Good evening everybody and welcome to the Tuesday, September 23rd meeting of the Norton Planning Board. The public is welcome to participate in person or remotely. We are here in person at the Norton Town Hall at 72 East Main Street in the Crane Room. You can also join
online via the Zoom link as listed in the agenda. Please feel free to email any questions to the board ahead of the meeting to the email address listed for town staff in the agenda. I will call this meeting to order. We have all six members
present in person for our planning board business and agenda item. First thing we do have to do this evening is schedule some more meetings. We only have meetings scheduled through October and that is become coming quickly. So if we can schedule through the end of
the year, I think that'd be best for tonight. motion we take the waiter off >> denied. >> So right now we have a meeting scheduled on October 21st. We'll talk about after um
November 4th and 18th. Anybody have anything conflicts, suggestions? >> We'll do it. >> November 4th is election day. Can we do that? >> Uh not on election day. >> Is it election day? So
>> that's what my calendar and I got nothing in my calendar right now. >> It is on mine too. >> So want to go 11 and 25. >> Veterans Day. >> Veterans Day is the 11. >> Veterans Day is the 11th. >> And the 25th is Thanksgiving week, right?
>> Yes. >> As you can see, my challenge. Why don't we say the 18th and uh >> just call the 18th for now since there isn't a ton going on. We'll leave it at November 18th for now for one meeting in November. >> Okay.
>> If we have to add something, we will >> I can be open to doing another nights and Tuesdays if you need to squeeze something like that out. >> How about December 2nd and 16th? a week of those.
>> Sure. >> Is that good enough for now, Paul? >> Or you want to go January? >> Yeah. No, thank you. Because if something comes in now, we might these dates will help fill uh give us a chance to uh schedule those. >> Back to our October 21st meeting. Right now, we haven't continued anything to
that meeting, and that is the night after town meeting. Um, so I'm thinking since we had one after last Springtown meeting and we didn't want to be there that night, do we want to reschedule that one or completely eliminate that one?
And that being said, we are also being asked to pick between September 30th and October 2nd for a joint meeting with the select board and fin. >> Can you say those dates again? Sure. Tuesday,
September 30th or Thursday, October 2nd. >> They were looking for some feedback. Neither one of those are set in stone. But those were the options given by Mr. Rich today. >> And if you can do both, >> that's great because then I'll relay that to the town manager.
>> I mean, if you can, if you can't, that's fine. It doesn't affect me, but it's showing October 2nd as yum kapor. >> I'm okay with doing both if you need to do that. >> You also have it. >> I don't know if that affects anybody, but
>> uh I'm fine with either the 30th or the second. >> Look at my big date on the 30th. I hope I can fit that in. >> I probably setting my schedule. The 30th would be on our schedule, right? >> No. >> No. It's an off It's an off week.
>> It's an off week. What we could do is >> it wouldn't interfere with one of their meetings. They wouldn't try to squeeze it in. >> So the 30th >> Yes. changing it to a joint between all the boards. >> Select boards meeting this Thursday. So that would be right now. That would be
an off week for them as well. >> I think it's an off week for everyone to be honest. So, how's everyone for cancelling the meeting on the 21st, which is after town meeting, and we'll add in
>> the 30th. >> That's fine. >> Do we want to add? >> So, we're adding September 30th, >> correct? >> And we're canceling >> like to cancel the October 21st meeting. We don't have any. We're going to We
have an applicant asking to continue something to that meeting. Um, which we don't have to we can bump it out to the next one. >> Do we want to since we're only doing one in November, do we want to pencil in just pushing it from the 21st to the 28th
>> because otherwise we'd be going from the 7th to mid November with nothing. >> The 28th is going to be a joint though. >> October 20th. >> No, October 20. saying cuz the October 21st is the one you were going to move, right? >> Correct. >> If we bump that one a week
>> and schedule another >> and then we don't need to because we'll have town meeting in between and then we'll have three weeks between them. >> So just change change 21 to 28 is what you're saying >> in October. Yes. As a potential and that
way it's not the day after town meeting >> and we'll have something between >> early October and mid November if we need it. If we don't need it, then we don't need it. >> Yep. >> Well, we'll be looks like we'll be continuing one of these public hearings till that meeting. >> I guess so.
>> Um, so Paul, you good with that? We'll cancel the 21st and we'll schedule the 28th, >> right? >> And then Paul, I have a question about the joint meeting. Are they going to try to schedule it at 6 p.m. or >> I think so. That's typically when they start. Can we ask for like
>> that's a >> Do we know if we're going to be the first thing on the agenda or if we can? >> Well, it's a joint so I think it would just be >> just a joint meeting. >> Just a joint meeting. No one else cuz it's an office. So >> six is a little hard for some people. It's a little early. >> It is special arrangement.
>> Okay. Let me >> But I haven't had to do that much, you know. I' >> even if we bump till 6:30 even if we bump till 6:30 uh >> it would be helpful. That would be real helpful actually
because I can then have the meetings up to six. >> And the select board is uh do they still have the same remote attendance system that they've had before in that you can't speak as a remote attendee unless
you have special dispensation. >> I don't know what they're doing >> possibly. But we're they're they're having us with a joint. >> That's the only way I've seen it. >> I think so. >> Yeah. I did it once, but I ended up like having to text like five different people for somebody to know that I was in the meeting and promote me to a
presenter. It was fun. >> So, I don't know how we'll set it up in here with all the boards. I would assume we just do some more tables out there all facing each other. >> Right. Right. And I I'll talk with them about how they want to handle Zoom.
>> Just to >> Yeah. >> set a baseline. And if we're going to be at 6:00, then that's >> I'll ask them if they can move it to 6:30. >> Yeah. Tell them if it's hard with multiple of our members, >> right? >> Tell them that Rob was asking for 7.
>> Yeah. Like 6:30 is like the earliest. >> We'll come back to some other business and uh minutes after. Do we have any uh bills and warrants you want to pass down, Brian? Who's not here? We'll move on to a public hearing. Definitive plan DEF2 for 125 Newand
Street. The owner applicant is Nuland 125 Nominee Trust. This applicant is seeking to subdivide an existing lot into two lots. They were originally seeking a continuation to the October 21st meeting, but now we'll make that continue to the October 28th meeting.
Actually, now that I'm saying October 28th, that's my son's birthday. >> Oh, okay. So, >> I knew that was bad for some reason. That's going to be a bad night. >> No, we won't do it the 28th. That's >> So, keep it where it was. >> No, we're just going to cancel it. It was >> Well, if we're going to continue
something to it, then >> Yeah, we have to continue something. Um, >> do you want to keep the >> Paul? Do you think the we can keep the 21st and it might be a light agenda? The other option, I guess, we could check if if it's a light agenda, could
we just do a remote that night, if that's the only thing on there? And who knows how late we'll be the night before. When do we have to know that by when you do the agenda? >> Yeah. Yeah, we have some time. >> Is everybody fine with that? >> Yeah. >> So, we're keeping
>> back back to the 21st. No. 28th and possible um remote only. I tried. >> You did. >> Kids birthday is a perfectly good reason. >> So the chair would entertain a motion to continue deaf 2 for 125 Newan Street to
October 21st. >> Motion to continue to the 21st. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I I opposed. Second public hearing for the night. Special permit 26 in site plan review 17
for 77 West Main Street. Um there was a site meeting this week and the applicant is still working with the peer reviewer on some traffic. Um so he's seeking to continue to the October 7th meeting >> and and um school department rep was
there too to explain uh traffic flow in the morning and afternoon so everybody's on the same page. >> Applicant school department Paul you were there. >> Yes. >> Very good. >> Motion to continue to October 7th. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in
favor? I >> I opposed. Welloiled machine lap public hearing. Oh, special permit 16 for one Dean Street. The owner is JSC Holdings. The applicant is Morse Engineering. This applicant is
looking to withdraw without prejudice. >> Mr. Chair, just a can I raise just a clarification? So withdrawing without prejudice means that they can refile and come back at a later date and Paul they would need to renotice when they do that. >> Correct.
>> And we'll if you vote to agree on the withdrawal we'll submit a a notice of action with the uh the clerk's office and we'll include that in open gov as well. Now just curious we vote on the withdrawal if they want to withdraw. I
mean, we can't say no, you can't. >> We would have to take some type of action. >> Yeah. What is it? We vote on >> your vote. Well, you're you would vote in the affirmative if you agree to withdraw without allow the withdrawal without prejudice. >> Otherwise, it would be withdraw with prejudice.
>> Yeah. >> Oh, I see. And then they can't resubmit. That's fair. I got no problem with them withdrawing, but just to clarify, I don't think what they were submitting made sense anyways. >> Correct. >> It did. >> Correct. And if they come back, it still
doesn't make sense. >> I wouldn't recommend them reapplying that exact same thing. >> I've never seen anyone withdraw with prejudice. It just doesn't happen. There's a whole sticky legal thing there. So, the standard thing is withdraw without prejudice. >> Fine with me. >> I think generally withdrawing with
prejudice is a way to say like, I'm killing this. It's never coming back. >> Yeah, >> I agree. Probably because of a settlement or something like that. >> Yeah. >> So, SP161 Dean Street withdraw without prejudice. Chair would entertain a motion. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> We have a motion in a second. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. >> Bridget was ahead of me. Next item is our public hearing discussion for the upcoming town meeting warrant and is discuss and possible vote to amend the Norton zoning bylaw chapter
175B by restructuring the organization as well as making substantive text amendments that may include insertions, deletions, and reing etc to the entire bylaw. I don't believe we're going to be voting on this tonight. My intention would be to get feedback from the joint meeting
and then if we want to make any adjustments then that would be when we'd be looking to vote. >> Paul's got a few uh >> pages he wants to go over first and then some summaries that we're going to go over.
>> Sure. There were just a few items I think of u one a couple have come to us recently. Um this first one is just uh under it's in the use table. Um,
so people know on page nine, um, in our table of uses, um, we found a recently in our current bylaw bit of a contradiction where if you're under five acres, we explicitly said you can't have roosters
if you're under five acres and have 12 or under, but one line down where uh, it just says you can have rabbits and poultry confined under caged 13 to 50 on less than 5 acres. It didn't exclusively
say no roosters. And so, uh, just wanted to point that out to see if you would consider not allowing roosters. The main point here is that it's under five acres and that we currently don't allow them if you have 12 or fewer hens.
