The central topic of the meeting was the discussion regarding the remand for Special Permit 30 concerning Zero Mansfield Avenue, which involves plans to construct two 36-unit apartment buildings. The Planning Board scrutinized the updated traffic assessment provided by traffic engineer Daniel Baciva of Vanessin Associates. Baciva presented findings that the proposed development, consisting of 72 units, would not increase traffic compared to an earlier assessment of 60 units. He reported that the development would generate approximately 530 vehicle trips per day, with minimal impact during peak hours, equating to about one additional vehicle every 10 to 15 minutes.

Board members engaged with Baciva to clarify the expected increase in traffic and ensure review. The discussion also covered the inclusion of designated high-turnover delivery and ride-share spaces, as well as electric car charging stations, which were added to address prior technical comments. Additionally, the board emphasized the importance of ensuring that snow storage and removal plans complied with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection guidelines to prevent obstruction of entrances or sightlines.

Community concerns were a part of the meeting, with discussions about the design and placement of the buildings. The alignment of the northerly entrance was carefully considered to prevent headlight glare into nearby residential properties, addressing design concerns raised by the board. Members explored various options, including combining lots D and E to streamline the project plans.

The community expressed apprehensions regarding the project’s scale and its potential to alter the neighborhood’s character. Concerns were raised about the proposed building dimensions, with some residents and board members worried about the development’s visual impact, referring to the structures as potentially overwhelming for the area. There were also concerns related to the proximity of the nearest residential house and the potential for the project to transform Norton into a more densely populated area similar to Mansfield, which some community members opposed.

Environmental and infrastructure considerations were heavily discussed, particularly the differences between a force main and a gravity sewer line. The choice between these systems was debated due to potential limitations on future expansion for commercial development. The board emphasized the need for a sewer system that accommodates future growth, highlighting the necessity of consulting with water and sewer officials for further insight.

Stormwater management was another issue addressed by Pat Brennan from PGB Engineering, who confirmed compliance with state regulations and the Norton stormwater management bylaw. Brennan assured the board that the development’s detention infiltration basins were designed to manage runoff effectively, preventing any increase in runoff to neighboring properties. Despite these assurances, public attendees like Bill Rotundi raised concerns about elevation changes and their impact on water runoff, emphasizing the need for adequate stormwater management measures.

The board also discussed the procedural aspects of project approval, with town council member Robin Stein clarifying the differences between site plan approval and special permits. Stein highlighted that site plan approval is non-discretionary and difficult to deny, whereas special permits allow for more flexibility if concerns cannot be easily mitigated.

As the meeting drew to a close, it was agreed that the applicant would continue working with the conservation commission, necessitating a follow-up meeting scheduled for January 6th. The board voted unanimously to continue the discussion on the special permit at the upcoming meeting. The session concluded with the board entering an executive session to discuss pending litigation related to the Planning Board’s activities.