##VIDEO ID:bVbPSw_SLEA## welcome everybody to the Norton planning board's meeting of Tuesday September 10th 2024 again this is a hybrid public meeting so members of the public are welcome to participate in person or remotely uh in person we are in the community room in the nor Public Library uh for those wishing to join online via the Zoom app the meeting ID is posted on the meeting agenda is 638 9291 z60 there's also a phone number to dial in directly via phone uh the meeting will also be available on Norton cable access and be available foring after the fact on the Norton Media Center YouTube page for future sessions please feel free to email questions for the board ahead of the meeting to Brian carmichel Town staff so they can be shared with the members and read into the record if you are not aable to attend so with that out of the way I'll call the rest of the meeting to order welcome everybody um we'll get started in terms of uh our regular agenda here uh in terms of planning board business and policies um Paul didn't mean to put you on the spot here I'm not sure if you want to give an update in terms of the team move into the new town hall and timing Etc well the timing of these moves are always great but um as of today Town Hall has shut down for about two weeks so you won't be going back into the old town hall because we are deconstructing boxing up everything that we need to take take over to the new town hall which will be opening to the public on the 24 the same date as our next meeting same date so unfortunately because we things were still up in the air and we had to post a for a uh a project that's come in we won't be there next in two weeks but we will start scheduling meetings in the new town hall and again um when you get a chance to go in uh we'll say that the the meeting the big meeting room is a beautiful space it's it's a little better than the one we had over at town hall but just a little just a little no a lot a lot an ocean violation my no but um so we will be I'm going to apologize in advance because we're going to be largely away from our computers I mean we're responsible for our phones and computers but we will be um getting our things boxed up but we're also helping other departments box up so um some departments have some some more needs so Brian Brian and I were helping today and we'll continue to do that but we're in good shape we've boxed what we need to at this point we're waiting for some big boxes to haul the giant plans that you've reviewed all those years um so uh but you know just email me or call me and I might be a little slower than usual but we'll get there on the flip side of that what do you need from us is there any help need of no no but thank you we we we Brian and I have been working on we started prepping last week and stared getting uh the files ready and so we hit the ground running when the when the uh you know the boxes were delivered today so we're in good shape okay so nothing just don't go conf for a town hall because you can't get it yeah pretty much no I won we do not want people in there because boxes and you know things are flowing and we just don't want to run the risk of someone getting injured makes sense okay thank you uh under bills and warrants I will send around uh one well two bills that we have here both for WB Mason for envelopes and two stamp pads for a grand total of $14.55 if anybody would like to take a look at that there are multiple copies each because that's the rules how many stamp pads two well those must be nice deal okay hopefully uh we also had a number of minutes to improve based on what Brian had sent out um so I'll start with um just continuing and making sure from an overall standpoint we had seven sets of minutes to approve um does everybody feel that they had time to review them that they reviewed them to the degree that they felt was necessary yes yes yes just going to make your ey cont on the row so that make sense um so I will start with the oldest set am minutes first those am minutes from March the 14th of 2023 any comments questions edits or look for motion to approve motion to approve second okay we have a motion and a second any further discussion my brain froze there for a second okay I'll go through the role here as we do have member attending remotely Eric I'll start with you yes yes okay Steve yes Laura yes Allan yes Jen yes sorry you button that's okay thank you and I will vote Yes does ning work to no we want to have it audible yes on the record for the minutes um okay next in the line is April the 11th of the same year motion to approve second is okay thank you Rob and Steve for the motion and the second respectively is there any further discussion hearing on we'll go through it again Eric yes yes Steve yes Laura yes Allan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes April the 25th same questions motion to approve second thank you Steve and Rob respectively for the motion and second any future discussion further discussion not future discussion present discussion okay Eric yes yes yes Steve Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes next is May the 9th motion to approve second okay we have a motion to approve in a second is there any further discussion based on the minutes of May the 9th okay Eric yes yes yes Laura yes Allan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes three more to go next is the motion to approve of let's let's back off a little bit um next is the minutes of May the 23rd 2023 any further questions comments edits Etc motion to approve second okay thank you Steve and Rob any further discussion okay Eric yes Rob yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes motion to approve next up is the minutes for June the 6 2023 any further discussion motion to approve second okay I hear a motion in a second Steve and Rob any further discussion hearing none Eric yes yes Rob yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes last one is June the 20th motion to approve seconded okay we have a motion to approve and a second for the motion minutes of June the 20th is there any further discussion okay Eric yes yes Rob yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes so the minutes are approved thank you very much most of all thank you Brian for continuing to work through those okay um moving into the public hearing section of our agenda um just an update from the uh site plan review sp-6 and special permit sp-2 10 for zero Hill Street um this is a continuation from our last meeting on August the 20th um Paul does it today you received word that the applicant is Seeking a continuance to our next meeting on the 24th is that correct yes okay and did they provide any specific background or just they wanted to the the primary reason is they're conducting this week the traffic study that we discussed two weeks ago so school was started so they should be ready to go I think in in two weeks okay plus they're still working with conservation and their peer reviewer as well okay so any further questions clarifications um behind the applicant's request to continue to the our next session motion to continue second okay we have a motion and a second from Steve and Rob respectively any further discussion September 24th yes two weeks okay hearing no further discussion I'll go through every for a role Eric yes yes Rob yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes okay next up is a request for a modified special permit which is msp-3 for 242 Mansfield Avenue uh the owner is Jo joa LLC the applicant here they're seeking to add an hour to the operating hours of a marijuana retail facility is this K it is yeah okay I don't see Andre here um I did let him I let I when I'm on my game I reach out to the applicants to send them the agenda remind them they can come here click here to go on Zoom but so as as Tim just mentioned this is a a straightforward request they're they're asking to amend the special permit which limits their hours of operation till for U at 10 p.m. right now uh they'd like to go to 11: get the people coming out of the concert too um that and and I had asked them about about it he said it's other it's it's broader that question doesn't inove second that's how that that's that's time for it yeah so he has been in front of the select board uh they they've he's notified the Cannabis Control Commission but they did say before they would provide final approval we would need to amend the special speci they do yeah because it's because the hours of operation were written into our special permit and they were something that you we went through with the public session and all of that um did any other Town Boards of departments raise any questions concerns about it notably I'll say I no okay no and okay so they request for modification um from a procedural standpoint do we still need to find this is a minor modification and then vote on the actual action I would assume well we actually went ahead and and we noticed this so a minor modification you wouldn't we wouldn't go through the notification process so it's already been noticed so it doesn't matter correct okay but I wish I'd asked myself that question but I think anything with marijuana I don't know if anything falls under minor with that but we we just went ahead and noticed it okay so it has been noticed so we don't necessarily need to find that is a minor or major modification at all okay correct um so motion still good or the motion is still good but public hearing we have to hear from the public yeah but yeah the motion's still there it's uh just on hold for further discussion [Music] any other members have any questions comments concerns about their requests just in that area is it what be them open come farms and is McDonald's open McDonald's is 24 hours at least the drivethru those three things open that area um xinity has to end by 11 correct so even most concert goes if they were going for last call aren't going to make last call there yeah yeah um my only concern would be you know people looking a lawyer in that parking lot but most of them aren't going to make it so and I'm pretty sure they're good about on concert nights making sure people don't stick around they probably have to there probably people loitering all those lots got yeah and part of the part of the perent process that we