##VIDEO ID:L9NlFNbtQJo## welcome everybody this is the August 20th meeting of the Norton planning board um again this is a hybrid public meeting uh so in person we are at the norn public Li library at 68 East Main Street uh we are also being available on Zoom the zoom link for the meeting is available on the meeting agenda choose to join through the Zoom app that is 638 9291 060 there's also a phone number available if you should wish to dial in directly meeting will also be available at Norton cable access both streaming this evening as well as being available live via YouTube following the meeting your you sessions would you like would you'd like to submit questions to the board via email you could submit Brian carmichel Town staff whose email address has been listed on our agendas for just such a reason so with that out of the way we'll dive into the meeting today we do have five members here in person and two joining us remotely via Zoom uh so we'll go through uh so we'll go through all of our motions one by one here this evening so uh just to dive in here uh in terms of planning board business and policies I don't think we have anything to address at this time um in terms of bills and warrants I do have two small bills that I'll pass around to the members here uh for review one one is a Verizon bill for $29.50 and one is for a sign printing which I assume is related to the zoning bylaw change it is uh for $90 and we are required to print physical signs and stake them around town as part of our fos please take a look at those we sign them anything I have already signed them all you have to do is look SC okay um in terms of minutes uh we did have a number of sets of minutes that Brian had sent around um and again these are a little bit out of sequence but they are related to 2802 Avenue so we wanted to make sure that those were buttoned up I will try and take them in sequential order here to make sure that they are all approved um before I proceed I'll go to everybody and just make sure that everybody is comfortable approving these minutes and has had time to read them yes okay so going with our oldest set of minutes first um the oldest would be from February the 7th of 2023 which was the first hearing for this project then we have any comments questions otherwise I would look for a motion for those minutes so moved second okay we have a motion to approve by Jim and a second I think by Steve is there any discussion okay hearing none I'll go through the rule here Rob yes Jim yes Steve yes Eric yes Allan yes Laura yes and I will vote Yes okay next set is February the 28th from the same year any comments or questions related to that set of minutes okay anybody you like to make a motion second motion from Rob and a second from Steve any further discussion hearing none all in favor of approving the minutes of February the 28th Rob yes Jim yes Steve yes Eric yes Alan yes Laura yes and I will vote Yes next set is for March the 14th 2023 so again same question any comments concerns about the these minutes that were provided okay does anybody have a motion motion to approve second okay Rob and Steve with the second and I was just repeat it just to make it easier for the next set of minutes so any further discussion on the motion to approve okay yes Jim yes Steve yes Eric yes Allan yes Laura yes and I will vote Yes and finally we have minutes of June the 11th of 2024 any questions comments concerns about that set of minutes okay may would like to make a motion motion to approve second okay have a motion from Rob and a second from Steve to approve any further discussion hearing none Rob I'll start with you again Jim yes Steve yes Eric yes Alan yes and Laura yes and I will vote Yes as well thank you very much everybody now that that's out of the way um I do want to move into our public hearing section of the agenda this is a site plan review sp-6 and special permit SP-10 for zero Hill Street um so I'll ask if the applicant wants to pop up and present if they're here or if they're joining us virtually they can do that as well um before we get started Paul did you want to just give a brief uh overview and discussion while everybody get set up just very briefly and uh Andrew's here who's the applicant and I'd also like to point out that Doug Osler the traffic care Reviewer is on Zoom um um I just wanted to uh do a quick overview of this this is very similar to a situ a special permit you all saw recently down at 360 south wester street with Patriot relocation um so just giving you the location here we are on on Hill Street and if you see my cursor that is uh Rider Truck Rental and then these are the uh solar facilities right here and so the similarity here is we have one side of the road that is Zone residential 80 this side where the applicant is proposing is Zone industrial so it's very similar to what we you saw recently um just wanted to zoom in a little bit too because right across the street from uh from the proposed site are series of homes right across Hill Street and one thing I want to point out that as this is zoned industrial and what they're proposing is would fall under Warehouse stor and distribution facilities this isn't allowed this is a byright use but it's triggered the special permit is triggered because of the size of the of the proposal and just from a point of clarity we did have a project I believe that was approved as zero Hill Street within the last few years is this the same parcel it's the one next to it 10 it's the one next to it okay thank you I know sometimes when it's 0x Street I just want to make sure that that's um so this is that project is still on that other parcel in theory but this is an entirely new project adjacent to it correct okay okay is there anything else you wanted to run through sorry uh just the needed approvals so there are two special permits being sought uh with special permit for uh being more than 10,000 square fet there's also the need for an earth removal permit and a site plan uh cuz they're over 2500 square ft and then there are three waivers one dealing with the width of the driveway uh a waiver has been proposed for the landscape buffer and then our usual waiver regarding the scale on the on the plans themselves eventually that won't be a waiver that we need every single time yeah okay uh with that out of the way um Andrew if you want to just introduce yourself just give an overview of the project thank you yeah good evening I'm Andrew plat with bowler engineering of South Gro Massachusetts I'm here tonight with John Fick owner of Premier fence and Emily Buck of Bowman Luke theano is also joining remotely from B bowler engineering so tonight I'll be going over the site design and operations then Emily is going to cover the traffic um so Paul you covered pretty much the existing conditions but basically it's a 14.3 Acre Site currently wooded um with Wetlands to the North and South there's a certified Vernal pool in the northwest corner of the site um the street is higher than the rest of the site so the high points are to the to the side of Hill Street and then it goes lower as you go further east um the proposed project is a 30,33 square foot building with a 10, 200t outdoor fencing display area that will be the new um headquarters for Premier fence currently in Canton so the building will be used mostly for fabrication and uh sail fencing so being aware of the the there's residents across the street we held a neighborhood meeting back on July 30th to introduce the project and just to hear of any concerns um and then also we appeared before the Conservation Commission on August 12th and that meeting was continued to next Monday the 26th so getting into the site design um the site and this is zoomed in enough for you want me to zoom in a little bit more on the actual site so everyone can see it I think that works for now there may be points where we want to zoom in as we go through it sure okay so so there's two driveways there's one to the South um which will be Prim primarily for customers um trucks and employees the one to the north will be mostly for trucks uh these two driveways create a loop around the building the darker gray is all pavement the lighter gray is a gravel lay down area that will be used for storage of fencing materials um and then the dark green up by the road is the existing vegetation to remain that I'll I'll describe a little bit later the lighter green is just lawn areas and then all the other stuff in the perimeter is uh pretty much being left as it is which is wooded so there's going be two parking areas on both sides of the South driveway the customer parking area will be on the north side of the driveway and employees will be able to park in either parking area the customer parking area will be adjacent to the outdoor display area a total of 96 parking spaces including 488 accessible spaces are proposed company trucks other than possibly standard pickup trucks will park in the paved area surrounding the building building beyond the gates and not in the regular parking lots the narrow driveway which is um scroll over there this driveway driveway right here is for customer pickup and just links the um customer parking area to the north driveway there's going to be a private on-site fueling station in the Northwest part of the site which is approximately right here uh that's going to have two 1500 gallon above ground fuel tanks uh the perimeter of the site as I mentioned will be the gravel lay down area which is basically this and that total is about three acres in area so for landscaping and lighting it's um fairly consistent with the use so we've got shade trees uh proposed around the perimeter of the parking within the parking uh got the grass areas lawn areas um site lighting will be on 20 foot high poles and there's a lighting plan that's in the plan set so for utilities we've got the standard water coming from the street Electric telephone also from the street which will across the street um via overhead wires to a pole within the site then it'll go underground there's no gas surface here as you may know uh so we're going to have a protan propane tank above ground and that will serve the building and then for for sewer there's no sewer either so we're going to have a septic um incepted system to the rear of the building so that's approximately back here in the center um East part of it so for earth work and storm water um we know the groundwater is fairly shallow so we need to raise the site to make the drainage work so this is going to be a fill site um that's part of our earthwork permit but uh it's mostly import material here hardly anything is going to come out except for maybe top soil that can't be reused so the site as I mentioned will be a fill site uh we've got three large infiltration basins proposed those will essentially have zero runoff uh for proposed conditions because that's going to match the existing conditions and that's um currently under review by Weston Samson for the Conservation Commission um so just getting back to the screening uh we know it's an important part of the project uh the dark green the dark green areas here are the B existing tree to remain Bel Hill Street that's 20 ft wide that's can be backed by an8 8 foot high vinyl solid fence providing additional screening and then as I mentioned the slope the site actually slopes away and down so that'll the just natural screening of the site so just getting into operations so hours of operation will generally be from 8 or sorry 5:00 a.m. to 7 P.M Monday through Friday and 6:00 a.m. to 4 P.M on Saturdays there might be some occasional emergency U call outs at any time uh so most Crews will actually go to the site pick up their materials and leave for the day so you wouldn't typically have um the 98 employees there at any given time it would be much less than that then during the day there's just be a forklift retrieving materials probably about half a dozen times from the lay down area all the fabrication will be done will be done inside the building so really there's not expected to be too much noise generated by activities there um with that just want make sure I didn't miss anything John anything to add okay and I can turn it over to Emily to discuss traffic and we can take questions after that thank you speak if you want switch theid hi my name is Emily book um project manager at Bowman um we completed the traffic assessment for the project I'll give him a minute to bring up the slides um I'm just going to talk through um our approach and methodology that we applied in our traffic assessment um so this is just an overview I'll get a little bit more into each of these uh in the following slides um but we started we reviewed the existing operations at the current Premier Fence location in Canton uh we then um use that data to and information to estimate the trips for this proposed Norton site um for both passenger vehicle trips and truck trips uh and then we evaluated the site distance at the proposed site driveways along Hill Street next slide um so for the trip generation estimates um we collected data at the existing site driveway in Canton for a 24-hour period uh that allowed us to look at the total entering and exiting both passenger vehicles and trucks during a typical weekday uh that data was collected in on a Thursday day in July this uh this year um and it also allowed us to look at the the trucks um during the same times during the weekday and morning and afternoon peak hour this table here uh is a summary of the total trips both passenger vehicles and trucks um you can see um we we created a we created a rate or calculated a rate um based on the existing building's square footage and the total trip Tren and then applied that rate to the proposed size of this building um so here again total Vehicles passenger vehicles and trucks um during the weekday morning peak hour it would be 40 trips uh that next column is weekday afternoon peak hour I realized the header is chopped off there but it's 41 total trips during the weekday afternoon peak hour and then the total weekday 370 trips next slide specific to truck trip Generation Um we looked at the heavy vehicle percentages accessing the existing site and applied that to this um um trip generation calculation and uh it would be a total of uh 18 truck trips during the weekday morning peak hour six during the weekday afternoon peak hour and 90 um daily truck trips next slide um we also evaluated the site distance at the two proposed site driveways um this is represented of both truck and uh passenger vehicle requirements based on the American Association of Transportation uh high highway and transportation officials um so this is based on the 30 mph um uh recommended speed I will note there's no regulatory postage speed on Hill Street it was brought up in the peer review that um 35 mes hour might be more appropriate based instead of the warning speed that's applied here um so as you can see here based on that 30 mph uh the required stopping sight distance requirements are met at both site driveways uh and based on the the um we would be able to show uh we would prepare a sight distance graphic as part of our peer review response to comments to show if there was a need for any trimming um of that vegetation or slight adjustments just to meet those 35 M and hour requirements as well um we don't anticipate that being an issue and that those would all be met um as well to meet those safety requirements for vehicles and trucks accessing the site um and that's that's a summary of our traff traffic study happy to answer any questions would you prefer us Focus traffic questions now or do you want to come back and summarize or whatever your preference is I have a couple if you don't mind answering before you step away and we don't have to not that you don't maybe don't get more steps in the other way but U you mentioned the truck traffic to the site um is that is the mix of that largely on the existing site in can is it tractor trailers is it box trucks kind of a truck can mean any number of things um yes so I can I also will certainly so we have it just by classification which doesn't have um as much detail and I don't know if the it may be an operational question yeah if the operational question you would know and and the other question I was going to have is just compared to the study that