But if we have more than tw 13, you can have roosters is what our current bylaw is saying. >> And the differentiation is that it's a special permit in our 40 and our 60. >> Well, that and and in in the text itself,
the way it was the way we still had it and carried it forward, it said rabbit rabbits and poultry can finder cage. It did not say not roosters. And p roosters are listed under poultry. It didn't say for personal use either, >> right? I we put that in because I think
that differentiates between a farm or >> I think essentially as it was written, what it would do is allow somebody to have a small like furbearer or poultry farm where they could actually breed it
and sell product cuz it it didn't say for personal use, >> right? >> And it didn't exclude roosters. But the also the difference it has special permit in the village commercial, commercial and industrial zones. So it would allow like chicken farms in that
area which uh the the other livestock category doesn't allow. Yeah. I I didn't change any of u of the uses how they were approved in the zoning. I just added for your consideration the not
allowing roosters and you know considering it's for personal use. >> The the way I sort of see this is it's it's almost sort of a pointless setting. If somebody was to apply for the special permit in the residential zone for this, they might as well apply for the farm
for the full livestock. It they're almost the same category. The only difference for this is just that you can put chickens in village, commercial, commercial, and industrial. Like I I offered up another chart, but we
have to go through this first. But yeah, I don't mind the change. I'm not gonna fight it or anything, but I just think the setting itself needs better analysis or comparison to the livestock setting.
And the other thing is like if you have two qualified acres, you're already allowed any amount of livestock, the horses and everything breeding. >> Yeah. So for the four personal use really doesn't have any teeth.
>> Not if you have two qualified acres. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Could you go Could you just go back up one second? >> There there's also that where it says farms, orchards, whatever, but then underneath farms, livestock, whatever. I don't
think that was actually meant to be removed, Paul. There were two categories. It was like the farms with livestock for five or more acres and five with livestock for less than 5 acres. You have both of them scratched off. I don't think you meant to replace both of them.
>> I mean, I was wondering about that with that message. You're talking about one and three, Steve. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> So, add those back in. Well, right after we review this, if you if you bring up my chart, then you can kind of see where I rewarded it.
And there's also the farms, orchards, nurseries, greenhouse, tree farm category. In our current chart, it's available in the commercial and industrial zones already by right. So, those shouldn't be a no.
But chair, do you want me to bring up Steve's? >> Yeah, I think that's >> Sure. >> Or do we want to just bring up the existing bylaw? Is that >> or all three? >> Well, >> if the intention is to keep it level with the existing bylaw, I think that's where I would start.
>> That's a good point. Yeah, I I would like it to start at least right where we were and whatever little adjustment needs to be made from there. Okay. Sorry, I'm right there. So the the top three match what's in our bylaw right now.
No change. Four and five would be the rewarding of the livestock categories. >> Sorry Steve, just to make clear, this is yours. >> This is mine. >> Yes. >> Okay. And below that, if you can scroll down a
little bit, is the rabbits and poultry categories. The rabbits and poultries on five or more acres just overlaps. If you have five acres, you don't have to ask. We don't need that category. And it it's contradicting. >> I have a question on this. On the ones
when you're taking out, it's also taking out the excluding swine. Wouldn't that mean then swine are allowed? It >> that's what it would mean. If we want to include that, we can include that. >> If you're allowing horses and cows and
goats and sheep and >> Yeah, that post is why I was just picturing some of the settings and people react to that differently. >> Again, anybody with two acres by mass >> making money can can do it. So, like I'm not sure how we even restrict swine as
long as they have the acreage. Do we do we have a way to put this up next to our existing bylaw on the screen or we can't do that on Zoom? >> Um >> I think I agree with Steve that you know we the swine thing not touch it.
I I would draw the point. >> Yeah, >> I would draw the point. I think >> I think in this category we're just going to refer to mass law for what what animals are domesticated for farm use.
I mean there's still, you know, board of health criteria. You can't be any nuisances. You got to escape the animals. It's going to cause a problem. But >> I keep my velociraptors very safely complained.
back in. >> I'm trying to figure out that function here. How to >> Sorry. >> There's got to be a way of comparing. >> Make the window half the size your screen. >> I think you >> Okay. >> You have them both open in word and you're going to do a split screen,
right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's going to get tiny. >> Yeah, it will be tiny. >> I think anything smaller than that we won't be able to >> I can't move. >> Yeah. I'm already in trouble on reading. That's out of the question. This is
getting tight. >> Yeah, but that's uh zoom >> in. I still just want >> No, I we just realized right behind us are big letters, >> right? So, do you want me to put up bring up the current bylaw? >> Yes. You want to show the current bylaw
quick, please? [Music] farms line excluding swine horses. >> Steve, you got the best handle on this chart. You want to walk through the difference between our existing and what we
>> I think you are spearheading the changes in the >> Well, I tried to keep it almost exactly the same as what we have. >> Yes. >> The difference that I'm recommending is just a change in the words that we use to the cate the two categories farms with livestock.
That's the fifth line down here. Actually, fifth and sixth are the same thing. >> Yeah. Two categories. One for five or more acres, one for less than five acres. >> And did we change what was allowed the
your proposed? Are we changing? Yes. >> You had yes across the board on over five acres, >> which mass that's mass law. >> Yeah. The current one says no in
VCC, but then it also has a footnote that says if mass law says you can, then you can, >> right? It it's just Yeah. Yeah. And the category is on five or more acres. >> Yeah. >> So, it's essentially a yes. >> It has to be a yes.
>> But it's Yeah, we said no, but yes, >> I think mass law says it's a yes. Then >> and why are we going to change it? >> Yeah, we should just say yes. >> Yeah. And then again, if I'm I'm not sure are
we legally allowed to exclude swine. >> I don't think we were in the provision >> when that's like it's an allowed species if farming is allowed >> if you got two smaller people closer together. I could see it being a problem. >> But >> yeah, but some my neighbor can have
three dogs, a bunch of cats. >> No, I understand that. I And for what it's worth, I don't agree that pigs smell more. >> Yeah, sure. It's just the other ones smell too. >> It's just it's the it's the limit being imposed where at two acres you can just do pretty much whatever you want
anyways. That's the part that and are we going to fight it? If somebody has a dozen pigs, are we coming after them as a town? >> They ain't going to their property. >> And currently we don't allow swine anywhere >> currently.
>> Currently, Unless it's the five acres or the two qualified acres and they can do what they want. So I think we all feel that over the five acres keep the chart exactly as it is but yeses all across
for less than five acres or do we have to do you want to do including I guess the biggest decision is do we want to include or exclude swine on both uh plus 5 acres and under five acres would be the first topic for discussion. >> I I'd be in favor of including them. I
think they will not change anything. >> There are other standards that have to be applied >> through various departments. >> You probably don't want to get up for someone that's got a pot belly piggy. >> Yeah, my default would be to leave it as it is at this point. But
that's usually my default, too. And that's where I'm leading. Unless there's uh really strong feelings by a majority of members on either way. I'm in the middle.
>> That's where I'm stuck, too. Actually, >> I was just trouble with swine on smaller lots and people getting into >> I mean, this could be one of those things we want to throw at the uh joint meeting. We could say, "Hey, we're kind of stuck in this." What does everybody think? >> You guys solve it.
>> I'm just throwing it out there. more more ideas, more people, more minds. >> I don't mind asking. >> I mean, it's a change. It's a sizable change for town. I don't >> I'm in favor. >> I default to not changing, but then I'd also default to people should be able to
do what they want with the land. >> Right. >> Again, in my mind, if somebody can have a couple cows, >> correct, >> why can't they have a couple pigs? Right. >> I think >> I have to say I have to agree with that reasoning, but um
>> it just seems like it's a large change. >> Yeah, that's my only concern right now cuz the reasoning makes total sense. But >> this almost seems like one that would be good to change by itself. >> Yeah. >> If we >> Okay.
>> And then for the >> I mean the permitting would stay the same, >> right? >> Yes. >> Right. But >> I'm saying if we want to change it to >> include swine that would be a >> Can we check with like KP or whatever is that like just a question we can just
ask real quick. >> Are we allowed to exclude >> like a live a certain type of livestock even if they have a qualifying acreage? >> If they have a qualifying acreage I don't think the supplies right. >> Well then it shouldn't be written there. Just curious what happens if a person
>> or over five acres I guess you're saying >> what happens if a person comes to us and they they have a pot belly pig which people keep as house pets. >> Right. >> They would have to come to us first. >> So there's a way we could give permission say yeah that one's okay.
>> Probably not. But they would have to come to us not the way it's written. Have somebody or have the neighbor say you're not allowed to have a pig and have it reach a stink big enough for it to get to in front of us. I think that >> but if they keep it inside if they're not using it for agriculture,
>> it's not farming >> for agriculture. You can have a dog without asking for a farm. >> Yeah. >> I think we're getting into a level of granularity that I don't want to be comfortable with government being involved in. >> Correct. >> 100%.
>> Over the years, I was in some situations where Largo was not permitted. I guess for me right now I I I default to our existing table. >> Okay. But we're um bringing back in far farms livestock
on less than and also more than five acres and just moving forward the uses as uh aligned in the use table. Okay. >> Yeah, that's fine with me. You don't have to change the words or whatever. That's fine. The other one is rabbits, poultry, combined or cage 50 or under on
five or or more acres. That doesn't make sense. If you have five acres, you have all the livestock you can have and you don't have a number of how many. >> Yeah, that's another one where it guesses across the board. But no, but yes, >> it it should just get scratched out.
>> Just ignore it completely. It doesn't matter cuz it's over five acres, >> right? But it just shouldn't even be on the chart. Rabbits and poultry confined or caged >> 50 or under on five acres or more should just not even be on the chart if it's already five acres. >> It's it's redundant with the first one
basically, >> right? >> It's included within. >> So delete that. >> Just delete that line. >> I easily have a dozen rabbits, possibly two dozen. >> Oh, I'll um >> Yeah,
>> let me just share what I'm working on. >> I was just about to ask that, Paul. Thank you. You live near me. You must sort of >> Okay. So, I took that out and you can see I've started bringing I brought the farm farms livestock back in. But make a
note. I've made a note that you know should we consider excluding swine or was that take it >> or just remove it completely? >> I'm sorry. Just keep it as is excluding swine. keep it
>> not change it yet. If we want to approach it in the spring and just ask people they want to take off swine, that's fine or something. >> As we're going through this in the joint session, it's going to show up that we've had discussion on it. We can always bring it up again, see if anyone wants to chime in on it.