went through is that they would coordinate with the police department as it regards to events and things like that because their proximity to that venue clearly has some crossover so any further discussion from the board okay I'll see if anybody who's joined us virtually in the zoom meeting or is here in person would like to have ask the board any questions or make any comments see somebody coming up to the podium here good evening Roger Maran 62 powers um I would just encourage the board to uh vote in favor of extending ours uh Kaa has uh been a great partner with the town as far as uh helping out with a lot of local volunteer organizations they have given thousands of dollars back to the community as into the uh veterans Council to the cover of kindness and have done uh been nothing but uh straightforward and uh upfront with everything that they've been doing there they're a very professional operation I don't think this would be an issue at all thank you Mr would concur with everything you said there okay so not hearing any further discussion or request for public comment um I'll come back to the motion on the floor the motion on the floor was to approve correct correct and did we have a second think we have to close the public hearing again yeah yes which was that so um the motion was from Steve and the second was from Rob um but thank you Alan we would need to close the public hearing first motion to close the public hearing second so thank you Eric for the motion and Laura for the second to close the public hearing is there any further discussion hearing none Eric I'll go to you yes Rob yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes so with the public hearing now closed we can act on the previous motion and second to approve the modification to the special permit is there any further discussion on that motion okay and we'll go through the RO one more time Eric yes Rob yes Steve yes Laura yes Allan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes so we can move forward with that um will that be a formal decision that we need to issue on yes okay I'll I'll have it by Thursday for you I'll let you know okay um yeah I don't anticipate there'll be a whole lot of wording to get through here um but and I trust that we can can does the to Mo impact at all are you good you may need to coordinate with Laura at some point for signing okay I'm sure you two can figure that out you're both meart that's what some other people been doing yeah okay so next on our agenda uh is a continuation of discussion that we had our last last session which was Z for the request for assurity for zero Crane Street um Paul I think you forwarded some additional information from the applicant for costing any you would adjusted the sh amount did you want us to give summary of that sure and and Le cast and Eddie with long Built Homes is here as well so uh just pursuant to the um comments that you made at your last meeting um Lee worked with Mercury heavy equipment to do a projection of of uh you know the cost of stabilizing one lot because what Lee had written in that his response and what he had stated to us before was they they they sell a lot then they will uh do the Earth removal activities at that time so um if if they don't sell it they're not going to you know uh do the Earth removal activity so uh Mercury heavy equipment then went ahead and looked at the largest lot which I believe was Lot B Lot B and determined what that cost for stabilizing is and you can oh let me um let me share that so it's on the public here and so uh I had all concurrently I was working with Town Council to draft assurity agreement and uh that's Dave denesy who's worked with us in the past from from KP law and so he's drafted the language but was understanding that additional information was coming so I just simply uh revised the dollar amount uh in the charity agreement to match this so here is the The Proposal so the idea being that a situation where a site would need to be stabilized would only happen as the lot was being cleared or set up and if that's only happen one at a time this is the maximum that would be needed to stabilize a site at any one time correct okay I don't disagree with the approach necessarily anybody have oh so we have the applicant here having the costing is good this makes perfect sense to me I'm just going to ask because I did also you know when I was revie docks here there was in there a letter from August 2 7th saying the shy should be set at 2,5000 per lot but this seems like a different yes disregard this that was that was per lot as well so this this number is only for one lot oh okay this is based on the largest of the three four four sorry so the total amount in the old one would have been 25 89 okay I make you said 22 so 89 or so and this is 53 but with the understanding that it's calculated based on the largest one and that you wouldn't have more than that in play at one time so basically they want to put insurity enough to do one lot but then they're only going to be working one at a time so we wouldn't exactly yeah they're not going to abandon three lots simultaneously run in time exactly makes logical sense I don't have any problem with that Paul I just noticed in the um agreement the latest one there seems to be well there might be a valid reason for it in Article 1 the amount still says 25,000 where the Preamble shows the updated amount oh uh I guess I missed that um in the in the Preamble yeah the second whereas uh sorry third whereas is 53124 article one is still showing 25,000 as the restoration deposit or is that just a down payment being made on the 53,000 oh I'm sorry I missed that my apologies so the number okay so it's it's 53 okay and for catching that my apologies sure do we also it also makes reference to 22,000 cubic yards which doesn't align with 93,00 ft well that that's from the that's from the special permit that's the total amount that they're proposing to to uh in this case remove got it yes okay okay so I'll make that change my apologies okay any further discussion on the shity otherwise I'd look for a motion to approve with the contingency that The Count Council wants to make additional nips and tuck then that as long as they don't uh significantly change what we see here soov second okay we have a motion in a second from Rob and Steve is any further the discussion okay Eric I'll start with you again yes Rob yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes okay and I will vote Yes so we can move forward with that yes can can I just make one comment now that you voted on it um I just want to let you all know the work Lee is done done um working with he's done two I would say Public Services on this project after you approved uh the uh the well you actually a few couple years ago you approved the anr for this but then the special permit for the Earth removal we actually had an abutter who contacted us and realized her septic tank was on his property but Lee is working with that person and is redrawing the the property lines around so that her her septic system can remain so they give her the land it SS and also um this the highway department is looking to uh realign Pine Street on the lot a portion uh because there's there's concerns about safety there and Lee has agreed to work with us on that as well it sounds like if there's an additional anr needed that he qualified for the fee waiver in some way shape or form okay I don't know I don't make those decision but is this related to the driveway coming out there where if you're a car coming up there you're going through a whole bunch of swoops and things yeah and Highway's been concerned about that and so U our Highway superintendent had reached out to Lee and so Lee was kind enough to work with us I have to agree with that I kind of looked at it when yeah I don't make those decisions but I can say things so okay then before we move to the next one can i b yes like a short recess if anybody needs it uh and then while Paul gets ready for our discussion about the upcoming town meeting warrant for the greatwoods overlay District thank you thank you sir we'll be back with thatr plan to I thought that's what I intended but double check so did you want me to drive do you want to drive feel free to sure see if I can get into my email first and if you'd like I can um share screen on the presentation if you want no okay I'm going to drive I'll drive the whole way okay oh this is just the that's just the language never mind that's the wrong but if my computer dies you're going to be back on the hook here my battery life is uh minimal usually I've got the presentation up so I'm I can be the puppet on it some events don't need to have anybody next slide okay so is everybody ready okay so again for members I think we've gone through this a couple of times but um just from a noticing hearing this is a public hearing for our upcoming town meeting warrant which is the article 23 if I still know my room numerals uh and this is the greatwoods overlay district and applying this District to the town Resort Norton zoning map um and the address is involved are 195 to 235 Manville Avenue 222 Mansville Avenue and one Arnold Palmer Boulevard so quick agenda here of what we're going to dive into talk about timeline of this what are the requirements from the Commonwealth and penalties the process that we went through and the highlights of the text um so just to keep going here if I can continue so the district the timeline here uh this goes back to 2021 when the Commonwealth adopted the new zoning requirement for MBTA communities U of which Norton is AB budding to an mvta community so we still qualify uh in August of 22 the eohc issued final guidance on the rule to determine compliance and later that year the town began meeting with an interim committee to create an action plan and we m maintain that interim compliance by working with sered to submit an action plan to the state to adopt zoning BW Provisions by the end of this year uh more recently um we began working with sered to select Parcels develop a new draft zoning bylaw District um in April we made our final our decision to select the Mansfield area South Mansfield Avenue area south of the Mansfield Town Line through a site selection process which I'll go through shortly uh and then last month we