##VIDEO ID:1mivzEeF7xw## welcome everybody to the Norton planning board meeting of Tuesday January 7th 2025 again this is a hybrid public meeting so members of the public are welcome to participate in person or remotely in person we are at Norton town hall and 72 East Main Street in the crane room is also available to join via the Zoom app using the meeting ID Linked In the agenda posted or meeting ID 6389 29106 meeting will also be a ailable in Norton cable access after the fact and the Norton media Center's YouTube page for future sessions please feel fre to email questions for the board ahead of the meeting to Brian carmichel Town staff so they can be entered into the record or forwarded to the board ahead of the meeting so I'll call them me to order here and go into our general business I will note to everybody that after we get through these first couple of quick bullet points the board will be moving into an executive session with Town Council and then we'll be returning to the rest of our agenda um I realize that I don't want to keep everybody waiting here um but the direction that we've gotten from town staff and everybody else is that we should get Town Council off of the clock that we're paying them as quickly as possible so that's what we're going to do um so in terms of planning board business and policies um thank you everybody for signing the form e relating to our decal Drive decision in our last session um I will pass around after we get back from executive session uh three bills two yes three bills one related from a grant for the zoning recodification and two other ones um and we will also have one set of minutes to approve from our December 17th meeting and then we'll also go through a strategy to attack the rest of the minutes that Brian had shared so does that any have anything else they would like to discuss prior to us moving toward executive session motion to um so pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 30A section 21 A3 again to discuss strategy rela to pending litigation known as person home builders LC versus Griffin all Bristol Superior Court 2473 CV 0039 six um if the chair declares that discussing the matter in open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position to the board a vote to go into executive session is expected and votes may occur in the executive session and this also will relate to the Ping litigation known as Premier fence LLC versus town of Norton planning board at all Massachusetts land Court 24 misc 00730 um so I do declare that discussing the matter open meeting may have an detron effect on the litigating position of the board um so I'll ask if any if the board would like to so I'll make that motion anybody else like to Second and can we go through the all any further discussion on the motion to go into executive session oh my bad I think I it State okay all in favor please say I I all opposed so the board will now move into an executive session in enjoying room we will rejoin this session after the executive session is concluded thank you everybody wait okay thank you everybody again this is just a confirmation that the board has now returned from our executive session and we'll now be returning to the continuation of our public agenda here um just give us one second to get everybody back here seated and we can continue um well I don't see the applicant for 22 Maple Street right now I think they may have taken a walk um did you want to just give an overview of what we're looking at on 22 Maple Street I just need to also get back on to soon sure but this was one you actually saw a few months ago and had concerns and did not endorse it uh because this Pro this property was split zoned and it didn't reflect that on it and so you wanted to bring it back um and that's what we have I'll go ahead and put this up on on Zoom sure please yeah I know have it in front of me but I'd like to just get this up on can see it the wonders of Technology never ceas right it's it's time here we go will be popping up on the screen and second half you may recall this one on Maple Street there were four lots and they have now identified the zoning split with residential you can see along Maple Street there's a uh the line if you can follow my cursor it's running along splitting between residential 60 I believe and then Industrial okay so again they're just looking tol lot a lot B C and D oh and they do all have the required Frontage clearly they have access they have Frontage and the lot sizes are all Are all uh falling within the zoning District requirements okay additional comments questions concerns looks like they also included the marijuana overlay okay portion of lot the the will be within the overlay you're saying that they did include that in the map that you were doing yeah the one I'm looking at if you see um just to the right of the wetlands you can see the line of the um marijuana overlay District okay further comments questions and for an anrs the motion is to endorse motion to endorse arr9 for 22 Maple Street seconded okay we have a motion in a second is there any further discussion okay all in favor of endorsing the a anr please say I I I opposed extensions okay so we do have the copies here uh we'll lay those out of the table in the back so that we can all sign those before we leave please do not leave before you s okay and now we can continue on and I think the reason that we have a few people here in the zoom room with us here is a continuation of our discussion about the MBTA overlay District um Paul I know you prepared a bit of a presentation here just to go through timing as it relates to town meeting articles and different things and a preliminary look at the outputs that we got from the open house that we had so you want you already have screen so I'll stop talking okay just want to um and thank first I want to thank everyone who came out to this event about a month ago we probably had close to close to 30 people and we had um I think you know great conversations great participation and what I'm going to focus on primarily in the discussion are are the uh primarily the top two vote getting sites and what I want to do is just well before we get to that um talk about time frames now the select board hasn't quite finalized the time frames for the May town meeting but we do know the town meeting is May 19th and we do have to submit articles on February 11th at 4 p.m. um that's just placeholder language it's not the 100% language it's just um getting the language on the warrant um so what that means is your next meeting we need to vote to transmit this actually as well as the recodification um you know I say unfortunate because you're also meeting February 11th but it's uh the articles are due at 4 p.m. so uh we wouldn't be able to do that in time so we're going to have to do that at your next meeting um so and just to clarify Place h no which means the planning board would like an article that says that talks about this right and that's all we need