you did with the existing facility in Canton compared to volumes for like the standard it CS Which is higher so the site in can is is slightly higher we presented both in the assessment I can um show talk through a little bit of a comparison but we did just focus on the one specific to the site since it is um slightly higher just to be conservative thank you if you want sorry is that it for traffic questions I got a question sure Steve sorry I introduced chaos I apologize okay there was just something I missed because it said the morning traffic was 40 trips and the afternoon was 41 yes yeah what is the 370 something number that's the daily um so throughout the entire day rather than just the commuter peak hour so so um is it what I assume there's like 290 trips between the morning and the afternoon um during other times of operation yeah they would fall um but the the weekday morning weekday afternoon those are the two hours with the highest number of trips uh in a uh specific hour so and what's the average per hour throughout the whole day is there um is there cars going in in and out pretty much every few minutes I would have to look at the the data we collected at the Canton site um but yeah I would assume that it would be kind of um consistently sprinkled throughout the rest of the operational hours um but we could certainly get back with like an average hourly um number of trips per for the remaining hours outside of those Peaks okay thank you you mentioned um the hours of operations the times like saying the that was a big jump the 290 in there um is that still just during the day or a lot of those at night are those going to be um the the 290 in terms of Prest slide I think is yeah back to the trip G just is that uh the one just prior I think is the one with the yeah um so the 290 trips is that what well there was a big jump your total is 370 that's what he was pointing up to versus your morning and afternoon totals are just a small chunk of that yeah yeah so I mean the those morning and afternoon peak hours are when there would be the most in a singular peak hour um again we could look into what the average would be for the remaining hours but those would certainly be the Peaks and the data ATR data showed that that happened within those kind of commuter peak hour times can we Define what morning and afternoon are I would have thought morning was like 8 to 12 afternoon was 12 it's usually um 7 to 9 is like the peak and yeah and then the afternoon is 4 to 6 those are kind of based around like the commuter Peaks and we to show kind of um that's the crew is leaving and coming back pretty much that's where you're going to get yeah and and those are fine so that's 80 of and then the other two 90 are between 9 and four yeah I mean the difference between that if if you divid it by hour it's about 25 an hour yeah that's asking um what I am asking is so you got the 40 and the 41 in those two periods early in the morning and in the evening so that's 80 of them then over here you're saying 370 that's so that 290 difference that happens between 9 and four um for the whole remaining hours of operation so I think it was five there's 14 hours during the day and that counts for two so there's 12 left which is 25 an hour okay what are the hours from when to when then 5 to 7 5:00 a.m. to 700 p.m. and 6:00 to 4: on Saturday is what I put down isos and most of those daytime are customers clients or are they the box trucks assant coming through maybe that's okay thank you yeah I believe most of the traffic and Johnny wrong um crw more than customers sure the on the weekend Ure there more customers they could also be employees like project managers driving out to a site coming back or someone running out to grab lunch com back also yeah sales people so mostly company company related pick up truck and the just the the mix of trucks that was shown kind of the volume of trucks is it a couple of tractor trailers dropping off raw materials and mostly pickups and maybe some box trucks or is it more heavy traffic I'm assuming no the tractor trailers just Fe for deliveries and pickups and that sort of things so they're relative relatively infrequent um Prem fence has has large trucks but no no tractor trailers so they're I guess like a good equivalent might be like a large utility truck with a charry on it but you're doing a lot of manufacturing there on the site right so that would cut down on the deliveries from the tractor trailers cuz you're manufacturer correct they' get big sheets of nylon or whatever but yeah yeah so the um so the bulk of the traffic though or excuse me the part that's the trucks it is actual tracks that belong to the company right correct that they could so would they be open to having them go out a certain way I'm looking on the map and there's one way that just puts them right back through the industrial park generally in the highway versus heading oh otherwise kind of off into you know southwester and all that North versus South yeah I believe that could be worked out they yeah I think the intent is to have them go mostly South I would think it'd be nicer for them anyway so right Ro get unfriendly for trucks yeah and I think mil standers is over there really wide so that's better and then understood customers and cars you can't do you can say what you want to yeah right um remaining comments that you have for your presentation before we dive fully into questions um no have you take any questions I have okay just for clarification on this you it said the dark green is remaining woods and the light green is uh grassy areas so just remember me what is the medium green oh that's just the perimeter you mean the thin strip around what will that be uh it's a conservation mix so it's kind of like a wild wild light mix okay Paul did you have any questions from your perspective at this point no I just want to remind that we have per review to short thank you well another one you I saw a name from Weston and Samson in the zoom meeting so I hope yes sorry you said it went down and it got lower as it went farther back um I notic so as you go farther back you're coming to other industrial you know facilities any anyways does it ever turn into Wetlands anywhere or is it just gets lower it does no it turns to Wetlands to the north and south and okay well in the very south east corner you can see that green patch there that's Wetlands everything that's behind the blue dash line basically is Wetlands okay but you're not building on any the other reports no we really can't either okay um I think it has to come back up again there's other industrial s um I know I saw correspondents in the the portal with the fire department and that the Turning analysis is being provided and they asked about a hydrant so I won't rehash that um you mentioned you had a community meeting with some of the residents I know given how the project on the adjacent site went that some of them uh have opinions about additional traffic on this road so can you just share how that meeting went and what changes if any did you incorporate into the design uh well for change for traffic there's really not much I mean changed overall the I mean we we've been been focusing on um basically screening of the site just trying to lessen the impact on the neighborhood so the traffic is you know what it is um but we've just been trying to you know make this as lowkey as possible basically I do appreciate you doing a community eror session it's always welcome um the one question related to that that I had was related to lighting um I may have missed it is there a photometric plan in the yeah there is I can flip to that just from a my initial thought is espe when you mention raising the sight and adding lighting I'm imagining kind of like a lighthous even though you're putting a fence in the front almost like a lighthouse effect where you're youve put the building higher than the rest of the surrounding land and now you're shooting light out and now yeah yeah looking at the math I the light poles will be a little bit higher like six feet higher than Hill Street at some points but they're for the most part they're facing away from the road so we can actually you know probably revise this a little bit to make it even a little bit better just trying toate that light going anywhere for invisible especially the neighbor directly across the street is kind of what I'm imagining especially if that front area is kind of a showroom area I assume it would be lit um more brightly than just a traditional industrial use for you have Wall Packs along the sides and pretty much call it a day correct but based on the hours I the lighting shouldn't be too much of an issue will'll be shut off I'm pretty sure at the close of the day so okay [Applause] additional questions from members of the board as Paul mentioned we do have the peer reviewer on the the line as well which we can want to hear their thoughts as well so are are all the vehicles going to be registered in time yes okay Ellen and Laur I know you're joining us remotely this evening I just want to you read my mind alen yeah my only question right now is they point out snow storage areas since it looks like a lot of the places are taken up by lay down areas where was all the proposed snow storage yep so I'm going to change to the site plan and basically these um these darker shaded areas on the perimeter of the site or the parking areas are snow storage areas there's one over to the uh to the left on the screen too which um left of the building and and then for the gravel laydown area this came up with the Conservation Commission um basically we aren't going to be plowing any snow through there that the snow just stays on there really there's no no um good way to to plow around inventory out there so there's there's actually adequate snow storage of quite a bit um showing here on the St plant so it has been accounted for yeah that was my main question about the lay down area necessarily that AED area and so so it's that the area to the left to the parking lot right there and then the bow tie on the left yeah all the U the darker shaded areas so pretty much around the whole prender of both parking areas you can see that shading there okay so Cloud the parking areas leave everybody else alone basically pretty much yeah and it's probably worth noting that operations in Winter are definitely a little bit slow you know slower than they would be summer and spring I would expect that with fence installations yeah and Laura I'm going to put you on the spot here just in terms of uh as you're joining us remotely anything else that you wanted to ask at this time I just had one question in regards to the traffic study I wanted to know if um um sorry B was aware of the approval at the lot south of Ls and whether that was taken into account with in the traffic study I do recall that site development traffic was not expected to have a lot of impact but didn't want to find out if that was considered sure is this just a another development that's recently is this what she's referring to just another development on it's an adjacent parcel okay that's been approved for development yes okay um yeah we didn't do any uh future projections we just looked at um trip generation associated with this specific site um so we didn't include any background developments or future projection of volumes we just looked at um the existing site and how that relates to what trips would be estimated to be generated by this proposed site I want to say that traffic on that site is probably about 15 to 20% of what was projected on this site so just a shoot from the head number please don't hold me to that Jeff in the winter do uh you guys work outside of the fencing field is there like any snow removal or any other kind of business that would like keep it you know like landscapers go from the winter and they'll go to snow removal stuff like that is it just going to stay fencing or is it going to be we just do uh fencing we don't do any snow removal uh during the winter we do do guardrail hits for the state if there's a snowstorm and vehicle hits guardrail we repair that awesome thank you any of the questions prior to um maybe it makees sense to talk to the peer review at this point sure okay uh I believe they are on the in the zoom meeting here so from Weston Samson I believe yes sir if I up next on the agenda um my name is Doug aler I was contractor through the planning board to do a review of the transportation elements uh including the traffic study as well as just looking over um site plan in general um there were no I would say no major comments um all of them can be dealt with um relative ly easily and many of them have already been talked about today by one person or another um and they generally go um relate to visibility at intersections uh and truck turning movements um within the review uh I guess to start off with um the traffic statement uh the number of trips is often used as a threshold for what um Meo requirements for thresholds on how much is included in these types of studies and they are lower than what those thresholds are so the amount that was studied and projected by the traffic engineer was appropriate for this type of development and is up to um discussions between the applicant and the town um to um look at any specifics that may arise as concern um the traffic engineer within the presentation did mention um approximate number of truck trips that should be expected I believe she said uh approximately 90 per day that wasn't specifically stated in the traffic study my estimate was about 80 or so um and that would be no 90 when people were asking about the size of trucks the the traffic counts that are included in study that you can if you look within study in the attachments at the very end it shows um the existing site and the number of trips in and out of the existing driveway it's being relocated from as well as classification of the type of uh trips whether they're passenger vehicles or larger trips and so my estimate just as uh for providing extra information my estimate was about 20% of those were you know midsize trucks and there were some a few larger trucks there were 12 trips that were considered a multi-unit and sometimes that's considered semi um applicant said that they didn't have any semet trucks going to FR I'm not sure if those were deliveries or just they were the traffic accounts are largly based on the distance spacing between axles and so sometimes some Specialty Trucks might go in one category they're not quite the same size as a larger semi Tru but just based on the axle spacing um so that would represent like six strips in and out of the site for Day of the the larger trucks um we did uh stoping site distance was mentioned by the traffic engineer in the presentation and I agree that it would likely be best to consider 35 mph the existing there's not regulatory speed limit signs but there are some speed limit advisory signs which are yellow instead of the regulatory white so it we presume that the actual speed limit if there was speed limit on the roadway would be higher than 30 mph so it would be recommended for that as well as um Ash of greenbook looks at some intersection site triangles and addition to the stopping sight distance there are a little bit longer sight distance calculations that account for the time it takes to perform the movement not just stopping so it's a little bit more safe less breaking by people going through um passing the site having to break for anybody going in and out of the site for as well as to consider new trucks that might be take a little bit longer time to accelerate um one more comment that I had was I mentioned earlier in the meeting was mentioned that some truck turning templates uh specific to fire engines would be looked at through the site and it's appropriate to also check your designed vehicle going in and out of your driveways just to make sure that they can make that turn if there's you know a a guest a visitor to the site that's in one of the lanes wanting to go out that you don't accidentally um flip a fender or something like that so that they can appropriately turn with the site um and then lastly I did also have a comment which was Reed by someone else in the meeting about um directing staff that are in work trucks larger trucks to preferably use go south