And back to our rooster issue again. I I I feel like it just becomes redundant with the livestock on less than 5 acres part. There's not much of a difference. It's just specific for rabbits and
poultry. >> It's actually more restrictive. >> Mhm. >> No, that's compared to more five or more acres. Never mind. But it's yeah it's um just less animals but the same
permitting the except it allows rabbits and poultry village commercial and industrial. >> Yeah. >> As opposed to >> Yeah. >> regular agriculture which doesn't >> Yeah. the the level of granularity will
go back goes back probably six or seven years because at one point it was special permit for anything anywhere um in that existing row number six or maybe it was special permit in R40 and R60 and
yes in R80 but the reason six exists was to let Somebody wants to have a chicken tube with five chickens, not have to file a special permit, >> basically.
>> And no roosters was like the >> what if I what if my neighbor wants a rooster? I don't want that. >> Okay. Well, yeah. So, that was >> I'm not the rooster rule either, but >> I'll leave it for now. That's another
>> defer. Defer to not changing. >> Yeah. So our current is >> so um just >> does not say no roosters, right? >> Our current >> number six >> our current for number six says no roosters and for personal use if it's 12 or under. >> Okay, >> the category number seven on this.
>> Okay, >> is it doesn't say that. >> Okay, >> but it's being suggested. >> I'm just adding it because situation could come up where they go, okay, we have 10 rooster I mean 10 hens. You can't have a rooster. Well, I'll just
add four more. Now I can have a rooster if you're the person next door. >> Well, they would have to apply for a special permit in that case to exceed >> 40 birds >> in 40 or 60. Yeah. In R80, they can still do it.
>> Well, in our R80, they got full agriculture by right, >> which actually that's that's not a special permit. That should be by right. >> It is. >> It is. Yes. >> On less than on less than five acres. Yeah. >> The first column. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, yes. >> So, you can't restrict anything below
that anyway. >> Yeah. >> In the 80. >> So, are we wanting to just take out the changes I put in >> on this one? Get rid of the not roosters and for personal use and just keep it as it was. >> I would leave it as it was. >> Yeah. It's less to explain.
>> Default to what we have now. >> Yeah. In this case, if somebody wants to sell eggs, it doesn't uh >> was rule of thumb when our run of that >> when our conversation is all over the place like that was that the answer is probably it should stay in one stay as
is. >> Yeah. >> Steve, you had another >> uh Yeah, the other suggestion which I don't care if we change or not was just the reducing the dog kennel from the residential zone. Well, dog kennel veterary animal hospital.
>> You had this as a no, correct? In R8? >> Yeah. Instead of a yes, but I'm not going to fight it overly. >> It's not like a big thing we're facing, but >> What is it currently? >> It's a yes. It's by right,
whatever, but >> not proposed. It's existing bylaws. Yes. I'm going to defer to leaving it as it is. >> Cool. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um we'll just go through the rest of
these. Um so this in a 4.1.2 2 uh table 4.1 the table of dimension requirements. A potential situation had come about and it just points out a interesting situation where there's a
proposal there may be a proposal um for a building that meets that will come in under the building height but we cap it at three stories. And this a this applicant is at least
talking about needing a fourth story but keep under the building height. So the question I have is do we even need >> a a cap for number of stories? >> I mean ultimately it's the building height that matters not how many floors
that are with it. >> What district do they want to build in? >> I'm sorry. >> What district is this project? >> Uh this one was industrial. All right. >> It was 50 feet and three stories. >> I I suggested before I I don't I would I
would not recommend getting rid of the category of the number of stories, but I would recommend as I have before to increase the number of stories allowed to match the building height. Like industrial zone makes sense to me even if it went up a little bit taller
to 60 ft with five stories. you know, the commercial zone, it's only has three stories available. That could go up more if the building height increased or whatever. I I I don't mind that part. I'm fine with keeping the category and
increasing like Steve just said, adjust the chart to really would be only in industrial and it would be industrial. I can't that's hard hard to put more stories. Commercial is 45 ft. I don't think
you're going to get five or six stories in there. That's >> no 10 ft minimum per floor. Really? >> I still in other words they can go to four stories as long as they're still under 45 ft. >> So like I would be cool with like making commercial four stories and industrial
five stories. >> Scroll down Paul just to >> Yeah. I'm just So they want to put four stories within 50 feet for an industrial building. >> It's not an industrial building. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm just
>> in the industrial zone. It's in the zone. But >> yeah, but I'm like the average industrial story is like 20 ft. So, >> right. No, it makes sense for most industrial uses, but this was not again this is a >> I'm bringing it up because it's just an example of where a use that's allowed
under the zoning, you know, has different development criteria than an industrial use. And >> overall, the height doesn't change. >> Each floor is like a massive boost for like a big selling point. Good tax revenue,
>> especially in industrial and commercial. >> Yeah. in 50. >> I'm okay with leaving the category and then increasing the height as I mean the story as well to match the height. >> I would just increase in industrial >> industrial. That's it. That's cool. >> So, >> well, actually go back down to commercial.
>> Just to confirm, I would >> we're talking about >> increasing the height or are we talking about increasing the story? Just increase within the height. >> Okay. Just to confirm. >> But no height change. >> No height change. Uh there's one other anomaly and I don't know if we want to
approach it but village center core allows 60 ft of building height and only four stories. It's our tallest district. It's taller than the industrial zone by 10 ft. Do we want to allow the extra stories
within there? I >> I want to say we kept it at four just for a density type of a thing. >> Yeah. Right. >> Right. So, can we confirm what are the changes that we're looking to do here? Is it just commercial and industrial?
>> Let's do let's just talk about one at a time. Let's just talk about industrial for now. >> Okay. >> Right now, industrial height of the building in feet is 50 ft. We only allow currently three stories. Then the maximum height of the chimneys, spires, domes, etc. is 65 ft. Question
on the table is do we want to bump three stories in the industrial zone to four stories? I would suggest five >> be I'm not sure you get five. >> Um you could definitely get four.
>> Was an occupied roof deck counts as a story. >> Correct. >> So you wouldn't get the fourth floor. I mean the fifth floor inside, but it could be the roof. >> But is doesn't this just get to the point of why do we even need the number of stories?
I mean, we're we're battling over I just go leave it at leave it at the height. That's what ultimately matters. I think it really hurts us most in the village center core. >> Yeah, that's why >> that's the only that my only hangup on
getting rid of the whole category because now we're talking six stories. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't want that. >> So, >> we could lower that height if we were getting rid of the stories. I was going to say we can lower it down to 45. >> Yeah. >> And then we can get rid of that
category. >> Could, but it's not too big a change. >> That's a big change. There was >> a I remember a lot of debate and discussion over putting it at 60 ft. >> Mhm. >> In the VCC. >> So, it is very tall though. In the
interest of uh brevity, I would support changing three to four for industrial and heightened stories. >> I mean, I'll definitely download four. That's for sure. >> Straw pole
industrial zone currently allows three stories. Do we want to go to four, Rob? >> We're not changing the height. Right. >> Not changing the height. >> I'm okay with it for not changing the height. Tim's a yes. I'm a yes. Bridget, >> yes. >> Steve, >> yes. >> Eric,
>> no. >> Paul, could you scroll back down for a minute? Thank you. >> Not to be argumentative with it at all, but just in case I've overlooked a thought, um, I'd be interested in hearing the reasons for the no. >> For the no. >> Yeah. just
make sure you're not thinking of something I >> I would rather just keep it as is for now. That that that's my default with this whole document at this point. So honestly any and any of these changes are to me are major changes and should be brought up in November so we can talk
about them for spring. So that that that's why I'm now >> got a little bit of a point there. >> I don't mind doing it that way either. >> You can do it that way. That's fine. I I I think it should be changed and adjusted and if we want to attack all three categories >> that I I totally agree. There's a lot of things >> do it just as one whole thing where
we're changing the height and and stories together as one piece. >> Push it off to Springtown meeting. >> Yeah, cuz a lot of these things that we've been bringing up the last couple sessions, they just deserve time to to have proper discussions. And like I
said, like we have a pretty good document. It's pretty close to the original um with just clarifications and some adjustments, but most by statutory and federal. So, I'm just saying that to me, right, this this change to me rises
to the occasion of let's talk it out. Let's get it ready for spring and then bring it up as a point of discussion. Granted, we're going we're going to have about 12, but still I think I think this is a big enough issue that's creating enough of a discussion that we should give it time. Yeah, we could address
just the dimensional table as one thing. >> I'm I'm cool with that. >> Space this out. >> I think we need a second vote now. Make >> it easier with the public. >> You think spacing this out, make moving some of this into spring like that smooth out, make it easier with the
public? >> We just ask. >> We're going to let's let's revote that since >> Okay. Eric has now swayed threequarters of us. >> Rob, keep it as is. Yeah. >> Talk about it in spring. >> Yes. Or this winter.
>> Question I was just asking, does that make it easier with the public if we're coming with less? I think it would. So, >> it's easier to say we didn't change anything. >> Mhm. >> I think at this point, like pretty much Eric said, to simplify it,
our main goal should be now getting this reorganization passed and changing less. >> Agreed. >> Eric is right. We do what he said. >> Second. >> Third. >> Third. >> Sounds like Sounds like All in favor.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Do we have a good list going? I mean, every the uh >> swine is going to be one most likely. We'll bring that up. We'll bring >> roosters back up. >> I don't I don't have I don't have a list at the moment, but I can make one up. Yeah, >> we'll use your new fancy tracking chart.
>> I'd have to make a new one, but I can. No, I I I think that's a good idea. Honestly, I've been talking to Paul a little bit about like I can't wait till I get past this so we can have these discussions. So, >> right, >> there will definitely be a list. >> That's why it's a living document. It should be changed constantly. >> Yep. >> So,
>> um >> keep up with the times. >> Agree. >> Moving on to um section 6.5.4 on page 50. Would we consider increasing the height of uh light fixtures for
wall-mounted fixtures and polemounted fixtures? Um particularly with polemounted and you know if you're in truck bays a 20 20 foot high light might not be much higher than the truck itself. >> What are we under here Paul? Go back just what section are we under?
