A motion to continue holding meetings via Zoom until further notice was made and unanimously agreed upon.

In addition to the policy discussion, the meeting addressed significant projects, notably the MBTA overlay and its implications for housing in Norton. Though a key member involved in the discussions was absent, it was noted that some parcels had been reselected for the MBTA overlay. Members were encouraged to engage further, as a vote on this matter was scheduled for an upcoming date.

The commission also engaged in detailed reviews of ongoing projects, including a proposed site on Leonard Street. The project, located amidst commercial buildings and featuring a mix of cleared fields, forested uplands, and wetlands, proposed developments outside regulated zones. Concerns were raised about the absence of a flood map and the implications for flood management, prompting a request for more comprehensive documentation. The engineers acknowledged the need for clarity on elevations and potential adjustments following the building inspector’s review.

The discussion also touched on a proposed plan involving a pool and septic system installation, with concerns about the proximity to the sediment control line and the project’s layout regarding the 100-foot buffer zone. The importance of compliance with building codes and FEMA regulations was emphasized, with calls for more detailed information to be provided to the building inspector. A motion for the continuation of the hearing was made.

The meeting concluded with discussions on orders of conditions for various projects, including the Mansfield Airport and a property on South Worcester Street. Concerns about the timing of replication area installations were raised, with suggestions to ensure mitigation efforts commence promptly. The orders of conditions were accepted, aside from one abstention.