towards M Standish Boulevard if they're going toward an interchange for the 495 in the area um as the intersection the route is is easier for larger Fe post to navigate um so overall it's uh fa really well analyzed site for the development um just some additional clarification and checks for um site distance turning in and out of the driveways and making sure our vehicles can perform the movements okay um just a and if this is beyond the scope of the general review that you've done on the project I apologize but I know that um this street itself Hill Street has been noted in the past as a relatively Narrow Street for truck traffic um this is an industrially zoned lot so I understand that aspect of it but from a best practices standpoint on how the board can square those two factors of a narrow road that is not necessarily well suited for trucks and they use which is generally requires them did I comment come through there or do I would you like me to repeat any of it I missed about the last 10 seconds I heard that Hill Street is fairly narrow and what are the commenting on the best practices and then I I miss yeah best practice is for squaring a a street that is fairly narrow and not necessarily well suited for heavy truck traffic and a use that is requires them other than the site distances when you've mentioned are there any other best practices from your perspective that make sense to consider um without you know short of altering the roadway which typically be beyond the scope of what a developer would be expected in terms of traffic when they're when trucks are going straight through on a road um well basically the largest issues are where they're turning so you want to have a good look at all the intersections and down to the South it seems like there's enough space for turning movements um and granted there is also a an added component of perception um and that gets kind of more into zoning um how it relates to um seeing trucks on a roadway that you're at least at a frequency that you're not used to um the applicant can State well and describe better more if you wish about the types of trucks and the sizes of the trucks that they may use because that would be re relevant for people that are um hesitant about seeing added trucks on the roadway um but to get a good size of how large these trucks might be to carry the um the the parts and the fencing um to their customers thank you Mr AA um yes TR um partway through that you were describing said some very large trucks you said you didn't want to quite call them semis cuz they weren't the size of the biggest semis are these still 18 wheel Vehicles like a tractor trailer configuration we're talking about they said that they had some for deliveries no I just but then he was saying wasn't sure I'll I'll clarify my my comment that I made about that um within the traffic study there's the traffic counts that were made um can include some classification um estimates and the traffic recorders are are based on a specific spacing that look at the distance between the axles um and so it recorded at their existing site um two to three multi-unit um heavy vehicles that went in and out of the site um and those are often thought of as tractor trailer trucks um but they're not necessarily specifically tractor trailer trucks so they could be but I can't say specifically that's but they're likely about the same size for axle spacing but they may or may not have the extra end on that you might see at tra trailer and I've got it and then in your thing you said that you think there' maybe be six of those in a day earlier took the first time in the whole day there's just six of them were that yeah um based on the traffic accounts um I believe there might have been four at their existing site so there would be two in and two out and so expanding a little bit based on the increase of square footage of their facility is how the trip generation of the traffic engineer did I just applied the same factor increase so there would be expected to be six that would be three and three hour in the day based on those traffic fair enough thank you I'm good thanks any El additional questions for the traffic peer review at this point with the expectation that as they mentioned there's still some comments to work through and finalize to I'm not hearing any additional comments for you Mr Osler at this time um so thank you very much appreciate your time thank you okay additional questions for the applicant at this time otherwise I would look to um see if we have any public comments at this point stage okay so I'll ask if there's anybody here in person in the room who'd like to come up and speak I see one hand here um if there's anybody who please come up and if there's anybody who's in the zoom meeting who would also like to speak I ask that you please use the reactions function in the zoom meeting so you'll see the react which may show with a smiley or a heart and if you just raise your hand using that function we will see you as you pop up to the top of the queue in the camera um and give you your chance to speak so please do so don't wait for uh don't wait so hi I'm 51 Hill Street and your name please Lori Stewart thank you and my biggest concern is the truck traffic called the state of Massachusetts and found out that their recommendation for width is 24 ft Hill Street meas measures 18 in certain sections of the road where it's winding and 20 to 21 in other areas we have racing tractor trailer trucks all day long going to the tart Industrial Park it's been a concern since they opened up the park and it's never been addressed my other concern is the hours of operation 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and on a Saturday I mean we're residents of that street I've been living there since the 70s and it's a big concern the lighting the noise they're going to manufacture fabricate is that going to start at 5:00 a.m. when do we have a our own homes a being taken away by this going in so I wish that someone would take a ride Downhill Street and take a look park at the old dump and watch the traffic watch a school bus come by with a small SUV they don't fit dump truck can't pick up trash and have a car coming by at the same time the street is not wide enough it was just resurfaced average speed limit is 45 to 50 and you hear is brakes someone's going to end up getting killed on that street especially now that that bike path is open families are using Hill Street to get down to Crane Street so that's basically it I wish you guys would just really take a look hard at Hill Street thank you and just as a clarification did you attend the community meetings the applicant talked about yes I did okay yeah and that was the biggest concern okay the hours the light lighting the truck traffic 5:00 a.m. I mean I have to get up at 5:00 a.m. and listen to that and offense isn't going to stop it manufacturing is going to start at 5:00 a.m. and I was at the community meeting and we voiced our concerns there as well as I'm doing now still the same thank you it's always it's it's always good to understand that people did attend the meeting and it was legitimate we had some applicants who have said that they held community outreach and we asked them how many people showed up and they said two so um thank you all right thank you okay um I have not seen anybody in the zoom meeting raised their hand so I'll turn around again to look uh in person here no I did oh I'm sorry I didn't see you there if you could just state your name and address for the record please Laura Dean okay 53 Hill Street um I live directly across from this project um um and I'm just want to reiterate what my next door neighbor Lori just said just again it's nothing against the company it's our concern is the traffic um and because I asked I did go to the community meeting and we appreciated that um and I did ask then about you know this traffic study because I never understood before what's included and I I had a suspicion at that point that the additional building going in adjacent and the even if it's a little a small amount or a small percentage of additional traffic it's still additional traffic for a very narrow road um did the traffic study and I'm I'm sure it didn't take into consideration that rail trail Lori is correct we are seeing a lot of fight this because the corner of Hill and Crane Street is where people get on and off it's the beginning and the end of that rail trail we are seeing a lot more cyclists I saw someone on my street almost get hit heading down right in front of my mailbox today and it wasn't even a big truck it was a van it's difficult Road for cyclist but we're seeing a much greater amount of people getting on that rail trail and lastly you know around that corner Hill crane we have that very large um uh Development coming in with the 44 homes we so we already anticipate when those people come out of that colge to sack there's 44 additional homes of traffic that are coming onto this narrow road so again it's nothing to do with this business it's our concern about the safety and I don't care what a traffic study says we're living here we're seeing how dangerous it is the house that I live in which is directly across from this project the previous owner was killed by a tractor trailer hit him in front of our home um and so I just really want the town to just take that into consideration um it seems like a quiet kind of passive winding road but it's treacherous and and even five more cars or five more um you know vehicles on it we're we're getting into a a dangerous situation I don't think it's a matter of if it's a matter of when something's going to happen so um I just ask that you take that into consideration thank you did you have any questions or comments that you'd like us to ask the applicants at any point or do you think we've covered your large largely your concerns so far yeah I mean I I asked a lot of questions that night and I mean you know they they share they shared their points that we're lucky that it could be you know a FedEx going in or an Amazon none of it is appealing to us and as I explained to them that night for those of us who have lived on Hill Street for 30 plus years years when we moved here whether it was an oversight by our Realtors many of us were told that that land would never be built on that it was a buffer for the industrial path so for years we've been living the dream thinking oh this is great we've got this beautiful quiet Scenic scenery across the street from us so when this other building that's coming on to Hill Street we first set it hearing about it we were shocked because after 30 years we were like we must have been told the truth so that's why we're having a little bit of a difficult time swallowing this because we had been told something very different and we we set up Roots here thinking we would live here forever and never have to look out across to a building so and I know we weren't the only family that was told that information by our realtor so it's just it's a little bit of a it's it's a big pill to swallow for us thank you Miss Dean thank you okay anybody else in the zoom meeting who would like to make any make any comments ask questions again I'll turn around one more time and I'm sure the person in the back room is sick of be making eye contact with them but I'm sorry okay I've got one more question sure do we have a slide that shows how the houses on the opposite side of the street line up with the entranceways and exits sure I think we do and the applicant is moving the screen right now so I see a little bit on the satellite here I'm not sure if you wanted just to come up and just give an overview in terms of are the driveway do the driveways match up are they offset I think that's Alan is that kind of the point of your question that the driveways how they offset and like how one of these neighbors would have a straight line of sight down into a driveway are they going to be looking at the buffering yeah they're they're mostly offset well they AR offset this one to the South especially you see the other driveway right about here where the cursor is uh the other one to the north is a little bit harder to tell uh in fact it's nearly impossible to tell on this one I I believe it is offset though I think the site plan actually shows it yeah so this one uh sorry the trackpad is not my friend the trackpads are nobody's friends that's okay we understand we all uh work with computers as well at least some of the time all right so I'm not gonna move this anymore just because it's finally showing it but so the driveway next nearest drive North driveway is this little where the where the blue box is now would be there it is they're all they're all basically in between your two driveways if I'm reading this correctly I'm seeing four right one y one two three four yeah they're all and then one further past Y and then another one almost near at the the far end of the site correct okay okay I just if we're looking if we're looking for any comments or anything from board members as to how any of us are feeling I'm very concerned with the hours of operation with a retail aspect of this in the middle of this type of neighborhood that does concern me with adding the traffic along with the road size um all very concerning to me can we get clarification of when fabrication starts is the 5:00 a.m. just for the crews kind of getting out on the door and then fabrication begins later or is it 5:00 across the board that that's when you guys start fabrication would start 7:30 and typically goes to 4:30 5:00 have you guys done any kind of noise I'm sorry have you guys done any kind of noise pollution monitoring like is it a loud fabrication process is it something that's going to be we've done oosha studies and there have been no issues with that yeah and I just want to reiterate all the fabrication is inside the building too I just didn't know if there was something noticeable that the residents would be hearing I'm I'm going to assume yes cuz I'm going to assume in the summer those bay doors going to be wide open um because they because the warehouses get hot so that would be my expectation going into it is that even though it's happening within the building and that's set pretty far back from the road that here in fence post clang is probably going to make a noise um I don't know how loud that would be because I'm not a sound engineer but that's my shoot from the hip gu I think assuming that having Heen in the building makes it soundproof is not something that we would rely on um I don't of to disagree with Paul but I disagree a lot with this one because of the retail aspect of this I think this is unlike anything we've seen recently adjacent to a residential Z um yeah one of the obviously traffic has been mention by everybody um oh the question and your for you and may if this is something for the traffic engineer as well um would you be open to um obviously I don't we're not going to close the public hearing tonight especially because you're still being continued conservation would you be open to doing to putting down um a couple of um monitoring strips for Speed along the site area and maybe at the closest intersection to um mainly understand speed and speak to the site distances that the peer reviewer mentioned since you did for 30 they suggested maybe 35 um specifically maybe be after September the 2nd when schools start up again we disc You' be amenable to we we can definitely discuss it um I'm not sure talk to U traffic engineer and see if that would be you know something that would help or not we have an idea of the speeds out there I think we know based on those things but yeah we we can definitely discuss that as possibility okay are you suggesting people are following the posted speed liit because if you are that's kind of funny I was going to phrase it in a slightly different way Alan but I think you're well well way we know that's not happening come on let's be serious yeah let's not try to let's just not try to say everyone's following the posted speed on that's ridiculous well I guess and we we've never seen I've never seen a traffic study that had impacts to roads significant impacts to roads these never come back significantly impacting roads no matter what we say or do it's all just estimates and some guessing mixed in with some formulas so