##VIDEO ID:xHRRuWLPjbY## welcome everybody to this special session of the planning board um for Tuesday October 8th this is a session purely to discuss one article related to our upcoming town meeting warrant um as always uh this meeting is hel being held on Zoom with the meeting ID 638 9291 060 it will also be available after the meet after the meeting for further review on the Norton media Center's YouTube page um so call the meeting to order here and continue our public hearing on the up meing town meeting warrant and this is applying the greatwoods overlay District to the town of Norton zoning map as it relates to the MB States MBTA communities bylaw so um in terms of just a sequencing here um if you have looked in the Dropbox files for this session speaking just to members of the public um we do have a file available which shows some review from sered which is our regional planning agency related to this overlay discussion um and Paul I'll just kind of start with some overall commentary from um sered if that that makes sense here um so in our previous discussion in our last meeting um one one of the discussions that we talked about was looking at the PGA parcel And discussing the potential for split zoning that lot um to potentially reduce the impact um so as part of that discussion sured shared details um relating to how units are calculated according to the state's bylaw and specified that the state is looking at developable Acres so the 50 acre number is a number if we could find 50 acres in Norton that didn't have Wetlands or other things that made it not buildable um so that is where we're seeing a lot of the differences between kind of the that raw 750 number from the St that we have laid out and what we're looking at on each of these Maps um so we'll go through this and we'll go I think it makes sense to run through all of these maps that surpad has laid out for us look at the data behind them um any members of the board have any questions uh Paul I'll probably defer to you in terms of implications and how the model works and those types of things um and then we'll have an additional public comment period if anybody would like to speak further uh before and they I'll do that before I accept any specific motions on the floor about which map we should put forward as a board so does that make sense to everybody okay um Paul do you want to share the sured document would you like me to share I I can share it okay um so again just as a summary this is the 3A technical assistance from sered which is done through a grant and on that scrolling onto where are you uh you're starting at the beginning okay so um one of the things that I know you um kind of highlighted going into the summary on page two here um is again I think a little bit of what I just spoke to is the three bullet points are what the state requires um the 15 units per acre the district minimum and the overall unit capacity minimum um and again that is requirements considering excluded land we need to consider excluded land in all of these so Wetlands State on properties etc etc so thank you for the for the emphasis on that um so again this is the initial Baseline scenario that we had um this includes the New England ice cream the for 40 B and the oil company lot next to in between that and the existing multifamilies on 140 so you can see the total acreage is around 97.1 all of that is developed with the exception of the PGA property um and we've but we're deducting 14 and a half acres due to Wetlands and everything else basically and then if you scroll on the next page you can see just a baseline of the requirements again excluding not developable area what the model says in theory if you tore everything down and build every lot up to its maximum potential capacity what you could maybe get um but as we've mentioned most of those lots are developed um rob Paul before we move on Rob did you have a question related to this Baseline scenario here you are currently can you so um let me see here there we go just let me it was saying host is not allowing till just a second ago huh weird okay okay sorry anyhow the question just being no when you the wetlands you had drawn on that map is there any significance of their how much should we read into the way they're drawn that's those are the Wetland boundaries that we have in GIS I think as we mentioned in the last session they're not flagged so they're what we think is there in terms of when conser if we ever look to do something conservation would go in there and have to do that whole their whole process okay so the they're a little bit arbitrary just doing the best you can not arbitrary but they're based on Paul how would you the reason I'm asking is because the wetlands in this map do cover a little more everything is fattened up a little bit more so they cover more area than the old map what I was looking for is to establish that that's actually meaningless it just happens to be the way the artwork is but you you're just these just meant to be General statements is is it also Paul potentially including like the um like a 25 foot buffer around the perimeter in their calculation they indicated they took out that 25 foot no build zone so just Rob to just add to Tim what Tim was saying is um if there if if this is true of any site in town if there's a proposal for development then if there hasn't been a wetland survey done for three years uh conservation requires an updated Wetland survey so Wetlands move um with more rainfall um and some other factors uh wetlands have been growing they've been expanding out and we don't know that in this area because we haven't had a wetland survey done in well over three years so okay uh yeah I think the answer is actually what I was saying is that's it's a little bit arbitrary as far as artwork goes you know it's not meant to State any specific measurements because otherwise I would be questioning how the wetlands Grew From the map presented previously to the ones now okay understood yeah so so I'm just clarifying that then is there's no meaning to the fact that to that is it it could be a different GIS data set that they were using I pulled I the last map I pulled from our assessor map which you know uh it it's very possible it could be different what I'm doing is I'm sitting with an iPad going back and forth between them and you know the difference yeah okay anyhow it's meaningless and just for anybody else that notices that it's meaningless would that be the statement thank you rob yeah okay so scrolling on to page five I guess here um this is essentially what we left the map in in our previous session we've removed in this in this case the New England ice cream property as well as the 40b and that one commercial property in between the 40b and the multifamilies um so the overall acreage for this is 76.8 with 14.2 of that is Wetlands so you're down to 62.7 acres um and you can see how that models out so that is roughly 300 units less than the previous map and it also brings again as we've discussed brings those existing multifamilies into conformance with existing zoning through the overlay um and thank you for highlighting this Paul and the compliance model reads this as the potential to develop new housing units even though there's already existing multifamilies on the site so in terms of ex actual built capacity in town could somebody tear something down and put something in its place yes um but one that wouldn't be quick it wouldn't be something where we flip a switch and immediately there's an immediate drain on the school on the town budgets but um it would potentially allow them to uh expand if they wanted to and just maybe another way of stating this is if one of those quads the fourplexes were to be redeveloped in with six units instead of four the the the states calculation views that as six new units but in reality it's only two so that's again one example of how it's overate How that compliance methodology just overstates what what is what could actually happen thank you um okay and then and and going on to page seven for scenario 2 I will I know sir had mentioned this later in the document this scenario is take away the multifamilies look at just the PGA lot and again deduct the wetlands um and they have provided some guidance saying that historically you should not have zoning limited to one parcel and while they can't provide a legal opinion on how that would feel against spot zoning they feel they do feel that that the wording that they used was um trying to think if I'm jumping down to the bottom here um they are reasonably confident that would it would be access acceptable by the state that's a comment that they made on page 10 um so ultimately it is the board's decision on how we feel about that and whether we feel we want to propose that but that is the guidance that we have received from sured related to this um so Paul I'm sorry I make you scroll back and forth but for on page seven that's 2A um which is the entire PGA parcel if you look at that in isolation it is 68.3 Acres of which 14.2 is the Ed as potential Wetlands or other not buildable leaving 54 acres and you can see how that works out in the chart here and Rob question that you had sorry you're muted again it's not letting you unmute again that's weird I'm asking it to you have to ask me to unmute then I get pop up to undo it but if I click on it say you have that blocked huh oh let's see okay sorry I okay not the other world as long as Tim calls on people as they get their hand up it's a good way to maintain meeting order in my opinion H that's not what we intend though yeah that wasn't yeah okay okay so um did you have a question comment yeah I I wanted to go back you said that they've had the state already has confirmed that they would pass asked this if we voted it in no are you talking related to the spot zoning uh well a minute ago you said as they've commented