submitted articles we placed on the warrant for this new zoning district for the zoning map so a review of the compliance requirements Norton qualifies for these guidelines based on NBTA adjacent Community this requires one zoning District which requires multif family as of right meaning it cannot be subject to a special permit we must allow at least 15 units per acre the district must be at least 50 acres in size there cannot be any age restrictions it must be suitable for families with children so all that toll Norton's Target is 750 units and this is start and arrow nort is not required to build any housing the construction does not need to take place this is simply providing the opportunity is what is required under the state law uh so how this all shakes out there is a compliance model that sered has built for us it is based on any number of factors that we can go into um talking about the density talking about acreage square feet units uh open space parking area all of those things feed into our compliance Matrix and how all of this breaks down um Paul I'll just go to you in terms of there's anything that you wanted to add in terms of kind of the features in this slide that we really should be focusing on and that anybody who watches this after the meeting should focus on well first procedurally this is what we will submit to the state as part of the overall compliance we'll give them the the language we'll give them the all the parcel information but we also have to provide them with this this comes directly from them uh this is all based on the text that we came up with and the parcels that were selected so all of that was put into the spreadsheet and it started producing these and and from the state's perspective they're going to look to make sure did we did we get at least 50 acres did we get at least 750 units and and the answer of the Matrix is right now yes yes we are over it um we can talk about what uh the real driving reason behind this as I think I've summarized and I've said in M meetings of this board the reason that this is happening is because the state is requiring it um does the does the state need more housing probably yes is it a good idea to build more housing probably yes would we be touching that a district like this if the state was not requiring it doubtful um this is a state program and the state has significant penalties for communities which do not comply this is is why we are trying to comply by the end of this year if we are not we are ineligible for Mass Works Housing Works housing Choice local capital projects fund and it will also be considered for this smorgus m of Grants which the state does offer um determination of compliance may also inform other funding decisions from other state agencies which consider housing policies when evaluating applications for discretionary programs uh the reading between the lines here is the state has a very big stick and they are not afraid to swing it there are towns in the Commonwealth which have challenged the rules um and they are currently in court none of that will be decided prior to town meeting correct so only about 10 and about 85% of the towns that were required to adopt have adopted it I should point out to Milton was the the town of Milton was the first town to be not in compliance their schedule to go I don't know what their schedule is but they are going to court over this and the two uh the second and third bullet points are some of the things that they're challenging they think the state overstepped its boundaries um with bullet two and three I would still say you know I'm biased here I just want to be upfront about that these grants help me do my job um those in bold were grants we've received um since 2018 I would hate to lose even if we were just talking about the uh the one of the the four on the first bullet Mass works alone and Housing Works is a new one but it's both of those are are Public Works grants you can use for water sewer roads in fact we we have a $3.5 million uh Mass Works Grant to fund sewer on Elm Street that goes away and I think those are important tools to keep in the toolbox for us to make investments and infrastructure to continue to do uh planning but again I'm preferencing it by I'm biased yeah I and we all have different feelings about how we feel about the state using this kind of heavy-handed approach I know we've talked about that in previous meetings MH um this this is what the state is doing and we have to decide how we're going to how we're going to deal with it um this board's job is to prevent to present to the town an opportunity to become compliant if the town chooses to move out of non move out of compliance that's Tom meeting's Choice Tom meeting is the legislative body I will share with you that I already know people that I encourage to come speak at this meeting and let you know their feelings here are intend instead intending to save all their guns for to meeting and just take you down there well I'm disappointed in that encourage everybody to come to this session they probably me say that it just got annoyed with me for tipping that that's fine I have no problem with people raising discussions at town meeting I do have problems with people failing to discuss things with the town boards when they could when language could when if they have a legitimate right question edit that they would like to see that they would present that to the T to the board prior to town meeting me enough of a c Road show as it is I do too those folks are aware of my feelings on that um that's okay yeah okay and they're probably not happy that I mentioned it to you right now but I'm just letting you know that's what's coming yeah I am uh not surprised and I'm not overly involved in it because of what my feelings were that I I was like no I don't think that's I should do it well but you know I don't get to decide for people I just get something put in my ear and I say I don't think that's a good idea and that's it's up well we will see how time meeting goes in a month or so and I'll say just from a timeline perspective um we do still have this does not need to necessarily be final until after our next session so but like say I don't even know what these guns are you know face because I didn't want to go that far into such a conversation that's okay if I could just provide a little bit of color with regards to Milton um Milton's primary complaint with the state was the way that the town was designated not they're fully prepared to comply with the zoning bylaw their issue was that they were determined to be a rapid transit community and be they would determine that because they have a single trolley that can handle 37 passengers and because of that the state deemed them Rapid Transit which they felt was not fair and I think they have a good case there all they are seeking is to be redesignated by the state to the step below Rapid Transit which still requires them to produce a considerable amount of housing in which they have basically said we're willing to comply uh so I think that's other than these towns that are just rejecting it outright because I don't like it and I don't want it in my backyard you know Milton is actually making a decent case to the state yeah in in any case we not expecting any of these we're not expecting any of the court issues to be resolved prior to when we want the town to act on this so we understand that there is legal things in process my view is our job is to present to town meeting an opportunity for us to stay in compliance um so okay and so this does cost the people of Norton money in the end because this will load up our services it will not produce the tax revenue to pay for what it I think let's save that discussion for or I do get to say that let let's hold let can I let's go through the rest of the I get to say that I am allowed to say that you are allowed to say whatever you'd like I'm please asking for me to let go continue with the presentation that's all so for everybody who has not participated in our recent sessions um we did go through a significant site selection process with sered um so the guidelines from the state is that we should consider how much of a district is sensitive land on which permitting or other things could make it challenging to actually conduct construct housing and we should encourage the development of projects that are compatible with existing surrounding uses and minimize impacts to sensitive land even though that's bad for so this is a summary of some of the pieces that we looked at when we went through the site selection process and I'll show you some details on this on the successive slides uh sured helped us look at six core areas around natural space climate resilience Water Resources infrastructure quality of life and other factors um these are all classified either a negative impact if you have a lot of these it pushes this away or a pull impact this is a positive impact we want things to be built where these things are so overview of some of these slides climate resilience you can see the most suitable is in the lighter the darker is the least suitable and they're spread across town infrastructure again water sewer roadways priority areas and then this all boiled down to most suitable overall with a mix of all of those characteristics um you you can see the dark green areas in here you can see 140 down Taunton Avenue you can see the center you can see down Miss Main Street and you can see kind of on 123 towards adbor and you can see up the area we actually selected up on Mansfield Avenue just south of the Town Line um shockingly the board did not think that putting a bunch of multif family housing in the center of town would be an effective use of traffic flow so Spotlight on the district that we've chosen uh the biggest piece here is a parcel a couple of parcels of land that are currently owned by uh I believe it's PGA cherries the ownership enity that's tied to the TPC golf course as well as Noland ice cream and some multif family properties on the other side of Mansfield Avenue down to the new 40b project next to the shopping center in the McDonald and I apologize that didn't show up on here but it's one parcel south of what's highlighted on the bottom right the 301 is included as well so but it's in all the noticing yeah so