let's not pretend there isn't an increased traffic around it absolutely will let not pretend let's not pretend drivers don't speak come on please yeah I think I think we know that there'll be an impact on the volume of traffic on the road and then in most cases when we do a traffic study it usually says the artery can handle the load uh with and have we ever seen one that hasn't you know maybe at an maybe at a couple of intersections that's pretty much usually yeah and usually those intersections are already like a level of service have they're very misleading in my opinion um yes so Laura I see you have your hand raised so um did you have an additional comment that you wanted to mention yeah you kind of hit it there at the end I really would like to see a a more involved traffic study with actual volumes um like you had stated when school is in session given the new rail trail um projecting out the development next door um I'd like to see volume and level of service cuz the site development proposed next door is nowhere near the scale that was being projected here and I if I'm not mistaken I I could be wrong I'm pretty sure they did a full traffic assessment including multiple intersections I did go to look on the drop offs for that project and they didn't see but I I do see recall they did a full-blown traffic impact study yeah I was that was one of the things I was going to mention as we wrapped that decision was issued Paul in September of 22 um I'm not sure if that is something that we do have on file in terms of a traffic study um that would be something i' have to look at 10 yeah um I do have one other comment about the traffic study said not to interrupt you go um but I I kind of find it weak that they only collected data for one day in the existing location one day I don't know why it wouldn't be more than one day I drives me nuts when things were only monitored for one day that doesn't make any sense to me also no I mean I think is it a limit window yes but basing a traic stand basing numbers off of one day is completely ask I in my opinion I would also I would say that the Counterpoint to that would be they reported numbers that are higher than the standard it estimates so they could have come here and said it's a 30,000 foot warehouse and here's the buy the book number and they're giv us what they're reporting at this so I'm going by what they're presenting us yeah so just from a um but yeah I think I think it would I will speak as my from my own point of view I think having data on actual travel speeds on that area would be beneficial at this P um if you want since I I've said maybe after Labor Day when school is in session um if we do have um a traffic a similar study that was completed in the past two years for a prior project I think I would be okay with using that speed data as a substitute uh since that would make sense but because I think I'm not sure which page the um the site distances were at on that on your presentation um but it looked like on one of them you were measuring for 300 and it said you could have met like 330 so there wasn't and some of them it was like you measured for 300 and you could do 490 so I wasn't as concerned about that one but there was at least one sight distance where it popped in terms of a you don't have a whole lot of yeah that one yeah you required the top one is required 200 and he measured 230 if you increase to 35 you're probably pretty tight on that and if the actual speeds are closer to 40 then you're probably making it challenging so just in terms of making sure that we do have the appropriate site distances given actual traffic patterns on the road okay I believe this feed was brought up in the comment letter by Weston and Samson it was yes and they suggested 35 I don't know how 35 translates to to the required site to the site distance compared um and whether that's within the 230 number or whe it require alterations so okay um if it's 35 or if it's a higher number based on actual traffic that's what I'm getting at okay yeah let's we'll think that through I'm just trying to figure out the end result there so if you're finding out the speed is actually 40 m hour I would like to see sight distances that account for 40 mph traffic okay and then on the flip side maybe we can just figure out ahead of time what the site distance would be the speed was 40 you know we'll find out if we can accommodate that without even knowing the speed I mean that would be the other way of doing it right um yes I also under the impression from past projects that putting down a speed monitoring strip is not exactly doesn't exactly cost a Rolls-Royce so okay yeah we'll discuss it yeah Ian that's what you're going to need if the if you choose not to provide that data you can choose not to provide that data and we will have to use the data that we have to make our decision but we'll get you the best data we can and then I heard your your point about finding you know PR traffic reports so that'll be our first step to that yeah if we are able to find find it it was done in 2022 so I would view that as comparable um to save you the effort but okay thank you la I see your hand is still raised is there initial comment that you wanted to make yes sorry thanks um I don't know whether this was addressed earlier but the sorry I forgot about the retail aspect can the developer advise how many retail customers um are Pres on any or come on any given day I know it's a yeah fencing is a large ticket item I can't imagine it's going to generate the same type of volume as um you know a hardware store or yeah some other retailer but I would like to get an idea of how many customers are coming on site on a daily basis John do you have that number yeah typically it' be 2 to three during the busy season um uh we are a destination shop so we'll go out visit someone's house measure it and have them come down to the showroom to look at the displays and what we have to offer so two to three per day is the thank you okay that's kind of where I was thinking so it's not going to add terribly to the the traffic okay any additional questions for the applicant at this time otherwise Android as you mentioned you're continue with conservation are there other open items that um you have in terms of timing or in terms of other pieces uh just a pure review for the Conservation Commission and you're continued do you have an expectation of when that would be do you expect that you would close at the next hearing or you think you have more work to do no most likely not the next meeting but two weeks after that hopefully depending on the timing of the peer review comments so you're looking at we'll call it mid to end of September to close that process out roughly yes okay Paul do you have additional questions or comments um so given that timing um obviously I'm going to make make sure that any questions that the board has for you that we need additional clarification we give those to you tonight um in terms of um before we do take that step just looking ahead to our next meetings in September we have the 10th and the 24th um we do always get into interesting timelines and competing about who closes first with conservation or planning um we try not to make it a competition um in terms of if we were going to if there was you were going to get new traffic data after school starts it would probably make sense to continue to the 24th of September which would give you enough time to do that compile the data and incorporate any data from that um if it's taking from an existing report and plugging it in that's obviously less intensive and not time sensitive but for the purposes of this meeting we would need to to continue to a certain a specific date and time just for open meeting law okay can we continue to the next meeting and then you know if we don't have the data that you need by that time we'll just for continuance at that time that is also an opportunity yes okay I'd like to keep the option open then okay yeah um yeah I don't see this as an issue with this proposal that is something that we do try to avoid if we think somebody's going to come back a lot um because we understand that residents are also taking time out of their day and we don't want to have them come to a meeting have it be continued go when I set aside my whole evening for this um so we'll try to provide as much Advance morning then you know if we need to continue next time um so other than traffic is there anything else understanding that conservation is going through storm water and everything else is there anything else that we wanted to ask the applicant for for lack of better term homework to come back to us for the next session the hours of operation seem to be big sticky point is there any leeway inside of that to fluctuate those hours at all or no oh discuss it seems like that's a big b of contention as well as the traffic Al we make the decision on the information we have so if the hours are that they are then that's what we um okay not hearing anything from the board Alan and Laura I'll ask ask you again if there's anything else no I think I've said enough never Alan never okay I'm good thank I'm good thank you okay so the applicant has requested uh continuance to our next meeting which would be September the 10th I'm sorry I do see a hand raised there uh from Miss Dean did you just state your name and address again for the record please Jo La Dean 53 Hill Street um just a question for the town have you guys done any studies on what putting a building like this does to the property value of a a residential homeowner and what the impact is on us um as far as as far as I am aware the town has not done the town has not done a specific study on that um that is something that gets asked frequently and is also from and I will this is and I will yeah I'll do it anyway I'll speak a little bit out of school here in terms of some of the discussions that we've had with Town Council in terms of other things is that um sometimes when residents do look at this in terms of impact on property values related to an appeal finding relevant study data that they can point to is sometimes a challenge as well um it is something that we consider is the overall impact of the neighborhood and generally the impact on home values we look at from a general sense in terms of uh the the way I would look at it is how would I feel if that happen across from my house and how would I feel it would impact my quality of life living there exactly okay thank you thank you okay um any further comments prior to uh potential motion uh motion to continue site plan review 6 and special Department sp10 to September the 10th second I'm going to say you're pointing to Jim okay you have a motion from Eric and a second from Jim is there any further discussion on the motion to continue okay very none sorry Rob gr fart yes Jim yes Steve yes Eric yes Alan yes Laura yes and I will vote Yes as well so we will see you on the 10th or otherwise soon okay thank you very much thank you have a good night okay next item on our agenda I believe is a request for a shity call for Crane Street correct correct so um as you recall zero Crane Street came before you within the last few months and know you one of the special permits you issued was for a uh her removal um but with that in our bylaw it actually carries a requirement for shity which we put in the in the bylaw so uh in fact I saw Lee Lee cetti is right here um provided us with a proposal for uh for shity um I was hoping we would have an agreement from Town Council we don't have one as of this point but I was hoping at least we could talk about that and see if you agree with the proposal that Lee has provided okay and just from a summary they are proposing that the shity is 25,000 or 5,000 per lot to cover the cost of remediating the operation not necessarily restoring it to its previous state right so so for example there were four lots and if by chance they they excavated two of the Lots then the money would be used to help just stabilize the lots that have been impacted so in other words you put Turf down you might put erosion control measures down make sure that there's no offside impacts make it look presentable you know that so it's just not Barren land so it could be it could be Turf it you know some sort of s something like that so I just wanted to make sure that you all are okay with this proposal before we come back with with an actual agreement that which we've done in the past it's been a few years since we've done a a shity agreement but uh that it's it's important for the agreement for both the town and the applicant to make sure everyone is protected is that a sufficient enough number based on what we know I think so if it's if it's primarily a stabilization that again based on it being with Turf and things like that that's probably going to cover it what's challenging is is you don't know what level know it's if like if you're decommissioning like a solar farm which we've done before you you can calculate the cost don't use that example pa okay if you decommission um something else you can calculate the removal of the of that here it it it just could be it's a little more challenging because we're talking about removal of Earth versus the deconstruction of something that's been built so but again if we're looking at it from the perspective of just stabilizing what's been done then it's it should be sufficient should we to me it see to me it seems like an easy math problem if they know how many yards of dirt they're going to go in on that lot and that's one of the things we're calculating we should to have that math broken down not just shoot in the dark if they're bringing in 100 tons or they bringing in 1,000 tons for that l i remember isn't it something like 40,000 am I remembering that remember correctly Le casti I represent the applicant long Built Homes uh the actually the on the special per was issued um the with it's 22,000 yards of material um that's being removed um and the issue as Paul we discussed was describing um your your bylaw speak on restoration but if you're doing a gravel removal operation um I'm not truly or technically restoring it I'm not bringing gravel back if I abandon the site the gravel's already been removed so in a worst case scenario um if if I've left a a a you know a face at at a greatest slope than 3 to one you there and you're regrading that and then loing and hydrating it so that you're stabilizing the site but you're going to have tree removal um in order to be able to remove the gravel uh you I'm not bringing nobody's bringing trees back and you're not bringing gravel back you're just stabilizing the site and just what I I don't know if you have the benefit of my letter in front of you if you've read that but um you know as I stated in the letter we've been in business since 1986 we've built over 1500 homes and I would hope some practicality would be applied here um and during that period of time including uh 1998 and 2008 uh we have never abandoned a project that we've started so I think we have a track record that speaks for itself that it's an extremely low likelihood that we would ever um abandon this project we're not necessarily stating you do we're require our bylaw so I understand that but again I would hope some practicality would be applied to that as well um so does that Allan does the breakdown of what they would do in terms of a stabil stabilization event makees sense to you in terms of the I I didn't see a letter I didn't go do it with for the letter but honestly I I didn't know there was one I didn't go back in the file and see one I don't know if I missed it and something is was is there a breakdown of how we came up with the number or we just shoot them the dock I guess is my question well well again there's there's no there's no way of breaking it down if you're you know saying I'm going to abandon the project I can't Envision necessarily when it's going to be abandoned well you were saying you you were going to break it you were going to break it down you were going to break it down for a lot correct so I mean if you had to bring in how many yards of loan to top dress and then how much much what you say seating Hydro Seating would cost there should it seems to me like you could put a number or some type of breakdown to it how I'm not I don't I'm not Clairvoyant