>> In 6.5.4 >> uh section and then subsection nine height of fixtures on page 50. So this is height of fixtures in an industrial. Uh >> Paul, I would agree to raise it up to 30 ft because at 30 ft or more, you have to
apply for a special permit for non-residential lighting. >> Yeah. >> So it would make sense to match the permit. [Music] >> Well, I agree. If you're working around semis and things 15's a bit low, your trucks are going to be blocking light and you see a shadow,
>> especially a a raised loading dock or >> Yeah. Yeah. That's what I mean. And Paul, just to confirm, all these would still fall under like dark sky compliant and everything like that. >> The pictures themselves would have to.
Yes. >> Yeah. 50' be almost dangerous because you it'd be a sea of shadows out there. >> Yeah. I think our existing is 20 >> for wall packs. >> It doesn't specify unless I'm misreading
the existing. It just says No, it says Yeah, they both say 20 in existing. Luminires 20 ft. Wall packs should be 20 ft. And they have design about glare and stuff. Mhm. I'm
definitely fine with moving the wall mounted to 20 and pole mount to 30. >> Second. >> Straw poll. Rob. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Tim. >> Yep. >> I'm a yes. Bridget. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Steve. Eric.
>> Yeah. >> Begrudgingly yes from Eric. >> Definitely put that detail in there. >> We agreed to his other idea. Somebody's feeling magnanimous. Um, this deals. Now we're moving to section
6.5 um five. Um, >> subsection C uh 2 C. This is dealing with hours of operation. >> Um, the operation of construction
devices between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 pm. I just bring this up because often times construction I mean can legally start at 7. >> 7 a.m. is the >> Yeah. >> trade. It's what everyone every trade is built around 7 a.m.
>> I think we should adhere to that too. >> And then do we keep it at 6:00 p.m. or that extend out to 7? >> So we're going to give them 7 a.m. Correct. >> 7 a.m. >> Yeah. if you all agree to that. >> And just to confirm, this has this is a
new piece that was brought in that's not in our existing bylaw. Correct. >> Correct. >> We always would just set the hours of >> There is some noise ordinance law about 7:00 though. I remember when I had construction done at my house and the guys, they'd be there like runners in
the starting blocks waiting till 7 before they could hit a nail or anything. >> It's all across the board. Seven week days, eight weekends. This doesn't specify weekends. >> Should it I didn't want to bring up a
can of worms on that, but since we hit it >> generally, we have that already in point B above. >> Oh, yes. >> Oh, yeah. 8 a.m. on Wednesdays on Saturday. So, what? Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, we're going to take >> We'd have to change the one above to 7
a.m. on weekdays or Saturday. Also, >> and then C, we change that 8 to 7. Correct. >> I was everything A, B, and C, we'd have to change to 7 a.m. Delete 8 a.m. Change to 7:00 p.m. >> Yeah. >> 7 a.m., sorry.
>> AM. Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. You're right. It's an A, too. B. like a backseat driver, aren't I? >> And then the ending time. Did we where were we adjusting that to >> these can always be adjusted in our
conditions also, >> right? That could be something to look at later. >> Okay, >> we'll leave it. We can leave it for six now and then either adjust it later or we can adjust it in the conditions of >> the applicant applies for a waiver or something. They can do that. I know
we've g there's been special waivers for like >> giant concrete pores that take 24 hours or something like that. >> And and you're given the ability to adjust this through either a special permit or waiver. >> The 7 a.m. start time is just across the board for every trade.
>> Yeah. For for simplicity, could we just do a 12-hour 7 to7? >> If it's >> I I don't really care either way because it's not an existing bylaw, right? This isn't in there already. So, I'm I'm fine with 7 to six or 7 to 7. It's
>> It has teeth, but it doesn't. I think it's just a guide of where we should be. Go ahead. >> I think the default I have no problem with the default staying at six. >> If somebody wants to >> go later, then ask for ask for a waiver. >> Yeah, I'm fine with that.
>> Probably not going to matter much. >> They work with the if they work with like the building commissioner or whoever if they need a one-time, right? >> It's specified right in their permit. >> Yeah. So, it's >> those crews I mentioned that were like in the starting blocks at 7. Also, try and get them to stay after three
someday. Exactly. >> They're as rigid about that time as they are about the start time. So, we'll >> and lunch change to seven and leave at 6 p.m. >> Okay, >> cool. >> Done. Yeah. >> Um, this was something else, too, that
um Okay, so we're in section 6.5.9 on page 59. Um, fire alarm. This so this is this is dealing with um part of your performance standards with utilities securities emergency system standards. These are
things now that we can ask for that we haven't been able to before. And so one of the things that had been added, fire alarm system, um I I asked Deputy Chief Robbins about this and and this particular one that
says for fire alarm systems there shall be sufficient municipal fire alarm system capacity to meet operating requirements. This is something done at building. Um he he made a point that when we're looking at it at site plan or special
permit stage, they're looking to see if they have sufficient capacity in the lines, you know, truck turning movements, but this is something they look at as part of permitting to make sure that there's sufficient fire alarm uh system uh capacity
and the same kind of the same issue with site security. And unfortunately, I haven't heard from the chief yet on this, but this is this is saying that there shall be a certification by the chief that the applicant has provided a written plan for site security, which
that is I don't know who's ever done that, but I >> Marijuana did, I think. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. For marijuana, you have to by state law, but this is a blanket. any project comes in, they're having to file a security a site security plan. >> Let me just ask this.
>> And I'm not aware not aware that this is even done at building stage that this has ever been done. >> It's definitely not done by the building department. >> No, no, no. It wouldn't an insurance carrier be enforcing that for us. Would your insurance carrier for a multi-million dollar project? Aren't you
going to require they have security on it? >> Not necessarily. >> Oh, okay. They may have something, but that could be like >> I will admit food service does not that blew me away. I thought someone was lying. I was coming home one night and I what the heck? And I turned in there and
drove all around. >> But I can >> talk to people. >> Um, you know, I I've emailed the chief. I haven't heard back from him. >> Would it be the kind of thing that we could just put like at the request of the planning board? >> That's kind of what I was thinking, Steve. Yeah. Like if we ask for it, if
for whatever reason there was something controversial. >> Yeah, that's a good way to put it. >> If required, just add if required at the end >> because even if the insurance carrier doesn't enforce it like that, I don't think that's who cares more than us. >> There there could be like a special
circumstance where we're concerned about a particular use. >> Okay. >> For whatever reason. >> So adult use something. >> I'm just >> Anything. No, because we did it for marijuana because it's part of the state code. >> Correct. Right. >> Um >> and at that point we even said let's
coordinate with fire department because we with cana because it's their written airfinity. So we correct connected a plus b equals uh >> um yeah and with.5 does >> Ed Bailey need that there?
>> No. No he didn't. Uh well this was Deputy Chief Robbins. >> Yeah. >> Who's saying we don't need it? I don't know if he needs it. >> No, it's all done through the fire department. >> Well, it's all right. It's done through fire. That's it's part of the building code process, >> but he doesn't need it. Okay. >> No.
>> Right. >> There are some things that we've said that the building commissioner wanted. Right. >> So, if he needed it here, even if it didn't apply to us when we're looking at it, then >> this wasn't one that uh the building commissioner had asked for. >> So, if you're okay taking that out,
>> like security, >> please. Yeah, >> that's fine. I feel like it's none of our business. >> Yeah. >> Well, it's just trying to get those items that are identifying. This is specific to and again, a lot of these
are additions to >> your the current bylaw. So, these are more tools that you have. >> It's something we can ask for if we want. >> Right. >> The next section being one of the bigger ones that we're adding in my opinion. >> Yes. >> Right. >> You want to go back to that just quick?
you clicked away from it. >> Yeah, >> we've had the discussion multiple times that we can never talk about fiscal standards or how does it affect now we could ask for a fiscal fiscal analysis. I can remember two or three times Tim you probably remember at least
two or three times we've had this discussion. >> Oh yeah >> from a butters >> two or three times in the last 12 months. >> Yeah. Yeah. This certainly came up. >> So this would give us this is an important section. >> 6.5.10 10 is very important. >> I think we this should be called the
tool box >> and it it this is I know we should this should be highlighted in exclamate point. This is what gives all of our or more teeth to our zones our industrial zones that abut residential zones which
we have everywhere. Um this is a big tool that we could have. >> Yeah. Um, just last on comments, Ed Bailey, our building commissioner, just asked for to add a definition for trade services.
And um, because we didn't have it. And this is just tying the services back to con uh, construction trade services. >> I thought we already had one. I thought we did already have one in there. >> We never had a definition. >> No, we we had a we had a use identified,
but we didn't define it. And this was pulled I can't remember which town we pulled it from, but this was this is a pretty much >> seems like an accurate definition. >> Yeah.
>> And we just scroll back to the uses table just to see where it's permitted. Village commercial, commercial, industrial, VCC. >> Yeah. So, it's none of the residentials. Yeah, it's
right there in number. Ah, >> it was there. >> Wait, I'm sorry. Um, >> there it is. It's number It's up just a tad. There we go. >> There we go. >> Military up. >> Well, it's under uh yeah, commercial, retail, and services. So,
>> none of the residentials, no >> village, commercial, and up, >> right? >> Or down, depending how you look at it. >> So, the building commissioner had pointed out or mentioned it under number three. There was just no definition currently for trade service. >> So, it's just >> and he occasionally gets a a request for
a trade service. He just wants to make sure it's defined. That that was it for our stuff. So I will you could see I was making some changes on the fly but I'll go back and correct you know make sure that
these others are >> before we go to if Paul that's all you had for >> Yes. >> Before we go to the public for comments we got a few people in person and online. Um Paul and I and the town manager and uh the moderator Jack Conway had a Zoom call the other day just
basically talking about setup for town meeting and how we want to do it, how our changes. Um Jack's fine with getting us all up there. I said, "Jack, it's I envision it and it would be much easier for us all if we treated town meeting as we treat these meetings. If we can have
computers in front of us and put down and with paper in front of us and we can someone can be looking up a question or someone can be talking, it's going to be much better than people standing in line, everything we've talked about. So, I specifically said we need some microphones and we need to have our
computers in front of us uh to make it more seamless. And he seemed fine with that. We're going to hash out how to do it. >> Okay. Um I think I it was 11 or 12. Um including us, the ZBA building commissioner. Um and to be in the next
point, we're going to try to get Mark Paparski back um and have him at least present and chime in on the legal end. Since he did write most of the documents, it makes sense to have him there.