this is the selected area uh we felt that it was appropriate given its location given all of the factors that we looked at um and the fact that it's near a lot of other residential uses already so some of the highlights of the bylaw text um and the changes so the overlay district is placed on top of the base zoning which in this case is commercial in most of the part in some of the parcels allowing residential area which is currently not allowed it allows multif family by site plan review uh again the guideline from the state is that it cannot allow multif family contingent on a special permit um again the purpose is to encourage smaller housing typologies build a range of market rate housing to meet the demands of young families senior population firsttime buyers or firsttime renters uh provide more affordable income restricted housing encourage compact mixed use development key locations and of course meet the requirements of the statute so how an overlay District Works Paul thank you for this visual um again this overlay district is a planning tool that has a special zoning layer on top of the existing District this can have different or additional standards than the underlying one a property owner can opt to build under the base zoning or the overlay zoning um and again going back to the Crux of the guidelines somebody could look at this parcel and build commercial under the existing zoning this is just an overlay on top of it m um and some of the highlights of what we put forward here in terms of the actual bylaw text um it meets the minimum requirements of the state statute obviously um the goal is to promote affordable housing and if possible top of the shop housing um the affordable housing is a specific note because nort is currently above the threshold of 10% correct from the state um where we remain above the state threshold of 10% affordable units that means we are not necessarily subject to uh some of the same rules around 40b projects coming into town uh so whenever we put in a housing we need to make sure that we're continuing to build up the affordable stock so that our ratio doesn't slip below it again um there again the standard is a maximum of three stories but there are bonuses allowed if afford housing targets or top of the shop development is provided uh in general it seeks to encourage smaller multif family housing types via relatively small lot siiz requirements and Frontage requirements and it also seeks to protect add recent residential uses with a large vegetated buffer requirement going outside of the district uh so in terms of next steps again we have a community we are Eng engaging this evening we have an additional hearing potentially next session um I think my recommendation before we can go into a debate amongst ourselves and members of the public is that I would recommend that we continue this again to our next session if for no other reason to allow members of the public an additional opportunity to comment and to share their thoughts enourage whether they choose to take advantage of that opportunity is their choice so obviously for members of the board I think we've talked through this before um but in terms of specific comments questions um anything that we wanted to discuss um I'll open up to the members here and obviously we do have some members of the public here who may be looking to comment as well um I could just make a few I I think it's important to get these on record in terms of the key talking point one it does not require the town to provide the land two it doesn't require the town to produce the housing it doesn't require the site to be vacant unutilized just developable it cannot force an owner of the current property to sell the land to anyone including a developer who has an interest in building one of these properties it doesn't require the town to provide or pay for any required infrastructure it is all solely the responsibility of the developer it doesn't mandate any building type that doesn't allow with Town Aesthetics it only applies to a very small portion of town land since we only have to set aside room for 750 units it will not be developed all at once if at all this project is intended to take decad to fully realize the state has estimated that 200,000 new UN new housing units are needed and this law is likely to only produce less than 10% of them in the next 5 to 10 years this is a very long range project just because it is designated doesn't mean it will ever be developed thank you Laur thank you but it does not clear the way for all of those things you said it's not guaranteed they'll happen but the way is is now cleared for other law that is the that is the requirement of the zoning bylaw yes compliance requires yes and I have one other question on the slide you had before if you go back where it's at the oh I stopped sharing okay which slide are you thinking about the one that it's set at the top meets the minimum requirements and we don't even have to go the slide if you remember exactly the one meets the minimum requirements okay so it meets the minimum requirements does it exceed them and by how much it does exceed them by how much it exceeds I would say from a number of units perspective it probably exceeds them by 2x the challenge is that we have one very large parcel which is currently not divided um so I think when you start to do the math on it it breaks out in kind of an interesting way but we're not meeting the requirements we're meeting twice the requirements we we have legal room if there are if we if we we have leg room if the decision of the board and people who speak at this session is have feelings that they would like to see enacted in this rule the challenge is that it is not that the compliance Matrix is a spreadsheet with 27 different contingent Fields could I ask a question to that sure what is is the possibility of removing or adding a parcel at this point that's I we could he says he has you cannot add but you can take back if we removed that large parcel we would be under requirement correct correct Sor that is the reason is the way we can make this for 750 and not be giving them twice what they asked for that doesn't sound like we're just being held up that sounds like we're russing to be no I mean the the idea is that we designed this there are other requirements and if you can pull up the but we can't say that they're putting a gun to our head with all these mandates if we're doing twice what they asked we are diving it willingly the challenge is if we take out the TPC parcel we are not in compliance so you it's if you can pull up just the one more this also that compliance model is making estimates but until you get you see projects come here they have to have Wetland surveys this is I would say is closer the compliance model is closer to worst case scenario than reality every site has constraints on it and that TPC site has Wetlands on it and I don't know exactly how the the compliance model calculated it but even for permitting purposes you have to go out and have a wetland survey done and it's typically the Wetland survey is greater than the estimate so not saying it's going to shrink this down to nothing but it's probably unlikely that you'd ever see the number of units that's in this model could even be built 2x isn't just padding for contingency or anything that's double if if no just pull out that slide Paul this one okay yeah that one so the core guidelines are we have to allow at least least 50 acres it has to allow at least 15 units per acre mhm with all of that the goal was not to find the quickest way that we could get to 750 and stop the goal was to design regulations around this bylaw which encouraged the type of multif family building that we thought would be a good fit for the town the numbers shook out where they shook out in the end based on large Parcels small Parcels acreage all of that stuff if I Would S I would say that if there's a specific comment or note or request that you'd like us to make to the bylaw language please I think we should be going for the 750 I think doubling it it seems first of all excessive to me why are we giving them twice what they ask that's they're no longer holding us up there there's an agenda here to say let's get this you did suggest a second ago that you know we you know we we could expand all this and um you know the like it's a good thing I'm going to remind you this is a bad thing for nor we want to do as little as possible I'd let you I think it's clear I want to avoid it if we actually could but if we are going to be forced to and I have been kind of backing Paul's plan because if Force to it's actually not bad plan well um is that we should just go to the minimum I mean a guy holds you up a guy comes up to you stream puts a gun on you and says give me your wallet you don't want to give me your wallet because that's bad for you but he's going to make you do it but then you don't go oh well you know what pal here's my watch too and all that if we're being held up we should not be away they ask I disagree with your characterization of this and I find it I'm going to tell the public that's what you're getting now you are welcome to say whatever you would like I am um I would have all of this material and all of the B language again I will say if you have a this has been the product of collaboration with sured collaboration with members of this board for weeks and I would look to hear a specific comment or constructive criticism as to the specific language that we put forward that we are doubling it we should stop at 750 and how would and what would be your your suggestion to adjust that if we have to adjust our Lots we we put back and look at that but that I might do you have a specific thing that you would like if I can't stop it here at the table now I'm sorry I didn't realize that you haven't reviewed the language in the last month I have reviewed the language but I don't have suggested I'm pushing back on okay the matter itself now you wonder why people don't want to come in here and talk to you about it and listen to how I'm getting this right now but if you want to no let me it's too much I'm going to stop so R please finish your I'm gonna I commit that I will not talk over until you say you're done okay I cannot sit here right now and say okay we would