I don't know it just seemed so the the expect the we we know square footage is of what's being disturbed correct I mean there's a plan yeah but once once the grav was removed um I've actually left the future of that lot in a suitable condition for resale to build on I'm not a fan of shooting in the dark and guess this is what seems like we're doing there Alan from your perspective would a comparison with what the amount would be to L and Hydra seed the entire site compared to the site number that we have here or L and Seed half the site is that basically what you're looking for is how much do it cost it could be less it could be less for all we know we don't know we have no right we're guessing we're guessing but so I don't know I like joh council's opinion obviously but it just seems to me like there's nothing to make a decision on here if we don't have any information other than a guess PA in your evaluation in terms of how you've looked at this is that roughly what you looked at is how much it cost to L and see the site those were factored in but again it was I haven't done this before and we've spoken and yeah it's it's it's there is some guess work in here um I will say I look back to try to glean some advice from some of our past Earth removal uh and many of them didn't even have shity and I don't know how we did that but maybe the bylaw changed but it's clear that there was a requirement uh to do so uh but again this was different from other shity cases that we've done before where we've asked them to calculate it this is again it's a little different because we just don't know when we would have to be assuming almost you know the worst case which would be everything gets removed but at that point if everything was removed you've completed the project um so it's it's a it's at some level there's there's going to be a level of guessing here is there any worst case scenario where during the removal of material the Topography is altered enough to change the water flow of the the L that's the only thing that's going to like stand out if it were abandoned I'm sure there is a point where that could happen I don't know what that would be and I assume that part of the stabilization would be make so there's no weird grading going on for lack of a more scientific or professional term so that's what I said excuse me that's what I said you would do if you had an excessive slope You' just regrade that and then stabilize it yeah but again understanding that the topography already is Extreme there in many cases and the the runoff is is relatively minimal there because it's their a a quality soils I grew up riding around quite a few gravel pits in town that are now very nice developments and they recovered just fine okay so again I'm one voice on the board here Paul you're looking for directional feedback from the board if is this something that we think makes sense and then you would proceed to a formal agreement is that correct maybe we can just do a little more digging and see if we can try to hone in on that number while we're waiting for Town Council to give us that draft I think what Alan's looking for is a sanity check not so much a just a an understanding of I don't know how much I could I could I have an idea of how much it costs to loan and hydro seed my yard which I probably need to do um but I don't know how much it would cost to do something like the scope of this site and it's not something where we need to get three bids and try and figure out at the best price just an understanding of are we in the right ballpark um and and a Town Council says that's an acceptable approach and everything's fine I have no problem with that either okay I just don't want to make a decision based on nothing understood any other members have any questions comments beyond that okay and if you guys feel if you guys feel different please tell me I'm an idiot to shut up and I'll go to bed no I think we should satisfy your ask here no um okay Paul does that give you the feedback that you need okay MH thank you sir for getting for your comments and clarifications so continue to do we need an official continuance on this I think so I think the we should okay um continue I would say do you feel our next session is appropriate you think we need more time let's I'd like to give them a date to have it done by okay sooner the better and does the 10th look like it's a busy agenda other than the item we just continued yes the MBTA public hearing starts then okay we are in Fall town meeting season so we don't have a good agenda coming you're not going to have one for a little while okay until maybe November okay so it doesn't matter whether we do it the 10th the 24th it's going to be busy November yeah I would expect so then why don't we say the say the 10th and get it over with yeah work okay any objections okay thank you and we'll just go through the RO here uh actually do we don't we have a motion Contin the shury to September 10th I think Rob went first I give you the second sure okay Rob with the with the motion Eric with the second Rob yes Jim yes yes Eric yes Alan yes Laura and I will vote Yes continue attemp okay and last but not least we have sured here apologize for keeping you waiting I'm hanging out having a good time your idea of a good time is way different than should be the planning director so one thing I before as we get started the prime one of the things we need tonight is for you all to vote to put to transmit this on the warrant because the warrant closes in a week 3:00 next Tuesday so as we get through this tonight our hope is that we will have this the language final uh doesn't mean we can't make changes but they have to be small changes from here on um we can we can shrink it we can't go outside the scope of what gets approved tonight no floor amendments no could be fun no no back hurts from this pull that out of there cool well for the record my name is Taylor prz I'm here with sered um you folks have already kind of been in discussion with this we had a discussion at the last planning board meeting um and we have come back tonight with some options for you folks to make some decisions on and just to review some of the changes we made to the initial draft of the bylaw and so before I kind of talk too much does anyone have any questions given their review of this in advance um or do we want walk through one by one we can walk through I get suggestion a couple little tweet nothing big okay nothing big this time okay cool well we'll start I guess we'll just go through one by one and I have the bylaw as well um so I'll kind of be going back and forth between these but starting with the District boundary um you know my colleague Robin I who's not here he's on PTO um but we had a lot of conversation about this as to you know trying to think of all scenarios especially things that'll be more palatable to Residents when we go to town meeting and so we just again wanted to present this as an option just to truly finalize the District boundary um here tonight so the option we wanted to present was whether or not you folks wanted to remove New England ice cream or any other kind of smaller Parcels from the district based on the conversation we had the last meeting I say keep and I mean it's just including in the district it doesn't mean that we're saying that the use doesn't need to continue or correct anything yeah so I don't does it make it nonconforming or it's just an overlay so it's not it's still in the commercial it's just um it's not not we're not creating another existing non-conforming right it's just that this adds you know and increases the numbers as part of the mathematical exercise for it and it gets us farther away from the state requirement for us and yeah so that was you know one thought I had you should we consider taking it out and then of course it's um I should also say a couple things too um I've been meeting with uh I met with New England ice cream and also with the uh with TPC um I've also made contact or emailed or sent letters to the mobile home park uh and and uh to the uh the Residential Properties across the way just giving them a heads up um haven't heard from them yet so but I wanted to you know we wanted to start doing more Outreach with them to make sure this doesn't become an issue you know the other concern I would have with New England ice cream and again it's it's not a it's more theoretical but they're right next to to the mobile home park if we were able to take them out maybe that makes them feel better but I haven't heard anything from the mobile home park New England ice cream was fine with it when I explained that you don't have to do anything I think they would be okay with it they they didn't raise any major fuss nor did TPC so um it's just you know trying to do what we can to make the butters potentially happier and then when get to vote at town meeting will the public want to see fewer than than more I it's more contiguous this way if you take it out it kind of like why is that it's very Gander yeah so they don't want to rule out the possibility of this District expanding if it's favorable someday to we could always just change it later too it down you know yeah I mean it certainly there's reasons to keep it in but you know this isn't a oh boy we better be careful about this one it's just just a consideration just real quick the state requirement that we have to fulfill here can you define sure do you want to Sure 50 acres by right multif family um you can have site plan approval no special permit causes or anything no required age restrictions no requirements for mixed use uh maron's required unit capacity is 750 units there's a lot that can kind of go into what that unit capacity actually means and looks like and what it would translate to on the ground development which is not something I can necessarily speak to but it's based on your 2020 okay census how is it good for Norton I mean I don't know that I'm necessarily here to fair enough it it keeps us it makes us compliant correct with because there's pretty significant what the state says right adds more housing adds more housing in a state that needs more housing potential tax revenue yeah it's the state cramming it down out road so let's not be around the bu yeah we we wouldn't be here if the state didn't mandate it exactly so this is something the state is forcing on ush okay and um are any every town in Massachusetts is having this first on them not every towns that have an MBTA station or are adjacent to one roughly speaking defined in chapter 161 about 170 177 300 something in massachusett so half the towns in the state are okay and are any of them are they all just complying or any of them pushing back they're fighting you want to clarify the majority of communities have adopted a bylaw town meeting that are due this year my question is are any of them fighting yes okay how many you said 10 about 10 I think okay and you would characterize the state's response as aggressive and with a very large stick I would absolutely put it that way uh they are and in fact the one of the communities there is a lawsuit there is a hearing that's going to happen in the fall we don't know when and we don't know what they will decide but I would just want to position Norton not to have to be part of that there's too many downsides we would lose a lot of discretionary funds if we are not in compliance the state is actually in one case probably going beyond what was in the guidelines because there was a funding that was was approved that they it wasn't allocated and they took it and it wasn't one of those funds that they said could be taken so um so this is not the first time this year I hear the state is forcing things on us and making us absorb them but that's true but I think all the work that we've put in again it's the board and zba members we're trying to put something in that can be we can feel comfortable with something worth to for what it's worth I actually think because I did read the plan that if we were forced to do it this was a very good way to approach doing it but I want to come back to being forced to do it I don't like that at all I don't think the state I don't like the state forcing things on Norton that AR you know you can't answer the question how is this good for Norton so why why does Norton want to do it I'm just your technical assistant I know I know that but that is the point let's face it it's not good for Norton it's something being forced be argued yeah I think thing it's a perspective I'm going to go with no I will say and my comments are based on that I will say do I think that the state is for sitting it on towns yes do I think that the state needs more housing also yes that Norton's so the I would I would say that some Norton residents may want more housing in Norton but I agree that the I would bet you'd find people don't want to cram population into Norton I would ass there is a significant portion of people who definitely would feel that way yes yes I would also say that that development on a lot like this that has nothing does also also generate tax revenue for the town I think Paul you've said that like the Grove is probably per acre generates the most Revenue in terms of for the town of anywhere in town I think it would I we we looked at that I think it would be do people like it no is it does it generate revenue of town yes does it fulfill a public need in the area yes would we choose it if the state wasn't mandating it probably not so all of that is yes well and and and adding to that too you know this location was picked for a few reasons one is if something were to be built this is probably the best area of town to put it well I agree with that this is this is a lot of this is not residential some of it's residential minimizing what the damage could be what's being brought in and and also this is on Water and Sewer so these could be new connection fees which would help Water and Sewer Department um with and plenty of people to put into our schools which are having no problem affording stuff right now well but we do want to keep in mind bur Services which are having no problem affording things right now sure and and and you know we'll continue to work with the school board on this as well but you know when you look at where we were student population in 2000 we're about 650 students less which I know isn't you know I know there's there's more to it than that number but across the country SC uh student enrollment has been dropping over the last couple of decades um it it is an impact to schools absolutely you you are right and is it is it a critical we won't know until something gets built yeah if something gets built you know these this is just allowing the development by right we do not nothing needs to be built right and we you look at these sites New England ice cream is probably not going anywhere the the bottom on the right that's the new Norton links the 40b project so that's that's built um right above them is uh uh the oil delivery service oil Serv which one action of the area oil right so it's possible with those multifamilies on to the right hand side of 140 those are all quads right they're already there I mean they it could be giving them an opportunity to expand or renovate or but it's already there so that's not a real big difference those aren't big sites so you're not going to see if you know a big building there I I TPC all right TPC that's that's that's a lot of land I I do know Norton right now has you know you have how much we're looking up on a residence the fairy bird because is commercial it's it's an imbalance and I'd love to see yes this is what planning is you know is trying to push this bring this balance back which would mean um first of all we do have to develop some commercial areas you I've talked on we got to leverage our Highway exits that lane is near a highway exit M so out there along 140 I if we have to pick some eggs to get broken and I'm probably about to get some Nast Tex for this those areas along there are a good place to start encourag business business to come in and get the commercial development because people get off the highway they don't have to drive through Norton they they're going to get off they're going to get there do whatever and get lost and the 123 has that same advant that area is already Zone commercial yeah it