Unless anyone disagrees. No, I think >> if we can get him, it's good to have him. >> Yes, we we would rather have him than not have him. >> I'll even wear a tie. >> In terms of the setup, where would we be?
>> We We figured out we can't be on stage because it's going to block the screen too much. >> Yeah. >> Um he was going to talk with school board. school board only has really one item on the on the warrant which is going to be the middle school roof. Um I
believe so >> again I believe so. Am I remembering that correctly? >> Yes, middle school roof. >> Yeah, they have a >> that that was on the last town meeting, right? Or was that? Yes, >> they spent 50 grand and got a ridiculously high estimate. >> I think the problem was last school.
>> I don't don't know what the problem is. Don't know why. Okay. >> I just heard there was that I just know he meant we mentioned that's the only thing the school department so potentially we can have all their seats. >> Um >> Okay. >> And I also I had brought up and I'm still fine with this. Obviously it's
limited space if if it's set up that the planning board's presenting all their items and once we're done we leave >> right take two minutes the school committee can come up and the f however >> whoever's presenting. It's not ideal, but >> yeah,
>> it works within the space. Yeah, >> exactly. We can We only have so much space to work with. Um I think it's a good change. I think it's something that going forward it's going to be only a positive. So, >> I like it a lot. Thank you for doing that.
>> On that note, we'll go to some in-person questions, comments, and then we'll we'll take one in person, then go to one uh online. Whoseever wants to race to the microphone. >> We just wanted to see which you guys was faster.
>> If you could just state your name and address for the record, please, I'd appreciate it. >> Sure. My name's Kevin Walker. I actually live in Bridgewater, Mass at 233 Main Street. Um, I'm a uh civil engineer and uh actually thinking of moving over here
to Norton for one. Um, but my So, in any case, what I what I do when I look at different towns is when I see a zoning change, it's kind of a hobby of mine to kind of read through them um and just kind of see what what direction the town is going in and if the regs tend to make
sense. And there just two zoning districts that kind of stuck out. One is Village commercial and the other is the industrial district. You've got both of these districts both on 123 and you've got them on Mansfield A and 123 I know
has some sewer and Mansfield A does not. So if you take some uses either either you're adding uses to a district or removing district uh removing uses from a district, it may not make sense in those two particular districts where
there's sewer in one and not sewer in the other. Um, I can tell you that I've looked at some areas in in the uh the VC district and I could put a restaurant on 123, not a problem. There's sewer. I
can't put a a restaurant near the reservoir cuz there's no sewer. That type of thing. So there's there's different types of uses that can be done and can't be done on certain on certain parcels in those two particular districts. I was just uh
hoping the board could take a closer look at that and uh make any comments or any changes. Well, I Well, thanks for your input anyways, but I I suppose the the zones that we have right now have been set
pretty much where they are for decades, >> right? >> Most of them weren't any recent choices. >> Mhm. >> Uh I think everybody pretty much agrees that 123 and 140 need to be sewered the entirety. >> I I don't >> Yeah, it' be nice to have >> I mean, we'd like to. Yeah. >> Um
>> I think there are projects in the works to extend sewers in both directions in all directions down the main roads. >> Yeah. >> So hopefully the ability to build matches the zoning at some point soon. >> Right. Right.
I guess my point is if and I and I I look more in the VC district than the industrial, but if there's uses that you're thinking of not allowing in one of those districts that's currently allowed and if it's a use with say a low a low
sewage output that that can be done via a septic system, I wouldn't want to remove that from the ability to use whatever use that might Okay. >> Is there a specific one that you're thinking about right now that I think
the the big one? >> So, there's there's warehouses, there's storage, there's um >> uh there's show there's showrooms uh with with product, but it's not a re it's not retail. Um I've I've got a uh a company has a uh
what we call a flex building. It's up in Nashville, New Hampshire. It's 20,000 square feet and they're in like 4,000 square foot pods. So, we can Somebody wants 12,000, we put a wall up here, they've got 12,000. Somebody just wants 4,000, we put a wall up here,
they've got the 4,000. And one of the one of the uh uses and it's worked out really well is uh they sell countertops and all they have in their in their uh unit, the 4,000T unit
is they have maybe a 500 ft office and a bunch of samples. And then they've got room in the back. So, it's like a loading and unloading area that uh when things can be delivered, they'll have stuff delivered to uh to that spot for
either redy out to the customer or customer pickup. >> So, so that that type of thing >> a little bit like the place across the street for me. >> Bedrock has a >> Oh, same type of thing. Yeah. Yeah. >> I want to say we had this specific
discussion. Was it last meeting or the meeting before? I'm Was it last meeting >> about reducing the warehouses? >> Yes. Were you Were you on at that point? I think you were. >> Yeah, I was. >> Yes. >> It was my suggestion actually. It it was
the thought behind it is that the village commercial mostly matches the commercial and industrial zones pretty pretty closely. And in order to expand the village commercial area into a neighborhood setting,
we have to reduce the industrial uses within it to be accepted into a neighborhood. Most people are not going to accept a reszoning in their neighborhood for village commercial style. Right. >> Houses and stores. >> Yeah. >> If they're also going to get possibly
warehouses next door. >> Right. Understand. Not that warehouses don't belong in town in some location, especially on main roads, >> but we just don't have a setting where it's it's non-industrial, but still allows retail
in a neighborhood. So, I guess that's the the adjustment that we sort of at least that my intention was. >> Yeah. Okay. >> The north end of 123, don't we have sewer coming in from Mansfield for some of that? >> Like Alberta? >> We do. Yes. just at the top >> all the way down to the Roach Brothers
Plaza. Right. >> Right. From the town line to Roach Brothers. >> Is this Alberto's? And then how does Jasmine Garden do it? Or are they using a septic? >> They're on septic. >> Okay. >> And that's all commercial zone. >> Yes.
>> Up there. >> Thank you much. I appreciate it. >> Thank you, Kevin. >> Demos do it. >> I believe that's our only in-person comment. I see at least one hand raised. I see Mr. Kaggliano
with your hand raised. Sir, if you want to come off camera, you can. If not, you don't have to. But if you could definitely state your full name and address for the record, even though we know it, we'd be appreciated. And as you're looking to turn on your mic, I'm going to talk for a few minutes. We did receive your letter. We
did abbrevially read it into the record. Um, and it's posted with our information online. Can you hear me, Joe? >> He is speaking. That's why you get the green frame around it, but it's not coming through. >> Yeah, we don't we don't hear you if
you're speaking currently. >> One second. >> It could be on our end. Hold on. >> It might be us because when you see the green frame around him like that, that's usually it's picking up sound. >> Okay. Just >> let's um put a microphone here.
[Music] >> Joe, can you can you talk now? >> Hello. >> Hello. >> Hi, Joe. >> No, I am over there. >> We're hearing you faintly, Joe.
>> I I'm I'm hearing I I heard Tim Burfett. Yeah, we are hearing you, Joe. >> Someone, >> you're not hearing me. >> We are. >> Are >> you are hearing me? Okay, great. >> Um, I just have a couple of questions
I'd like the board to answer. >> Could you tell me what was the specific purpose of the $60,000 grant? Joe's question, if no one heard, is what was the specific purpose of the $60,000 grant
>> that we received? We can uh >> Sure. >> Do you want to pull it up? I believe we have it readily. >> Sure. It um I can pull that. >> I'm just going to pull that up, Joe, and then I can speak to it. But um
sorry I'm going through a lot of different screens here. >> Joe, I just while he's pulling it up, I want to make sure you heard me saying that we did receive your letter and we did >> acknowledge it in one of our meetings and it is available to the public.
>> Okay. there there's a there's quite a bit of feedback in the um >> you know in the system but I I heard that you received my letter. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Well, let me well while Paul's looking
for that. Let me let me uh tell you uh what one of my questions was. So, it appears that the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities provided that grant Correct. >> Correct. >> Their objective, they were established in 2023 to create
more homes and lower housing costs for Massachusetts residents. EOHLC also distributes funding to municipalities, oversees the state aided public housing portfolio, and operates the state's emergency family shelter program.
Now, part of the it's part of the state housing plan, which involves affordable housing and MBTA communities. Now, if if they provided that grant, it seems to me that it would have been clear that the proposed bylaw amendment was not simply
a recontification, but a major revision to support the priorities of the EOHLC as being part of the reason for the grant. So my question is why wasn't this explained to people prior to the town meeting that this wasn't just a
recotification that that grant was given because of the uh you know the uh intent to align the town with the priorities of the administration. >> I don't think we're specifically
aligning any of our >> what we want in this town with the administration. We've not referenced the state of Massachusetts once other than state law that we have to follow that we would get sued for by the state if we did not follow. Um all of this is any
changes have all gone through this board, the elected members of this board in open hearing. Um >> well, let's put it this way. Tonight we were talking about rabbits and roosters. It's pretty obvious that this is a significant change to the bylaw. This is
not a recification. >> We're way we're we're way past that, Joe. We've we've addressed that multiple times. We have said this is a substantial review. We've said it's a complete update to the bylaw since the last town meeting since we heard that feedback at last town meeting. >> That I was asking you why why didn't you
do that before the last town meeting? >> I don't know. Last town meeting is way in the past for us. We're working on this town meeting. I don't have that answer for you. >> Is there any way for you to not have that feedback? It's very hard for me to understand you. >> Hold on one sec. We'll try.
>> Right. >> He's having a lot of feedback. I don't know if there's anything we can do. >> We suggest I do >> cuz the system you got the mic on is the one having the echo, too, >> cuz it's not on mute. If you mute that laptop, you might not have >> Let me try Let me try the next one.
>> Hold on one second. Hold on one second, Joel. Please. We're going to try to get it better. Can you mute the mic on that laptop but keep the speaker on? >> Yeah. Yeah, correct. >> No, like keep the volume up but turn the
on the screen on Zoom. Mute it. >> Just mute the microphone on that computer. >> Try Yeah. And then put the mic back the speaker. Joe Joe, are you still getting Is this clearer? >> That's clearer. >> Okay, great. >> Right.