here they would already this they've confirmed the state's already approved it was that true no the state hasn't reviewed any of this oh um they were asking the state I don't believe they' received a response they have not the guidance that they're giving if we were to look at an overlay which included only one lot which would potentially traditionally be seen as spot zoning um they have said that because it's an overlay district and not the base zoning they said that they are the guidance that the wording they used would be reasonably confident it would be acceptable by the state as in we feel comfortable with that the state would view this as would be okay with this being one lot if that's what we chose to do um separately whether the board feels it's appropriate to put this on one lot that's a separate discussion okay fair enough that's what I want to understand yeah yeah I know you can break it up uh was it Lexington I believe has it in 12 little Lots dotted All Around Town yeah okay um so again this is how the chart the model breaks down for the whole lot and then if we look to split Zone that parcel again looking just at the PGA parcel but reducing it basically as far as we could um we end up with 56.9 Acres 11.9 of which is Wetlands which puts us at 45 but if you scroll down to page 10 you can see that um basically because of the other rules that we have around this Zone in terms of setbacks in terms of all of those things um the calculation that we get in terms of [Music] um who it the density denominate denominator Paul the fancy fancy math basically meaning that um because of how we have set up the bylaws around this we can they're confident that we would be able to get through this overlay of only 45 Acres because it would in theory hold the capacity needed well cor you'll see the there's a caveat that um they're also waiting for the state to clarify yes right because it's it's possible the state sees something that we didn't Factor so that's why they're recommending you know we' have some you know some buffer some safety you know blanket that would protect against uh we didn't know that was a wetland there or something along those lines yes understood um but they are giving a bit of a buffer there in terms of the quote unquote paper unit capacity in that model as well so um and just to note on page 11 if anybody has read um they did provide some specific guidance about usz projects using 40b projects as part of this overlay basically saying that the state has specifically told them not to do it um so that's um so even though we had it in our initial layout um where I think it would be quote unquote above and beyond the numbers that were needed um it probably doesn't make sense to include after the fact so I'll start again with the members who are joining us here do we have any specific questions about any of the maps that we just walked through um and after that I'll go to public comment if there's anything further in that respect and I'll just say from a public comment standpoint um I have no issues people using the chat to talk about a specific a question how do I do this in the meeting Etc comments in the chat are not part of the meeting minutes they are not entered into the record so if you would like to speak I'd ask that you use the react function within the zoom meeting and quote unquote raise your virtual hand and we will definitely call call on anybody who would like to speak related to this so before we get to that I'll go to members of the board for any questions comments about the materials we just reviewed Tim am I good yes Steve um yeah I got a technicality question um after we try to Zone this area if if at town meeting it fails are we bound to that two-year period where we can't try to reone those Parcels I think there would be a level of discussion about what is substantially different um compared to what we would look at the next time um in terms of town meeting mechanics I understand what you're saying and that when you try to do something in town meeting and it doesn't work you have to there's a cooling off period right um my expectation would be if this fails at town meeting um then the next step would be to look at potentially another another property in town sure or a portion of this property and another property in town which would be substantially well that that's sort of what I mean where like let's say we include the apartments across the street if this all fails with those included and then we go to another meeting without the PGA parcel parcel can we still use the apartments across the street or are they a part of that two-year cooling off period I'm not sure that that's a hypothetical I'm prepar to give a definitive answer on at this point Paul if you have any specific thoughts to that effect then yeah I think at this point I'd like to talk to the town manager's office because if it's a substantial change we it's po it may be possible but that's why you maybe but I need to get confirmation on that yeah I'm going into this look for this to be approved if they were going to be part of that cooling off per period and not and unable to be used again I'd rather not include them in this proposal and like only go for the PGA parcel alone and in theory if this District works out well and people wanted to we could run an article to include those apartments at another meeting that's certainly a motion we could entertain I think my understanding that um in speaking with the finance committee and the select board is that um they are generally looking to not encourage as much new development as they can I'm not sure if I worded that as be the best way that it could be done I think I understand the sentiment so um any if you'd like to make a motion that's certainly some when we get to that point that's certainly something that the board can address okay any other members of the board have questions comments about the maps that we reviewed here Rob you're still fighting that there we go no I got it this time it's working now no I I fixed it it people can um not the maps I do want to present some ideas of my own though but I I want to let you finish what you're going through not you know sticking in the middle at muddy I think I'm looking for comments or questions from from you Rob so or Jim then I will start um someone else is sharing if you don't mind I'm gonna take a share that's that's Paul yes okay I am off okay let me just share and let me just take play from the start so I did and you remember I was asked two meetings ago to do this if I was going to come in questioning the plan to come up with some Alternatives so I have worked on that and done so and so I just want to put up some other options um first off I I am going to speak to this because it was brought up before and it's clear there is a difference here is who we should be working for and what I don't know if I phrased that right but I considered what is best for Norton um I did not consider what is best for the state just didn't care any political anything I don't even want to hear it um anything other than what is best for Norton so that is the philosophy of this plan I not looking at for any other interest than our own town okay um so first of all what is best for Norton is not increasing the multif family footprint in Norton increasing residential there's a net loss in our budgets that we get from that that was something got brought up by thcom as well um Norton needs to retain its valuable commercial land and infrastructure especially the prime slots and encourage facilitate commercial and retail business that do net I know we've talked about gross taxes collected but those do net a higher amount of taxes for us right Norton does have an imbalance that um puts the expenses on the backs of the homeowners without sufficient commercial help so we we are tipped the wrong way and need to regain that balance um that's something for us to work at over the years obviously but we do need to um Norton needs to fully comply with the state mandate um I've heard a lot of talk today about being another Milton and all that I'm going to go right on the record and say I do not think that's a good path um but I want to compliant way that you know we'll give them all buildable land but it's not real likely someone's going to make that decision and that is our best case scenario right there if we completely comply and nothing happens that that is what's best for Norton so let me go on Rob do you mind if I just yeah say one thing before just for anybody from members of the public here oh there's a hand up I'm sorry no Cheryl's had her hand up I think to speak for a bit but just from the from what we're doing this evening for October town meeting the lots that we covered in that initial scroll through of all of those maps are the only ones that were noticed for this town meeting I'm aware of that so for the purposes of what we submit to town meeting we can look at whatever we want and talk about whatever we want tonight okay but I'm aware of that yeah my next slide actually speaks to it sure okay yeah no it's a fair point Tim um I felt like I had to so can we still plan change the plan at this juncture yes absolutely but it would involve giving proper noticing Etc we can do that but it might be too late to submit an amended plan in time for the fall town meeting as a matter of fact it is too late we if we have to Ren notice people and all that um we will miss that but it I'm going to maintain that's not the end of the world I've looked at the penalties for real what they really are and all and we could ride this there's a few ways here there's special Town meetings I'm pretty sure that selectboard would work with us if we were trying to come for with a plan that they agreed was a Norton's best case scenario next Springtown meeting we spent three months out of compliance that's not ideal but we can survive that better than