##VIDEO ID:VSHrm1VcMAw## welcome everybody to the Norton planning board's meeting of Tuesday September the 24th 2024 again this is a hybrid public meeting so members of the public are welcome to participate in person or remotely in person we are upstairs at the Norton Media Center at 184 Miss Main Street to join online via video there is a zoom link available on the meeting agenda the zoom meeting ID which to join directly 638 9291 z60 the same one has been for about 4 and A2 years so yes I do have it memorized uh the meeting will also be available uh afterwards on the Norton media Center's YouTube page for for later viewing for future sessions please feel free to email feel free to email questions comments to the board to Brian carmichel Town staff send the ahead of the meeting and again be shared with the board members and read into the record and you are not able to attend so with that of the way I will call the meeting to order um don't believe we have any necessarily planning board business and policies to go through here um Paul if you want to just give a quick update in terms of the move into uh the new town hall and uh when we expect to people to be in there other than Town staff yeah we've um we' started the move actually some of us started it late last week um we're done on our end but there's still work being complet completed in the inside of it so it it's looking great um it's it's planned to open to the public on Thursday now so um not tomorrow there's still work being done on inside and it it it's a it would be a public safety issue with people coming and going and we still have all the carts that are there uh with that we didn't get to minutes because we've just been understand help packing and then unpacking but it's it's all coming together and I think it's something people are going to be really proud of when they see it it's quite it's quite beautiful spacious okay great so our next session should hopefully be in the new building allay we've advertised a future uh uh item there so that's your octob first your October 15th meeting is scheduled to be there okay so perfect uh in terms of bills and warrants we did have one bill Brian if you can send that around this is just a resubmittal of a bill that there was an issue with uh this is through a community planning grant for the zoning recodification uh with the law firm um so you can take a look at that Mike units has already signed everything and I've signed where I needed to um but again it's just a grant funding payment for the zoning recodification um and as we PA just mentioned uh we do not have any minutes to approve so we'll skip over that agenda item for today I'm sorry I thought that we'll be back on it we'll be focusing back on getting all those caught up so diving into the need of our agenda uh the first item up we have an anr endorsement an-6 for 22 Maple Street the applicant of Scott Faria uh I'm not sure if we have anybody joining us remotely or who has joined us um in person here to present but I'll ramble for a second here see if anybody comes off mute um otherwise Paul if you want to just give an overview as you share here sure um of the anr and what we're looking to do here and just to restate for an anr otherwise known as approval not required um we're looking for a motion to endorse assuming that we feel that the what is being presented represents an appropriate division of lots and all of the lots have appropriate access so Paul do you want to give a quick narrative as much as uh has been shared with you sure and I've reached out to the applicant on this um but as the chair just mentioned they are trying to create four Lots out of one at 22 Maple um they've identified uh they have a wetland survey boundary um um the dimensions the frontage requirements are met the lot size is met the only thing I've noticed on this and i' reached out to the applicant is um they identify this lot as residential 60 but when I look at the zoning map it's actually split r60 and Industrial and if you look at the line that goes it's almost following that line but it they do not demarcate it I don't know if that's a big issue here but it's not correct it's a historic boundary of the industrial Zone it doesn't really follow any of the property lines that are there right now it currently doesn't follow a property boundary correct so this is a hold over of our nonp parcel specific mapping that done so can sorry my other one thing that I noticed because you were talking about the zoning is that it also one of the boundaries on John Scott uh is that what's on the edge or is it we'll start screen dropped off there yeah I'm I'm putting something else up perfect um either way that's that's zoned under the marijuana overlay industrial also yes and that is all in the industrial Zone and I don't know if combining those Parcels puts kind of a combination Industrial marijuana overlay residential lot well it already did with the property I mean it's still that was always zoned industrial and then when they added the marijuana overlay District it's just my only issue was it it didn't accurately reflect the existing zoning right but if we do approve that new design that marijuana parcel will be linked to the residential parcel well that's a interesting point because you can't put you cannot put marijuana in a residential zone so if there were something it would have to be on the the purplish pink side of it sure which is mostly Wetlands it's almost entirely Wetlands right okay so um just yeah go ahead so we have this so I have a question on if we can go back to the original map it was a little easier to read D does that include parcel 17201 it wasn't clear on this cuz 17201 is in their application but it doesn't appear to be included in lot D and lot a seems to be included in this a anr request but that lot number is not on their application so lot 176 isn't in the application and I can't tell what they're doing with the marijuana lot is that going in with lot D I don't know what that double that dotted L I think most of that is in the industrial marijuana overlay District the only one that's in the marijuana overlay District that's under discussion is 1721 that tiny little piece that's technically zero John Scott so I'm thinking it's got to be being combined with lot D otherwise lot D doesn't have Frontage yeah the dotted line would be the old Bounder that's being removed okay so we're potentially losing a marijuana overlay it's almost all Wetland except for the corner the very corner right that is is that wet ones of the the town The Whole Town's wet right I think it's sort of like a ditch so I say so they all of the lots have Frontage we have questions about what's happening provided lot D includes the marijuana overlay parcel otherwise D does not have Frontage okay Paul do you agree with that it doesn't include that does it not have adequate frage well this this is a corner this would be a corner lot so I see they have 82 ft on Main people and then as you get to to John Scott it's indicating 304t so I think they would have adequate Frontage I they do yeah they intend to combine those two right but we don't know that it's in the application so I am assuming so yeah but right L A is not in their application okay but it's it is on their plan it's on the plan that's what ultimately gets recorded cor okay and just from from a procedural standpoint if we had the applicant here to clarify that might be good yeah uh anr plans assuming that they meet the requirements if we take no action they are essentially automatically approved so we can move forward and endorse it we can not endorse it we could continue it uh that would be potentially continued on the applican accepting that but what's our time frame I think it's something like three weeks or something like that 21 days when it was submitted or when we heard it originally what is if we were to not endorse it what is the effect of that here what the planning board has basically we had our chance to say no when we didn't is basically and and and the no will would mean they would need to apply again would they have to alter it or would they just what is the grounds for denying this is it that it doesn't meet the requirement or we just don't think it like detrial we don't think it meets their requirements okay so typically it's Frontage and lot size also say they didn't we instructed them they because they didn't give us the myar and a copy we don't have anything to give you we instructed them to come here with it and so you don't have anything to sign tonight I mean you can still vote but it'll have to come back or somehow we have to get it to you so that you can sign if you endorse it you know we have to figure that out but so I did ask them to modify it to just correct the zoning right as a board are we supposed to judge whether we feel it's a detrimental change or not or just that it qualifies just that it qualifies okay we're not yeah we're just endorsing the changing of lot lines not saying that they are zoned correctly that they are buildable or any of those okay clarifications if the John Scott parcel does belong with lot D I would like to get clarification from someone as to whether that's that stays in the marijuana overlay does it have to come out of the marijuana overlay overlay would go on top of Base seon it doesn't affect the base Zone okay but can an overlay only apply to a portion of a parcel legally I mean it's making I would say that there's a portion of the overlay that doesn't that would not be actionable that would be my takeaway from that Rob you had a comment um yeah first of all what is the impact if we continue um just want generally when we have continued on an anr it has been with the applicant's blessing okay when they here to say we're not sure about this can you clarify or can you fix this on the map and get us a new version and we'll endorse it our next meeting or something like that and if we say we are continuing in the applicant doesn't actually object then we could in theory do that they could also just take the plan the register okay file it and then as far as denying you said the grounds would be they have met requirements but has GL have shown that they didn't that it depends on how you read the map yeah and it's not clear there's no summary there's no yeah there's no overview I do have another question here too it on the bottom of the map it shows a little car into the property that is Town owned land there's a little nug cut out oh right there and that is Town property how I don't know I think that's the new lot line well did they buy the town L but what are they doing with that little triangle yeah I don't know I can't endorse it with questions I guess yeah Mr chairman we should just continue it okay we can continue it or we I don't believe that there's I know with a special permit if we deny it they have to make substantial changes for it to resubmit within a period there's no requirement in that respect for an an anr correct I I don't know okay I don't know sorry okay Mr chair but the safest R would be to deny it yeah I agree that is the that is my qu that is the question of the action that we would take we can endorse it we can deny it or we can continue it and look to reconnect with the applicant sorry goad PA reach out and let them when you said they head off to the registry what does that mean the anr IS F this is a changing of it's making New Lots so they go to the registry have it recorded and New Lots would be record so basically we continue it they can just go do it anyways it's almost like we didn't we did yes correct assuming that they don't just like respond to us and say oh sure we're happy to clarify that I'm going to thr a motion we deny it do we make a motion in the positive I didn't make it correctly let someone else make it it's um it's it's generally simpler to have motions to say yes so that way motion to endorse anr D6 seconded thank you okay so we have Laur with the motion and Rob with the second there any further discussion on the motion okay I'll go through everybody for a vote to on the motion to endorse Rob this is a motion to Endor the motion is in the affirmative to endorse yeah so if you would like to Eric no Steve no Laura no Allan no Jim no and I would vote no as well um so Paul you can when you reconnect with the applicant you can let them know kind of the questions that we had and the clarifications and we're happy to have them back but it was a little bit messy if they had been here to clarify it might have been easier but okay um next on our agenda uh is public hearing this is a remen for special permit scp-1 and site plan 20881 for 237 East Main Street an application for a special permanent site plan approval for a 27,800 foot warehouse and this was remanded to the board by land Court under 24 misc 0076 uh with the owner applicant conine Capital Partners um I do want to let the board members know and anybody who's joining remotely we did receive word late this afternoon I want to say it was maybe after five o'clock or close to it that Condon is looking to continue to a future session um but given the requirements of the remand um Town Council has advised us to open the public session and then immediately continue um because there's a requirement that we open the public hearing within 60 days of the remand and all that stuff okay so I'd like to open the public hearing do we have a date certain no no and October 15th is your next one October 15th will be our next session so is it open so I've opened the public hearing motion continue okay we have to take a public we have to listen to the public now we're not going to they're not here to present so we don't have anything okay I don't know how formal we need to make it but sure yeah so we're opening and then we're continuing um I know we did have a couple people join remotely who are looking to speak to this I saw you Mr seagull and we do have all of your comments which we'll go into at our next session we have a motion have a second second from Steve is there any further discussion on the motion to continue okay I'll go through the members for a vote Rob like this Eric yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes as well okay next up is a continuation of site plan review sp-6 and special permit SP-10 for zero Hill Street the owner applicants prere fence um and they're looking to construct a 30,33 ft² industrial building this is continued from August the 20th and September the 10th so uh thank you for joining us backstar if you could just state your name and as for the record and uh give us an update you should have the ability to share your screen uh in the meeting if you choose yeah good evening for the record Luke Toano with bowler engineering South bro Massachusetts uh Paul is going to drive uh he's been gener enough generous enough to share the screen uh basically uh most of the comments that had lingered from the last time we were in front of this board have to be deal primarily with traffic and some new information that was gathered one school had opened uh so with us tonight uh remotely is Emily buck with Bowman and I'd like to turn it over to her let her talk a little bit about the findings from the traffic study and then response to comments that have come from that point and then after that we'll be happy to answer any questions that the board may still have or the audience may have as well anal hi thank you uh can everyone hear okay yep yes yes perfect um all right hi everyone for the record my name is Emily Buck uh with Bowman um So based on the comments received from the peer review and heard um at the um the not the last planning board but the one prior um there was a comment to look at um operating speeds on Hill Street rather than um the posted speed limit um knowing that um Vehicles were operating at higher speed and using that to evaluate our um site distance from the proposed driveways um am I able to share or should be able to yes just using the the green share at the bottom there we go great um so we put together a couple of sight line graphics and these are based on the operating speeds um so this shows uh the vegetation that um would be cleared and maintained to uh achieve those sight lines uh and there's a couple different ones and I'm going to start with um the first one is the stopping sight distance requirement um so this is a safety requirement that uh just allows for somebody turning um uh out of the site driveway the sight line needed uh so that you know somebody traveling along Hill Street would be able to see them and react to them and um similarly the person pulling out of the driveway would be able to judge the available Gap enjoy the um stream of traffic uh so you can see here I'll zoom in a bit um uh from the northern sight driveway North is to the left side of the page um uh just slight maintaining looking um right out of that driveway and then looking left um clearing but still allowing for that vegetated buffer uh prior to the proposed fence um and similar to the other um Southern SE proposed driveway uh some clearing just to achieve those sight lines the the distance that would be required based on those operating speeds that we measured um and just to backtrack a little bit sorry I skipped over this but we did collect the data on September Tuesday September 10th so school was in session I know that was a comment that was raised as well um so those operating speeds uh that we collected Northbound um 41 M an hour and southbound 43 mph um so those were the operating speeds that were measured and that is what we um based our evaluation off of for these sight lines um these second two Graphics are the intersection site distance and these are recommendations um not necessarily requirements from the um American uh State Highway officials so um and and they sorry they're recommendations because it's the distance that somebody would need to en joying the flow of traffic without um traffic already on the road from significantly reducing their speed so it's not a safety measure it's that's why they call it a recommendation um so just to clarify that difference um so again looking uh right out of the northern Dragway just um some vegetation maintaining um and then looking left out of that driveway and then looking both um left and right from the Southern Drive driveway there would be a little bit more vegetation clearing um kind of going right up to that fence um so losing that vegetation buffer again uh if with the required sight distance we would be able to maintain that vegetation buffer um and then uh there's a second one this was a request from the peer review to do the same exercise but for um a single unit truck um just based on the proposed use so those just because you know they start up slower from a stop just require longer sight lines um so that's same exercise showing what would be um required in terms of clearing and you can see here that the fence would be slightly um need to be slightly adjusted to um achieve that distance again that's that recommended distance the safety distance for um