to have it's a sentence and then obviously it'll as we go through this process because um February to March you will be refining your parcel selection and and we will be looking at some text recommendations um and then March April this board then comes back and has a public hearing um we will notify a Butters of the selected parcels and we all make a recommendation to town meeting uh on the parcels as well as any as well as the text that's associated with this so pretended we're going to be focusing on parcels and the based on the areas that were looked at uh like identified month ago so what I want to do is just do some comparison looking at these sites um I'm going to go over briefly the existing conditions of each of these areas and um through um mathematical computation that's it's not even that difficult but look at what the potential development of these areas are and then i' also like to show what the net potential development is because these areas already have existing development a lot of existing residential and then we had a couple of members also provided some additional recommendations that we can go over as well um so again one of the big things I'm doing tonight is trying to identify what the potential number of units are I think think the best thing I can say is I want to try to get us in the ballpark um I've so what I did essentially was I looked at each of the potential Parcels um you know for a start within these areas and multiplied it by 16 units to try to gauge which was what we did when we did the compliance model but just to try to um get us some sense of if something were to redevelop what would that be but this also doesn't factor out Wetlands parking and some other things so it it in some cases will'll overestimate the numbers but it also doesn't Factor if something comes in higher than 16 units that we could underestimate but I think one of the things that helps keep us in the ballpark is particularly the top two areas the lots are fairly small so fluctuation shouldn't be that great because lot size can have a lot to do with limiting what you can do um once you all give me the direction of where you'd like to go with the parcels serpent which is our regional planning agency will actually run the official compliance model again um I I do want to say I've talked this over with the folks at Serpent and they said basically I was in the ballpark of what that compliance model is but the numbers I present are not the official compliance model um so first I want to start with Norton Glenn uh it was the number one vote getter at the at the meeting um first it it the students that go the students that come from Norton Glen go to nurse Elementary School um that was something that you all as a board wanted to know where we were the students going um so they go to nurse um like is sewer sewer is available at this site um SE currently serves it um it's Zone residential 80 and in the Water Resource Protection District um which of course residential 80 it's an 80,000 ft² lot size uh minimum there are 150 affordable housing rental units uh all of which are counted as our as part of our subsidized housing inventory the average lot size is about an acre roughly they're you know somewhere in the 40,000 acre 40,000 ft² to an acre um these apartments would become conforming under be ta zoning because right now this area wouldn't be comp uh conforming because the lot sizes are too small and um multif family is not allowed even by special permit and re zoning so you would be allowing them to become compliant uh the other thing I just want to mention just on current conditions is this this is one property owner uh and so there's one plan of development uh I also should point out I did reach out I mailed a letter to the to prri Norton Glenn notifying of this meeting and you know the potential for it U I haven't heard from them but um as we go through the further selection I'll reach out I'll give a heads up to all the properties and then eventually as we no have to notice this I'll notify everybody again but I just want to do a little bit more than what's required so this area um all the properties owned by PRI it it it's about 27 Acres which exceeds the minimum 25 uh requirement by the state under the ndta so when I when you look at the 27 acres and multiply it by 16 the ballpark is about 430 potential units if something were ever to happen here and that's something we want and that is tear everything that's there down and replace it and build it up to maximum capacity correct okay and there are 150 exist in units already so if you subtract those out you'd be netting about 280 one thing I want to mention too about this site that I think would mean you wouldn't see the maximum potential units is if you uh follow the cursor there are some odd shaped Lots on the North side that would really limit whatever any development that could happen back there and on the south side of Norton Glenn uh my cursor disappeared you can see on the M Valle you might not see it clearly but there are some Wetlands there so that would limit uh development into those areas so they could in theory do anr and fix the weird lot shapes anyway they they could but as I look at this it looks like it was a maximum lot layout which Engineers are are good at doing um so okay so that's Norton Glenn in a nutshell the next one next site I'm going to look at I'm going to spend a little bit more time hopefully I go quickly is nfield D this was the number two vote getter and what I'm showing here on this on the map to the left is what I would call the the big net version of it you have a lot of options here um first I want to point out we did not I did not include the uh PGA Charities uh site the one that went to town meeting based on the comments we received I also didn't include the one on the south which we didn't include I didn't put that in here for roughly the same reason that people didn't seem to be happy with that but um just for continuity uh I included uh some larger sites which I I wouldn't suggest that we take this all as it is here but we have the Norton um Estates Co-op mobile home park on one end which is big and then on the other end we have the uh Greatwood shopping center actually I just um want to go through real quick uh what the uses are um there are four single family lots up at the on the north end of this and then we have two lots just south which are commercial Lots one's the Cumberland Farms and one's Cana marijuana and of course the mobile home park then when you jump across Mansfield daav the top two parcels the planning board just recently approved um that's the ibw yes the ibw training facility just south of there is that commercial development um that that has multiple uses in it it used to have a gymnasium um that actually has an approved 40b on it that's never been built it was uh 60 units then the next two lots you have albertto and then a vacant site um and then the town has the kayak launch site right near that and then