something that's really a long-term deal that I don't think is good for this town if we're putting together a plan that looks passible and puts us in compliance I don't think the state is going to ride us that hard for those three months I realize I'm just guessing you know they could go ballistic but that is my thought I personally I don't see blinking in the face of that threat either um but that's why it can be changed not easily but yes it can be done so okay go on um factors to consider and you guys had your own push and pull factors I had my own already developed by simply not real likely to go anywhere honestly or if it did get developed if they went ahead and did this it's not a real change in the existing population density in that area in other words fine go ahead and do it um and then minuses giving up valuable infrastructure I put them on the top because it was tough to avoid a lot of the places that I'm going to suggest actually do I think you're still giving them Sil but you know I know some are opposed to that but we'll see giving up Prime commercial real estate does matter to me I do not think we want to this is to me frittering away a valuable thing using the TPC lot this way personal opinion and undeveloped not built on already I'd rather avoid that that because that's just a total net game in population it comes back to what I was saying about we really don't want to boost that footprint because ultimately it you know that was the thing came out of fincom it doesn't work well for us we'd rather wear it where it's built on already and if they want to build this we're not really increasing anything it was there already and we just replaced it with newer um so the first one and this is at the taunt line U there's more than ample space uh nearby employment because and this is this being a long-term thing let's say over the next 10 years that it did get built there if you start walking South right from that map all kinds of work you know um let's face it this is for lower income families they tend to do lower paying jobs or a lot of labor jobs like warehouse work drivers things like that and there's companies that employ a lot of that right next to it it's really not a bad place to put such a development um there are three single family homes at the Western Mo here this is one this is one this is one after that is all business I'm just acknowledging that so okay there would be three single family homes included in this okay um how many how many options do you lay out just so I'm uh I'm GNA have eight options and then fourth it's there's a few slides here here so I'm going to try and move them okay but I will take questions as we go and I see some hands up somebody yeah I think let's go through this and then we can kind of do been waiting for without taking questions I think if there are specific questions we can bring it back up but I know chery's had her hand absence before you started so that's uh no that that's good I I'm I'm gonna do this whichever way you like um okay so there is that um notice down there in the thing that is 95 .8 Acres um I do know there's a touch of wetlands in there but not bad we know a lot of that is developable because you can see stuff sitting right on it um this Tim is the one that I raised in the meeting a ways back and it was shot down on the basis that it was predominantly single family homes I'm bringing it back because if you look at the map that was not really a correct piece of information so we see here it is not predominant single family home homes it is very developable land and lets me go on um so if we were concerned about the single family homes you can bring it in here you were still um over your 50 acres all in one slot here um and now you have a buffer before there are any single family homes those two things right off the end there those are yards there that's what they have for Neighbors already and that would sit between them and anything else um we do know okay let's go to this one this is recently developed multif family and what we are looking at is um East the East Main apartments and Redmill Village combined that comes to 57.9 acres we know it's all buildable because somebody just built on it um there's a low likelihood that anyone would come in decide to tear down a bunch of brand new multif family units just to build man multif family units but they are free to we are not giving the state bomb land here at all this is a site that could absolutely do it and maybe 10 years from now they do decide to do something as you've said many times Tim this is a long-term thing so we shouldn't worry about that if it did happen it would be a little change to the population density and that's one of the other things folks it's not like we don't want these units we just don't want to increase our population density so if it did happen that that's not the end of the world here um existing older multif family uh what we're looking at here is uh the Glenn and I grabbed the industrial right up the the commercial space right up there that actually would not be a bad place in town to have a little village like that because remember these buildings would have shops on the first floor too and the Glenn um no disrespect but it is basically a low income housing project currently so we not much changes basically you take down older and put up newer um it is what the you the state is talking about is denser than the Glen is so there' be we only partially mitigate the budget hit with that I just want to be clear I'm not eliminating it at all with that just mitigating it some commercial buildings are likely to remain but if they did sell them it's fair game to develop and we would wind up with that um you you you could wind up with such an area like that with 123 just kind of cutting through the middle of it technically not a terrible deal um option five if we were keep it up 140 by Mansfield um it does use a Prime commercial land because that stretch right through here I hate using it that way but willing to consider it um I don't mind using this because be honest chances of getting a super market are greater if we keep the TPC course and this became a retail area up in here um this guy at Gator can just keep his place you know let's face it he he isn't going anywhere that that's structured to be a tax write off and they like it that way as much as everybody else hates it uh the mobile home part um it's not dumping on them in my opinion I'm willing to take input those that disagree with me um but um it not sure where my mouse just went so um but they keep in mind that here they control their own F they can say we live here you're not going to build it here whereas if it's zoned over here they can have that pop up next to them and there's not a thing they can say about it it'll just happen um this stretch here I actually you know I say giving up because I personally had a vision of us building a nice retail strip coming into town this way to generate Revenue because he's been have shops on the first floor I'm not totally turned off by the idea of using the this stretch for such things just put up those type of buildings all along here so that is something that the state did it I think Norton would we could live with that um option six still at the Mansfield line and I'll go a little faster because these are near each other you have the shopping center um this is some new development here you do have the senior home and this is a fairly this is the auto parts complex and that alone comes to 73.6 blows right by it and um you know and um existing you know what it's made of so this is another option we can do without sacrificing that TPC resource which I think is a gem I think it's we're squandering it you'll see I'm trying to stay away from it Tim it's because I think we're squandering it using it this way um if there was a concern because I know I did hear some objections about the roach Brothers Plaza that some folks want to still keep that shred of hope that they might we can do that you notice that have the same things because we still are 55.6 it just we blow it off by more if we include that um option eight also still up at the Mansfield line dropped roach Brothers dropped these multifamilies in case folks don't like that the trailer is not involved in this either you've got the Auto Parts Warehouse this stretch here and up here and you're still at 56.2 that's if you wanted it up at this end of town at all in my opinion other than the fact I could live with them here I don't like it up at that end of the town at myself and um think some of the other options were better um want to go a little further now sub options are smaller tracks they're under 50 acres but they can be assembled to create further options um I want to clarify a couple points because I know there was some confusion on this our acreage does not have to be contiguous um correct I don't believe it I I thought with Lexington was a bit extreme I kind of chuckled when I saw it they have like I said 10 tiny things dotted all around um state it but Mora Healey herself praised it and so you know Apparently that is acceptable I think that's a bit extreme I would think two three would we don't want to create a p a quilt um one parcel does have to be over 25 acres I believe that is a requirement so and then no par under 5 Acres so here we have just again take the Glen by itself that is 21.2 acres and I actually underd drew it you have areas like the offices are over here and I believe this is multif family in here you could turn this into a 30 acre Swatch if you wanted to um but but I'm looking just here at things we can add to other things um East Main Street apartments by themselves um is 11. Acres you could make that as an addition if you got something barely over 50 you put that next to it and now we are in compliance um so option three if you really wanted to stay up here do just this because