vehicles and um uh vehicles and trucks are actually the same value just because trucks have advantage of um line of sight sitting up higher uh in a truck um uh so that's a brief overview of the sight lines um I'm happy to answer any questions we also put together um the vehicle tracking showing turning in and out of the site um but I can stop here for questions on the sight lines before jumping to those uh Graphics sure I I have two if you don't mind I was going to say so just from a sharing information standpoint what we've measured here and what we're judging against is what you put in the chart is the 85th percentile speed so that's if 100 cars go by 85% of them are at or below this number basically um corre and that's that's kind of the industry standard and going north so going north the average the 85th percentile is at 43 miles per hour and the speed limit is 30 that's I'm reading that correctly so the the speed limit and it was also brought up by the peer Reviewer is an advisory speed um so there's no regulatory speed limit so the advisory speed is on that um yellow background sign the regulatory speed is that typical black and white speed limit which um there is not currently one on Hill Street so originally we had based that off of the um uh advisory speed and then it was flagged that that might not be an appropriate speed just based on how Vehicles operate on Hill Street um so I think 35 miles an hour was suggested by the riewer as what might be an appropriate regulatory speed assumption based on that advisory speed okay and and the second question I guess as we as you looked at the 85th percentile speed in these sight lines um were there changes made to the site plan to account for the traveling speeds and increased needs for longer sight lines um so the only change that would be needed is if they um if they interest in moving the fence um but then the vegetation buffer uh which I know was brought up as part of the neighborhood um discussion uh that vegetation buffer would be cleared and I just want to stress again that this distance shown on this graphic is not the safety required um you know safe uh entrance entering and exiting Maneuvers would still be achieved with um no changes to the site plan just uh the clearing shown on this graphic still maintaining that vegetated buffer um prior to the fence but if we were to look at you said that third one was one that was suggested from the peer reviewer correct to look at a truck with a kind of a slower acceleration that's the one y would in this location a Truck starting enter distance as recommended by the peer riewer is not compatible with the vegetated buffer on the site um correct and I don't want to speak for the peie but I think it was a suggestion to um evaluate it not necessarily that it needed to be implemented just um yes understand that yeah yeah it is a piece of the puzzle um and understanding traffic at the site thank you y certainly I know I kind of dominated there for a second does anybody else have any specific traffic related questions based on the data for U Miss Buck okay thank you now turn it back over to U Bernie upates that you wanted to provide yeah as I mentioned if there are no other questions relative to traffic there was really only a few outstanding comments from various department heads most of which revolved around some of the utilities of water line which we are agreeing to work with the Water Commission and the fire department I didn't quite catch that could you please say that again my apologies Le is very touchy today apparently very uh so we will be adding a fire loop around the Builder water loop around the building as requested uh We've added a couple of fire hydrants again at the request of the fire department uh and there are a couple other issues relative to things like the above ground storage tanks the septic system permitting all of which the applicant is agreed to work with the various Town departments on to make sure we have all the necessary approvals and that we meet any standards or requirements that the different departments may have uh there was also one remaining question is it related to lighting uh We've updated a lighting plan to reduce the foot candle output at the property line next to the Northerly driveway so that we similar to the cly driveway have zero foot candle output at the property line uh those were really the only outstanding questions beyond what I mentioned for traffic so with that I'm certainly happy I'm sure Emily is and John from Premier fence here as well to answer any questions the board or the audience may have um so I'll start with members of the board here additional questions uh for the applicant here and I'll go to members of the public following additional questions Jim I know you're remote I'm going to call on you and make sure that I don't ignore you because I can't see your face down the table no you're good okay the one question I had would they in their site plans to keep that vegetation that the a butter are using would they be able to push that fence back and then try to keep the sight lines in the vegetation just thinking yeah I think that's something that we can discuss after the public comment I think that would require them to reconfigure that as they had described it kind of a fence mini showroom area and I'm not sure whether cuz you'd have be cutting it and then cutting it back to put in a buffer I'm not sure if that would make it less feasible but that's a discussion that we can have with them after the public comment yeah Mr chair she say during her presentation that moving the fence would require cutting away giving up the vegetation I thought I heard her say that the buffer is in front of the fence and the sight line for the truck so the slower start that giving it extra time sight line um would basically mean you have to not only do you have to get rid of the buffer you have to get moved the fence back even beyond the buffer MH so both the buffer and the fence would have to go or be adjusted um is how is how she described it so it's but so we wouldn't lose bushes no the bushes would be gone too probably they would be gone yeah but the the vegetated buffer and the truck site distance are not compatible okay just want that clarify yes as she said it's not a the require IR necessarily but it was a a request to evaluate from the okay so I'll go to uh members of the public in person and remotely if you don't mind stepping down from the podium um I saw one person here would like to come up and speak if you are in the zoom meeting and you would like to speak as well I'll ask if you can just raise your virtual hand in the zoom session and we'll try and go back and forth and uh give everybody an opportunity to discuss um I'll ask that everybody just address their questions to the board um if there's items we can answer we will if there's items we need to ask the applicant will do that too he you doing Frank CN Maple Street I just had two questions what uh what is the building uh being useful uh the proposed building is for a company called preier Premier fence that manufactures and installs fences okay and then at the last town meeting wasn't it voted that the speed limit was going to get down to 25 miles hour I believe at the last town meeting the require the change that was proposed by the transportation committee was to give the town the ability to change the speed limits on different roads through individual actions I don't think it it wasn't a wide reaching all the speed limits are now changed it just said the town now has the ability to go to a street and say this street needs to have a lower speed limit for X reason um whether that's something that I think I put in my mental notebook uh we should show this traffic report to the transportation committee and uh make sure that they get eyes on it yes I agree yes okay regardless of what happens at this site excellent thank you I appreciate it okay thank you yes when you say that do you mean uh Bob Kimble's traffic yes I do you have a represent I do okay perfect well if you've got something you want take into them do that okay well I think it uh we can uh if you want to share the traffic report from this application I think Bob might be interested and the rest of the group as well okay uh in the virtual meeting I do see somebody with their hand raised the name on the the zoom says net is iPad uh if you could just put say your name and address for the record please hi my name is AA Woods I live at 55 Street my driveway is going to be right across from the second entrance to the um proposed company coming over there um there's a curve there in the road you can see it right on the map and it's very dangerous I've been almost hit so many times just trying to get out of my driveway from people coming around that curve not realizing that okay I need a slow down people are trying to get out of their driveway it's all the time the trucks the cars the people trying to go through to work in the industrial park it's terrible and yes it's always been 30 m an hour um posted for our street because when the police even had one of those um speed things that they put down the end of the road to mock the speed as people come down they they said it was posted as supposed to to be 30 m an hour people are not doing 30 m an hour on the street you wouldn't believe how many times there's been tires screeching out here from people trying to stop almost hitting somebody coming out of their driveway it it's really bad it I'm sorry Emily it seems like you know the presentation that you gave it it's not really accurate if any one of you lived on the street You' take it more seriously um the speed limit is it really needs to be reduced people are going way too fast on the street um somebody's going to end up getting hurt my neighbor was took pictures of cars going by and you can't even pass two cars coming around this curve people have to slow down when there's a car coming the opposite way and then we have the kids from weat and college always jogging down the street or riding their bikes or whatever there's going to be something fatal Happening Here marck my words on it there going to be something fatal I think that the traffic study that they presented reinforced kind of what we all thought and that uh They said that the average that they're measuring against is not 30 they're doing all of their site distances based on people going 43 um based on the the speed strips they set that they set down and measur measured two weeks ago um and I I have another comment that um the driveway that's going to be right across from me my I have two bedrooms in the front of my house they're going to be open really early in the morning I have little children you know it the lights coming from the cars and the trucks going in and out you know it it really concerns me I mean we I've been here 33 years you know and all of a sudden now we're not going to have any peace over here we're not going to be able to you know I'm going to have to get the kids up because what they're opening at 5:00 in the morning so the kids are going to be up at what 5:00 because of all the traffic inning out yeah you know it it's not it's not right I understand thank you it's always been a residential street and when I bought my property I was told oh nothing's ever going to go across the street yeah okay yeah just like I was told nothing would be out back but there's plenty of movement out back on that so-called B bicycle path or walking path that's probably going to end up being a street now okay are there any questions that we can help answer for you at this time what are we going to do about the speed limit and about that curve that can they push it back and and you know try to make it more visible the road people even people coming out of their driveway it's going to be dangerous for them to try to pull out on that curve that they're on they we're we're on the same curve when their people are going to try to pull out to get out of work yeah there's going to right at the point of that curve yeah yeah understood thank you thank you any additional comments from anybody here in the room cont time sir if you'd like to come up and I was ask you to state your name and address for the record once you get up there my name is Bob Gard I live at 51 Hill Street I've lived there for about 20 22 years thereabouts and one thing that I know that n didn't say was right after that point the road also there's a hill in the road too so when you're coming out of that driveway which I believe is the Southside driveway the one closest to taunt okay um there's a hill there so even if you have the site you're going to be cutting whatever they're going to have they M the most they'll have is grass because there is a hill right there that you can't see out of um as you're coming around there it's almost a little bit of an S turn between one driveway and the next driveway so it's not just a a straightway and that's where as uh Netta said there are a lot of times just pulling out of even my driveway and I have a circular driveway so I can go in there's a place I can turn around and I'm going out forwards that even sometimes getting out of there it can be tricky um another thing I wanted to mention there are Parts I don't know if any of you have driven down Hill Street recently since they repaved it and put the lines in before we didn't have lines really on the street there might have been one yellow line in the middle that was it now they put the double lines there we got some curbs on the sides they got some lines there if you start looking looking at this most of the cars aren't staying within those lines because the road is so small it's so thin that they can't you can't physically stay in your lanes and I mean try it the reason we haven't had too many accidents or anything and the reent is because there is not a lot of traffic on this road if you increase the traffic even more um and we've seen it um since I lived there the end of the street used to be dirt so people hardly ever went down it at all we were just a little cow path you could say and then it got paved and then people started coming from the industrial park they started going faster through there people thinking oh we don't have to go out the other end and that's the next thing you're going to start seeing everybody from there will start trying to go out through uh the industrial park and realize at certain times that traffic's backed almost up to anheiser Bush so there's not going to be any way for them to go out they're all going to start coming out here through Norton anyway so no matter even how you try that's what that is going to happen and I I'm I know this just from living there for as long as I have um but I mean I'm just worried that yeah we're going to have something happen it's just it's it's not a matter of if it's going to happen it's a matter of when it will happen the first part of the both ends of the street aren't too bad they're fairly straight and fairly wide but then as you start going in a little bit it shrinks in just right around on one side the old dump it starts shrinking there and that's where the curves start and then it ends um a little bit over I don't if you know the area at all but there's a couple new houses just after the Wastewater sewage P plant including the first thing you come across is that telephone pole that's like 2 ft there from the edge of the road that you have to kind of swerve around and and I see a lot of people cross that there too so there's a lot of potential for some major in incidents here and uh with the new bike path that's coming into its own we're going to see a lot more traffic coming down here just from that um that's all I want to say for the moment thank you sir y there anybody else who wanted to speak here in here in the room or again I'll just please come on up uh and I'll just as you as you come up I'll just ask anybody else in the zoom meeting wouldd like to speak just raise your virtual hand and uh we'll come to you next hi Lori Stewart 51 Hill Street um I've been in contact with the Norton Transportation division of schools um to let them know what's going on in on the street because I took the first two weeks of September off and witnessed a N7 exiting North get pushed into the woods while a landscaping truck with a trailer was going south and just so happen to clip my post that has my gate CU I gate my my driveway which is 6 feet in from the road and I'll say again State recommendation 24 we're at 18 and I know my neighbor Laura Dean I don't think she's on tonight sent video in of of vehicles that cannot stay within Lanes I mean it's a safety concern I watch bicyclists I hear horns blowing I hear tractor trailer trucks blowing the horn hey I'm coming through get out of my way someone's going to get hurt and that's just going to happen and I don't know if you guys travel Hill Street like we've all asked take a ride down there watch these kids with their parents riding their bicycles down the street my concern is you're developing on Pine Street people on Pine Street their kids are on those buses at Travel Hill Street I reached out to try to contact the drivers of N15 N5 N7 I'm also reached out to the State Rep and Jake aen Claus Congressman because he's in my building he's in Washington but I'm going to bring them into this it's a safety concern we're residents of that street I know it owned commercial industrial retail you're were also talking 6 days a week opens at 5: probably going to see traffic starting at 4:30 in the morning do punch a clock at 700 no there's probably trucks that are going to roll in after 7:00 this is 6 days a week was that property zoned commercial residential retail so it could enter and exit from the Norton Commerce originally but then that fell short because of the wetlands that were cover o was covered over and then they had to make them Wetlands again I mean was that the intent when that was designed to be industrial commercial retail I don't think I have picture about the intent about why it's been zoned industrial but it has for a while it would be from like the 1950s it was one of the old like wood said when we bought property on that street the TA Industrial Park went in that's going to stay above buff a Zone from us to the industrial park and obviously that's not not going to happen but again it's safety it's the kids on the buses and I wish I had my phone with me because when I say that bus had to go over into the woods close to where the entrances will be couldn't even get by I drive a Chevy Equinox midsize SUV and I see the bus coming I'm in the woods moving over so concerns safety hours of operation still remain a huge concern when do we enjoy our quality of life as homeowners I mean I just don't know if people realize that it's a small narrow road and I really encourage you to take a right down before you make any firm decisions on at least safety and I am going to work with the Norton school transportation department I was hoping to be bring them into this tonight um I sent out a last