all of these Parcels under it about 14 of them those are uh fourplexes and then just south of that we have a an oil delivery company called order my oil and then right next to that is the big Norton link uh the 40b the 40b 100 units that is soon to be taking in uh residents and then you have the big shopping center um so sorry I wanted to get through that just to give some context I think what's important here too is there's only well essentially now one lot that's vacant there's three but we know one should be developed as that as that training facility um the existing Apartments the quads that are there would become conforming under MBTA uh they're they're not because commercial doesn't allow multif family one thing I also want to point out is there's quite a few Lots 14 lotss that are under half an acre and then six lots that are between half an acre to an acre then you have 12 lots that are you know more than an acre and I bring that up because again this site this area has many smaller lots and many of those lots most of those lots are owned by different Property Owners I want to dive into that in just a second but um as far as the calculation of the the potential impact of this um again taking the the big option first the wide net including Great Woods and nor EST estates this whole area is about 74 Acres you could add about 1190 potential units again based on the 16 16 units an acre there are 289 existing units and the U the net would be about 900 but if you take out the two you know Great Woods and Norton Estates it's down to 32 acres and now a PO potential is 509 units with 168 units and then the net would be 341 so it you I I just want to dive into that that net a bit more because you know much of this is just a number crunching exercise and we have to try to what we try to do here is also put in the potential reality of things actually happening and I put this slide up because it's important that you know the numbers that I show you are are lots that are all calculating potential development but the reality is a lot of these sites we probably won't see it or anytime soon I won't say it will never happen I can't do that but but at least like with the the two Parcels up at where the uh IBU has their a brand new building a brand new building going brand new building they're going to be building right it's not right so 77 units there um order my oil just opened you know within the last 10 years um you could see some of these up the the town site the town is working to get with the state to fund a parking lot to help improve public access to the water um you know we have a Cumberland Farms we have two 40 BS that were approved one's about to get be built and so if you know if you took those off the the calculation now you're reducing by almost 300 units that could potentially be built um but you could add back wheat we get there I'm just saying you could get that back so if you reduce everything from that main number there you could be looking at mansvi have at about 200 net potential units um and that's is that that's net development that's not necessarily net that would count for the state correct right right that's a bigger that the state would doesn't look at that number the state doesn't look at your net they just want to see what overall the the state is not going to take points away because the ibw building is there no they will not they clear about that yeah there are some circumstances where you can't build to certain properties and I'll talk about that a bit but the other thing I wanted to mention too is you know as we know there's a lot of property here still you know four units the single families so I looked at you know these factors that influence if an area is subject to Redevelopment now we didn't do a a Redevelopment study don't have numbers I wish we did but these are the things that are often factors that can help determine if an area will redevelop and one of them an important one is whether or not your land value exceeds the value of your building so if you look at your property tax bill you'll see assessments for your land and your assessments for your building so I looked at all of the properties here and with the exception of the vacant parcel which of course doesn't have a building on it and nor in the states all the other all the other sites have buildings that are uh more valuable than the land and is this focused just a mansfi app this is just the mansfi app yes um I looked at um at the uh Norton Glenn and they're all above too but um and then there's the order my oil site which is nearly equal just wanted to point that out there was a very close it's you know but another factor is zoning um this area is already Zone commercial which is pretty permissive and promotes development and Redevelopment adding the NBTA zoning would make it more attractive and it also has water and sewer um you see some other factors like building condition but I I can't do that but I can tell you it's factored into the building value uh and then things like market demand and return on investment or things I just don't have that information but the thing I'm most focused on is that land value and building value if the site if the S area was showing a higher amount of land value in building then I would say you could see a lot of Redevelopment we could but the numbers don't seem to show that um um there's not an obvious terrible house on a good lot right right sometimes like if you looked at the re Barton site that building's a lot worth a lot less than the land under it um another thing I wanted to show is how many properties have contiguous properties with the same ownership and there's three three areas um one of already mentioned which is the um the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers that it looks like they're going to be building a training site and we also have uh um the two properties where out Berto and the vacant site next to it that's under one owner and then you have three Parcels at the bottom of South Mansville three of the quads are owned by one person and they actually own another parcel but not contiguous but the um you know those three down there pretty small sites I if they were to redevelop as one it really wouldn't trigger a significant increase in in development so I just bring this up because it would be unlikely based on current conditions that you would see a large scale development here particularly because of all the different Property Owners not saying it couldn't happen but it's going to be a lot harder to do and a lot of these Parcels are pretty small to begin with um I just want to speak just real quickly on small lot sizes that that especially on in this area from Mansfield I think there's a real benefit of having existing smaller Lots because I know people can see images of big apartments and they think that's 15 units an acre but you know three units on a 10,000 ft lot is 15 units an acre and I should say a lot is 43,560 square ft so five units on a 14,000 500t