like I said this is not terrible deal if they came in and did it through here for us these are already tall apartments they aren't going to take that down we know that Alberto up here well if they do they do but you know um I like Albertos though so I'd hate to see it um place you can go and get away from Mark Sweeney sub option four our favorite property I just had to throw this one in here Tim I couldn't help it it's 5.8 acres we're looking at Elm Street um possibly disqualified by its status they said buildable land and the fact that this has to be cleaned up could wipe it out by state I I'll admit that I don't think anybody would go for it to be honest you know that's why I wrote go ahead pal you have fun with that um I honestly think the projections of somebody ever coming and developing if we put in sewer are extremely ambitious and high hoping but you know in my opinion I I see it the other way and we'd use it as a thing where it ain't going to happen there type thing U but if I'm wrong it could get someone to pick up the tab on the sewer just saying you you have might have that side benefit because I know you guys are trying to get that through and then are questions yeah I think I think it's good to look at all these options again Rob and again we'd be looking at this any of those would be something that we would have to look at outside of this fall town meeting or absolutely whether even whether or not this passes there's nothing that says we can't pass something at falltime meeting and in springtime meeting say we're going to revise our overlay to do this x y and z um yeah one note that I'll just say for all of this is that the one of the requirements of this statute is that the properties have to be developed developable as of right which means that the planning board essentially won't be able to say no correct to anything that goes into these properties as long as they meet the guidelines so when we start talking about properties that are maybe a little bit um where we're not sure if we'd like something here but we're not sure if we'd like this here we may not have a choice um in the seven years i' seven and a half years I've been on the board we've said no to one site plan approval project and it's still in court y um so the the to turn down a site plan review project is really high and it basically just means we'll see you in court if you turn us down so yeah but none of that scares me because this is where I'm going with highly unlikely this gets built I understand buildable land it will meet your requirements okay but for one reason another it's not likely any human's ever going to want to make that decision they'll they'll decide yeah I could build their but you know I'm I'm going to you know East Main Street I'm going to have to buy all these new buildings tear them down just to build new ones I'm not making money on that deal and they'll they'll walk away but it is doable that's the thing and that's the I read the law carefully as long as it's doable we're good and that is our best case scenario right there if they decide not to do it at all and all of my sites were picked with the fact with that in mind that probably not do it at all yeah a couple spots where it could could happen but yeah is it all right if I comment real quick yes I was going to say I appreciate the thought that you put into it Rob for for future thoughts um yeah just before you go I want to underscore the correctness of something Tim did say um and that's what I have here when I say yes we can change it it does involve this there is process and things we would not make fall meeting so what Tim was just saying is anything that I'm suggesting here if we're going with it fall meetings off the table sorry I would add also that in the materials that we got from cped all of the work that they have done for us for the site reviews and preparation and all the compliance modeling has been funded by a grant that Grant is gone yeah they spent eight months to come up with a suggestion and then I've spent one month to come up with eight suggestions so they they followed our Direction in doing all of this work uh based on the work that we've been doing for more than a year if that's the instructions they were given then they did a good job I agree yeah so um the choices that we would have if we go continue after this town meeting are um whether it is something that town staff looks to try to do on their own or if this is something that needs to um be something that we work to have funding for in some way I'm going to go on the record Tim that I'm against mutinies and I'd rather we didn't have any Renegades out there trying to you know like I would be horrified if these ideas I put up all of a sudden did turn up on the floor of town meeting because that's not what I'm trying to cause at all um this is stuff for the future I'll be honest I had this deck last week and a couple of people knew I had it wanted me to put it up and all that stuff and I wanted it to be seen first by the planning board from me in a meeting and that's why it's waited till tonight to get presented yeah we're trying to play it nicely you know but I wanted to put these ideas on the table and I think they should be people should consider as they're weighing what they want to vote for a town meeting do we want to do we want to go these other directions because there is still an option to do it Rob ahead go ahead Stephen I'm sorry I stepped it's okay no I wanted to say thank you like seriously thank you for put some maps up because there's only been a few available this whole time we've whittled it down fairly we all played our part but it is nice to see the options laid out it's like you did a a good job and a few of those I I don't disagree with at all there's two I think two of your your your Maps do include senior housing though I think one did but that we looked into that it's not senior by the the land is not designated senior it's the develop vment so development that development can have a different purpose but sure but either way I just yeah thank you for doing it thank you for yeah the likelihood they would tear down all those new buildings to put up new buildings is financially some no investor is gonna sure do that okay cool okay no thank you for going through that um and I'll ask um rob you said you wanted to take questions just from a I'm not sure any other questions otherwise I'm gonna go back on mute and call myself done are there any other questions I know Miss Senor you'd have your hand up for a while is there a comment that you'd like to make in general about what we've went through at the beginning of the meeting or anything else I'm sorry if you're trying to speak we don't hear you she's not she's not muted is the Sheran Senor you're calling for yeah she does yes right sh Sher I'll give you Sher I'll give you a minute to speak and then I'll move on to um to Brady who had their hand up next if that's um okay then go to slide you want Cheryl if there's if you uh are having technical issues and you want to come back just let us know and uh we'll definitely call on you when when you uh are ready to um the next person who had raised their hand in the zoom meeting the name just says Brady if you can just state your name and address for the record please sir and you are muted I do see the mute your microphone next to your name unmute yourself sir there you go good there Franks Frank CN Maple Street keep how we doing guys Frank I'm sorry y NOP go ahead Frank um yeah I was just wondering Rob uh the taunted line ones that you have where are they located um here let me go to them you talking about this one here what you would have here let me see if I can kind of get it you'd have the I don't know what type of facility it is right now if it's a hotel or my you know whatever's going on there but that would be right about where I'm waving I'm my mouse the holiday in would be off this way that is 495 this is the road that will eventually turn into H wash South Washington is it heads off that way all right so that's in M Standish industri correct just off of it and so when I speak to nearby employment that's what I mean if we had yeah the housing in here there's a ton of employment opportunities right that direction so there's actually some Synergy to this now what is what is Tim what is the requirement or Paul or whomever all the board what is the requirement for these developments to be close to an MBTA station or is it just there's none it has to be n it has to be in Norton okay um the so it has to be the land that Norton sets aside was designated by Norton's town adjacency to the MBTA so where we put it it within the town limits is ultimately up to us okay um but I'll say I said it before I'll say it again I apologize if everybody gets sick of hearing me say it um none of the parcels outside of what we've showed in the isal maps were noticed for town meeting um so they're not going to be something that we would put on the floor at fall town meeting because they haven't been none of these property owners have been invited to come to our meetings and all all of that stuff so so none of the ABD is know so this won't go to a fall meeting or it will no none of the maps that Rob has shown the map that we went over at the beginning talking about the multifamilies on 140 and the potential for New England ice cream and those properties those are the ones that were noticed for this specific town meeting article okay so the original ones that you talked at the last meeting correct last month that those would be going in front of the town meeting the the same ones we've been talking about for six months yep um and then what is the so you can't you can't um include the 40b because the sered said you couldn't I think that if we I think if we included it in addition to the other properties it wouldn't make a difference okay um what sered the guidance that