minute email after getting off the phone with her and I copied a few few of you on it so you're aware of it but you know they're concerned about it and I am going to go door too on Pine Street and I am going to let people know and all the homes that are being built around I'm going to let them know that too their kids are going to be traveling on a street that is dangerous widen it put sidewalks in I mean that's the only answer I can come up with and that's all I have thank you very much thank you any additional comments from members of the public here okay um chairman I did take not all this I'll take every word of that I can get video I'll just all that Bob I think I'm I'm sure Bob isn't is uh well acquainted with the area but having the data behind it and some other stuff Ki start some conversations some notes here there's a video of vehicles if was that okay I get it from you guys okay I was going to get it over to yeah so um so at this point I'll ask if you just want to pop back up here um so we had discussions at our last session we've had the updates from the traffic engineer um do we have initial questions for the applicant at this time based on what they presented is there anything that you wanted to add um nothing at this point I mean most of the comments we've heard before relative to traffic there weren't many questions more concerns raised by the abuts so I think at this point we don't have anything else to add Emily I assume that's the case with you as well uh that's correct I I guess the one thing I would add I know it was brought up um be uh trucks turning uh would be directed and I think this was discussed to turn left out of the site to Miles finish I know there was a concern about um trucks going through Norton but I think that was um discussed at one of the previous meetings it it was discussed yes uh I know it's one of those things that we do tend to ask for when it makes sense um it's also one of those that I know is almost impossible to enforce on an 100% basis um so I think that's um I do have one question for please Laura and I do see the hand raised as well oh sure um I know this is not a fair question however was there any consideration given to trying to connect to Commerce Way via am easement on the ride or truck parcel thank you I would say the short answer is I don't know I'd have to look at a plan and see but you have to remember the majority of our site is ringed by Wetlands right so we're kind of prohibited by where we can go based on site constraints beyond our control I understand I'm personally I'm struggling with in an industrial Zone we require driveways just one-way driveways to be 22 to 30 ft if for two-way driveways they need to be 50 ft yeah we're considering allowing these same trucks on a public road that in some places is only half that 18 ft wide and as much as I want your business in this town I really do I am struggling really hard to reconcile that um and that is probably my only sticking point um we did approve a very light industrial parcel just south of yours it had a dozen employees it was going to be 11 cars it would be you know a tractor tra truck every few months and I felt that that was an an acceptable I know even some of the abutters didn't want that um but it seemed reasonable for the space that it was used for and with 90 large trucks coming and going every single day even now just hearing about the the scurve the hill the curve the sight lines the speed at which people are going I I kind of I'm I'm stuck I and I know we can direct them left to get to my Standish but that still means that they're on Hill Street for 3 and4 of a mile at least to get there um I it's I I think it's a safety issue to be quite honest and your trucks are going to be coming and going at the same time school buses are um and like I said we need the revenue we need the business I it would kill me to have to decline this but I'm really struggling with it sure and that's completely understandable and the only thing I will say to that and I don't want to speak for Emily the traffic consultant but we've heard the concerns we've taken the steps to address the concerns you've had the traffic consultant that we've hired peer reviewed by a traffic consultant of your own they've all come to the conclusion that what we are proposing is not out of the realm of acceptable uh I don't like to use the word safety because that's something you can't really quantify but our traffic engineer and the traffic engineer hired by the town have all come to the conclusion that this development at this location does not present any significant traffic issues and that's again not based on us just saying well we think because we're Engineers it's based on the traffic engineer doing what they need to do based on you know the science for lack of a better term and again it's important to note that not only did we come or our consultant come to that conclusion the town's consultant did as well yeah I think we understand that we understand there's layers to that of sight lines cor traffic volumes but there's also the Confluence of that and as you've stated as your traffic engine stated you are above average truck volume for business of your size um so it's even above and beyond kind of what a stand what the it standards is from your own calculations um and the the volume going through the road doesn't necessarily mean that the road is supposed to handle that volume or should U and we know you shouldn't and to your point it's it's a it's a challenge um yeah I'm struggling I really want you know we need the business it's a challenge yeah yeah I couldn't agree with Laura more with how she said it it's the business itself seems like a great business we would love to have you but Hill Street itself is just it shouldn't handle any large traffic and the only real regulation the planning board has over the industrial zone is the limits on the scale and I think this just goes too far beyond the scale for the site personal okay if it matters how you want to keep going tonight I have the same exact opinion I do so we're not we haven't closed the public hearing we haven't taken a vote yet this is all just us talking um so from a application perspective Paul I'll go to you here they've applied for the site plan review and the special permit correct yes and the special permit relief is that parking is that and are there additional waivers that they're seeking here just to reset sure so there's special permit for um 10,000 squ ft or 25 more parking spaces they also filed Earth removal special permit and then there's the site plan uh requirement because because they were over 2500 square ft um they're look looking for three waivers uh the width of the driveway as was talked about earlier um from 50 ft down to 24 ft uh there were landscape buffer requirements for both uh the parking lot and between the building and the street and then um the usual waiver on the scale of the plants okay I almost don't count the waiver on the scale of the plant but is yeah okay um okay we've talked one of the things that we talked about was the the buffer in front related to the fence um does anyone feel like asking the applicant they would adjust the layout of that front area for the truck sight lines does that push anybody in a different direction um if it does that would be something that we potentially ask the applicant to evaluate whether that would be feasible if that isn't going to make a difference then there's no need for us to necessarily ask that Mr chairman please I think to make a judgment like that I have to drive down there and see it I would be talking down my backside try to guess here right now okay just put a no that's fine I've been on Hill Street many times I just want to go back and ey B it so um the applican stated that they don't have anything else to present um we don't have any questions for them we're at a point of do we continue talk about this again do we close the public hearing make a decision do we want to take any other actions we've got one more hand yeah yeah I I do see you I'm not going to ignore you I promise um so we can close public heing and take a vote we can ask to continue the continuance would be should be for a reason we would like to learn if we'd like to make sure that we do a driveby I'm not sure if we need to organize a specific site visit um if we do do if we wanted to do a site visit that's something that we could speak to the applicant about that would be going onto the property specifically um obviously anybody can drive Downhill Street anytime they want I mean I I personally feel like I pretty much know where I'm going to be they can't mitigate the problems changing anything with the site well they could if they connected if they connected to Commerce Way it's not if it was feasible with the wetlands or yeah anything else yes so I'm going to move for continuous I don't know if I'll get that okay hold on one second sir oh I'm sorry you have a hand up yeah I got so no it's okay have a motion on the floor to continue that would in theory be to our next session is that what you ask yeah I'm trying to picture it you're right I've driven down there too but I'm not forming a picture in my head right now okay so I have a motion to continue to October the 15th do we have a second motion fails for now but they come back um I did have one hand raised in here in person and one on the virtual meeting so I'll go to the virtual meeting first if you don't mind sir um and if you could just restate your name and address to the record please miss hi it's Netta Woods um I heard that mentioned that when the trucks come out they're going to take a left if they take a left they're going right through they're going right around that curve the bend in the road and as they that's where it's very dangerous and then when you get down when you take a ride down to a Hill Street and you get to where that telephone pole is that's sticking out by the waterway company it gets even narrower there I've almost been hit by trucks there I don't know how many times because there's no possible way to try to get around it I had to pull over into the Wastewater Department's parking lot into their driveway to avoid being hit by a truck coming through trying to get into the industrial power so when you come down here please notice that the curve where they would be coming out taking the left because when they take a left that's very dangerous they're going to hit that curve and then they're going to come right into where my driveway is and then then they're going to go down to that telephone pole that's sticking out by the the Water waste company thank you that's I just wanted to point that out to you thank you um anyway sir you wanted to come up if you don't mind uh not to make you get your steps in so much today but back when that was the state land over there oh my name is Bob Gard I'm from uh 51 Hill Street thank you uh back when that was a state land and stuff I used to walk around out there a lot there is an old like Bridge or something that went over some of the wetlands there used to be a road that went right through there out into the flatly property which is now the the Norton Industrial Park yes and as far as I know that was still there I don't know it was off to the left of the property a little bit but I think it's somewhere right in that area of the property whether that would be allowed or permitted we Pro would' have to go through uh a whole bunch of conservation discussion prob to but I mean we were looking or looking at other ways to make this feasible and at one time that either was a farm or something like that there was an old well on the property out there um I also have one other comment what about noise other than the traffic which is what we've heard a lot about sure what type are they going to be having uh saws nail guns uh what type of equipment is going to be going on there and what I mean so hours and stuff like that so hours they stated at the last session they start pretty early in the morning uh for trucks going out for installations um they do manufacture the fence on the site so I assume that involves some level of equipment uh how loud it is I don't know Norton does not have a specific noise noise bylaw which means it defaults to the state guidelines which means that they're generally restricted from making noise that is 10 DB above background levels um so if you take a measurement of what the sound is outside on a normal day including all the traffic including everything else then the require the state requirement is that you shouldn't be creating things 10 DB above that level um the challenge of course is having the measured before and after levels to deal with that um it's not the but that's that is the noise guideline that we have because Norton doesn't have anything else so okay thank you so I'll ask if the applicant wants to just come up here and um I think you've heard some of our deliberations here in terms of actions that you'd like us to take would you like us to continue to a future session to allow you to have some time to consider things would you like us to close the public hearing and with a vote or would you anything else I think just given that it sounded like there were certain members that might want to still take a ride by the site some I think have expressed their you know opinion that they know the site well but I think given that and given that we also have a con uh a Conservation Commission hearing on the 14th I think we've agreed to request the continuance to the 15th I think at that point uh if we are still at the same place we're probably going to ask for the year to be closed and a vote to be had okay thank you you're welcome rob you like to make a motion to continue to 15th go ahead somebody else's TK yeah motion to continue to the 15th second okay we have a motion and a second I think Steve maybe got the second there for the minutes um any further discussion on the motion to continue to the 15 okay Rob yes Eric yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes and I will vot yes as well thank you very much everybody thank you thank you thank you okay the final item on our agenda this evening is a continuation of the public hearing regarding our up meeting upcoming town meeting warrant uh the warrant is to create new article 23 I still rals this is talking about the great wordss overly district and applying this District to the town dorton zoning map along Mansfield Avenue and Arnold Palmer Boulevard this is continued from our last session glad we have some new faces in the room here to add some additional comments and thoughts um in terms of how we want to go about this um I know we may have people who were not at our last session so I'd like to start just by going through a presentation and speaking to what we're proposing here uh for those of you in person it'll pop up on the screen here so if you're tucked over there in the corner you probably might not be able to see it so we'll go through the presentation I'll ask if members have any additional comments based on uh what we have here and then I'll go into public comments again um so Paul if you don't mind pulling up the presentation here and we'll just start going through it and again I'm viewing this almost with a a new lens assuming that people who who are either watching virtually or joining us in person didn't see this the first time so I'm going to pretend that this is the first time I presented it which is in but um so again this is the discussion about the greatwoods overlay District which is intended to comply with 4A Section 3 from the state so here's the quick overview here we can skip through this and get into the meat of all this but um here's the time timeline of how this sets out um this dates this this rule comes down from the state and it dates back to early 2021 uh when they adopted the multipen zoning requirement for what is the MBTA communities uh in late 2022 they designated Norton as an adjacent community so we don't have a MBTA stop near us but we are next to those that do uh so we are adjacent community in the states highs uh there are a number we received the guidelines in mid 23 uh we have been working with sered since soon after that to develop a zoning District which would meet those guidelines um we tried to get this in front of the town for Springtime meeting so we had some wiggle room we were unable to do so with sered uh not least of which because we didn't have a planner for a significant period of that time orange period is the period we did not have a planner that is a lot of this time yeah yeah um in April uh after a discussion this board chose to go select the northern section of Mansfield ad through the site selection process we'll go through that again in later slides uh and then you get into what we've been doing over the last few months which is Flushing out the actual bylaw wording itself leading into fall town meeting next month so here are the compliance requirements from the state uh for an adjacent Community we're required to create one zoning District which allows multif finely as of right meaning it cannot be subject to a special permit it must allow at least 15 units per acre and it must be at least 50 acres in size they can't be subject to age restrictions or and must be suitable for families with children so it can't be 65 and over or anything like that uh Norton's Target is 750 units which is just the round number for 15 by 50 basically right it's not a realistic it's something the state uses for their modeling their compliance purposes but we'll get into that yes so what is not required um it doesn't require the town to provide the land to anybody to produce the actual housing can't force the land owners of the land to do anything with it if they don't want to um um we don't need to pay for any infrastructure we don't need to allow specific building types or not allow specific building types um all it does is provide the opportunity to develop and resist replace existing usage of structures over time um more than half of the state is affected by this MBTA communities law um so let's keep going here so how an overlay District works if you're not familiar with zoning we have Parcels so the lots of land we have zoning which lays on top of that the overlay goes on top of that base zoning u a property owner with an overlay can choose to build either under the base zoning or the overlay whichever one they choose based on whatever they want to propose so the purpose of this district one to meet the requirements from the state guid LS that is pretty much the only purpose of this District does the state need more housing probably would we be looking at this bof the state wasn't requiring it not a chance um the goals of the state's guideline encourage smaller housing typologies range of market rate housing uh more affordable income fit restricted housing and compact mixed use development and key locations um here are the State guidelines Community should consider how much the district is on sensitive land where it could