lot is also 15 units an acre and I think having some of these small sites could be really advantageous for the town because it really would much more neatly fit in with Community character and promote something that we call Gentle density which is being able to add incrementally you know more housing and a variety of housing in an existing neighborhood without significantly impacting the the characteristics of it yeah we'll go to public comment in just a second if that's okay thank you and this is just another example of of small Lots these are again potential units that could be on these small Lots uh that's not even the net but again it's it's um it it I think it's advantageous and then with this slide this is just showing if you combine Norton Glen with um the few options but I'll just talk about Mansfield without Norton Estates and Great Woods that combined it be 59 Acres which would exceed the Commonwealth's requirement for 50 again the total potential units the ballparks about 930 which exceeds the 750 units but again serid will need to run the compliance model to confirm all of this and give us a more accurate read but just from a basic perspective before you move on that if we if Norton Estates and the Greatwood shopping plaza are removed and we combine it with the Norton one those two together would in theory meet the stage requirements without doing anything else if the numbers are correct yes okay and this also gives you some flexibility then if you know this is a little bit more it's more of a buffer at some point as we go through the process and we get compliance modeling you could decide to shave off more you could go you could bring it down a bit more I wouldn't go 250 Acres but underst understand yeah yeah so you have that I know you have more than you wanted to get to so I'll startop talking yeah uh um well we're going to if you want to take those person's because this is going to switch to weat which is sure yeah if you want to just come up and um if you speak into the microphone there they'll be able to hear you in the zoom otherwise they won't apologies have to make you get up and if you can just while you were in the other room and if you can just state your name and address for the record please uh Laurel Cur 183 Godfrey Drive Norton and my question is why you would remove Norton Estates from that it's a it's an option we don't have to it's just looking at the numerical calculations of what it would be if we included it Norton Estates is 27 Acres 27 Acres so it would be you won't need the it's half of the state requirements and could in theory if you decided that if the board decided it didn't want to look at the Glen that would be an option okay thank you thank you hey Paul real quick is it LG no on for that Manfield is JC Elementary JCS is it JCS yeah that's good I think that was one of the comments that we got from the school committee in the last round was that if we're going to do this they would prefer if we could split it up and and hit both hit both schools in theory again we're not none of this ensures any development we've talked about Paul's talked about what would in theory make a site more ripe for redevelopment but that was a request from the school committee is if we if feasible that we can try and split the impact in some way yes Francis C 42 Maple Street um how many units are we talking we back to Above This minimum 750 again or so the state requirement is 50 acres okay at 15 units an acre okay and that will um so if you do the math on that that's your 750 okay so I think what the board is going to go through is go through what the process this we're going through the process of lot selection so there are no Parcels that have been selected or notified at this time okay so that what you see here in that orange column here that far right orange column is the not to denigrate your work Paul but back of the envelope math in that those Parcels would be 59 acres and would meet the state's requirements and in theory we could shave further from that as we go through this process okay we're not going to we're not shooting for like 1750 was was shooting for the low end I hate that that number ever took off because it never made sense to discuss in the first place but I understand um we are look I think that speaking for myself I think I heard the the comments loud and clear that we do not want to look at lots that have the potential for large developments in this way yeah my my biggest concern is the water as I've said before you know we're having a lot of problems with the water and you know where I'm going with this uh with the override and schools all that stuff just got my tax bill think everybody did too just open mine today thank you yeah thank you okay um Paul did you want to pause before we move on I know I have seen at least one of their hand raised in the zoom meeting oh okay sure Mr Hornsby was that you looking to make a comment or a question not to put you on the spot here but if you wanted to I'll give you the opportunity to uh to speak here yeah um can you hear me okay yes yes okay sorry um you know I I just wanted to chime in and the fact that I'm hearing a lot of um this this is you know right for redevelopment and we're you know we're it's for that I I think I think the town kind of spoke and they didn't want this um so I think the majority of people would like it to be in a place where it's not going to be redeveloped very soon yes I think that was so I think that's I mean that's to to me I I just keep hearing oh yeah this could be redeveloped in the next you know two 5 10 years and um I think Steve that was one of the points that Paul raised in that looking at the land value versus building value none of the properties on Mansfield lab specifically stood out as this would be something that somebody would look at as Redevelopment opportunity all of them had buildings that were more valuable than the land which made them less suitable for redevelopment were the buildings more valuable than what they think they can make off the land yeah I just want to put that out there because that's you something that don't concern about too I mean I understand your point every every knows my my point of view is is I want to put it where it's not going to happen you know so um but we have to put it somewhere so okay I'm sorry goad guys I just want to you know repeat that this was when we had our our open house this was the number two vote getter and I'm just you know just honoring the process you know trying to you know fulfill you know right but the the Leons weren't invited to that so who was the first one I was invited to thank you st Paul did you want to speak to and then you we were going to talk about we yeah guess he needed a formal invite yeah so ween I I let me just start by by saying when when I was drafting creating the idea of the of the open house it was really a brainstorming session and with that I we wanted to have a priority that that created a space for everybody to feel