The proposed sewer project on Elm Street emerged as a focal point of the meeting. The board grappled with the $8.6 million project cost, which seeks to revitalize the area’s water and sewer infrastructure. One $3.5 million MassWorks grant was already secured, contingent upon the town raising an additional $2.5 million. The development could potentially yield between $500,000 and $600,000 annually in property taxes, promising a return on investment within four to five years. However, concerns were raised about the financial burden on residents, particularly through proposed betterment fees estimated at $12,000 per unit. Residents expressed apprehension about this cost, advocating for a cap to prevent higher assessments due to unforeseen costs. The board considered various financial structures, including a dedicated force main to reduce overall expenses. The project’s urgency was underscored by the threat of losing grant funding if not promptly approved.

Questions about the project’s financial implications led to a broader discussion about the necessity of securing reliable developers who could address environmental issues on the previously problematic Brownfield site. The importance of community input was emphasized, with calls for transparency and active dialogue with residents regarding the project’s future and its potential economic benefits.

Additionally, the board engaged in a debate over zoning overlays, particularly in relation to compliance with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) communities law. This legislation mandates towns to establish zoning districts allowing multifamily housing by right. Norton’s efforts to meet this requirement included discussions on the Greatwoods overlay district, which could potentially introduce 750 new housing units. Concerns were voiced about the impact of multifamily developments in predominantly single-family areas, and the board acknowledged the need for community involvement and adherence to state guidelines while considering local context.

The zoning proposals also included considerations for density bonuses, with some board members opposing these incentives, fearing they could lead to undesirable developments. The debate touched on the need for appropriate lot sizes and frontages to ensure developments were compatible with existing neighborhoods. The planning board’s work on aligning the town’s master plan with state requirements was noted, although the prospect of increased housing density remained contentious, with potential impacts on local schools and services a concern.

In parallel discussions, the board addressed budgetary concerns, focusing on the allocation of free cash and the prioritization of budget supplements. A consensus emerged favoring the use of free cash for one-time expenses rather than ongoing budget items, to ensure sustainability. The board also debated the financial implications of the Elm Street project, emphasizing a need for clear financial commitments before proceeding.

The meeting concluded with a review of other budget-related articles, including the demolition of the town hall, lake and pond management, and contributions to the stabilization fund. Members underscored the importance of responsible financial planning, with a strong preference to avoid returning to town meetings for additional funds.