rearrange the plan exactly this way to come to a number of 750 I do not have that prepared with me but I am still putting forth that I think we should revamp this and find a way to make it fine you'll have a minimum you're going to threaten us here's your minimum if we have to do it at all that's what we should be doing we should not be going he we'll give you twice what you ask Tom I do not feel it is Norton's problem the Sal the fact that state has too many people they created that themselves and so you're right I'm very unsympathetic yeah and now yeah I will s okay I appreciate that you with Jim can I address this please yeah Jim please yes so just in looking at this when you say you want to make it less and just meet the minimum you're looking at a district it's highly unlikely that it's going to be developed and two you're already overlaying some of the same property with the rental properties that are already there the impact towards the town and this is just my opinion is very very minimal and for us to start like this Chicken Little the sky is falling and start these Scare Tactics is not productive for this board nor will it productive for town meeting this is in the best interest of us meeting the qualifications with the state has mandated that we do and we're not putting any burden on the found again in my opinion on where we've overlaid this we sat in on these meetings we found that the area that would be least impacted and I've all come up with this been all along to try to switch and fake this now and not have numbers on how you would come with a problem all you're doing is creating more of a problem and having no answers for that said problem that you're creating in that speech you just said sorry were you done yes I'm done okay that speech you just said and we were trying to meet the minimum and yet I'm complaining about us doubling it and so I'm saying we should go back and if this is what they asked for put together a plan to give them what they asked for not give them twice what they asked for I think that's a reasonable thing to say and I don't think that's Chicken Little sir either so I can disagree with your characterizations just as well undone okay so I I've I think I've gotten my I've I've got my head back here a little bit and I'm I'm just going to say from looking at this the driving characteristics are the parcels that we're doing this on one of them being very large so it's got to be in there the other half of most of the other ones are already developed and they're already multif family use uses so it is primarily the TPC properties that we're talking about here which are generally they're large Parcels which have nothing on them um and they're probably some of the last Parcels that of that size that Norton has that could be developed other than maybe the one by get the lot with the fence company and then they can f that out maybe I was going to say other than maybe the one that we reone potentially for life science by 495 across from Leonard Street um there's not a whole lot left to develop from a tax revenue perspective dense development generates the most taxes um The Grove is probably the area of town generates the most property taxes in town and the most birdb services that can be debated um and if you look at some of the other areas like I think Paula you had mentioned at one point to me off hand that sweet stuff Bakery pays more per square foot in taxes than Horizon beverage per acre per acre per acre um compact compact development is fiscally positive for a town so that's one one way to look at it if we wanted to say okay multif family needs a minimum of three units on a lot let's space and we need to have 15 Lots per acre correct uh units 15 units per acre so if we were to divide every lot up to be a fifth of an acre um I don't know where that gets us I don't know what our setbacks would need to be for that that's basically if we're going to go from a what is the minimum potential perspective here that's probably the if we wanted to have this as a basis of comparison that's probably what we would need to do I don't know where that gets you whether that puts us under or over or if you've explored kind of the back end of the compliance model in that way I tend to think that what we've done with the bylaws that we have is try to create a district that makes sense based on multif family is going to be allowed by right what kind of multif family do we want do we want to create a whole bunch of triplexes on Big Lots or do we want to create the potential for a multif family building that has amenities has restaurants has mixed use those are what that's what we tried to to do with these your plan as I said in the last thing I think if you're being forced to do it it was a good plan my objection is doubling the requirement I mean you have a slide up there no where did no you had it a minute ago you actually say meets minimum requirements oh come on doubling them it should say doubles minimum requirements right off right off the bat this has the 40b on 140 in it that's not going to be redeveloped no but that's included there's several properties not going to be that's neither those the point I understand let me just have a perspective part of problem is I many times heard that's not going to be developed and then it gets developed so those words kind of bounce off me a little now it's a brand new building brand new building brand new building but I've heard it under incredible circumstances before no I don't I'm not objecting to sure it your Viewpoint is I don't like this I want this as minimal as possible correct I don't care how feasible it is I want to meet the letter of the law and no more from I think it could be made feasible I've been listening to arguments about that and um if you want them to come in here prepar and present you know try and get that to happen but um you may just hear they want to just go give it to the people in Dort and say Here's what they're doing to you um head that off well that's not for you to know but I'm trying in a way to head that off a little bit here Tim I don't way to IDE as much as I object to this I don't think fighting it that way is a no I think that thank you for your comments I think that the idea that the number that we ended up with for what the district will potentially allow is significantly bigger than the target we were giving by the state it's not something that I hadn't thought about before it's something that I have looked at and thought about and go yeah I could expect that this I could expect to see this discussion at town meeting uh did I handle it well 20 minutes ago with you probably not and I apologize for that um this is not about personalities this is about a Bel it's different from every else in this world I get that but I am sicking with but how I how I portrayed it and how I discussed it with you was probably it bounced was probably so I will that's not what I'm here of but I think that the way that we laid out the districts and Paul if you want to pull up the language we can dive into that a little bit is looking at it we designed we tried to lay out a district that made sense I don't think that at any point during the process we looked and said that's too many potential units because we had picked a spot that had good infrastructure if people from a traffic impact I think most of the time people Contin need to work they're going to turn left out of the property get on 495 and be gone and it would generate and would generate tax revenue and all those things would it include Town Services yes so would any development would yeah there's a net loss on that um so why don't we I you has any objections I got one more than just to continue on that I think we should have an answer for that though in town meeting no I think we need a definitive answer any no matter what we end up presenting in the end or what's the number that this would allow according to their model as close as we can you should estimate uh if you're looking at the big lot though I mean there's Wetlands Crossings there's I mean there's like you said it's going to be very hard to know actual numbers of what you could actually get we're never going to get there but we should probably have an idea of what it is should we just don't want to flounder on that let me give you guys a blunt statement I know you're not appreciating me right now however um I'm giving you a preview of what's out there kind of waiting to jump you at a we don't care about what's waiting we're trying to talk right now stop dropping the this and that on it's not becoming the threats aren't helpful it's not help I don't care what's becoming Alex stop that go on with your point excuse me go on with your point now you're just being an no I said go on with your point go on with your I find you Toc these being disgusting hold on I'll second okay no you thought it's disgusting every day said you got up in the no this is what I'm talking about no you can't keep your mouth shut no we're going to not have this guys so let's so I said go on with your point can you do that or you want to pursue this Rob it's his choice Rob I'm trying to move on here okay go on with your point so let's dive into the bylaw language itself we've talked about how the process we talked about what areas of town we looked at why why we looked at them why we chose this site and we talked about how this lines up with the model so here's what we're actually defining so the purpose we know the purpose skip that can can I I'm sorry yes I just want to make a point here the first three points of this come directly from the master plan and I think that's real relevant we we're talking about Absolut what public what the public was Desiring the public we actually had a a very good public engagement here and the public was the one who told us about wanting smaller housing typologies provide more affordable housing and encourage compact mix use development at key locations which again this was this was an area identified as one of the key locations in town sorry so and I think we can generally skip definitions unless Paul you think there's one that's spe that we really need to kind of focus on here but I don't think we do um so going into there permitted uses so again this is just for the overlay District we're not touching the underlying