Norton Planning Board Debates Removal of Multifamily Housing from R40 District Amid Zoning Overhaul

The most notable issue was the proposal to eliminate multifamily housing from the R40 District, which encompasses approximately 3,300 acres. This adjustment would restrict multifamily developments to the 450 acres of Village Commercial land, requiring special permits for any such projects. The rationale behind this move is to consolidate multifamily housing locations, addressing concerns about potential impacts on local schools from increased student populations. Board members expressed varied opinions on the proposal, with some viewing it as a strategic advantage in negotiations related to MBTA zoning regulations.

However, the proposal also faced skepticism from some members, who were concerned about the potential backlash from residents in R60 or R80 zones. They feared that introducing multifamily housing in these areas might be met with resistance.

In addition to the multifamily housing debate, the board addressed the implications of the Affordable Homes Act and ADUs. The conversation highlighted necessary revisions to comply with new state laws, which permit detached ADUs by right, removing owner occupancy requirements and altering parking regulations. These changes prompted discussion about interpreting new regulations and ensuring local bylaws align with state mandates. The board recognized the importance of examining legal frameworks to ensure planning decisions are consistent with broader regulations while considering Norton’s specific land use and development realities.

The board also tackled zoning issues related to the Wetlands Protection District, identified as improperly mapped, and its overlap with conservation regulations. A proposal was made to eliminate the overlay district, deemed redundant, as conservation laws already comprehensively protect wetlands. This suggestion sparked debate about community support, given past failed attempts to remove the overlay. Participants noted the overlay district’s potential to restrict development options, such as duplexes, which might otherwise be permissible under existing zoning laws.

Additionally, the meeting covered procedural aspects of upcoming joint meetings with other boards, emphasizing the need for transparency and effective communication. The importance of involving key stakeholders from various boards, including the select board and finance committee, was stressed to align interests and ensure all parties are informed about proposed zoning changes. The board discussed strategies for presenting these changes to the community, highlighting the necessity of clear and accessible communication to mitigate confusion and manage expectations ahead of town meetings.

The discussion also touched on the potential implications of adjusting zoning bylaws concerning adult-use marijuana facilities and cluster development. Participants debated reducing buffer zones for marijuana facilities to make more properties accessible for development, particularly in industrial areas. The cluster development bylaw was criticized for its restrictive nature, sparking suggestions to explore more flexible models to promote higher-density building while preserving open space.