free to uh put dots where they where they wanted to put it and not be constrained by it and that's why when I met with people and put in the instructions that place the dots where you want um I was not anticipating a place like weaton getting all these dots my ex my what I was anticipating was if people you know people didn't want it we had a board for people to write that they didn't want it and why um yeah I just didn't expect it and I didn't focus on what we call excluded land beforehand had I anticipated that people would have been voting like that you know in hindsight I would have done a better job of sharing the constraints with it the challenge with Wheaten is it's clearly a a an excluded land and what makes it excluded um the the regulation here um this was coming right from the guidelines that there are a series of things that people that of properties that cannot be used and the last one is privately owned land for Education including colleges universities it talks about uses it doesn't talk about ownership So in theory there are pieces that ween owns that we could look at next corre right there there are it's not entirely clear um but I feel like if we're talking about the main campus of a you know of a college that's that's un excluded that would be a tough one to move forward that is that other lot the next slide that you have Paul is that I have a question on that where did Foxboro put theirs was around the stadium right yeah not on a college campus so um but there were some dots that were put up on the I call it the ball field site but there's a a number president's houses there that's one lot oh my goodness that's one lot it's 60 almost 65 acres could we use it um you know how would we split it um again I can't tell you for certain that this is an excluded property uh you still have college uses there and you know just you know we know that we're over the minimum for the other with the other two sites um so I think yeah it's something to think about as we go through the process um again we haven't selected sites so we don't know what we're going to want to add up I think the people weren't really voting for the fields they were trying to they want to put it right in the comment they were going they were after ain't going to happen absolutely absolutely they suggesting it to them for that reason right um I could but there were a couple a few dots that were north of there but but absolutely the great majority of them were right on campus yeah there were couy they put them in the fields and then once they realized that you know y you know that actually could happen that if you really want to play a going to have put it right in the middle yeah and I would look at this as unless you divided it up which again becomes really challenging on one site this kind of becomes the PGA property all over again and there's nothing on so it's all oh no it's an ain't going to happen whereas the PGA with something likely to happen yeah so um so so I just want to advise on the Weeden and um there were other areas I'm sorry the size of that but there were other areas uh receiving votes um significantly less um but there were you know a handful of other sites that you know could be good you know good sites and in fact in a little bit uh you can turn it over to to Steve and Rob who had some other interesting sites um we can do that now actually m are these three to be honest that you know I was surprised the voting came in that close to what my deck was you're just trying to get little CL be as close to me I'm having Wicked back SPS so sing chair just not yeah so you said the three that Paul walked through you think are three you're three those are the three that I had in my deck anyways I was kind of when you're thinking I was kind of dam but yeah it was so close um I would think we should look a little harder at Weeden I see the Precedence and some of the other things the talent can do I don't think that would be an exclusion that's so I think we should look at it and the people that were doing that that I know you wanted to just write on the board is it going to happen you you're going to have to sympathize that people had felt like things like that wouldn't be hurt and so they're going to go they went and voted for a going Happ in that spot and that's why they put on ween and that's a tell you how many people in this time want that you know that it was a big yeah agreed so I think you should look harder at that Rob didn't you also provide East Main Street wasn't that in your that was in one of my earlier decks okay it could come back um this whole board objected to it but this whole board objected when I suggested the shopping center too and here you guys are it up that's I don't agree with that myself you don't okay as far as greatwoods I don't agree with greatwoods Plaza being a part of it I will not vote for Greatwood Plaza being included yeah yeah again it was justed that's all uh as also with the Great Woods version uh the mobile home park uh I would only want to include that if we gave the mobile home park the right to actually be there too if we made them conforming by adding mobile home pars to the use and I think it kind of muddies the water I think we can achieve without the mobile home park and without greatwoods Plaza just between Great Woods and the Glenn what we need and my third pick off of that would be uh twe manufacturing down barrville so you just pick two of those three options that gives us our our space I think my perspective and we'll go through additional site selections pieces I think that before we go and notify the butters my position would be that we would notify a butters for more than what we need with the understanding that some of these will not make a two town meeting M but we want them available for discussion at our public hearings you should and you got to keep in mind you do have to get this by the public in time yes yeah okay so hearing on this is going to be important um I personally do think should you you can reduce this further and I think you should go back and look at Weeden um I'd actually gone out and done some research on this and talking to people in other towns and things like that I'm less sure that ween is excluded well I've also run this through Town Council okay that's nice yeah well I should say and what her recommendation was to ultimately it's up to the state to decide correct it is so that was a correct answer but I given some of the other things the state would has already approved and precedent set I think you're dismissing it very easily is you know thinking that they won't approve it I don't really think I think we should explore it more I just wanted to point out that this was listed that this was listed as excluded type of use from property the the board can ignore that guidance at its own choosing yes absolutely and known Peril um I do see there Laur I think were were you looking to speak I'm good thank youate your name and address for the record O Street um has