A major topic of discussion was the MBTA overlay district, a requirement from state legislation that mandates the creation of a zoning district allowing multifamily housing as of right. This district must accommodate at least 15 units per acre over a minimum of 50 acres. The board underscored that while the town is not required to provide land or finance infrastructure for these developments, non-compliance could result in losing access to state funding. The overlay district is designed to work alongside existing zoning laws, offering property owners the choice to develop under current regulations or the new overlay, with site plan approval replacing the more restrictive special permit process.

The board presented data on Norton’s housing market, noting a 6.5% increase in housing prices over the past year, with an average price of $550,000. This rise, coupled with stagnant population growth and the lowest residential construction rates since the 1960s, raised concerns about housing supply and affordability. The overlay district aims to address these issues by providing opportunities for new multifamily developments that could increase property tax revenue compared to single-family homes.

Concerns about misinformation regarding the number of new residential units were addressed, with the board clarifying that the developments are intended to result in a net increase rather than an outright addition of 750 units. These developments target older adults, recent graduates, teachers, and first-time homeowners.

The board also tackled issues related to local infrastructure, specifically water and sewer access, which were identified as potential challenges for development. The state auditor’s interpretation of unfunded mandates was a point of contention, as towns expressed concerns about the costs of developing additional wells or sewage systems. The discussion revealed discrepancies in consulting firms’ studies, which often yield contrasting results based on who commissions them. Despite these challenges, the board remained focused on finding a proposal that balances state compliance with community needs.

The meeting also addressed broader economic considerations, noting the town’s loss of significant retail establishments and its struggle to attract new businesses. The board suggested that resistance to residential development could hinder efforts to draw national retailers, as stagnant growth makes the town less attractive to potential investors. Revitalizing the local economy was seen as essential, with the board advocating for residential projects that could attract retail opportunities.

Another topic was the zoning bylaw recodification, which involves updating definitions and classifications to align with current laws and community needs. The board discussed changes to the use table, particularly for multifamily dwellings, and the potential introduction of “top of the shop” uses, where residential units are built above commercial establishments. This idea received mixed reactions, with some members supporting it as a means to enhance mixed-use development, while others urged caution, especially given ongoing MBTA discussions.

The classification of recreational facilities was also debated, with a focus on simplifying definitions to encompass indoor and outdoor activities. The board considered setting size limits for small-scale facilities in residential zones to provide constructive activities for youth while avoiding excessive commercialization. There was a consensus on the need for clear definitions to prevent confusion and ensure alignment with zoning regulations.