they have gotten from the state and all of the technical assistance groups like them that were with the state is um don't put this overlay over over a 40b and think that you're done um because we will not accept that and you will be out of compliance okay so you can't do it we're not stupid please don't try it is the uh the less politically correct way to frame that I think from the state yeah no I agree um and then what is the final number you're looking at for um for units because I had asked this question in the last meeting so the final paper number from the state based on if you find 50 acres that have no Wetlands on them um at 15 units per acre is 750 the board would be um the board has not yet voted on what we will put forward to town meeting but all of the um if you'd like me to pull up the original presentation that walks through all of the maps that we showed um happy to run through any of those specifically if you'd like to look at them I have a question on what you just said yes you're talking about you're saying the number is now 750 because the number the the St requ acres is 750 but what is the acreage you have it down to like you're I think what Frank is asking is not what is the right number of acres to hit 750 he wanted to know what you have you you were at 1750 last we heard so Mo I know you've had a lot of conversations but most of these people have not heard anything since that 1750 number what is it down to now um are we talking about the the original delineation so including all the things we talked about at the beginning 1533 what we left last meeting is 1220 which again includes the entire PGA parcel as well as the multifamilies across the street that is those two numbers in isolation um and again assuming entire tear Downs in the multif family and building back to their maximum capacity and building out the TPC parcel to its fullest extent um and as I said I think to the select board I've said it so many times over the past couple of weeks um I have a very hard time believing that the PGA would choose to build up the entire lot that's a buffer to their fancy Golf Course um I think at most they may put something on the front and then leave a big healthy buffer towards the golf course itself and if they allowed development on their property it would probably be higher end potentially can't promise anything can't it's pure speculation from my seat okay yeah exactly that's Tim that is pure speculation on my part I will admit that 1,00% okay so 1220 um I'm going with your lower number here because actually I want to give you all the benefit we can so you've reduced it from 1750 to 1220 and because we're talking now about specifically what you're going to put out at town meeting um that would be the 1220 correct 1220 is one of the scenarios that we have in front of us in that in that document yes what we put forward at town meeting is what this board will vote on at the end yeah was there one at nine 10 or something nine something one got down to Triple digits right no by yes that was partial PGA property only yeah so um did you have another comment Rob I know there's a I was trying to clarify Frank's question a little bit cu I got what he was asking he's actually been pcking me asking if I knew this too and I just said we're going to wait for the meeting and let them present um so Frank you wanted to know what the number was going to be and I guess it's 1220 if I understand yeah I was just looking what what number is the the planning board you guys putting towards for the town meeting for a vote you know what I mean is there gonna be we voting on that tonight so I'm sorry we're voting on that at the conclusion of this meeting okay and that's an executive session no that'll be in this meeting okay no that's I was just wondering if there was multiple scenarios that were going to the town meeting or just one specific number we will be sending one set one thing one map to town meeting that we will vote on in this session okay because a lot of people are are nervous about the impact of the higher number I understand so okay we talked about that the last meeting so y okay um and I think and then is so if we if if this fails at town meeting is a two-year cooling off period or no so for meetings for articles at town meeting if they go before town meeting and fail there is generally a cooling off period for that same article to be discussed again with the idea being you can't put the same article forward five times and eventually people will get sick of hearing you talk and it'll get accepted okay um or you'll or you'll at one point you'll pack a meeting and get it through and then whatever um that I think that that's something that would generally um I would like to think that that would be restricted to um putting forward like the same map again and saying and doing the same thing again if this fails at fall town meeting then my expectation would be that if we are moving forward with a special 10 meeting or in springtime meeting or whenever we talk about this again that it would be with a different map and we would probably adjust the second but the second article which speaks to the language um since it does say like the Great Woods overlays District if we put it somewhere that's not near this area we're probably going to rename it and if we evaluate in the other language as well we'd probably do those together okay so if if it fails a town meeting do we lose grants from the state that is the potential along with other other things yes we lose funding because I've been I've been following the Milton and I'm not you know I'm not up to the state on it because it's going to go through anyways they've already lost a million dollars in funding but it's still the it sounds like the um the court is with Milton as of today so but nothing I just I just want you know as Rob has stated I just want what's best for the town the lowest amount of units that we can get away with you know we have a problem with you know like I had said the last meeting Tim that we had um the biggest override tried in a field we get a problem with the water the schools um if we put in the huge bigger numbers you're GNA need more money for you know fire police infrastructure so that's that's my concern yeah and I think to to what Rob was presenting the point of that is net new development is what the number would really be the impact on the town um so what the paper number is and what the realistic net new number is I think are tend to be two different things in all these scenarios okay see in a few areas I this could be seen as an opportunity um talk about replacing the old buildings in the Glenn which you hear a lot of complaints about the condition of them and all with new buildings um that's not a terrible thing you know um I although I had a different vision for that stretch along 140 where those apartments are that wouldn't be terrible if they did that put the multi families up done and had the shops right going right along that front edge um you know for people to shop from and generate retail dollars and I will mention that you know when I talk about creating balance if you have retail on the first floor earning and Retail is not putting kids into the school system MH okay we're making a net gain so that retail helps cover if we're losing some money on the uh on the residential up above it so those mitigate a little bit through there yeah I agree that's Stephen said that the last meeting we don't the well I was trying to find all the math you especially if I'm challenging this plan I was trying to write a case for it to myself to be honest Tim you can see strategically that helps me understand things better so I did sit down and go what would be the upsides of doing some of this and that is one of them and that yes retail on the first floor does mitigate some of this financial not all of it I did the math on that and I'm not going to go on that long thing but it does help a little bit and there's some stretches along there where it might not be a bad deal for Norton if they went and we we got some of that built okay but other ones like East Main Apartments we're we're you know I'm kidding man I'm obviously putting up brand new stuff that nobody's going to do that exactly Frank I do see another hand raised if there's anything else that you wanted to add otherwise I would um ask Debbie if she'd like to speak thank you hi Debbie hi Tim I want to know and the voters and citizens of nordon want to know why so many members of the planning board have had you keep saying we've had this a year and a half a year and a half in that year half why didn't you come up with any of these eight different alternatives to me that seems like you're not doing your job and that you've have your heels dug into that TPC when it has been stated over and over again loud and clear that that property can generate and be of better use to Norton if it was built commercially so why are you not considering or the board members not considering any of Rob's eight you have been blowing smoke at us with scare tactics over 1,700 units you started off you're down to 1220 that's still 470 units that is going to be a burden to the schools and you just heard the citizens loud and clear in the override so I would really like you and Laura Parker to address why the board hasn't come up with any of these other options and why are your heels dug in direct and honest and transparent please sure I'm happy to give you direct answers on each of those points I will say after me I will say for this fall town meeting none of the no other Parcels in town other than what we've talked about have been noticed so I think it's patently unfair to suggest that we throw another set of parcels in town in front of town meeting when those residents have not been informed about the article excuse me in terms of I'd like to I'd like to respond to your questions would you like