anyone done a college or school or university of any sort in the state of Massachusetts for this yet I'm not aware I think that would be a question Paul if there's not sure if uh that's something that you're aware of or I'm not aware of it but we can we can ask well I was just wondering because I I it it seems pretty excluded to me so I'm just curious exed but we need to find out if it is can I can I just ask clarification when you when you just said it looks pretty yeah from the language it looks like it like we would be pretty excluded I was just curious if anyone had gotten around it yet yeah I think if we wanted to I think some part of that big parcel could be something that we approach but when we look at it there's nothing on it now it in theory would be a property that there would add to the net total that we're going to be talking about at town meeting where we say there's already Lots on there's already residential on these plots the north the north Quon property right exactly and I mean college kids need places to stay like that's that would check a lot of this could be done boxes which I think is the opposite of the feedback that the people who selected we wanted so we could talk about it there's nothing I think we need to clear the picture like before this goes to the town the more unit you put on the more acreage it puts on then people start to think it's worst case scenario get it as close to the 50 acres and 750 is possible I I think I think most people were clear that they wanted the campus itself as a way to prevent it from happening I think the North Parcel is a good option if we all want it to happen but it it's it's got potential to be a great spot for it to happen but it does not check the box of making it not happen yeah yeah so we can we clearly looked at it it was one of the vote gets from the process what me say are you guys opposed to you know selections where just it absolutely isn't going to happen no like spack landfill that was one I put my M I picked spack too yeah so I do see somebody at the podium here I have two hands raised in the zoom meeting so I'm going to go to them first if you don't mind um so the the first one up all that shows up in the zoom meeting I apologize is just the Samsung device ID um so if you can just please unmute and state your name and address for the record please this is same s hi this is Roger marsan 62 power street thank you Mr Maran so if uh we could go back to the slide where you were looking at the different fossils that were including um Mansfield have the one where you had listed the acreage that each one of them was going to have and um the net gains for each one is it this slide that you're looking for you said that they were small Parcels on Mansfield AV um I think the total was 59 Acres if you took Mansfield AV without the um yeah no if took and without uh the shoing shopping plaza right you have um a total of uh 59 Acres if you took Norton Glenn and Manfield da without the uh Norton commin and greywoods correct and if we have only a 50 acre requirement couldn't we just remove some of those small Parcels so that we could get down to the 50 acres that are required by the state yes I think the goal would be to potentially reduce but I think we would want to speaking for myself the board can make its own decisions as a group but we don't want to cut it too close so the state looks at some Wetland boundary and tries to ding us and put us at 49.8 or something like that and keeps us of compliance and makes us go through the whole process again to add we could cut down on one of the other sections like Norton Glenn might lose an acre or two and that makes up for a little bit more a Mansfield yeah the goal will be to refine from wherever we start but I think if we're I don't think that we want to propose 50.00 Acres I think we want to there's going to be a little bit of margin of error and that's something that we're just going to have to to look at with the lots and if we're going to split a lot where does it make sense but yeah I actually targeted 55 when I was do things is there anything else that you wanted to ask Mr Mar and um I would just like to also say that if we're looking at the Weeden College Tim what you were saying um that's on a piece of property that has no development uh no housing on it at all right now and that would uh put our net housing much Max on that so um I'm not sure that's the necessarily the route we want to go unless we're hoping that Wheaten college would never build sell it to build on that would certainly be a potential discussion but yeah that that'll be something for the board to consider as it moves forward I'd like to clarify though I believe the votes for wheat we not for the open space weed knows they were people were putting on the common there were some on the other L yeah I know they did and then they got confused once you told people no this is where the comment is they're like oh yeah the great majority were on the the canvas yeah that's what people were trying for I probably respect what the wish was so thank you Mr Mercy thank you for your time and Mr wiggin I see your hand raised as well on the zoom meeting Peter G I bet 157 BS we have and will be okay okay thank you Peter is it going to be okay oh yeah 157 is not on my list Peter oh thank you very much because I lived in nort all my life and it's continue to keep on growing you're safy okay [Laughter] thank okay and please hello all 50 man s Avenue um one thing that I do want to know not to beat the meat dead horse um but the property that is across the street I think is incredibly dangerous and not want that to be looked at at all because um I live across the street from a lot that they sold to a developer within the last few years so I think anyone in case there's anyone who's still thinking that they might not develop that space if it's that you really don't want anything to be developed 65 acres is an easy um thing ween is a very small and very expensive school I'm an Alum um and they've been selling lots to developers and so in the spirit of what those folks obviously had wanted um I think if you put it across the street those people will be very upset yeah no that was why I was saying what they're trying for is put it in the common the area they know Wheaten is just not and I don't think it's unlikely that Wheaten given the opportunity would sell some amount of that land just because again I I saw across the street for me was we known Woods for a long time and I believe that's what you were an executive session about in the beginning so um yeah they I I could definitely foresee a scenario where we went to sell off a piece of that land to bring in a private partnership with a multif family apartment developer in about 15 seconds there are an awful lot of very old dorms still there that were old when I was there years ago so so I think we're not talking about we weat Open Spaces we're talking about there yeah so just seems like Steve did you want to touch on