zoning if somebody wants to build what's Allowed by the base zoning go right ahead um so duplexes multif family develop developments top of the shop and mixed use so those are all things that we included in permitted uses and we just keep going we laid out specific uses and where they could be allowed on which floor of the property um and because top of the shop was something that we looked at um we did have some discussions about what belongs on what floors what doesn't belong on what floors Etc I don't think we need to go into this in line by line but we're including in general things that we feel are approp rate to go with residential uses so you see maker spaces or exercise Studios or retail shops or restaurants or something like that so the dimensional standards are really where we're getting into this we have a maximum a minimum lot size and that's 5,000 square 5,000 ft and a maximum standard height for stories of three and we have a maximum amount of building and parking coverage the idea being that we don't want to see a giant parking lot we do want to have some green space Etc we have lot requirements we have minimum set we have setback requirements and we have the maximum units per acre of residential top of the shop only have 16 so again from units per acre the state requirement is 15 Paul yes and our maximum is 16 mhm so we're not that far off from that minimum could we include bigger setbacks maybe but in a multif family area do we want things spread out out that far do we want to have them have a giant lot with giant setbacks um and we have a lot of small Lots in this District all the ones across the street right they're all about between 15 and 20,000 Square fet so um so and a few exceptions um density bonus can you um yeah so density bonuses density bonuses that we included we both to encourage some of the mixed use development Andor affordable housing development that we would like to see if this ever gets developed if there's going to be a bunch of multifamilies we want to encourage as much as possible some affordable units uh to keep us over the state 10% ratio so if they make more than 20% of the units in the property as deed restricted affordable they can add an additional floor by 20% that again puts more if we're looking at the 10% as a scale as a ratio they've got to balance it out more if they want the bonus um again for top of the shop same thing if they're going to put 65% of a floor towards retail to encourage a pizza place a neighborhood convenience store a laundromat something um they can add an additional floor as well so they can get one they can get both they can get none um under no circumstances can they go higher than five they also have parking requirements we talked about this a lot we didn't want to have too much parking but we also wanted to have enough so we said for a studio or one bedroom you need one space for a two-bedroom you need two spaces for anything with three or more bedrooms you need three parking spaces and then if it's a mixed use you have to conform with whatever the parking stands are for that restaurants have pretty heavy parking requirements even though we still can't find a place to park at Goat City that's a whole distor uh EV charging is something that's coming for the state in general so we're just asking that they are one per 20 rounded up to the next number and then we asked for bicycle parking for one secure space for every 12 parking spaces which if you do the math basically works out to a bike rack per decent Siz building or so and then we have some standards around signage around amenities crosswalks lighting Etc um Paul are there anything further in the document you think's worth going through at this stage in terms of things that we talked about with sured that are key factors to the compliance Matrix or key features of the design you think for that high just the last would be the affordability sure it's triggered if if they have over 10 units they have to then provide 10% affordable so if they're 10 units they have to do affordable anyway and we're only giving them the bonus if they Double H yes exactly this come a lot of this comes from our own uh local affordable housing bylaw uh Article 19 although we specifically said this is not to reference that because there was you know there confusion if we did it but some of these things are identical to what's already in there okay and that's okay so Paul if you can just go back up to the dimensional requirements which I think is about a third of the way through oh no 40% that wasn't that far so this is the bread and butter of the compliance Matrix we have minimum lot size height stories setbacks and units per acre these are what's going to drive that number of units um again we're setting a maximum units per acre for residential on top of the shop only of 16 and the minimum for the state is 15 if we want to put this as 15 I assume we're still going to be significantly over the state minimum but we can't go any lower because of the statute so if we'd like to make that change happy to see if there's appetite to do that and we can take a vote on it um if there's anything else in here that people feel is a lever to pull in one way or another that they would like to see um for the members of the board now is a good opportunity and then I'll go to members of the public and see if anybody else wants to comment I don't want to stir the pot um now one thing I noticed during the um the modeling I guess so at 16 units per acre when you divide that down it's 27,000 uh 2,700 and some odd number per unit square feet right it it kind of makes it skew away from our 5,000 sare foot because a 2 unit is just over 5,000 ft a 4 unit is just over 10,000 sare ft and to match that model like to get it in the 5,000 would be 18 units per acre as the maximum but that does you the the potential bring it even more unit right right and that's hence the stir the pot thing no um but to agree with the idea of Rob's point of we are going over what is required but it's not the town's ability to split that large paral in half if we could choose to do that then we might do that and it would drastically reduce the number but we are just we didn't continue going because there's housing there there's the mobile home home park and we were trying to avoid placing this District over that so we just chose the one very available primary development spot but Paul maybe just something to I don't know if this is something I assume this is something surad could do what percentage of the units from that total are from just the TPC properties those two lots yeah they they that and that and that'll tell us this is the number this is why this parcel alone is this because of the statute and the dimensional standards that the state set out that's how many did he say I didn't he he said they had done it he didn't say okay I thought it was a number sorry yeah and individually on those two lots just to break it down what other the two TPC Lots we took we took not as a set we took one out oh we took it out okay yeah we just have the one big one to the north of sorry yes so that one lot is probably take into account 11,000 of 1100 of the 17 higher I mean that lot itself is might qualify I mean it's that big so do you know if the modeling takes into account the 100 foot Wetland buffer I think it's the I don't but I'll check because that's a big we would have I think it did but yeah let's definitely check yeah Paul modeling is on Uplands correct only when they it's not just the gross area of the space it's right they would have been factoring wetlands and other environmental features but I think it might if it helps it can get serpent to explain that modeling more I think it did I just wanted to confirm but the idea is that we picked a big parcel so to the overarching point of why are we having so many that's the driving reason so did I articulate that well no so um any additional comments from members of the board at this stage otherwise I'll go to members of the public here okay I'll turn around in person and if anybody's joining the zoom meeting who would like to comment I ask you to please use the reactions function in your Zoom meeting and raise your virtual hand uh we will see you pop to the top of the queue there and I will call on you to give your thoughts uh so I'll turn around and see if any like to please and you can just state your name and address of record please even though I think most people might know it Roger Mar 62 power Street um first of all I'd like to um thank uh the town planner his assistant and the whole board for all of the work that you put into this project this is a a lot of work um and I'm not sure you're getting the credit you deserve for all the effort that you're putting into this so I want to say thank you for that to begin with um couple of concerns I have not so much where it is and all that um I'm really concerned about the timeline that we're at we seem to be um that we knew about this back in I think 2021 was the first that we heard about this and 2022 and we have until the end of this year to come up with it and it's at town meeting now and we seem to have run ourselves into uh as far as we could put it off we put it off and my concern is is that if you don't have a um a good outcome at town meeting what do we do so I'm not sure if you had any points if you do mind if I respond to that absolutely so when we started working on this I'll say a we didn't have a town plan when we were going through the vfas of this process we did ask when we were working with sered at the time um if they would be able to support us and get us the materials that we needed to present at Springtown meeting um and the answer was no they could not so this we knew that we would be coming down to fall town meeting with the deadline in December and we have had to live with that and approach the process in that that so we tried to get it in May and have two bites of the Apple if we needed it didn't work out so so I'm just concerned about that for the town and the repercussions that it's going to have on the town if we don't have a good outcome at Tom me and what uh do we do we have a plan for the steps that we're going to take if that happens that is something that would be contingent on town meeting and potentially the select board and the