be challenging to develop uh basically don't put it anywhere where you couldn't actually build this we will know uh sighting should encourage the development of multi housing projects that are compatible with the existing surrounding uses and minimize impacts to sensitive land and we'll touch on that in a bit here are all of the things that we worked through in the site selection process with sered uh looked at natural spaces if there are natural spaces in the area that is a push factor or stay away uh same thing with Wetlands flood zones and other climate resilience areas or Water Resources aquifers surface water protections things that are poles if there's infrastructure if there's water or sewer fire police Highway interchanges quality of life uh schools sidewalks Transit Open Spaces access to other things and there are other factors in terms of community priority areas or priority priority preservation or development areas which can either push or poll depending on how that area has been laid out so the way that sered the regional planning AG looked at this they divided Norton and looked at 10 acre grids all over town and we looked at all of those features across the entire town which you'll see on all of these slides so this is what it looks like for just keep going we don't for climate resilience you can see lighter is generally better on this map darker is not as good Water Resources you see dark blue not suitable so if you get up close to winet and north of 495 there's a lot of water resources is over there quality of life centered around 123 and a little bit up into 140 priority areas again the darker is what is most suitable for this piece of the map infrastructure so roads sewer see a couple of very dark areas in the center of town and north on 140 and overall when you blend all of that together this is what you come up with the darker green areas are on average the parts of town where sered not knowing kind of how we would feel about different areas identified as these are the best areas for you to put something like this and we're look each of these grids is 10 acres so you have to put five of them together in a contiguous Zone um so so here are the parcels that we SE that we selected for this map for this overlay um so you can see the large one is currently owned by PGA Charities and we've also included the New England ice cream property the multif Family Properties or quadplex on the other side of 140 and then down to the new 40b next to McDonald's so why we chose this site um obviously the area obviously already includes existing multif Family Properties across the street putting multif family near other multif family uh the area is also served by water and sewer which is a key infrastructure piece um Norton Center was one of the areas that serad identified as having a blend of the factors that we wanted to look at uh this board did not feel that putting putting 50 acres of multif family in Norton Center was the best idea for traffic um Village Center core zoning also requires topof thee shop development uh we looked at the RO 23 locations we eliminated those due to limitations in some infrastructure and some other factors uh 50 acres along 140 would impact a lot of exist would be close to a lot of existing single family houses and you're going to so we would be putting a dense multif family into an area that is primarily single family I we specifically chose to exclude the roach Brothers Plaza that was a discussion that we had because we do want that to maintain to be maintain and encourage that to be a retail commercial site um and we'll go into this a little bit in a later slide but we chose to include the existing multif Family Properties and then going down to the 40b um because they're contiguous a and those existing quad flexes are also currently non-conforming Lots they're currently in a commercial Zone um so allowing them to be in this would potentially allow them to expand or update and simplify some of the zoning discussions as well um so highlights of the changes meets the requirements that was the goal um the overall guide plan is to Pro affordable and mixed use housing um generally it allows a maximum of three stories but allows up to five if affordable housing in top of the shop is provided um again affordable housing is something that we did focus on with this bylaw specifically um because if we are at Norton's right around the state's 10% affordable housing guidelines um so if we dip below that then we lose the ability essentially to say no to a 40b project um and again we're seeking to protect existing adjacent residential uses with a large vegetated buffer in addition to that so here is the basic table of dimensional standards um we can go come back to this at a later point if anybody wants to go through it um I'll point out just the bottom line there the maximum units per acre we have set is 16 the state requirements is a minimum of 15 so we're pretty close to that minimum uh overall we feel that this aligns with the master plan that was adopted at the 2021 town meeting again some of those Provisions again encouraging those smaller housing typologies providing more affordable housing and encouraging compact mixed use development at key locations um this is a state program the state is swinging a big a big stick um if we are not compliant by the end of this year we are ineligible for Mass Works Housing Works housing choice and local capital projects fund um that was written into the statute as other towns have experienced uh Milton is one example uh the state has also looked at other discretionary programs as you can see detailed here in that very long paragraph um and has basically said that in so many words almost all discretionary spending at the state level is in Jeopardy if you're not in compliance in short they will put you on the state's naughty list and deal with it Milton is currently suing the state I think a couple of municipalities are as well um yeah so I know Paul you have used some of these grants and since 2018 you put here 4.5 million in Grants since 2018 correct correct um across a number of these uh different grants yeah um so here's a look at the compliance model um you can see here that um the number that we come up with with this district is the capacity per District which is based on it's not going to include wet lens not going to include anything the number that we come up with with this district is 1722 units which is above the state's requirement of 750 why I'll go into on the next slide and this speaks to some of the discussions that we had at our last session as you can see I made the title very blunt um if we need 750 units why does this allow for 1,700 um the site chosen is dominated by that large property and we can't subdivide it as part of this process um that one lot accounts for 63% of the total units we could use just that lot and we would be in compliance for the number um we the choice that we would have if we want to we could remove the in of ice cream parsal which does make it more contiguous we could remove the quad plexes in the 40b across the street um that would mean they would continue to be non-conforming lots and wouldn't have any benefits of this District if they wanted them um so that's a choice that this board can make before we submit this final to town meeting that's a choice that we could make at town meeting if we wanted to do that as much as I hate for amendments at town meeting um so will we really get to 1700 units the answer is probably not and that's if anything is developed at all again the requirement is that we provide the zoning not that anything is built or that anybody sells anything um these buildings still need to meet parking driveways building coverage height setbacks and everything else um for every new unit adds new parking which reduces the buildability area and so on and so forth um the compliance model isn't considering these factors it's an Excel spreadsheet so we're complying with an Excel spreadsheet to meet this this bylaw um and as you can see there are a lot of wetlands in this area uh specifically cutting across the whole middle of that site and just just to add to that too that Conservation Commission has a what they call a TW it's within 25 ft they have what they call a no build zone so it's within 25 feet of all of the and those aren't flag those are estimated Wetlands I we couldn't find a recent one but so you can subtract out 25 ft from around those wetlands and then within 100 feet between 25 and 100 feet that's a conservation will look that's within their permitting zone so it it's a lot of land comes off with this that the model that the compliance model does not Factor so it it is overstating overestimating what could potentially be done um but I'm going to keep going here but summary state was requiring compliance by the end of this year um we cite you saw the we walked through all the slides of where we why we cited this dict where we were wanted to be in a place that had those quality of life infrastructure assets and fit with the existing uses it's near existing multif family I'm not sure I may have heard of some other apartments or condos was near golf courses before maybe somewhere um again the requirement doesn't allow doesn't require development it just provides the opportunity um and it doesn't prevent somebody from putting a commercial property there if they wanted to either um there's a version of this where this site that's been commercially zoned for a while and nothing's been built on it once there's activity it could turn into a commercial site even though we zoned it for multi family because there's action um so if multi family is developed um I think we've done a good job designing the requirements to promote properties that are welld designed encourage mixed use as well as affordable units and keep us over that 10% guideline as much as we can so um I think that's the last slide Paul correct yes okay um if you want to just leave that up because I think we may come back to it in a little bit um but just from members of the board any additional questions comments on the updated version of the presentation here based on our feedback from last last session Mr chairman please um the one where you showed the wetlands and you're saying someone that land is not buildable correct yeah near the end there yeah and I I thought I'd heard earlier that one of the requirements was that the land be buildable the requirements is that it has the infrastructure to support yeah the guidance from surpad is that this meets the requirements yeah no so infrastructure support that means a road going there does that mean having sewer that is an infrastructure benefit and this does have sewer this already does have um okay so if you taking the argument that the wetlands reduces what you could build that's reducing it from the 1700 correct in theory yes yes how much do we we don't have a we don't have anything flagged it's just an estimate my very loosest estimate for the total Wetlands on this property is about 10 acres if you include the 25t buffer maybe about 13 1 12 acres if you go with the 100 foot the extra 75 that conservation has as like a leeway zone They 100t buffer that's maybe about 25 acres how a site of and that's if no other wetlands are located it still has to get flag you're calling it out of 6 25 out of 60 Acres you're calling it 35 40% back of the envelope math I would say at a I wouldn't want to go that high underestimate I want to give a lower number 30% definitely 13 acres off yeah so yeah so it's okay so you're saying 25 to be conservative that would yeah yeah Fair okay another question um on your push pull factors now it did look like the push P things what was considered a push what was a pull was geared to make this more attractive to have them bu do this building yes and would why would we not want to flip that and say let's try and make it as hard for them to build make them just not want to because like you said we wouldn't even want this if the state wasn't forcing it um I think that that would go against the the guidelines as you mentioned the guidelines from the state about making it accessible I don't know what mechanism they would necessarily have to double check the model that we did there are um could we have picked I'll just use Hill Street as an example we have picked Hill Street an area where that's not suit for large scale development and put it there anyway since it's has no sewer has tiny roads isn't close to any Town Services yes we could have um I think that if we're going to propose something we should propose something where it would actually work that would be my feeling and has the best chance for getting approved by the state yes yeah well and by the town that's to your point you know when we talked about other areas obviously the center of town isn't going to work I think everybody agrees I think I limited that in about2 seconds I mean if we look down the southern portion of 140 if we look at the um adbor end of 123 you're looking at predominant areas that are predominantly single family housing and there's one thing I know in my very short tenure as a planning board member it's that single family homeowners really do not like multif family in their neighborhood um so uh this seemed to be the more ideal spot based on that considering everything up there is already multif family and we were less likely to get pushed back from town it's almost in Mansfield just curious what about the stretch that's almost in t Taunton right down like where the residence is that whole track along there between there and 120 yeah somebody else had suggested it too so one it's predominantly single family and two there was environmental and infrastructure issues it showed up as a less suitable area if tall wants to burn up the yeah let me get back there but they're and for just the silent summary now there right so but we have very few areas of town matter that have sewer available to it so uh 140 South of 123 uh pretty pretty much once you pass wheat in college there there is no sewer there's water there are environmental fact conditions down there and it is predominantly single family although there's some small retail in there it's a lot of its Zone commercial but a lot of that property is res single family residential on it is the state requiring that there be so no okay just because that seems but that's a big thumb on the infrastructure piece of the puzzle for that map it's sewer there is just also the argument that we shouldn't develop anything in town purposely in a poor way we shouldn't put something where it doesn't belong out of spite oh I wasn't thinking out of spite at all well like as a way we're being mandated by the state to th the development right I don't want to thwart what could be something potentially good just to be against it fair enough I was thinking more like not give them something that's really Prime either though you know there's mid ground here um I'd like to make a recommendation and this is because I really do fear the state stick I think his work's important and I don't want to see that money pulled um that we put on the ballot two proposals you can put this one on I mean this is going to the people this is not a rwal thing so put it put this one on as you've got it but that you go back and you look at your notes and say if we were going to just meet the minimum what is a plan that only does that because you're still talking about putting up something that on paper doubles the minimum which is a troubling factor and I'm just say put it as a second one and let people choose I think the time for that would have been before we submitted the draft language for the warrant article right now the warrant articles are the warrant article so those are locked I think if the board or town meeting chooses we can subtract Parcels from what we have here a if somebody wants and Tom can also vote against this if they choose that would that is a decision that would threaten to put us out of compliance if we don't take further action for the record I actually do not want to see that happen and that is kind of why I'd like to have an option for people to say let's meet the minimum some way of going with that because I feel like that has a much better chance of passing the the the way of meeting the smallest minimum number that would be compliant is to say cut everything with the PGA block um which means but the opposite side of the road is all multif family already which is does that make a difference it makes a difference to the number consider another s I know it's it's we can't consider another site for town meeting it's been the site has been noticed for the zoning article so all the abutters were noticed and they had signs up so that time for that was before I was August 27 yeah the site selection was before I think before you were a remember unfortunately but but the site the draft language for the zoning was in August that's when we I'm going to leave my recommendation that you find a way and I'm only saying that because I am concerned about it not passing and I think that enhances your chances to pass if you have if you could come up with a way to do that if you can't you can't but I think you enhance your chances of getting a pass I think from a town meeting perspective I think that proposing Parcels that weren't noticed and weren't part of the article probably wouldn't make it past the moderator I think we could remove parcels and shrink it I was going to suggest that so that's an option we could take tonight that's option that can happen at town meeting that's I was going to suggest taking the 40b out I got the lot number right here and the property next door and possibly the ice cream uh New England ice cream the 40b and New England ice cream and the property next to North of the 40b the oil one oil one and then possibly have a conversation about Del delting all the density bonuses that's possible if you want to all deleting the I if we're going to play with the model I don't know we can't do that I don't want to play with the density bonus because that entices the mixed use that we want I I got to comment on the density thing like no I just I I think the number that we have here is based on the rules that we have now we play with the rules this we have to go back into the the express spreadsheet of Doom and see what pops out chair um so yes so after tonight whatever you recommend I will be sending this to back to serpent for them to do that to readjust the the compliance model and as well as make any other text changes right yeah but we've already kind of from a pure subtracting part standpoint we understand that we would be in compliance with Allen suggestions MH so do we need the updated numbers yes would we still be within compliance yes I'm cool with the idea of removing New England ice cream that's 12 1 12 acres the entire other side of all the apartments is 15 Acres together how many units does that produce I mean that's I don't know it's the whole other side all the apartments incl the 40 