any of the other Parcels that I think were on the slide before this Paul that you had submitted um anything further that I know you mentioned barrowsville was maybe your next one yeah I think the only alternative between the the picking two different Parcels it's the Glenn it's great woods and then there's twe by barrowsville and if two out of those three would make a a fine area for this kind of development we'd like to get a factory cleaned up and renewed there's a dam on the property that could be fixed up that'd be nice to get somebody on the hook for um yeah it would be fitting and and it also split school districts which one is twe goes to JCS okay yes I was like twe is split between two different school districts the two yeah no it makes sense my issue with that be be all new housing though new development would be and um what trying for was to put it in places where it be more of a trade yeah um not increase our density we had some places they could build it but they'd be building on top of you know replacing existing multif family true but twe is also not on sewer which would restrict the development quite a bit yes yeah um Mr C I think you were look at this week again yeah uh just one question um with the twe that's behind make the Barrow F station yes that one there the one that caught on fire coup years exactly that's that's what I was wondering now I was I believe that uh the dam that you wanted to redo they would redo that's a privately owned Dam it's split ownership between uh the town and the owner is it okay cuz I remember when they were trying to do something with that the owner wouldn't do anything with which is why it has not been touched okay yeah I just I I didn't know if that that happen again that couldn't it and there is a nonprofit looking to have been looking for a while to going there but and they should move fast um okay so Paul continuing from here is there next steps in terms of selecting Parcels we do not need to select Parcels at this point no but I would say the sooner the better unfortunately mean you've see the schedule but by next session I'll know what that schedule is and I'll I'll get it to you before then but um but yeah ultimately we need to you know I would suggest get the parcels selected first because there's more uh timing for me and Brian to advertise those and then as we get those then we're going to also need to reexamine the language that was originally proposed especially since a couple things were brought up at town meeting including density bonuses and some dimensional requirements like lot sizes yeah the propos proposal at town that was brought forward as an amendment at town meeting was essentially fewer bigger buildings and we proposed kind of smaller buildings so those are obviously at odds and I I think it makes sense to look at it as we look at the site selection because some sites would not make sense for a large building um could I comment that a little bit um so as far as the building size uh and the lot size criteria I think we should basically just make it match the underlying District the building should not be out of scale with all the other Parcels there this is an overlay if it's in a three-story District the building should be three stories if it's four stories underlying it should be four stories allowance um as far as the density bonuses I I don't think they're a popular thing I don't think anybody wants to give anybody a bonus to build more multif family um so things to strike from the previous version as we go through this yeah ask one more question don't make promises you can't keep yeah told me to do this just um so we don't have to guarantee them sewer do we they so wherever they like you would just mention the twe so and you would said that could be a problem so if they build there they have they going to have to perk somewhere for setic yes it's on Wetlands right there the reservoir so no I just wanted to make sure so I know that that we don't have to guarantee them so because that's going to put a burden on on us anyways that's a great paay they do have some ponds out back for uh their own like leeching field stuff when it was a factory I mean they're probably well established to install a septic system out there on the grounds but if they don't have septic each lot has to be 40,000 ft anyways okay yeah just we don't have to promise them sewer and no so do we have to promise them water no no drinking water portable water nope no we don't so they we don't have to guarantee the water Ms running by the property that they they available or that they haven't broken in 20 years or yeah no I'm just wondering because if I believe state law is if there's a water main running by you have to give them the option to tie in so but we don't have to give them that option that I can't speak too still the option it's at their cost no I'm just saying if like do we have to offer them Town water and town sewer so I'm told we don't have to offer them Town sewer do we have to offer them Town water we don't have to offer sewer at a site that doesn't have sewer okay I think if they went to a site that had sewer then they would have the opportunity to tie in better own cost do that clarify your question yeah no I'm just wondering we don't have to offer them silver but do we have to offer from water or we going to make them drill their own wall from the project no if they want to if they want to tie into the town water supply then they can do that just like any other building okay yeah there's water we don't have we don't have a requirement to do anything for them okay what if there isn't a water main running by then there isn't we don't have to build just quick thank you very much that's the facts yeah good clarifying question thank you okay so just we do not need to select Parcels tonight but obviously giving guidance to Paul if we feel like we want to give soft guidance furb guidance any the soft guidance that we've given tonight and some anybody can speak differently if they feel differently is that Glen plus Manfield they have taking away noron Estates and the commercial Plaza is our soft plan yes and those other two partials that are in the commercial Plaza also like that McDonald's and dunin Donalds they're separate Lots but yeah take them part of that so take the take the uh the corner okay take those Parcels out as well just stop right at the uh the large new Parcels take them out so just go down the 40 start with the 40b okay and to my point for additional Parcels to potentially notice when we get to that point I think barrowsville make sense yeah yeah I sent a map to Paul already that has twe plus a couple more Parcels over print it just goes a little over 25 we no just question on that the rul here you talk of suitability if TW does have a lot of wet lanes and things or something that got in the way does that kind of knock it back out I roughly measured it and that's that's why if we put a couple acres over like if Barrow Bill stations included it's not 25 