>> We're still working out bugs with the setup. >> So, the next question is, does the proposed bylaw amendment have the impact of increasing housing density to move the town from rural suburban single family homes towards a more suburban
urban environment? it it does not do that. It does not increase our potential density in any fashion. In fact, part of our adjustments have decreased the potential
density. >> Okay. So, that basically that would be in opposition then to the entity that made that grant uh if that's the case because that's apparently not what they're trying to do. Um so Joe uh there
are there are some things in this bylaw that we that do increase development. Now most of those are actually mandates of the state like you know for example accessory dwelling units we are required to do that. Uh and
you know we're making we've made provisions to align with that to try to promote accessory dwelling units. There were some grandfathering provisions uh as well. We also have made provisions to promote mixeduse development, top of
the shop development in our commercial areas. But what Steve was referring to was currently if you're in residential 40 zoning, you can do multifamily with no density cap. But with the changes that we're proposing here in residential
40, we're limiting multif family to just four up to four units. >> Um I see. So what you're saying is right now there's no cap and you've capped it now at what did you say 40 units or four? >> Four units. >> Four.
>> Four units >> in our 40. >> Mhm. So, so then basically your position is that this that the changes that are being made are not going to move the town from suburban rural single family
housing and make it more of a um suburban higher density location. Is that correct? I would say that this zoning over this zoning recotification update, all the
amendments we're making, it is not an attempt to make the town more urban. That is not the goal I have or what I believe the rest of the board has. >> It's not my goal. It's not what I want to do. >> Sitting in here opposing that goal. So,
>> um, does the master plan require making all of the proposed changes to the bylaw? >> What do you say? >> No. Uh, this is Paul again. So, the master plan had a had a number of different provisions in there specific to changing the bylaw, but there was a a
a more blanket provision that said we would do a a code diagnosis and then make uh changes based on that analysis. So, that's a broader one. So I yes the master plan did call for um changes to
the zoning bylaw which is pretty typ which is very typical when you update your master plan you want your bylaw to align with it and >> I understand that but what I was talking about was all the proposed changes that are being made but I heard what you said.
>> No I mean it didn't talk about roosters and chickens. No but and I'm not being facitious. It doesn't master plan wouldn't get to that level. But we did get there because we looked as part of the analysis early on in this process
and found that those were some of the challenges that people were seeing. >> Could a portion of the grant funds uh be used to notify the public by mail of the bylaw amendment? >> The grant's already been extended. It's
gone. It's already been paid out. for the grant there. There are no funds remaining. >> It's been closed out, Joe. >> Been closed out. And And where were the what were the bulk of the funds used for? >> Consulting uh for Mark Burrowski.
>> For Burrowski. >> Okay. >> Um why uh is the board bringing this before the town again after it was needed in May? >> This is our job. Good answer. This is your job.
>> If you read look in the charter, this is our job. Yes. This is this is precisely what we're here for and what we do. >> Well, I I disagree with that. I think your job is to follow the bylaws. I don't think your job is to make a major change to the by >> Well, whose job is that then? It just
doesn't ex the bylaw is a living document that needs to change constantly. Whose job is it other than the elected planning board of the town? >> This is some of the things that I brought up in the letter. If you're going to try to do a major revision like this, you should be notifying the public
by mail of what it is that you're planning to do and you should be outlining those changes in the context of the existing bylaw so that people can understand and you should also explain to people what impact is this going to
have to their property rights because that's I think one of the most important things that the board is supposed to do which is to protect property rights >> 100%. % and we have much more teeth in this new bylaw to protect property lights like we were just talking about.
>> Well, you there may look there may be some good things in this, you know. >> Oh, there's definitely some good things in this >> over the whole thing yet. >> This isn't willy-nilly. We're just doing this for the hell of it. I'll tell you that much. >> I'm sorry I didn't hear that. >> Sorry, I didn't hear that. >> I'm sorry. I'm We're not just not doing
this willy-nilly and we're we're doing this for a purpose. We're not here for that. just doing this for the hell of it because we want to be doing this. >> It's something that needs to be done. >> I think I think the point is that no matter how well-meaning you board
members are, and and I think that you are well-meaning, the fact of the matter is it's impossible for you to know what's in the best interests of the other 20,000 people in the town, >> especially because only a hundred show up to every town meeting. Well, part of
that is because of notice on issues. Part of that uh has probably has to do with apathy, but right now what you're doing is so important because it deals with property rights. >> Other than what? Other Yes. property
rights. Other than mailing everybody, >> let let him finish his state. >> We're dealing with people's property rights. That is incredibly important. And I think that we owe an obligation to our neighbors to protect their property rights.
>> But now, and in that letter, I mentioned mailing and I think that the board's position is that they just want to do what's required under 40A, which is notification in newspapers. Now, you know, I mean, that's just ridiculous today. People don't read
newspapers. That's improper notice. The legislature knows that, but they don't care because they're not trying to inform people. But I think that we have an obligation as members of this town to protect other people's interests. And I
think, you know, you could get a lot of these changes you're talking about, but it should be done in a way that we can all be proud of that the town works together. You notify people properly, and you know what? after they're notified properly, if they don't show up or they don't
care, well, then they have their chance and they relinquish their uh their rights essentially. But >> I I don't agree with the way you're going about this. This is a tremendous undertaking that you're doing and you
may, you know, you may very well, you know, have the best of intentions at heart. This is not the way to do it. This is just not the way to do it. And I think part of the reason so few people show up is because the notice is improper. So, you know, I mean, originally I heard
that the purpose for this was because of legal challenges. >> And you know, there are always legal challenges. If there's specific language that a court and an appellet court has found to be legal, even though all this stuff was approved by the attorney
general at one time, so be it. So then that stuff should be changed. But if you're going to change the whole bylaw, you either need to do it in sections or it needs to be a major undertaking, you know, kind of, you know, like uh I think
the town charter thing where there were there were many many public meetings and people were notified. I think they notified by mail. I think you remember something about that, Joe. >> Joe, if speaking 12.2b 2B requires notification by mail unless the issue
has a widespread or universal impact. And I don't think it's clear that some of the things that are being done here have a wide or universal impact. You know, like rabbits, chickens, or whatever. So, I mean, I'm not I'm not sure about that. But putting all that
aside, just just ask yourself how you want to be treated. If you had if your rights were at risk, would you want to be you want to be notified by newspapers that you don't read or by a mail notice? >> And is it expensive to do that? Yeah, it
is. It costs about 6,400 bucks to do that twice. About 3,200 bucks for a direct mailing to the people of the town. So, it's about 6,400 bucks. That's expensive. But when you're fooling with people's property rights, it should be difficult to do that. It shouldn't be
easy to change people's rights. So, you know, you know, look, I I take my hat off to you guys and lady that ladies that you're willing to spend your good time working on this stuff, but I think you're making a big mistake in how
you're going about this. So, you know, that's some thought. And one final question, is there any uh is there going to be any attempt to show these changes in the
context of the existing bylaw so that people can see what has been changed and what is being offered and also a general for the material items a general uh state of what impact this is going to
have. There any is there any movement to do that? at town meeting. We planning on having both documents side by side on the screen. That is the first um >> well you know you you know that's better
than nothing but I mean let's face it this is 127 page document in its original format. I don't know what it is now. I I I don't think most people, you know, who want our attorneys, they're going to have a hard time following this
stuff, certainly under the pressure of a town meeting. >> So, unfortunately, that's what we're dealt and that's how we have to do it. >> And we've been concentrating on this for for two years. >> Do it in a manner similar to what I'm suggesting. >> Put this forward at the spring meeting,
not do it at the fall meeting. >> Make it do it right. Make it >> We We are doing it right, Joe. Other than the mailing, there is absolutely no other way to contact people that we haven't tried. We've tried social media. Um, we've mentioned it in every single
one of our meetings. It's been on every single one of our agendas. It's on our web page. Um, it's timestamped on our web page to our meetings when we've talked about it. Other than the mailing, I do not know of any other way we could reach out more. Um, if there was, I would love to do it. And if we had the
budget, it's simply not in our budget and we're not allowed to mail everyone. If I could mail everyone right now, I would love to, but I'm I can't and we can't. >> That's something then you should talk to the selectman about. >> Yeah. And >> the point is this is too important to not do a mail.
>> And if it's not in the budget, then make it in the budget for next year. Tell the selectman you need it for the budget for next year. So what I'm trying to tell you, you're pushing this. You're doing the quick march on this and you don't need to. >> It's not a quick march, Joe, at all >> that you're doing.
This is a major major undertaking, >> Mr. Chair. >> And you need to notify people by mail. There's no other way around it. It's too important. You would want to be notified by mail yourself if you if you weren't involved with the board or you weren't the type of person that looks at the
town newspaper or whatever. And I think most people aren't. I don't think most people are following this stuff at all. They're too busy paying taxes. They're too busy working two jobs, taking care of children. I think you're describing everybody on this board. Yes. >> That's why we have an obligation, I
think, a moral and an ethical obligation to notify people of this stuff. And it may very well turn out that many of the things that you're trying to do are good things. May be that way. I haven't seen it all yet. I pointed out some problems the first time around, but I haven't seen the whole thing.
>> But give it some thought. Give it some thought. you know, let's let's make this something that the town can be proud of is what I'm trying to say. Let's let's try to do the right thing here. Let's not say we wish we had >> and and for the people that are notified and they don't act, then that's their
decision and they have to live with that. >> Mr. Chair, >> that's my two cents. Rob. >> Yeah. Do am I just want to be sure am I understand correctly that basically this is a specific ask for a mailing and what you're saying is if we don't do a mailing we have not properly notified
people that this is about specifically a mailing. >> I believe that unless you're notifying people by mail you're not properly notifying them. And you know that by the intent of the bylaw 12.2b. It basically says that notice has to be by mail
unless it is of universal or wide application in the town. That raises the question as to whether or not what parts of the proposed bio amendment are universal and wide or whether they just impact certain groups depending upon what the specific language is. But I'm
saying forget about all that. Forget about the the lousy requirement by the state which is improper in this day and age. What's the right thing to do here? What's the thing that you would want to do for your friends, for your family, you know, for people you don't even know
but that are your neighbors? How do we want to be, you know, how do we want to treat people in this town? This is not Boston. This is not a city. This is a small town. How do we want to treat people? >> There's 20,000 people in this town. >> So, I'm saying that people aren't involved with this because a many people don't know about it. Other people
probably don't care about it because they don't understand what you're doing and they don't understand the impact to them. And then there don't care at all. >> I completely agree with you. >> Obligation to do the best we can try to bring this make this as easy as
possible. Another thing is I believe you have to show people the impact to them. Then if they're not lawyers or if they're not, you know, focused on trying to break this thing down, they're not going to understand it fully. But since you've spent the time on this, I believe
you should be telling them, okay, this is what we did with with bylaw XYZ. Here's the pro and con of it. Here's the impact that you're going to see from it. Here's what you here's what happened before. This is what it's going to mean to you now. That's what you should be
doing because you spent all this time looking at this stuff. Make it easy for people so that they can understand what it is you're trying to achieve. All all of this information is available in all of our meetings which is on our website and on Norton Media Center YouTube page.