whatever business wants to go there can go there we have to address this tonight she needs to talk let's get on with it like we have to work on this District a lot of people don't go ahead so do we want to keep New England I think yes okay go ahead but I I think we should be pushing back on this is my own opinion and doing it I don't think we should be letting the state Ram things on us and I think the town's forcing it I I would rather join them so option one we are not doing we are keeping the proposed boundary option two correct underst option option two if I have to choose between those option two is the better one okay so so last time we had a discussion on side guard setbacks and whether or not we wanted to address increasing the setback for existing residential uses again particularly considering the neighboring mobile home park and any other existing residential uses and so we have three options here you can have a 50ft side or rear yard setback described within the dimensional standards um again we would just need to clarify what defines an existing use and um you know we would want it to undergo legal review option two is very similar but rather than describing it in the dimensional standards it's described within development standards that is what is Incorporated in the current version of the bylaw you folks have seen tonight um and then option three is that we have no language on additional setbacks for residential uses existing or other ones and that it would be addressed you know by other means that approval Etc I'm fine with but you said option two is what's already written in there correct just to clarify the difference between option one and option two is so in option one you would address that uh let me get to it in the table of dimensional standards here you would have I think this is actually what we presented to you folks initially where we had a second row um where it was like you know for an existing residential use the sidey yard setback increases to 50 or something like that the way we've written it in this version um here is I I scroll down and I believe this was based again on some of the language that was around the village BCC that one um so I mean we def finded here again I would want this to undergo some legal review because I always some of the language can get weird when you're talking about a use in existence prior to a certain date Etc um I've just set a date of October 1st 2024 um and this just proposes that you know any project that abuts an existing use that you know was in existence prior to the state provides a landscape buffer of not less than 50 ft we we probably would want to use the date of the town meeting which we've done before so October 21st sure y so this is wasn't this is option but we've done yeah so actually it wasn't VCC but there are in it's in our dimensional standards uh not in the table but where we talk about buffering between commercial and residential uses it's just text right so this would be cons option two would be consistent with what we're doing although in this case we're talking about a higher density residential to lower density so if you can just maybe add just a track a comment or a track change in that document for the 21st rather than the first which you have in the draft language I would actually kind of prefer option three only because we are going through reification and then we can just put it in there and just keep it on the general I'm perfectly fine with that too that and that will keep this cleaner I agreed I'm okay option three would have no language and we would just have the setbacks correct as as it is but then we basically say refer to General and then we can we we can take more time on it with a reification project it means still more policy but that would also mean that we're introducing a new setback requirement we do this recodification which would in theory not happen until May so there would be six months where nothing was in effect would the ambiguity get us into any trouble it would be more of a concern with the buing residences right if there was consideration as suppose of that so if it wouldn't in option three there's no reason not to I mean the the question is I'm assuming that the setbacks that we have right now are less than what we are pretending to propose here correct so any projects that would be filed before the codification is complete would not be a would not follow this or whatever would in theory propose a recodification potentially which is why I think I would stick with what we have now I don't like option two1 what's there now yeah yeah okay I got like three I'm sorry three if we if we want to if we want as part of recodification take this out and replace it in the general and do option three later okay no objections I'm good with that cool I'm just call me par that's fine would have said the same thing I think if you do it recodification down the line you would just stke that Clause like you're saying so I think that would be the the safer cool that makes that option two that's the chair so we are going with option two um and I will let you folks know if dur IL legal Rie anything about the language there perfect three two three later okay oh I see okay great um for roof decks we have again three options uh so we either you know the existing listed Building height needs to be inclusive of a root deck for example you know so not making a statement but essentially saying um or you would make a statement but it would be what's defined in the table of dimensional standards if you're going to put a roof deck it needs to fall and not set height two option two is to provide an exemption uh which is what you see in the version of the vla that we have here today um again I would want this to undergo legal review and then option three is just not to make a statement on it and so here the way it's been addressed is just um through phrase on exemption where we have occupied root deex I'm going to go with option two obviously option two would essentially give them a roof deck as a bonus am I reading that correctly in terms of the actual applicability if it's not part of the dimensional standards they can do a roof deck on top of the dimensional standards yeah it it doesn't disincentivize them from building the rest of the building if they had to occupi their top floor with a roof deck they' likely not to do it probably not going to do it as a loss to a floor but they might do it as an extra um and habitable space would be does that mean livable or does that mean people can be on it like I'm going to say a bar yeah not habitable habitable meaning people can go there not habit meaning people can live there right inhabitable would be you're just up there visiting but you're not meant to live there okay so roof deck would be inhabitable inhabitable right think about restaurants things like that no barloy up at Patriot places that roof deck around so if that phrasing is confusing and yeah H habital me says somebody sleeps there sure yeah we can definitely ref that um say had to drink no but that's my interpretation I see habitable or somebody's like why am going to put a bedroom under this deck Liv room away from home yes um so from a directional standpoint is what we are suggesting with this option I don't if you tell if you want to back to that document is option one option one and three essentially mean the building Heights that we've listed are the building Heights we've listed option two gives an exemption specifically for roof decks um is that something we want to include in this I I feel like it's the difference between getting a bunch of fivestory buildings with no roof ducks and a bunch of fivestory buildings that might have it I agree I don't think you're going to get a bunch of four story buildings with roof decks where everybody like I don't know if that's going to make the you'd have to make it up on a cool building that rents at higher L levels so um so I'm not necessarily looking for a motion General directional feedback from members of the board do we want option two or do we want to not give an exception whether it's one or three doesn't matter how big is a rof deck I mean what are we talking about we're not talking about a fox second extra floor or anything it's just an open area set restriction there's no restriction like like you couldn't go an additional x amount of feet above they're saying it's going to be you got to be 15 to 20 ft in from the Ed the edge around all four sides I think the technical whatever techical qualification is 48 in for any fencing or whatever and any awnings or something that go beyond 48 in uh count as a technical floor if it's not just like a an except like an entrance or an exit to the place like so so that that's why you got to get the like exemption to being so that's that's enough right so do people want to cover out this exemption or not I think option two is okay steveen know your option two Camp I think we're we could have something iconic or just a bunch of regular buildings anybody have any objections to option two no no your cons will require leave I mean that's not really a con we'll make sure that we're not creating a loophole for somebody to take an extra floor and this can I just show you an example this is in Providence that's what I looked at today yeah there's a rooftop it's two stories but there's a rooftop up there I what you're saying I was looking there by well it might be a third story I guess but that's a that's a restaurant up there so I I could offer with this proximity to the exity center it could be a really great spot for us bar for listening did sell tickets okay so I'm not hearing anybody who hates it so let's go with option two okay and we can spend a little more time with it as well just to ensure the exemptions are super clear um again when it under go legal review if they find anything that looks like it could again provide a developer a way to circumnavigate any of the actual requirements we'll ensure that that's addressed okay special permitting um so the current version of the bylaw has option to um the options here again is just to include an option to allow a second story commercial in a mixed use building via a special permit um an option to is just to not include any special permit uses or language the big you know Pro versus con here again is just that triggering of a two3 super majority vote and the need to to subset portions of the warrant to account for that um just for you know potentially a retail Market that wouldn't support Second Story I mean and again there are even ways that I suppose you could address this without the need for a special permit in for example um if we go back to the table of uses um and I know we will talk about this at some point once we're done with all of these kind of initial options um gone too far down I need to go up you know we could potentially add a row that says you know Second Story um with some commercial uses carved out again to make it clear without the need for a special permit but just for the sake of clarity here we just want to provide the option of either um having special apartment options or not so right now no commercial uses other than the first floor correct what we're asking and if we do option two that stands option one would be if you want to propose a second floor commercial use it's a special permit if you're involving in allowing the roof deck stuff like if you got a restaurant or bar that you're talking about what you need to have the ability to go to option one and have the special permit I think we allow the option to have commercial on any story but like especially the ground floor but not by special permit like if they want to build two stores let them but not by special permit more commercial use is good for us yeah and the way I read this is option two I mean if we take option one we start out at option two we just have the opt we get to decide to go to option one at a later dat date but we're starting out at the option two scenario anyhow so because we're starting out with n but we can permit it later we're just not closing the door SFI are if somebody wants a commercial use above the first floor without with option two is that allowed at all no just based on the definition from the bylaws of top of the shop is the door and would and would and there's no special permit relief for that in anyway I mean that's we could incorporate that um that's again just where we're getting into and the complexities of if few folks want to worry about subsetting the warrant a 2/3 a simple majority that to me is the challenge with this one that we would now have to have a separate motion just for this at town meeting and I I would just recommend going as simple as possible with this and and considering you know very unlikely we're going to see second floor retail doesn't mean it couldn't happen but I just think at this point to get this through I would rather just go with one you know the public having to make one boote on the whole thing and not break this out it just gets can we just remove the special permit aspect of it like can we just include the language that like the second floor or the rooftop deck I don't know how we want to plan that one I was you could yeah that I mean that's where I was kind of like alluding to like there kind of being an unsaid third option here which is you know right now we Define you know we have top of the shop housing as an as a right use in addition to multif family and we also have duplexes um and then we Define use categories you know for the aabra on the ground floor and then as of right on any floor we could potentially examine ways to do something like that here with this you know subset of either any floor or you have the table right uh that's the use category and then as a right ground floor maybe that could be amended to include the second floor doesn't option one just take care of that for us then option one we're making it way harder if we do option one because we're requiring a special permit M we it basically would force two individual votes at town meeting and break this out into a separate motion at town meeting okay it's also something I don't think we want to put and it also puts it added burden on the applicant in the event that they would want to do something other than just the first floor well if we're going to incorporate all this roof te stuff then I would say go with addressing that any floor right there as of right any floor we can do that and then as we comb through the actual changes to the FW after we get through the options we can talk about what uses we would want to see on any floor um because I'm sure they'll they'll differ potentially from just the ones we'd want to see on the ground floor and then we can also talk about you know how we would do that and obviously again undergo legal review and ensure that we're writing correctly um so yeah that's fine I think we can definitely do that as long as that's good for you folks okay great and to be clear we're submitting language to the warrant but we aren't printing final language to the warrant yet right October 1st is the deadline just restating yeah yes okay um I have note about that I will sure that happens the last scenario to consider top of the shop density bonuses we have three options here um right now option one is what is included in the bylaw so option one again is we have a density bonus for a given percentage of ground floor commercial that allows for a waiver for up to one story of additional height um again we want that to go through legal review we have a you know a certain percentage of ground for commercial specified we would want to I put it at 65% right now I think we had gone up to 75 I thought 65% gave a little wiggle room but you know we can get more scientific about that percentage at a later Point um and then option two is that if similar to the kind of conversation we were just having about Second Story commercials if we want to just address it to incentivize it not through again an incentive zoning Clause but just in a byright manner through the table of dimensional standards and say you know you can go up to four stories if you're doing a mixed use development versus three for a residential it would be simpler um but you know I based on your kind like current definition of top of the shop housing there isn't a specific