exactly it's it's like 28 so like it CS a little bit of wet and to that point we're not looking to put all of these in the overlay the message loud and clear is get it as small as possible and restrictive as possible so we're this is only adding options in case at one if at some point we notice and Norton Glen's under one owner they say you know what I've been looking at redevelop this and I get three people on the phone then we can make decision if we want to continue with that if we want to change course so that's the reason that we would notice additional Parcels Beyond man Da in the Glen so um I don't think straw vote does anybody feel like they want to do the official noticing now or do we want to wait and vote in a future session anybody wants to vote now you can obviously make a motion you can't stop you so you sound like you almost want the motion no I'm fine with taking a moment that wait on it or for our next session that's that's fine sure here something like you're asking for um I do see a hand raised in the zoom meeting uh believe that's Mr Noble if you wanted just to unmute and just state your name and the record to make our Vance easier yes so uh Brandon Noble won gathy Farm Drive just a quick question you guys started to touch upon it towards the end but there really was no discussion about the uh uh I forget the official term but kind of the written language uh at town meeting there was you know an article to talk about parcels and then what was going to be passed for the language I just want to make sure it seemed like there was a lot of uh disagreement uh with what was written so I just wanted to ask if that was going to be brought up again that will definitely be brought up again and adjusted before it goes in front of anybody at town meeting okay cool thank you and I would but yeah I think that one of the things Paul that I'll mention now is I think how the Articles were separated at town meeting was not helpful for the discussion um so if there's a I'm not sure if we're required to separate the overlay District map and the text into different articles but if we're not I'd like them as one um so that we can discuss this is what we want to what we're proposing and this is the language that accompanies it rather than let's talk about the language and we'll talk about where it's going to go later or vice versa so don't you all still have one table is just table right now that correct okay somebody else does to okay no so is there anything further that we wanted to discuss is part of this process now I think Paul we've got the timeline up here that our placeholder articles are due at our next meeting basically I'd like to clarify the other minutes you're talking about CU you were earlier talking about how we might have derived them I I went and asked him that that was Jim chot yeah yeah and I went and asked him how we work at he basically took the law took what you guys had written took out everything that your plan was G in the state that we didn't have to and then just left the rest it was that simple that was how we did it he also removed bylaws from the jurisdiction he didn't have to do that's correct he did he did a bunch of things I think in Broad Strokes his point was clear mhm he preferred language that pointed towards smaller larger buildings over smaller buildings and again did strip away a whole bunch of stuff mhm um including commercial uses which Jim's welcome to participate in any of these hearings and otherwise we have all of his submitted comments that we can look at and review and I plan to as we go through that language we'll see we should cut in a break right now yeah yeah we have we have his comments from before they're part of what we will look at um so placeholder articles in the next meeting and be looking to submit to fincom uh mid to late February so more to come Paul is there anything else with the schedule that you wanted to touch on no I think I've spoken enough okay I don't have anything else to add anything else anybody want from the board wanted to add before we move on to uh any further discussions and we do have at least a couple of the things that we wanted that we wanted to Circle back on here okay so we'll continue our discussion and look to have placeholder articles to submit for the warrant at our next session okay thank you again I'll say to the members of the select board and finance committee who joined us as uh I say Liaisons from the different boards to increase communication as we go through the this article um thank you again everybody so back to boring planning board stuff I'll say here are the three bills that I mentioned at the start of the meeting which I'll pass around the larger one which is for the zoning rectification is through a grant it is not from the main Town budget um the other item I wanted just to discuss was minutes um I do have one set of minutes here which is from our 177th hearing um but obviously Brian had sent over a large swwa of minutes that had been building up over the past few months um speaking for myself I'm not ready to vote on all of those sets of minutes does anybody else feel that they are lur your face said it all hell no so if we could break it up into just manageable chunks yes I was going to suggest that I think we have maybe six meetings as with this constitution of the board um I think if we can try to break them up into chunks of five or six does that make sense to everybody yeah there 32 of them I think does that make sense yep okay um um should we just take them in order so that we're all all looking at that was what I was going to suggest um Brian would it be possible just to go through and sort them by date into like groups of five or six and then we'll take them in Badges and work through them in sequence and that way everybody can go okay these are the five minutes that we're going to look at tonight rather than feeling like they need to be prepared for all 30 okay and is speaking specifically for the minutes of December 17th um were those in were those in the batch for they were separate from Paul they were separate from Paul thank you um breaking those minutes aside from the big batch is it everybody prepared to vote on the minutes of December 17th this evening yes okay can I have a motion motion to motion to approve the meeting minutes of December 17th 2024 seconded okay have a motion from Laura a second from Jim and an assist from from Rob which doesn't count for anything no it was just noise go ahead okay all in favor please say I I I all opposed extensions okay the amends of December 17th are approved and we can move on with is there any I believe that concludes all the items that we had at the start of our agenda here is there anything else that be wanted to bring up at the Open Session motion to adjourn seconded we have a motion in a second to adjourn is there any further discussion that would take time hearing on all in favor of adjourning please say I I opposed extensions thank you very much everybody AER