B I guess it depends on how high they go well I looked at the compliance model that surf did I want to say it was about 400 you could get that many across the street from the duplexes or the quad plexes well that again that's if you tore everything down put everything at the maximum D so they'd have to do top of the shop they'd have to do affordable housing yeah to get to the max yeah those are not there probably not enough parking area for parking cuz you hit W right behind it right squish a couple of them together who knows what but yeah you're not going to be able to fill it yeah yeah it's really yeah so there not a lot of space yeah I can see the value of removing New England ice cream but the everything on the other side of the the road it's it's 15 Acres we don't gain much even if we remove all of it yeah and there are Apartments already so that's we have propos from Allan I Alan if you don't mind I'll hold on that for a second and go to obviously we've talked about this last meeting we'll continue to talk about it is there be any objection if I go to public comment oh no no please for the record I'm simply making that recommendation because I'm concerned about you getting it pass no I understand okay you can reject it you don't even have to move on it that's to you guys I'm just giving it I think what you're saying is completely valid I wish that we had the chance to do it a couple months ago yeah we tried but we weren't able to do that with Ser um okay so I'll go to public comment either in the room or on the zoom meeting um I see you with your hand up Sir so please come on up first uh if you are in the zoom meeting and would like to to join I ask that you please raise your virtual hand and we'll do our best to go back and forth and give everybody an opportunity to speak um now you've already spoken tonight I'll ask you to state your name and address for the record just one more time Frank cin 42 Maple Street thank you thank you uh members of the board I just have a few questions um the with the water quality that we have in town we're on Town Wells okay we have a water B every April when it you know whether we have 10t of snow or 10 Ines or an inch so my my problem with the numbers here I would go me personally I would go with the lower number the 750 just to make the minimum that's one okay the um we just went through one of the most brutal overrides and the biggest fight was the schools so you're talking bringing even more children into our school system so the infrastructure has to go up police fire schools and everything so with going with the higher number figure two people per household a higher number on paper yes y on paper Y and but hypothetically right if I could address part of that specifically um a a multif family neighborhood of this size in a non-commercial Zone will be a 100% net loss on our Revenue because it will be just families and no commercial use correct to put that multi the the multifamilies in with a commercial District might mitigate part of that effect key word is might um in general in most communities a mixed use neighborhood with small Lots is the highest revenue generating neighborhood in that Community almost every town okay but my my big thing is the water quality I've been in town for 31 years and I went from a $5 water cartridge to a 32 water cartridge so that's that's my biggest sticking point because really nobody thinks of the water everybody's like beautiful it's sewer I'd love to have sewer it'll never sa so that's my problem yes but I would I would recommend doing the lower meeting the minimum please thank you thank you sir I don't see any hands raised in the zoom meeting but sir y Roger my say 62 power Street I just have a couple of questions for you um on the compliance model that you're talking about um is this the greatest area for this compliance model are we in the best spot for this compliance model and if so why would we want to put it there as opposed to a less lesser uh area in the compliance model as so that uh it makes it more unattractive for somebody to develop it um I think we cited the area and we went through the all the slides of why we cited it where we did um I don't think we really ran the compliance model for the other areas as much as we used the compliance model once we decided where we thought this made sense to determine uh what pieces of the bylaw made sense here does it what does it do if we put in this incentive for affordable housing what does that do what does that do to the model what does it do if we add if we change the setbacks from the neighboring properties from 50 ft to 75 ft um that's I think really what the compliance model does the other sites would go back to the site selection process which we concluded in April yeah we passed that exit well a long time ago um another question I had is what are the benefits of the non-conforming lots that are across the street that you say that uh if we take them out they're going to lose those benefits of this they would gain benefits what other the benefits so right now is existing non-conforming Lots um basically anytime they do anything they have to go before the zoning board for variance um becoming a conforming lot under this overlay would also Paul I think you've had this discussion with a couple of the property owners there would give them the opportunity to update their properties expand in some way um add retail do something different uh is that basically the summary there that yes yeah we have one of those Property Owners at our last session as well so that they could if this passes that town meeting somebody could come in from one of those properties and say Hey listen I now that I'm in this Zone I can they can follow the new overlay if they wanted to yes and put up a building that has you know a storefront and two apartments above it instead correct yes they could as long as they met all the dimensional requirements and parking and everything else that went along with it yes um another question is what happens if this any of these Parcels get developed into an industrial Zone before it uh becomes doesn't change anything we gave we so long as we comply we gave the ability to put multif family there if commercial industrial goes there doesn't matter for the state requirement and is there any opportunity to change anything after the town meeting vote can we change the location can we change the the size can we change the any of the availability to these uh this property all zoning articles can always be amended at Future Town meetings and it will be a new zoning District that we can change as we go throughout the years so means to meeting approval right right so I I guess what I'm asking is if say some of these um lawsuits that are some of these towns are bringing if the day after town meeting happens Milton wins and the State loses and runs with its tail between its legs we could at the next town meeting we can say we're going back to where we were that's always something that we can do with zoning I'm sure developers would hate it but yes we could do that if we if we chose to and we could even call a special if we wanted to but that's not my department that's yours is there a time limit on the state saying that you have to have this available for a period of time they're just requiring compliance by the end of the year so why couldn't we at the next time meeting change it back uh that would I assume that their compliance would be required in perpetuity after this year that's what I'm saying how long do we have to have this available for until the commun until the state changes their mind yeah or the lawsuit wins up in uh Milton until the the state changes their mind or is forced to change their mind maybe that's a better mhm but just to clarify the lawsuit would still have penalties I mean sorry let me restate that if Milton wins that case there's still some Financial penalties for us they're just fewer they're fewer but they're still there and right they're not they're not it's a not a zero or nothing up right it it's not that it's just going from 15 down to four right and it's from every Club in the bag to they can hit us with a nine iron a nine iron only yeah so I guess I'm I'm looking for what are our options and with the heavy hand of the state coming down on us how many options and are we keeping any options open in terms of what we can do after we pass this at town meeting or we don't if we pass this at town meeting yeah we will be in compliance and and we can continue to evaluate this if State Law changes if this doesn't pass then we have the then the town will then the town will have made the decision that they don't like this enough to be in compliance in some way shape or form whether that is an adjusted District that they that the town is looking to put forward in some other session or whether the feeling of town meeting is that we don't like what the state's doing and we are prepared to back it up with our own decisions um that's a decision that the town's legislative body will have to make Tim if I could bring up a sort of Novel idea um if we as a town are not friendly to the idea of a lot more multif family housing being built around town we do have about 3,300 Acres of residential area that's zoned multif family right now for spe by special permit we could unzon that for multif family and the net would be we Zone this less than 100 acres and we remove more than 3,000 from the rest of town that is also a possibility but that's not something that we're considering I also wanted to take a moment and uh I wanted to take a moment and and thank you all for the work that you put into this this is and you guys have been run through the ringer in the last few weeks and I understand that um but it's a it's a lot of work and none of you are getting paid well a couple of you are um most of you Town staff is Big I'm getting paid for what you do and I appreciate the work that you're putting in so I thank you for the work that you're putting in um I don't necessarily agree with all your decisions and I'm sure you don't agree with mine sometimes so thank you for the time you put it thank you Mr Mary Mr chair if I could just provide a quick clarification for those who may not be aware so there are two towns in this state that have chosen to fight the state specifically that's Milton and that's Holden in the case of Milton they're not necessarily fighting the man to produce the multif family housing by right what they are fighting is the way that they have been designated so because they have a trolley that has a capacity of 37 passengers they were determined to be I like Rapid Transit yeah Rapid Transit and therefore it is a higher threshold they are required to produce four times the amount of housing than if they were just considered an MBTA Community they have stipulated they are happy to comply they would just like to be downgraded to a more reasonable level Community yeah but all of the other state programs are with a stick the state is waved at them so that's why they're all lumped together in the case of Holden they kind of look they have failed to comply with every prior step so there have been steps along the way we have to submit uh basically a commitment to comply and then you have to submit an action plan that shows that you are committed to complying and Holden has missed both of those requirements so Holden just seems to be they're not even suing the town they're just saying we're not doing it and what happens what happens um but those are the only two states in terms of the municipality fighting it there have been several towns where town meeting has rejected the first run through um by their Planning Group grou and but they are working on complying by year end like we did yeah just just to add to that too that um one of the U administrators of this program at the state told me that right now 85% of all the towns that have submitted or the municipalities that have submitted are compliant you know we hear about the Miltons and some of the others but they get the Press they're they're a very small percentage every most other commun ities are coming in and adopting it there's M somebody's tracking it online and it's updated like within a couple of days of town yeah you have a town like Foxboro that it was denied at town meeting they're bringing it back yeah this fall so like I said the state's swinging a bit big stick so yes uh sir yeah do you I don't know if you want to go if you can just come to the podium if we want to if you want to point to a slide then we can uh bring it up here can you bring up the slide sure with where um we talking about getting rid of ice cream the ice cream's location your name and address I'm sorry Mark SW 14 Lan if you have that slide that would be good yeah that's the one okay so what are we at right now for units 1,700 and change and we only need to be at 750 yes kga property itself is over 1,000 so 1500 is times two so we're even times two 2.2 or something like we we started with the PGA property and then went we zoomed out we're looking at everything from PGA down to Roach Brothers okay and we went we don't like roach Brothers take it off so we're at the northern part of this area and we went PJ property is the big piece the trailer park we took out we took out the other proposed 40b north of there and then we went the 40b makes sense it's multif family already and then we have all of these quad plexes across the street which are non-conforming and they're multif family already does it make sense to bring them in so the idea right now was to get rid of the if you want to call it the ice cream is at the bottom of the I call the PGA the whole thing the whole purple blob at the bottom of the closest to 140 you point it out you're going to get rid of that that's to remove that that's proposal that's kind of like the idea of what you're talking about tonight that's 12 and2 acres yeah that's what you it's officially proposed we've discussed it we have motion what would that bring the number down to uh do we have a lot I know you have to probably go to serit but I'm just we we have it yeah we have the lot by lot breakdown of uh but yeah it's the PJ property itself is would take us over the requirement the question is do we want to add the apartment does it make sense to include the apartments across the street doesn't I mean those are already built like you said the apartments that are Tower over at McDonald's that's already built the warehous you might as well include that they're not going to tear them down that's pretty much what we were thinking and the warehouse is brand new and they're proposing an extension even so they're not going anywhere anytime soon the ice cream company yeah but I mean when you're looking straight on the ice cream company to the left is is some land that you would add yeah that's just the one big parcel to answer your original question the New England ice cream parcel parcel is about 200 in units so now you 1500 exactly still and you see where the and you see where the 1500 are you have 11 10,000 in change in big property and the rest of them all together so that's halfway up the entrance way the 40 to the PGA on the right at the top of the entrance way on your purple blob that you put out yes and the rest of it is the existing you that down to come down to 750 we can't subdivide the parcel well okay now so that's we can't true of course you can't we can't subdivide a prop so no why they're parcel they have to propos to we're not subdividing the land as the owner or anything we're just changing the zoning so that proposal your proposal is to put the overlay over half of the lot yes and you can do that if you go down pull out your zoning map look on West Main Street I'm not sure the the the village commercial sets back from the center Center Line of the road or the edge of the road whatever it is 550 ft it it ignores property lines who owns the property How Deep The poils are it's a 750 I'm sorry 550 line that mirror that exactly parallels right the so that means I understand what you're saying all right so that's in conflict with what you just said though or you can't cut the parcel in half because we've already been doing it on West Main by a number of 550 ft I think it's more of a matter of the state won't allow us to sub that com I mean they we've already got it check out look at your zoning map it has nothing to do with what the state requires so Paul from your perspective you'd have to that's that's the challenge I'm I'm throwing up at you I understand that you can do we've done it on West Main 550 ft from the center center line or the edge of the road whatever it is I'm talking like 12T I would say I would I would like to have a zoning map where there weren't Parcels that had multiple zones in them you already the I'm not saying that that doesn't exist already but see now you now see that's where you're going to get pushed back whether it exists because how it was created is the question whether it was created and then they 70s and who knows whether it be allowed today is the question okay but you're saying we can't split Parcels or whatever yes you can so you can't go to that so that you can you can go back as I don't know is 550 a number that is stuck in the because whatever is stuck as a number that newon went with or is it I I don't know where it came from but it's on the it's on the it's on the Z zoning map I'm not using talking about unit I'm talking about feet off of the I guess it's a center line of the street yeah so you could split the parcels so and bring it down to you could tweak that as much as you want bring it right down to 751 yeah so Paul from the how surpet has run the compliance model how the state look at the compliance model tell them to look at West Main Street is it using Lo lines hold on a second that's so Paul is this something that you think that the compliance model will a handle be the state would allow given we understand that the existing zoning map does not follow lot boundaries correct um so is this something that the state would even consider in terms of making a compliant overly district from your perspective as uh the planner here I'm just looking at the the um the the the uh compliance model certainly it's based off of square footage of a parcel there's also other factors like where do we draw that line we have to put a legal description on that because I was asking if it was using lot lines yeah we would need to I mean it gets you just dealt with it earlier today with the first anr because they that parcel was split zoned and look at the problems that create I mean split zoning as you know does create a lot of challenges well we want complexity I you know I'm I'm all for promoting simple um but I don't know that this question I I just look at this and at what they're using as factors for their calculations it it appears to be based off of a parcel a full parcel but uh I I I've only heard that we can only do it it based on parcel but splitting it so I'm not comfortable answering that at this point okay okay so at