moderator if they felt that there was an additional action that the town should take following what happens at this town meeting MH okay um so I'm not in love with the plan or where it was put I don't think that's the uh the best spot for it and I've made I've to PA about this um but my other concern is that the state being as heavy-handed as they are with everything that they're doing what's to keep them from taking the next heavy-handed step and forcing people to start their development of these Parcels where we may not even want to Nothing Stops that I would say that's why we all have that's why we have state elections in November again I just don't know if we have a plan for down the road I mean we instead of being reactive to everything we should try to get in front of these things as opposed to trying to react to everything that we I might actually have an answer to that because I orig I have been in conversation where I was trying to defend the doubling I've been on both sides of this conversation with people okay um what's the stop the state from back and saying hey you know we've got our 750 you know what progress keeps going we need another 750 absolutely nothing okay so that's and no and this was an argument I made in favor of the doubling we were talking about if they ever do that and we have doubled we are positioned to just say okay fine I would assume if the state would make a whole new program that we probably would have to do a whole invest of changes to me anyway yeah but you get the principle when I was you know cuz when we were when I was objecting to the doubling I did consider that side of it that there's contingency in it yeah before deciding I still wasn't like so that's all I want to say just again thank you for all of the work that you're putting into all of this I appreciate it Paul do you have the link available for the 3A compliance that surfa did the map all the scrolling Maps yeah you want to see it yeah let's just pull it up again just to reset CU you mentioned kind of where it's cited and I put up a couple of the slides um but just to see all of them in sequence I know it was in the email that I had sent you um as we were reviewing the power PL yeah that one I think it's like the fifth tab was the site selection Pro the suitability analysis there we go and I know you're sharing you're trying to click and then share yeah right didn't it didn't like either of them yeah yeah Rob I don't think you were with the board we went through this initial phase um was not I'm actually more well read up than I've been given credit for here no that's okay okay no but I'm just sticking to a point I believe in I think I've made it clear I'd rather if we want to go around with another discussion we can but I'm assuming so and I'm willing to conceed the one thing that goes against my point is that you do allow for some contingency because the state would not Shock me if they come right back to the well yeah so sad broke down entire town into 10 acre grids mhm and then they categorized everything into different groups for push or pull based on suitability for this type of development so natural spaces we push so if you look at dark green not good places to put something from an environmental perspective climate resilience again looking at Wetlands flood zones um the area we selected is in that light green so it's kind of in the middle uh it's not perfect but it's not the other side of 140 which is definitely not where we want to be that's the reservoir that's the reservoir clearly that would be an interesting multif family development yes can we give them the rest no it's not land um Water Resource again we don't want to put heavy development on an aquafer wherever we can avoid it so as you can see the area of selected doesn't appear on this at all so this is one of the areas that it was very fell into the most suitable infrastructure this one had the most I think mixed bag of items here so you can see there's a lot of infrastructure up on 140 and in the center of town and then South on 495 there is not a lot of invent infrastructure toward rovi not shocking anybody there what one thing if I can just with this is important because again this the area where it's selected is one of the few areas very few areas where we have sewer and that's the Big Driver of development I know people can look at the Village Center and say well we have sewer there the challenge of that will be if you recall Village Center core when we approved that that was to specifically try to get top of the shop housing and we prohibited just residential because the goal was to try to get in that limited area more residential to create more of a center you know more of a Village Center so this would if we plac the overlay District here we'd basically be contradicting what we just did and I think if we propose putting a bunch of multif family proper and the intersection of 123 and 140 I think we would have torches and pitchforks at our doors um at quality of life Transit options open spaces libraries community health centers this one did cluster more around 123 um the area we selected gets kind of the light shading it's not the best in some of these areas but it is again right on 140 so it has access to all those things relatively straight in a relatively straightforward way um and they can take a left out of the site they can be at the Mansfield t station in 10 minutes if they can find a parking spot uh and then priority areas again pull and push factors here in terms of priority development areas priority protection areas so things we want things to go or places we want people stay away from and again you'll see South End to 495 where we cited it and then 14 123 um so you layer all of that together and this is what you get from a mix and all of those dark green areas are what we looked at and if you scroll down you can see additional highlights of those areas and where they show this is the site that we roughly the site that we chose when we looked at it we did talk about the big shopping center where roach Brothers Used to Be and we decided specifically that we wanted to exclude that lot from this project because we want that to stay as a retail space um so we talked about that we don't want we didn't want to include that parcel that was a specific decision that we made as we went through the process of looking at this site and identifying which Parcels we wanted to choose we also made a specific decision to exclude those Parcels below Arnold harmer Boulevard right um 123 these were other areas that we looked at you can see Old Colony Road you can see West Main Street um with n lot of lot of quality of life amenities but we didn't think that that was um the best choice for this uh based on traffic based on other factors and then Norton Center clearly everybody knows what Norton Center is like does it make sense in theory to put multif family development toward the center of town yes um did we think it was the right decision to carve off a minimum of 50 acres correct in this area for multif family development no um so we chose not to do that and that's how we ended up with the site that we have now I think that's the last one right so that's how we ended up selecting the site that we have now so any initial comments questions for members of the public either in person or remote sir my name is James Breer I live on John Scott bouevard um I think the biggest challenge with this site selection and I own some properties you know dis close I own some properties on man app uh the biggest challenge is you guys by doing this we are potentially surrendering commercially own property commercially owned property everybody knows here you know the tax revenues you're receiving on it if it's developed in the services that they require are far less than residen is as simple as that anybody you know you guys know that and that's my biggest fear with this you know surrendering that to potential development residential and we don't have much commercial land left left in this town available that is a huge challenge so I understand that the 123 area and other sites and all the metrics you went through to get to where you were appreciate all that work but that's a key thing we have access right to 495 guys and we've done this in the past the to gave up H John Scott which was once commercially zoned you or industrially zoned I'm not ex you know to residential and we for go we gave all that up so by doing this you guys you know get it we could be you know we could be putting ourselves in a position where we're out of commercial land that can't be developed anymore I understand the timelines of all this being developed is going to be years could be years till we realize that and the impact it has on our town Services if it if it goes residential but um and they could still develop it commercial regardless of what we put as an overlay but it opens and they could go in there and certainly try to position and put up an apartment building just like was done on man's Hill D so right but by opening it up like this it's a lot easier pathway and I think that's to me that's your biggest challenge you know what I mean for us to surrender that commercially Zone land I I think that's the mistake that you know that that could potentially be a slippery slope um and other than that you guys got to find a way to get along and talk nicely amongst each other it's most of our meetings are a little bit more yeah so sometimes everybody has we can all be friends we can all be friends and work this out you know what I mean so I mean for the for the good of the public guys keep it together now I hear you thank you okay any other public comments uh Mr Mayor I see you in the meeting but you may be on mute if you're looking to speak okay well if Peter would like to make a comment he knows the door is always open okay so not seeing any further public comments are there any [Music] additional we've asked for a little bit of homework on just breaking down the number of units by parcel and how much that big parcel is playing into that overall number factor um is there anything else that we want to evaluate before our next meeting we want to review before our next meeting so that on the 24th we move forward and in theory put forward the final language for the town meeting warrant