me to continue and then I would like a rebutt please so in terms of why we selected these Parcels we selected these Parcels after going through a number of rounds of discussions with seret who is the regional planning agency um if you'd like to watch our meetings in April about when we settled on this area to move forward with and talk about over the last six months you're please feel free to watch that meeting there's nothing it's all taken place in open meetings over the last several months um in terms of site selection we were working on this a year ago and we went through I know you've seen the presentation that I've given a couple of times all of the maps of town looking at different as Rob put in his as well push and pull factors in terms of what might make sense for multif family development and that's how we landed on where we are today um people can feel free to disagree with what we chose that's fine if people would like to join the planning board and be part of these discussions as Rob hads I welcome them um I would say I think I would say that at least three of our members have been appointed or write in candidates because there haven't been enough people running for the board so the fact so any kind of statement that um the board is being filled up is I find that laughable because we've had to appoint members through the select board on multiple occasions so anybody who would like to join the planning board you have my vote even if it's a vote against myself wonderful that's so good to hear because what I heard you say Rob I mean Tim what I heard you say Tim is then in that year and a half of six months you didn't know that land was available as a planning board member I thank you for volunteering you're really planting a seed for many of us to do so because we're recognizing how important it is in directing and guiding our town in addition to supporting our schools okay but what I heard you say is in that six months or year and a half the land Rob talked about didn't just pop out it just didn't appear isn't that the planning board's job go ahead Rob I I say we looked at the entirety of town as part of this planning process and we chose to move forward with the parcels we've selected we didn't ignore any part of town we didn't focus on this particular parcel we looked at we with ced's guidance and looking at all of the data that suggested they selected four or five sites for our short list and we kicked three of them out immediately and then we continue to narrow down to where we are today okay you just keep mentioning serpent so I want to address serid here's another philosophy thing that was brought up in another meeting We the People the citizens of Norton we don't have our nose L around by the government it's us that's what we respect of our leaders we're the leaders yes um can I def Tim I I'll I'm deie did you have any additional points or questions I would like to know I would like to know why you are stuck on the fall town meeting number one because we need to be in compliance by December 31st yeah okay but Rob's point was it's not the end of the Earth if we wait till the spring to do what's best for our town why aren you addressing the value why aren't you addressing the value of the TPC land to Future generated commercial funds for our town can answer this at no point did did I say that I didn't that I liked the idea of developing commercial land as residential um there are no easy choices about where to put a bunch of multif Family Properties where you don't have a special permit process to review them and a significant portion of town would be very upset if you wanted to put multif family in their backyard are some of the the the parcels Rob suggested interesting to think about yes so let's would we consider them in a fut in a future discussion so why won't you pause and give us all including the board in the citizens time to do what's really right for Norton why are you so quick to shoot us in the foot I like to think that talking in open sessions over a year and a half has given many people the opportunity to speak oh wait a minute it's unfortunate that they're only Ching now raing here raising their hand no no the government and these protocols instead of being direct it's designed to keep us to the nth limit which is why we don't want one unit over 750 okay anybody who does participate is giving up a great deal of their life for often ungrateful people but it does once you take that vibe in that pledge you have an obligation morally and ethically to do what's right for the town not because we're under a gun I'm done thank you very much for your comments I'd like to respond to that Tim myself I if you'd like to respond feel free otherwise I was gonna ask Miss to speak in my presentation spoke about philosophy Tim Debbie the answer your question is Tim is like me doing what he thinks is best obviously we have two different Visions on what's best for Norton but he is trying to do what he's best try to do what he believes his best just as much as I am whether or not we agree on that is a side the point that is what we're both trying to do um I do feel that when people are at least trying to do what they think is best we can disagree on it but I'd rather not get into too much anger over it it's nothing personal we're just trying to reach a right decision just I wanted to add that Tim thank you Rob and if there's are there any more oh yeah Bridget I was gonna say I see Miss senior's joined via another device now so if she has the opportunity can you hear me we can yes fantastic praise be so let her go next um yes persevered here um so my first question had been about the parcels the multis across from Arnold Parma uh Palma Boulevard if they can be if they are included in the overlay but can be taken down with three plus floor apartment buildings added there and the planning board will have very little control or input as to how those go up then I think they absolutely need to be removed from uh the planning boards options that were presented today I mean I can understand wanting to avoid spot zoning but uh it's state imposed spot zoning so that to me may be the better way to go um but I was also curious because we do have areas of town where we have commercial and Retail development uh where some of these buildings have for lease and for sale signs on them some have been empty for quite some time I'm thinking of the co-op production building um that I believe has been fed for I don't know how many years at this point um I I I'm under the impression at least that the Oasis is up for sale there's a lot of small businesses there that could easily be accommodated if a building went up and the businesses were on the bottom and apartments were on the top it makes more sense to me to have this development closer to adbar because that's the most direct line to commu a rail um as opposed to having it here on 140 the 123 area too was another one of the areas serad highlighted as potentially an interesting option to look at for us I mean it's Tim not the one that we chose to move forward better I understand that but I I I just didn't know and I haven't heard in this discussion how much trying to make you know trying to address areas that are not um being used right now what we can do to make them more attractive and so they could be redeveloped and if it ends up being housing on the second floor I know we don't want the housing per se but if it helps those businesses actually be functioning business businesses that we can get taxes from it seems to make sense to me that we should at least look at it and the other areas that I had thought um that we had been discussing here was um you know there's the gym at Pleasant Street that's open and Clos and open and Clos that's a pretty large parcel and I think there's multifilm housing behind it as well that could be have been looked at or may have been I don't know um there's the mill complex on Barrow Street that's you know what's is it something building yes yeah and um even um you know smaller if you needed it weathers that's been empty for a really long time on South Worcester at 123 so because somebody operating in there now there is somebody in that building okay I wasn't aware but I feel like there are enough we're all familiar with what's been empty um the old O'Brien it was it OB Brian's the restaurant you know like these are Parcels that seem to you know they're not been used for a long long time and it would be nice for them to use for the commercial and Retail use that they that was intended and and if we have to take a little housing with it I don't think that's a terrible thing so just a recap I really hope you will not go with the um zoning option that includes the multi um families across from the tournament Players Club it's also on the reservoir I mean you know we should should be doing everything we can to keep the light off the reservoir light disrupts the growth of plants the growth of animals it's just not good for the EOS ecosystem there and or or the people who live on the other side of the reservoir or anybody who's out in the res Reservoir um in the evenings and plenty of people are so I think that should be the one that you stick with and if you do end up not taking this to in October or not passing in October take another look at how we can better use what we have now that's laying phow thank you thank you missor do more Yep um I do want to say I know Bridget you had had your hand up earlier um if you'd still like to speak I'll I'll go to you next otherwise yeah sure I just had a quick question um Project Car Oak Street um it's more of a clarification question than anything uh because a lot of stuff's been said so fall obviously uh none of what Rob presented is going to be ready for fall I get that now um so first of all I a little confusing um but if we choose I wanted to go back to something I think Tim and Rob