All the meetings are recorded. Everything can be watched. All of our discussion is in these meetings just like you heard earlier. >> No. Is this Alan? >> Yes, I am. >> Alan, I realize that but people aren't going to go back and watch all those meetings. >> Well, that's that's up to people. We we
can't force feed and spoon feed people everything. People have to want to be involved also. It's >> No, no, but you have to but you have to make it. You cannot expect people to read through the solar by >> that elaborate >> and then make a decision on that. You've
got to say to them >> the solar bylaw, this is the way the situation was before. Here's the changes. Here's what that means. You got to make it easy for people. >> It's only common sense. I mean, every member of this board is making
absolutely every attempt to make this simple and as easy as possible. It is not a simple document. It is not an easy document. We all have to learn. We've been practicing this for 2 years getting
to know this document, even longer. If you care as a citizen, if any resident cares, you have a duty to apply yourself. We cannot make people learn. We cannot make people read a document.
If you're going to criticize part of it, be specific. Otherwise, you're being vague and criticizing something without without displaying anything to us. What do you want us to change? What did we do wrong? There's a lot of assumptions that we're not trying, that we're not going
to display something, that we're not going to give a full report when we get to the meeting, that we're not going to provide a guideline. They're all assumptions. We are prepping all these documents. We're working on it. We're finalizing all of this. We're going to sit as a panel and answer questions from
the audience. But also, we were elected to do this. We don't have a direct vote for all of this stuff. We were elected to do this job. We got voted in by different people >> and it's up to you guys to vote at the
town meeting. That's your job. >> That doesn't mean that that includes amending the entire bylaw. We just had that. I just raised that point to you. >> Well, that's your opinion, but it is within our duty. board. There's no one on that board that has any special
knowledge that allows them to know what's in the best interest of the other 20,000 people. >> And neither does the requirement to be elected to this board. >> You could be elected to this board. >> With notice, we protect those people by protecting their property rights and by
protecting their freedom. >> Most of these adjustments are to fix our law so we don't get sued. >> Best interest >> to protect people. Tim, you want to say one thing and then I think we're getting a little argumentative here and I think my perspective is we have a dedicated page on this on our
website and that does include our high-level summary presentation which we shared at our last meeting and we intend to present at town meeting along with condensed summaries of the changes that we've made. So that's point one. I'll
say point two is this has been an ongoing thing that town staff been working on for a while. Town staff answers to the town manager who answers to the select board. If the select board wants us to pause, then that's something
that we'll discuss at our joint session with them about this, which I think we're looking to have either the 30th September or the 2nd of October, so next week. and they have your letter, Joe. And if it is a point that they want to
discuss, if a mailing is appropriate, then that's a discussion that we'll we can have with the select board. They're ultimately them. And that's how the chain of command would work from my perspective. If the select board or the town manager
had said, I don't want town staff or the planning board working on this over the last two years, we probably wouldn't have been working on it. So, >> well, are you saying was that you Tim? >> Yes, it was. Joe, >> are you saying that within the website
you have the existing bylaw and the changes made within that existing bylaw? Is that what you thought? >> I'm saying that there there's the presentation and the summaries and versions of the document. And I'm not going to speak to exactly what word files are where, but we think we've
given anybody who goes to that page, and I think Paul's pulling it up here on the screen, if you can see what's being shared, um, with specific links to the documents to do our best to provide the documents.
And there's the the redline document, the narrative, a comparison table, and the presentation right there at the bottom of the page. So if you'd like to review those and provide any input as to or clarification on specific points in
there, happy to look at those either in the joint session with the select board or at our next meeting which I think is scheduled to be October the 7th. Correct. >> Correct. >> So >> does that also show the impact from the
major changes to the to the residents and to their uh to their property rights? We have a section that we've just completed. I'm not sure if it's listed here yet, that specifically shows residential impacts. Correct. Okay.
>> We've just been working on that page. >> All right. Um All right. Well, I think that's um that's most of the questions that I had for this evening. >> Very good. Thank you. And you did hear what we said. It's either going to be September 30th or October 2nd for this
joint meeting. Select board, planning board, and fin. >> And then what is on October 7th? >> It would >> that would just be the next planning board hearing. >> Correct. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Do you want to come up yet? >> Do we have another hand raised? No. Joe, it's only Joe. Anybody else online would like to speak? I'll give it a minute for anyone to raise their hand or take their microphone off.
If not, I'll go to the board if anyone has any questions, comments, concerns on where we are now. >> I do not I think we're in a pretty good spot actually. >> Do you need a motion to continue discussion to the seventh or to the
>> or just it's not an official motion needed? >> I don't believe we need official. We we're going to keep putting this on every agenda. Um >> well the the time's coming up where next week is really the deadline because the article has to be published next week or
in two week within the next two weeks. So I just want to make clear we're you're you're s recommending we have the meeting on Tuesday. Correct. >> It was not >> the ask was both. Right. >> The ask was for both. >> Yeah.
All right. Now, I heard the 30th, right? >> 30th and the second were the two options for us. >> Right. But um is the second on the table for you as well. >> I don't think anyone had a conflict. I think we just picked the 30th randomly. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> It's it's either correct. That's what we're >> you're asking. Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. I thought that we had said that at the beginning of the meeting. And Paul, you're saying >> 7th is still within the time where we would need to before the final text needs to be completed. Correct.
>> It's getting it's getting close to it. So >> I guess we should >> hopefully at your at your joint that'll >> Yeah, I guess we should just confirm if we need all text finalized in the joint session or if there's a question of move
a comma or something. >> Oh, I'm I'm looking. yet the seventh will be beyond. >> Okay. So, it needs to be finalized at the joint session. >> Yes. >> What What's the drop deadad date? >> Um I think it's going to be a day or two
after your joint meeting. >> It's after the second before the seventh obviously. >> Correct. But is it >> uh I don't have a specific but that's why we were pushing that's >> it's next week. I mean, that's why they were turning it. The select board wanted
it next week because we're coming up against that deadline. >> Yeah. >> I got to think there is a specific. If we don't have it tonight, that's okay. But >> yeah, I've been trying to get it and it's the good news is this is almost there.
And as you know, whatever this board recommends is what goes on the warrant. And as I explained, I've explained to people that you're working, you want to collaborate with folks to rep have that document represent the feedback that you've received throughout the process.
And so if we have the joint meeting and there are specific comments about it, you'll take that up and certainly consider it as you've done in this process. Any other discussion on this for tonight? Otherwise, I'm going to go back to some
planning board business and we have some minutes to do. >> Uh, close it. >> No, we don't have to close it. Um, back to planning board business and policies. I'm sure you guys have seen Ken did send a resignation letter. So, there will be another joint meeting to appoint a
member until the next election. Um, that's up in the air. It's stated in the charter, the whole procedure. So, town manager and Paul with the select board are working on that. Um, >> has that been posted anywhere yet? I know there's like a town page. >> It is on the select board agenda for
Thursday. >> Okay. >> I don't believe it's listed on the it I did not see it today. >> Okay. I know the last time we got like when people applied, we got like resumes and stuff, >> right? So, yeah, I'm waiting to hear back from
the clerk or the town manager's office what that process is. >> Yeah. >> Paul, did you want to I uh might have spoken too soon. Did you want to go through the uh PowerPoint that you've been working on with Eric and everything right on this?
>> I mean, we >> we did it last week. >> We went through it last night. >> I know we didn't make any changes that you wanted to. I know you've been working on it slightly. >> No. um some minor things but >> nothing no >> nothing nothing that you want to bring up again >> we do have minutes from last
>> the bathroom real quick >> we do have minutes from last meeting minutes for September 9th 2025 >> we also have bills >> thank you >> having reviewed the minutes I'll just toss up a motion that we approve them
minutes of September 9th. >> We have a motion to approve the minutes of September 9th. >> Second. >> And we have a second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> opposed. One abstension, Steve. Out of the room.
>> Was that for the minutes? >> That was the minutes. Yeah. Or >> I don't know if it's abstension, but >> not present. Abstension. >> That is abstension. It's still they're approved. Other than that and these minutes, any other business for the board tonight
from anybody? >> Did you want to take a look at the uh project management sheets or absolutely >> because it should only be a moment. >> I knew my note of show spreadsheet meant something >> and this wasn't the right >> while Eric's pulling that up. Um Thursday there is an agenda item to at
least start discussing the all the bylaw not just the I mean all the warrant articles including our bylaw. So, um, at that meeting, we'll just go over the summary sheets for them, knowing that we will have a joint meeting and go into
more detail. So, Erica's agreed to join, but as long as we don't have a quorum, more of you are welcome to join. >> I will not be there. >> What is this for? Oh, for Thursday. >> Thursday's select. >> I'm happy not to show up and avoid quorum issues. >> Yeah, I'll do what I can to help here. I'll >> Okay, >> I'll show.
>> I I wanted to go, but I have something I cannot get out of. >> Yeah, I don't mind going. didn't help. >> Yeah. No, I thank you. >> It's two. >> I have to go to awake. >> Two is fine. >> You stay under four. Three is need to make >> three is fine as well. >> Okay. >> But still at 6:00, right? >> It's at 6.