and whatever town meeting wants to do is chooses to do is what town meeting chooses to do a mention favor but what you're saying okay um I Steve sir um yeah I I sent out a a slight adjustment to the uses table to follow and see if anybody has any feelings about this oh sure I meant to come to that Paul's going to share that now but the an adjustment to the uses table uh and the overall goal is Paul pulls it up here was to encourage or discourage what well to to find we have to allow multif family but it's incumbent upon us to encourage anything else about that um so what could a multif family development actually be replaced with possibly a bed in breakfast or a tour owner's house it's the same you know units being occupied it gets charged as a commercial tax revenue it's an actual business uh it's not a hotel it is has to be owned by a single owner who resides there um so if we're going to create a district that is uh if if it brings or encourages tourism if it uh place with restaurants and activities things to do possibly people might want to stay there for a night or two concert goers might want a place to stay for a vacation surprisingly somebody might want a vacation in Norton uh we got the lake right there and one of our largest recreational areas right across the street which goes underutilized um and one of the other uses I added there was recreational camp for children which sounds very outdoorsy but it doesn't have to be it could also just be an athletic program or music program it's basically anything where uh kids would attend for more than a couple days okay so the idea being what would fit next to a multif family use since multi family is allowed by right yeah what would fit with multifamilies and be family friendly um I I suggested which we already removed um to get rid of medical offices should not probably be in the same building as a multif family uh because I don't want to walk through a sick Lobby on my way out of my house you know that kind of stuff is good but that's already been removed but this is just my next tweak on it that's my last sort of yeah again if there were if a multif family was to be built and then it decided to not be a multif family anymore what would they use those rooms for okay the first two I like recreational camp for children maybe this is just my own bias makes me think way too much of Camp penberg so it to me it reads woodsy and outdoorsy it does allow that but it could be like again just an indoor program if we're going to allow uh health or recreational clubs and recreational uses it it's it doesn't have to be a big Camp it's anything with five or more kids I wonder if that would already fall under a small scale indoor Recreation it's espec I well I don't know I don't think so under our table we have the definition yeah just below two rows right below it is small scale indoor Recreation I was going to say I think recreational camp is too narrow but small scale indoor/outdoor Recreation I can get behind but there's different uses under M Mass law Mass law requires that if the campers are there like counselors for more than a day like it's like a 72h hour period it is a recreational camp under Mass law it's not a health and recreational facility they don't qualify the same way so same with small scale Recreation they don't necessarily have the license to be a camp so you're thinking about the addition of uses specifically under that mass definition yeah you objection to including the reference in the St I don't have any any objection to that but small scale Recreation is establishment that provides Amusement entertainment or physical fitness that occurs occurs indoors for a free fee or admission charge may require membership or cater to walking customers may also include food and beverage may not may include but not limited to arcades art and dance studios bowling alleys drama so all of those facilities you're talking about that would be like a recreational it's just they can run a kids program otherwise they're not allowed to with cel yeah the counselor kids program okay CH if you'd like I have the definition of small scale indoor I think you just walked through oh you oh oh sorry all the definition he's got it he's got it up too okay sorry looking the what he was looking to add in the the use table was the camp and that was per a specific state law definition yeah um so the idea the delineation is camp with counselors in this number of hours in a 72h hour period that triggers your camp now basically yeah it doesn't have to be an overnight program it could be an overnight program but it's essentially just a more than a multiple day more than five kids counselor program okay um oh you put it in you put it in there okay it could even be TPC themselves that run a kids program kids golf Clinic yeah they need to get I guess there could be a walking path or something yeah I assume that would probably be on their own property if they did one if they don't already side yeah no I think they' just do a cut through through the wood yeah um okay so objections to any comments suggestions amendments to the the three use additions that Steve's proposing here speaking for myself I think the first two make sense I risk turning a multif family into a business on the same footprint basically um and the camp is just a question of whether we feel that a if that's something that we think makes sense Steve I assume you don't mind if we say recre camp for children per Mass citation whatever yeah exactly so if we feel that's something that because if it's not in the used table it's not allowed if that's something that we' like to allow Direction okay anybody you have any objection to bed breakfast or tourist home and do you have the had you sent Paul the reference to the state send it okay yeah just to to cite it so if somebody goes why is there what's a recreation camp for children and references oh it's a definition in state okay okay so no objections to adding those three any additional going back to the bylaw itself specific questions comments concerns I have one more I slightly blow oh sorry uh I already mentioned before the 18 compared to 16 units so we can skip that one but that's sort of the mouth on it um but the exceptions for the occupied roof dep right uh the 15t setback is that kind of excessive it makes a 30 foot radius around that spot if it's a small building it probably doesn't have the space for a 30t radius and the roof deck but is this a buffer for if there's people on the roof like they have a fence they don't want to go over the fence they want to back X distance from The Edge is that what the purpose of the setback right but 15 ft from The Edge on a if it's a 5,000 ft lot okay and and I do see what you're saying they're giving up 30% I'm ining since it's a safety measure can we do that or is it there some because it is a safety thing if we say on no we're not going to make it that tight can that get us in trouble later I need to check and see if this is actually a building code issue because if it is we might not even need it okay I do agree with this point that 15 ft takes away a lot of rooftop I have to agree with that I just because it's a safety measure I would double check that it was something that was brought up by seret I believe in the discussions that we had MH um I mean if if it does have to be something whatever the law is then that's fine uh but if we have the ability to either remove it or reduce that I mean all safety measures should be taken anyways upon you know the building inspector's request he never say the same thing yeah okay I think it's excessive too but if there's a law govering it then excessive we go yeah so why don't we just flag this one for revisit in two weeks cool and if we have clarification on what the requirement is um and I know we had a specific discussion about this with sured um and the the the reasoning behind it is escaping me at this moment in time um so just to confirm the reasoning behind it okay otherwise I'm really happy thank you everybody okay so additional comments questions or concerns beyond what we've already raised uh regarding the language that that we're going to put forward here um I'll say that the presentation that I ran through was intended I think to partially be a dry run of what I intended to go through a town meeting um clearly I need have some work to do um but the idea being these are the requirements this is how we've worked through it this has been our process this is where we are tying it into master plan is a good idea agreed yeah we should add something to that so as we as we go home roomating on this think about it more um clearly we had an active debate this evening um I encourage anybody who watches the recording of this meeting to please show up to our next meeting yes um I would love to hear have more public engagement at these sessions um so that what we present at town meeting doesn't people don't feel like it catches them by surprise I think that's my biggest challenge with town meeting is I feel like a lot of times when people walk into the room it's the first time they've thought about any of these ideas um and it's a challenge um so welcoming all discussions and comments in this forum um I'll take responsibility for losing by cool earlier try not to do it again we still love you Tim and thank you Peter and we did see your comment uh in the chat but uh Steve is already looking to add a tourist home into the language okay so that is the final item on our agenda this evening uh so I'll say are there any further comments or questions about that and if there's not I'm hearing there's not um I'll look for an official continu to our next session of discussion to continue second okay thank you Rob and Steve any further discussion on the motion to continue okay hearing none yes R yes Steve yes Laura yes Alan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes so that item is continued to our next session does anybody else have anything else they wanted to raise in the open session this evening Mo to adjourn second we have a motion to adjourn from Eric and second from Steve any further discussion hearing none Eric yes R yes Steve laa yes Alan yes Jim yes and I will vote Yes we are adjourned thank you very much everybody everyone night everyone night Peter PA G FR night Peter night Peter here