both both mentioned was if we pass this zoning a fall town meeting in a couple weeks we can go back and change it potentially in Spring we can change any Z zoning article we want at town meeting this one or anything else okay so the but specifically this one like we could change we wouldn't have to go with TPC like hypothetically corre if we pass it at fall we could amend it okay so then off of that we don't we won't have the grant money to amend it because the deadline or no we will have it because we passed it technically um the if we pass something that the state approves of we will be in compliance with the MBTA communities bylaw and then we could change it to something else in the spring because we passed it in the fall we can change any zoning article we want it if we notice it properly and take it up at town meeting okay thank you very much that's all yes thank you and Mr Maran I see you have your hand up as well any further comments and you spoke at our last couple of sessions as well sorry Mr Mar you're on if you're speaking there we go I hear you now okay thank you um just have a couple of questions um at your last meeting you had spoken about uh possibly uh split zoning the piece of property at TPC to uh not take the whole piece of property is that something that you're still looking at yes that was one of the options you reviewed at the start of the session um but because of the on the site the split zoning and taking the full lot is not too much difference if we look at that a lot in isolation Okay um another question is uh New England ice cream uh still available um I think all of the uh everybody around there has been noticed as well is that true New England ice cream is one of the Lots we could consider at fall toown meeting yet it was something that the board voted at our previous session not to include it our not to include as we moved forward in our last session um but it is something that was that was noticed and could be part of what we put forward at town meeting okay um this is more of a comment um I would uh like to see possibly any development that uh you propose for this MBTA overlay be put on a piece of parcel that is already developed so that um one we may not have a net increase in housing or two it would uh deter somebody from wanting to develop it more um last question what are I'm looking at the uh the law that was uh hand down and I'm looking at the um grants that we would not be yeah yeah so the grants are really the core part of what I think there's been a couple references to the Milton case um in the MBTA communities law so the actual legislation that passed through legislature there were I think four or five specific programs that were called out um in their guide in the agent State agency's guidance that came out after that regulation so here's the law here's the agency's guidance on how to comply in the agency's guidance they included a much longer list of potential funding sources which they said would also be in potential Jeopardy for non-compliance um so that is really I think one of the Central pieces of the Milton case which won't be resolved before fall town meeting is um Can the state expand beyond the programs that were specifically cited in the legislation in terms of penalties for non-compliance and speaking today we don't know what the court will say Tim isn't it right now there's four specific grants yeah I think I think it's four but they've been yeah did you just give the list for the people so they can know them yeah let's see I've gone through it I don't I still don't know it by heart yet but I'm close um I've I see I see 13 now Tim that uh grants that uh uh that are under number nine determinations of compliance yeah I'm trying to uh so the ones that are written into the guy the statute are mass Works Housing Works housing choice and the local capital projects fund um and I won't go through the laundry list sorry where you I'm looking for oh I am pulling this directly from the presentation that I've given that I gave to you last week presentation that you gave might be different from what the actual written law is though this is this is what this is the guidance that we have from who these are the ones that are in the statute these are essentially what the state has added to their list so Paul if you have any further cont comment on that yeah the the second bullet come they added those to their guidance document which the attorney general has said is part of she's interpreted that to mean these are subject to uh if we're not compliant and Milton's dis Milton is disputing that because the only those four on the top are the ones that are in Mass General law so I'm I'm looking at the uh the law that I printed off of the uh um State's website and um I don't see those on there I see a list of 13 grants that are not available to us Roger could I'd be interesting getting that L because I'm looking at it too and I'm seeing four an NBTA Community M Community planning grants Massachusetts downtown initiative Urban agenda R and those are the ones that are in the guidance document not the ones that are in this the statute from Mass General law statute is the housing Choice initiative um the local C capital projects fund the mass Works infrastructure program and the Housing Works infrastructure program those four are what is cited in the law reading directly from um so my uh my last question Tim is um is the um mobile home park that's uh on they were not noticed they were not noticed corre correct they were noticed as an AB butter but not as a property that was subject to this overlay thank you that's all I have last question for on my deck sorry Rob is that the last question that I I'm on for or is Cheryl coming back with one I'm not sure if Miss senior wanted to speak again if she would then uh she certainly waited long enough to speak the first time of course but I'll keep it I'll keep it um short um I just want to I'm sorry you're breaking up a little bit there I'm sorry is this better yes if an option is brought to October town meeting and it whether whether it is or isn't approved another option can be brought to the Springtown meeting is that correct yes we can change any zoning bylaw at town meeting that we so choose okay so that being said I think you said earlier that the grant monies have been expended for this purpose so would you have the funds to do what would need to be done to bring an option to Spring to that would be no different than bringing it to a special any or any other session um all right so you did something about fund so in other words it com out our that that speaks to the technical assistance from sured the grant itself um so the without that Grant whether we would have additional funding from the town for additional technical assistance or whether it would be something that the board and the town manager and town staff would choose to take on internally um that is a discussion that would need to be had okay and so the only other question I would have is regardless of what happens in October will the board maybe revisit what was done in lie of the options that have been brought to you at this meeting yes not saying that is certainly something that something that we can evaluate and decide whether to move forward with one way or another whether that is through the board there's nothing that stops assist position either um so from the board's perspective if somebody brings forward a proposal to review this overlay for Spring Town Meeting [Music] um I would suggest that we align on timing for that so that okay if we're going to do Springtown meeting in May the warrant deadline will be mid April we would would want to have rough drafts by late January I'm making that up um no I know but that would be that would be the sequence that I would probably lay out in terms of what we would evaluate so it wouldn't be something that would that's yeah and that goes for anything that we're looking to do for any zoning article and and I would just add because of the the complexities that the state ties to this if we were to look at a Springtown meeting we probably need to start looking at this late fall early winter because there's a lot of we have to run models and you know it's not as not that any rezoning is simple it's not but this adds there's a there's some layers of complexity here that we need to make sure we have the capacity to do and figure out how to get there so but it's it's a little more time it's it's more time consuming than a than a typical uh resoning request well I guess that's why I asked because no it's a it's a great question great question and um we need to I need to start you know looking at that what happens if if this you know if this fails or you know what happens if this passes and and there's a mood to revise it so so okay what would happen if this p in between now and spring somebody did come in they turns out they struck a deal with the TPC and they've started and you know they've started going down that path and then we come in and say we're amending it I think that would be a problem wouldn't it they would if they have filed by the they they are governed by the zoning rules that are in place at the time that they file so if they file before Springtown meeting even if we change it yes okay so if there was somebody already kind of eyeing this and planning on doing it and they jumped right away they become locked in don't they as as long as the application is valid and actually fair enough real in theory yes okay but they would they would need to have an actual plan for us to evaluate in a time frame that actually was that was but they' been think if they come forward and have something on a napkin that wouldn't be that would pass mustard but if they'd been thinking about this all along say working on that idea saying this is coming I'm going to Target it um that's not the expectation that we've gotten from