>> Okay. All right. >> We need you to not show up for the >> It's No, he's Well, we're fine. I don't have to worry about >> I know. I always try to go, but then I go home and once I go home, I don't leave my house. So, I have to do whatever I'm going to do. >> No, I'll I'll restate. If
>> you need me to join via Zoom, I can probably do that, but I probably could not join in person until after that meeting was >> I think we're fine because it it'll just be a a smaller conversation as a it's a leadup to the joint meeting. >> Yeah, this I could join Zoom, but I don't feel like I'm contributing by
doing that basically. So Eric's been working on a project tracker, something that every clerk can use going forward, a standard document to for specifically the bigger projects when we have all these conditions and items up in the air
um and notes. Um since the position of clerk changes hands, every clerk's kind of made their own Eric's been trying to make one that's >> a little more universal. >> A little more universal for everything and everybody. >> Yeah. Um, mostly I just want to give you guys a a
review of what what I've been working on. You know, any feedback doesn't have to be tonight, but any feedback is appreciated. But yeah, the idea is if this is I think this is in a functional spot. I um but I want everybody to take a look before make that decision. And then yeah, going forward um I would
probably this is under my Google account currently. I'd like to move this over to the town. That way, whoever the town staff is, they can assign ass sign it to the clerk or whoever needs to do the work. Um, you can see I just called it Norton Planning Board. If we drill down a little bit, 2025 in January before the
first uh meeting in January, there'll be a 2026. Um, right here is like the basic tracker and we'll look at a basic example and get in the middle. But what I did was my little my folder structure is the year.
get in there. There we go. And then under that there's active and decided. That way, you know, if there's a bunch of stuff open, it'll be in one place, but all the stuff that's already been decided moved to another, but it's still there for historical. Uh that's like I
said, that's the structure I came up with. Seems pretty simple, straightforward. If we need any more more structure to it, definitely let me know. Um cuz like I said like the have this more or less subtle at least you know the base of it before it gets handed off to town staff. But let's go
to inside and you can see there's four that are currently live. There might be more um but let's this is one of the simpler ones. So right here we'll go down column A first. Um open gov number. That's just
literally what it whatever it's called in open gov. Um that just going to go there. Um under special permit um under type sorry there is special permit ANR. Oh that should not be there. We'll fix that. Um oh grabbed a bunch but it
should just be ANR site review uh special permit and uh definitive. Uh then you put the applicant and the date down here is >> before you go too far. We need uh like modification to special permit. If you want another one, there might be another couple to add. >> Okay, we can do that. Yeah. Yeah. Again,
this is kind of why I'm ping it. But basically, as we've been doing stuff, I've been adding things. Um, but the idea would be with like special permit, we change it in ANR, it change the criteria down here. That way, we always have we have to fill in the nose a little more. But basically, whatever
we're looking at, the base criteria will always be in the front. So, that's again, uh, just trying to keep basically this front tab. I forgot to mention basically I want whoever's looking at it um whether it's us or or a I don't know
about citizens but uh the project people they can just look at this tab and see everything that's currently open and the criteria we're looking at. So that's that is that was the the main goal. Um now currently there's no open items but if we go under open items I put little
check box here. what I what I designed it to do. And obviously I have to go back and change this later. All right, good enough. Now that I filled these in, if we go over here, you can see that they show up under the open
item. So this would be like a quick description of whatever open item we have with the applicant. Um, but the way I designed it is if we say we finished off two and four cuz I I I rather have odd numbers up automatically just on this front page. So I'm trying really
hard to make sure again this is this front page tells us everything uh both conditions and warrants kind somewhat similar uh where it's just you know second condition condition that will again that will show up in the
project report. So that we are adding conditions both places it it will work. um waiverss are the same and the only other thing I got to move this here I have on the front page way over here is approved so know is it in progress
once it's done once it's decided and moved to the other sheet this this needs to be changed to approved or declined and that way again I'm trying to get all the information on the front page not only what's currently going on but historical just if for whatever reason we need to go back
um the only let me See, uh, waiverss. Oh, the other thing it's not on here. I think I might have copied the wrong sheet. But, um, under last update, updated would be like if we made some adjustments to it today, I would change this date to today. And then underneath
if there was there would be another purple section which would say uh I think it's connected to where if there is another project sheet that represents like like this is ANR but let's say this was special permit but we also have a
site plan review which is not unusual. I put a place where you can put a link between the two. So if you see one you can click on it it'll open the other and goes back and forth. that that's always going to be manual work because unfortunately I can't have it point directly to
um open gov easy because they don't use the ID numbers we see are not what they use so I can't just there was no easy way of doing this will always be a little manual work at least the sheets will point to each other um
that's pretty much the whole thing um but yeah this is what I've been this is basically I'm hoping this makes it easier on everybody. Um my idea was that part of this is that um whoever needs to see it would get view access to all this
stuff. So again, all the information should be on the front page. Um and uh and the clerk and town staff would definitely have edit access to it. I don't know if anybody else would need edit access to. I think that's a might be a worthwhile discussion. I don't know if we'd want to open up to the officers
of the board or the whole board. I didn't want to, you know, make any assumptions, but that is doable. Um, but again, >> I really think we just need it for us, us and maybe Paul and Brian. >> Well, the edit access would only be for the board at the most like but if if a
project manage like but if we added this to open gov as a link or something then they could they would be able to get view access to it. So they can see it but they wouldn't be able to touch it. >> Um that that would that would be the ideal scenario. Um, so I just I just don't know where the line is of who
would have the ability to be an editor. So right now it's just me, Paul, and Brian. >> I think it should stick to town staff, Paul and Brian, and the clerk. >> Cool. All right. I don't have to make any changes >> unless Paul you think any different.
>> All right. But that's that is pretty much a sheet. uh on the on the open items, conditions and waiverss items is basically the short description I was talking about. But if you need more comprehensive notes, dates, respondee responses, basically if you
need to go beyond what you see on the first page, I try to capture everything you need here. So that um you know like I said if if there was a condition but it was like not a condition but if there was a a big long discussion on one of
the the open items then we can we can put all the notes there if we want. But as far as just seeing what's open and what we need to work on the basics will should what should stay in the front. Um so any >> you've done a very good job in choosing
what to put front and center getting the key details. I definitely stole from other people that's done this in the past, but yeah, that's it's like I said, my ultimate goal was making sure this project report was a simple report for everybody. So, I I tried. No, >> I agree. I can get all this info if I
want to jump around and dig, but >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yep. That is the goal. >> So, um >> I like the presentation. >> The ease of use to to up to modify it during the meeting as we're talking is what we need. We need >> that's Yeah, that's Yeah, that's why I got these down here. You can add a
description and then like said notes. >> Honestly, I was using I forget which project it was, but I was using this for a different project. I was like, I don't type this fast. Slow down. But >> it's it's it's there. I think this is this is good. Like I said, if you see something that either you don't like or think should be added, just, you know,
let let I guess Paul know so he can let me know. But I think this is at very least is a good starting functional standpoint to be using these. Like I said, I've been I' I've have a couple. >> I believe it to be a process improvement. >> So, >> yeah. Do you have a complete one by any
chance? >> You would ask that. Uh >> okay. If you don't, I'm just curious. >> That one's not a good one. I'm just trying to I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head. So, we had a had one that had a lot of notes.
>> I know like recent. >> Oh, yeah. We had like this one has some conditions. the no open items I guess only conditions but you can I let me see if I can find one that had some sorry I'm flashing on
the screen for everybody at home not that kind of flashing all right it's going to be the last one obviously all right I don't know why they don't I don't know but these are technically complete they just don't have a lot of notes Right. >> So, there was one that had a lot of
notes. Maybe it's still open, but um but yeah, and then this turns green when there's no open items just cuz uh you know, you know, we're done. But that Yeah, that's that that's hopefully something that is usable and keep I was originally trying to do
Excel, but we weren't able to use Excel because I have a more recent version. So, but Google Sheets seems to work for it. So >> yeah, >> can I ask a question? Eric, Paul Brian, I know in open gov in like the details
section we have things for conditions and special permit conditions and is the I guess one are those pieces of open gov currently effectively used and would do
we populate them when a decision is issued? Not when it's issued. That's it's a weakness in open gov as opposed to our prior. >> But like in open gov it says like add conditions.
Would that in theory be something that we would do >> in open gov? >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's going to be one of the tasks um after the zoning bylaw update. going to have to go back into open gov
and add all those new provisions that are that are there um to help spell out help direct applicants to the new regul you know >> if it's approved the what the new regulations are.
>> Okay. But in terms of the conditions field in open gov does not have like binding impact on the applicant or anything like that. So in I wonder if that's also a place where we could do some of this. I don't know who
has edit access to add conditions to that box in open gov. >> We do. Yeah, I know that. But I assume the applicant doesn't. But >> no, they just have the ability to >> upload >> upload and click on the required
>> required >> because it looks like just like a text field. So we could use that as a bit of a note takingaking area too within open gov if we feel like the folders and things are spiraling. >> Yeah. But
>> just a thought. Or we can also like if we can put notes in you can we can generate a view only link directly to this and then that way they have more expansive notes. >> Yeah. True. >> Yeah. >> Question. Eric did you see this does some syncing with open gov directly?
It's able to >> No cuz uh no cuz each >> not to go down the technical side too too much but the the ID number that they provide for this is not the unique identifier. they have their own code that they use in the URL and it's like
seems randomly generated. So I there was no easy way for me to be like oh and SP16 is this URL. So now for the best I could do is kind of like what you can see here we got related to um if I click on this and it lets me >> remove it.
>> Okay. No, fair enough. I was just asking. >> Yeah, I I don't need it. Explain to me why not. I >> But now that goes but now we got these two. now they're they're connected by that field in these particular Google Sheets. It's not pretty. I I miss having a sauna or Monday or you know those
those type of things or Trello. Um but for what we have I think this this will work. >> I think it's more more than enough for what we need specifically for during the meetings who's ever trying to do it quickly. >> It actually I'm liking it because it addresses some frustrations I've had.
That that's kind of yeah that was the thing I want to I want to make this as easy as possible on everybody. >> I mean we could always go back to my scribbling of my handnotes for every meeting if you want. >> We can we can copy that in past >> you want to copy all my scribbles in though me the first 30 >> I'm not I'm not saying don't do your
scribbles but I'm just saying let's have it you know we can have a centralized >> sheet. >> Yeah. >> I like it Eric. It looks great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I like a spreadsheet. So >> anything else by the board? If not, our next meeting is October 7th and I'd be looking for a motion.
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> That's a tie. I'll give it to Bridget. Second by Rob. All in favor? >> I I opposed. >> Good night, everyone. Thank you. Thank you.