this point fair enough I would say that um and Mr Sweeney if this makes sense to you um Paul we can ask if we can ask sured just for a yes or no on that whether that would be permitted under the state's model um if I could add this now we don't know if we can be in compliance by doing that so if we cannot then um does Paul do you have Mr sm's contact information I don't think so no you don't okay um I I can give you a call tomorrow or whenever you're ready yeah yeah and that would be something that if it is allowed the challenge would be where do you draw the line and how do you cite the line and illegal description to meet whatever number you want um so that's the next challenge if we reach that point um if the answer that we get from sered and or the state is no then um that's something that we can include in that we can specify that we asked and we got a no in our presentation at town meeting fair enough yeah got that big chunk of we you could just say everything East to the we it splits the parcel in half that's I think that's not enough if we include the opposite side of the road it would be I I think you need both parts around the Wetland to make enough you'd be trying to shave 20 acres off of like the back in a weird way yeah I kind of feel like that's probably what might happen anyway is that they would carve out the line at the wetlands say build in front of the wetlands I want the space behind it as a buffer to the existing course I mean that's what I would expect maybe to happen if something Happ in theory if we could partially Zone that one lot I do think we' have to gerrymander that zoning in itself just to get the required square footage yeah you cut it in half you go from 1,500 if you you're excluding the ice cream which is 200 you started I understand what you're saying 1,700 you exclude the ice cream you went to, 1500 you cut in half the top part of the purple that you have on the entrance way of the TPC you bring it down to 750 based on Norton has already gone 550 off of the center line on in West Main which is Village commercial again I'm not against this you're going to have to do what you got to do to meet the spirit of of the of the rule I don't want to have the planner here lose out on his grants I mean the grants are what basically kept Charlie station open over the last two three years so I'm not going to go against any grants but I don't want to give if we don't have to give away you know 1,500 units I'll go with 750 whatever the requirement the units on paper right yeah when I suggested those three properties that's what made most sense to me to get the number down yeah sood yeah and I think you that's just you got you going to going to be pushed back on this anyway because of the you know why are we doing this there's a housing crisis how did the housing crisis start well we all know you know how it started we're all fixing somebody else's problem because they let in you know I'm not going to go down that road you know what I mean but that's the that's the truth laa on that's the truth Lura you know okay but that's why we're here because we the state theate I'm sorry we're good you've got to address that that's what you're going to get that you know at the town meeting so and basically you're going to have to come back and go all right we're going to lose a you know x amount of millions of dollars of plan uh uh grants and that's what kept Charlie open and you're going to need somebody to speak to that you know what I mean and okay thank you you look into it I'll give you a call thank you yes so just to I do see your hand um Rob just to your question okay real quick um just something jumped out of me now you said the PGA is a th000 A th000 Change by itself and if you pull that out we're sing that compant correct okay cuz the rest only comes then to 700 if you you had 1,700 you take a th000 off that, 20 63% of what the total is yeah and the reason I'm asking is because you if you took that out and I was just doing crude math and that brings it down to 700 we're only 50 short of being compliant what if you put the trailer part back in yes I don't think we want to do that we took that out in our first we can't add a parcel at this point because it wasn't noticed it would take a new meeting it's possible if this one gets denied it is possible to redesign this District to different Parcels it could extend up that way yes we could add parcels and get the coverage but it does take not going through with this one having a period of non-compliance setting up a new meeting there is a process and so I one other point I just want to make um what he was suggesting and I know you're letting the water she's right no so yeah good so I'm not but would you are suggesting kind of addresses I think you know the more big picture thing that drives me a lot of my things and you are addressing that big picture thing because I'm trying to keep certain you know the trading off sure and so I think that idea if this doesn't pass I I think you should look real hard at what he's I I want to just I thought that was a good suggestion it's interesting to me if the argument is about housing that is a way to approach yeah so I don't see any hands raised in the zoom meeting am I missing one right I know I've gone to a couple people in the room heard uh but now if you want to come sir Jim shabet 56 Manfield Avenue to satisfy the statutory requirement of stating one's name and address but thank you sir that's um as a quick aside we had an MBTA meeting years ago about an extension of the rail line just trying to add a little levity before I get started take away some of the sting that Mark started here I was going to say I I think I would expect to see flying cars first well during during that hearing um uh Man by the name of Clarence P Rich Jr I don't know if you've heard of him um the rich name is not unfamiliar to me he he walked up to the podium and the person moderating the meeting said state your name and address for the records there I'm Butch Rich what's his answer so anyways um I've got a bunch of things that are kind of all over the place um so maybe start with the friendly stuff come around the middle see if we can whatever order you'd like first off I guess just to reiterate a couple of things and maybe add something to it one for anyone who thinks we can be a Milton we simply cannot it's not we've got a few things one there's the grants we could say we don't need those grants that's the way it is we'd rather do with you mentioned that option we could say that however the attorney general has said that ain't going to end there they will prosecute it um more importantly in I I'm I'm sure you're familiar with the theory of zoning is first and foremost that we have the local power to Zone at the permission of the state we do not have the right to Zone it is given to us by what was it enabling legislation they gave us the permission to Zone if the state says we have to do something we have to do it and we need to we need to face that so hopefully that helped you cause it a little bit I don't think people like being told what to do even when they know they don't have a choice I agree I agree but sometimes you have to realize that you can't bring a knife to a gunfight we would lose um more okay we lose those grants that's what the legislation says then the Attorney General says yeah no we're going to go beyond that so say we lose all the money the state can go one step further and say we're going to a we're going to do special legislation we're going to Zone it for you done yep they could they have the power to do that we I think people need to realize that the state is king um I think one of the things we learned in law class is that you actually need permission to sue the state they don't have to give you permission to sue them so anyways it sounds like I'm arguing with you but actually no I agree with I think one of the statements that I made in our last session when somebody said that they didn't like States guy I said that's why we have elections every November correct um I don't like that but anyways um clear up a couple of things one is that um we're talking about sewer being a plus at the same time and I probably should cover that it appears that philosophically we may be at odds um you were talking about and I respect your opinion that if they ask us to do something we should do it in good faith um in a way that will facilitate it coming to be and I can understand that and I can respect it I hold the opposite View and I'm I'm really hoping that most of the town's people that come to town meeting share that view in that I think Norton's vision and Norton's commitments need to come first in that we need to fulfill the state's mandate we don't have a choice but to do it in such a way that preserves Norton's vision and Norton's needs first and foremost and complies with the state nothing more we don't agree that's okay with me if it's okay with you okay um so to clear up a couple of things one sewer from from your point of view is a plus it is a plus for and I understand that yeah and I can understand how serpent would would model their view that way the same I believe I know for myself and I believe for the town's people it's a minus it's too big of an Ask um this is valuable infrastructure this is valuable now I've heard someone say it's not Prime commercial real estate and you know compared to Milton I'm sure it's not but compared to any other place in noron this is our most valuable commercial real estate in the vicinity of Great Woods in near the Mansfield line and there's nothing stopping them from developing commercial tomorrow I agree or after this I agree we're both very familiar with how an overlay Works yep um so in that regard I think sewer is too big of an Ask um Stu sewer is not on the states um list they specifically made Provisions that we can Zone it and they still have to meet the provisions of Title 5 so the state has the state has said we have to rezone 50 acres uh 15 units per acre and you know what if it doesn't work we understand that's basically what the 4A section 3A says not beta but it's pretty close paraphrase um the second one is I understand that Norton does not include wetlands in in lot area so it could be argued that we need to rezone 50 acres of dry land the let's say we do exactly 50 acres in some of its Wetlands it is possible they could say look your own definition says that wetlands are not considered part of the lot area you didn't reone 50 acres so I can concede that Steve I think we've been working with surfed throughout the process in terms of making I'm more concerned with what town and what the state might say not serid well they have their own counsel that's been looking no no I understand that so and they're they've made some small comments on on all of this but that was not one of their comments okay cuz the other thing that could be it is altogether possible that someone comes in with a proposal they say I want to build 15 units per acre and we say we don't count wetlands and they say you do now I mean I think that's a gray area legally because it's new law the state says we have to rezone 50 acres Norton says Wetlands don't count we rezone 50 acres a developer comes in I'm going to develop it 15 units per acre and you say ah you don't have 50 acres I don't think we win that one in court so I'm not sure the state's even going to look at that no no I don't think the state would and it would be down the road and when you're dealing with multiple Parcels it's probably never going to make case laww I suppose um but Wetland buffers and um areas subject to jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission that's just land we we can't tell the people that comes off because as we well all know you've got a 25 foot no build Zone 15 units per acre you move the units over here so that's kind of a kind of a false flag I I hope that's not too strong of a term um land is land if it's within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission it's with it I don't see that as possibly being a factor regarding State how the state looks at it no the state model doesn't correct correct so I just point of clarification I guess and poor old Mark is 100% right um what you can't do was Zone a single parcel un possibly if it's sufficient size but if you rezone a sufficient a single parcel the courts have ruled many times that spot zoning it's one of the reasons that we've drawn arbitrary lines it's one of the reasons we've not followed parcels and lot lines in recent years we have followed parcels and lot lines sorry that's just lazy um it's just doesn't work that way um would it be hard to describe no if you wanted 50 acres you could say from the intersection of Arnold Parmer drive and Mansfield Avenue extending a distance of x amount of feet so many feet back from the center line you're done that's it somebody draws a line on the map they hash it all in and it's done it's not that hard you take those two Dimensions you multiply you divide it by 43 560 and you know how many acres it is it's it's a pretty simple calculation I think the point was that in this meeting tonight oh no idea a if I can draw that line or where I would go tonight you're right is it too late yes and no I I think and I hope that the town's people are going to vote we don't need this it's too big of an ask that that's that's my position it's just too big of an Ask um okay couple back to Norton's vision and priorities and I what I wrote down is Norton's vision and priorities don't fit on a spreadsheet Serpent's not aware of our visions and priorities Town's people are so that's why we leveraged the master plan as part of this we had a slide on it and a lot of the board was here when we did the master plan help Master surus gave us the data and we made decisions no I agree after that data to get where we are okay well you know then that the master plan looks at housing needs in where housing should be is east of 495 that's the area when you look at the master plan where predominantly where the people are saying that's where they want housing the the the 2021 master plan that I oversaw doesn't specifically identify just that area it identify just that area I I agree with you but and I'm sure you're familiar with the uh what was it the wish list use area use map with a different color I think housing was what was it yellow I think right um you remember that okay it was scattered about yeah okay I sat where Tim seats sits in a different building um I oversaw a very unpopular zoning change it failed to get the recommendation of fincom it failed to get the recommendation of town meeting I failed at my re-election attempt in April um so I've been here um it worked out better for Norton I can say that because the one who beat me in the election was Dorothy Freeman hers was the vision of Village commercial she was the first one to bring it to Norton into Spearhead the effort so I lost the election I was hurt I CED I don't drink so I didn't cry in my beer but I certainly cried because it hurts but it was better for Norton and what I'm arguing for tonight is to try to get something better for Norton um that said I believe we've got a pretty big commitment to the U property on Elm Street we could draw a line at Elm Street go back whatever it is and come up with 25 acres that would do a couple of things that would give the state or a developer a piece of property that solely needs to get cleaned up straightened out and built upon it would also possibly save us from having to pay to put a sewer down Elm Street because if we if we didn't do the sewer on Elm Street which I believe part of the reason we're doing that is to help clean up that property and to entice someone to come in if we were to use this overlay District in that property that area then someone could come in develop it and because I mean 15 units an acre you can buy a sewer for us if I if I could address directly that I was going to say for the purposes of this war article oh absolutely noticed for these properties so we can't I agree a new District I agree I agree I'm talking I mean hopefully we're going to have a special town meeting after the fall before the first of the year hopefully we're going to say this is too big of an Ask um I know you put a lot of work into it I'm not I'm not discounting that in any way and I'm I hope I'm being as respectful as as I should be I appreciate your thoughts but at the same time you know speaking my mind I think the time for those thoughts was in March and April so no no we've got time we can go past the end of the year if we have to we've got time we need to do it right it's more important to get this right for the future of Norton than it is for whatever they penalize us we'll take the hit if we have to okay um the other 25 acres I would suggest just east of 495 on the left hand side there's already a good siiz apartment complex there rezone 25 acres there there you've got the problem solved you've got a place for high density residential units and you're not adversely affecting the town um what I won't speak to tonight is the absolute fiscal disaster that we are looking at if this goes wrong I'll save those comments for the fincom meeting where it's probably more appropriately addressed and I think and I I realize that goes beyond the es scope the scope but I said we couldn't be a Milton does that help oh that's fine okay um and one two three I finished my list okay thank thank you for your time time up any additional comments from anybody in the zoom meeting or here in the room yes Peter J wiggin 157 after Mar and it was talk back in 1995 that the Mt were to have a line from ad to to that will cut through dorton but that never got approved thank you Peter correct correct Peter okay Repose it down okay um so not seeing any further public comments at this point I'll come back to members of the board here that's just Peter yeah he's still get his uh butt up so at the meeting this evening um we would be making DEC on what we're submitting to pcom ahead of town meeting so Paul if you want to pull the parcel map back up here I think that we have two points here one is are there any changes to the bylaw language that we wanted to propose at this point I don't think there are we haven't talked about any um so if we're crossing that off the list then I just figured i' wait until we're done talking about the size of the parcels no Jes you get more not really not not much I already sent my last thing to Paul like a week ago but the serpent has not updated the thing that they sent out so as far as the use table there's just a couple what were the tweaks I I think cuz they wrote about the duplex coming off and that kind of thing me and Paul briefly talked about the idea of single family and duplex homes but then that didn't come out so it's just a clean up of the list um but they have I think a couple of the uses on the wrong floor is it a clean up based on what we talked about or is there an additional change that wasn't part of our discussions it's essentially just like