that property owner no let me finish what I'm saying they would have their Ducks along a lot better now I just a question on that has has there been anybody that's come around asking or has there been any word on that has anybody come and talk to us about hey are you guys gonna Zone that can we do something with it we had discussions with property like that no no not regarding this yeah okay because I I'm wondering and not regarding anything on TPC yeah but I'm wondering if somebody did pounce like that and if they've been just waiting in the weeds getting their ducks in order they could they're locked in and so I think folks thinking oh we could just pass it in the fall and then amend it in the spring that's I don't believe that's a very good path okay ju just like I don't believe anybody grabbing any of my suggestions and trying to insert them at town meeting is a good path either by the way I want to be clear on that thank you rob um I do want to just be mindful here um I have a couple of the hands that Reed here again we're looking at this meeting to choose the map that we put forward for fall town meeting okay um so the reason I want to present these though is because as people go forward and vote and I'm sorry for this Tim I but um I want them aware that there are other choices they can just say no to this and there are other things they can do but I'm making it clear what they are what the you know there's some hoops you know won't hide that yeah understood but know that this is here it's not like well you got to vote for this because I think originally people felt like they were just be told you gota the state's gonna whack us and um yeah I want to make sure we have choices understood if this gets voted town meeting the best thing I think we should all do is just say well that's a done deal and this is Norton's Direction I don't think we should be moving to change it in the spring I think that's a funky path I think if meeting it should stay that way a last thing on people being on the planning board I want to remind everybody I got on the planning board by by running for unopposed for one of two open seats just to give you an idea of the situation there it was a joke to me you never even knew most people didn't even know I was running I didn't even bother advertising or saying something I just put in the papers and few months later is on the planning board so to Tim's point point about if more people want to come in and help you know it was that easy for me honestly okay I do see two more hands raised I do want to get to those and then if any nobody Minds we'll do a short five minute virtual recess and allow everybody to get a sip of water or take a quick quick step away here um bridgid I saw your hand up first yes hi um I know that this is new and a lot of people are currently going through this at their own fall town meeting um I was at one the other day but do you know of anyone who the land is being looked at by developers and people have put in plans any towns in this zoning area based based on the new overlay maps that have been published if there any new developments I'm not yeah like are there people actually building on anyone yet or is it all still just zoning I not sure specifically it's still pretty new and every other town is also layering theirs over existing developments or things like that um Paul if you have any specific examples or if it's still yeah I think because the the the earliest ones adopted only a year ago right which is pretty new so I'm not I'm not aware of anything that's come to any Town that's adopted it already Okay yeah thank you and Miss Senor one more time if you don't mind since you have your hand up so sorry I was just curious when is the board going to be going forward with a single option for October and if so when when will we be made aware of the pick that's what we're looking to do at this meeting is to pick it at this meeting okay yes that is the entire point of this meeting is to choose the map that we submit meeting but are you going to close the meeting having ch haven't chosen it that is my expectation yes okay all right then again I would go with whatever option doesn't include those uh multif family units or anything that's on the reservoir side of Route 140 thank you thank you Miss Senor um okay I'm just gonna set if nobody has strong objections just we'll just the board will just take a five minutes here and then we'll rejoin any obje questions on my presentation did we just exhaust them that is all the hands that are raised in the meeting excellent I'm gonna go back on mute then I was looking for my queue I could do that okay get sick of the sound in my own voice good okay so we'll take five minutes and then we'll rejoin the meeting here and continue discussion okay go ahead so as of as we've gone through a couple of times tonight uh what we're looking to do as a board this evening is submit what we will have for the fall town meeting for the proposed overlay District um and I'll say our job to transmit this to town meeting and have that discussion about what town meeting the town's legislative body wants to do with this map um I will say this personally um regardless of how we report how we vote on this I will say my position is how we would vote on this as members of town meeting is that my view is the planning board is submitting this for town meeting to review and discuss and vote on um regardless of how we vote on whatever map we submit I know that that may not reflect how each of us might vote on it at town meeting and I would never imply that any of you are in favor of any of these maps in the final vote what we're doing is choosing the one to submit here so with that out of the way we went through all these at the beginning of the beginning of the session this is where we started this is where we left our last meeting U and these are the two PGA lot specific proposals one for the full lot and one for the par the partial which cuts off kind of basically this left top corner there and trims in a little bit elsewhere so um for members of the board do we have any questions about any of these Maps is anybody I'm ready to make a motion I I guess I'll just make a statement to start um I mean my first if I had to pick two options out of this to figure out everybody that we've heard from has kind of agreed we need to cut it down some degree so I'm I'm fine with that we've already cut a couple partials off I wouldn't go back to that um so so that leaves what we have with the apartments across the street and and the PGA I am absolutely fine with the idea of taking the apartments off too and only doing the PGA uh Charities lot I'm okay with that um that meets all of our requirements I'm not so much of a fan of the split zoning lot just fundamentally I don't really like the idea of splitting Lots um and it kind of does put us right next to the we might be under compliance it's kind of right on that edge it give or take um and it's still the same lot anyways whether or not it has that back section personally I I think I would just go with the PGA only parcel most most compromise we can do right now so that would be this 2A scenario that I'm putting up on screen now I I'll you said that was a statement so I won't take that as a motion but if you'd like to make a motion you can so moved yeah it's a motion okay so we have emotion from Jim and Steve is that a second one of you has to second one of you has to motion uh just second okay okay okay so we have a motion in a second okay um is there any further discussion on the motion Rob if you'd like to make a statement or okay there spoke plenty so we have a motion in a second um I'll go through each of us for the vote on the motion and this is so um Jim I'll start with you yes Steve yes Rob no no okay and I will vote Yes so 3 to one correct this is the proposal to go forward at town meeting okay is there anything else that we wanted to say to this uh before we close this evening is the one we're taking to town meeting we just that was the vote we can certainly take if no I'm not looking to reconsider I want to make sure I just go away knowing exactly so scenario two 2 a two so so the PGA lot only without split zoning okay was the motion so 2 a okay gotcha I said that was just a question so I understood okay and I will tomorrow morning submit this to um both uh the town manager so this is what will go forward in the article so it'll just be this one parcel and I'll let serid know too because then they have to recalculate the the calibration tables okay okay yeah and just to to restate I'll scroll through the whole thing here what the board has voted on to submit to town meeting is this one parcel which is the PGA parcel as the proposal and this is how it breaks down against the compliance Matrix with 68.3 Acres um of which 14.2 is roughly wet ones so we're at 54.1 against a minimum of 50 so we are pretty close to that number from an acreage standpoint point so is there anything else anybody else wanted to say this evening thank you to everybody that's participating and has been coming to the last few meetings it's actually all things considered good to hear the voice of the people agreed good word Steve well said Steve thank you everybody I don't see Peter does it's not even close you don't no sorry I can yeah stop trying okay there's any other discussions we'd like to have otherwise I'd look for any other motions from the board make a motion to adjourn seconded okay we have a motion and a second is there any further discussion hearing none Jim yes Steve yes Rob yes thought about saying no for fun I've thought about that so many times I get out voted but it would be fun yeah and I will vote Yes as well sorry to call everybody out for such a short session after the recess but uh thank you very much everybody thank you everybody for your participation both members of the public and members of the board