percentage specified as for what the ground floor needs to be Etc somebody could put a 2,000 foot convenience strap and then whilea I qualify I mean based I I would imagine that could be a scenario just based on the kind of very loose definition of top of the shop in the zoning um 2,000 actually saw say was say meant to say like 200 sure like a small right um I have vending machines and then three is again just not offering a a density bonus and we did just want to acknowledge you know when Rob and I were talking about this when we were writing some of these options I was like oh yeah remember we like did a survey for the housing production plan like last year and um since we knew we were going to be doing some work for 3A we asked a question about 3A and a couple ones you know do you want to see a mixed use commercial comp component incorporated into new multif family housing developments and you know majority of folks said no um we're not sure you know again this is kind of on the lower end but just something to consider um yeah obviously we were just having the conversation I it's only one question and it wasn't asked in the context of this bylaw right well I wonder if people saw multif family in the question and went right I think in the survey I could find it too to reference but I think we did kind of start to talk about 3A where we said you know in addition to this work we're looking at compliance with Section 3A want to ask some questions about multi family development but I would want to clarify that so I could confirm that that that there was context around it it's it's good to have and it's directional but it's also yeah I just right I just felt like are we still including a twostory bonus for the affordable housing I think for the last discussion we talked about the context of the existing 40b being five stories and had said that to have you know to be able to justify the maximum Heights that we specified here we want to be able to reference the context again being that existing 40b that goes up to five stories so my understanding was that we wrote the two density bonuses to only go up to five to match the content right but in this section that we're reviewing now uh with the top of the shop development says the top of the shop can only go up to four stories right yeah so that was again like we could that can change this was just again based on the fact that the um the density bonus we wrote granted an additional floor with affordable housing if you meet what over 20% you get a second you get the second floor so if you combine the it's still there Steve but is the the 20% is that only one additional floor or that it's one um okay so you have to do both to get both yeah 20% are affordable they are a two story they get two they get two stories or 20 okay so that's what I was thinking and that's why I was wondering about this only being one floor where if they do the top of the shop maybe we just give them the two floors that way both building sizes match this is an oversight on my part so I do apologize for that because I know for our conversation at the last board meeting we had talked about not going over five stories this is just one thing I haven't change my incorrect with language sure I thought this because density bonus B you get two floors and then you do say under no circumstances shall the heights exceed five stories that wouldn't allow folks to combine the two density bonuses then with three stories Max um we the way it's listed here that you sent uh first density bonus you get one story for uh to uh that would be for top of the shop then you have two density bonuses for affordable housing one is if you're greater than uh 20% Then um there was one that was at like 11 12% that we took out right we we took there was one where it was like 11 or 12 will trigger one story 20% was going to trigger two we took out the we took out the 11 to 12 but I don't think we actually changed the 20% to be one we just we kep it at two correct that was my one oversight that I haven't changed here because I know the concern that I remember we talked about specifically Laura was bringing up that we didn't want to see a six-story building you know that didn't have mixed use on the ground floor was the the concern again just the context of the existing 40b from a public engagement perspective being able to say well this matches the context of that existing development of no higher than five um so this was meant to be here for the density bonus B for affordable housing one story again to guarantee that no combination of bonuses could bring you above five assuming someone builds up to the three one so in b 2 B that should be additional one story one story uh okay how many problem figure out the you're track changing that so that's fine and the yes I like the clear statement below it because it leaves no room for ambiguity and if you ever want to add additional bonuses you can do so folks can combine them again with no room to it's very clear you can only combine it to a certain Ty um but so again kind of going back to the options do we still do we want to do the top of the shop as um a density bonus you know I guess in the understanding too that if we do it as a density bonus they could go up to five stories with an affordable component I mean the ma they can do right now is five stories and something on the grof right so if it was affordable and mixed use right if they if they go all in they get they do essentially still get six stories but this the very top is uninhabitable so they got five five stores five plus probably plus the RO so they get they get they still get they technically get six4 of use out so if you want to go back to the options I think we're clear on what the language says but just from a clear what is our directional option here we have um option one is what's written where it gives an incentive of one additional story for top of the shop mixed use development um option two which I think you said that you didn't really like because our existing top of the shop definition doesn't give enough Clarity on what qualifies right yeah that's the I think that's the big difference between one and two is the fact that you get to State a given percentage of commercial ground floor square footage grow square foot you want to see in option one correct and option three says we don't care you don't get bonus right and we take that language out right so option between option one and three and I'm going to put option two to the side if we want to keep it but since I'm going to say surpad is saying it's maybe not our best option maybe we should not look at it as our best option um do we do we want to incentivize top of the shop development and we can say have a certain percentage of it to qualify or do we not want to incentivize it as part of this District I think it should be as incentivized as possible here okay great so we can leave that language as I I was even again to reiterate just before we get past it to a top of the shop development should just get two additional floors and just not be able to combine Beyond like like if it just doesn't go beyond that five no matter what the combination is but once a building is built at five stores it's probably not going to I four stores it's probably not going to get rebuilt as a fil story no I speaking for myself I like having the affordability tied to it right because if we're going to be adding a lot of residences we're going to be putting a lot of weight on the other side of that state affordability 40b metric that's thought and if we don't push that side of it too then we're going to have more 40 BS pop up somewhere okay not that 4bs don't have their place but we would like to be able to say no to them if we want in the places where we don't think they're appropriate right that yeah um and since we are are we still we're still over the 10% right barely yeah so we're that's we've got until 2030 but yeah so that would be my cool thought process there if anybody feels differently again I'm one voice option one okay I like option one okay great okay so then just to comeb through changes from the bylaw as last discussed um it has been renamed greatwoods overlay District I have Incorporated the purposes listed um that you provided Paul from the master plan um I have added I believe two definitions uh three um so just defining eohc because we use the acronym when we talk about affordability just makes it easier I've specified because there are times in the bio where we refer to top of the shop and times where we refer to mixed use and it can get confusing so I've just added a like a quick definition here just based right out of 4A um it's development containing a mix of residential and non-residential uses including the following and then just again reference to C top of the shop as to find an article too um and then per Allen's feedback I've defined electric vehicle charging station um let me know if this is appropriate but G based off of the Department of energy just kind of guidance on it uh charging post with the lease one 240 volt alternating current level two charging port and a connector to charge an electric vehicle um 24 great okay 340 volts is like the mid-level one that's what you want for yeah so great okay they're probably going to come with two cuz they all come with a right yeah yeah um the on to charge your car 3 hours right no those are the standards yeah that that's not those aren't the super fast ones 240s like that yeah so what is 240 it's like the like what you see double your double your house outl but like two yeah to charge your car and what depends how big your battery is corre an average here I'm trying to you're you're probably charging for most of the day a 240 with a full electric okay it's intended for like an overnight charge oh okay that's what I was trying to ask yeah yeah right versus like there's a 120 volt but that's not going to Bic plug into your wall if there were a lot of residents living back there with electric cars are they going to get the fights if there's just one pole they can park next to yes and they will have to set up a system to manage it that's their that's their problem got sign up to the charger car at night I mean my office has a system where it's like they have like a weight list option just way if you're putting all these like so all so if they're all full you say join the wait list and it sends you a notification when somebody leaves and then you race down and try and get first I was going to ask should they do more than one we have a definition that will we get to that too on how many spaces per total number of um units I believe is how it goes um perfect yeah so we can talk about that just to get into permitted uses um as of right uses again right now duplexes multif family dwellings this is again based on your definitions excluding cluster development and top of the shop housing um we can spend some time talking about as of right uses on the ground floor what I have done between now and the previous meeting is didn't love how the language we had didn't match up to the actual uses defined in article 4 um so I wanted to make sure that they matched and I categorize them as they're described again in that section of your bylaws but these can change this is just kind of what I had thoughts on as to like what could be appropriate on a ground floor but we can add and remove as necessary so if anyone has thoughts on that you can I got one yeah um on any floor canite uh Municipal uses sure yeah I mean if folks are comfortable with that yeah see what are we going to have there anything we want if we say any floor and it's not residential is the state going to be concerned that that's not a residential that we might be well because you have multif family Allowed by right alongside mixed use by right it should be okay is my understanding I don't think they're really going to look very closely at your mixed use component because of the fact that we're considering when we go to you know apply for district compliance a multif family exclusive scenario if that makes sense well do we need to delineate how much of it would still have to be residential then I think not even just necessarily for Section 3 but just for clarity sake it could be beneficial you know the only thing we have here is that just that residential is a required component so that's something that I was thinking about as well is if you start to get into you know commercial uses on any floor you're word of this turning into a Pure commercial building no resal actually gets built that way right so I think we'd have to if this is something we want to do we'd have to consider how to do it appropriately from section 3 is perspective my understanding is that it won't be a concern for them from a compliance standpoint but again I think just from a general best practices of zoning standpoint we should consider it can we this is probably too simple and I'm probably underthinking it could we simply phrase it as commercial use on any floor provided that commercial uses do not occupy more than 50% of the floor area of the property I like that like that is that way too simple or is that effective perfectly simple simple is usually better you can put other stuff on other floors it's got to be half residential yeah cuz if we don't do that it's the underlying zoning anyway which is commercial right wouldn't yeah make any but I'm that's the I tried to a raor to break right because we're adding that residential component which we don't have in commercial yeah so if it's a mixed use and what and half of it is residential then do what you want right doesn't matter if the residential is floor two and four or three and four or sure one and two and you want to put a restaurant on the the top floor go for it that's Sky LNG okay ifol are comfor is 50% the rate ratio what are we normally it's three stories correct so you could and then if you're adding top of the shop you're at four so meaning you're adding two and two two and a half with a five story kicker I think that's fair that's cool I like it okay I've got a comment in there to examine that um if for some reason we find precedents that show different percentages than 50% or what not we can let you folks know but just understanding that we'll we'll do that here Taylor maybe we should just also clarify that the first floor could be 100% yeah anything above first floor needs to be no more than 50 okay I I like I like including just the whole building because when you carve out the first floor then you're making four floors and then you're 50/50 and those and you have three versus two rather than two and a half come again so five story building right if you give the first floor can be all commercial and then you're requiring 50% of the rest you're basically saying you can go three commercial two residential if you do 50% for the whole building you're saying no more than two and a half could be commercial okay I agree with this I have a followup question as well too I mean the fact that we've defined that you only get the density bonus at 65% at least anyways is it even worth defining a percentage like that but I I I think I would probably opt for what you're saying at least like the 50% for the whole building but again we can explore yeah what it looks like in different bylaws and present some options again if that would be helpful but for now um again I defer to you both on how you want to proceive I I like the idea 50% of whatever floor as opposed to 50% of the building like if you're going to put commercial space on floor I don't I don't know how are they going to put just like one little booth like I really think of like an ATM up top that I'm saying the floor the square footage has to be 50% so if you want to subdivide and have half of them floor be commercial and half be residential you probably wouldn't no no no but I like it the way that you prop yeah 50% of the building because you're going to wind up you don't want to have apartments and businesses mixed so you and the commercial will tend to gravitate to lower floors and separate to separate that way Freedom's good look where you want I have one good idea in one meeting I'm done for the rest of the meeting kennel kennels and nightclubs yeah we can I mean again these are just based on or maybe we do Lego like Ren new Lego world in 92 that would be awesome I