a couple of the the minor retail uses being allowed on upper floors as oppos like on any floor okay I I have a version of it I sent to Paul earlier today if he wants to show it but essentially it's the same thing okay I'll why don't we go back to the do you want to do you have that in front of you or is that or do we want to go to the parcels and take that out first when do we do the parcels first okay sorry been acting up no worries so from the parcel specific um do we want to make we had Allan's proposal earlier do we want to remove any of the parcels and what we send to fincom Etc I would want to remove Newland ice cream that's the that's the big thing that we can remove the two Parcels Allan recommended that although they they might be three acres four acres at most together I don't know kind of the same idea of take things that aren't existing multif family the 40b is 40b is yeah but the question becomes I don't think that one business is going to become a multi family anytime soon but so the the question I guess would become do we want to take those off tonight which means they won't appear on the warrant or they won't appear in the the warrant they won't appear on the warrant so they're not going to be in front of time meaning at all um it means they wouldn't be part of whatever goes to fincom if we decide to evaluate the chop the PGA property with the overlay line that means they're not included in the calculations in terms of where we put that line we might need to put New England ice scream back in depending upon where the line is where we wanted to put the line where we wanted to put the line so the choice is do it now not do it now if we have strong feelings about the um cutting the parcel in half with the overlay and doing the split zoning I am it's they're all tied together know I'm personally not a fan of putting the zoning halfway through a parcel if it were to come to the DraStic part of it I would rather Zone another set of parcels than create a half Zone parcel it's just not really because I don't think it's going 500 or whatever through all the rest of the parcels along the district either it's just one lot that's going to have a square in it that's arbitrary it's very arbitrary for one specific parcel okay I think if I also believe I mean we talked about our number several times with sered I think if there was the possibility of being able to subdivide the overlay they would have suggested that months ago potentially um I mean they they were in the discussion where we decided to include New England ice cream right yeah so the the question would be we are in front of fincom on Monday oh it's this Monday it's the 30th so we make any changes then October's around the corner yeah so the essentially if we we can leave it as it is now a we can remove Parcels B tonight those are the two options we have tonight um we can choose if we do we have the option to defer fincom to the following meeting so that we have Clarity from I don't know when the actual warrant hard deadline is do you have that written downall I know you had the chart but I've been told I need to get your recommendation by Friday I mean we could do an you know within 48 hours we could do an emergency meeting everybody gets Friday because we have the uh joint meeting Thursday what's that we have joint meeting Thursday so we have to do Friday this Thursday or Thursday okay so you still have to have 48 hours too you still have to post within I'm not saying 48 hours from today but you know within 48 hours notice we could have a quick meeting get an answer make the decision and then go to fincom but the the final final deadline for fincom is when not for finom for the warrant I mean it could be I have a very strong aversion to the warrant language not reflecting the actual proposed language town meeting is uh hectic enough without people seeing different things in front of them that are being proposed I think that puts too much risk I think it's just bad practice and it makes everything confusing and makes everybody hate me and I don't like any of those things that's bad practice that's what makes it risky yeah so um getting there yeah no it's okay um so if I I agree with you Laura I think if Ser if the we had the option to split the parcel that might have been something that we talked about with Serpent and didn't come up uh if they're requiring the compliance based on the parcels then what we have is what is in front of us and Mr swe's creative ideas a creative idea that unfortunately won't meet the state's requirements so from tonight our decision would be to leave it alone take off New England ice cream take off New England ice cream and other Parcels um my personal opinion is that New England ice cream is not going to change for another 20 years I I don't see that brand new building turning into an apartment anytime soon I don't either um and then it's apartment so we're kind of just deciding on removing what already should be there and that's so from the information that we have have the final draft of the warrant publication is October the 1st so immediately after finc con's meeting so we do not have the next fincom meeting to address has to be done in this one so leave it as is and roll with it I'm okay with that and that would open us up to a floor amendment to remove Parcels of town meeting potentially it's probably going to happen any I'm I mean yeah I'm fine with that too I guess if that's available that's that's always available yeah that is that is okay with me I if we do have the capability to subdivide the overlay I think that was going to be so the second question is if we have the ability to subdivide that lot is that something that this board would support so let's answer that question because then that all trickles down so is that something that sport would support in terms of the split Zoning for the PGA parcel if it's allowed by the stated all the state's mations and however they've set them up um in my opinion no for me okay let State why it does sound pretty challenging to do it right but I'm going to stay open to it yeah it's not ideal I don't I don't want to reject it out of hand I think you and I just said the same thing but you don't like it but we won't close the door and I think it give well yeah I I don't see it being laid out well just only on one paral it feels weird it makes sense going down a whole strip of road but that's not what this really is so if it's something that I'm not hearing majority of members and J I won't speak for you so if you feel like I'm stepping on your toes here it doesn't seem like it's something that the majority of members say this is a terrible idea we shouldn't consider it correct am I is that what I'm is that what I'm hearing I would like to leave it intact and not do them okay I would agree with Steve okay so yeah we're pretty two NOS two maybe and then yeah so we're pretty much divided on that front um I think if it's something that the state says is allowed we'll need to make that decision so I would just say to be prepared for a vote on that potentially if we need to take a vote on that in a quick virtual session on Friday or something so if we get to that point and they do allow it I'm fairly confident that we can come up with something that's agreeable to all of us in terms of determining where that line is say that we would it does meet the let's say 600 units that we probably would need the question would be do we are we doing just that parcel or are we doing that Parcel Plus the multifamilies we doing that Parcel Plus doing the ice cream that Parcel Plus all my next point is I'm confident in our ability to reach an agreement to subdivide the TPC lot such that if we wanted to discuss removing New England ice cream now we don't risk being under so why don't we say option A which it seems like we're decided on is leave it alone option b is if the state will not allow a split parcel do we want to remove Lots so we have three Chooser and Adventure paths here option one is what we have here is what goes to town meeting regardless of what comes out of this option b is if split parcel zoning is not going to be allowed by the compliance model for this requirement then do we want to remove plan to remove parcels and that way if we do have a meeting on Friday is just to reconfirm that vote and submit it to incom Mr chair I have a question yes um if let's say that we did remove the parcels along the street yes okay what are those Parcels then Zone up if we leave them alone you said right now they they're not compli so they are commercial they're commercial yes they're all commercial so it would still be possible for a commercial Zone to build up along 140 which is a retail something like if we were to allow that to become a a place to start producing some money to there's nothing stopping that any of those properties should being commercial tomorrow okay there's nothing stopping anybody from leasing a space at greatwoods Plaza M what what it is that's empty what is the difference is that is without this District what without this District if one of those properties want to add commercial they have to give up their multi family they they are they cannot do a top they that wouldn't be a heartbreak though well it's unlikely they're going they might not develop depends on who owns it yeah so in their feelings so if split zoning is not committed then we would do we want to entertain a proposal for reduced cutting some Lots we've heard New England ice cream we've heard the 40b and maybe the parcel next to it Allen you had those Parcels written got them um solely because it gets the number down a little and it made sense to me and my question was actually kind of his playing to S little attractive I was trying to say what would be left with um cuz yeah we are giving up those apartments you know not not having them count for us well I guess Alan's prosa was to leave the existing quad plexes in in the overlay well could I ask the the big 40b and the the business that you're proposing if that is four acres how many units are we actually talking about like 60 units Maybe it's does it make a big impact on the numbers no I don't think it really SK our number down you add three of them together it does a little the but the me but the message is we've taken everything that isn't multif family and isn't the PGA parcel off the list right and it shows that we were listening to the public that's that's the that's the message does it make sense for the 40b property to be in this multif family Centric overl District probably does it make a difference to keep them out of it no so um so just say a 199 Mansfield which is the oil it is the model unit capacity is 94 I'm reading that right yeah 94 and 195 195 which is the 40b m 166 ice cream was 200 about 200 I think 190 195 seems like the ice cream par parcel is much bigger than the 40b parcel we talking feel incorrect but so I wouldn't have thought they were comparable so we have theal four 500 units come off approximately just let so so yeah so so if split par zon is not be permitted is that what we want to recommend to town meeting I'm okay with it we have taken the three yeah it takes some sting out of it yeah it's 500 units it is not an insubstantial number no you add the three it's not going to actually in what potentially be built does it make a difference probably not not at all and it still gives us puff yeah yeah okay so no objections I'll put this to a vote can we want to make a motion to that effect Alan would you so moved okay second okay so we have a motion and a second so if split parcel zoning is not allowed we would remove ice cream the 40b and the property immediately adjacent to the 40b from the overlay for submitt to town meeting so I'll go down the RO here Rob I see yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes and I vote Yes okay so that is our default if we learn that split parcel zoning is an option then I would recommend that we leave them as is for now and then we would look [Music] for Paul if you and if that is an option if you and serpent can come up with an agreeable boundary that would meet the state requirement given the existing parcels and enforcement the FTA and then if it is an option then the board can vote to either go with our default or to go with the split and that's it I do think for what we can resolve tonight that's as good as you can get okay so I want to to leave the recommendation whether or not you can do it or not that you have prepared a second proposal that really literally meets minimums that you can put next to that t meeting um I think you've hedged your bet better getting a yes but I don't no if if it's not allowed by the model it's not allowed by the state do you see where I'm going here just trying to get that yes and not take the hit from the state yeah now I understand okay um I don't think we have anything else that we need to discuss tonight is there Paul is there anything else that we need from our procedural standpoint at the town meeting the language the language thank you so back to Steve's uh suggestion oh uh this is what you just sent me this afternoon Steve right um should two little Pages everybody we are still going in our meeting here so we'd ask that you please have your conversations in the hallway thank you everyone thank you appreciate it have a good night okay so just to clarify Steve I'm going to cheat and look on Paul's Computer my aren't as good yeah right myter died mine too um so just from a clarification standpoint here um what was the what did we move uh it's like I said it's just a couple differences of what's allowed on any floor yeah just a chair okay so the where is the where is the change is it in the the table you have to look at the other sheet to see the other she CH at the like you'd have to look at the serpent thing compared to this one so what is but essentially it's on allowed on any floor would be Artisan food and beverage Artisan Studios uh small scale Recreation those would be allowed to go to any floor whereas General retail stores full scale restaurants and health and recreational clubs are on the bottom um so no two FL gym you you could if it's um a nonprofit Health reparation go there's a lot of gyms out of two fls okay so it's just so just to so we have this broken down for commes as of right on the ground floor here and then the top one is any floor um right yeah well it says it as of right any floor as of right BR floor okay so the list that we have in front of us Paul is that the final suggestion that's this is what Steve is suggesting okay and the differences from whatever language we looked at last week again just to restate yes it is pretty similar um and yeah I don't know if you can yeah I'll share that so it is essentially okay so he's sharing it share it so this is the existing language right that was that was shared with you uh last week and so um so what I'm seeing is the restaurant's moving to ground floor oh no it's switched now that's ground floor so the the tables are switched right this is what serpent is given so the top is ground floor and um so you're already allowed I should scroll up here so as of right uses be multif family topper shop housing and mixed use development duplexes um it won't count toward the unit count so probably want to take this came from that comment came from their Council okay so I would suggest we probably take duplexes out okay so let me do that since we're already saying multif family developments are dwellings are allowed that seems uh a little bit redundant but well duplex is not yeah multif family really no multi family's three units or above okay I guess it's kind of you're going by the Webster definition of multi aren't you multi involves more than one yes no you're right you're right no the state should reconsider that no it's okay that's okay so those are the basically the multif family uses according to what serit has on top of the shop housing is that was the request from cpit Council fine yeah and now for as of right ground floor for recreational uses you see a list there and then there is some commercial retail uses that they identify and then adding uh commercial uses uh you food uses uh artisanal food restaurants that sort of thing right do we have the cord to move this in front of us is there enough cords they want to move monitor so they can see it okay I can also zoom in so the a little bit Yeah if it can come closer to us would be great got it now we're good that's good sorry I just don't want to we're out of cord we're out of cord yeah we're I'm moving the power strip I think we're good thank you so the difference so this is the language is there anything else from seret to change there were some other things in there I think are pretty straightforward it's this issue about what goes above you know the first floor again your call I I I've been thinking about this and I crudely and I apologize for putting this in crudely in my comments that you may have seen but I think when we start getting into too many uses above the second floor like commercial my feeling is that it's just not very likely it'll ever happen why wouldn't we just focus it on the first floor and keep residential up from floors to and above just to keep it simple that's just my two cents well again that's why I sort of re revamped it from where the uses are so this doesn't reflect my last I mean it's a couple ago yeah this came in before your latest changes so um so I I agreed that like the the commercial uses that got to that go above the first floor should be the lighter varieties like a teacher playing guitar or you know basket weaver or something like that that's that's sort of the opp manufacturing that as long it's not an electric en you know I don't want to prohibit um like eating on the rooftop deck type of thing so that's where sort of like Artisan food and beverage but I don't necessarily think an Applebees or something needs to go up there so that's why I kept the heavier stuff on the bottom a Walmart can go on the bottom but it has to be a specialty store to go above okay so do we want to show that I would like to reflect on the last one and see whatever is feeling so your change go back to your change then the yeah the one that was just on the screen a moment ago okay I don't know if you want to share your whole screen can can does that one do the side by signs I do not know no that's not that's the layout no you don't want that that's not what we're talking about oh I I thought that would change what the screen would show that just puts Paul on camera at the same time don't want that okay so this is this is Steve's again so this is Steve's so Steve you want to walk us through that then sure so the only things that are limited to the ground floor are retail stour shops Trade Services restaurants egg clubs Dr health and recreational clubs any floor okay everything else is any floor I did include the definitions if you Scrolls up yeah so so that's that's the so the I think we're trying to go in the same direction it's just how we get there and what we decide on here is terms of um I think the previous version was more restrictive on L items that listed that can only be on the ground floor and this one is more it puts some things only on the bottom floor but maybe not a couple of the other ones that sered had there originally well when when ced's original uh version of this had a lot more stuff in it and we already cut it down and I just rearranged it again yeah so it's just really just my fault for rearranging it three or four times stop it sorry so so do we so the changes being that I'll say in I'm going to call it Steve's version because it's Steve's version no problem has a little bit more flexibility for some of the commercial uses to be on any floor steds is a little bit more what is a shop yeah got retail stores and then shops that's that's how it's written in our in our uses table it's I imagine like just a tra oh I don't know my mistake so not Lear so I'll say Steve's version a little bit more things on any floor but it's still keeping the heavier stuff down Sur heads I think is a little less permissible for the other uses above the ground floor but from a material difference in terms of what would actually execute to your point Paul it may not make a whole lot of the difference but that's my thought I mean in this area it's it's you know there's no certainly no harm in putting it in uh it's just now didn't we say we can't mix residential and Commercial uses on a FL or do we take that out we talked about we took that out you can mix we can you can mix can mix okay and if I could add something else that I noticed that hasn't been brought up yet by anybody we have a like a description for top of the shop housing and a a bonus that applies the top of the shop housing we have a description for mixed use and a bonus that applies to mix use but somehow they are not correlated into the same entity there are two different definitions right right and I I kind of on my list I added them just into the same thing I just we should Define that within this District all top of the shop housing is a mixed use building not that they are separate entities but that all top of the Shelf shop housing may act as a mixed use building within this District that's kind of the key there they they shouldn't actually exist as separate entities so the the list that I have takes into that into account um I the percentages and everything they work depending on whether it's a three story four story or five story so everything can be positioned I gave I sent call like a loose sort of what the buildings would look like if they were spread out with uses all around them okay I can think of that they would separate it is all top of the shop is mixed use but not all mixed use is top of the shop right but the way we Define it in what this bylaw is that if you've applied as a top of the shop you're eligible for one bonus but not the other and if you're to us as a mixed use you're eligible for one bonus and not the top the shop one but they do the same thing no but you can't combine them if you can't get both and we didn't want them to combine them unless they got affordable we intentionally did it that way so that they only got one bonus unless they added the affordable component well that's the point they don't have the option to do both we were supp they didn't want them to no if they provide commercial and add an affordable bonus they earn two separate bonus floors that's how it's written yeah and that's what we wanted but our definitions don't Define them as the same building if you apply to us as a mixed use you can't apply for the Mixed use bonus because you're not a mixed use like for some reason we've defined them in different ways I top of the shop right which strictly says that it's not mixed use the the housing has to be above the commercial and the thing that makes it mixed use is us going above the three stories like it's kind of I see CU our original definition of top of the shop from Village Center which is why I'm say doesn't allow it all top of the shop shop housing within this district is automatically qualifying as a mixed use building that's that's how it should read to me okay okay so we should just say I I get it now I just thought it was implied really I think what you're implying is that the mixed use could not follow the retail on the bottom yeah and that they won't have the same percentages they don't follow the same rules so the way I think that it fixes that I don't have an objection to inserting language specifying that top of the shop qualifies as mixed use in this District I don't think adavis care if that's there because it's what we intended it's just making sure that we're speciic not sending somebody around semantic circles okay so and the only other thing is that we requested I think it was 50% of the building V for residential um and I lowered that to 40% for a fivestory building that's two floors not 2 and a half I think I liked the 50 I don't it was just kind of skews across a building I think I think if we were looking at and when you go below half then you're saying it's well because one of the things also as a community we're not actually really trying to push them to build residential we want them to build commercial we have a 20% commercial requirement and a 40% residential and then another 40% they can do what they want with yeah I think if we just kept it at 50 that would at least we're saying it it's still at least half of it has to be residential which you know from a compliance perspective with the state I this is all about them driving for multif family development but we're not limiting their residential we're just not requiring it that doesn't go against their mandate right this is just saying for mixed use on top of so what why don't we only require 40% of the residential and they don't have to go beyond that if they don't want to that's just more units or more people if they don't feel like supplying that amount of the property to residential that's not we're not mandated to do that but it does just kind of fit the building in a way yeah more evenly I mean in pra in theoretically or in practicality somebody came to us with with a proposal and said I'm only going to have 42% residential we can provide them a waiver right but if we were going to do that why why even just go for the 50 I mean we we are asking them to give more residential than commercial by or at least have like we we don't have to have that fight I think we settled on 50 we went forward with it I think I I think it's too late in the game to start I think TW tweaking again property it's it's at least majority or half multi family in a multi family targeted Zone that's kind of how I feel about I'm losing bandwidth that's fair yeah I think that makes sense um so is the last one the used table that's the last question we covered the clarification on use versus top of the shop mhm and we've covered the number so the use table is the piece where we just want to spec are we right now these in the Steve version this is all it's limited to as of right on the ground floor and then everything else above that PA get back into that no you're good you're on the right thing you're still sharing it so you never stopped um so we everything else would be allowed on any floor from a commercial use so nothing on this list screams it shouldn't be on the second floor um the other thing is just the the wording density bonus should be just changed to like development bonus cuz neither bonus increases density at all if anything they alleviate density by adding a flooor I know what you mean but nothing provides another unit and it's just a just a negative word providing more opportunity more units living to you think density bonus is just an IND a common industry term that you think would be r that way yeah I mean that's typically I mean density bonuses in in our parant But I me I think we're just it's just the word itself but I just sort of sends a negative vibe cuz like I think he's right I think the crowd is going to hear density bonus and they're going to go oh they want more density even if we say that's not what it does it's going to undercut your ability to get that that's but you're also well just play Devil's advoca density development they're they're both dwords that probably have similar connotations no I think but I I'm fine either way I think it's I think it's we're getting into the semantic weed sure that's fine I I would be I I see what you're saying um oh it doesn't necessarily density in the linear standpoint doesn't really do that but yeah I mean it creates a whole new floor it's it's more space yeah but yeah it's okay I mean so I mean on the footprint it's denser but yeah so it's yeah I I'm I think I would leave that density bonus okay I don't have any issue with the chart here is anybody else no people have feelings I know but it's yeah I agree with Steve but I don't think it's a hill to die okay so this is the Steve chart so if we're good with the Steve chart we can move forward with the Steve chart okay second okay there have a motion in a second uh I guess we'll vote on it then sorry just right there were you saw in the version I sent you there were some comments by both staff and their counsel most of them are pretty benign I just need to make sure you guys are okay with it uh let me just do the vote on that and then we'll do everything else so on the motion to accept the use table is presented there with the adjustments to above the first floor and the percentage is different than second and the percentage I listed at 40% but we've set 50% I think we were leaving the 50 alone that's exactly so I wanted yeah leaving the 50 there need a motion I there's already a motion in a second so I'm going to you for a vote R yes Eric yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes okay and Paul any other changes from yeah Council and staff that we need to review just a handful not let me uh get the scale of this better yeah to to Lara's point I believe we are losing our bandwidth that I'm there with you would do that um there's some you one comment right up under uh establishment in applicability that should we reference rules and regulations that that you that you have the ability to um Implement further so for example one of the grants I applied for uh this fiscal year is to apply is to get Consulting funds to do design standards for this district and we could do those through your ability to adopt regulations so should we just add reg that you have the ability to adopt regulations it's sure I you already can sure we don't typically do it but anyway why not um next one can we just Chang the affordable housing definition to mirror what's here uh as this what's which is the state's definition there's a you'll see the uh the comment it was written by Council about what an affordable unit is from the state's definition as guest user councel yes thank you I mean if we weren't using the State St for affordable using I don't know why we weren't so do it that's two you have five good there's more but if we have to uh I'm going to go skip this this is regarding electric vehicle charging stations because it gets picked up later but if we whatever change we make will affect this um Paul before we skip past it because we just went past the permitted uses in the district um I recommended uh cluster development and common driveway be added as by Rite I don't know if we want to add that or not but cluster development is not allowed in the commercial District right now excluded clusters are excluded and this is just as if right to to Comm drive would be special perent well multif family always says excluding Custer that's in our uses chart but what I mean is would we allow a multi family cluster development so that the multifamilies there can move okay so that's different from what we've defined elsewhere in our bylaw for what a cluster development is uh it's typic well I think I think uh the Pine Street development fell under as a cluster but that's not what this district is about that's a that's a 1 acre you know or 40 or 880,000 square foot the individual there's nothing there's nothing that would prevent it from coming forward as a special permit right it it's not in the distri it's not allowed in commercial not in commercial that's commercial it has to be in like r80 r60 okay so it's a very different type of development than what we have here it doesn't it's for either multif family or commercial that's it that's what this is for uh how about common driveway because right now it gets triggered as a special permit fine just like everything else keep it that's um so this is changed uh they just have a question about should this me just they're just the Town Council was just asking for clarification under dimensional standards if they're referring to this section or the whole bylaw I think we meant to say in the notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the zoning bylaw article six yes because this is different from that yeah good clarification from town from sered Council but yeah I had I had the chance to work with this attorney when I was in Fair Haven he's quite good um Taylor was was responding to one of Steve's questions about uh whether or not to include setbacks on rooftops yeah I'm fine keeping it it's I was of the mind to not have a large setback but I think you did some math showing that we're going to pretty much Wipe Out the rooftop what didn't you uh well on on a smaller size property if you have to stay 15 ft away from each Edge you really don't have much space at all for a rooftop so do away with the I would get away with this okay no either one all right so let's just do we have objections to that building code requires yeah yeah okay so we can do that let him sit on the edge drinking no no okay um okay yeah sorry no it's fine we're almost there okay so this EV charging station yeah it just says the definition above seems to limit this to level two two stations should we just say this here and then defer to the state definition for level two stations this would you don't want you don't want to limit it to level two right and he's just saying this would eliminate the need to change this in the future and avoid uh confusion do it and need to change it level threes are almost you have to have them depending on what you're driving or you need to charge anything quickly especially if it's commercial you have to have ability to put a level three in AG so we don't want to limit this to level two definition that is definitely do not want to so our opinion is no don't level two is almost unusable technology is changing quickly isn't it uming 10 out under signage they're saying freestanding signs are limited in number to one per structure Council saying is a structure or building not necessarily by our own definition I think yeah um we have other sign rules anyways yeah I would I mean that to me is splitting it but um I mean we could I I just also made a note could it be one per principal building but maybe that's even getting to two in the weeds I'm fine with including the word principal structure ah split the difference we're all saying the same thing it's just how we word it so we want we'll see we'll see principal building principal structure we all we just don't want one building to have 15 signs correct that's yeah 15 separate signs yes uh council is saying is it it okay to have our C talking about our crosswalks can we do that here wouldn't that be regulated elsewhere like it's I think it's fine we did something similar with Village Center uh that's it right I think so well uh getting oh this last one well I say last one but the commercial uses on the first floor of the buildings may be placed close to the street yeah that that's a bit vague um I thought we might have had something again we could reference the future design guidelines that we you know we don't have yet but we could do that what we did something similar with Village Center core we we we inverted it cuz there we we didn't want to have we didn't encourage residential but we said ground floor residential dwelling shall be located on the rear of the buildings adjacent to any required parking we convert that to say that commercial uses on the first floor of the buildings shall be located in the front of the buildings um it's getting late to talk about this stuff but um I don't mind room for creativity yeah I mean but I don't care yeah so the question is do we need to add clarification is that council is suggesting yeah he's just saying it's vague put the commercial uses anywhere you want to well he says do you mean the mixed use building oh he's saying do you mean the mixed use building doesn't it still need to meet setback requirements um well yes we are talking about mixed use buildings I mean I don't see the point of the whole sentence actually I don't think the I don't think the entire letter a is necessary now that I look at it commercial use is on the first agree maybe placed close to the street I think they meant to say closest to the street I I don't feel it needs to anyway okay all right board says to De a I don't that make a noise right yeah okay we don't need to tell them I mean I assume if it's a something that you want people to walk into you're going to put a door outside you'll aim for the business you want yeah um another legal ease type of thing on the uh the buffering and screening remember we talked about buffering uses that were in effect as of October 21st uh the attorney right should just say the effective date of the bylaw it doesn't really we could say that because once this is adopted we have to put in the text of the bylaw when it was adopted what article I like the recommendation to change it to effective date okay fine with that and that way there's no date somewhere in there somebody's going to think somebody could argue no you before not after that's why yeah we talked about it when we and we covered this at some point and we talked about back we talked about that yeah yeah that was uh zero Mansfield yes is that I think we're we're good okay what know J second yes we got have a motion in a second yes is there any further discussion we need to V on you just did you just did um I will submit these changes to serid tomorrow so they will do two things they're going to they're going to give me a clean draft the final version that goes into the warrant um we'll I've already emailed them surprising they haven't responded yet but emailed them the questions about the site selection and then um we will get the draft ready and submitted to the town manager by Friday so we should get we'll get an answer either way about whether we need to do a quick vote in a virtual session or not no another a quick question could we just do that quick vote Thursday we need that 48 hours notice so we can't can't I believe you have a motion to Second and a yes already so I will we have a motion a second and will now go to the vote and Rob yes Eric yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes I vot yes was about thank you very much everybody