mean those uses just seem like noise could be a real big issue yeah I didn't know how you felt about veterinary hospitals I know those are kind of popping up and some of the just I think they're pretty specific to like away from apartment yeah I mean I'm happy to take that and I have no no problems about that yeah Veterinary Hospital is different than kennel kennel to me requires implies long inlies overnight anywhere they're storing more than $4 it implies overnight an apartment that's what this would allow yeah I say scatch I would not want unit above it that's fair regarding the nightclubs I think we could just delete that because two down from there restaurant Cafe another one right yeah I agree I felt that way as well what's killing me is the reader that Largo came from way way back then was in an apartment on newbur Street in Bost okay she was running a parent greeding operation up there let not let's not use newbry street as example of what should happen in the real world no but I remember when I was getting I was like and your neighbors are okay with this you know they all loved her a couple of the institutional uses make reference to serving residents of Norton again just based on that like yeah I I just go is that exclusive to Norton residents and how do we enforce that I mean can't we just say fraternal Lodge or other sh I I think it's just supposed to be like Community oriented like we're not forbidden from being in it I think I think it's kind of the thing like we can't have like some Club from another place come here and exclude Norton residents supp BFW or something like that they all want to um um I think so so you're saying use in serving or open to residents of nordon yeah that's essentially as opposed to serving not prohibitive yeah open sure yeah I mean that's that's how we have our they may have special membership and some other requirement I wouldn't change the word and that's what we have written in our chart the serving the serving residents of that's exactly table so that's fine rectification them from Al so beyond those two two rows we've struck is there anything else here that folks feel just wouldn't make sense or that they would not want to see I'm happy to see body art establishment I wonder if the crowd will pick that up they probably will it's okay I mean I'm okay with it tattoo BS are cool yeah I mean that's that's a legit commercial use it fits in the district right yeah from a mixed use perspective okay I mean look downtown adbo yeah me got one t Place mind it's not any different than a beauty PA piercing shop or whatever yeah you get the piercing pagota at the mall yeah and there's a whole lot of that stuff which is like the tattoo makeup and stuff which is a thing now there's which is not yeah there's nothing that would be offensive to anyone in that building you know dogs barking at 3:00 in the morning kenel but yeah I mean Board of Health has to has to approve all of that too so yeah and I think we have a gyms uh be considered small scale uh indoor Recreation yeah going have all those Department health and Recreation I'm only thinking of like a 24-hour gym that has like music kind like next door to me I small indoors more like a teacher or class or something or yoga yeah I don't I think it fits I don't yeah is there a potential for noise yes do I think it fits yes anybody else if it fits it fits it's next to a concert Center there thank youat in there yeah we made sure that made it I know that was disused I have enough trouble with one yeah I don't think it'll be in my life there's already a theater across the street so the mass artart Center just another clarifying thing here I know community space was defined before we made sure to write some exclusions and again excluding lobbies entry spaces and just general circulation areas your hallway is not a community community area we've also made sure that that's clarified in the um density bonuses as well okay any other thoughts on the ground floor uses seem appropriate at this time okay um accessory uses so the way I've written it here just accessory uses or buildings you know again because we step this out from parking and also just include accessory structures um just as to find an article too again where they Define accessory structures can you cheat and use what we have in the draft for codification we could I forget if it's specific in references things that don't exist in this this bylaw but I know we talked about accessory uses and spent a lot of time on it and I feel like we have the solution that we ended up with in the recodification at this point is relatively simple unless I'm so should I anticipate that language yeah it may be similar but I think it's yeah accessory so this is just saying these we consider these accessory to any as of radar permitted uses bossk's done okay yeah I think it makes sense as it is but just from a yeah when this hopefully goes through we're going to have to pass it to him and have him tie anything back anyway see not you point at me pointed at you sorry um okay great I don't think anything has really substantially changed the dimensional standards and and Beyond what we discussed with the sidey setbacks um so this is all the same for our previous conversation um can I make a point for the future just in terms of when we discuss this with the larger group in public hearings to come that we show that all this was developed and Flash up the spreadsheet of of Doom that like this has gone through a compliance Matrix yeah please don't think that you can change numbers at random right yeah we we provided sheat sheets to other municipalities examining this too to like let folks know very easily like if you change any of these things like we have to go to the spreadsheet of Doom and fix things and double check apologize for quinting that term it is quite an overwhelming spreadsheet I'm going to change it in share point to yeah that's what we should call it no but it's just I don't want it to turn into I don't like that why don't like that well let's change it I want to subtract one from this one and add it to this one up here right just make it from when we talk to stakeholders and public comment go the state compliance for this requirement involves a whole set of factors we have run this through a compliance Matrix here's a look at it if you want us to suggest any alterations we can look at it and give a this would make us we're still fine we're probably fine what we would need to confirm or this would not comply in all likelihood right I mean to give you kind of a very quick thing pretty much everything here except setbacks affects the compliance model in some way shape reform yeah and I know that we had some room to meet the standard but don't want to certainly yeah and that's an important point that we're trying to hover as close to yeah to yeah the state requirement as possible right yeah I think you folks like you said have some wiggle room but again just understanding that point is crucial Yes again we've already discussed the exemption for occupied roofs um you discussed the density bonuses so we don't need to go into great detail I've acknowledged that change apologies for the oversight there working requirements I did update this per tell just just one uh with the new change with the uh the state's housing um law that just passed they allowed towns to also as far as preferences you know we have local preferences there's one for military or for veterans I don't know if that's something we want to I don't know if that muddies the waters I mean we can do that because we have we have an inclusionary zoning which is that affordable housing um I don't know if we want to it's it would be for low-income veterans if we have to do this let's at least do that much yeah them we do it I don't mind it for sure how would we I know with the affordability requirements there's State guidelines about how that would be addressed how would we um and I realized Taylor I jumped ahead that's down past the bonus issue so sorry s just how would we to meet affordable housing you have to do X Y and Z according to the state is there a specific requirement about low is there a specific program speaking to low-income veterans there is now yeah I imagine just passed they'll update um their regulations associated with that at some point but we have and it and here Taylor has written in about uh farther down further down with in the affordable housing section about preference for local for local residents but we could add to that local veterans or veterans I can't remember if it's local or not in the BW but I the regs but it's just something to throw out there yeah what was the thing that gave I think it said local but we can double check yeah we'll just look at KP laws done I uhw of it just my back of the my quick address local preference requirements including compliance with State program for Lo veterans insert here M yeah I mean it it just changed the new law yeah whatever the okay yeah I can examine that I mean we've been in touch with the ohlc again particular like regarding um adus and I know that we'll probably hear more just about all of that in the fall so we'll try and anticipate what we can and write it in a way that anticipates it without potentially getting ahead of what the state's regulations might look like but I don't think we would see too many adus in this district oh yeah no that was just like um yeah just what sparked the conversation with the ohlc about the changes under the affordable homes act um but yeah so we're in touch with them about just general regulations that may change because of the accessory accessory dwelling unit in-law apartment basically updated their whole rules in the past what month yes it's part of the same bill exact yeah exactly um okay so right we were talking about parking um this originally I had not Incorporated this at our last meeting so I wanted to make sure I Incorporated it to discuss here per some I believe this was your recommendation that folks agreed with you know studio apartment one bedroom is one parking two parking spaces per two- bedroom three spaces for three um I had it was originally written just conform with the parking bylaw but then I rewrote it to acknowledge that and that's where it currently stands as long as that's okay with folks it is a lot of parking it is a lot of parking I don't see it wow you just had that whole thing about not having enough parking so yeah I don't we're good yeah I don't yeah it could be addressed in a future you Amendment if it felt excessive but at this time okay um yeah is this and that is something that in theory somebody could ask for a waiver for correct the parking requirements well I think we have provision a provision in the end that provides you with the ability to Grant all sorts of waivers perfect yeah so I mean I know here we've had people ask for parking waivers all the time right it's not a deterrent so parking standards for commercial uses we do have um you know conforming to the standard set forth in article 7 um and then kind of acknowledging that just this is in the context of commercial you know it could be reduced cyclonic Ral process electric vehicle charging stations um I just clarified some additional language here and then you know we have one EV charging station for every 20 parking spaces rounded up and then this did not change I believe and if it was supposed to please correct me if I'm wrong but for bike parking again we kept for mixed use projects only one secure bike parking space for every 12 that's like one decent Siz bike rack for 100 spaces I think that's reasonable it's reasonable it's minimal a bike R is nothing nothing major has changed since our last meeting regarding gen uh General development standards we have again referencing a lot of other articles signage uh lighting Landscaping this is updated again per um concom I believe that you had review um Paul and then nothing has changed here regarding buildings we discussed the buffer with the acknowledgement that we will update this date to reflect the town meeting date um and this is what you were alluding to Paul this waiver clause about yeah the applicant can request a waiver Etc um I've updated the affordability requirements again acknowledging that if Article 19 addresses like you know the supplies as a blanket it may need to be amended I would you know I would advise you to consult with your town councel about that um because right here because the uh thresholds are different than your article on affordability we have that it does not apply and then we set our own um you know as we discussed nothing here has changed we have the local preference Clause that Paul was alluding to and I will examine any potential changes through the affordable homes act and how that could be incorporated in here and if it's appropriate to do so at this time um and so again 10% of housing units constructed shall be affordable per the density bonus you know we incentivize 20% or more um and then I added those Clauses again Paul that we discussed last time about maximum income and selling price at initial sale preservation of affordability um Etc and then I mean those are kind of the major changes I think again largely everything is relatively the same and in place with again some some leeway for things we've discussed here tonight so good any further questions comments concerns related to the language that we just ran through NOP all okay so we have some comments that will incorporate Paul you were looking for an official motion from the board to submit the core of the request itself to for the warrant correct and this is for the regular town meeting warrant we're not going on to the special which is happening that day I my understanding is we're still going on the an regular annual okay and this language as it gets redone will be the language that's brought back in front of you for your public hearing on September 10th okay how I said that motion to approve of the draft motion to approve submitting the sub of the draft subm submitting to the warrant to the warrant submitt of the draft to the warrant seconded okay we have motion and a second is there any further discussion hearing none I'll go through the rooll um and just to note for the vote that Laura I think dropped off the meeting so six members now so Rob I'll start with you me say that not to transmit to the warrant correct not to transmit on language changes the warrant we're right now the motion is to submit the that this should be an article on the town meeting warrant it's tough dude I don't even want to go forward with it you can vote wh however you want I'm going to say now okay Jim yes Steve yes Eric yes Alan yes and I will vote Yes so we're submitting to the warrant um and we'll see the updated language for our public hearing excellent thank you folks for input we'll get that incorporated PA will be in touch yeah thank you I'll talk about public engagement at a later Point okay yeah cool excellent thank you folks Paul I already have ideas on how we would like to structure the initial overview for this topic okay when we discuss it publicly well not that we aren't discussing publicly now but for the official noticed per it's okay Tim Taylor's going to do it at T meeting for you no no strike that from the record no but I think I think Alan to your point the message is clear this is a state requirement and there are specific sticks that the state is ining to towns that Rebel um if the town chooses to follow that path that is a choice to meeting can make our job as a board is to recommend what we think is the best way to comply with this bylaw and then we go through the process of how we selected the district all that went into that and then go into the actual goals so what we have to do how we got here here's what your proposal is I know I am uh yes the state is the Boogeyman in this case 100% Tim I've got to get to a I got my wife at a train station at 1050 I don't believe we have anything else to discuss I still think we should push back from the state is there any motion I can make that we consider that too I would make that at the when we had the in hearing okay do we have a motion to adjourn motion toj okay I'll say Eric and Rob with the second all in favor please say I I all opposed extensions thank you very much everybody I know it was a late night get the tables